GA's new "Shoot First" Law

[1*girl]

*I apologize in advance if this has been a thread before.*

Tomorrow, the "Shoot First" law (the one where people no longer have a legal duty to flee from a dangerous situation, but can whip out a gun and start firing because they are in fear ) goes into effect here in Georgia. Personally, I have my own opinions against this law, but I was just curious as to what everyone else here thought about it. Also, what other states have this?

[Ducky]

I think Florida does, and I haven't heard of it causing a lot of trouble there. Anyone else?

[TXCharlie]

WWNS (What Would Norm Say?)

I think this is it:
http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2...text/sb396.htm
http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegisla...aspx?ID=2170-L

Looks good to me - I particularly like the civil immunity.

From my non-LEO viewpoint, retreating from a gun is a good way to get shot in the back, under some circumstances. The victim should decide, not Sarah Brady. If the victim gets shot trying to defend him or herself, or shoots an innocent, then that's on them - they shoulda got some training.
.

[Retdetsgt]

In all my years of working as an LEO in a liberal state, I cannot recall ever charging a citizen for shooting instead of fleeing..... Sounds like a feel good law to me.

[Piggybank Cop]

How about shot for bad manners.

Why in the hell to we have all these rules/laws that give everything to the pos bad guys?

If you are polite and have good manners you have nothing to worry about from the good guys.

[FishTail]

Umm...if someone pointed a gun at me, damn right I'd shoot first. So the hyperbole and hysterics are just that. How about we use "castle doctrine" or "no retreat"?

I think that all this law does is remove any obligation to retreat. That means that if I don't think it's a good idea to back out then I don't have to. It means that choosing not to retreat won't render your use of force unreasonable. Remember though that though you don't have to retreat and can use force it's not always the best option.

I fail to see where this "whip out a gun and start shooting because you're in fear thing comes from". If I'm in fear for my life I can use lethal force. That's British law, and you know what we're like! You can't really have it any other way.

In my (legally educated) opinion, all this law does is redefine what is reasonable or unreasonable by creating a ststutory presumption in law.

What's the big deal?

[Julie]

1sgkelly, back in the day there wasnt all this mess of perps rights and sensitivity training and coddling them all like babies , but times changed and common sense went out the window and now its all book sense .. lawmakers dont care , they have money perks and benefits and couldnt careless about anything other than themselves ...

[Norm357]

I think the law is a good idea but I have to add, I have never heard of a person being charged in a good self defense shooting, and I keep up with such things.

[Retdetsgt]

I think the law is a good idea but I have to add, I have never heard of a person being charged in a good self defense shooting, and I keep up with such things.

Me neither. I never heard of a law that said people have to flee first before shooting....

[TXCharlie]

Nor I, actually... I've heard of a few marginal ones around here where charges were filed but the Grand Jury declined to indict (such as the Tood Broom case, where Broom saw a gunman shoot a woman in the head in an Irving parking lot, so he chased the guy down and killed him) - but the "castle doctrine" wouldn't have made any difference, since the Grand Jury considered it justified anyway.

[Retdetsgt]

The DA probably took that one to the G.J. just to cover his ass and then leaned on them not to indict. It would be an unwinnable case in court anyway.

[GarcoDeputy]

Everyone duck!!!!!

[TheOldRhino]

I think this was more of a deterrent law than anything else, and as Ret so aptly put it, a "feel good law" to allow a citizen to feel less fearful of prosecution for protecting themselves- which isn't that uncommon.

Yes, there haven't been too many people charged in a good self-defense shooting, but how many more have not shot and wound hurt or killed (in and out of law enforcement) because they were affraid of the legal ramifications of shooting?

Tomorrow, the "Shoot First" law goes into effect here in Georgia.

Actually the law has been nicknamed the "Stand your ground" law, since that's what your doing. To call it a "Shoot First" law makes no sense- because depending on how good of a shot each participant is, he who shoots first will probably win.

Personally, I have my own opinions against this law, but I was just curious as to what everyone else here thought about it.

Why would you be against a citizen standing their ground to protect the life, liberty, or property of themselves or another person?

[Norm357]

I wanted to add the we here in GA, have never had an obligation to retreat before defending ourselves. This new law just clarifies that.

[1*girl]

Actually the law has been nicknamed the "Stand your ground" law, since that's what your doing. To call it a "Shoot First" law makes no sense- because depending on how good of a shot each participant is, he who shoots first will probably win.

Centurion44---I personally am not nicknaming it "Shoot first". I am just calling it what I saw it called on the Channel 2 news website.

Why would you be against a citizen standing their ground to protect the life, liberty, or property of themselves or another person?

I'm not against a citizen standing their ground to protect the life, liberty, or property of themselves or another person. When I saw that story, I guess I just immediately thought of the retards I know that don't need access to any weapon.

[TheOldRhino]

Centurion44---I personally am not nicknaming it "Shoot first". I am just calling it what I saw it called on the Channel 2 news website.

Not saying you gave it that nickname. But now that you tell me it's a name that was given to it by the liberal biased media, I'm not the least bit surprised.

I'm not against a citizen standing their ground to protect the life, liberty, or property of themselves or another person. When I saw that story, I guess I just immediately thought of the retards I know that don't need access to any weapon.

Well, until they are convicted a felony, they have that right. Personally I think gun safety should be taught in our schools. But God-forbid, that would go against the "zero tolerance" policies in our pubic schools. And heaven forbid our children be taught common sense. But I'm not bitter.

[TXCharlie]

Personally I think gun safety should be taught in our schools. But God-forbid, that would go against the "zero tolerance" policies in our pubic schools. And heaven forbid our children be taught common sense. But I'm not bitter.

+1 - Yes, heaven forbid teaching of gun safety, common sense, ethics, and morals. That would be favoring a particular lifestyle, which they cannot endorse over a more free and open lifestyle...

I think I'm about to make myself puke