Someone forcibly breaks into your home in the middle of the night. What are you legally allowed to do?

[Sproles Shooting]

TN Enhanced Pistol Permit instructor: here is a copy of the slides used in the presentation of the class. Hope this helps….

 

As I say in my classes I teach, “it is assumed they are NOT there for a cup of tea.” You canNOT defend property, but you are within your rights to defend yourself and your family with the use of force…including lethal force.

[Sproles Shooting]

On 2/1/2021 at 6:01 PM, Done said:

My only suggestion is...don't shoot him in the back.

However - this is, in my opinion, a bit of misnomer that can cause problems. SAY, I live on the ground floor, someone breaks into my home and is running up the stairs with their back to me when I step out of my bedroom with my firearm drawn. LEGALLY, I have the right to defend my home and my family (who happens to be at the top of the stairs.) If they are running out the back door in “retreat” from my home…hold your fire and call the cops. up the stairs? Different scenario entirely.

[Sproles Shooting]

On 2/1/2021 at 5:55 PM, Quavodus said:

Your last paragraph grabbed my attention hard. If the intruder holds a gun on you while he robs you, you really might take that as a serious threat. Say you got to a gun and got the drop on him, and shot him. Then what? 

At that point - you are NOT defending property. Self-defense, including deadly force, would be justified under TN Code.

[Sproles Shooting]

On 1/29/2021 at 6:16 PM, dralarms said:

This in a nutshell.   

ANOTHER suggestion would be to, when calling 911 and reporting the incident, is to request 2 medical response groups (2 ambulances) as you WILL, without little doubt, go into shock afterwards and you will not only WANT but need medical attention. This is practical, logical and legally a sound idea.

[45guy]

I am only willing to shoot someone if I am willing to die for the same reason. You can have whatever I own.  I have nothing that I have bought or been given to me that I value more than a life.  If I ever pull the trigger it will because I have no other choice to protect my kids or my wife. I would give my life for them, I will take a life for them.  The gray area would be if you do not know the intentions of the ones breaking into your house in the middle of the night, it seems reasonable for safety's sake to take for granted they have bad intentions until you know for certain they do not. How to determine that is less clear. 

 

[monkeylizard]

Again, it's important to point out that Castle Doctrine "presumes" a reasonable belief of death or serious bodily harm. The facts can refute that.

Castle Doctrine is not a license to kill.

 

In a nutshell: If you were not in your residence/dwelling/business/vehicle you have to prove you were in fear of your life/serious bodily harm. In your residence/dwelling/business/vehicle, under Castle Doctrine the law presumes you were in that state of fear and the prosecutor has to prove you weren't.

Edited December 21, 2021 by monkeylizard

[Capbyrd]

48 minutes ago, monkeylizard said:

Again, it's important to point out that Castle Doctrine "presumes" a reasonable belief of death or serious bodily harm. The facts can refute that.

Castle Doctrine is not a license to kill.

 

In a nutshell: If you were not in your residence/dwelling/business/vehicle you have to prove you were in fear of your life/serious bodily harm. In your residence/dwelling/business/vehicle, under Castle Doctrine the law presumes you were in that state of fear and the prosecutor has to prove you weren't.

No.  The law presumes that they were there to do you harm.  It makes no presumption about your state of mind.  If someone breaks into your house, with you inside, they intend harm.  “But Cap, they didn’t know you were inside.”  Well it ain’t hard to find out.  Knock on the door.  Ring the doorbell.  The law presumes that they have entered with intent to cause death or serious bodily injury or to rape you.   Your mindset at that point is irrelevant. 

[monkeylizard]

  

9 hours ago, Capbyrd said:

No.  The law presumes that they were there to do you harm.  It makes no presumption about your state of mind.  If someone breaks into your house, with you inside, they intend harm.  “But Cap, they didn’t know you were inside.”  Well it ain’t hard to find out.  Knock on the door.  Ring the doorbell.  The law presumes that they have entered with intent to cause death or serious bodily injury or to rape you.   Your mindset at that point is irrelevant. 

Wrong.

Use of lethal force always 100% hinges on whether or not you, the defender, had a reasonable belief that death or serious bodily harm is imminent. If someone breaks into your house with you inside, it's presumed they're there to do you harm and it's presumed that's the mindset you're in. It does not guarantee they're there to do you harm or that you think they're there to do you harm. The facts can support or refute the assumption afforded to us in the law.

Again, away from home in a  place you're legally allowed to be, you have to prove points A, B, and C below. In your residence.dwelling/business/vehicle, those are presumed to exist and the prosecutor has to prove they're not true.

Quote

TCA 39-11-611( b ) (Use of deadly force)
(2) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in conduct that would constitute a felony or Class A misdemeanor and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, if:

(A) The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death, serious bodily injury, or grave sexual abuse;

(B) The danger creating the belief of imminent death, serious bodily injury, or grave sexual abuse is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and

(C) The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.

 

TCA 39-11-611( c ) ("Castle Doctrine")

Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, business, dwelling or vehicle is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household or a person visiting as an invited guest, when that force is used against another person, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, business, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

Edited December 21, 2021 by monkeylizard

[Capbyrd]

On 12/18/2021 at 8:02 PM, Sproles Shooting said:

 

10 minutes ago, monkeylizard said:

Wrong.

TCA 39-11-611( c )

 

 

So, I'm basing my statement on the second part of the slide above.  "The law presumes a reasonable belief..."  It doesn't say "the law presumes that the homeowner has a reasonable belief."   The law presumes.   But the code definitely reads differently.  Doesn't matter.  Either way, you are covered.   The important part is you don't have to prove fear, but rather a reasonable belief.  You don't have to be scared to have a reasonable belief.  

Edited December 21, 2021 by Capbyrd

[monkeylizard]

Either way you slice it, the mindset of the defender is always what's in question. At the moment the trigger was pulled, did the defender have reasonable fear of imminent death/serious bodily harm to themselves or others?

Edited December 21, 2021 by monkeylizard

[Capbyrd]

Again, and this is the only reason that I am arguing with you, you don't have to prove any type of fear.  You just have to convey a "reasonable belief."   Fear is not the right word.  


I don't fear death.   It's inevitable. 

[monkeylizard]

Agreed. Fear is the wrong word. Belief is the right word.

[The mailman]

I will not take a life until I absolutely have to.  That’s my guideline.

[midtennchip]

On 12/20/2021 at 10:29 PM, Capbyrd said:

No.  The law presumes that they were there to do you harm.  It makes no presumption about your state of mind.  If someone breaks into your house, with you inside, they intend harm.  “But Cap, they didn’t know you were inside.”  Well it ain’t hard to find out.  Knock on the door.  Ring the doorbell.  The law presumes that they have entered with intent to cause death or serious bodily injury or to rape you.   Your mindset at that point is irrelevant. 

You guys may have worked this out, but the statute is quoted verbatim below.  The "reasonable belief" is of the shooter, not the intruder.  The law does not presume anything about the intruder.   Although many people use the terms "fear" and "belief" interchangeably in this context, the issue is the shooter's mindset.  So, the shooter's mindset is vital to a self-defense claim.  What's in the shooter's mind is very difficult to know, so this presumption is vital under the circumstances described in the statute below.

 

(c)  Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, business, dwelling or vehicle is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household or a person visiting as an invited guest, when that force is used against another person, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, business, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

[monkeylizard]

Thanks Chip. That's what I was trying to say above. You said it better.