Trial in Blount County for someone being sued for shooting on their own property

[gregintenn]

All my neighbors expect to hear gunfire. It's just a part of life out here in the sticks.

[gun sane]

I live about 50 yards inside Maryville city limits.  Every time I hear gunshots, I take for granted that it's outside the line.  Then I wait for the sound of sirens to determine if it's a legal shoot or not.

[joe4vol]

What was the outcome of the case?

[gregintenn]

31 minutes ago, joe4vol said:

What was the outcome of the case?

I’m guessing the shooter prevailed.

[peejman]

8 hours ago, NoeLuckatall said:

His "range" is 2 feet off of the plaintiffs property line in one direction and 150 feet in another.  He is routinely sending bullets into the plaintiff's property and simply saying "No I'm not, prove it, I guarantee this is safe."   The "giant" hill he is shooting into has an 8 degree rise over 150 feet.   The plaintiffs own and frequently use the top of the hill. Their house is on top of the hill.  His berm is grossly inadequate to contain rounds on his 1 acre piece of property.  And he frequently shoots into the hill and not even at his berm.  He seems convinced that his bullets just go into the dirt and denies the risk of skips off this low rise hill.  He gave the plaintiffs no option but to pursue civil or criminal charges. He is lucky it was civil.

Have you talked with the sheriff's office about it?

[NoeLuckatall]

3 hours ago, peejman said:

Have you talked with the sheriff's office about it?

Yes I called them. The defendant had bulldozed the property markers installing the first rendition of his range.  I couldn't prove I owned the property so they did nothing at that time.  In hind sight as bullet evidence accumulated and we had paid to survey and replace the marker, we should have simply pursued criminal charges. But... the burden of proof in a criminal case is "clear and evident proof" whereas in civil cases it is "preponderance of the evidence."  I didn't want to wait for clear and evident proof which would likely mean someone had gotten shot.  Probably me.  Its kinda hard to take action when you are dead.

[Sleep profit]

When do you go to court or if you have already been what was outcome 

[Darrell]

Well, it sounds to me as if you're doing things the right way. People have a right to shoot on their own property, but also a responsibilty to be safe about it.  You also have right to safely use your own property. If you own the top of the berm that the shooter is using as a backstop, then I think you have a reasonable arguement. You should be able to use 100% of your own property any time you wish.

I'd be furious if one of my neighbors moved or obliterated a property line marker. I'd take legal action in a heartbeat.

[gregintenn]

19 hours ago, NoeLuckatall said:

Yes I called them. The defendant had bulldozed the property markers installing the first rendition of his range.  I couldn't prove I owned the property so they did nothing at that time.  In hind sight as bullet evidence accumulated and we had paid to survey and replace the marker, we should have simply pursued criminal charges. But... the burden of proof in a criminal case is "clear and evident proof" whereas in civil cases it is "preponderance of the evidence."  I didn't want to wait for clear and evident proof which would likely mean someone had gotten shot.  Probably me.  Its kinda hard to take action when you are dead.

So you moved to Tennessee from where?

[Garufa]

35 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

So you moved to Tennessee from where?

Property rights are paramount in TN as we all know regardless of where one is from.  If some half-assed YouTuber is creating chaos it needs to be addressed.

There’s not much substance in this thread that I can see, but maybe “plaintiff“ has a valid grievance that no 2A  notions or “muh rights”, not to mention common decency, can overcome.

[Alleycat72]

25 minutes ago, Garufa said:

Property rights are paramount in TN as we all know regardless of where one is from.  If some half-assed YouTuber is creating chaos it needs to be addressed.

There’s not much substance in this thread that I can see, but maybe “plaintiff“ has a valid grievance that no 2A  notions or “muh rights”, not to mention common decency, can overcome.

Nobody really knows who's full of s$%t in this case. Either one or both could be the problem. 

[gregintenn]

8 hours ago, Garufa said:

Property rights are paramount in TN as we all know regardless of where one is from.  If some half-assed YouTuber is creating chaos it needs to be addressed.

There’s not much substance in this thread that I can see, but maybe “plaintiff“ has a valid grievance that no 2A  notions or “muh rights”, not to mention common decency, can overcome.

I could not agree more. I can see, however, that Plaintiff doesn’t even realize that Defendant isn’t even a member of this forum. She just found this thread in a google search and couldn’t help but sign up and jump in.

[dgzero]

The only reason the court is hearing the case is because he is getting money from Youtube videos.   They could settle it by making his videos demonetised.   This would preserver his First and second amendment rights.  It would also circumvent the new county law that further restricted the state law that said this was not a public or commercial shooting range.   So no case after that.

[Grayfox54]

On 12/11/2024 at 6:43 AM, Darrell said:

People have a right to shoot on their own property, but also a responsibilty to be safe about it. 

This is the bottom line right here. Safety is paramount. Legal or not, if you endanger others, you're wrong. 

20 years or so ago I was at a group shoot up in Missouri. We were on one guy's private property and using a large hill as a backstop. One of the neighbors came over and complained that bullets were flying over his property and were dangerously close to his house. Frankly, we thought he was full of it and just wanted to be a PITA. That hill was huge, no way it didn't stop every round. But, just to be sure, one of our guys went over and took a look. 10 minutes later he came running back yelling "Cease Fire!" The bullets were ricocheting off that rocky hill and were indeed landing on this man's property near his house. There was never the slightest doubt among any of us. We immediately stopped shooting and never used that area as a range again. Safety has always got to be the first consideration. 

[River02]

On 12/12/2024 at 10:16 PM, Grayfox54 said:

This is the bottom line right here. Safety is paramount. Legal or not, if you endanger others, you're wrong. 

20 years or so ago I was at a group shoot up in Missouri. We were on one guy's private property and using a large hill as a backstop. One of the neighbors came over and complained that bullets were flying over his property and were dangerously close to his house. Frankly, we thought he was full of it and just wanted to be a PITA. That hill was huge, no way it didn't stop every round. But, just to be sure, one of our guys went over and took a look. 10 minutes later he came running back yelling "Cease Fire!" The bullets were ricocheting off that rocky hill and were indeed landing on this man's property near his house. There was never the slightest doubt among any of us. We immediately stopped shooting and never used that area as a range again. Safety has always got to be the first consideration. 

Yep--- boo-lits do some crazy things...just ask the Warren Commission...