Capitol Ideas

By asiv

January 23, 2006 08:34 AM | Link to this

shoot first, ask questions later.

By MarkP

January 23, 2006 08:51 AM | Link to this

This seems like an idea with little upside potential. It will cause many otherwise clear shooting crime cases to get bogged down in court and undesirable characters to go free. It also has the potential to allow even more appearances of racial bias as these cases are deliberated.

To take one tragic example from last fall - and I apologize for exploiting a real life tragedy to serve as an illustrative example - there was a traffic altercation late one night in downtown Atlanta. A passenger in one of the vehicles, who was white and also a soldier on leave from Iraq, got out of his car at a traffic light to confront the other driver, who was black. The second driver, instead of trying to flee or otherwise, instead shot the approaching man, killing him. Under the new bills being proposed, the chances that a case like this involving a needless death would drag on ad nauseum and eventually generate an acquittal increase dramatically. Perhaps even worse, though, is that had the racial roles been reversed, with a white driver shooting a black stranger that was approaching the car in a menacing manner, I think it would be hard for any person to realistically deny that the deliberations would likely be much quicker and more strongly favor an acquittal.

By James

January 23, 2006 08:54 AM | Link to this

Unfortunately this is the world we live in today and sometimes it comes down to being a victim or protecting yourself and you loved ones and living. Crimminals would love to see this bill defeated, just as they want all self and home protection laws defeated. Look how easy it makes a crimminals job for him/her when they know you have no means in which to protect yourself. The biggest thing stopping a law abiding person from someone from walking up to you at a teller machine or in your home or your vehicle is self-protection, no crimminal wants to take a chance, they want helpess unprotected victims, it makes their job easier. I am a member of the NRA, I have a permit to carry a weapon and I do. I have no problem whatsoever using one of my pistols or rifles to protect myself. I want to make sure the last thought I have in this world is not ” I wish I could have shot first.” Liberals will try to defeat this law but they won’t have any success, we as a society are getting fed up with being victims. You’ll take my guns out of my cold dead hands, and thats the only way.

By NLE

January 23, 2006 09:09 AM | Link to this

A bad bill and this is coming from a conservative. I am pro-second amendment but I am also pro-walk away from trouble. I disagree with MarkP that the returned soldier was a victim. Ugly as it may sound, the soldier was stupid and a perfect illustration of how we don’t need to confront anyone who we think drives or drove poorly. Let it go. Road rage is something we can only deal with through personal restraint. You have to choose to ignor the incident or driver who may have done something stupid but who should go their way, as you should go yours, unless there is an accident. This bill will only increase everyone’s ability to react from the base of a short temper.

By John

January 23, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this

A similar law was passed in Fla. and all the hype from the anti-gun crowd has been proven wrong. Most of us who possess a carry permit would never use our weapons unless it were a life threatening situation. Those in the news who use guns stupidly are in the minority and whether or not this law is enacted will have no effect on their stupidity! Consider the people who were executed in a fast food restuarant in NY. Had one person been armed and willing to fight back, the massacre may have been prevented.

By dan

January 23, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this

Anything that will level the field and deter crime is good!

By ltc

January 23, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this

Would you approach me in a menacing manner if you know or prone to know I am carring a firearm. You, MarkP, like the rest are just defending the criminals. Those poor mistreated folks.

By Roosevelt Powell

January 23, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this

This concept is rediculous. Are we going back to the old west where everyone wears a gun to protect themselves. We have a police force that’s trained to use deadly force and good judgement in its application. Understanding that sometimes their presence and response is questionable, but that’s the system we have. The average citizen, especially those interested in carrying a gun, can’t be trusted to use good judgement in the application of deadly force. People carrying guns are looking for confrontation. I would be more afraid of these citizens than someone trying to rob me.

By John

January 23, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this

If you live in the Atlanta area, you are surrounded by a sea of violence. Literally everyday someone is shot dead by a criminal. If you think you are safe in the burbs, you’re not. The violence is only a car/bus ride away.

I look at it like this - Who do I trust with a gun more, me or some criminal? The answer of course is me.

By JM

January 23, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this

Do you people ever read the news? Do you see how much crime there is on the streets and you think this is bad? First off MarkP this has NOTHING to do with race, take that tired old card and put it back in the deck. NLE, you’re not a conservative so quit playing games on here. The incident about the soldier was unfortunate, very much so. But, anyone with room temperature IQ and above knows that a crimminal is less likely to pick on a strong 35 year old male and go for a helpless elderly lady because why? Because it’s easier to do so. That same crimminal would love to be the only one holding a weapon because why? It makes his job easier! What you liberal want is for ONLY the crooks to have guns. If you VICTIMS want be shot, robbed, raped and murdered, go for it, you don’t have to protect yourself, thats a clear choice. But, don’t tell me I can’t. This law will pass, finally Georgia has some elected officals that have more on their agenda than just giving away my tax dollars and renaming streets after dead civil rights workers, they have my goodwill and good interest in mind, finally. Join the NRA today.

By KC

January 23, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this

I don’t believe we live in a “sea of violence” and I especially don’t believe it’s a “car or bus ride” away. Crime occurs outside of the city of Atlanta. Should an individual be able to use a weapon to defend themselves? Absolutely, provided that individual is licensed to carry that weapon. Is this bill, however, a good idea? I’d have to read it line by line. If you are on your back porch and see someone walking across your yard at night does this bill give you the right to shoot that person? Because it may be a horrible criminal lurking around waiting to break in…or it may be the 12 year old boy next door sneaking out to go to his friends house. Anyone who says that a law should make an action such as that legal needs to check their soul at the door…their sanity is obviously already gone. This is a minefield, people. If this law makes it very clear that deadly force can only be used in response to deadly force then I would support it. Otherwise, I oppose. I support the second amendment. But if you shoot someone who “looks threatening” or “made an aggressive comment” that seems like murder to me. So let’s be careful and find out what this law allows before we either say it’s bad or good. And if you use your weapon to defend your family and kill an innocent bystander in a hail of bullets do you walk free? Let me tell you this, if you shoot someone stealing your car and one of your bullets goes astray and kills my son I’m going to see you fry. If you shoot someone who is pointing a gun at your wife and a bullet goes astray and kills my son then I’m going to be devastated, but I’ll probably forgive you. That all being said, I’m not opposed to or in favor of this law. I just need to see what the law really is before I make up my mind.

Have a peaceful day everyone.

By momof2

January 24, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this

I think excessive force is a great idea. If you break the law then you are going to get shot.

If DNA proves you did the crime by-pass all the appeals and go straight to the chamber.

If you kill more criminals than it’s a good guarantee that crime rates will drop.

If people get the idea ou will shoot them then they won’t be walking across your yard at midnight, little kid or otherwise.

By Dang The Hung

January 24, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this

Alot of you really need to re-read the bill more carefully. It DOES NOT make the law more lax in regards to using deadly force. It just simply implies that a person WHEN confronted with a situation that is likely to CAUSE great bodily harm and or death, does not have a duty to retreat from that situation. And here is some more news, there never was a “duty to retreat” stipulated in the law and there is even a court case backing this up saying that an individual does not have a “duty to retreat” when confronted with a deadly situation. This bill is just making the language of the law more clearer.

And to the posters who are concerned with the return of the “wild west”. Get a grip. More than 30 states allow the carrying of weapons and the use of deadly force by citizens faced with life threatning situations and yet blood is not running in the streets. You’re more likely to get shot by a police officer than from a law abiding citizen with a weapons license. If you actually read the news you find more stories about police officers being prosecuted for crimes and negligently handling their weapons than you’ll find a law abiding citizen with a weapons license. http://www.gfodl.org

By Larry

January 25, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this

I believe this bill only provides a positive defense for those unfortunate enough to be put into the position of defending themself or another from serious bodily harm or death. I saw nothing in the bill which allowed one to shoot someone walking across their back yard. I certainly don’t understand the wild west metaphor.

Permits to carry concealed are issued only to people who undergo vigerous background checks and found not to be criminals. These people are not very likely to shoot anyone unless they or someone else is in serious trouble. In fact, they number of concealed carry permit holders who commit any crime is statistically insignificant.

Police people are trained in when to administer deadly force. Unfortunately, they won’t fit into my pocket. A firearm will. If I’m being brutally assualted and seconds count, I’ll reach in the pocket with a gun instead of a pocket with a cell phone.

This is an emotional issue, but if we’re able to overcome the emotion and look at it rationally, we’ll realize the police can’t be everywhere. They can’t even be everywhere criminals are. In a perfect world, we wouldn’t even need them, but it’s not a perfect world. There are people who would do us harm. We must be allowed to protect ourselves and our families.

By MIchael

January 26, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this

I have to wonder at the legislature’s spending its limited session on this issue. How many people in Georgia find themselves needing to use deadly force to protect themselves against intruders? Statistics on violent crime indicate it is on the decline—are those statistics wrong? How does the threat of violent confrontation compare with the threat posed by dirty air, bad schools (we’re at the bottom nationwide, remember?), dangerous, badly-maintained roads, or inadequate shelter? If the legislature wants to protect the citizens, what is it doing about the threats that touch the most people?

By JB

January 27, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this

Anyone that can read already knows use of deadly force is not and has never been restricted to law enforcement. The law does, however, outline when deadly force may be used. I believe this bill is simply making the language already contained in OCGA 16-3-21 more clear.

By nunya

February 2, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this

Write your senators and congressmen and ask them to support HB 998 and SB 396! The basic human right of self defense does not stop once you leave your home. And corporations CAN prohibit the possession of weapons inside their establishment, but have no right to determine what you keep in your locked vehicle in their parking lot.