Posted: 1/11/2013 4:38:23 AM EDT
|
DEKALB COUNTY, GA (CBS ATLANTA) -
Full story at: http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/20557475/dekalb-county-homeowner-shoots-burglar
A Decatur man fired his shotgun and hit a burglar who had broken into his home Thursday afternoon. It is the latest incident of homeowners protecting themselves from criminals McRae fired off one round and struck the burglar in the chest. The suspect was taken to a local hospital, where DeKalb police said he was in critical condition late Thursday. "I hit him," said McRae. "I knew I did. I meant to." There is a lot of discussion on-line about the proper shot to use for home defense (00 vs. slug vs. birdshot). I guess it really does not matter with a 12 gauge at 6 feet. Any size shot will still be a .73” diameter, 1.5’ long lead rod (shot string). I love the line: "I hit him. I knew I did. I meant to." If this keeps up, someone might start to believe that the best defense against a bad guy is a good guy with a gun. |
|
Props to the old man but: 1. I'd try and upgrade that carry piece. 2. I'd be mindful of what statement I make to the media. Just because you're cleared of criminal charges, any use of force critical event can have civil suit consequences regardless of circumstances. Lots of people that would try and see a payday at your expense and statements like those he made could be used and exaggerated in civil proceedings. |
|
Quoted:
Props to the old man but: 1. I'd try and upgrade that carry piece. 2. I'd be mindful of what statement I make to the media. Just because you're cleared of criminal charges, any use of force critical event can have civil suit consequences regardless of circumstances. Lots of people that would try and see a payday at your expense and statements like those he made could be used and exaggerated in civil proceedings. Georgia's castle doctrine provides immunity from civil suit in self defense situations when the shooter has been cleared of any wrong doing. As long as it's ruled that he acted in self-defense, he's covered. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Props to the old man but: 1. I'd try and upgrade that carry piece. 2. I'd be mindful of what statement I make to the media. Just because you're cleared of criminal charges, any use of force critical event can have civil suit consequences regardless of circumstances. Lots of people that would try and see a payday at your expense and statements like those he made could be used and exaggerated in civil proceedings. Georgia's castle doctrine provides immunity from civil suit in self defense situations when the shooter has been cleared of any wrong doing. As long as it's ruled that he acted in self-defense, he's covered. If that accurate? I thought the only way for it to be"ruled" self defense is if a grand jury our a court says not guilty. Just because you aren't charged with murder, man slaughter, what ever just means the DA didn't charge you. It doesn't mean they can't file civil court right? I am really not 100% sure here just thought this was the way dking explained it a long time ago. And that was why it was better to be charged with the crime and the grand jury not endighting you, then it was for the DA to just decide to not prosecute you |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Props to the old man but: 1. I'd try and upgrade that carry piece. 2. I'd be mindful of what statement I make to the media. Just because you're cleared of criminal charges, any use of force critical event can have civil suit consequences regardless of circumstances. Lots of people that would try and see a payday at your expense and statements like those he made could be used and exaggerated in civil proceedings. Georgia's castle doctrine provides immunity from civil suit in self defense situations when the shooter has been cleared of any wrong doing. As long as it's ruled that he acted in self-defense, he's covered. If that accurate? I thought the only way for it to be"ruled" self defense is if a grand jury our a court says not guilty. Just because you aren't charged with murder, man slaughter, what ever just means the DA didn't charge you. It doesn't mean they can't file civil court right? I am really not 100% sure here just thought this was the way dking explained it a long time ago. And that was why it was better to be charged with the crime and the grand jury not endighting you, then it was for the DA to just decide to not prosecute you Seth - I finally found the GA code for this. It took me a bit because the dang thing is burried in another section TITLE 51. TORTS
CHAPTER 11. DEFENSES TO TORT ACTIONS ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS O.C.G.A. § 51-11-9 (2013) § 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. For the record, Sections 16-3-21,23,24 are Georgia's castle doctrine. Hope this helps! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Props to the old man but: 1. I'd try and upgrade that carry piece. 2. I'd be mindful of what statement I make to the media. Just because you're cleared of criminal charges, any use of force critical event can have civil suit consequences regardless of circumstances. Lots of people that would try and see a payday at your expense and statements like those he made could be used and exaggerated in civil proceedings. Georgia's castle doctrine provides immunity from civil suit in self defense situations when the shooter has been cleared of any wrong doing. As long as it's ruled that he acted in self-defense, he's covered. If that accurate? I thought the only way for it to be"ruled" self defense is if a grand jury our a court says not guilty. Just because you aren't charged with murder, man slaughter, what ever just means the DA didn't charge you. It doesn't mean they can't file civil court right? I am really not 100% sure here just thought this was the way dking explained it a long time ago. And that was why it was better to be charged with the crime and the grand jury not endighting you, then it was for the DA to just decide to not prosecute you Seth - I finally found the GA code for this. It took me a bit because the dang thing is burried in another section TITLE 51. TORTS
CHAPTER 11. DEFENSES TO TORT ACTIONS ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS O.C.G.A. § 51-11-9 (2013) § 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. For the record, Sections 16-3-21,23,24 are Georgia's castle doctrine. Hope this helps! Probably bearing a dead house here...... But to be found "justified" doesn't that mean that you have to actually be found justified as on the grand jury or jury of your peers find you justified? Not just the DA didn't prosecute you? |