Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Georgia Concealed Carry Holder Stops What Would Have Been A Multiple Victim Shooting

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    The Atlanta Urinal & Constipation article

    http://www.ajc.com/services/content/...7&cxcat=13

    The comment linked from John R. Lott's 'blog http://www.freespeech.com/?p=554

    And Dr. Lott's comment is the 'Subject:' line.

    Sorry about the long AJC URL but I don't browse where I don't know the destination URL, as from 'TinyURL'.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA/GOP *******

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    So, to summarize the story from the story's standpoint:

    "There are lots and lots and lots of murders, and the lastest one was committed by a man carrying a gun who saved his life and the lives of others. Yup, lots and lots of homocides here..."

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Mag-bayonettes!, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,407

    Post imported post

    ...if he had a permit he's allowed to carry in a bar from what I gather from:
    O.C.G.A. § 16-11-127
    Carrying deadly weapons to or at public gatherings; affirmative defenses


    (a) Except as provided in Code Section 16-11-127.1, a person is guilty of a misdemeanor when he or she carries to or while at a public gathering any explosive compound, firearm, or knife designed for the purpose of offense and defense.

    (b) For the purpose of this Code section, "public gathering" shall include, but shall not be limited to, athletic or sporting events, churches or church functions, political rallies or functions, publicly owned or operated buildings, or establishments at which alcoholic beverages are sold for consumption on the premises. Nothing in this Code section shall otherwise prohibit the carrying of a firearm in any other public place by a person licensed or permitted to carry such firearm by this part.
    Unless there's an exception I'm missing.
    -Unrequited

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Mag-bayonettes!, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,407

    Post imported post

    also thankfully he's got this working for him:

    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.
    -Unrequited

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Oley, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    221

    Post imported post

    Bravo good play on words.

    I wonder how many other justified homicides there were?

    With this logic does it count the deer hit by passing motorist?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    "This just emphasizes what I have been saying for a long time: We need more police out there on the street," said Lorraine Green, a county commissioner who is running for county chair in 2008.
    More police? Bad guys know how to locate a policeman. If 50% of all citizens were armed, they might not be so lucky to pick the "right" ones to victimize. I mean, isn't that what this story was about?

    Oh wait. They're not releasing the name of the guy who defended himself. That means it probably WAS a policeman.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Demarest wrote:
    Oh wait. They're not releasing the name of the guy who defended himself. That means it probably WAS a policeman.
    Or maybe he's a civilian who has now "disappeared" for doing what the police are "supposed to do"...

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    unrequited wrote:
    ...if he had a permit he's allowed to carry in a bar from what I gather from:
    O.C.G.A. § 16-11-127
    Carrying deadly weapons to or at public gatherings; affirmative defenses


    (a) Except as provided in Code Section 16-11-127.1, a person is guilty of a misdemeanor when he or she carries to or while at a public gathering any explosive compound, firearm, or knife designed for the purpose of offense and defense.

    (b) For the purpose of this Code section, "public gathering" shall include, but shall not be limited to, athletic or sporting events, churches or church functions, political rallies or functions, publicly owned or operated buildings, or establishments at which alcoholic beverages are sold for consumption on the premises. Nothing in this Code section shall otherwise prohibit the carrying of a firearm in any other public place by a person licensed or permitted to carry such firearm by this part.
    Unless there's an exception I'm missing.
    unrequited, I am not sure if you mistyped, but it isa crime to carry into an establishment at which alcohol is sold for consumption. That includes restaurants and bars, and that is what the public gathering law you quote states.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    unrequited wrote:
    also thankfully he's got this working for him:

    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.
    Unfortunately, there is a little quirk you are missing.



    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.



    Because the carrying was unlawful infer part 3 of article 4 (this is where the public gathering law is), our brave citizen loses his immunity from criminal prosecution. He still had no duty to retreat (there never has been one in Georgia), but he will not have immunity.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Stand your Ground



    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.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    In an interesting twist of law, however, he may keep his immunity from a civil lawsuit. See below.

    O.C.G.A. § 51-11-9
    Immunity from civil liability for threat or use of force in defense of habitation

    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.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    251

    Post imported post

    Malum Prohibitum wrote:
    In an interesting twist of law, however, he may keep his immunity from a civil lawsuit.* See below.

    O.C.G.A. § 51-11-9
    Immunity from civil liability for threat or use of force in defense of habitation

    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.
    My goodness that is a great law.

    And unreq, it says "otherwise prohibit" in any "other public place" :?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •