Wonder if this will pass?

[lock n' load]

https://newschannel9.com/newsletter-daily/tennessee-politics-google-news-lawmakers-propose-justifying-use-of-deadly-force-to-protect-personal-property#

 

[crc4]

25 minutes ago, lock n' load said:

https://newschannel9.com/newsletter-daily/tennessee-politics-google-news-lawmakers-propose-justifying-use-of-deadly-force-to-protect-personal-property#

 

With certain provisions, it would be a real crime deterrent to the mass of crimes that are never solved and stop thugs dead in their tracks.

Until is passes, no one should however, act on property crimes using deadly force.

[lock n' load]

Unless they want to go prison

[Alleycat72]

Tennessee Texas 

Texas Tennessee 

[crc4]

2 minutes ago, Alleycat72 said:

Tennessee Texas 

Texas Tennessee 

One should hope so. 

[Worriedman]

The Senate will not note in favor of this bill.  They are too old, rich and staid, and, listen to the NRA too much, but in truth it is the Chamber of Commerce that will put the hex on this one.

[crc4]

Such a law would come in handy as the riots soon begin. Remember the Roof Koreans in LA in 1992? It's worth while to see how and why civilians can be effective when the police fail miserably and deliberately to stop anarchy.

Roof Koreans in 1992

[kwe45919]

The term property crimes would have to be defined with no Grey areas. Involving bodily harm to owners or patrons or total devastation/complete loss.....but then again, the latter is why we have insurance for.....just worth mentioning right?

 

Imagine kids doing donuts in the neighbors yard. Property crime? Possibly. They could hit your house and cause damage or run over your dog. Justified to shoot? Maybe. A car can be a deadly weapon though so there's that......but teenagers being buttheads isn't something a firearm should be solving (in general). 

Hence why property crimes would need defined as to when action can be taken such as a Marshall Law situations. 

Edited January 27, 2023 by kwe45919

[crc4]

The same laws that apply to justifiable self defense would apply here. It just widens the categories that would make such a claim legitimate.

Arson is a justifiable self defense claim; so is a claim of justifiable SD when someone is  throwing Molotov cocktails into buildings where it's reasonable to expect people to be.  Those instances are already covered under existing laws,

I liken it to the days in the West when a thief that stole your horse was tried, and if convicted, could be hanged. Why? Stealing someone's horse could be considered tantamount to leaving them stranded thereby committing a grave bodily injury or death offense. Horse thieves knew that stealing horse could result in a capital offense. They had been warned.

As always, it would be up to the shooter to be able to meet the criteria of a justified self defense claim.

And there's the rub. Few people including gun owners know the criteria.

[Worriedman]

Texas does not seem to have a problem administering their law relative to this issue.
 

Texas Penal Code

Sec. 9.41
Protection of One’s Own Property

(a)

A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b)

A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1)

the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2)

the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Sec. 9.42
Deadly Force to Protect Property

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1)

if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41 (Protection of One’s Own Property); and

(2)

when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A)

to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B)

to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3)

he reasonably believes that:

(A)

the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B)

the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

[crc4]

I have no problem with Texas Law. Wish we had it in Tennessee. Crime would go down as the thugs get shot.

[lock n' load]

It seems that deadly force can used during nighttime hours. I'm guess daytime hours is non-deadly only

[crc4]

14 minutes ago, lock n' load said:

It seems that deadly force can used during nighttime hours. I'm guess daytime hours is non-deadly only

Should be 24 hours a day.

[Guest]

Nothing will change until “polite society”, stops being so damn polite. The problem is, where it gets real, you don’t see street vermin exercising any forms of restraint in committing their heinous deeds, yet society expects different of the intended victim. 
The point is to make sure the criminal element is made to be too afraid of the consequences of their actions, or to simply eliminate them. Either one solves the problem, and my jaded self would argue for the latter, as it provides a permanent solution to one problem and serves as a deterrent to others harboring similar ideas.

Why is that so lost on the “goodness and mercy” crowd?

[lock n' load]

After reading Andrew Branca's book and watching quite a few videos on the high costs associated with possibly being charged, de-scalation, use of non-lethal force when possible, etc, it becomes apparent that the good guys must adhere to a "moral code" that the bad guys ignore. The recent shooting at the Mexican restaurant in TX is a good example. The first shots fired were justified but the last "coup de grace" shot to the robbers head showed it to be more of retribution than defense. Same situation with the pharmacist from OK who is serving a life sentence because he couldn't control his emotions. The courts don't care about what we think the law should be. It only cares what what it actually says. When we stray from that then we risk destroying our own lives in the pursuit of "justice".

[Capbyrd]

On 1/26/2023 at 2:19 PM, crc4 said:

With certain provisions, it would be a real crime deterrent to the mass of crimes that are never solved and stop thugs dead in their tracks.

Until is passes, no one should however, act on property crimes using deadly force.

I would argue that one should never act with deadly force in a property crime situation.   But that’s a moral thing, not a legal one.  Nothing I own is worth having to explain to my higher power why I took a person’s life, not even my house. 

[crc4]

3 hours ago, Capbyrd said:

I would argue that one should never act with deadly force in a property crime situation.   But that’s a moral thing, not a legal one.  Nothing I own is worth having to explain to my higher power why I took a person’s life, not even my house. 

I would argue legally that it is morally correct to protect ones self and family from those who would steal their food, take or destroy their homes, and arbitrarily take their lives.

I can also make a legal and moral argument that my life is my property and due all the protections I can provide to keep it intact.

While there are nuances as to when to use force and deadly force to protect property, without property rights all other rights fall to the wayside.