Atlanta Journal-Constitution Editorial: Armed and Extremely Dangerous

[brooklynite]

Armed and extremely dangerous

Published on: 03/28/06

With the passage of the "shoot first" bill by the Legislature, the "Welcome to Georgia" signs on the interstates need an addendum: "Are you looking at me?"

If visitors are looking, they'd better be smiling from this point forward. The loosely worded "stand your ground" bill, about to become law here, allows Georgians to respond to threats — real and perceived — with deadly force.

In passing the bill, Georgia becomes the third Southern state — after Florida and Mississippi — to obey the marching orders from the National Rifle Association. Georgia's "shoot first" law says that the use of deadly force is justified when someone "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another."

...snip...

In an election year, Georgia lawmakers voted for the dangerous "shoot first" bill to convey a message of cooperation to the NRA.

Too bad legislators didn't care about the message they sent to Georgia's children — that violence should be their first resort.

[rodeodance]

1. part of the 'preemption" doctrine mentality.

[rfranklin]

2. It is designed to promote the sale of guns...

Because they know if they create the fear that you will shoot me, I will arm myself. Follow the money, as they say.

[Dhalgren]

3. "Preemptive assault"...fits right in with who we are as a nation.

We can't stand the idea of two men living in a long-term, loving relationship, but two strangers gunning each other down in the street, we make legal. I am coming to the conclusion that "America" no longer has the right to exist as a nation. We should bust this sick mother up and try managing smaller "polities" - this just ain't working any more...

[benEzra]

4. They didn't read the law, I see...full text of the law here:

at this link:

http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/fulltext/sb396.htm

The criteria for what constitutes justifiable self-defense appear to be unchanged by this law, and it also appears that the new law does not even change Georgia's Castle Doctrine status (Georgia was already a castle doctrine state, just like most other states including Massachusetts and California). Georgia self-defense law would still include the provision that the threat of death or serious bodily harm must be legitimate (i.e., "reasonable" in lawyer-speak). You CANNOT shoot someone just because you "feel threatened," regardless of what Bradyite press releases may claim to the contrary.

Assuming SB396 represents the law as passed, it appears the new law merely clarifies the fact that if you are facing an actual attack likely to cause death or serious bodily harm, you are not required to turn your back to the threat and try to run away first before you are allowed to defend yourself. (In most states this is already law, it's just not so clearly stated.) The new Georgia law also states that if you shoot someone and that shooting is ruled justifiable (i.e., you were indeed being violently attacked and you lawfully defended yourself), the person who attacked you cannot later sue you for shooting to stop his attack.

Here are the basic criteria for what constitutes justifiable self-defense nationwide, including Florida, Georgia, and other "stand your ground" states. I'll quote from Steve Johnson, Concealed Carry Handgun Training, North Carolina Justice Academy, 1995, pp. 3-4 (the laws in Georgia are similar, but this is the best wording I've found):

(1) Justified Self-Defense

A citizen is legally justified in using deadly force against another if and only if:

(a) The citizen actually believes deadly force is necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, AND

(b) The facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force WAS necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, AND

(c) The citizen using deadly force was not an instigator or aggressor who voluntarily provoked, entered, or continued the conflict leading to deadly force, AND

(d) Force used was not excessive -- greater than reasonably needed to overcome the threat posed by a hostile aggressor."

(Emphasis added.)

Note that ALL FOUR conditions must be met in order for a shooting to be ruled justifiable. Note especially letter (b) above, which is the "reasonable person test"; contrary to Bradyite press releases, "feeling threatened" by someone else is NOT justification for the use of lethal force. The belief must be reasonable, i.e. "the facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force WAS necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault." The new law does not change these criteria, it just made it clear that there is not subjective duty to attempt to outrun your attacker if all the other criteria are met.

Florida, and most other states (likely including Georgia) also authorize potentially-lethal force to stop the commission of a forcible felony as defined by statute; in most states, this includes kidnapping, armed robbery, aggravated assault (i.e., assault likely or intended to maim or cause serious bodily harm and that could result in death), etc. But again, "feeling threatened" is not enough; you must be in legitimate fear of death or serious bodily harm.

It should also be noted that innocent-until-proven-guilty does NOT apply to self-defense shootings. A claim of self defense is what is known as an affirmative defense in legal terms, i.e. the burden of proof is on the person defending herself/himself to demonstrate that the shooting was, in fact, justified; for this reason, questionable self-defense shootings are more likely to go against the shooter than in her/his favor.

I personally don't understand why these laws are being so misreported (Florida's law passed the Florida Senate UNANIMOUSLY, folks) unless it's just that hysteria sells newspapers better than rational discussions of rather obscure legal issues--or that the anti-self-defense lobby needed a new fundraising gimmick, after their crusade against protruding handgrips on rifle stocks fell flat.

[OldCurmudgeon]

7. they sure use some odd terms down there...

...would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force WAS necessary...

Ordinary firmness? Is this a legal term? Or was it put in the law at the request of lobbyists for Viagra?

And no, I don't want to know how judges are supposed to determine whether someone's firmness is ordinary.

[katty]

5. he looked at me cockeyed..so i shot 'em!..arrogant a-holes

[benEzra]

6. That'd be second-degree murder under the new law...

as well as under the old.

Did you read the law?

[katty]

8. yes