Did I over react?

[Clayfish]

In Georgia, a non CCW holder having a shooting in their yard will wind up on the wrong side of the DA in a heartbeat.

Wrong you are. Our great Gov. Just signed the castle doctrine into law stating that your yard and your car and anyother property you own, even in public can be defended.

The gun was not used to defend the car but as a just in case he had to defend his life from the BG pulling a weapon.

You did good.

 

[mbrevolver]

bobhwry

NO, in most jurisdictions you DO NOT have the right to defend your property with lethal force as you intimated. You typically have only the right to protect your person with lethal force (and within small limits - others).

Any would be Marshall Dillon's would likely wind up in jail and in the poorhouse after the civil suit(s) are over. Unless you're a duly sworn LEO or in the military in a war zone, if you shoot somebody your life had better be threatened and not because you willingly put yourself in harms way.

As others have said, alarm goes off, call the cops, and keep your insurance up to date. Shoot a thief outside, you're toast...

clayfish - YOU ARE MISTAKEN in your interpretation and need to consult a Georgia attorney before you act on, or spread any more erroneous advice, I'd suggest Bob Barr (NRA board member), practicing I believe in Marietta - Cobb County for sure. Really posts like yours are dangerous if anyone were to act on your advice!

 

[invention_45]

In Florida, you are, by statute, allowed to use force to remove a trespasser, though not deadly force. However, if the trespasser uses force to resist you, he is breaking yet another law. If that force puts you in fear for your life or serious bodily injury, you are then justified in the use of deadly force.

So, while you are not explicitly, by statute, permitted to protect your property by the use of deadly force, you really are so long as it goes a certain way.

Simply shooting out the window at a trespasser won't fly. Confronting one with firearm concealed, then attempting to physically remove him if he fails to respond properly, and then finally shooting him if he meets your physical force with what you can reasonably call deadly force probably will fly.

But my guess is that it will, unlike defending against someone breaking into your home, involve some expensive legal assistance.

 

[mbrevolver]

Boy, lots of BAD legal advice running around

Being confronted/surprised by a trespasser who threatens you with deadly force may minimize your legal woes, but not if you've gone out to confront them.
If you act like a LEO, and you're not (and even perhaps if you are) and are out confronting anyone to protect only property, you'll only make attorneys like me be able to afford more guns...

I love firearms as much as anyone, but one of the tradeoffs in this country is to forgo vigilantism. Somolia, Afgahnistan, - there are lots of places you can run out in your yard and shoot somebody for taking your "stuff"; do it in the USA, and you make me, or somebody like me wealthy - and probably serve time too...

 

[Clayfish]

mbrevolver,

Take a read and tell me what you think.

http://www.georgiansforgunsafety.com/test/headlines/sf.php

http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/fulltext/sb396.htm

 

[mbrevolver]

clayfish

I think if you're getting legal advice from two newspaper reporters, you're SOL...

 

[Clayfish]

Check the second link. That's the Georgia code.

 

[mbrevolver]

I really don't mean to sound like a pompous

attorney (which rhymes witha$$hole), but clayfish, there is a LOT in those code section, and my guess is that you may not have a clear understanding of all that's there, but only pulling out those sections that appeal to you and whose phrases resonate with your sense of justice.

Everything in those codes is based on the justified use of force, the new statutes only deal with a prior presumption of a duty to retreat - the presumtion of the duty to retreat is lessened, the duty to justify the use of force isn't.

Really, you should buy an hour of a good Georgia attorney's time (again - recommend Bob Barr in Cobb County) and you shouldn't go on the internet telling people what the law in Georgia does or doesn't say and assuring them (encouraging them?) that it's ok to shoot thieves.

 

[Clayfish]

But isn't the argument here that the BG attempts to inflict bodily harm on you and you defend yourself? The argument here is not that BG breaks into my car and I shoot him. The argument is; alarm sounds and when I check it out the BG threatens to hurt or kill. Then I have the right to defend myself. No one here is trying to justify vigilante justice but we all do agree on the right to self defense. Isn't that what the 2A is really about? Defence of one's self and country.

 

[mbrevolver]

clayfish, actually not

Keep thinking that way, act on it, and some well qualified Georgia attorney will be enjoying your assets...

 

[BLKLABMAN]

Clayfish,
Confront a tresspasser in your yard, and use Deadly Force.
I will simply say this.
I hope you have very, very deep pockets.
You will need them

 

[Clayfish]

I digress. I guess since you went to school to learn, and get paid to argue I won't even try anymore. I went to school for something completly different and arguing is not my forte.

 

[CDH]

Confront a tresspasser in your yard, and use Deadly Force.
I will simply say this.
I hope you have very, very deep pockets.
You will need them

I think there's some major misunderstanding here.

You seem to think that the issue is if he saw someone leaning into his car through a broken window that he would simply shoot him. And that's not at all what's being discussed.

The concept is if there had been a BG and the BG attacked him, would he be not only right, but morally and legally right, to defend himself with deadly force.

What's nice is that more and more states are passing laws that make it easier to protect one's life and property without automatically facing a murder charge.

Carter

 

[mbrevolver]

actually the issue is more likely

The foreseeability of armed confrontation. The poster wasn't out in the yard or on the street and surprised by an attacker who then threatened lethal force, but went out armed looking for confrontation after he had reason to believe a bad guy was out there - and before he went out he had reason to believe that the bad guy was armed and dangerous, otherwise he wouldn't have gone out with a weapon - that's LEO duty. Pretend you're an LEO and pay the price.

 

[mr00jimbo]

I'm envious of the self protection laws some of you guys in the U.S have protecting you. In Canada, a bus driver recently apprehended a man who stole an old lady's purse and their original course of action was to "discipline the man" (the one driving the bus) and charge him with assault, IIRC.

I wouldn't want to risk being charged up here for trying to protect myself or my property. While I respect police a lot for all the stuff they put up with, they are still too far away to protect everybody who needs it, and they are not legally responsible for doing so either.

 

[BLKLABMAN]

I think there's some major misunderstanding here.

You seem to think that the issue is if he saw someone leaning into his car through a broken window that he would simply shoot him. And that's not at all what's being discussed.

The concept is if there had been a BG and the BG attacked him, would he be not only right, but morally and legally right, to defend himself with deadly force.

CDH,
He was not surprised. He on purpose, went outside his house with a weapon.
Once again, He went outside his house, into a possible confrontation. By doing so, he put himself in the role of a LEO.
If there had been confrontation and Deadly Force would have been used.... "He" would have been charged by the DA so fast, his head would still be swimming.
Ramboism might be fine on the internet. However, it does not cut it in the Real World.


Edit to add.
I have spoken with several attorneys about a somewhat similar situation.
I own land. My land is Posted. It is deer season. That means every inbred redneck for 100 miles is running around the country.
For me is means cut fences, rutted fields, hurt cattle/horses, and damaged farm equipment. I would love to shoot these people on sight. However, this is not Iraq. If I play Police Officer and "confront" and Deadly Force is used..... I get charged.
Those are the facts.

 

[jfrey123]

I'm thankful for the attorney advice that has presented itself. Honestly, I've yet to do the research to find out if Nevada is a "duty to retreat" state. But that was going to be my intent.

The handgun was purely for self defense, I promise. As I stated, my intent was to identify if my car was actually under attack, or if the alarm was triggered by some rare false activation. Had there been someone breaking into my car, my intent was to shout and make them aware they had been seen, all the while retreating the 10ft back to my apartment to call the police from my cell phone. I armed myself ONLY to be able to defend myself if charged by an armed BG. For no reason what so ever, would I have drawn otherwise. It's only a car.

If that action was truly illegal on my part, then I find this country's system of law even more disgusting.

 

[Trip20]

For me is means cut fences, rutted fields, hurt cattle/horses, and damaged farm equipment. I would love to shoot these people on sight. However, this is not Iraq. If I play Police Officer and "confront" and Deadly Force is used..... I get charged.

No wonder you have such a problem on your property; they never get confronted.

Should you one day decide to stand up to someone who’s destroying your property it makes sense to arm yourself as a precaution.

The heathens have one acceptable choice: to cease and desist. Should they instead take the opportunity to begin attacking you, remember that the trespassers chose to aggravate the situation, which forced you to respond in defense of your life.

That’s not playing police officer. Its called not allowing criminals have their way with you and your property. What’s with this “play cop” stuff anyway?

You’ve every right to stop someone from destroying your property – and no I’m not talking about immediately aim-and-blast anyone that sets foot on your property. What gives you the idea only police officers are allowed to stop someone from destroying property?

I suppose we should let these heathens do whatever they wish, as only the police should be able to stop people from doing bad things?

I don’t think so, Tim.

 

[BLKLABMAN]

You have to love the internet. It's full of badazz's, strutting peacocks, and Rambo's who know nothing about what the law actually say's and what the DA will try and do to them.
Even though they know nothing, man they sure do sound tough.

I CCW every day. If someone attacks me/my family(by surprise) or breaks into my home, I have no trouble with using a weapon.

There a huge difference between being attacked and being forced to use a deadly weapon versus confronting someone with a deadly weapon.

As far as the inbred rednecks goes.
I have a right to talk to them. I have the right to call the Police.
FYI--
They are talked to(by me) and ran off. My CCW never leaves it's holster.

So you a rambling and thumping your chest, but you have no clue in this world, about-- as you put it.....What’s with this “play cop” stuff anyway?

If you confront( go looking for a possible confrontation) with a deadly weapon( ie firearm), and deadly force is used. You have just put yourself in the role of a Leo.- To break down in simple terms about what will happen. You WILL be charged.------

--- Do me a favor Rambo. Call it an experiment, for my amusement.
When you here your car alarm goes off a 2am or hear someone breaking into your tool shed or barn, run outside in your yard with a weapon. If the bad guys are still there, and draw down on you..... Use your weapon and kill them. Simple enough, huh.

Use the excuse--- By God by going outside I was defending my property, and was forced to draw down.

Report back to us about the outcome.

I can tell you the outcome.
You will be charged. The DA will say you put yourself in the role of a LEO. The DA will say you went outside with the intent of doing harm, and with malicious intent.
You will be arrested. You will be charged. You may or may not stay out of prison. That will depend on the jury.
Trust me.
If you are let off the first time, the DA will come at you again. The court battle, will be spread out over several years.
You will spend all your life saving's on attorney fee's. You will sell your house, and most everything you have a clear title on, to generate income. In the end, you will file for bankruptcy.

Like I said, since you are thumping your chest on the internet...... carry through with it in Real Life. Report back about about the outcome.

Also.
See if you can read between the lines, about how I know this will happen to you.

I agree with mbrevolver.
Most people giving advice in this thread, do not know their head from a hole in the ground.

 

[ATW525]

The vast majority of car alarms are false, and the sound of a car alarm is not a reliable indication that a crime is in progress. That being said, I believe it's prudent to verify that a crime is indeed taking place before calling the police. In fact, in increasingly more localities you don't have a choice in the matter: the police will simply not respond to a report of a car alarm without verification of an actual crime having occured.