I feel like...

[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]

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?

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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!