whats so funny ..Originally Posted by uproot
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 ..
NY STAY HIGH !!!
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
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.-snip-
this is how i look at it
There are different rules that govern different places under the old law.
AIM: RuinerTT
2005 Nissan Pathfinder LE
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. "
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.
Where did you get that quote from?"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. "
AIM: RuinerTT
2005 Nissan Pathfinder LE
Just a general law library online! Gives you legal term definitions!
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.
AIM: RuinerTT
2005 Nissan Pathfinder LE
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote