we have immunity too...but i dont know all the aspects of the law
However, given that it has been 6 months since the incident....and ZERO updates have been provided (the original thread on GPDO has been closed)...can lead one to believe that the incident, if it did happen, did not occur as originally reported....and that if no one talks about it, will die a quiet death.
However, given the alleged seriousness of the incident concerning OCers, it still lives on via the internet. Hopefully GPDO members can/will run this to ground--I don't care what the OP did previous to this incident or that he's a "good guy"....that's fine and well, but if you're going to make outrageous claims to a group that X, Y, and Z happened, and the group says "show me"...then I believe as a member of a group you have the obligation to "show me".
To those that say the OP doesn't have anything to prove to a group on the internet...I say, then he should have kept his mouth shut about the original event...because something like this is going to make everyone question it after a period of time (say, like 6 months?)
no one has to prove anything you can file a Georgia Open Records request just as easy as anyone.....
well theres only so many near here so it should be to hard
Well, we are not the ones asserting this incident occurred. The burden of proof is not on us.
From Constructing a Logical Argument:
The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. For further discussion of this idea, see the "Introduction to Atheism" document.
But, if you will name the appropriate agencies that would have to have no record of the incident to satisfy you that it never occurred I would be happy to submit the requests to each and every one of them.
So unless he acted illegally or used an illegal deadly weapon he is immune from criminal prosecution.Quote:
SECTION 2.Said article is further amended by striking in its entirety Code Section 16-3-24.2, relating to immunity from prosecution and exception, and inserting in lieu thereof the following:"16-3-24.2.A person who uses threats or force in accordance with Code Section 16-3-21, 16-3-23, 16-3-23.1, or 16-3-24 shall be immune from criminal prosecution therefor unless in the use of deadly force, such person utilizes a weapon the carrying or possession of which is unlawful by such person under Part 2 or 3 of Article 4 of Chapter 11 of this title."
It all looks pretty cut and dry there. Unless someone is saying that he violated Code Section 16-3-21 or 16-3-24. So lets look at those..Quote:
SECTION 3.Article 1 of Chapter 11 of Title 51 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to general provisions relative to defense to tort actions, is amended by striking in its entirety Code Section 51-11-9, relating to immunity from civil liability for threat or use of force in defense of a habitation, and inserting in lieu thereof the following:"51-11-9.A person who is justified in threatening or using force against another under the provisions of Code Section 16-3-21, relating to the use of force in defense of self or others, Code Section 16-3-23, relating to the use of force in defense of a habitation, or Code Section 16-3-24, relating to the use of force in defense of property other than a habitation, has no duty to retreat from the use of such force and shall not be held liable to the person against whom the use of force was justified or to any person acting as an accomplice or assistant to such person in any civil action brought as a result of the threat or use of such force."
SECTION 4.All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed.
(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 otherīs 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.
and then there is....Quote:
(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.
(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such otherīs trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with real property other than a habitation or personal property:
(1) Lawfully in his possession;
(2) Lawfully in the possession of a member of his immediate family; or
(3) Belonging to a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect.
(b) The use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to prevent trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with real property other than a habitation or personal property is not justified unless the person using such force reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
A person who uses threats or force in accordance with Code Section 16-3-21, 16-3-23, 16-3-23.1, or 16-3-24 shall be immune from criminal prosecution therefor unless in the use of deadly force, such person utilizes a weapon the carrying or possession of which is unlawful by such person under Part 2 or 3 of Article 4 of Chapter 11 of this title.
This is the exact reason I think OC would lead to much more trouble than it worth. Here in California I'd be worried that Joe Public would be calling out the SWAT team every other block on me, or I'd have idiots like this security guard to deal with every time I turned the corner.... Anyone here in Ca. have experience dealing with OC issues here???
I'm sure if you did a search of OC, you'd find that a majority of the time, no one notices....I've OCd for 8 years (in VA), never stopped or questioned.