Last question: Robbed of my vehicle in parking lot

the answer is always the same. you have to be able to articulate a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death.

 

This. I'm of the mind set that I'm giving the guy the car; no fight from me. That's why I carry insurance. Even if you *think* you have a good shoot...the DA may not agree and then I'm pretty sure an insurance deductible (or even a new car) will be cheaper than the legal bills you will likely encounter.

 

The legal threshold is a bit higher than "reasonable fear". The elements of law are:

- Reasonable person
- Imminent Danger
- Great Bodily Harm
- Necessary

And the last one is a big grey area.

Yep. Zimmerman's bill was over $1MM and he "won". Even having on on retainer "just in case" they decide to prosecute will cost you a bundle.

Here is what the law says:

O.C.G.A. § 16-3-24 - Use of force in defense of property other than a habitation
(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.​

So, what is a forcible felony?

O.C.G.A. § 16-1-3 - Definitions
(6) "Forcible felony" means any felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any person.​

So, could you use deadly force to prevent the robbery? Yes. Could you use deadly force to stop him from leaving? Not so clear. If he is leaving, you are preventing a felony (auto theft) but are you preventing a felony "which involves the use or threat of physical force". I think there is a very good case to be made that the "forcible" part has passed and it is now simply a felony. And Georgia does not permit you to shoot fleeing felons or to protect property.

IIRC, There was a case very much like this recently here in Atlanta and the shooter was charged.

 

I'll point out that my understanding is that not all robbery is a forcible felony. So long as that is the case...one could use force to attempt to prevent a robbery but deadly force in such a scenario may not be legal.

 

§ 16-8-40 - Robbery

O.C.G.A. 16-8-40 (2010)
16-8-40. Robbery


(a) A person commits the offense of robbery when, with intent to commit theft, he takes property of another from the person or the immediate presence of another:

(1) By use of force;

(2) By intimidation, by the use of threat or coercion, or by placing such person in fear of immediate serious bodily injury to himself or to another; or

(3) By sudden snatching.

 

Just because the criminal has completed his crime doesn't mean you lose your right to make a citizens arrest, does it?

I point my pistol at him and tell him to stop the car, if he points his gun at me or tries to run me over, I shoot him. If he drives away without being a threat, I let him go.

 

You certainly can try. Before employing deadly force remember #4 and understand how it relates to #1

 

Its simple, If he takes the car and just drives off without any potential harm done to you then NO you can't go blasting the back windows out.

If he carjacks you but for some reason you end up in front of the car (maybe attempting to stop him) if the perp attempts to just run you over then YES you can shoot him.

 

Like I said in the other thread...Sounds almost like the law is on the bad guy's side and not the good guy's side. Almost like Europe.

 

Another way of saying what other posters have said: If the armed carjacker has completed the crime and is driving off, you can't shoot him. The carjacking part (forcible felony) is now over.

If the armed carjacker is in the midst of the carjacking, you can shoot him. Castle doctrine.

You must make a judgement call based on all of that. And use common sense. I would not attempt to get in front of the carjacker or make a citizen's arrest. I may get hurt or killed, and at best, I would have to explain to a jury, why I did what I did, once it went beyond the carjacking. As was said before, I have insurance to replace the car.

 

That statement deserves some clarification. Georgia law does declare your vehicle to be a habitation, but case law tends to favor the idea that it's only a habitation when occupied and property when unoccupied.

As such, I would not recommend the use of deadly force unless a person is in imminent danger of great bodily harm, and deadly force is necessary to prevent great bodily harm.

 

I thought the question was, what can one legally do. A person may use deadly force to defend against an invasion of their habitation, ie, a carjacking. A car jacking of course involves an inhabited car. If you aren't in your car, it's theft.

 

But when you're publishing to a forum like this you have to be really cognizant that others may not be as well versed in the law. As a result you need to be very explicit about what the law allows. For example, many people here believe that the mere declaration of your car being a "habitation" green lights all the behaviors you would have at your physical residence.

 

You make a good point, and it is worth mentioning. If anyone is getting their legal advice solely from an anonymous gun forum, they should really think about that one. Common sense would dictate that readers of this forum should always read the laws for themselves, and also consult with their own legal counsel.

An excellent reminder for all readers of this forum.