I feel like...

[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...l?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....!

[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....!

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?"