HB1006 Civil Immunity

[Worriedman]

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/110/Bill/HB1006.pdf

If everyone wants to help a good bill, this is it!

[xsubsailor]

Yep, that's one I can get behind. 

[leroy]

Interestin...

 

[JayC]

WOW, that is a strong pro-2nd Amendment bill....

This isn't just a civil immunity law, it's a criminal immunity law as well!!!  

We all need to call our legislators and have them back this bill.

[peejman]

Interesting indeed. I think I understand what is says, but I'd like to hear a lawyer-ish person translate that into common-folk-ese. 

[Worriedman]

On 2/10/2017 at 9:05 AM, peejman said:

Interesting indeed. I think I understand what is says, but I'd like to hear a lawyer-ish person translate that into common-folk-ese. 

IANAL, but, this prevents a civil suit unless you are convicted of a crime instead of the current situation where you get your money back for legal cost and loss of earnings if you prove you were not guilty of a criminal act in a civil action...

TCA 39-11-622.  Justification for use of force -- Exceptions -- Immunity from civil liability.

  (a)  (1) A person who uses force as permitted in §§ 39-11-611 -- 39-11-614 or § 29-34-201, is justified in using such force and is immune from civil liability for the use of such force, unless:

      (A) The person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in § 39-11-106 who:

         (i) Was acting in the performance of the officer's official duties; and

         (ii) Identified the officer in accordance with any applicable law; or

         (iii) The person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer; or

      (B) The force used by the person resulted in property damage to or the death or injury of an innocent bystander or other person against whom the force used was not justified.

(b) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by a person in defense of any civil action brought against the person based upon the person's use of force, if the court finds that the defendant was justified in using such force pursuant to §§ 39-11-611 -- 39-11-614 or § 29-34-201.
 

[Worriedman]

Governor and his Liberal henchmen are about the business of killing this innocuous little bill, he has "Flagged" it and his House sycophants are trying to say it is a Gang related pass for them to say if 15 shoot 12 of another tribe, it allows the 15 to claim they were afeard for their lives under cover of this bill and get off under cover of "self defense".

The water carriers for the governor and Speaker are walking the halls calling in favors to stop this good bill.

Edited February 26, 2017 by Worriedman

[Chucktshoes]

This is my shocked face. :|

[Worriedman]

Mike Carter, Chairman of the House Civil Justice sub-committee will put a bullet in the head of this bill today at 9:00 AM. 

I have been quietly working to amend the original bill so that the Oligarchy would accept it, Sheriff's Association is agin it, "Oh God" gangs will run rampant under this new prescription, but the State itself says:
 

"Local law enforcement contacts, the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Safety, the District Attorneys General Conference, the District Public Defenders Conference, and the Administrative Office of the Courts confirm that the proposed legislation will not significantly impact their operations."

 

[DaveTN]

That statute removes the ability of cops on the street to arrest a violent criminal when they have probable cause at the scene. No other crime has this language does it?

Quote

 

(b) A law enforcement agency, including a district attorney's office, may use standard procedures for investigating the use or threatened use of force as described in subdivision (a)(2), but the law enforcement agency may not charge, indict, or arrest the person for using or threatening to use force unless the agency determines that there is clear and convincing evidence, beyond a determination of mere probable cause, that the force used or threatened was unlawful.

(c) No court shall issue an arrest warrant, citation, or summons for the person who used or threatened to use force unless it affirmatively finds by clear and convincing evidence, beyond a determination of probable cause, that the force used or threatened was unlawful.

 

I guess I need an explanation of how this will impact an arrest of a violent offender and what the requirements of “beyond a determination of mere probable cause” would be. If local LE and DA's are good with it; I would support it. We need it anyway the way it is intended. We just don’t need more laws that make it even harder to arrest violent offenders.

[Worriedman]

It does not remove anything, they just can't go fishing, as long as they have " clear and convincing evidence " they can arrest.

"may use standard procedures for investigating the use or threatened use of force as described in subdivision (a)(2)" do the work.

Seems to work pretty well for Florida...

Edited March 29, 2017 by Worriedman