aproy1101 said:
In my earlier post I had assumed we were speaking of an unknown person in my home, uninvited, and for an unknown reason.
Andy, you were the only person who knew that hypothetical fact. Rather, you said he or she was a government spy. You said you intended to shoot government spies in the head if you caught them in your home. No one else supplied that scenario but you. Those facts are inconsistent with the person being "unknown."
What you say reveals your knowledge, intent, and state of mind. It can be the difference between a cheery little note in The Armed Citizen or execution.
Also I had assumed I would have felt threatened by this intruder.
We of course didn't know that assumption because you didn't say so. You needed to say it. Standing over their dead fellow-LEO (or the Mayor's drunken teenage son), the police will assume nothing in your favor.
Do I have to ID an intruder before decicing to defend my ladies?
No, but if he ID's himself or herself as law enforcement you need to abandon your express plan to shoot government agents in the head because you believe they are violating your right not to be "spied" upon. That is simply very practical advice.
How is a person supposed to know whether or not an unidentified person is there legally?
You are supposed to behave "resonably." Sorry, that's be best anyone can do. You then get judged by others who were not there. You look and listen and make a judgment call that has the capacity to change you life. This is NOT a situation you should happily contemplate or be eager to encounter. Avoidance is much more preferable, whatever the law privilges you to do.
Hopefully, the person is not wearing a jacket that has the big letters "FBI" on the front and back. "Hopefully" on several levels -- just some being that he or she is doubtless: a) a much better shot; b) wearing armor; c) accompanied by other well-armed good shots.
I am totally confused by this thread as to my right to defend my family at all, in any circumstance.
That is a question of Georgia law in your case. You would not drive a car without knowing the "Rules of the Road." Why would you even consider shooting a gun at another human being when you have no idea what the rules are in Georgia? As suggested, take a course. Your life. Your family. Your state.
Georgia law probably says that you can use whatever force is reasonably necessary -- up to deadly force -- to protect youself and others from a reasonably apprehended threat of death or serious bodily harm. It may allow some level of serious force to protect property. I don't know.
For what it's worth, you are better off than those in, for example, Florida. You have no duty to retreat to avoid confrontation in your home. In Florida they do have a duty to retreat (last I looked). But you should retreat if you can do so safely. Again, just practical advice.
(Not surprising because I am very confused as to whether a person has any rights at all in this country anymore.)
You have been reading too much Doomer Porn. You have more rights than in about any other country I can compare. However, it is your responsibility to be informed about those rights -- which do not include executing government "spies" when you encounter them in your home.
When I was in college I was arrested, questioned, and while in hand cuffs and prone punched for something unfortunate I said to the cop. I was never read my meranda rights, and told by the officer that he didn't have to read them to me.
So much worse has happened. And I have seen much worse. As noted, law enforcement personnel are imperfect tools for society, as are laws, courts, and lawyers.
By the way, there is no need for the police to "read you your rights" if they have no intention to use what you say against you. If they already have the evidence to convict, they can let you prattle away to Hell freezes over with no change in the outcome whatsoever on the crime they already have proven. TV is a poor source of legal education.
They had you, right?