Isn't Jersey going to be on the other side of that wall anyway's?
I'm going to miss my brothers and sisters and their families.
(I can still call, right?)
-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
Warning Shot?
- Thread starter Sigo
- Start date
I'm going to miss my brothers and sisters and their families.
(I can still call, right?)
South Jersey isn't too bad, lived and hunted there 20 years, shotgun or bow only allowed for deer. North jersey is terrible. Fought the Battle of Newark with the NJNG during the riots of 68. Moved here in 76.
Yea I was across Newark Bay in Bayonne, I remember the riots as well.
I was 11 or so and it seemed really far away until they blew up that oil tank, we heard an felt that!
I left in 75 and joined the Corps, I never really went back except to visit family...
Biden's got skills...
Trying to make sure I understand your post. Are you saying that you can fire a warning shot, or that you can fire (with intent to harm) based on the intruder being a threat to the building? The way I have understood the interpretation is that a warning shot signifies that you fired with no actual (though potential) threat, like you state in the first paragraph.
The general rule is you only shoot to protect people, not property.
But sometimes, an attack upon your home or business is PRESUMED to be the kind of crime that is dangerous to people, so you can use deadly force without having to go into any detail about how, specifically, you felt threatened by the intruder.
According to the GA. Supreme Court, the focus shifts from "how much fear you personally feel" to "do you know or reasonably believe that the habitation is being subject to a crime as described in Code section 16-3-23."
(Those aren't quotes from the Supreme Court, but just my "air quotes" showing that's one way of paraphrasing it.)
When it comes to defending a habitation (home, car, place of business) at least one of the circumstances in 16-3-23 doesn't require that any persons other than the criminals be present. That's the scenario where intruders are making (or attempting to make) entry into the habitation for the purpose of committing any felony inside [and stealing anything of any dollar value is likely to be the felony crime of "burglary"], and the person defending the habitation believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent/ stop it.
In theory, you could be out in the "back 40" of your property, plowing the field on your tractor, when you happen to notice that your now-unoccupied home is being burglarized, and the burglary crew is loading your stuff into their getaway vehicle at that moment. Time is of the essence. You're 300 yards away with no cell phone, no megaphone, but you do have a scoped .243 rifle that you always keep on the tractor to shoot 'yotes if you see any. Can you use that rifle to pop a couple of the robbers as they load their truck with your stuff? Yeah, the law would seem to be on your side. EVEN THOUGH you can't say that YOU were in danger, personally.
But sometimes, an attack upon your home or business is PRESUMED to be the kind of crime that is dangerous to people, so you can use deadly force without having to go into any detail about how, specifically, you felt threatened by the intruder.
According to the GA. Supreme Court, the focus shifts from "how much fear you personally feel" to "do you know or reasonably believe that the habitation is being subject to a crime as described in Code section 16-3-23."
(Those aren't quotes from the Supreme Court, but just my "air quotes" showing that's one way of paraphrasing it.)
When it comes to defending a habitation (home, car, place of business) at least one of the circumstances in 16-3-23 doesn't require that any persons other than the criminals be present. That's the scenario where intruders are making (or attempting to make) entry into the habitation for the purpose of committing any felony inside [and stealing anything of any dollar value is likely to be the felony crime of "burglary"], and the person defending the habitation believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent/ stop it.
In theory, you could be out in the "back 40" of your property, plowing the field on your tractor, when you happen to notice that your now-unoccupied home is being burglarized, and the burglary crew is loading your stuff into their getaway vehicle at that moment. Time is of the essence. You're 300 yards away with no cell phone, no megaphone, but you do have a scoped .243 rifle that you always keep on the tractor to shoot 'yotes if you see any. Can you use that rifle to pop a couple of the robbers as they load their truck with your stuff? Yeah, the law would seem to be on your side. EVEN THOUGH you can't say that YOU were in danger, personally.
Shooting someone in the back because they are an immediate threat to someone else...yup....shooting someone in the back as they're running away with your TV....nope....but you're the law guy.
Read the actual law that I cited above, and tell me what you think, based on that. Not based on just feelings or "I read somewhere" about some body who got arrested for shooting fleeing criminals.
But my main point, which I failed to make clear in the post above, was that surely a WARNING SHOT would be justified here. Yet, no innocent persons are in danger. You could shoot in the air, shoot the ground in your own front yard so one of them sees the dirt fly, or even shoot out a tire on the getaway vehicle. Any of those warning shots would be OK under the scenario I have, involving that kind of burglary of your home (which is still ongoing-- you're not shooting at their vehicle as they're pulling out of your driveway. That would be wrong.)
If anything, under the scenario I gave, a warning shot might be required as a prerequisite to actually shooting AT them. That way, you can say that you tried less-than-lethal means to stop the burglary, but when that failed, you used the only tool you had (that rifle) in the only other way you could think of --shooting center of mass.
But my main point, which I failed to make clear in the post above, was that surely a WARNING SHOT would be justified here. Yet, no innocent persons are in danger. You could shoot in the air, shoot the ground in your own front yard so one of them sees the dirt fly, or even shoot out a tire on the getaway vehicle. Any of those warning shots would be OK under the scenario I have, involving that kind of burglary of your home (which is still ongoing-- you're not shooting at their vehicle as they're pulling out of your driveway. That would be wrong.)
If anything, under the scenario I gave, a warning shot might be required as a prerequisite to actually shooting AT them. That way, you can say that you tried less-than-lethal means to stop the burglary, but when that failed, you used the only tool you had (that rifle) in the only other way you could think of --shooting center of mass.
I know this wasn't in Georgia,
Florida Woman gets 20 years for firing warning shot.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/
Florida Woman gets 20 years for firing warning shot.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/
Interesting, she was doomed because she went back into the house.
Had she stayed in the garage it would have been a different story.....
