Georgia Castle Doctrine details

N

Neal in GA

New member
I know castle doctrine removes duty to retreat. I have a specific incident that happened merely a few days ago. I know what my actions would have been had things turned out a bit differently, but I don't know if they would have been legal. The short version is I heard a guy trying to break into my house through a window, grabbed my shotgun, flipped on a light, and headed down the hall towards the window. He wasn't there (must have seen the light and wisely bugged out). If I'd turned the corner and the SOB was right there trying to open the window, I would have shot him. He would have been outside the home, and he wouldn't have had time to show any real threat to me besides the obvious threat of trying to break into my house at 3am. I know morally I would have been justified in the shooting had it occurred. Would I have been legally?
 
I live in GA also, and I think you would have had a legal problem if you shot him while he was outside your home.

If he had been inside, I think you would have been OK, assuming you felt your life was at risk.
 
In Texas you would have been justified to use force or deadly force as the BG has "touched" your property and made and attempt to enter your habitation.

Couple of months ago I guy got shot in Dallas because (they say) their neighbour was harrasing his wife earlier. He went over to the neighbour's house at night and kicked the door several times. The home owner panicked and shot the guy through the door. The owner has not been charged as far as I know altough the guy who was drunk by the way never enterred his home.
 
So, legally, I would have had to stand there, waited for the guy to actually enter the home, then shot him? That very well may be the case, and I'm glad it didn't come to that, but I would not have done so.
 
Actually, probably not:

16-3-23.
A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other´s unlawful entry into or attack upon a habitation; however, such person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner and he or she reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence;
(2) That force is used against another person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using such force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred; or
(3) The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.

16-3-23.1
Article 2 of Chapter 3 of Title 16 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to justification and excuse as a defense to certain crimes, is amended by inserting immediately following Code Section 16-3-23 a new Code section to read as follows:
"16-3-23.1.
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."

SECTION 2.
Said article is further amended by striking in its entirety Code Section 16-3-24.2, relating to immunity from prosecution and exception, and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
"16-3-24.2.
A person who uses threats or force in accordance with Code Section 16-3-21, 16-3-23, 16-3-23.1, or 16-3-24 shall be immune from criminal prosecution therefor unless in the use of deadly force, such person utilizes a weapon the carrying or possession of which is unlawful by such person under Part 2 or 3 of Article 4 of Chapter 11 of this title."
SECTION 3.
Article 1 of Chapter 11 of Title 51 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to general provisions relative to defense to tort actions, is amended by striking in its entirety Code Section 51-11-9, relating to immunity from civil liability for threat or use of force in defense of a habitation, and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
"51-11-9.
A person who is justified in threatening or using force against another under the provisions of 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 from the use of such force and shall not be held liable to the person against whom the use of force was justified or to any person acting as an accomplice or assistant to such person in any civil action brought as a result of the threat or use of such force."

SECTION 4.
All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed.
 
I would have called the police first, and kept all lights off. Why would you want to wander about in a lit up house so they can see you from the dark outside while you can't see them? Wait in the dark behind cover. If he comes in with an arm or so, aim for the head. If you miss he will run away. If you hit, good for you. Cops will arrive. He is done either way.
 
Well, I'm not your average joe schmo. I'm not Mr. SF elite ninja, but I am infantry and do have a pretty fair amount of urban combat training. I live in a pretty rural area, and the cops have a very long response time around here. For another reason, I have two roommates who were asleep. I couldn't get to them and ensure their safety bumping around in the dark. I turned on my reading lamp in my room. I didn't light up the whole house, just enough for me to see to get down the hallway to my roommates. The window the guy was trying to get in was along this hallway. I wasn't going to just sit in my room hoping the bad guy didn't come get me, or worse yet, go for my roommates who aren't gun owners.

Thanks, Whyte. It's pretty clear 16-2-23 (3) would have certainly applied here if nothing else did. Honestly, legality never entered my mind. It was find the threat and eliminate it. Only on further reflection after I'd cleared the house and the perimeter did I even consider legal implications if I had shot the guy through the window.
 
Thanks, Whyte. It's pretty clear 16-2-23 (3) would have certainly applied here if nothing else did.
Click to expand...
That's the one I considered too. The only legal question in your situation would seem to be whether you had reason to believe "the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein." Given the facts as you stated them, I can think of many reasons why YOU would reasonably believe the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein, such as burglary, murder, arson, whatever. However, the situation might be different if the intruder had walked through an open door while saying, "Is anyone home?" Less likely a jury would find his conduct indicative of felonious intent. He could be a new neighbor stopping by to chat. In other words, 16-2-23 (3) isn't a blank check to go blasting. (Not that you would, but I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea.)
Honestly, legality never entered my mind. It was find the threat and eliminate it.
Click to expand...
Being ex-military myself, I understand what you're saying. It takes some effort to change that mindset, but it's worth doing. Unless a family member is being threatened or at risk of being threatened, the wife, son, and I are gonna go into barricade mode. The BG can rumage around while I call the cops. That's their job, so I'll delegate to them.

If the BG gets away with some of my stuff, that sucks but it's not the end of the world. However, if I go searching for him and he's luckier that day than I am, it is the end of my world.

If he breaks into my barricaded room, where my wife, son, and I are armed and ready, chances are it will be his unlucky day.
 
In NC you can shoot them through the door to prevent unlawful entry into "the castle" but once inside you are supposed to determine intent. If you determine they intend serious bodily injury or death then deadly force is once again allowed. Rather strange how our lawmakers came up with that:confused:
 
Isn't B&E a felony? And yeah, I don't know if things would have been different had it not been for my roommates. I probably still would have gone into infantry mode. When something stressful happens like that, you always revert to your training. It would have had to be a funny sight though - a skinny white guy (6'2 160) moving down the hallway tactically in boxers with an 870. I'm just really glad things worked out the way they did so that this is a what if thread instead of an "I just shot a guy in the face with 00 buck from 2 ft away" thread. I have all the time in the world to reflect on it now. I just hope that guy doesn't come back, or worse yet, break into someone else's home who isn't prepared with an intent to cause bodily harm. I'm not sure what his intentions are, but I don't think he was attempting to get through a window at 3am for a social call. I wasn't going to give him the chance to explain.
 
If the retard comes back, try to keep the lights off while the cops arrive. The retard needs to be caught. If he comes again, he will keep coming until he gets what he wants. Maybe that behavior alone comes with a licence to kill for you.
 
live in GA also, and I think you would have had a legal problem if you shot him while he was outside your home.

If he had been inside, I think you would have been OK, assuming you felt your life was at risk.
Click to expand...

You might live in GA, but you obviously don't know jack about GA law, regarding the application of lethal force. In the scenario described by the OP, he'd have been perfectly within his rights to have fired at the intruder.
 
Yes I realize that AlleyKat. I read the thread a few days ago. My mis-statement was subsequently corrected by other posters. I guess I should have edited by previous comments. Why did you have to be such a ****head about it though?
 
My error was in not reading the corrections of the other posters, but rather just addressing the fallacy of your "given with total authority" advice. My apologies for not realizing that somebody else had already pointed out your silliness. :cool:
 
Wow, life must be tough for you Alleykat, if you think anything said in an internet forum is given with total authority...

If you go back and look at my post, I said "I think you would have had a legal problem... "

How do you possibly get "total authority" from a statement qualified with the phrase "I think"??? "I think" in that context means that is what I believed at the time, but it might not be true, just based on the best of my knowledge, which in this case was obviously lacking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top