Bills Allowing Defense of Property

[Garufa]

There a two new bills introduced in the TN House and Senate to allow the use of “deadly force” in the defense of property

https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB1407

[Snaveba]

Interesting. This would be a big change to the rules on engagement. 

[BigK]

NVM, found what I was looking for.

Edited Thursday at 04:23 AM by BigK

[gun sane]

I see that trespassing and/or damage to property is grounds to start blasting.  That could be problematic.

[Snaveba]

Well, I suppose if folks start shooting or shooting at all the trespassers and thugs breaking into cars and such, they might start thinking twice about trespassing.

[Darrell]

I think that it might be going a bit too far to allow deadly response to trespass.  I see that as opening a really big can of worms.

[DHF]

Texas has a defense of property law that is even more broad than this, I believe and every legal eagle out there will tell you that you are not in a great place if you need to rely on it.  Removing brandishing of a weapon, may be the most helpful thing in this.

Summary from the FastDemocracy site:  House Bill 856 amends various sections of the Tennessee Code Annotated related to the use of force, particularly concerning the justification for using deadly force. The bill introduces a new definition of "deadly force," clarifying that it refers to force intended to cause death or substantial risk of death, excluding the mere display or brandishing of a weapon. Additionally, it modifies the criteria under which a person can justify the use of deadly force, emphasizing the necessity of such force to prevent or terminate specific crimes, including property crimes and serious harm to animals.

The bill also updates references to self-defense laws by including protection of property statutes, thereby broadening the legal framework for justifying the use of force. It removes certain existing language regarding the risk of causing death or serious bodily harm and replaces it with a more specific standard concerning the probability of causing substantial risk of death or extreme physical pain. Overall, these changes aim to clarify and expand the legal justifications for the use of force in Tennessee.

[BigK]

2 hours ago, Darrell said:

I think that it might be going a bit too far to allow deadly response to trespass.  I see that as opening a really big can of worms.

yeah, I'm worried about the way that part is written too...sounds like it'd be legal to shoot the neighbor's kid for taking a shortcut across my yard to get to the school bus, which would be nuts

Edited Thursday at 02:38 PM by BigK

[GlockSpock]

Yeah, just wait until some sleep deprived single mom of three accidentally gets in the wrong vehicle at Walmart and gets blasted for it.

[Wheelgunner]

The bills seem to be intended to expand access to self-defense.  But that goal would be more meaningfully served by making it not a criminal offense to carry past a gunbuster sign.

[chances R]

No way I would support the use of deadly force for trespass.  Too much potential for catastophic use/mistakes.  Destruction of property I would support and willful harm to farm livestock.  Not in favor of lethal force to protect pets.  Deadly force for looters I'm in favor of.  

[BigK]

5 hours ago, chances R said:

No way I would support the use of deadly force for trespass.  Too much potential for catastophic use/mistakes.  Destruction of property I would support and willful harm to farm livestock.  Not in favor of lethal force to protect pets.  Deadly force for looters I'm in favor of.  

I'm 100% in favor of force to protect pets on my property or on a leash with me. Mine are family and I value my pets' lives over the life of any scumbag that harm them in those circumstances.

[chances R]

Big K I've always had pets and ran retriever field trials for 25 yrs.  I understand the family emotions on pets.  But I can't put a pet over the life of some scumbag.  There may be an exception, hopefully never put in that situation.

[BigK]

2 hours ago, chances R said:

Big K I've always had pets and ran retriever field trials for 25 yrs.  I understand the family emotions on pets.  But I can't put a pet over the life of some scumbag.  There may be an exception, hopefully never put in that situation.

I hope no scumbag ever puts me in that position too.