Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
141 - 160 of 419 Posts

·
Ninjaneering Computers
Joined
·
2,711 Posts
You are permitted to defend your property today, just not with lethal force. The law only permits the use of lethal force to save a life. It is unlikely that there exists political will or popular opinion to reduce that standard any.
That's a shame.

Un-killing a man is even harder.
I'm not responsible for the decisions someone else makes. If you know that you run the risk of getting capped for stealing my TV, you accept the possible outcome.

And at the risk of sounding cold and callous, I'm not really concerned with what happens to someone who is trying to take the product of days or possibly years of my life.
 

·
Ninjaneering Computers
Joined
·
2,711 Posts
dhaller said:
You see folks stringing your neighbors up and I'm pretty sure you can forcefully intercede!
Depends on the neighbor. Watching may accomplish more.
I have a few new neighbors like that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,408 Posts
We might agree on 16-3-23 but I think it's wrong and should be amended to reflect the current reality. I don't really care about political will or popular opinion. If sh*t's going down, there's no way I'm letting anyone, let alone a savage crowd with no respect for life, get within throwing distance of me. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who feels that way.
I don't understand your reasoning. How does 16-3-21 not cover your concern?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,230 Posts
I don't understand your reasoning. How does 16-3-21 not cover your concern?
I could be in a situation where my unoccupied house is about to be torched by the mob, we're relatively safe from harm by the mob, yet I can't protect the house from being torched. I don't see where 16-3-21 considers protection of "property" unless destroying an unoccupied dwelling is considered a forcible felony.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
683 Posts
I could be in a situation where my unoccupied house is about to be torched by the mob, we're relatively safe from harm by the mob, yet I can't protect the house from being torched. I don't see where 16-3-21 considers protection of "property" unless destroying an unoccupied dwelling is considered a forcible felony.
"Relatively safe" is not "safe". If you're close enough to your property to defend it, then you're in danger.

Maybe if you're in a deer stand on your property and you're picking off protestors as they approach your house, then that might be a problem (and I don't think so myself, because after they finish with the house they could come to the deer stand), but edge cases aside, if they're within "charging" distance, it's a fight.

*Traps* are out, of course; not looking it up, but I know there's case law out there in which homeowners have set deadly booby traps when they were having a break-in problem, and they were prosecuted for it. So don't go whittling bamboo punji sticks and digging pits in your yard! ;)

DH

PS. I had an idea at one point that it would be cool to install a drone hangar at my property in Bartow with a charging station so I could "patrol" my property from my home in Atlanta, just check it out, make sure no one's misbehaving (I have a fallowed cotton field there which could appeal to ATV enthusiasts), but installing a weapons system would be a no-no, I presume.
 

·
Sledgehammer
Joined
·
4,823 Posts
I could be in a situation where my unoccupied house is about to be torched by the mob, we're relatively safe from harm by the mob, yet I can't protect the house from being torched. I don't see where 16-3-21 considers protection of "property" unless destroying an unoccupied dwelling is considered a forcible felony.
Wouldn't 16-3-23(3) cover that scenario? Note that there is no requirement that the habitation be occupied (or even your own) and no requirement that the felony be forcible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,230 Posts
Wouldn't 16-3-23(3) cover that scenario? Note that there is no requirement that the habitation be occupied (or even your own) and no requirement that the felony be forcible.
Yes, of course. But the scenario I was considering (on page 7) didn't involve the mob making entry of any kind. Just staying outside and attempting to burn down the house, occupied or not.
 

·
Sledgehammer
Joined
·
4,823 Posts
But the scenario I was considering (on page 7) didn't involve the mob making entry of any kind. Just staying outside and attempting to burn down the house, occupied or not.
16-3-23 applies to an "unlawful entry or attack upon a habitation." But then in none of the 3 forms of defense of habitation does it talk about an attack (as opposed to an "entry.") So there is arguably no justification for shooting a would-be arsonist who merely stands outside (pretermitting whether he is "entering" your house when he throws a torch through the window). But the hook, I think, is that you are not likely to know that the arsonist is content to do his work from your front hard. As he and his associates are rushing up your driveway with their pitchforks and torches, are they going to be chanting, "Don't shoot, we're not coming inside and we are not offering personal violence to anyone!" And even if they did, who trusts the word of a pitchfork-wielding arsonist? The better conclusion is they are attempting to enter your habitation, violently and tumultuously, unlawfully and forcibly, and they therefore are subject to being heavily ventilated with impunity.
 

·
Custom User Title
Joined
·
2,095 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,617 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,230 Posts
Grosskreutz said he has had run-ins with police in his past and paid his debt. But he says he had every right to carry his firearm.
"I'm not a felon," he said. "I have my concealed carry, I've had it for years. That was my gun. My firearm. I had a legal right to possess it and to possess it concealed."


Source: https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/11/us/kenosha-gaige-grosskreutz-shooting-victim-interview/index.html
He was apparently charged with felony burglary though. The question is whether he was convicted for it. CNN didn't deem that incident and others worthy of inclusion in their article. It would put a dent in his halo.

https://themadtruther.com/2020/08/2...rioters-shot-have-violent-criminal-histories/

https://archive.is/kccfA
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
683 Posts
He was apparently charged with felony burglary though. The question is whether he was convicted for it. CNN didn't deem that incident and others worthy of inclusion in their article. It would put a dent in his halo.

https://themadtruther.com/2020/08/2...rioters-shot-have-violent-criminal-histories/

https://archive.is/kccfA
The burglary charge is a either a fabrication, or it happened when he was a juvenile and is sealed. I'd bet $10,000 on the former (if I approved of betting: I do not.)

His court record has three convictions (not obeying an officer and a noise complaint, both in 2019, and operating with a suspended license in 2015) and he had an eviction proceeding in 2015.

It's easy to find this stuff, by the way, rather than just letting "news providers" feed you whatever they want. "The truth is out there", as Mulder (or Scully?) often said.

But yes, he was legally permitted to carry the firearm. No felony convictions.

If you want to look this up yourself (since I'm a big ol' Liberal so I might be practicing some kind of sinister disinfo here?), Wisconsin is pretty easy to navigate (and free), and you can pull the case files from the attached screenshot (just too lazy to attach all the case PDFs tonight) to find them yourself. Someone tell Texas to hire Wisconsin's web designer, by the way.

Rectangle Font Material property Parallel Screenshot
 

·
Sledgehammer
Joined
·
4,823 Posts
The burglary charge is a either a fabrication, or it happened when he was a juvenile
I've seen it reported that he was arrested for burglary, but I've never seen it reported that he was convicted of it. Arrests do not show up on CCAP (Wisconsin's online court access system). You'd have to be able to access his criminal history to find out if he were arrested.
No felony convictions.
Not in Wisconsin, no.
Someone tell Texas to hire Wisconsin's web designer, by the way.
The amazing thing is the CCAP system has been around for decades, and it is a uniform, statewide system. It's still hands down one of the best in the country.
 
141 - 160 of 419 Posts
Top