midtennchip

The reason for bringing it up was to illustrate that the idea of "justice" is different for everybody. But, what do you think the Founding Fathers envisioned for a "justice system?"

  Yeah, there was proof the "kid" was actually over 18 years old when it occurred.  Can't have child abuse if there's no child.     Also, the ONLY abuse that was presented by the prosecution was making the kid do 1500 pushups in one day.  I understand from the cops involved that there was more to it than that, but the prosecution only brought out that issue.  Sounded funny (1500 pushups, really?) but after questioning in the probable cause hearing, it was pretty clear that the mother had tried many other forms of punishment to no avail.  Kid was in pretty good shape, I guess.  Not the way I would parent a child, but none of us lawyers in the courtroom (and I'm talking 20 or more) thought the prosecution had anything close to enough to go to trial.

It is funny (at least to me) how much everyone's view of our system is colored by the role each has been in when they come in contact with the system. Doesn't make them right or wrong, but just affected by the limited (in manner, not number) interaction. Some may remember the runaway that hid out in the woods in Williamson County a couple of months ago. I was in court the day his mother was in court on child abuse charges. I had a VERY different view of it after the hearing than the cops did (I am friends with a couple of them). The protestors (child abuse advocates) were appalled when the judge threw the charges out, but every attorney I talked to agreed the judge had no choice (who is a former prosecutor and US District Attorney). Cops still thought the judge got it wrong. Just different views because of different roles in the process, I guess. The bond system is a place where work could be done, but overall, I have come to see the system as a pretty good balance. Some cases are a bit tilted to one side or another, but mostly gets it right. Where I see problems is in the people involved (i.e., a particular prosecutor, cop, judge, attorney, etc), not the system itself. Fortunately, even that is fairly rare. We just seem to hear about the bad ones.

I am putting is here because of a previous discussion in this forum. Just a reminder of what we have in relation to other countries and the differing views on what "justice" means. The article below is about proposals in New Zealand to do away with either (I) the right to remain silence or (ii) the assumption of innocence in rape cases. Both sides (both of which are proposing things to reduce defendants' rights) say the reforms are needed to obtain "justice" (rather than get justice for the defendant). You will notice that rape cases there have had a much easier burden of proof than we have in the US since the 1980s. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11291109 The point is that everyone has a different view of what "justice" means and how to get it. Our system is far from perfect, but I can't imagine having a system like what is being proposed in New Zealand. However, this isn't the first time the right to remain silent has been challenged in NZ.

  Agreed.  However, many people don't agree.  And that's really my point.  Our legal system has many competing interests and almost everyone is unhappy with it at times.  Justice is in the eye of the beholder.  Where some see justice being served, others see injustice (and vice versa).   For example, in the specific case being discussed in this thread, the issue wasn't that a rich person got away with something because he could afford a great lawyer.  Rather, it appears that the punishment might not have been sufficient.  I personally agree, but that's not really my point.     The solution you mentioned likely wouldn't result in 1,000 to 1 odds.  Rather, you'd have tens of thousands of criminals going free for every one innocent person that wasn't convicted.   Theoretically, we could guarantee no wrongful convictions simply by not prosecuting anybody.  I don't think that's what you are suggesting, but the simple fact of having prosecutions virtually guarantees that there will be wrongly accused (and sometimes wrongly convicted) people.     Our system already takes more measures to prevent wrongful conviction than just about any other legal system in the history of the world.  But as long as people are involved in the process, there are going to be some mistakes.  

  I agree here.  There should be punishment for egregious breakdowns in the system (for LEO, prosecutors, etc).  

  That is true.  Being a criminal defendant, particularly one who is wrongly accused, is generally an expensive proposition.  However, putting those kinds of constraints on the prosecution would also cause a LARGE number of truly guilty defendants to be left unpunished.  The number of "unpunished" crimes would likely be astronomically higher than the number of innocent defendants we have today.   The reason we have the system currently in place is because it is as close to a workable solution as we can find.  There is no perfect system.  Unfortunately, all systems (legal, political, social, economic, etc) are a balance of competing issues, and many times it is a zero sum game (as it is in the legal system).  For every winner on one side, there's at least one loser on the other.

Yes, don't know why it slipped my mind.

Before renting the house, make sure you check the mortgage document. There has been some recent issues with mortgages being deemed in default (even when paid on time every month) because the borrower started renting the house out. Generally, owner-occupied mortgages are made with a lower interest rate than mortgages for rental properties. As a result, some banks (plus Fannie Mae, in some cases) don't want to keep a low cost mortgage on a rental property and will declare the mortgage in default when they find out about it.

Maybe we are only talking semantics, but the TN Sentencing Commission comments specifically state that "the underlying principle [of 39-11-604] is that a defendant's culpability is to be measured independently for each victim." If that is true (and applied as such by the court), then self-defense is not available as a defense to prosecution (at least not to reckless conduct) for the death or injury of an innocent bystander. As to my statement that it has no "teeth," it does not create criminal liability. It only limits the defenses. 39-11-605, which is the civil remedies portion, also only limits the defenses. Neither section creates a right of action (civilly) or a criminal liability. Otherwise, I agree with your thoughts on reckless conduct.

I don't see 39-11-604 having any "teeth," in that it only codifies the idea that a person cannot use self-defense in relation to someone who was not attacking the defendant. It certainly doesn't make someone more responsible that he would be otherwise. This case looks like an aberration for several reasons: 1. The defendant did not have a HCP and was convicted for being armed; 2. Self-defense wasn't effective anyway because the jury convicted him of attempted murder of the person who shot at him; 3. It appears the defendant, and/or his buddy, had some involvement in starting the confrontation (which juries don't like in TN); and 4. He was shooting at someone who was driving away from him, and doing it in a crowded parking lot around 1pm. Taken together, I am not at all surprised by the verdict. The defendant was clearly reckless and unconcerned for the well-being of innocent people. If the facts were different (for example, the mall shooting mentioned by LP), the outcome might have been different. However, I certainly agree that people need to be aware of the surroundings before using deadly force. The degree of responsibility that goes with using deadly force is much higher than many people think (or understand).

Sounds like no bench warrant was issued.

Did you call the sheriff's office? Your driving record isn't the issue at this point. As I mentioned earlier, the failure to appear is a SEPARATE issue. The warrant (if there even is one) is because you did not appear as required and is not really related to the ticket itself. Driving on a suspended license isn't a big deal and probably wouldn't show up until the State (on the court) processes it. On the other hand, a bench warrant is immediate add would be in LEO system much faster. Hopefully, no warrant was issued for the FTA at all. But you need to be trying to find out if there's a warrant out, not the status of your license.

Not to make you worry any further, but the issue isn't just a ticket. Failure to appear is a separate offense (sort of like contempt of court). Each judge (not just court) could have a different way of handling it. However, I have certainly seen judges enter bench warrants on this type of thing. I would suggest calling the Decatur Co. sheriff's office tomorrow and see if they can tell you if a warrant was issued. If so, you will need to deal with it (probably have to appear at another court date). I doubt it will be a big deal, but just more of a hassle. However, you certainly need to be proactive. I don't know any attorneys in Decatur Co., so I am not sure that court would issue a warrant or not. Here in Williamson, it would depend on the judge.

That's why you need to read the opinion for yourself. That article is simply not accurate on either the arguments made by the defendant or the opinion of the court.

I think the opinion is fairly clear in stating that the "individual who sends a straw to the gun store to buy a firearm is transacting with the dealer . . . And that distinguishes such a person from someone who buys a gun, or receives a gun as a gift, from a private party." See Page 19. So, at least as this decision is concerned, I highly doubt it has any effect on any purchase other than a situation where the person completing the 4473 was sent to complete the purchase for someone else.

  I would suggest NEVER doing this.  That is asking for trouble.  Too many possible problems (one of the parties dies, someone registers a deed without you knowing about it, someone filing a lien -- tax lien, mechanics lien, etc).    Lager - I will send you a private message shortly.

Umbrella policies are, as a general matter, a very cheap product (relative to other coverages) and I have one myself. If the policy does cover self-defense, then you are good. However, even the language mentioned above has some "ifs, ands, & buts" in there. Specifically, we have seen coverage denied (including denial of paying for defense) based on very strict readings of the policy. For example, what does "lawful reasonable force" mean. If you get charged with a crime, the umbrella policy is likely NOT going to pay the defense costs because it hasn't been proven that your intentional act was "lawful" or "reasonable." Also, the umbrella policy is a liability policy, meaning it pays when you are liable to another person for damages. It is rare for an umbrella policy, or any general liability policy, to cover criminal defense costs. Unless the umbrella policy has a specific provision for paying for defense of criminal prosecution, there is a good chance that the umbrella policy is NOT the same type of coverage as the what the OP is talking about.

You really need to check the umbrella policy's fine print. Most general liability policies specifically exclude intentional acts. Self-defense is, by definition, an intentional act.

In that limited circumstance, I would imagine that it would be a crime (under TN law). The issue is that there has to be a fear of great bodily injury or death. Tennessee provides for a presumption of that fear in the home, but an actual lack of that fear makes a shooting criminal. It is a state of mind issue. If your are sitting and waiting for them, I would expect that fear not to be there. Obviously, that has to be proven in court, but as a factual matter, without the fear it is criminal.

I believe we discussed this one shortly after it happened in 2012. Homeowner was convicted today of murder following a home invasion: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/29/minn-homeowner-convicted-premeditated-murder/?intcmp=latestnews

Yes, as are most issues in court. Reasonableness is a very common term in most areas of the law.

Yes, absolutely right. But the true loser pay rules is an extreme result because litigation is rarely as "black and white" as most people would think. Most cases involve more than one claim and a true loser pays rule has some really odd results. Further, many cases are lost on reasons other than merit. Tennessee has adopted a hybrid system that, in my opinion, balances the issues. As always, I would suggest not to view the entire system from one or two cases. The rules we have came into place over many years and, in most cases, take the right approach because they have been tested and modified as needed. Some cases are the exception to the rule, but those cases shouldn't define the rules for all cases.

Here's a fairly lengthy article on the case:   http://www.johndaylegal.com/lawyer-attorney-1804037.html   As a general matter, a business is not considered the "insurer of the safety of its customers" and has no "absolute duty to implement security measures."  However, a business does have a duty to take "reasonable steps" to protect customers if it is "reasonably foreseeable" that criminal acts against its customers may occur.  The idea is that "reasonableness" is the standard.  In an carry situation, the business would argue that its prohibition on carry was intended to protect customers, so the case would probably swing one way or the other upon the jury's belief in the effects of carrying a gun (i.e.:  business wins if jury believes prohibition is the right way to protect customers;  business loses if the jury believes individual carry is the way to protect customers).   As far as workers' comp goes, it is a little different.  The reason is that workers' comp is essentially a compromise between the business and the employee.  The employee does not have to prove that the business was at fault (as opposed to the criminal who injured the employee) and the business does not face uncertain amounts of damages.  

I respectfully disagree. Loser pays (in the true sense) protects wrongdoers far more than it helps the wrongly accused. Tennessee adopted a watered down "loser pays" rule that went into effect last year. However, if you do the research, Tennessee has not had a problem of any significance with unmerited lawsuits. If a lawsuit is filed that has virtually no chance to win, it is much more likely to get dismissed VERY early in the case than it is to get to settlement. And under current Tennesssee, could require the plaintiff to pay for costs, attorneys fees, and loss of income for the defendant. The "loser pays" statute only applies in certain cases and only if the case is dismissed within a short time. Now, with the current discussion, I do think it is possible to bring a lawsuit against a business owner that prohibits carry in some very limited circumstances. Tennessee case law has recognized a limited duty for businesses to take measures to protect patrons when there is a known threat. Walmart got hit years ago in Memphis for failing to protect patrons because Walmart was well aware of some violent criminal activity in its parking lot. The case law is pretty clear, though, that the business must be aware of an "unreasonable risk" of violent activity on the premises under control of the business. If someone could show that violent crime was known to business (and probably not know to the patron) and that the prohibition contributed to death or injury, then there's a chance that liability would occur.