# If someone breaks into my house do I have the right to kill them?



## Kidone (Jul 9, 2013)

I have none lethal ammo for home defense I was just wondering by the way I live in GA


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Kidone said:


> I have none lethal ammo for home defense I was just wondering by the way I live in GA


What is "none lethal ammo"? (I think you mean non-lethal). Serious, what ammo is that?

In answer to your question, that is going to depend upon the laws of Georgia regarding the use of deadly force. This does vary from state to state so don't accept a pat answer from someone on the web until you have been able to positively confirm it. Good sources are researching case law in your state, consulting with an attorney who has experience in these matters, taking a quality course of the use of deadly force in your state, and checking some other websites. Here is one to use as a starter;

Georgia Gun Laws in Plain English on GeorgiaPacking.org

Do your homework. Spend some time researching this. You WILL find answers if you look.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Generally speaking, and not being able to specifically answer for Georgia or any other state...
You only have "the right" to kill a person, if and when you are—or someone else who cannot protect himself is—directly threatened by serious bodily harm or death from a person (or animal) who is lethally armed or who otherwise exhibits an overwhelming disparity of force.
Generally speaking, you cannot kill someone just because that someone is within your home or business while uninvited and unwanted. Generally speaking, you can't even kill someone for stealing your stuff while you're watching the theft take place.

A detective for LAPD, a neighbor of mine when I lived in Southern California, heard his car alarm go off, one night.
He went outside, armed, to see what was going on. A guy had broken into the car, and was removing the cop's very expensive stereo outfit from his car's dashboard by means of a wrench and a very large screwdriver.
The cop displayed his badge and gun, and told the thief to stop.
The thief saw the cop, and the badge, and the gun, but calmly continued his work. When he was finished, he took the stereo and his tools and, carefully keeping his back to the cop, got into a waiting getaway car driven by someone else. They drove away, leaving the frustrated cop and his gravely injured car behind.
"I couldn't shoot the guy," the cop later told me, "because he never made any move that I could construe to be physically threatening against me. And if I tried to arrest him, his buddy would've pounced on me, and then I'd've really been in trouble. All I could do was watch."


----------



## guardrail (May 23, 2010)

Oh brother!


----------



## hud35500 (May 8, 2010)

Don't get me started on "non-lethal" ammo!!


----------



## 45tex (May 20, 2013)

Nobody has the right to kill another person. It has to be something where they force you to protect yourself and deadly force is the result. Even then the justice system is going to look very closely at your actions and if you are not squeaky clean, hire a lawyer. When you consider the purely political justice department that exists under this regime, if they want you they will ruin your life. I.E. George Zimmerman.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

Sorry but you will not find a yes answer on this or any other forum on the internet. There are far too many variables for anyone to give one right answer. Whether to discharge ones weapon to possibly kill an intruder/attacker is a personal decision at a specific time depending on that situation. Killing someone in such a situation should be the last resort. As mentioned check your state law.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Generally speaking, and not being able to specifically answer for Georgia or any other state...
> You only have "the right" to kill a person, if and when you are-or someone else who cannot protect himself is-directly threatened by serious bodily harm or death from a person (or animal) who is lethally armed or who otherwise exhibits an overwhelming disparity of force.
> Generally speaking, you cannot kill someone just because that someone is within your home or business while uninvited and unwanted. Generally speaking, you can't even kill someone for stealing your stuff while you're watching the theft take place.
> 
> ...


*"Generally speaking, you cannot kill someone just because that someone is within your home..."*
The word "generally" is significant here because this is going to vary from state to state. This is why I strongly suggest that folks who pose questions like the OP really need to research the laws in their state when asking these types of questions. In my state, there are five felonies for which the use of deadly force can be warranted: robbery, burglary, rape, arson, and murder [think attempted]. Breaking into someone's home is a felony and one may assume the worse in their defense.

Steve;

Your detective friend could have used physical force to stop the perp from steeling his property and then if the perp responded in a threatening manner, such as using one of his tools in an aggressive manner, he would have been fair game for deadly force. You do not have to stand by and watch someone steel your property... you can use force to stop them. Of course, California is a different country so God knows what goes on there.

To reiterate, the OP really needs to see what his state laws are on this topic. I would also advise him not to use the word "kill" on websites. In the event he is ever involved in a deadly force encounter, that could come back to haunt him. The goal is to "stop" someone from their actions when that need arises.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Oh, and one more thing. Georgia is a Southern state and as such, may share a few similarities with one of its sister Southern states; my state of Virginia.

If someone breaks into your home at night, after sundown, they are a burglar and as such, fall into one of the five felonious actions subject to a deadly force response. However, if they break in during the day, they are NOT classed as a burglar but rather as a trespasser. This is significant because you may not use deadly force against trespassers unless they give reason for such a response.


----------



## high pockets (Apr 25, 2011)

Here is the relevant passage from Welcome to GeorgiaPacking.org
A person is breaking\has broken into your home in a violent and tumultuous manner, and you think that the intruder is going to assault you or someone else living there.



> *Deadly Force
> 
> 
> *There are 3 code sections that govern when lethal or deadly force may lawfully be used.
> ...





> A person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters the residence and you know it is an unlawful entry.
> 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)_ *Defense of property other than habitation;* Lethal force cannot be used to protect real property unless the person using such force reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony._(16-3-24)_
> 
> _(Stand Your Ground/Shoot First/License To Murder - went into effect July 1st, 2006)_ If you have determined you need to use lethal force _(as stated in one of the underlined "Defense" sections immediately above)_ you do not have to try to retreat before using that force. If your defense is valid, you are immune from criminal prosecution _(unless it is illegal to carry that weapon where you used it)_ and civil liability actions._(16-3-23.1, 16-3-24.2, 51-11-9)_




Please note the above information is from Georgia Packing's section on Georgia Gun Laws in Plain English. They do provide specific notations referring to the actual statutes and you should read those, as well.



​


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

SouthernBoy said:


> ...Steve; Your detective friend could have used physical force to stop the perp from steeling his property and then if the perp responded in a threatening manner, such as using one of his tools in an aggressive manner, he would have been fair game for deadly force...


Nope. Sorry.
Since the cop was off-duty, had he physically interfered with the thief he would've been causing the fight. California law does not permit you to use serious physical or deadly force to stop a theft of property.
Further, in California you have the duty to retreat, rather than to respond. You may only respond with force when you have retreated to a point at which a "reasonable man" would feel that no further retreat was possible.

I find it interesting that in California law, if someone has entered your home as a burglar (definition below), you still have the duty to retreat, and cannot defend your own property.

If I remember correctly (more than 25 years after having taken UCLA's Paralegal curriculum), California defines "burglar" according to ancient English Common Law:
A burglar is someone who enters your home _in the night_, with intent to steal property.
Home entry, even with theft, that takes place during the day is seen as a lesser crime.


----------



## rex (Jan 27, 2012)

I can't state the precedent case but in FL if an unwelcomed person enters your dwelling,including your vehicle yadayada,the State's idea is it is for ill reasons.That does not mean you just pop a cap in their butt because you still have to justify being in fear of great bodily harm or death to you or a bystander,If a crackhead charges in for a rush hit for his next hit,yeah.If dinkhead is drunk and mistakenly walks in and doesn't get beligerant because he realized the screwup,pop him and and Zimmerman ain't crap.Resaerch standing legal interpretations and case precedent on grey areas for where you are,only Fed laws are definate for everyone.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Nope. Sorry.
> Since the cop was off-duty, had he physically interfered with the thief he would've been causing the fight. California law does not permit you to use serious physical or deadly force to stop a theft of property.
> Further, in California you have the duty to retreat, rather than to respond. You may only respond with force when you have retreated to a point at which a "reasonable man" would feel that no further retreat was possible.
> 
> ...


Okay, so California law is definitely different that what we have here in Virginia in these regards... except for the definition of burglar which also comes from English Common law (as do most of our laws here). I didn't know that California still had a duty to retreat law. I did a report in college back in the 70's on firearms and their use for home defense (yes, I went to college later than many) and found that at that time, six states still had duty to retreat laws on their books.

Here, if you see someone trying to steal your car, you can use the necessary physical force to stop them. You can shove them away, pull them out of the car, push them to the ground, etc. Deadly force could only be used if they respond in a manner that warrants it. You would not be considered part of the problem or its escalation since a felony was already in progress and you were trying to stop it. Now in Texas, you can use deadly force to protect your car but only at night. Private property can be defended with deadly force here in one specific case: arson. This is because arson against an occupied dwelling is considered an attack with a deadly weapon... which, of course it is.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

rex said:


> I can't state the precedent case but in FL if an unwelcomed person enters your dwelling,including your vehicle yadayada,the State's idea is it is for ill reasons.That does not mean you just pop a cap in their butt because you still have to justify being in fear of great bodily harm or death to you or a bystander,If a crackhead charges in for a rush hit for his next hit,yeah.If dinkhead is drunk and mistakenly walks in and doesn't get beligerant because he realized the screwup,pop him and and Zimmerman ain't crap.Resaerch standing legal interpretations and case precedent on grey areas for where you are,only *Fed laws are definate for everyone.*


As far as breaking and entering, federal law doesn't apply. It also doesn't apply for stand your ground or duty to retreat situations. All of this is a state matter. This is one of the primary reasons most of us who carry do NOT want a national reciprocity law since that would involve the federal government and you can bet they would stoop to the lowest common denominator when drafting such a law. Very bad to involve the federal government in state matters.


----------



## rex (Jan 27, 2012)

Yeah,that meant only Fed law applies to everybody throughout the country,in dealing with questions like this the only correct answer will come from the laws and precedentd set in that state alone.Many states have similar or identicle laws,but I can't tell someone out of my state what their law is without reading and interpreting it.Then,I may not be entirely right because I'm not a lawyer and don't know of any case precedents they have.It would be real nice if laws were written in laymans terms,legalise can screw with you sometimes on top of the fact a few statutes can seem to counterdict each other.A lawyer versed on the subject at hand is always a prudent choice.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

rex said:


> Yeah,that meant only Fed law applies to everybody throughout the country,in dealing with questions like this the only correct answer will come from the laws and precedentd set in that state alone.Many states have similar or identicle laws,but I can't tell someone out of my state what their law is without reading and interpreting it.Then,I may not be entirely right because I'm not a lawyer and don't know of any case precedents they have.It would be real nice if laws were written in laymans terms,legalise can screw with you sometimes on top of the fact a few statutes can seem to counterdict each other.A lawyer versed on the subject at hand is always a prudent choice.


*"...but I can't tell someone out of my state what their law is without reading and interpreting it.Then,I may not be entirely right because I'm not a lawyer and don't know of any case precedents they have."*
Amen to this.

*"A lawyer versed on the subject at hand is always a prudent choice."*
Absolutely. And this is exactly what I did to gain more knowledge about my state's laws regarding the use of deadly force.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

SouthernBoy said:


> *"...but I can't tell someone out of my state what their law is without reading and interpreting it.Then,I may not be entirely right because I'm not a lawyer and don't know of any case precedents they have."*
> Amen to this.
> 
> *"A lawyer versed on the subject at hand is always a prudent choice."*
> Absolutely. And this is exactly what I did to gain more knowledge about my state's laws regarding the use of deadly force.


I find it hard to believe what Steve wrote above about California and their duty to retreat and to not use physical force when protecting property. This is not to say I don't actually believe him but that I have a hard time imagining something like this as statute, or case, law in a state in the present day. California is obviously VERY backward in this area.

Now another question for Steve.

Since you mentioned that your cop friend could not use physical force to keep some perp from stealing his car, what about something like this. A perp attacks someone for his jacket or a lady for her purse. Is the victim not allowed to fight back to keep the perp from obtaining their property? Must they succumb and relinquish their property so as not to risk injuring the perp? How does that work? How is that any different than stopping someone from stealing your car? Please excuse me with this, but I am having a hard time getting my hands around this one. It is just so foreign to me.

I well remember a young man with whom I worked in the 1960's who got his under graduate at UC Berkeley and he told me some really strange things. I was just a kid, maybe 19 or 20 and he told how there were some people in California who would not use any sort of force even in defense of their life. I found this extremely hard to imagine (and I was a liberal back then) but he assured me that these people were steadfast in their belief that any use of force or violence for any reason was taboo. Even in defense of their children. I guess that mindset still lives in that state. God knows, we don't want anything like that here in the South.


----------



## shaolin (Dec 31, 2012)

In GA there is no retreat and you are immune from prosecution if you are in your home and have just cause to shoot someone. 
The person has to come in your home in a violent and tumultuous manor. Case law has justified shooting someone in your home if they hit you.
IF someone breaks in your home while your there they are committing a violent felony and you can shoot someone in GA to stop a violent felony such as Murder,Rape,Burglary, ect...


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

SouthernBoy said:


> ...Since you [Steve] mentioned that your cop friend could not use physical force to keep some perp from stealing his car, what about something like this. A perp attacks someone for his jacket or a lady for her purse. Is the victim not allowed to fight back to keep the perp from obtaining their property? Must they succumb and relinquish their property so as not to risk injuring the perp? How does that work? How is that any different than stopping someone from stealing your car? Please excuse me with this, but I am having a hard time getting my hands around this one. It is just so foreign to me....


The "perp" wasn't stealing the car, but only the stereo from within it.
(And please remember that I took the California Paralegal course quite a long time ago.)
Obviously, were you inside your car when someone tried to take the vehicle from you _by means of force or physical threat_, you would have no distance within which to retreat. Therefore, I believe that physical force or weaponry used to defeat this attack would be justified.
The same would be true if a thief were pulling your money-laden jacket or purse from your body. Since you were "connected" to the object of the theft, you would have no duty to retreat, I believe-except that if you could easily slip free, _and if the thief were not threatening you with physical harm_, I think that you would have to let him take your property.



SouthernBoy said:


> I well remember a young man with whom I worked in the 1960's who got his under graduate at UC Berkeley and he told me some really strange things. I was just a kid, maybe 19 or 20 and he told how there were some people in California who would not use any sort of force even in defense of their life. I found this extremely hard to imagine (and I was a liberal back then) but he assured me that these people were steadfast in their belief that any use of force or violence for any reason was taboo. Even in defense of their children. I guess that mindset still lives in that state. God knows, we don't want anything like that here in the South.


It might have been that those were the people, finally adults, who wrote California's criminal codes.
It's probably too bad for the rest of us, that they survived into adulthood.

One day, a friend brought a friend of his into my leather shop. The friend's friend was one of those blithe "peace and love" optimists.
It happened that it was the end of the working day, and I was counting out the day's shop income. Therefore, the pistol I kept in the shop cashbox was fully visible (if out of reach).
The "peace and love" idiot noticed the pistol, and began a discussion about whether or not I should shoot someone who was "merely" stealing money. To make his point, he grabbed up all of the paper money that I'd been counting, and walked to the door.
"OK," he said, "I have all of your money. What are you going to do?"
So I picked up the pistol and pointed it at him.
"I don't know yet," I replied. "Why don't you try walking out the door, and we'll see?"
He very carefully walked back to my workbench and returned the money. Discussion time was evidently over.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> The "perp" wasn't stealing the car, but only the stereo from within it.
> (And please remember that I took the California Paralegal course quite a long time ago.)
> Obviously, were you inside your car when someone tried to take the vehicle from you _by means of force or physical threat_, you would have no distance within which to retreat. Therefore, I believe that physical force or weaponry used to defeat this attack would be justified.
> The same would be true if a thief were pulling your money-laden jacket or purse from your body. Since you were "connected" to the object of the theft, you would have no duty to retreat, I believe-except that if you could easily slip free, _and if the thief were not threatening you with physical harm_, I think that you would have to let him take your property.
> ...


*"...and if the thief were not threatening you with physical harm, I think that you would have to let him take your property."*
This part it just nuts. The definition of robbery is theft with the actual or implied use of force.

*"It might have been that those were the people, finally adults, who wrote California's criminal codes.
It's probably too bad for the rest of us, that they survived into adulthood."*
You've got that right. I have no sympathy or patience for that sort of mindset. The way I look it is one reaps the consequences of one's actions. Darwin should have culled the herd a little more.

Your story about your friend's weirdo friend is a good one. I have known a few people like this and frankly I don't like nor want to be around them. As a realist, I much prefer common sense and solid salt of the earth people who have their feet well grounded. Don't care for pretentious people, loud people, or showy people. I like honest people who aren't afraid of saying, "I don't know".

Thanks for answering my questions and take care there, friend.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Upon reflection, I would like to modify the following assertion:


Steve M1911A1 said:


> ..._f the thief were not threatening you with physical harm, I think that you would have to let him take your property..._


_

I believe that California law permits you to defend your property with personal, physical force, but not with weapons or deadly force.
Thus, you could use your fists on a thief who was trying to take your coat or purse, but you couldn't use a gun, or a knife, or a baseball bat.
Further, if the thief fights back successfully with his own fists, you could only escalate to a weapon if the thief were exhibiting overwhelming disparity of force, and did not stop his assault when he had successfully achieved possession of your property.

I believe that California law permits a passer-by to aid your defense of property, for instance by chasing and apprehending the successful thief. So, by extension, you, too, could chase and apprehend the thief. Except...
The problem of chasing-down a thief arises in the matter of a citizen's arrest: It has to be for a felony, and you have to have witnesses to that felony._


----------

