HB70 Castle Doctrine Bill

[RRMan03]

Can someone explain to me in English exactly what this bill allows me to to do when defending my property or life?

[Guest archerdr1]

from what I understand, you can protect property with deadly force as long as your circumstances also put your life in danger. So, pretty much, not much difference from what I can tell.

[Fallguy]

from what I understand, you can protect property with deadly force as long as your circumstances also put your life in danger. So, pretty much, not much difference from what I can tell.

That's pretty much it.

The law was sort of in conflict before. When they updated the self-defense laws a few years ago, the use of deadly force was allowed in some situations in which you may also be defending property. However the law specifically forbade the use of deadly force to protect property and did not give any exceptions.

So in a carjacking situation an over zealous DA could have tried to charge you under using deadly force to protect property even though you were also defending yourself.

The bill pretty much just removes that loophole.

[Guest kcnative]

I was told by a lawyer that castle doctrine allows you to assume that someone who illegally enters your home is there to threaten serious bodily injury or death, therefore you are allowed to use deadly force to defend yourself, no matter what (as long as they are illegally inside your home).

At least that's what I remember him saying.

[Fallguy]

It's not just your home but also within a business, dwelling or vehicle.

Of course there are certain exceptions and it is just and assumption, doesn't mean that a DA can't file charges and try to disprove that you were in fear depending on the circumstances of the case.

The self-defense law 39-11-611

[Guest kcnative]

It's not just your home but also within a business, dwelling or vehicle.

I was thinking vehicle was included as well, but wasn't confident enough to post it here.

Odd that you can defend yourself as if you were in your home, but can't carry in a vehicle without a permit, as you can in your home.

On a similar note, I believe RVs and even tents are also included as your "castle." Of course, local, state, and national parks are the exception to this (at the moment).

[Fallguy]

I was thinking vehicle was included as well, but wasn't confident enough to post it here.

Odd that you can defend yourself as if you were in your home, but can't carry in a vehicle without a permit, as you can in your home.

On a similar note, I believe RVs and even tents are also included as your "castle." Of course, local, state, and national parks are the exception to this (at the moment).

I had thought since car was included that at some point the legislature might allow weapons in cars like your house, but doesn't look like they are ready to do that yet.

As far as tents, they are covered under "dwellings". 39-11-611(a)(3) defines a dwelling as â€a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, that has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed for or capable of use by people"

[eapking]

Also see definitions of "curtilage" - area surrounding your house.

[Fallguy]

Also see definitions of "curtilage" - area surrounding your house.

Yep, but the presumption doesn't apply if they just enter the "curtliage"

But the curtliage does include any out buildings etc... you may have on the curtliage, and then the definition of residence includes your curtliage.

So if they foricbly and unlawfully enter an out building your are in (remember the part that says "occupied") it is the same as entering your house.

[Guest Ggun]

I was told by a lawyer that castle doctrine allows you to assume that someone who illegally enters your home is there to threaten serious bodily injury or death, therefore you are allowed to use deadly force to defend yourself, no matter what (as long as they are illegally inside your home).

At least that's what I remember him saying.

I wouldn't count on 'no matter what' to save the day if you're involved in a 'illegally inside your home' shooting.

[wjh2657]

I think that we need to be careful about that "forcibly enters" part. If you left your door open and the screen/storm door unlocked, you may be in a real legal tangle as to whether the intruder actually "broke in." What you say right after they entered may have a lot of bearing as to whether they were an intruder or a "guest" , at least in the eyes of a jury. If you carry on a conversation and then decide to tell them to leave, you are no longer under the castle doctrine and have entered into the self defense doctrine. Castle doctrine only covers a break-in or unannounced and unwanted entry. I keep strong tempered glass storm doors with double locks on my doors year around and they stay locked. I will speak through the door and it will not be unlocked until I am safe with the individual entering. Yet I see many homes (most in fact) including very expensive homes (prime targets) without storm doors. Gun is for when physical defenses (perimeter defenses) have failed.

[Fallguy]

My LEO brother once told me that just turning the door knob would be considred "forcible entry" because they had to use force to turn the knob.

So I don't think the person has to "break in". But you are right in that if they have been invited in and then at a later point you want them to leave, it would be different. Because for one they did not unlawfully enter (the second part of the requirment).

39-11-106(a)(12)

“Force†means compulsion by the use of physical power or violence and shall be broadly construed to accomplish the purposes of this title

[Guest Ggun]

I think that we need to be careful about that "forcibly enters" part. If you left your door open and the screen/storm door unlocked, you may be in a real legal tangle as to whether the intruder actually "broke in." What you say right after they entered may have a lot of bearing as to whether they were an intruder or a "guest" , at least in the eyes of a jury. If you carry on a conversation and then decide to tell them to leave, you are no longer under the castle doctrine and have entered into the self defense doctrine. Castle doctrine only covers a break-in or unannounced and unwanted entry. I keep strong tempered glass storm doors with double locks on my doors year around and they stay locked. I will speak through the door and it will not be unlocked until I am safe with the individual entering. Yet I see many homes (most in fact) including very expensive homes (prime targets) without storm doors. Gun is for when physical defenses (perimeter defenses) have failed.

If they have forcibly and unlawfully entered, you are still within the presumption even if you "talk" to them. I'm not sure what you mean by "carrying on a conversation."

At any rate, the so-called Castle Doctrine is part and parcel of the Self Defense exception, not a separate legal principle.

[Punisher84]

My LEO brother once told me that just turning the door knob would be considred "forcible entry" because they had to use force to turn the knob.

So I don't think the person has to "break in". But you are right in that if they have been invited in and then at a later point you want them to leave, it would be different. Because for one they did not unlawfully enter (the second part of the requirment).

That has been the consensus of every LEO I have talked/trained with as well.

[OngoingFreedom]

If they have forcibly and unlawfully entered, you are still within the presumption even if you "talk" to them. I'm not sure what you mean by "carrying on a conversation."

At any rate, the so-called Castle Doctrine is part and parcel of the Self Defense exception, not a separate legal principle.

Forcibly entering can be countered by deadly force. I imagine the conversation, if there was one, would be something like "Get down on the floor, face down, arms and legs spread." "Alright man, don't shoot me!"

The law, however, anticipates another possibility.

Let's say an acquaintance drops by and you let them inside. While inside the conversation sours and you want them to leave. You tell them to leave (welcome has been rescinded and they are now trespassing). They refuse. At this point you may...

The law says you may use reasonable force to remove them from your home, like put your hand(s) on them and push them to/out the door. If the situation escalates you may escalate the force to match. At no time may you use or threaten to use deadly force, unless it becomes a matter of self defense.

Edited May 31, 2009 by OngoingFreedom

[Motasyco]

I think I've got it now. It's like the vampire rule. If you invite them in, you can be bitten.

[Punisher84]

I think I've got it now. It's like the vampire rule. If you invite them in, you can be bitten.

More or less, except if all of the sudden they try to bite you, then you can drive a stake through their heart.

[Guest Ggun]

Forcibly entering can be countered by deadly force. I imagine the conversation, if there was one, would be something like "Get down on the floor, face down, arms and legs spread." "Alright man, don't shoot me!"

The law, however, anticipates another possibility.

Let's say an acquaintance drops by and you let them inside. While inside the conversation sours and you want them to leave. You tell them to leave (welcome has been rescinded and they are now trespassing). They refuse. At this point you may...

The law says you may use reasonable force to remove them from your home, like put your hand(s) on them and push them to/out the door. If the situation escalates you may escalate the force to match. At no time may you use or threaten to use deadly force, unless it becomes a matter of self defense.

You cannot use or threaten to use deadly force unless it is a matter of self defense, regardless.

[Punisher84]

You cannot use or threaten to use deadly force unless it is a matter of self defense, regardless.

That's what he said...

[wjh2657]

In Tennessee law, if you either side in an altercation uses deadly force, both parties have lost right to SD rule, if both have continued in altercation to that point. If either party breaks off argument and tries to withdraw, and is pursued, then SD possibly kicks back in.

In actual court cases, the party left standing in an altercation that has led to a death, survivor will be usually be convicted of second degree homicide, with possible mitigating circumstances. Bottom line: you did let them in!

Either way the survivor will probably be convicted of felony murder, with loss of HCP and some hard time involved.

Most juries look at it as you invited the fight by letting party in.

If you do win the criminal case you sure as heck won't win the civil case and the Castle Doctrine immunity from tort most likely will not be in place.

Short version: If you feel you are in confrontation mode with somebody, don't let them in the house!

Edited June 1, 2009 by wjh2657

[Punisher84]

In Tennessee law, if you either side in an altercation uses deadly force, both psarties have loist right to SD rule, if both have continued in altercation to that point. If either party breaks off argument and tries to withdraw, and is pursued, then SD kicks back in.

In actual court cases, the party left standing in an altercation that has led to a death, survivor will be usually be convicted of second degree homicide, with possible mitigating circumstances.

Either way the survivor will probably be convicted of felony murder, with loss of HCP and some hard time involved.

Most juries look at as: if you want to fight , do it with your fists, not with guns. Or: you asked for it, now you can't claim SD.

If you do win the criminal case you sure as heck won't win the civil case and the Castle Doctrine immunity from tort may not be in place.

Short version: If you feel you are in confrontation mode with somebody, don't let them in the house!

While that may be true on the street in YOUR home YOU are going to be the King of what goes on. King/Castle

Point being if you invited someone in and they became violent or confrontational and it went to the level of deadly force you would need to be able to relate why you used deadly force, but I doubt it would be near what you would have to relate if you engaged willingly in a fist fight on the street, decided you had enough, and blasted the guy.

Edited June 1, 2009 by Punisher84
fix spelling

[wjh2657]

TCA 39-11-611 does not make anybody a "king" of any "castle". All the law did is say that if somebody forcibly breaks into your dwelling while you are in it, you are presumed to reason that the offender means to kill or severely harm you. You don't have to see a weapon, hear any threats, or any other signs. The forcible break-in is proof enough of deadly intent on the part of the offender.

Without a forcible break-in (you freely admitted them in) you are in exactly the same situation as being in an altercation on the street. Now if it isn't an altercation, but a one-sided attack by the offender, SD prevails. But it will prevail in exactly the same manner and conditions as if you weren't in your home. You are in a place you have a right to be and everything goes on from there. It does not make your home a free-fire zone in any way whatsoever.

[Punisher84]

TCA 39-11-611 does not make anybody a "king" of any "castle".

It may not name a single person, but there is a reason it is referred to as "The Castle Doctrine", hence coming from the phrase a man's home is his castle.

My overall point was that while you may be, in the definition of the law, in the same overall view as an altercation on the street you will probably be afforded more latitude in YOUR home or dwelling.

It's much easier to make a case that you were attacked by a guest or attacked when you asked someone to leave than it is to be involved in an altercation on the street and say "Yea i started fighting this guy, but he started beating my ass so I shot him in the face 3 times."

[wjh2657]

"It's much easier to make a case that you were attacked by a guest or attacked when you asked someone to leave than it is to be involved in an altercation on the street and say "Yea i started fighting this guy, but he started beating my ass so I shot him in the face 3 times."

The only difference is that you do not have to retreat (you are where you have a right to be) and you may use force to eject him, however you cannot use deadly force unless he suddenly tries to kill you. And then you are in a quandry because you are in violation of TCA 39-11-611(e) (2) "The threat or use of force against another is not justified: If the person using force provoked the other individual's use or attempted use of unlawful force."

If you were having a real shouting contest, just about any words or moves you use could probably be used to mean provocation. The bad part about all this is that this probably only happen with neighbors, friends or kin. Strangers, in all likelihood, would leave if told in a firm way to depart. If they do not, call police.

I have served through three jury cycles, two civil and 1 criminal. Just from my experience I don't think having it happen in home is going to sway a jury much. Half your jury is going to be non-homeowners and HUD folks and they don't even like people who own homes. They think we are all "Rich Bitches!" They don't think of dwelling in the same terms that we do. I think you meant intruders (strangers) who got in without being invited or "breaking-in." Without the break-in I have no right to do anything until there is a real threat. His just being in house doesn't change the SD game rules one whit.

Keep distance from intruder. Ask nice once, have spouse call cops if they don't leave, hand in my pocket and keep a smile on my face. S&W 642 in pocket. But no moves until intruder does something real threatening and real stupid.

Edited June 1, 2009 by wjh2657

[Fallguy]

There is no doubt that there is a difference between and intruder breaking in, uninvited to your house and when an altercation may arise between you and a once invited guest.

I have to agree that the later would be compared more to an altercation that occurred on the street. However I figure the odds would be slightly more on your side in your home.

The only real difference between being in your house, car and other "protected" places and on the street in the self-defense law is, simply the presumption that applies when someone unlawfully and forcibly enters one of the protected places.