Defensive Carry banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
24,242 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
From the NRA Website:

Friday, March 03, 2006

This week, Senate Bill 396, the “Castle Doctrine” bill, sponsored by Senator Greg Goggans (R-7), was overwhelmingly approved by the full Senate. This bill would remove a citizen’s duty to retreat when faced with attack. The bill now goes to the House for its consideration.
Per the NRA: Please be sure to call your Representative and respectfully urge him or her to support SB 396 when it comes before the House for consideration. You can reach your Representative at (404) 656-5000.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,483 Posts
Sounding good R&G - how I dearly want to see this spread all over the nation - it is logical and necessary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
473 Posts
we were first:banana: . seriously though, i can't understand what's so difficult about getting these laws passed.
oh, wait a minute. yes i can.
the criminals have "rights". the poor victim has none.
everytime i hear somebody say these laws will lead to widespread murder i get a headache.
hopefully common sense will prevail and the bill gets passed.
at least these bills are showing up more and more.:congrats:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
They're debating it in VA, no update on it. They're also debating similar changes here in CO, including adding your vehicle and "temporary lodging" wording to the law in addition to your residence. This would extend your "residence: to include your car and hotel room, much as it does in NM. That would make things so much easier when you travel around the state and would throw Denver's anti-gun stance up in their face since they can't challenge the domicile aspect of the law as it's not covered in their "home-rule" status!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
998 Posts
Actually, Georgia law does not have a requirement to retreat as it currently stands. The GA law covering deadly force allows for the use of of such force when a person reasonably believes there is danger of death or great bodily injury to themself or a third person, or to stop a forcible felony.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
24,242 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
CombatEffective said:
Actually, Georgia law does not have a requirement to retreat as it currently stands. The GA law covering deadly force allows for the use of of such force when a person reasonably believes there is danger of death or great bodily injury to themself or a third person, or to stop a forcible felony.
I reviewed the GA statutes and agree that they could be construed to not require retreat, however, there is no affirmative statute that states retreat is not required. Have I interpreted the statutes incorrectly? :embarassed: :confused:

I did try your link, and couldn't find "New Articles", and the "Articles" link did not have a specific link for a Georgia update. Can you post it over here? I'd love to read an analysis from someone more familiar with GA law.

Thank you!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
998 Posts
The link should take you to our homepage. There is an "articles" button on the left that should take you to the articles that we currently have posted.

Your understanding of the GA law is correct. There is no specific requirement to retreat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
998 Posts
The link should take you to our homepage. There is an "articles" button on the left that should take you to the articles that we currently have posted.

Your understanding of the GA law is correct. There is no specific requirement to retreat.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
24,242 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Combat Effective: Not trying to beat a deadhorse - we posted at the same time I think....

What I was expecting to not find (which I did not) was a positive statutory statement that retreat is NOT required, such as that contained in the Texas Penal Code.

I have added the emphasis therein below:

§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated;
and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not
apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time
of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the
habitation of the actor.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, § 5, eff.
Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept.
1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Please help me understand the GA statutes - I'm kind of an newbie at these sections of law, so I could be misinterpreting. Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
998 Posts
http://www.legis.state.ga.us/cgi-bin/gl_codes_detail.pl?code=16-3-21


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.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
24,242 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
I agree, Sir.

The point I was trying to make (poorly done, obviously), is that the statutes are SILENT with respect to retreat, which is much different than either REQUIRING retreat OR stating that RETREAT IS NOT NECESSARY in some circumstances.

I do believe we agree.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
998 Posts
While it doesn't specifically require a duty to retreat, the GA state doesn't imply that there is one. It simply gives three circumstances in which deadly force can be used, two of which allow for intervention; so, I contend that a duty to retreat is not even implied.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for strengthening the law and providing civil protections.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
24,242 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Yes, Sir. It's just not implied in GA, one way or another. I just always like those guys in suits at the state house to affirmatively state the position. I think an affirmative statute is much stronger, in litigation, than an unspoken inference or implication. If we're at the well, asking for a drink, let's drink deeply.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top