Georgia Self Defense Laws

[Jank]

If you don't mind would somebody please elaborate on how this is classified? If someone punches me in the face and I get my gun out of the trunk and shoot the guy down is that self defense?

What if I get into an altercation and a guy pulls a gun but doesn't fire, but I get my gun and shoot him down is that self defense?

Not planning to kill anybody unless anarchy reigns the states which hopefully never happens but was always curious as to how Georgia works this.

 

[mikeh25]

If you don't mind would somebody please elaborate on how this is classified? If someone punches me in the face and I get my gun out of the trunk and shoot the guy down is that self defense?

What if I get into an altercation and a guy pulls a gun but doesn't fire, but I get my gun and shoot him down is that self defense?

Not planning to kill anybody unless anarchy reigns the states which hopefully never happens but was always curious as to how Georgia works this.

IANAL.

Generally, if you leave a scene of a assault to "get" a firearm and return and use the firearm, you are comitting murder.

No specifically titled "Self Defence" laws in Georgia.

Got to http://www.georgiapacking.org for lots of info on this topic.

Here is some Georgia Law with emphasis added by underlining and definitions at the end:

O.C.G.A. § 16-3-21

Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution


(a) 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 defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(b) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in subsection (a) of this Code section if he:

(1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;

(2) Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or

(3) Was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so and the other, notwithstanding, continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.

(c) Any rule, regulation, or policy of any agency of the state or any ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, or policy of any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state which is in conflict with this Code section shall be null, void, and of no force and effect.

(d) In a prosecution for murder or manslaughter, if a defendant raises as a defense a justification provided by subsection (a) of this Code section, the defendant, in order to establish the defendant's reasonable belief that the use of force or deadly force was immediately necessary, may be permitted to offer:

(1) Relevant evidence that the defendant had been the victim of acts of family violence or child abuse committed by the deceased, as such acts are described in Code Sections 19-13-1 and 19-15-1, respectively; and

(2) Relevant expert testimony regarding the condition of the mind of the defendant at the time of the offense, including those relevant facts and circumstances relating to the family violence or child abuse that are the bases of the expert's opinion.


O.C.G.A. § 16-3-23

Use of force in defense of habitation


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.


O.C.G.A. § 16-3-23.1

No duty to retreat prior to use of force in self-defense

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.


O.C.G.A. § 16-3-24.2

Immunity from prosecution; exception

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.

O.C.G.A. § 16-1-3

Definitions

As used in this title, the term:

(3) "Another" means a person or persons other than the accused.

(5) "Felony" means a crime punishable by death, by imprisonment for life, or by imprisonment for more than 12 months.

(6) "Forcible felony" means any felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any person.

(10) "Owner" means a person who has a right to possession of property which is superior to that of a person who takes, uses, obtains, or withholds it from him and which the person taking, using, obtaining, or withholding is not privileged to infringe.

(12) "Person" means an individual, a public or private corporation, an incorporated association, government, government agency, partnership, or unincorporated association.

(13) "Property" means anything of value, including but not limited to real estate, tangible and intangible personal property, contract rights, services, choses in action, and other interests in or claims to wealth, admission or transportation tickets, captured or domestic animals, food and drink, and electric or other power.

(16) "Reasonable belief" means that the person concerned, acting as a reasonable man, believes that the described facts exist.

 

[SteelRinger]

If you don't mind would somebody please elaborate on how this is classified? If someone punches me in the face and I get my gun out of the trunk and shoot the guy down is that self defense?

No that is murder.

What if I get into an altercation and a guy pulls a gun but doesn't fire, but I get my gun and shoot him down is that self defense?

That is justifiable. He pulled a weapon. You cannot read his mind to determine that he doesn't intend to fire. As soon as the weapon is pulled, you are justified (in most cases)


Just to be clear, each situation is different and the ones you described are a little vague.

Basically, you can use deadly force to deter or stop a violent crime (rape, murder, armed robbery, etc.) but if you shoot someone who is only committing a misdemeanor (shoplifting, simple assult, etc.) then you better have a good lawyer.

 

[woodstock]

Good info, spells it out quite well.
As I read it, if there is imminent threat you are allowed to defend yourself. I assume breaking into a house is felony?

 

[Jank]

Ok, say a guy strikes me in the face, then I go get my gun from my car or my house and come back to the scene but don't shoot. He attacks me again while my gun is on my hip concealed and I shoot him but not kill him. What is that considered you guys think?

 

[gyppo]

I have a slightly different opinion If you shoot someone for any reason, you should have a good lawyer.
If a criminal was killing your last of 8 family members, in your house and you shoot them, and then say the wrong thing you could be facing charges.

 

[VHinch]

Ok, say a guy strikes me in the face, then I go get my gun from my car or my house and come back to the scene but don't shoot. He attacks me again while my gun is on my hip concealed and I shoot him but not kill him. What is that considered you guys think?

It's considered a very bad idea. You got away from the situation, stay away from it. Why in the hell would you go back?

 

[Jank]

It's considered a very bad idea. You got away from the situation, stay away from it. Why in the hell would you go back?

Because Ima thug, joking but what if I'm somewhere I NEED to be and this happens and I come back with my weapon and the person starts attacking me again. For the record I would most likely put my trees up and slug it out because Im still pretty young and strong but I always wondered how this works. I don't want to shoot anybody though.

 

[VHinch]

The problem you're getting into is that by getting into an altercation, leaving to get a weapon and then returning is going to demonstrate intent and you're going to be lucky to avoid prison. Carrying a weapon and having the ability to take a person's life is a huge responsibility, and with that responsibility comes the need to be the bigger man in a situation like this one and simply walk away. Getting into any kind of altercation you could have avoided while carrying a firearm is simply foolish.

 

[JHV2]

I come back with my weapon ....

I think this is where you would get into trouble in your hypothetical situation. I thing the prosecution's argument would be something like this: The second time you felt in fear of your life so you shot. You armed yourself specifically because you expected this threat to be there. You expected it because you had the confrontation before. However, you did not report the threat from the first meeting. Instead returned to the expected threat, now "ready to handle it".

The argument would be much different if you had your weapon the first time and did not see the need to "use" it, or report the threat. You return, arguably because you did not expect the threat to be greater. However, the second time it was, and you acted with force.

The question you will have to answer to both is "why did you return to a dangerous place, and why didn't you report the danger" but in the second scenario you do not show any pre-meditaiton to be "ready, this time".

"So I came back with my gun" -- is gonna do you in every time.