Would You Shoot Someone To Defend Your Family?

By Don White

If we are squeamish about firing a gun when mortally threatened, we are placing ourselves and our family in danger because in today’s world break-ins, crime, rape, armed robbery, and killings are on the rise.

What happens in New York when you disarm the honest citizenry doesn’t happen in Georgia which has no similar ban on guns.

Our basic Second Amendment rights of bearing arms are abridged any time a city or state passes laws that ban guns in certain places. It is my belief that there are places where people should not carry a gun, but the more terror and events that take place that threaten the lives of innocent people are quickly making me change my mind.

Living in Florida, we know people in Georgia. One such person tells this story. It’s about a college student in that state who shot a home invader, saving ten lives. I have also heard of similar incidents.

Guns are dangerous and perhaps are attractive nuisances to children just to have them in the home. They should be locked up where kids can’t get at them, but after hearing this story it makes me wonder why more people don’t go out and buy a gun to protect their families. Violent crimes of all kinds are on the rise.

In neighborhood of College Park in Atlanta, Georgia, two armed criminals broke into a house party and, after confiscating the group's valuables, split the men and women up into different rooms.

Witnesses say the perpetrators counted their rounds and discussed if they had "enough" ammunition. House guests and residents were convinced these gunmen were going to rape and murder the entire group of students who were celebrating a birthday at the end of the semester.

To make a long story short, one student had a gun hidden in his backpack. He fired at the thugs holding the group. The thug, who was not injured, ran out of the house and escaped and did not return. The student continued on into the girls' room where the other thug, 23-year-old Calvin Lavant, was preparing to rape his first victim. The student exchanged gunfire with Lavant, wounding him in the process. Lavant fled out of a window and died in front of his apartment one building away.

The point?
A student saved the girls from rape, and saved the whole group of 10 people (including himself) from murder ... and he did it with a handgun.

Had this happened in LA, New York, Chicago, or any of the other big cities that ban their citizens from carrying handguns the young man could be facing murder charges for defending his friends.

Let's assume the parents of the fatality sued the boy who shot him. What kinds of defenses would be available to the so-called hero who saved the lives of the girls and boys in that house, which was not owned or rented by the boy. In Georgia there is a gun doctrine known as the Castle Doctrine or Law. It says that one's place of residence is his castle. In other words that he, the owner or resident (in many states) has the right to defend his life and that others while they are in that house.

Where he is not a resident of the home, which was the information I got from my brother-in-law about this, it would create an issue at law as to whether this young man could claim a privilege under the law afforded in the English Common Law. This privilege gave rise to the lines we all memorized and said many times ourselves. They were by actor Clint Eastwood in the movie "Sudden Impact" where Dirty Harry, a cop or private investigator, when confronted by a bandit with a gun was heard to challenge the gunman by saying, "Make my day." Since Clint was the "fastest man in the West" or in the East for that matter, he easily polished off this attacker.

I think most of us, confronted with the same situation and not knowing the law, would do as the young man did. No matter where we were, we probably would go after the two guys who were the perpetrators rather than see our friends raped and/or shot.

But it's better to know the law before taking the law into our own hands. But in this case where was the law? It was at least far enough away to be unable to arrive in time to stop what had already begun as at least a rape in progress of one girl, possibly more, but also of inferred or promised bodily harm and maybe death due to a shooting by the perps. As I understand this scenario, the perps had taken watches, rings, wallets, and cell phones of the ten people, so that notifying the police was not possible. They put the ten in imminent danger to where they feared for their lives.There was an armed assault, rape, and robbery in process.

That's enough to confront the men with a gun. When two people point guns at each other it's hard to decide who pulled the trigger first. But under the law, that doesn't matter, as long as the other guy is the intruder, the el bandito, and was not invited onto the premises and put the other guy in fear of his life. Even if the gunman perp was invited and committed the same aggression we're talking about here, it seems to me that it would be lawful to protect your own life and that of others and use a gun if one was available..

Had it been a resident or owner of the home doing the protecting, we wouldn't have an issue. There would be a rebuttable presumption that his use of the gun in self defense was covered under the Second Amendment right to bear arms for self defense at your own house. This legal doctrine was argued in the Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller.

The Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept arising from English Common Law that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. Thus, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homocide under the Castle Doctrine.

As in Utah, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Georgia and in many other states, gun permits are not needed to purchase a gun.There also is no firearm registration or assault weapon laws. An owner's license is not required. In both of these states, and many others, it is permissible to carry a gun in some public places even if it is concealed as long as it is unloaded. Florida requires a permit to carry a gun.

Several states offer the same protection for gun owners. Utah's law states owning, possessing, and carrying a gun without license is okay as long as it takes two operations to fire the gun. For example, if the bullets are in a clip you would have to place the clip in the gun and insert one bullet in the firing chamber -- two operations. Or if no clip, then one operation would be placing a bullet in the firing chamber and taking the gun off safety would be the second, with a third being cocking the gun if applicable. Many handguns today don't need cocking.

In New York there are no restrictions or laws against buying a shotgun or rifle, no permitting required, no registration, or licensing needed to carry except a person must be 21 years of age. But for handguns the answer on all counts is yes, license permits are required. Please check before buying a gun because laws are subject to change.

Being a hero and saving someone or being charged with murder and going to jail depends on venue. The above story tells how a group of friends would have been raped and murdered by these two hoodlums had it not been for the timely action of a brave young man. But, sadly, had this happened in New York or Chicago, the hero of this story might be facing prison time for firearm possession and murder.

Georgia has not yet outlawed self-defense. Someone had a gun and was willing to use it, and inocent life was preserved. How about you? Would you use a gun to defend yourself and your family? Do you have access to a gun in case a similar thing happens to you? If not, maybe you should consider getting one, or at least a stun gun or a Taser. You can buy a Taser for about $225. Stun guns, where available and legal for common ordinary people, are much more money, maybe $700.

Some jurisdictions prevent citizens from buying Stun guns because they are far more powerful than a Taser. They primarily are used by police and the military. A stun gun can immobilize a person at a distance at from ten to fifteen feet or more. A Taser is a close range stun gun, basically. They affect the central nervous system and render them comatose or unable to move or very difficult or impossible for a person to operate their hands and legs. They are usually stunned for about fifteen minutes, however some people have died after someone stunned them because of heart problems or other preexisting conditions.

If all you are worried about is another person stalking or attacking you as you walk to your car at night, perhaps you should first try to defend yourself with pepper spray. That usually gives one enough time to put the key in the ignition and drive away. However, there have been cases when all the pepper spray in the eyes does is to infuriate your stalker and make him more belligerent and dangerous.