A lesson about pursuit of a BG?

[Randall53]

This seems to follow Tennessee law according to my CCW class. Am I wrong?

 

Home Invader Dies, But Homeowner May Be In Trouble....

[nightrunner]

5 minutes ago, Randall53 said:

This seems to follow Tennessee law according to my CCW class. Am I wrong?

 

Home Invader Dies, But Homeowner May Be In Trouble....

I don't see how it's anything but defensive, as that report says the suspects fired at the homeowner from outside and they returned fire, seems ok to me.

[chances R]

IMO active shooter outside the home one would be allowed to defend self and family.  Bad Guys responsible for the whole thing.  Now if the Homeowner directly struck an innocent; different story.  No duty to retreat in MI.

[Oh Shoot]

1 hour ago, Randall53 said:

This seems to follow Tennessee law according to my CCW class....

TN law isn't relevant in MI.

- OS

[Randall53]

This was 2 years ago, but it seemed to be an event to learn from. He obviously pursued the BG's after they had left the premises. It'd be interesting to see how this actually turned out.

 

[Randall53]

2 minutes ago, Oh Shoot said:

TN law isn't relevant in MI.

- OS

True...but the actions performed during a like event here in TN could have a similar outcome. Could it not? You're sharp on the law OS. Is pursuit of a BG legal in TN after they've left your home? 

[nightrunner]

Not Ohshoot obviously but defense is legal, but once they are no longer a threat to you, as in running away from you, that's when in crosses the line.

[Oh Shoot]

16 minutes ago, Randall53 said:

True...but the actions performed during a like event here in TN could have a similar outcome. Could it not? You're sharp on the law OS. Is pursuit of a BG legal in TN after they've left your home? 

Very iffy situation.  Deadly force justification is the same whether inside or outside your home. The only difference is that inside the home (or vehicle), you have the initial assumption that you indeed did have reasonable fear of imminent death or severe bodily injury. That of course can be negated even inside the home with certain evidence -- it is not a unlimited license to wantonly shoot a perp, let alone execute him if can be shown that at that moment you no longer had that reasonable fear.

Outside the home, you have no duty to retreat, but that's not the same as saying you have the right to advance.

Once you've defended the home, and the perps are fleeing, seems the sanest plan if you're still in fear of life and limb is hit the damn deck inside the home and let them go. Legally able to still return fire? Dunno, very iffy.

- OS

 

 

 

Edited November 27, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[Randall53]

It would be hard not to pursue in that situation, but I'm thinking it would be the smart thing. If he hadn't chased the BG's, the shot's from outside (which could have hit anyone inside the home maybe?) may not have happened. 

[Omega]

12 minutes ago, Randall53 said:

It would be hard not to pursue in that situation, but I'm thinking it would be the smart thing. If he hadn't chased the BG's, the shot's from outside (which could have hit anyone inside the home maybe?) may not have happened. 

I don't know, I would at least make sure they were indeed leaving my premises, and if fired upon I would return fire.  On the face of it I don't see the problem, but then again it is MI, so...

[chances R]

For discussion, if BG fleeing but shooting simultaneously then returning fire would be a continuum of a single action of self defense as the initial attack was never broken off.  At least that is the story my attorney is giving.

[ehull20000]

+1 on what Oh Shoot said.  

 

Additionally, there is going to be a Law of Self Defense course on the 25th of February at Nashville Armory that would help to clear this scenario up.  This is just the type of scenario you want to have thought about before it happens.  I read the book and then took the level one course earlier this year.  It was well worth my time and money, plus actual local lawyers show up to these things for the CLE and it is handy to rub elbows with the gun friendly lawyers in this state.

    

[DaveTN]

Well, we are basing our opinions on two sentences.

Quote

“There were shots fired in the home before the two suspects busted through the front door,” said Sgt. Woody. “That’s when the two suspects fired shots at the homeowner from outside, the homeowner returned fire striking the driver in the car.”

The test of criminal charges is, “Would a reasonable person (jury) believe the homeowner was in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm?”  If we can assume that the two suspects were firing at the home owner; there was an immediate threat and the homeowner is good.

Could the homeowner be sued by the drivers family for a wrongful death, assuming he was not threatening the homeowner? Sure. But he was a willful participant in a violent felony. That case wouldn’t go anywhere.

Michigan has no duty to retreat. Here is what the law says.

 

Quote

 

SELF-DEFENSE ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 309 of 2006

780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.

Sec. 2.

(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.

 

History: 2006, Act 309, Eff. Oct. 1, 2006

 

 

[JayC]

On 11/26/2016 at 8:44 PM, Oh Shoot said:

Very iffy situation.  Deadly force justification is the same whether inside or outside your home. The only difference is that inside the home (or vehicle), you have the initial assumption that you indeed did have reasonable fear of imminent death or severe bodily injury. That of course can be negated even inside the home with certain evidence -- it is not a unlimited license to wantonly shoot a perp, let alone execute him if can be shown that at that moment you no longer had that reasonable fear.

Outside the home, you have no duty to retreat, but that's not the same as saying you have the right to advance.

Once you've defended the home, and the perps are fleeing, seems the sanest plan if you're still in fear of life and limb is hit the damn deck inside the home and let them go. Legally able to still return fire? Dunno, very iffy.

- OS

 

 

 

Bad guys tossed shots at the home owner after leaving the house, clearly a justified shooting under TN law, who knows about MI law.  Any reasonable person who is being shot would be in fear of death or serious bodily harm.