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

Doug Huffman · Oct 23, 2007

imported post

The Atlanta Urinal & Constipation article

http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/gwinnett/stories/2007/10/18/barshooting_1019.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=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 KMA$$

imperialism2024 · Oct 23, 2007

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 [sub][sup]who saved his life and the lives of others.[/sup][/sub] Yup, lots and lots of homocides here..."

unrequited · Oct 23, 2007

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 · Oct 23, 2007

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.

WhiteFeather · Oct 23, 2007

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?

Demarest · Oct 23, 2007

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?:lol: 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.

imperialism2024 · Oct 23, 2007

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"...

Malum Prohibitum · Oct 23, 2007

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Malum Prohibitum · Oct 23, 2007

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Malum Prohibitum · Oct 23, 2007

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.

Malum Prohibitum · Oct 23, 2007

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.

nickerj1 · Oct 24, 2007

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" :?

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

Doug Huffman

Banned

imperialism2024

Regular Member

unrequited

Regular Member

unrequited

Regular Member

WhiteFeather

Regular Member

Demarest

Regular Member

imperialism2024

Regular Member

Malum Prohibitum

Regular Member

Malum Prohibitum

Regular Member

Malum Prohibitum

Regular Member

Malum Prohibitum

Regular Member

nickerj1

Regular Member