December 30th, 2006 12:06 PM
georgia deadly force law
I was just wondering how many states have the deadly force laws listed this way and how many have the "stand your ground" law which I think is really good since people usually end up suing you when you shoot them after they break into your home and threaten your family.
There are 3 code sections that govern when lethal or deadly force may lawfully be used.
1. Defense from a forcible felony; A person is justified in using force which may harm or kill 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. You are not justified if you were the aggressor or you are/were/on-the-way-to committing a felony. (The state has pre-empted local cities and counties from further restricting this defense.)(16-3-21)
2. Defense of habitation; (here habitation means dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business) A person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
A person is breaking\has broken into your home in a violent and tumultuous manner, and you think that the intruder is going to assault you or someone else living there.
A person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters the residence and you know it is an unlawful entry.
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.
3. Defense of property other than habitation; Lethal force cannot be used to protect personal property unless the person using such force reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.(16-3-24)
(Stand Your Ground/Shoot First/License To Murder - went into effect July 1st, 2006) If you have determined you need to use lethal force (as stated in one of the underlined "Defense" sections immediatly above) you do not have to try to retreat before using that force. If your defense is valid, you are immune from criminal procecution (unless it is illegal to carry that weapon where you used it) and civil liability actions.(16-3-23.1, 16-3-24.2, 51-11-9)
December 30th, 2006 01:35 PM
U.S. States with Castle Doctrine Laws in Effect
* Florida (adopted March of 2005)
* Indiana (No duty to retreat. Statute.)
* Michigan (Signed By Governor Granholm July 20th 2006)
* New Hampshire
* North Dakota
* South Carolina
* Rhode Island (11-8-8)
* South Dakota
* Texas (Will be introduced in January 2007 by Texas Senator Wentworth and Representative Driver. The current Texas Law,note §9.42(3).)
December 30th, 2006 03:15 PM
As far as I understand the castle law it says a person doesn't have to retreat to saftey if he is in his own home or place of business correct?
According to NC law this is also true in our state. Here is a clip that I found on packing.org
If I am right shouldn't NC also be on this list? If not please explain. The wording may be different but to me they mean the same. If you are on your property or your business property and feel in danger of your life you do not have to retreat before defending yourself, correct?
2) Duty To Retreat Before Using Deadly Force Unless and exception such as those listed below applies, a citizen must retreat before using deadly force if retreat is possible.
A. There is no duty to retreat before using deadly force if the assault threatens imminent death or great bodily harm - a murderous or felonious assault or sexual assault.
B. There is no duty to retreat before using deadly force if the victim is on his or her own premises, or on his or her business premises, or is at home.
When Seconds Count, The Cops Are Just Minutes Away!!
December 30th, 2006 04:34 PM
I don't know about NC. because those things you quote are normal "exceptions" to your "duty to retreat" not extentions of that into No Duty to retreat". The Castle Doctrine expands those into "No Duty to retreat ... " and expands the instances and limits liability of some of that a great deal beyond just normal exceptions or Duty to retreat. Most every state has an inclusion of "Duty to retreat that exempts the home and property including the business. The No duty to retreat takes that further into any place you have a right to be including the car, a store, a parking lot etc etc.... And takes it out to "any place you have a right to be".
Here is an example of the way one might see this "Castle Doctrine" written up (SC's existing law that is taking effect)
Protection of persons and property, castle doctrine
SECTION 1. Chapter 11, Title 16 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
Protection of Persons and Property
Lawful Use of Deadly Force
Section 16-11-410. This article may be cited as the 'Protection of Persons and Property Act'.
Section 16-11-420. (A) It is the intent of the General Assembly to codify the common law Castle Doctrine which recognizes that a person's home is his castle and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the person's place of business.
(B) The General Assembly finds that it is proper for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, their families, and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others.
(C) The General Assembly finds that Section 20, Article I of the South Carolina Constitution guarantees the right of the people to bear arms, and this right shall not be infringed.
(D) The General Assembly finds that persons residing in or visiting this State have a right to expect to remain unmolested and safe within their homes, businesses, and vehicles.
(E) The General Assembly finds that no person or victim of crime should be required to surrender his personal safety to a criminal, nor should a person or victim be required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack.
Section 16-11-430. As used in this article, the term:
(1) 'Dwelling' means a building or conveyance of any kind, including an attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging there at night.
(2) 'Great bodily injury' means bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ.
(3) 'Residence' means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(4) 'Vehicle' means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
Section 16-11-440. (A) A person is presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to himself or another person when using deadly force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury to another person if the person:
(1) against whom the deadly force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if he removes or is attempting to remove another person against his will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(2) who uses deadly force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring or has occurred.
(B) The presumption provided in subsection (A) does not apply if the person:
(1) against whom the deadly force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle including, but not limited to, an owner, lessee, or titleholder; or
(2) sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship, of the person against whom the deadly force is used; or
(3) who uses deadly force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(4) against whom the deadly force is used is a law enforcement officer who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle in the performance of his official duties, and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using force knows or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter is a law enforcement officer.
(C) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another place where he has a right to be, including, but not limited to, his place of business, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or another person or to prevent the commission of a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.
(D) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.
(E) A person who by force enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle in violation of an order of protection, restraining order, or condition of bond is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act regardless of whether the person is a resident of the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle including, but not limited to, an owner, lessee, or titleholder.
Section 16-11-450. (A) A person who uses deadly force as permitted by the provisions of this article or another applicable provision of law is justified in using deadly force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of deadly force, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his official duties and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using deadly force knows or reasonably should have known that the person is a law enforcement officer.
(B) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of deadly force as described in subsection (A), but the agency may not arrest the person for using deadly force unless probable cause exists that the deadly force used was unlawful.
(C) The court shall award reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of a civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (A)."
December 30th, 2006 04:45 PM
Don't be leaving Idaho out, we have it too.
Originally Posted by Daddy Warcrimes
USN 78-82/USAF 82-93 Medically Retired
Desert Shield/Desert Storm
DAV Life Member
NRA Life Member
December 30th, 2006 08:09 PM
Other than those two exceptions you must retreat if you can or try to deescalate
Originally Posted by NCHornet
December 30th, 2006 08:18 PM
hope ohio joins this soon. dont see it in the future but you never know.
“Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones were attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?”
December 31st, 2006 08:02 AM
This seems like two different ways of saying the same thing.
NC. says that if I feel my life is in imminent danger I have no duty to retreat.
The way I read the Castle Doctrine it says the same thing, that if you feel your life is danger you have the right to protect yourself in your home, car, business or wherever you are.
I am reading something wrong. The Castle Doctrine does go into much greater detail, I will admit that, but the bottom line wether it be NC or GA if you draw and fire a weapon on a BG and you can't prove that your life was in danger you are in big trouble!
I think this goes with all CCW states and what was taught to everyone during their class was when drawing the weapon was justified and when it wasn't. I do see where the Castle Doctrine actually states that if you use your weapon to defend your life you are immune from prosecution. this is a huge plus and something all states should adopt. Maybe I am just not reading things right, if not explain how the two are different, besides using the term Castle Doctrine.
When Seconds Count, The Cops Are Just Minutes Away!!
December 31st, 2006 08:44 AM
I'll have to take a look, but I don't believe South Dakota got the Castle Doctrine here. We did get "Stand your ground."
Originally Posted by Daddy Warcrimes
كافر, and proud of it
European American, and proud of it
Member of the NRA, and proud of it
Be courteous, be polite, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
December 31st, 2006 12:03 PM
Well I can point out a couple of differences.
For example, with the castle doctrine , you can assume that the act of breaking in is a deadly force situation. And, if you are without fault, you have no duty to retreat in any situation anywhere, even outside the home and office. Notice it says "Including but not limited to..." when it talks about those places in the Castle doctrine type law (that example is SC's version). You may stand your ground anywhere as long as the criteria is met. And then there is a limitation of civil liability. Which is a very important aspect of Castle Doctrine from what I see.
In a simple "Duty to retreat" state you have a first and foremost duty to retreat and may only use deadly force if there is no oportunity to retreat. or you have a couple places where you have no duty to retreat like in a place where you have no duty to retreat by exception. Home and place of business being the normal ones mentioned. And normaly limited to those exceptions.
Basicaly the Castle Doctrine expands the right to stand your ground out much further and usually includes the important protection from civil liability from such actions that are justified.
Yes, there were places where it was universaly expected you have no duty to retreat. But those were allways open carry without permit places in most states and city's. So then there is the, why have a concealed carry weapon if I am bound to retreat? Or at least bound to prove I could not retreat? Placing a larger burden on the person defending himself the way they were written in simple "Must retreat" states. This Castle Doctine type law lessened the burden of the defending person and protected him from liability as long as he/she was without fault and meets the criteria for appropriate use of deadly force, no matter where it might occur.
Thats a real oversimplisitic interpretation of what I see in it...
December 31st, 2006 03:39 PM
I for one would love to see a Castle Doctrine passed into law here in NC. I aways get that sick feeling after hearing or reading about someone getting sued or incarcerated for protecting themselves.
December 31st, 2006 08:00 PM
I am not a lawyer and maybe dumb as a tree, but the way I read the NC law,if I am fear of imminent danger to my life, anywhere I am under no obligation to runaway. If I am not in fear of imminent danger I have no business drawing my weapon, so therfore I don't see much difference here, except as I said before where the Castle Doctrine clearly states that you are immune from prosecution, and yes I see this as a big difference. Basically in NC your fate would be left up to a Jury, but in either case you will have to prove that any other person put in the same situation would also feel that they were in imminent danger too. This is one more reason why we need a nation wide policy on concealed carry.
Thanks for all your help.
When Seconds Count, The Cops Are Just Minutes Away!!
December 31st, 2006 08:50 PM
No... you have a duty to retreat EXCEPT when you just cannot nor in your home business property. Those are your only places you have no duty to retreat. Sure... you may not be able too. But it's your duty to retreat in your state.
With the castle doctrine you do no longer have a duty to retreat as long as you are in the right, and in a place you have a right to be. Anyplace. (although you should consider it a viable option and sometimes a prefered option in your choices as you will have to justify your use of deadly force no matter what).
Yes.. either way... you still have to justify your use of deadly force. Nothing takes that first priority away. Its as it should be. And you will have to show that what you did was what any reasonably prudent person would do in your situation. But you will not have to explain why you did not retreat as long as you had a right to be there and were without fault (or cause) of the confrontation. Just a little bit more off your back. Not everything of course. Should always be a determination of your need to use deadly force. That should never be easy. Nor lightly entered into.
Its not a change from black to white. Its a change from Dark Grey to light Grey.
By debrunsky in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
Last Post: January 5th, 2010, 02:19 AM
By Adkjoe in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
Last Post: December 5th, 2009, 11:20 PM
By Terror in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: November 5th, 2009, 03:24 PM
By Bumper in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Last Post: June 17th, 2004, 02:17 PM
Search tags for this page
deadly force georgia
deadly force in georgia
deadly force law in ga
deadly force laws in georgia
ga deadly force laws
georgia deadly force law
georgia deadly force laws
georgia lethal force laws
georgia use of deadly force
georgia use of deadly force law
use of deadly force in ga
use of deadly force in georgia
Click on a term to search for related topics.
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors