Gridlocked Road Rager Shown a Bat, Results in Charges

here is the section:

Quote:

---

O.C.G.A. § 16-3-24
Use of force in defense of property other than a habitation

(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with real property other than a habitation or personal property:

(1) Lawfully in his possession;

(2) Lawfully in the possession of a member of his immediate family; or

(3) Belonging to a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect.

(b) The use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to prevent trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with real property other than a habitation or personal property is not justified unless the person using such force reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

---

that is not a blanket "no duty to retreat". Read section (b) and realize the DA would not have charged the crimes if he believed and he felt a jury will believe there was a reasonable belief the threat was justified.

and you want to talk about lies. Here is a snip from your first post:

Quote:

---

nearly hitting him on the left rear tire well.

---

which is quite different than this:

Quote:

---

The person threatened to ram his car at his driver side window.

---

which we know is a lie based on your own rendition of the acts involved:

Quote:

---

A panicked, grabbed a bat that was in the car from batting practice, and opened the door to check the closeness of the vehicles and to get B to back off.

---

If beatrice was such a danger, especially to make your buddy to believe his life was in danger because she was so close, how did your buddy open the door and get out to look to see how close she was?

If she was about to ram his door, all he had to do was look down from where he was setting.

see some problems with your story?

I am sure everybody else does.

so, your buddy will get his day in court. He really needs some anger management courses. Maybe that will be part of his sentence.

Oh, and regardless what happens with the threat, he is still guilty of possessing a weapon on school property.

Quote:

---

Quoting citizenxo

---

Obviously not to talk to a bunch of know-nothings like you who post laws without even READING THE LAW THEY JUST POSTED.

Once again as posted but not read by jk:

O.C.G.A. § 16-3-23.1

"or Code Section 16-3-24, 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."

If you can't understand or accept this, then you do not qualify to answer questions on a legal advice forum.

---

You did not answer the question. You're also not going to be dictating who responds to your posts.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

here is the section:




that is not a blanket "no duty to retreat". Read section (b) and realize the DA would not have charged the crimes if he believed and he felt a jury will believe there was a reasonable belief the threat was justified.

and you want to talk about lies. Here is a snip from your first post:



which is quite different than this:

which we know is a lie based on your own rendition of the acts involved:


If beatrice was such a danger, especially to make your buddy to believe his life was in danger because she was so close, how did your buddy open the door and get out to look to see how close she was?

If she was about to ram his door, all he had to do was look down from where he was setting.

see some problems with your story?

I am sure everybody else does.

so, your buddy will get his day in court. He really needs some anger management courses. Maybe that will be part of his sentence.

Oh, and regardless what happens with the threat, he is still guilty of possessing a weapon on school property.

---

Cars can do this thing called acceleration! And steer! Which is what B did. She nearly hit A at the rear tire well, and then steered to angle at the door or perhaps to try and whip around and then stopped halfway. Who knows?

WHAT ON EARTH DOES THE USE OF FORCE INTENDED TO CAUSE DEATH HAVE TO DO WITH THE THREAT OF THE USE OF LESS THAN DEADLY FORCE? SECTION B HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. LEARN TO READ LAWS FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, THEN POST ON A LEGAL ADVICE FORUM. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?

Maybe the DA hasn't read up on his laws recently. It doesn't matter what the DA reasonably believes - any thoughts of his on A's state of mind are pure speculation. B instigated the whole thing, and A reasonably believed he and his property were in danger. Furthermore there is a videotape of the whole thing that will show the details of what happened, without the need for any speculation. The physical elements for self defense are all there, the only thing left is whether or not A reasonably believed he or his property was in danger. Prosecution of A is, by Georgia law illegal.

Weapon on school grounds? § 16-11-127.1.

(c) The provisions of this Code section shall not apply to:

(1) Baseball bats, hockey sticks, or other sports equipment possessed by competitors for legitimate athletic purposes;

Even the judge at the bond hearing balked when he saw a charge for possesing a baseball bat on school grounds.

But then, how could you possibly claim to know something about the weapon charge without knowing any circumstances of the case?

Quote:

---

=citizenxo;399625]Cars can do this thing called acceleration! And steer! Which is what B did. She nearly hit A at the rear tire well, and then steered to angle at the door.

---

then how did he get out of the door and why did he have to look at how close she was? Incongruencies will cost him the trial.

Quote:

---

WHAT ON EARTH DOES THE USE OF FORCE INTENDED TO CAUSE DEATH HAVE TO DO WITH THE THREAT OF THE USE OF LESS THAN DEADLY FORCE? SECTION B HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. LEARN TO READ LAWS FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, THEN POST ON A LEGAL ADVICE FORUM. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?

---

why don't you read. It said the use of force must have been reasonably believed to be necessary. The problem is: what your buddy thinks is reasonable is not the definition the court will impose. They will impose a reasonable man standard.

Quote:

---

Weapon on school grounds? § 16-11-127.1.

(c) The provisions of this Code section shall not apply to:

(1) Baseball bats, hockey sticks, or other sports equipment possessed by competitors for legitimate athletic purposes;

---

well, the instant he USED IT AS A WEAPON, the exception you just quoted became irrelevant. He was not using it for a legitimate athletic purpose, he was using it as a weapon therefore, he had a weapon on school grounds. He loses.

Quote:

---

But then, how could you possibly claim to know this without knowing any circumstances of the case? Now it is becoming clear. Let me make this perfectly clear. If you are who I think you are, and you attempt to pursue this matter I WILL COMPLETELY HUMILIATE YOU AND RUIN YOUR CAREER.

---

what a joke!!! come on and spit it out if you think you have some magical powers.

Quote:

---

Lawsuits, news coverage, the works. With over half a million dollars and plenty of connections at my disposal when I need them, don't think for a second that I don't mean it.

---

wow, I am really worried, NOT.

and in the beginning, you said she was in front of him. Then he pulled in front of her and then magically he could just hop into his car and drive away. Doesn't sound like there was any justification for the threat of lethal force.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

then how did he get out of the door and why did he have to look at how close she was? Incongruencies will cost him the trial.

why don't you read. It said the use of force must have been reasonably believed to be necessary. The problem is: what your buddy thinks is reasonable is not the definition the court will impose. They will impose a reasonable man standard.

well, the instant he USED IT AS A WEAPON, the exception you just quoted became irrelevant. He was not using it for a legitimate athletic purpose, he was using it as a weapon therefore, he had a weapon on school grounds. He loses.

what a joke!!! come on and spit it out if you think you have some magical powers.

wow, I am really worried, NOT.

and in the beginning, you said she was in front of him. Then he pulled in front of her and then magically he could just hop into his car and drive away. Doesn't sound like there was any justification for the threat of lethal force.

---

What incongruencies fool??!?! She aimed the car at his door, she did not get all the way there! There was still room to open the door. Again READ BEFORE RESPONDING.

I never said she was in front. What are you talking about?

The only power I have and the only one I need is truth. The truth shall set you free!

Quote:

---

But then, how could you possibly claim to know this without knowing any circumstances of the case? Now it is becoming clear. Let me make this perfectly clear. If you are who I think you are, and you attempt to pursue this matter I WILL COMPLETELY HUMILIATE YOU AND RUIN YOUR CAREER.

---

Quotalicious!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Quoting citizenxo

---

.

I never said she was in front. What are you talking about?
!

---

yes you did. From your first post:

Quote:

---

She had jerked in front of him when her gate opened slightly after his, but then stopped in the middle of the path.

---

YOU really need to think about what you wrote before proving yourself to be a liar.

Quote:

---

The only power I have and the only one I need is truth. The truth shall set you free!

---

and quotes of your posts before you have a chance to delete them shall hang you.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

Quotalicious!!!!!!

---

Ya, it was quite funny to realize that when I posted that, OP had deleted the threats thinking they would go away.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Ya, it was quite funny to realize that when I posted that, OP had deleted the threats thinking they would go away.

---

Yeah. :D:D

Quote:

---

Quoting citizenxo

---

When B realized A was pulling around, B became agitated and jerked the car towards A's car nearly hitting him on the left rear tire well.

---

My god, you have the reading comprehension skills of a struggling 3rd grader!

A pulled around and then B jerked towards the car.

You have now misquoted something 4 times in a row, making yourself look like a complete and total moron. Do you honestly believe you are in a position to talk about how other people would come across in trial?

Liar? How DARE you. The thought that you even think you can try and spew this convaluted bs on the world and have some degree of influence makes me sick. Know something about the situation and the law, and for the love of god know something about RIGHT AND WRONG before you try to cause someone to be perceived in a way that puts their freedom at risk. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Ya, it was quite funny to realize that when I posted that, OP had deleted the threats thinking they would go away.

---

What on earth do you think you are talking about kid? I deleted that because I decided it was too speculative to try and guess your identity by your irrational will to try and twist the facts and your comments as if you had knowledge regarding specific details of the case. I have no fear for threatening to do something that I am fully within my right to do (File a lawsuit for illegal charges, and bring attention to misconduct).

You, having completely humiliated yourself by misquoting law you posted directly above your misquote twice, and misquoting my statements 2 more times, are hardly in a position to talk.

Quote:

---

Quoting citizenxo

---

My god, you have the reading comprehension skills of a struggling 3rd grader!

A pulled around and then B jerked towards the car.

You have now misquoted something 4 times in a row, making yourself look like a complete and total moron. Do you honestly believe you are in a position to talk about how other people would come across in trial?

Liar? How DARE you. The thought that you even think you can try and spew this convaluted bs on the world and have some degree of influence makes me sick. Know something about the situation and the law, and for the love of god know something about RIGHT AND WRONG before you try to cause someone to be perceived in a way that puts their freedom at risk. You should be ashamed of yourself.



What on earth do you think you are talking about kid? I deleted that because I decided it was too speculative to try and guess your identity by your irrational will to try and twist the facts and your comments as if you had knowledge regarding specific details of the case. I have no fear for threatening to do something that I am fully within my right to do (File a lawsuit for illegal charges, and bring attention to misconduct).

You, having completely humiliated yourself by misquoting law you posted directly above your misquote twice, and misquoting my statements 2 more times, are hardly in a position to talk.

---

jk isn't the one being humiliated, kiddo.

Trust me.