I feel like...

[quickdodge®]

The bastard child of Dionne Warwick and Haley Joel Osment. With the new "stand your ground" law taking affect next week, I see dead people in the future. I love the law, but I can't help but to feel like there will be a lot of killings to come with it that may not be neccesary. Like revenge killings and just random, for-the-hail-of-it killings. What do you think? Later, QD.

























































***DISCLAIMER*** For those of you who do not know who Dionne Warwick or Haley Joel Osment are, this is for you. Dionne Warwick started out as a singer then came back in the spotlight as part of the Psychic Friend's Network. Haley Joel Osment is the young child actor in the movie The Sixth Sense. He is credited with saying the line, "I see dead people." So you let Dionne rob the cradle with Haley and they produce an offspring, you'll have a psychic who sees the dead.

[b@d @pple]

The bastard child of Dionne Warwick and Haley Joel Osment. With the new "stand your ground" law taking affect next week, I see dead people in the future. I love the law, but I can't help but to feel like there will be a lot of killings to come with it that may not be neccesary. Like revenge killings and just random, for-the-hail-of-it killings. What do you think? Later, QD.

explain please

[The Golden Child]

yea but theres got to be a catch ..
guns have to be registered and have to have license ..
there must be a witness to the scene ..
but i do feel that random people will start peeling shells for the hell of it ..

[FORTHEWIN]

can someone explain what the law says?

[quickdodge®]

Justin. Maybe you have something against someone else. They keyed your car a while back. Now you just run up and kill them and tell the cops he attacked you. Whether he did or not. You follow?

nolimitsteveo. Not necessarily need to have witnesses. A lot of people get attacked or mugged without witnesses around. The best time to do it. Also, the gun doesn't have to be registered. Yet. But yes, you do have to have a license to carry it concealed. Later, QD.

[Marta Mike]

Personally i dont see how it works? I mean I thought the law required u to a have a VERY good reason for killing someone. And the only reason i believe there is, is self defense.

[quickdodge®]

^^^ Before, you had to try to find an "escape route" in a predicament. Now, or rather on July 1, you don't. If someone is walking up to you on the sidewalk, threatening you with harm, you don't have to turn and run. Later, QD.

[Ruiner]

The bastard child of Dionne Warwick and Haley Joel Osment. With the new "stand your ground" law taking affect next week, I see dead people in the future. I love the law, but I can't help but to feel like there will be a lot of killings to come with it that may not be neccesary. Like revenge killings and just random, for-the-hail-of-it killings. What do you think? Later, QD.

Honestly? I don't think that it will change too much. Florida has had this same law in effect since early-middle of last year and nothing has really changed. GA mirrored their law after FL's... I can see GA following the same path. It won't be the OK Corral or anything.

[Ruiner]

yea but theres got to be a catch ..
guns have to be registered and have to have license ..
there must be a witness to the scene ..
but i do feel that random people will start peeling shells for the hell of it ..

Not really on any of your points. Guns don't have to be registered so to speak, they just can't be stolen. GA doesn't have a policy about registering weapons. A license isn't needed, really, unless you shoot where you NEED a license. I mean, if you are in your house, you don't need a license. If you are in the street and carrying it ON you, then you would need a license as you are carrying it on you.

Witnesses are helpful, but not always necessary.

[Ruiner]

Personally i dont see how it works? I mean I thought the law required u to a have a VERY good reason for killing someone. And the only reason i believe there is, is self defense.

Yeah, you do. However, the previous law had an "unwritten" rule that you had a duty to retreat. The new law just means that you can stand your ground in more or less terms. :)

[MachNU]

Yep i agree that will not make that big of a change. I mean before hand... you had to be in fear for your life, and be literally backed into a corner before you could protect yourself. Now if someone walks up and points a gun at you if you have one concealed you can just pull yours and hope that you pull the first shot off.

i think its a good thing....will give people with Self Defnce cases more le-way. Instead of them having to agrue self-defence until there blue in the face...all they will need know is a slight bit of eveidence! :dunno:

[Ruiner]

Yep i agree that will not make that big of a change. I mean before hand... you had to be in fear for your life, and be literally backed into a corner before you could protect yourself.

No.



Now if someone walks up and points a gun at you if you have one concealed you can just pull yours and hope that you pull the first shot off.

You could do that with the old law...



i think its a good thing....will give people with Self Defnce cases more le-way. Instead of them having to agrue self-defence until there blue in the face...all they will need know is a slight bit of eveidence! :dunno:

Still the same as what it once was...

[Ruiner]

^^^ Before, you had to try to find an "escape route" in a predicament. Now, or rather on July 1, you don't. If someone is walking up to you on the sidewalk, threatening you with harm, you don't have to turn and run. Later, QD.

Right. The other responses in this thread by other IA'ers are wrong in more or less terms.

[The Golden Child]

so whens the next gun show ??

[Ruiner]

so whens the next gun show ??

Now...and tomorrow.

[uproot]

so whens the next gun show ??

lol

[The Golden Child]

are you serious ..

where at ??

question now at the gun show ..

what would i need to pruchase a gun ??

is just and id fine ??

[MachNU]

How am i wrong on the first point....Self Defence before was A. In fear for your life. B. Had no place to run (backed into a corner). C. Had no chance left it was either you or them!

[quickdodge®]

^^^ LOLOL!!! Later, QD.

[The Golden Child]

lol

whats so funny ..
u know how many idiots are out there i fear for my safety ..
what if i get robbed on my way home ..
what if im walking my dog and someone wants to jump me for no reason ..
what if im food shopping and someone trys to steal my food ..
what if one day someone pulls a drive by on me ..

what if ..

[MachNU]

old way

Start with trouble in the street. The basic rule is that if You, a family member, or a friend are attacked, You can use any reasonable force needed to repel the aggressor. You can use greater force than You face - if it appears "reasonable" to You and You aren't held to a fine line in deciding the difference.

You can also use force to prevent an attack. If threatened, You need not wait for the blow to be struck. It's enough that you have a genuine belief that you or Your wife or child are in Present danger - even if it turns out that you were mistaken.

But there are limits on how far You can go on the street, you're under at least some obligation to try to avoid violence to retreat at least Part way, if Possible, before striking a blow in self-defense. But this is a fine legal line.

You become the aggressor when you use defensive force that is clearly excessive. For example, you can't respond to the threat of a clenched fist with a gun and quick shooting, nor can you beat a man severely with a cane simply because he shoved You on the sidewalk.


new way

A Georgia proposal to allow citizens to defend themselves with deadly force wherever they feel threatened is part of a campaign by the National Rifle Association in more than a dozen gun-friendly states in the West and South.

After winning a brawl with gun-control proponents in Florida last year, the NRA is pushing “castle doctrine” laws in 16 states, NRA spokeswoman Autumn Fogg said.

In states such as Georgia, where the state code already allows citizens to use deadly force to protect their homes and cars, the definition of “castle” is expanded to the entire public sphere.

“We want to make sure that the law is strengthened for the victim,” Fogg said. “We want to make sure that the law is very clearly stated that citizens no longer have a duty to retreat.

this is how i look at it :dunno:

[Ruiner]

How am i wrong on the first point....Self Defence before was A. In fear for your life. B. Had no place to run (backed into a corner). C. Had no chance left it was either you or them!

You are wrong on all aspects in certain situations.
- Fear of life isn't needed, just great bodily harm.
- You do not need to retreat in certain areas
- You are allowed to defend yourself and property...

The old law said that you DO NOT have the duty to retreat if you were in your house, place of business, or vehicle, but were supposed to if in other public places.

Now, you do not have the duty to retreat in those public places.

[Ruiner]

are you serious ..

where at ??

question now at the gun show ..

what would i need to pruchase a gun ??

is just and id fine ??

Farmer's Market...

http://www.eastmangunshows.com/shows/gunshows.htm

[Ruiner]

-snip-
this is how i look at it :dunno:

That's fine, but you didn't specify in the A, B, and C post about public vs habitation (vehicle, house, place of business) vs property.

There are different rules that govern different places under the old law.

[MachNU]

You are wrong on all aspects in certain situations.
- Fear of life isn't needed, just great bodily harm.
- You do not need to retreat in certain areas
- You are allowed to defend yourself and property...

The old law said that you DO NOT have the duty to retreat if you were in your house, place of business, or vehicle, but were supposed to if in other public places.

Now, you do not have the duty to retreat in those public places.

Your saying i am completely wrong? vVVVV

Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

Thats why most people say in fear for there life...becuase great bodily harm to me comes down to near death.

Also we are not talking about homes nad such....everyone knows that. I am talking on the street.

[The Golden Child]

ok so you can have a gun in your house without a license, correct ?
but if you decide to bring it out you must have a carrying license, correct ?
now how do i get a carrying license ? how much does it cost ?
what information would i need to get a carrying license ?

[MachNU]

That's fine, but you didn't specify in the A, B, and C post about public vs habitation (vehicle, house, place of business) vs property.

There are different rules that govern different places under the old law.

yep....but your rule of protecting your domain(house) only works if someone kicks down your door with a shotgun or weapon in there hands and is there for the sole tention of killing you....then you coul dhave whipped out a gun and put one between there eyes. BUT if a person bust in your door to ROB your house and there is a door between you and him in the old way you would have had to try and shut that door to put room in between you and him.

"Secondly, if after having taken such proper precautions, a party should be assailed, he may undoubtedly repel force by force, but in most instances cannot, under the pretext that he has been attacked, use force enough to kill the assailant or hurt him after he has secured himself from danger; such as if a person unarmed enters a house to commit a larceny, while there he does not threaten any one, nor does any act which manifests an intention to hurt any one, and there are a number of persons present who may easily secure him, no one will be justifiable to do him any injury, much less to kill him; he ought to be secured and delivered to the public authorities. "

[Ruiner]

yep....but your rule of protecting your domain(house) only works if someone kicks down your door with a shotgun or weapon in there hands and is there for the sole tention of killing you....then you coul dhave whipped out a gun and put one between there eyes. BUT if a person bust in your door to ROB your house and there is a door between you and him in the old way you would have had to try and shut that door to put room in between you and him.


Wrong. They do not have to have a weapon when they come in your house/car/place of business. You DO NOT have to retreat. The term used there is "forcible felony" in the old law. Breaking and entering is a forcible felony. I can bust out the GA code if you want and prove you wrong. If that is what it takes... Actually, I will...

For example, I had a guy open my car door and get INTO my passenger side of my vehicle one night at a gas station. I pulled my gun on him and he stopped. Now, weapon or not, I could have shot him.



"Secondly, if after having taken such proper precautions, a party should be assailed, he may undoubtedly repel force by force, but in most instances cannot, under the pretext that he has been attacked, use force enough to kill the assailant or hurt him after he has secured himself from danger; such as if a person unarmed enters a house to commit a larceny, while there he does not threaten any one, nor does any act which manifests an intention to hurt any one, and there are a number of persons present who may easily secure him, no one will be justifiable to do him any injury, much less to kill him; he ought to be secured and delivered to the public authorities. "

Where did you get that quote from?

[Ruiner]

ok so you can have a gun in your house without a license, correct ?
but if you decide to bring it out you must have a carrying license, correct ?
now how do i get a carrying license ? how much does it cost ?
what information would i need to get a carrying license ?

A license is $45 or so. You get it from the probate judge of the county that you have residence in. You need to be 21 and cannot have any felonies, domestic violence, or mental issues.

[MachNU]

Just a general law library online! Gives you legal term definitions!

[The Golden Child]

A license is $45 or so. You get it from the probate judge of the county that you have residence in. You need to be 21 and cannot have any felonies, domestic violence, or mental issues.

im 22 and i got arrested for a fight so i guess that would mean i cannot get a license ..
i already paid the ticket off and went to court for it ..

is there somewhere i can look and see whats close to me so i can go apply for one ..

[quickdodge®]

His Dad is a lawyer. Later, QD.

[MachNU]

For example, I had a guy open my car door and get INTO my passenger side of my vehicle one night at a gas station. I pulled my gun on him and he stopped. Now, weapon or not, I could have shot him.

Had you shoot him though you would have been arrested!

[quickdodge®]

^^^ Wrong. He invaded the personal posession. Later, QD.

[quickdodge®]

is there somewhere i can look and see whats close to me so i can go apply for one ..

Just go to the courthouse of the county you live in. That's where you apply. Later, QD.

[The Golden Child]

His Dad is a lawyer. Later, QD.

me or ruiner ?

[MachNU]

^^^ Wrong. He invaded the personal posession. Later, QD.

Wrong, under old law he used more force than was nessasary. The guy had no weapon and was not there to cause physical harm...so shooting him was using way more force that the situation needed. But under new law then you are right!

[MachNU]

Okay i am lost are we argueing the new or old law?

[The Golden Child]

Just go to the courthouse of the county you live in. That's where you apply. Later, QD.

thats the thing i dont know where theres a courthouse in my area ..

[quickdodge®]

me or ruiner ?

Ruiner. Later, QD.

[Ruiner]

TransAxle (current law)

16-3-23.
A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other´s unlawful entry into or attack upon a habitation; however, such person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner and he or she reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence;
(2) That force is used against another person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using such force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred; or
(3) The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.

[Ruiner]

im 22 and i got arrested for a fight so i guess that would mean i cannot get a license ..
i already paid the ticket off and went to court for it ..

is there somewhere i can look and see whats close to me so i can go apply for one ..

Fight is not domestic violence...

[quickdodge®]

Wrong, under old law he used more force than was nessasary. The guy had no weapon and was not there to cause physical harm...so shooting him was using way more force that the situation needed. But under new law then you are right!

Right. Under the old and new law. The attacker entered, uninvited, into the personal property of Ruiner. The man was entering and not exiting. Ruiner was within his rights. Later, QD.

[The Golden Child]

TransAxle (current law)

16-3-23.
A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other´s unlawful entry into or attack upon a habitation; however, such person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner and he or she reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence;
(2) That force is used against another person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using such force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred; or
(3) The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.

and thats the way the cookie crumbles ..

this is steve lee live from IA ..

[quickdodge®]

thats the thing i dont know where theres a courthouse in my area ..

Well. According to your LOCATION on IA, I can tell you that there is no courthouse in my Mom's bed. Other than that, look in the phone book for your county. Later, QD.

[Ruiner]

Had you shoot him though you would have been arrested!

Wrong!

See the bolded part? I believed that he was there to either harm me (defense) or carjack me (felony). I can shoot him if he is going to commit a felony after entering my habitation (carjacking).

16-3-23.
A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other´s unlawful entry into or attack upon a habitation; however, such person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner and he or she reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence;
(2) That force is used against another person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using such force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred; or
(3) The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.

[The Golden Child]

Fight is not domestic violence...

isnt a fight a felony ? or a mistameanor * however its spelt * ??

[quickdodge®]

Misdemeanor. Later, QD.

[MachNU]

TransAxle (current law)

16-3-23.
A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other´s unlawful entry into or attack upon a habitation; however, such person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner and he or she reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence;
(2) That force is used against another person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using such force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred; or
(3) The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.

So if someone walked up to your car opened up the door and sat down and said get out of the car and you pull a gun and put one in his shull you are in the wrong.

BUT if in the same situation a person walks up with a baseball bat and smashes in your window and tells you to get the fuck out and you pull a gun and put one in his skull....then you are in the right but will still have to fight it in court.

Same situation as above now if the gun shots out the window with a gun and you pull a gun and put one in his head you are defending yourself from death.

So i am not agruing that you are wrong i am jsut saying that the new law gives a more detailed line, than did the old law!

[Ruiner]

Wrong, under old law he used more force than was nessasary. The guy had no weapon and was not there to cause physical harm...so shooting him was using way more force that the situation needed. But under new law then you are right!

Wrong! Under the old law, I am okay as I am in my HABITATION! I do not have to retreat in my habitation. The new law only really affects PUBLIC places.

How do you know that he was not there to cause physical harm? Notice the bolded part. How do you know? Maybe I stopped him before he could. Are you willing to be your life on that? Are you?

[MachNU]

Wrong!

See the bolded part? I believed that he was there to either harm me (defense) or carjack me (felony). I can shoot him if he is going to commit a felony after entering my habitation (carjacking).

16-3-23.
A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other´s unlawful entry into or attack upon a habitation; however, such person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner and he or she reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence;
(2) That force is used against another person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using such force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred; or
(3) The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.

Putting one in his skull at the time is excessive force! If the man didnt have a gun and no weapon, an you did, just putting one inhim is EXCESSIVE force, becuase all you had to do was put it in his face and you have control of the situation until police arrive!

[The Golden Child]

ok im sure you would give a warning before you pull the trigger ..

[MachNU]

Wrong! Under the old law, I am okay as I am in my HABITATION! I do not have to retreat in my habitation. The new law only really affects PUBLIC places.

How do you know that he was not there to cause physical harm? Notice the bolded part. How do you know? Maybe I stopped him before he could. Are you willing to be your life on that? Are you?

Was he twice your size, with 2 or 3 friends each twice your size, with either a gun or knife or bat or crow-bar on him. Did he have a weapon? Or did he just open the door and ask you to get out of the car? Was anything he did violent?

Still if you where in your house with the old law, and someone came in through a door you left open with no weapons and was there for the intent to steal, and you had a door in between you and him, you cant jsut pull a gun and start shooting.

[The Golden Child]

Misdemeanor. Later, QD.

thanks .. :goodjob:

[MachNU]

ok im sure you would give a warning before you pull the trigger ..

thats what i am saying you would hav to warn the guy to leave and such or control the situation with the gun. But you cant just turn to him and put one in him and think to be in the right about it! Thats all i am saying!

[Ruiner]

So if someone walked up to your car opened up the door and sat down and said get out of the car and you pull a gun and put one in his shull you are in the wrong.


I am not in the wrong! If he tells me to get out of my car, I can assume that he is in the process to carjack me which is a felony. Wouldn't you agree? Yes or no? Read part C!



BUT if in the same situation a person walks up with a baseball bat and smashes in your window and tells you to get the fuck out and you pull a gun and put one in his skull....then you are in the right but will still have to fight it in court.


No fighting in court at all. He had a deadly weapon! He was committing a felony and was risking my pysical safety! It's very clear cut.



Same situation as above now if the gun shots out the window with a gun and you pull a gun and put one in his head you are defending yourself from death.


I can do that, yes.



So i am not agruing that you are wrong i am jsut saying that the new law gives a more detailed line, than did the old law!

Here is where you are confused: The old law gave NO RETREAT and 100% protection to habitation:

16-3-24.1.
As used in Code Sections 16-3-23 and 16-3-24, the term 'habitation' means any dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and 'personal property' means personal property other than a motor vehicle.

The new law doesn't add anything or take away from the "habitation" protection. The old law already gave you the rights of those granted in the "new" law. The new law gives you more rights in PUBLIC places and does not really affect habitation situations as those rights were already granted. Make sense?

[Ruiner]

Putting one in his skull at the time is excessive force! If the man didnt have a gun and no weapon, an you did, just putting one inhim is EXCESSIVE force, becuase all you had to do was put it in his face and you have control of the situation until police arrive!

Wrong. I am not willing to take the risk of force needed to prevent the commission of a felony. You might take that risk, but good luck. Thus, the force IS NOT excessive. Not when you are in your habitation.

[Ruiner]

isnt a fight a felony ? or a mistameanor * however its spelt * ??

For it to be a felony it would have to be a serious fight with serious injuries...

[Ruiner]

Was he twice your size, with 2 or 3 friends each twice your size, with either a gun or knife or bat or crow-bar on him. Did he have a weapon? Or did he just open the door and ask you to get out of the car? Was anything he did violent?

Still if you where in your house with the old law, and someone came in through a door you left open with no weapons and was there for the intent to steal, and you had a door in between you and him, you cant jsut pull a gun and start shooting.

If someone kicks my door in, I can. If someone is going to commit a felony, I can. If I feel a "risk" to my safety, I can!

How come you cannot understand this? My father was a judge for 20+ years. I will take his word above yours. Sorry, but you lose here.

It doesn't have to be violent, let me bold as he satisfied ALL of the bolded parts which allows me to shoot, correct? Yes or no?

16-3-23.
A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other´s unlawful entry into or attack upon a habitation; however, such person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner and he or she reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence;
(2) That force is used against another person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using such force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred; or
(3) The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.

[MachNU]

[QUOTE=Ruiner]I am not in the wrong! If he tells me to get out of my car, I can assume that he is in the process to carjack me which is a felony. Wouldn't you agree? Yes or no? Read part C!



No fighting in court at all. He had a deadly weapon! He was committing a felony and was risking my pysical safety! It's very clear cut.QUOTE]

First part your ass would be in jail if that happened. If you had a gun and he had no weapon and you shot him THEN YOU USED EXCESSIVE FORCE. Courts would eat you alive becuase you had chance for great bodily harm, and you had no way to be in fear for your life.

Second i just said that would still be one that would go to court and have to fight a small bit, not like major trying to send your ass to jail fight but it would be one that had to be cleared over in court! Like situation 2!


Also this is kinda along the lines of what you are saying!

"A man may defend himself and even commit a homicide for the prevention of any forcible and atrocious crime, which if completed would amount to a felony; and of course under the like circumstances, mayhem, wounding and battery would be excusable at common law. A man may repel force by force in defence of his person, property or habitation, against any one who manifests, intends, attempts, or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a forcible felony, such as murder, rape, robbery, arson, burglary and the like. In these cases he is not required to retreat, but he may resist and even pursue his adversary, until he has secured himself from all danger."

[Ruiner]

First part your ass would be in jail if that happened. If you had a gun and he had no weapon and you shot him THEN YOU USED EXCESSIVE FORCE. Courts would eat you alive becuase you had chance for great bodily harm, and you had no way to be in fear for your life.


You DO NOT have to be in fear for you life! Read the law! It can be used to prevent a felony! I can shoot someone to PREVENT a felony such as a carjacking! You can carjack without a weapon! It's called a strongarmed robbery!



Second i just said that would still be one that would go to court and have to fight a small bit, not like major trying to send your ass to jail fight but it would be one that had to be cleared over in court! Like situation 2!


Also this is kinda along the lines of what you are saying!

"A man may defend himself and even commit a homicide for the prevention of any forcible and atrocious crime, which if completed would amount to a felony; and of course under the like circumstances, mayhem, wounding and battery would be excusable at common law. A man may repel force by force in defence of his person, property or habitation, against any one who manifests, intends, attempts, or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a forcible felony, such as murder, rape, robbery, arson, burglary and the like. In these cases he is not required to retreat, but he may resist and even pursue his adversary, until he has secured himself from all danger."

Stop, all states have different laws! Where did you get this quote from? This DOES NOT summarize the GA law!

[quickdodge®]

Still if you where in your house with the old law, and someone came in through a door you left open

I'm confused as to why you included the words I put in bold? Open or not, entering is entering. Explain, dude. Later, QD.

[Ruiner]

I'm confused as to why you included the words I put in bold? Open or not, entering is entering. Explain, dude. Later, QD.

Correct! If he came in, door open or not, it is breaking and entering in the law's eyes...

[MachNU]

[QUOTE=Ruiner]If someone kicks my door in, I can. If someone is going to commit a felony, I can. If I feel a "risk" to my safety, I can!

How come you cannot understand this? My father was a judge for 20+ years. I will take his word above yours. Sorry, but you lose here.[QUOTE=Ruiner]

dam dud ei am not disagreeing with you but under certain circumstances you have to prove your actions and the way you prove them probably wouldnt stand up in court! I mean if someone jsut walks up to you and says get out of your car, with no aggressive manor, and no weapon and you put one in him that is way beyond excessive force, becuase you had a gun which you could control the situation without having to use any force!

[The Golden Child]

For it to be a felony it would have to be a serious fight with serious injuries...

icic gotcha ..

[Ruiner]

dam dud ei am not disagreeing with you but under certain circumstances you have to prove your actions and the way you prove them probably wouldnt stand up in court! I mean if someone jsut walks up to you and says get out of your car, with no aggressive manor, and no weapon and you put one in him that is way beyond excessive force, becuase you had a gun which you could control the situation without having to use any force!

He DID NOT walk up to me! He opened my car door and got INTO my car. Thus, he satisfies the "entering into my habitation illegally" aspect that needs to be satisfied! He DOES NOT need a weapon at that point. If he gets INTO my car and then tells me to get out, he is doing an attempted carjacking weapon or not!

[MachNU]

I'm confused as to why you included the words I put in bold? Open or not, entering is entering. Explain, dude. Later, QD.

Just saying if you left your door open on a mid afternoon summer day for some air and someone walks up and comes into your house to steal something with no weapon you jsut cant start shooting them and expect to get away with it. You still could not use more force than the situation required!

[Ruiner]

Just saying if you left your door open on a mid afternoon summer day for some air and someone walks up and comes into your house to steal something with no weapon you jsut cant start shooting them and expect to get away with it. You still could not use more force than the situation required!

Umm, if what he is stealing is enough to categorize it as a felony, you can. :) FELONY is the word. Read the law yet again. You do not have to let him just "walk out".

[quickdodge®]

I mean if someone jsut walks up to you and says get out of your car, with no aggressive manor, and no weapon

So are you supposed to wait and see what happens? When someone I don't know is headed for me and starts climbing in my car without being asked to, I'm not waiting for shit.

Also, the guy actually got in Ruiner's car. Not just walked up and said get out. Lolol. Later, QD.

[MachNU]

Stop, all states have different laws! Where did you get this quote from? This DOES NOT summarize the GA law!

Its not for just any state it just explains a legal term. So it may differ at some poitns pending ont he state but it just gives s general idea to what the term stands for.

[The Golden Child]

Just saying if you left your door open on a mid afternoon summer day for some air and someone walks up and comes into your house to steal something with no weapon you jsut cant start shooting them and expect to get away with it. You still could not use more force than the situation required!

point & warn ..

[MachNU]

So are you supposed to wait and see what happens? When someone I don't know is headed for me and starts climbing in my car without being asked to, I'm not waiting for shit.

Also, the guy actually got in Ruiner's car. Not just walked up and said get out. Lolol. Later, QD.

No i am not saying that. Any normal person would shit themselfs if you stuck a gun in there face. Enough to where they arent going to do anything. So you jsut cant start shooting them. BEcuase you woul dbe using more force than the situation required. I am jsut saying you are all correct on what it stands for, but it still hasnt changed when it says EXCESSIVE FORCE!

[MachNU]

point & warn ..

thats what i am saying you just cant put one in him! all i am saying!

[Ruiner]

Its not for just any state it just explains a legal term. So it may differ at some poitns pending ont he state but it just gives s general idea to what the term stands for.

Umm, you CANNOT go on "general" ideas like that. Laws are VERY specific. You have to satisfy certain criteria. Read the GA law and read the actual law, not some summary.

[quickdodge®]

^^^ Most of these criminals aren't "normal." Some are fucked in the head. I wouldn't want to wait to find out if my attacker was ready to go to the next step. Lolol. Later, QD.

[Ruiner]

No i am not saying that. Any normal person would shit themselfs if you stuck a gun in there face. Enough to where they arent going to do anything. So you jsut cant start shooting them. BEcuase you woul dbe using more force than the situation required. I am jsut saying you are all correct on what it stands for, but it still hasnt changed when it says EXCESSIVE FORCE!

WRONG! You ASSUME that a normal person would not do anything, but what if they are cracked out and make a quick move into their pocket? Criminals ARE NOT normal people! They are not reasonable people. They DO NOT apply to that definition of what people *should* do. What then? Do you wait to see what they do? What they pull out before you shoot? You will end up dead! What if you put a gun in their face and they try to slap it away? What do you do then? Do you give them the chance?

It IS NOT excessive force once they have invaded your habitation like that in said manner...

You are arguing with me over excessive force and I have the words of my father, a judge, to prove you wrong.

[MachNU]

Umm, you CANNOT go on "general" ideas like that. Laws are VERY specific. You have to satisfy certain criteria. Read the GA law and read the actual law, not some summary.

already doing that... i figured you would say this when i said that, so i am alreayd at the page!

[Ruiner]

^^^ Most of these criminals aren't "normal." Some are fucked in the head. I wouldn't want to wait to find out if my attacker was ready to go to the next step. Lolol. Later, QD.

No shit, right? Criminals ARE NOT reasonable people! He keeps saying "reasonable person", but that they are not!

[Ruiner]

already doing that... i figured you would say this when i said that, so i am alreayd at the page!

http://www.legis.state.ga.us/cgi-bin/gl_codes_detail.pl?code=16-3-21

[MachNU]

WRONG! You ASSUME that a normal person would not do anything, but what if they are cracked out and make a quick move into their pocket? What then? Do you wait to see what they do? What they pull out before you shoot? You will end up dead! What if you put a gun in their face and they try to slap it away? What do you do then? Do you give them the chance?

It IS NOT excessive force once they have invaded your habitation like that in said manner...

You are arguing with me over excessive force and I have the words of my father, a judge, to prove you wrong.

But know you are changing the situation, if it was a CRACKhead coems in and then reaches for his pocket then by all means put one in him....but if someone just gets in and expects to strongarm you but gets a gun in there race, i am pretty sure that you got control of the situation!

[The Golden Child]

so anyone wanna go shoot some guns ??

just trying to lighten things up in here ..

[MachNU]

http://www.legis.state.ga.us/cgi-bin/gl_codes_detail.pl?code=16-3-21

already know about that page..... bu ti am looking at 16-3-24/.1/.2 right know!

[MachNU]

now 16-3-21 puts everything we have said in a nutshell!!!

16-3-21.
(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other´s imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in subsection (a) of this Code section if he:
(1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;
(2) Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or
(3) Was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so and the other, notwithstanding, continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.
(c) Any rule, regulation, or policy of any agency of the state or any ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, or policy of any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state which is in conflict with this Code section shall be null, void, and of no force and effect.
(d) In a prosecution for murder or manslaughter, if a defendant raises as a defense a justification provided by subsection (a) of this Code section, the defendant, in order to establish the defendant´s reasonable belief that the use of force or deadly force was immediately necessary, may be permitted to offer:
(1) Relevant evidence that the defendant had been the victim of acts of family violence or child abuse committed by the deceased, as such acts are described in Code Sections 19-13-1 and 19-15-1, respectively; and
(2) Relevant expert testimony regarding the condition of the mind of the defendant at the time of the offense, including those relevant facts and circumstances relating to the family violence or child abuse that are the bases of the expert´s opinion.

[MachNU]

now 16-3-21 puts everything we have said in a nutshell!!!

16-3-21.
(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other´s imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in subsection (a) of this Code section if he:
(1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; (2) Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or
(3) Was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so and the other, notwithstanding, continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force. (c) Any rule, regulation, or policy of any agency of the state or any ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, or policy of any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state which is in conflict with this Code section shall be null, void, and of no force and effect.
(d) In a prosecution for murder or manslaughter, if a defendant raises as a defense a justification provided by subsection (a) of this Code section, the defendant, in order to establish the defendant´s reasonable belief that the use of force or deadly force was immediately necessary, may be permitted to offer:
(1) Relevant evidence that the defendant had been the victim of acts of family violence or child abuse committed by the deceased, as such acts are described in Code Sections 19-13-1 and 19-15-1, respectively; and
(2) Relevant expert testimony regarding the condition of the mind of the defendant at the time of the offense, including those relevant facts and circumstances relating to the family violence or child abuse that are the bases of the expert´s opinion.

the bold ones are the ones i am going by. But like everyone said if it is someone with a weapona nd harm is going to happen to someone then by all means put one in him.....but if there is no way harm could happen to yuorself then putting oen in him is excessive!

[Ruiner]

the bold ones are the ones i am going by. But like everyone said if it is someone with a weapona nd harm is going to happen to someone then by all means put one in him.....but if there is no way harm could happen to yuorself then putting oen in him is excessive!

WRONG! That does not govern habitation, though. :) Nice try, but I am talking about the HABITATION law.

16-3-23

HABITATION, not public. We are only talking habitation here. Public is fixed with the new laws!

[MachNU]

WRONG! That does not govern habitation, though. :) Nice try, but I am talking about the HABITATION law.

16-3-23

HABITATION, not public. We are only talking habitation here. Public is fixed with the new laws!

oh well shit i have been arguing from the carjacking situation the whole time. But i agree with you on the dwelling part....! :goodjob:

[quickdodge®]

But know you are changing the situation, if it was a CRACKhead coems in and then reaches for his pocket then by all means put one in him....but if someone just gets in and expects to strongarm you but gets a gun in there race, i am pretty sure that you got control of the situation!

But not all times, will you know if he is a crackhead or some other high. That's called RISK. You never know what's in the mind of a stranger barging into your habitat. No reason to leave anything to chance. Later, QD.

[MachNU]

But not all times, will you know if he is a crackhead or some other high. That's called RISK. You never know what's in the mind of a stranger barging into your habitat. No reason to leave anything to chance. Later, QD.

agreed but that just what i am saying someone will always argue that becuase no one iwll know 100% of the facts.

[Ruiner]

agreed but that just what i am saying someone will always argue that becuase no one iwll know 100% of the facts.

A dead man tells no tales...

I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.

[Ruiner]

oh well shit i have been arguing from the carjacking situation the whole time. But i agree with you on the dwelling part....! :goodjob:

Your car IS your habitation. It also has the same laws as a dwelling! Read this:

16-3-24.1.

As used in Code Sections 16-3-23 and 16-3-24, the term 'habitation' means any dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and 'personal property' means personal property other than a motor vehicle.

[MachNU]

Your car IS your habitation. It also has the same laws as a dwelling! Read this:

16-3-24.1.

As used in Code Sections 16-3-23 and 16-3-24, the term 'habitation' means any dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and 'personal property' means personal property other than a motor vehicle.

lol i meant dwellings in the term of your home! not the car part!

[Ruiner]

lol i meant dwellings in the term of your home! not the car part!

What you mean and what the law says are two different things. The same laws that apply to your house apply to your car and place of business.

[MachNU]

What you mean and what the law says are two different things. The same laws that apply to your house apply to your car and place of business.

just in the since of how it can be argued. I can remember the phrase that works with it. But just that if you shot and killed him then literally a dead man tells no tales, but he also cant tell his side of the story. I am just saying that under certain circumstances thigns can be argued, and to me Self-Defence will always beargued in court unless there is without a shadow of a doubt that someone can prove ther case 100%.

To put it blunty i am agreeing with you guys but jsut argueing the "What Ifs?"