Understanding Stand Your Ground Laws 

Why Stand Your Ground Laws are Important for Public Safety

 Disclaimer:  We are not lawyers, never wanted to be. The following discussion is based on the GA codes cited as written. The application of the code is open to interpretation changes as cases come up for adjudication. This "case law" may result in legal interpretations by the court that are different than presented here. Consult a criminal defense attorney for the most accurate application of these laws to specific circumstances. 

Georgia's Justification for the Use of Lethal Force

With the recent and ongoing controversy stemming out of the George Zimmerman verdict, so called “Stand Your Ground” (SYG) laws have come under attack. This article will seek to clarify the legal context and implications of SYG laws on your safety as a US Citizen. To fully understand why SYG laws were entered on the books, the legal context of SYG and the implications of the repeal of SYG, we must understand the laws on the books regarding the right to self-defense of the 22 states that have SYG laws. Let us overview the laws of Georgia regarding the justified use of lethal force, which are typical.

GA Code 16-3-21.   Justifiable use of deadly force.  (2010)

(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.

 

b) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in subsection (a) of this Code section if he:

(1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;  (ergo - you picked the fight or escalated it on purpose).

(2) Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or

(3) Was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so and the other, notwithstanding, continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.

Lets parse this out for a minute. You are justified in using deadly force if your attacker intends to use sufficient force to cause great bodily injury or death, or to prevent a forcible felony. Let me  define all of these terms so we have a better understanding.

Death:                            Self explanatory

Great Bodily Injury:        According to Georgia Code § 12-5-53, great bodily injury means

                                      “bodily injury which involves a substantial risk of death,

                                       unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious

                                       disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily

                                       member, organ, or mental faculty

Forcible Felony.              A forcible felony is any felony crime that involves the use of the threat of

                                       of physical violence against another

If we think this through for a moment we realize that we have to be attacked in order to be in danger of great bodily injury or death. What constitues the "reasonable belief" requirement in the code above?  Attacks of this nature must include four elements or criteria to meet the threshold for the use of deadly force: The alleged assailant must have (1) shown intent to cause great bodily injury or death, (2), have the ability to cause great bodily harm or death, (3) have the opportunity to cause great bodily harm or death and finally, (4) to actually attempt to cause great bodily harm or death.  If you think about, the absence of any one of these four criteria means that your assailant is not a threat.  In almost all states, the presence of these four criteria are the standard which determines whether the use of deadly force is justified.

For instance, if two friends get into a fight, one could say that all four criteria are met – unless there is an agreement between the friends that the aggression will not escalate past a point where great bodily injury or death may occur. Ergo – there is no intent in this scenario nor any real threat of great bodily harm or death therefore the use of deadly force is not justified and would come under the conditions specified in (b) (3) above.

Condition (2) could be absent if for instance a 5’2” unarmed wheelchair bound man attacks a 6’4” . 250 lb man with a knife. In this case most citizens would come to the conclusion that realistically the wheel-chair bound man could not possibly impose great bodily harm or death on his intended victim. The use of deadly force against this type of attack would be ruled excessive because there is no credible threat of great bodily injury or death. An example of this would be two friend engaged in sparring in karate for practice.

Condition (3) could be absent if an acquaintance with whom you had a argument called you up and informed you that they would be coming over to kill you. This acquaintance however lives two miles away from you.  In this case you cannot proactively drive to your acquaintance’s house and gun them down in cold blood. Ergo: At the time the threat was made, the acquaintance did not have the opportunity to kill you and therefore could not possibly do so at that time. The use of deadly force against this type of attack would be ruled excessive because there is no credible threat of imminent great bodily injury or death.

Condition (4) could be absent if for instance you got into a heated argument in a parking lot with an equally skilled and sized acquaintance that you know keeps a handgun in their car. In the process of the argument the acquaintance threatens to kill you but makes no move either toward the gun in their car nor attempts any attack to your person. The use of deadly force against this type of attack would be ruled excessive because there is no credible threat of imminent great bodily injury or death due to the fact that your potential assailant did not actually attempt to attack you.

To summarize, lethal force is justified if your attacker shows (1) intent to impose great bodily harm or death upon you, (2) has the ability to do so (weapons such as guns, knives, clubs, explosives, or superior strength / size), (3) has the opportunity to do so (proximity / within the lethal radius of the weapon), and actual attempts to harm you (the "imminency" of harm).

With these definitions in mind we come to the realization that in order to use deadly force to defend ourselves we must be attacked by an assailant who either verbalizes or by action demonstrates intent to impose great bodily injury or death upon us. in other words in order to justify the use of lethal force, we must be THE VICTIM.

Georgia's Stand Your Ground Law - Your Right to Be in Public Space.

It is axiomatic that you have a right to be present in any area that is open to the public such as downtown sidewalks, public parking areas, and public parks. A REASONABLE  person would also allow that it is reasonable that you should expect to be safe in public places. It should be clear from the above discussion that, if you are attacked, you also have a right to defend yourself using force, up to and including deadly force. What about if you are attacked in a public area where you have every right to be? Can you still defend yourself with force? Does it make sense to give you only two choices: “Stand” there and take the attack with no retaliation or..... retreat until you have no other options? Assume that you are unarmed in Centennial Park in downtown Atlanta and someone comes up to you and begins landing punch after punch on you.  Do you have the right to defend yourself from this attack by fighting back? Or, should the law require you to attempt to continually disengage and escape IF YOU CAN - in the meantime being required to absorb every blow without retaliation? Most REASONABLE people would say; "No - you should be able to defend yourself and attack back until the assailant stops being a threat."

Now, what if the violence of the attack rises to the level of imminent grave bodily injury or death? So think about this question:  When the level of violence reaches the imminent probability of grave bodily injury or death, should the victim be able to employ a similar level of violence to protect themselves right then and there? IF it is only allowable that you still have to absorb the attack without retaliating to the same level and just pray that your assailant has enough mercy to stop before you are killed, exactly whose right to access the public space is being protected?

16-3-23.1  No duty to retreat prior to the use of force in self defense.

A person who uses threats or force in accordance with Code Section 16-23-1, 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 16-2-24, 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.

Basically what this says is that if all the criteria is met for the justified use of lethal force, it applies anywhere- including in public spaces and you do not have a DUTY to retreat. Ergo, you can stand your ground and defend yourself right there. The clearest example of this would be an armed robbery on a public street where you draw your weapon and shoot the robber. However, every case is different and every case can manifest itself in a thousand different iterations so carefully consider the following:

A REASONABLE person might conclude that if you had the opportunity to retreat and avoid having to use lethal force - you should have. If you did have a reasonable opportunity to SAFELY retreat and avoid the use of lethal force but did not do so, it COULD be interpreted that you intentionally sought the fight. If true, this erases your status as a victim and elevates it to a participant. Depending on the District Attorney overseeing the case, the facts of the case, etc., the district attorney might decide in this event that you unnecessarily escalated the confrontation. Rare but it happens.

The problem of course with pundits arguing over Stand Your Ground Laws is that the "experts" don't take into account the legal criteria for the justified use of lethal force. in SYG states the criteria for justified use of lethal force is essentially the same as non-SYG states. SYG laws just affirm that you have the right to defend yourself right now, right THERE.

So Stand Your Ground allows you to defend yourself in public without the DUTY to retreat but its a good policy to, if able, de-escalate, retreat, escape if possible.  If an avenue to retreat and avoid the fight is available, doing so helps solidify your status as the victim and not the aggressor.l

Why Stand Your Ground Laws Are Important to Your Safety

In absence of a right to defend yourself in public, a smart criminal or criminal group will present just enough threat to frighten any undesirables from their territory. Sure they could be arrested for making threats but most likely they would be charged with simple assault, be released bond or on parole, and be right back out on the street the next day. They can thus in practice deny public spaces to citizens. In states with SYG laws, criminals know (or will shortly learn rather rudely from you, the skilled concealed carry citizen) that they have a very limited power to threaten or intimidate you in public areas. After several criminals - who present a credible threat of grave bodily injury or death are killed or injured by private citizens in such confrontations, they become much more careful and circumspect when considering robbery or intimidation. .

But in states with no SYG laws, liberal politicians, their liberal judges appointed to the courts, and with their liberal district attorneys, you would be on dangerous ground by pulling that gun and even threatening your assailant. In these states the politicians expect you, with your heart pounding, tunnel vision, fear bringing bile to your throat, to consciously evaluate your surroundings and possible avenues for escape before you decide to defend yourself. Its an unrealistic expectation in a lethal encounter that can be over in less than 10 seconds.

Stand Your Ground, Protect Your Right To Defend Yourself

Stand your ground and protect your Natural right to defend your life from suffering great bodily harm or death by contacting your local and national politicians and tell them not to gut the Stand Your Ground Laws of your state. If you live in a state without Stand Your Ground Laws, tell your representatives you want them to help ensure your safety in the public spaces by passing Stand Your Ground Laws.

Brian Wilson

Atlanta Firearms Training

July 2013