A MAN 's HOME IS HIS CASTLE

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Law protects armed homeowners
Georgia allows use of deadly force if home is forcibly entered by intruder
BY JIM HOUSTON

It's 3 a.m. and you hear a noise downstairs, but the dog's at the vet's clinic
and you're supposed to be alone in your home.

Your sidearm in hand, you make your way downstairs and see two furtive figures
sacking up your family's valuables.

When you yell, "Halt!" one of the figures runs toward you and you fire.
The figure falls to the floor -- dead of a single gunshot wound -- and the other flees.

So what happens when the police arrive? Are you in trouble with the law,
or is the law on your side?

In Georgia and more than 18 other states, you would be in no legal troubles,
because those states have similar versions of a "defense of habitation" law,
sometimes known as the Castle Doctrine or, by its pejorative,
the "Make My Day" law.

Modeled after a law passed in 1987 by the Oklahoma Legislature,
and a similar one in Florida years later, the Georgia version has been
tweaked and amended in recent years.

Instead of justifying the use of deadly force only when the intruder
makes a "violent and tumultuous" entrance that causes the resident to
expect to be assaulted, or causing the resident to believe that the intruder
is about to commit a felony, Georgia in 2001 added a section to its
defense of habitation law authorizing use of deadly force against any
intruder -- not a family member -- who forcibly enters a residence.

"It does give (a resident) a little more leeway to defend himself without
having to ask so many questions," said University of Georgia Law
Professor Donald E. Wilkins Jr. "You shouldn't have to ask questions of
intruders and then shoot to protect yourself.
You ought not to have to interview them."

Georgia's law change means you can shoot first and ask questions later.
You don't have to put your life in danger first. After all, it's your home the
intruder is forcing his way into.
You don't have to stop to divine his purpose.

But the Georgia lawmakers didn't stop there.
In 2006, they further amended the state code to provide that anyone who uses
deadly force under the defense of habitation statute shall be immune
from criminal prosecution, unless the person is in possession of an unlawful weapon.

Another 2006 amendment provides that in defending a habitation,
one is not required to retreat and has the right to "stand his or her ground"
and use deadly force to stop the intruder and don't think that defense
of habitation only means your home. In Georgia, it applies equally to any
person's dwelling, motor vehicle or place of business.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 4,351 • Replies: 91

No top replies

If a citizen defends his property from criminal violence,
government shud be on HIS side, not on the side
of the deceased bad guy.

The law shud also grant immunity from civil litigation.

David

0 Replies

Know what would be totally awesome? If your house was a gun. Like, if you just lived inside of this giant freaking gun! No one would ever try to break in and steal all your guns. Why? Because they, or at least every man still living in his mother's basement, would have too much respect for you. Why shouldn't they? Your house is a gun. And you'd get tons of chicks you could "bang" (get it?) on your super-radical gun-bed.

This is such a good idea!

0 Replies

The criminal expects a certain amount of hesitation on your part. Therefore the quick dispatching of the perp is in order and I commend the old guy for protecting himself. My only problem is that if I fire multiple shots from a pistol, the enrgy of the bullets can be expended by the shells continuing to circle my house by ricocheting off the stone walls tht lies beneath the plaster. My decision is to whether take a pistol or a riot gun.

Im still against the lax gun laws that pander to the criminal

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

The criminal expects a certain amount of hesitation on your part. Therefore the quick dispatching of the perp is in order and I commend the old guy for protecting himself. My only problem is that if I fire multiple shots from a pistol, the enrgy of the bullets can be expended by the shells continuing to circle my house by ricocheting off the stone walls tht lies beneath the plaster. My decision is to whether take a pistol or a riot gun.

Im still against the lax gun laws that pander to the criminal

Criminals are unaffected by gun laws.
Gun control laws serve only to disarm future victims of violent crime
who value compliance with law, above preservation of their own lives,
or the lives of their families.

0 Replies

Proper and effective anti-pandering
is to remove violently recidivistic criminals from the scene permanently,
or until he is too old to recidivate again.

( Think Botany Bay; maybe thay 'll rent us space. )

0 Replies

Every year, we should take the poorest 1% of society and take them out to be shot.

After a couple of years, everyone is too busy working trying to avoid being in that 1% to make any mischief.

Think of the boost to our economy.

0 Replies

drewdad and gargamel, I have a serious question for both of you.

If someone does break into your home, and makes a rush at you, what would you do?

drewdad, knowing your 2 little girls are sleeping in the next room, and not knowing if the person rushing at you will be able to overpower you, how would you protect them?

Are you both saying that if an intruder is in your home, and you take the fact he's rushing at you means he's going to hurt you, or worse, you shouldn't be able to protect yourself and others with something other than your own body, or that heavy granite bookend?

0 Replies

OK, Chai, making fun of OmSigDavid and his obsession = anti-gun.

That's the ticket.

0 Replies

Chai wrote:

drewdad and gargamel, I have a serious question for both of you.

If someone does break into your home, and makes a rush at you, what would you do?

drewdad, knowing your 2 little girls are sleeping in the next room, and not knowing if the person rushing at you will be able to overpower you, how would you protect them?

Are you both saying that if an intruder is in your home, and you take the fact he's rushing at you means he's going to hurt you, or worse, you shouldn't be able to protect yourself and others with something other than your own body, or that heavy granite bookend?

The only response is to shove a grenade up the intruder's ass, and just before it goes off, blow him away with a bazooka.

That's what you do, right? Or wait, how many times has the scenario you painted happened to you?

0 Replies

Gargamel wrote:

Chai wrote:
drewdad and gargamel, I have a serious question for both of you.

If someone does break into your home, and makes a rush at you, what would you do?

drewdad, knowing your 2 little girls are sleeping in the next room, and not knowing if the person rushing at you will be able to overpower you, how would you protect them?

Are you both saying that if an intruder is in your home, and you take the fact he's rushing at you means he's going to hurt you, or worse, you shouldn't be able to protect yourself and others with something other than your own body, or that heavy granite bookend?

The only response is to shove a grenade up the intruder's ass, and just before it goes off, blow him away with a bazooka.

That's what you do, right? Or wait, how many times has the scenario you painted happened to you?

I've always used cauldrons of boiling lead.

0 Replies

osd

Quote:

Criminals are unaffected by gun laws

. Unless we make them affected by severer laws against irresponsible purchase and ownership.

Your Botany Bay and Devils Island parallels are far fetched and unworkable.

0 Replies

damn i miss ur gun talk david. haha.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

OK, Chai, making fun of OmSigDavid and his obsession = anti-gun.

That's the ticket.

no drewdad, that's not what I'm saying at all.

your response of taking people out and shooting them is of course a joke you made.

however, since david is talking about having a gun in the home, and your response was even joking about the negative side of gun ownership, it led me to believe you didn't agree with the subject of the thread.

david says some things I don't agree with, but on some subjects, I'm in complete agreement. Protecting yourself in your home is one of them.

just because I might make fun of something a person says, doesn't mean I think everything they say is worthy of it.

So, would you shot someone who broke into your home, and rushed at you?

0 Replies

Gargamel wrote:

The only response is to shove a grenade up the intruder's ass, and just before it goes off, blow him away with a bazooka.

That's what you do, right? Or wait, how many times has the scenario you painted happened to you?

How many times would it have to happen to you?

It only takes once to make you dead, or raped, or badly beaten.

Honestly garg? I have had 2 instances where a person has broken into my residence, when I was there.

In the first instance, actually the intruder was already in my apt, and I came home unexpectedly during the day and caught him there. Without going into a long story, he was there thinking there was a large quantity of drugs there. When I realized what was going on, I ran out. Unfortuanately, we couldn't call the police, or they would have found our medium size quantity of drugs.
I figure someone breaking into your house, posing as a service man, to steal drugs, might very well be dangerous enough to attack me.

The 2nd time, this maintenance man at an apt I lived at started stalking me. I'm not going to devulge any details of that one, suffice it to say I wish I'd had a gun.

0 Replies

Chai wrote:

So, would you shot someone who broke into your home, and rushed at you?

No, because I don't have a gun in the house. A gun is far more likely to injure my kids than an intruder is.

I've taken other measures to protect my family.

I wasn't making fun of self defense, either. I was responding to this:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Proper and effective anti-pandering
is to remove violently recidivistic criminals from the scene permanently,
or until he is too old to recidivate again.

( Think Botany Bay; maybe thay 'll rent us space. )

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

No, because I don't have a gun in the house. A gun is far more likely to injure my kids than an intruder is.

I've taken other measures to protect my family.

How is a gun that is not accessible to children more likely to injure them than a intruder that you don't know, and could be capable of anything?

You keep a gun in a place where a child cannot possibly get to it, but where you can.

A bottle of perscription drugs is likely to badly harm a child, and kill them. Yet, most people have some sort of perscription drug in their home.

Safety caps on pill bottles, safety locks on guns.

I'd guess every child has at some point seen mom or dad take a bottle from the medicine cabinet, take the pills out and swallow them. Then, they watch them put it back, so they know exactly where to find it when they think about it later.

If you own a gun, it's not necessary for the child to even know you have it, so will never think to go looking for it.

I don't care if an individual keeps or doesn't keep a gun in their home. However, if a child is injured by one, it's through the carelessness of the adults by leaving it in a place the child can get to it, or even knows it's there.

Garg asked how often that scenerio of an intruder happens. I have no idea......I will say though, that it happens much more often than people are attacked by sharks.

I've heard lots of people through the years say they are afraid of sharks.

I'm not, don't have the slighted bit of fear of sharks, or bengal tigers, or polar bears. I'm not ever going to be in a place where any of them can get at me.

I'm not scared of a gun kept in it's proper place either, since it can't jump up and shot me.

I am afraid of intruders though, because there is a much larger likelihood of me waking up with a stanger standing over me, than a manta ray.

The fear of an intruder in no way rules my life, but, yeah, I'd prefer to be prepared, not with an arsenal, but a pistol would be fine.

0 Replies

Chai wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
No, because I don't have a gun in the house. A gun is far more likely to injure my kids than an intruder is.

I've taken other measures to protect my family.

How is a gun that is not accessible to children more likely to injure them than a intruder that you don't know, and could be capable of anything?

You keep a gun in a place where a child cannot possibly get to it, but where you can.

How is a gun to which a child does not have ready access going to help with an intruder who is "rushing at you," as you earlier posited, or when awaking to find an intruder standing over you?

0 Replies

Good post, Chai.

Here in BC if a criminal in entering your house illegally, say by a 3rd storey open window, and he hurts himself, say by falling out said window, the homeowner is liable. If he cuts himself on glass that he broke getting in, he can sue you, for Pete's sake!

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

osd
Quote:
Criminals are unaffected by gun laws
. Unless we make them affected by severer laws against irresponsible purchase and ownership.

Lemme get this straight:
u believe that the criminals who willingly & habitually ignore the laws
against robbery & murder will obey anti-gun laws if those laws r severe enuf ?
Is that your position ?

Quote:

Your Botany Bay and Devils Island parallels are far fetched and unworkable.

Y and how, pray tell, r thay unworkable ?
Where there is a WILL there is a way.

IF thay r unworkable,
we still have Alcatraz and its progeny
thru whose use we can accomplish the goal
of isolating recidivisticly violent criminals from the decent citizens.

David

0 Replies

A MAN 's HOME IS HIS CASTLE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know