So there I was...

[Guest Ggun]

I had a situation like that happen, except our door was unlocked because my room mate was still out. It ended up being some of my neighbors that were drunk. Needless to say when I slipped into the living room and lit them up with the surefire (225 lumens at almost point blank), they realized it had been a bad idea. A few days later one of them thanked me for not shooting them.

Was the surefire attached to the handgun? If so, did you point the firearm at them without knowing who you were pointing at?

[bteague2]

Was the surefire attached to the handgun? If so, did you point the firearm at them without knowing who you were pointing at?

It's a hand held flashlight. So nope.

[Guest Ggun]

It's a hand held flashlight. So nope.

Can't fault you for that!

After all, gunnin' down drunk neighbors around here would get the neighborhood watch on you right quick...

[Guest bkelm18]

Was the surefire attached to the handgun? If so, did you point the firearm at them without knowing who you were pointing at?

You appear to have issues with people using their weapons to defend their home. If someone enters my domicile, unannounced and without my permission, they are getting a gun pointed at them. Plain and simple. I'm not giving them the luxury of doubt during which they could get the jump on me. If they have problems with having guns pointed at them, then they should take that into consideration before stepping into someone else's home. If they call the cops on me then they can explain to cops why they were trespassing.

[Guest grimel]

Was the surefire attached to the handgun? If so, did you point the firearm at them without knowing who you were pointing at?

But, he did know who he was pointing it at - someone who didn't belong in his home.

[bteague2]

Can't fault you for that!

After all, gunnin' down drunk neighbors around here would get the neighborhood watch on you right quick...

Just to clarify. I didn't really know them, I knew that before I turned the light on because I could hear them talk while they bumped into things in the dark. The only reason they didn't get a gun pointed at them was because after scarring the crap out of them with the flashlight and a string of less then kind words I decided they weren't a threat.

But back to the OP, I think you did good and if we could get a youtube video of a reenactment of the tactical couch-roll I think everyone would enjoy it.

[Guest Ggun]

You appear to have issues with people using their weapons to defend their home. If someone enters my domicile, unannounced and without my permission, they are getting a gun pointed at them. Plain and simple. I'm not giving them the luxury of doubt during which they could get the jump on me. If they have problems with having guns pointed at them, then they should take that into consideration before stepping into someone else's home. If they call the cops on me then they can explain to cops why they were trespassing.

I have no qualms about Self Defense in one's home.

The important issue that many fail to take into account in these scenarios is that not every unannounced entry into a domicile (even without express permission) makes a shooting self defense. You get some important presumptions, but its not absolute.

[Paletiger13]

It's called Castle Doctrine^ I learned that this Sunday at my HCP class. Look it up, some things with the laws have changed.

[Guest mikedwood]

You appear to have issues with people using their weapons to defend their home. If someone enters my domicile, unannounced and without my permission, they are getting a gun pointed at them. Plain and simple. I'm not giving them the luxury of doubt during which they could get the jump on me. If they have problems with having guns pointed at them, then they should take that into consideration before stepping into someone else's home. If they call the cops on me then they can explain to cops why they were trespassing.

If they lived in Oak Ridge then they would understand completely.

[Guest SUNTZU]

I bought barbed wire just to put out in the general direction of Oak Ridge. I have enough worries in my own apartment.

[Punisher84]

I have no qualms about Self Defense in one's home.

The important issue that many fail to take into account in these scenarios is that not every unannounced entry into a domicile (even without express permission) makes a shooting self defense. You get some important presumptions, but its not absolute.

Actually with the Castle Doctrine and the way it is written in TN law it explains one must forcibly enter the home and not reside there.

If someone turns a knob and opens a door they have used "force" to enter, means they didn't just walk in an open door, and if they do not belong there you are automatically given the assumption by the state that they were there to do you harm.

It's good bteague didn't shoot his neighbors, but let's imagine if he had been asleep and this neighbor stumbled into his bedroom. He wakes up, sees a man he doesn't know standing in his doorway. Bang. Justified.

[Guest truthsayer]

I have no qualms about Self Defense in one's home.

The important issue that many fail to take into account in these scenarios is that not every unannounced entry into a domicile (even without express permission) makes a shooting self defense. You get some important presumptions, but its not absolute.

Seriously? Might I suggest that your knowledge intake is a little less in quality and quantity that your output...

[Fadex]

Ggun

So someone wanders into your home that you don't know...what do you do?

[Guest smithandwesson]

You should not put yourself in a position to clear your gun from your holster unless you intend to use it. I would suggest you practice drawing your weapon so that you are confident with your reaction time.

Id say he did intend to use it, if it was a bad guy.

[Guest mikedwood]

I bought barbed wire just to put out in the general direction of Oak Ridge. I have enough worries in my own apartment.

You might also want to add a lead shield encased in 3' of concrete. They are spending $755,000,000 over the next two years just to clean up what the government did to us.

That doesn't even include what the crack and meth heads are doing to us here.

As for the back of my couch it's covered in 1/4 plate steel with Kevlar cushions. Never can be to careful here.

[Guest SUNTZU]

I've got some SAPI plates made outta Brazilian Redwood on another thread. Go Green.

[Guest Ggun]

Actually with the Castle Doctrine and the way it is written in TN law it explains one must forcibly enter the home and not reside there.

If someone turns a knob and opens a door they have used "force" to enter, means they didn't just walk in an open door, and if they do not belong there you are automatically given the assumption by the state that they were there to do you harm.

It's good bteague didn't shoot his neighbors, but let's imagine if he had been asleep and this neighbor stumbled into his bedroom. He wakes up, sees a man he doesn't know standing in his doorway. Bang. Justified.

The TN 'Castle Doctrine' gives you this presumption:

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

The shooter still has to prove:

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

© The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.

Especially when you live with roommates, etc. just waking up and finding someone in your apartment or room that you don't know, bang, not absolutely justified.

[Guest SUNTZU]

Well, I for one am not going to ask them to sign the guest book before shooting.

[Guest Ggun]

Ggun

So someone wanders into your home that you don't know...what do you do?

I determine who they are and why they are in my home.

[strickj]

The TN 'Castle Doctrine' gives you this presumption:

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

The shooter still has to prove:

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

© The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.

Especially when you live with roommates, etc. just waking up and finding someone in your apartment or room that you don't know, bang, not absolutely justified.

I think you missed the part about homes.

Tn law automatically assumes you're in fear of your life when someone enters your home as stated earlier.

You do not have to prove that you're in fear by tn law!

Maybe someone will be kind nuff to post that,as I'm in a hurry and have to leave

[memphismason]

I determine who they are and why they are in my home.

Someone enters my home without me saying "Come In". A pistol is pointed at them.

If I know them, pistol is lowered and I start to tell them how stupid that was.

If I do not know them I would say something along the lines of "Stop or I will shoot", but I can promise you, there will be no conversation prior to my front sight being aligned with the absolute best spot to "eliminate the threat".

"I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by six"...especially in this situation.

[Guest Ggun]

I think you missed the part about homes.

Tn law automatically assumes you're in fear of your life when someone enters your home as stated earlier.

You do not have to prove that you're in fear by tn law!

Maybe someone will be kind nuff to post that,as I'm in a hurry and have to leave

No Stickj, you're missing the point. When you get back, reread my post. While in your home, you get the presumption (A), but you still have to prove ( and ©.

There are many scenarios where the state can negate ( and/or © and then, guess what?

[Guest canynracer]

I determine who they are and why they are in my home.

Interesting....brew a pot of Joe, and talk...hmmm

nope, at a MINIMUM, uninvited folks entering get a 45 in their grill.

No Stickj, you're missing the point. When you get back, reread my post. While in your home, you get the presumption (A), but you still have to prove ( and ©.

There are many scenarios where the state can negate ( and/or © and then, guess what?

Nope, the law gives you A and B...C isnt hard to prove when there is an absolute stranger walking into YOUR front door.

[Guest canynracer]

*dup post

Edited April 22, 2009 by canynracer

[Guest canynracer]

*SB0011 by *Jackson, *Stanley, *Tracy, *Norris, *Marrero B, *Ramsey, *Kilby, *Beavers, *Black, *Bunch, *Burchett, *Burks, *Cooper, *Crowe, *Crutchfield, *Finney R., *Finney L, *Ford, O., *Harper, *Haynes, *Henry, *Herron, *Johnson, *Ketron, *Kurita, *Kyle, *McNally, *Southerland, *Tate, *Watson, *Wilder, *Williams, *Woodson. (HB1907 by *Rinks, *McDonald, *Johnson C, *Fincher, *Hardaway, *Dean, *Litz, *Pitts, *Bibb, *Bone, *Baird, *Turner M, *Moore, *Sargent, *Roach, *Matheny, *Bass, *Eldridge, *Jones U, *Hood, *Fraley, *Pruitt, *McManus, *Coleman, *Maddox, *Miller L, *Fitzhugh, *Campfield, *DuBois, *Bell, *Hensley, *Ferguson, *Mumpower, *Hill, *Favors, *Sontany, *Yokley, *Hawk, *Odom, *Hackworth, *Coley, *Williams, *Johnson P, *Watson , *Ford, *Dunn, *Tidwell, *Lollar, *Niceley, *McCormick, *Montgomery, *Rowland, *Lundberg, *Floyd, *Maggart, *Harrison, *Armstrong, *Brooks H, *McDaniel, *Cobb J.)

Criminal Procedure - Extends circumstances under which there is a legal presumption that a person using deadly force in self defense had a reasonable belief of death and confers civil immunity upon person properly using self defense. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 11, Part 6.

Fiscal Summary for *SB0011 / HB1907 Decrease State Expenditures - $46,000/Incarceration

Bill Summary for *SB0011 / HB1907

This bill revises present law governing self-defense.

PRESENT LAW

Under present law, a person is justified in threatening or using force against another individual when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary for self-defense. The person must have a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury must be real, or honestly believed to be real at the time, and must be founded upon reasonable grounds. There is no duty to retreat before a person threatens or uses force.

Under present law, any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within the person's own residence is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury to self, family or a member of the household when that force is used against another individual, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

THIS BILL

This bill rewrites the present law provisions governing self-defense.

Under this bill, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where such person has a right to be would have no duty to retreat before:

(1) Threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force; or

(2) Threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if the person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, the danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time, and the belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.

Under this bill, there would be a presumption that a person who used force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within any residence or dwelling (as opposed to just that person's own residence as under present law) 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. This presumption would apply when the force is used against another person who is not a member of the person's family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence or dwelling.

This above presumption would also apply when the force is exerted within an occupied vehicle if:

(1) The force is used against a person who unlawfully and forcibly enters the vehicle;

(2) The person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred; and

(3) Possession of the instrument used, if any, by the person to inflict defensive force did not violate any state or federal law.

The above presumption would not apply under the following circumstances:

(1) The person against whom the force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle;

(2) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to remove a person who is in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of the person against whom the defensive force is used;

(3) The person using force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(4) The person against whom force is used is a law enforcement officer who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of the officer's official duties and the officer identified himself in accordance with any applicable law, or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

Under this bill, the threat or use of force against another is not justified:

(1) If the person using force consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other individual;

(2) If the person using force provoked the other individual's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless the person using force abandons the encounter or clearly communicates to the other the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the person; or

(3) To resist a halt at a roadblock, arrest, search, or stop and frisk that the person using force knows is being made by a law enforcement officer, unless the law enforcement officer uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest, search, stop and frisk, or halt, and the person using force reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary to protect against the law enforcement officer's use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

This bill provides immunity from civil liability for a person who uses lawful force in defense of self, others, or property except when the force is used against a law enforcement officer acting in an official capacity who identified himself or when the person using the force knew or should have known that the person against whom force was used was a law enforcement officer.

The court would 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 that person's use of force if the court finds that the person's use of force was justified.

ON APRIL 26, 2007, THE HOUSE ADOPTED AMENDMENT #1 AND PASSED HOUSE BILL 1907, AS AMENDED.

AMENDMENT #1 applies the presumption that a person who used deadly force against an intruder who is not a member of the person's family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence or dwelling held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to situations where the intruder entered a motorized vehicle that is designed for use on public highways.

This amendment specifies that civil immunity for the use of justifiable force would not apply if the use of force 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.

See bold