Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I did a search on this and found a thread a couple of years old. Does Ga. have a Castle Doctrine law and can somebody point me to the Ga. code? Thanks.
Scott
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,809 Posts
http://www.georgiapacking.org/GaCode/?title=16&chapter=3&section=23.1

O.C.G.A. § 16-3-23.1
No duty to retreat prior to use of force in self-defense

A person who uses threats or force in accordance with 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 and has the right to stand his or her ground and use force as provided in said Code sections, including deadly force.
:righton:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Thanks for the help.
Scott
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,809 Posts
No problem. :welcome: , by the way. How did you hear about us? Gun show? Google?

edit: I see you've been here a little while, just haven't posted. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
917 Posts
Forgive me, I'm still learning all this. Is it true the statute reads that if some punks are smashing out the windows in my truck in the parking lot, and I happen to see it happening, I can run out there with a firearm and stop them with lethal force?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,809 Posts
Well, you could confront them armed (concealed or open or whatever) and then if they attack you for intervening... :shoot: At that point, you'd be more in fear for your life, right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,194 Posts
Boy Racer said:
Forgive me, I'm still learning all this. Is it true the statute reads that if some punks are smashing out the windows in my truck in the parking lot, and I happen to see it happening, I can run out there with a firearm and stop them with lethal force?
Just in case you find this happening? :shock:

Dat blame Eco-terrorists. People are nuckin futz these days.

Vandals Attack Man's Hummer, Leave Note

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/shared-gen/ap/Feature_Stories/ODD_Hummer_Vandalized.html?imw=Y

July 18, 2007 - 11:03 p.m. Copyright 2007, The Associated Press.

WASHINGTON â€" When Gareth Groves brought home his massive new Hummer, he knew his environmentally friendly neighbors disapproved. But he didn't expect what happened next. The sport utility vehicle was parked for five days on the street before two masked men smashed the windows, slashed the tires and scratched into the body: "FOR THE ENVIRON."

"The thought of somebody vandalizing it never crossed my mind," said Gareth Groves, who lives near American University in Northwest Washington. "I've kind of been in shock."

Police said they see small acts of vandalism in the area from time to time, but they have not seen anything so severe, or with such a clear political message, in recent years.

"This seems to be an isolated event," Cmdr. Andy Solberg said.

Investigators said they are searching for the vandals but don't have many leads. Witnesses said they saw two men smash up the seven-foot-tall SUV early Monday and then run off.

Now, as Groves contemplates what to do with the remains of his $38,000 Hummer, he has had to deal with a number of people who have driven by the crime scene and glared at him in smug satisfaction.

"I'd say one in five people who come by have that 'you-got-what-you-deserve' look," said his friend Andy Sexton.

Neighbor Lucille Liem, who owns a Prius hybrid, said that a common sentiment in the neighborhood is that large vehicles such as the Hummer are impractical and a strain on the Earth.

"The neighborhood in general is very concerned with the environment," said Liem, whose Prius gets about 48 miles a gallon compared with the Hummer's 14 miles a gallon. "It's more liberal leaning. It's ridiculous to be driving a Hummer."

Liem quickly added that she does not condone violence.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
16,485 Posts
moga said:
Neighbor Lucille Liem, who owns a Prius hybrid, said that a common sentiment in the neighborhood is that large vehicles such as the Hummer are impractical and a strain on the Earth.
Except she's very wrong. I love the environment and environmentalists, but I want to stab stupid people in the face.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,226 Posts
budder said:
moga said:
Neighbor Lucille Liem, who owns a Prius hybrid, said that a common sentiment in the neighborhood is that large vehicles such as the Hummer are impractical and a strain on the Earth.
Except she's very wrong. I love the environment and environmentalists, but I want to stab stupid people in the face.
Interesting articles there Budder. I'm definitely going to have to read up on the entire test this guy ran.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
16,485 Posts
Just to jump in again before I get misinterpreted: I'm glad we're doing research into fuel-efficient vehicles. The next generation of personal transportation will be built off of the hybrid research of today. But it's not fair to hate the big cars when yours is worse for the environment. If the auto manufacturers need to sell hybrids now to further their research, that's fine by me, but I won't be buying one and I won't be destroying any hybrids and making even more of a negative environmental impact.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
budder said:
Just to jump in again before I get misinterpreted: I'm glad we're doing research into fuel-efficient vehicles. The next generation of personal transportation will be built off of the hybrid research of today. But it's not fair to hate the big cars when yours is worse for the environment. If the auto manufacturers need to sell hybrids now to further their research, that's fine by me, but I won't be buying one and I won't be destroying any hybrids and making even more of a negative environmental impact.
Yeah, I saw something about that. The super efficient batteries that are in the hybrids are the biggest cause of the car's high lifetime cost. Refining the metals inside to a certain purity takes huge amounts of power. Then at the end of its life there is the safe disposal of those batteries.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
16,485 Posts
Toyota does have a recycling program in place for the batteries though. I imagine it's one of the few recycling programs that's actually beneficial to the environment. If you have seen it, here's a link to the first third of the Bullshit! episode regarding recycling:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
917 Posts
O.C.G.A. § 16-3-23.1
No duty to retreat prior to use of force in self-defense

A person who uses threats or force in accordance with 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 and has the right to stand his or her ground and use force as provided in said Code sections, including deadly force.
I guess I was just surprised that it was lawful to defend inanimate property, not just life and limb, with lethal force.

I'm trying to imagine a scenario where this would come into play: If I roll up to my detached garage and see the door up with people loading a van with my stuff, I can shoot them. I may not need to do it, and it may not be (probably wouldn't be) prudent, but according to this text, I can lawfully use deadly force in defense of property.

I didn't know that until I joined this site.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,961 Posts
"as provided in said Code Sections"

You must give meaning to all of the words, not just some of them.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,961 Posts
Boy Racer said:
I'm trying to imagine a scenario where this would come into play: If I roll up to my detached garage and see the door up with people loading a van with my stuff, I can shoot them. I may not need to do it, and it may not be (probably wouldn't be) prudent, but according to this text, I can lawfully use deadly force in defense of property.

I didn't know that until I joined this site.
Don't blame this site for that misapprehension of the law. :wink: You need to read 16-3-21 through 16-3-24 together.

In short, if you shot them in that circumstance with no other facts presented you will probably go to prison.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
917 Posts
Forcible Felony - Any felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any person and further includes, without limitation, murder; felony murder; burglary; robbery; armed robbery; kidnapping; hijacking of an aircraft or motor vehicle; aggravated stalking; rape; aggravated child molestation; aggravated sexual battery; arson in the first degree; the manufacturing, transporting, distribution, or possession of explosives with intent to kill, injure, or intimidate individuals or destroy a public building; terroristic threats; or acts of treason or insurrection. (16-11-131)
I read them. But previously I understood that the only allowable lethal defense must be to personal safety, i.e. life and/or limb - I didn't realize there were exceptions. No matter how many times I read the code, I seem to have glanced over that.

So the statute reads that I can't defend from a 'peaceful' burglary with lethal force, but a burglary that also features 'the use or threat of physical force or violence against any person' -and is therefore a forcible felony- does allow it. Gotcha.

I seem to remember a time when I was under the impression that one could only meet force with equal or lesser force; meaning to escalate a situation (respond with a gun to a knife threat) was a no-no. Funny how what you read affects what you think. :oops:
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top