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