I feel like...

[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 ..

[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.

[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]

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.

[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...l?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!