The above video is from an interview conducted by Laura-Ashley Harris of WNEG.  The accompanying article can be found here

It is my contention that the state of Georgia has utterly failed in training its peace officers in how to properly interact with the legally armed citizen. All too often, such encounters result in the mistreatment of the citizen and the violation of state and federal law and legal procedure on the part of the peace officer. It is important to note that this is not typically due to evil intentions on the part of the peace officer. Rather, it is due to a lack of training that is rooted in law and Constitutional principles. The academy training that new peace officers receive is routed in survival. While survival is unquestionably important, little if any attention is paid to the fact that citizens can legally possess and carry firearms and other self protection tools in Georgia. The state requires a mere 20 hours or advanced training per year. Sadly, that mere 20 hours is all that some peace officers get either due to their own choices or the policies and practices set forth by their agency.

The law is constantly evolving through legislative changes and court rulings. What may have been blessed by the courts in 2006 has been ruled a no go in the present. A peace officer that graduated from the academy a number of years ago and that does not receive up to date training on this issue for whatever reason quite simply may acting on a knowledge or understanding of the law that is out of date. A more frightening scenario is agency policies and training that are based on out of date law thus actually mandating illegal activity on the part of their personnel.

I write the above not to espouse some great conspiracy or evil intent on the part of individual peace officers and agencies. On the contrary, I submit that the issue gets lost in a shuffle of logistics, funding, societal misconception and pressure, and priorities that are placed elsewhere. It is also the result of laws that are not easily understood and filled with vague terms included such as “public gathering” without what a clear definition of just what a public gathering is. Such ambiguities lead to shaky decisions on the part of both the citizen and the peace officer. Legislative action to clearly delineate Georgia carry laws would certainly lead to a better understanding of the laws. Punitive legislation may deal with individual failings on the part of officers and agencies, but without training, neither of the above approaches will accomplish any far reaching improvement in the current state of affairs. Those that seek only to improve the situation through litigation and legislation only promote an “us versus them” mindset that is often attributed to peace officers. As I stated above, I do believe that there do need to be legislative changes, but those changes should also contain training mandates so that the word is spread. Unfortunately, litigation will sometimes be a necessary result of the human equation, but through training we can reduce the number of incidents that would result in such action.

For over 10 years I have been a peace officer serving in multifaceted functions from rookie patrol officer to command staff, and I have been sworn at the local, state, and federal levels. While this is a personal venture, I realize that I can not fully separate this venture from who I am professionally and all that entails, but I believe that it is necessary. I hope you come back often to this blog and other sites that will be interrelated with it.

Thank you,

J. Lee Weems
Editor, GeorgiaCarryLaws.net
Addressing Georgia’s carry laws through education and training

The fact remains that nothing in Georgia’s carry laws require that a firearm be carried concealed. The two code sections of relevance here are 16-11-126 O.C.G.A., Carrying a concealed weapon, and 16-11-128 O.C.G.A., Carrying a pistol without a license. The first code section makes it illegal to carry a concealed weapon unless a person has a GWL. The second code section makes it illegal to carry a weapon outside of one’s home and business (see code for full list of exceptions) without a GWL whether the weapon may be carried openly or concealed. Just to make sure that it is clear, the carrying of a weapon outside of those specific exceptions requires a GWL. Carrying openly requires the license, but having the license does not require that a firearm or weapon be concealed.

Nothing in the above should be construed as an argument in favor of openly carrying a weapon. I am simply seeking to clarify the law. The decision to carry openly, concealed, or at all is up to the individual.

Weapon Selection
by J. Lee Weems
4-26-2005

One of the most commonly asked questions in gun related magazines, Internet forums, and in gun shops is “Which gun should I buy?” The many answers to this question generally lead to great debates in the gun world such as revolver versus semi-auto, big and slow bullets versus small and fast bullets, and in recent years the Glock versus 1911 blood feud just to name a few. Proponents of each view, regardless of in which camp they reside, are often very passionate. To someone new to the self-protection world and shooting scene, the groundswell of opinions and no shortage of people willing to share them can be a bit daunting and confusing. This article is intended to cut through some of that and help people interested in protecting themselves and those they care for in making the right weapon choice.

The answer to the great question of “which weapon is best?” is very simple. The best weapon is the one that the individual using the weapon can use in the most effective manner. Proficiency is a must. If you choose to carry a defensive tool, you must be a master of that tool. It is not acceptable to carry a weapon that you are neither thoroughly familiar with nor able to operate in a stressful situation.

Firearm proficiency is a learned and perishable skill. First, you must learn how to properly use and maintain your weapon. Then you must practice regularly to maintain a high level of proficiency. If you simply buy a firearm and put in a drawer with the “in case I ever need it” mentality you are not doing yourself any good at all. Remember that you must control each shot. You are responsible for every round that you fire and accuracy decreases as stress increases. Blindly firing multiple rounds at a threat is not acceptable. In a home invasion or burglary situation your family may be in the next room and contrary to what you see in the movies, bullets will go through walls. In a street confrontation situation, you must be aware of your background. Because innocent bystanders stand a chance of being injured you must be proficient under stress.

As to the particular style of handgun to purchase, some shooters prefer revolvers while others will only shoot and carry semi-automatics. Some semi-auto shooters will go with a smaller caliber round in order to have a larger ammunition capacity, less recoil, or a smaller framed pistol while others think that only the venerable .45ACP will do. In their own way, each of these points of view is correct. No matter which type is the preferred weapon of choice, the number one factor to consider when selecting a firearm is reliability. The shooter must have complete confidence that the weapon they choose will work each any every time it is deployed.

As I pointed out above, it is not just the weapon that must work. The shooter must be thoroughly proficient as well. Train under stress. Learn to shoot while moving and at moving targets. Learn how to clear malfunctions and to perform reloads quickly. Do not forget that you are betting your life and the lives of those you hold dear on that weapon. I strongly suggest that the prospective shooter handle and test as many different styles and calibers of weapon as possible before making their choice. Remember that there is no magic bullet, and each manufacturer has their respective strong and weak points.

The other major factor that is of concern when choosing a weapon is accepting the responsibility of ownership. This responsibility includes safe storage and handling of the firearm, getting proper training from qualified instructors, following all of the safety rules for proper handling, and being mentally prepared to use the weapon if needed. Despite being portrayed as such in the media, firearms in and of themselves are not any more dangerous than power tools, vehicles, or electricity. As long as each is used correctly there really is not any danger. However, even the slightest mental lapse could result in disaster.

Until this point I have focused primarily on firearms. I would like to point out that the best self-protection tool any one can use is their very own brain. A person should always be aware of their surroundings and alert for possible dangerous situations. The best way to deal with a confrontation is to avoid it. Do not place yourself in a dangerous situation if you can avoid it. If you are in a dangerous situation and can escape, escape is your best option. Force should only be used when there is no other viable option available. If you have to use force you will need to be able to articulate why you did so and that there was no other reasonable course of action for you to take.

Those interested in protecting themselves may also want to look into defensive tools other than firearms. Items such as pepper spray and batons can be good choices, and edged weapons can be very effective as well. Just as with any other defensive tool, training is required and safety is paramount. Everyday innocuous items such as keys and scarves can be used as defensive tools, and basic hand-to-hand techniques are always good to know.

This article is the first in a series that I have planned on the topic of weapon selection. I cannot stress enough that anyone choosing to carry a defensive tool should seek training from qualified instructors and practice regularly with whatever tool they select. It is up to the individual to know the legal environment concerning the possession and use of weapon where they live and travel. There is a tremendous difference between marksmanship and defensive shooting. Use standard target shooting to develop and hone your fundamental skills, but interject as much realism into your defensive shooting training as possible. Above all, use good judgment and avoid confrontations if possible. If you have an avenue of escape, use it.

The information contained in this document is copyrighted as unpublished work under sections 104 and 408 of Title 17 of the United States Code with all rights reserved and is proprietary to J. Lee Weems. It is submitted to recipient in confidence and it is not for use or disclosure, either in whole or in part, without prior written permission. The unauthorized use, copying or disclosure of this data is a criminal violation of both federal and state laws.

The law allows for the use of deadly force in three situations. The first of these is to prevent death a great bodily harm to oneself. The second is to prevent death or great bodily harm to a third person, and third, to stop/prevent the commission of a forcible felony. A forcible felony is any felony that involves the threat or actual use of force against a person. See below:

16-3-21. Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution

(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;
(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.
(c) Any rule, regulation, or policy of any agency of the state or any ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, or policy of any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state which is in conflict with this Code section shall be null, void, and of no force and effect.
(d) In a prosecution for murder or manslaughter, if a defendant raises as a defense a justification provided by subsection (a) of this Code section, the defendant, in order to establish the defendant’s reasonable belief that the use of force or deadly force was immediately necessary, may be permitted to offer:
(1) Relevant evidence that the defendant had been the victim of acts of family violence or child abuse committed by the deceased, as such acts are described in Code Sections 19- 13-1 and 19-15-1, respectively; and
(2) Relevant expert testimony regarding the condition of the mind of the defendant at the time of the offense, including those relevant facts and circumstances relating to the family violence or child abuse that are the bases of the expert’s opinion.

Please note that nowhere in the above three instances was the defense of property or animals listed. As much as you might like to do so, you cannot use deadly force to shoot someone that is stealing or damaging property or stealing or harming an animal. You may legally, according to 16-3-24 O.C.G.A. us force that is NOT likely or intended to cause death or great bodily harm. See below:

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.

The question often comes up concerns if it is legal to shoot a person that is breaking into your home. This is usually followed by “should I drag him inside after I shoot him?” The answer to the first question is found in code section 16-3-23 O.C.G.A., which reads as follows:

16-3-23. Use of force in defense of habitation

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 prevent or terminate such other’s unlawful entry into or attack upon a habitation; however, such person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner and he or she reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence;
(2) That force is used against another person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using such force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred; or
(3) The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.

The answer to the second part of the question is most definitely no. You most certainly should not drag the body or alter the physical evidence in any way.It is also important to note that according to 16-3-23.1 O.C.G.A., a person using or threatening force in the code sections outlined above has no duty for a person to retreat and legally has the right to stand their ground. See below:

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

A person who uses threats or force in accordance with Code Section 16-3-21, 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 16-3-24, 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.

When it comes to deadly force, we teach peace officers to evaluate potential deadly force situations using the three step guideline of ability, opportunity, and jeopardy. Ability is whether or not a person actually has the means or tools to inflict death or great bodily harm. This could be the person possessing a weapon or even their sheer physical size, for example. Opportunity would be whether or not the person was in position to actually be threat. A person possessing a knife certainly possesses the ability to cause death or great bodily harm; however, if that person is in close proximity they certainly have the opportunity, but if that person is on the other side of a four lane highway, they are not in a position to where they could actually use the knife to cause harm. Finally, jeopardy would be whether or not there was actual reason to believe the person was a threat. Just because a person has ability and opportunity does not mean they are a threat. Keep in mind that the aforementioned labels also apply to a person legally carrying a firearm. The key consideration is whether or not the person in question is behaving in a manner that would cause a person to be in reasonable fear for their life.

Hopefully, you will never be confronted with a situation in which you have to make the decision of whether or not to use such force much less actually having to use it; however, if you do, I hope that you have a better understanding of the legal parameters for doing so.

The decision to use force is an intensely personal decision. The key question is justification, not the moment in time at which one would actually use such force. It hinges on what the individual perceives and can articulate and this can depend on many factors including experience and training.