What If scenario?

[Fallguy]

My point was a DA could always charge you and a judge could throw it out based on that defense.

Actually a judge can't just throw it out.

From the same court case I was referencing TN Supreme Court decision in the previous post.

Once charged, whether a person acted in self-defense or not is a matter to be decided at trial and not in a pre-trial hearing by a judge.

So if the DA charges you....you are going to trial.

However 39-17-1322 still allows the LEO to not even arrest you in the first place or it also allows the DA not to charge you.

[Punisher84]

Actually a judge can't just throw it out.

From the same court case I was referencing TN Supreme Court decision in the previous post.

Once charged, whether a person acted in self-defense or not is a matter to be decided at trial and not in a pre-trial hearing by a judge.

So if the DA charges you....you are going to trial.

However 39-17-1322 still allows the LEO to not even arrest you in the first place or it also allows the DA not to charge you.

Interesting. That's odd the judge wouldn't just have the power to toss it out.

[JayC]

I'm sorry Muttling, there are a couple of errors in your post....

You're correct if you don't have a license to carry you can be charged with a crime if you use your weapon in self defense, but unless you're a convicted felon, the maximum charge would be intent to go armed and would be a class A misdemeanor not a felony.

As for HCP holder there is a bit of the loophole in the current law that states you can not be charged with a crime for possession if you're involved in a justified self defense shooting. Now you are at a minor risk if you have the handgun in your possession when the police show up of being charged but if it's on the ground for example, then you're protected from being charged. Again worse case is a class A misemeanor charge - frankly I'd rather fight a Class A charge than be dead... (again this entire example being carry in an otherwise illegal location) If you go back and read news accounts from when handgun carry was still illegal in places that sold beer and wine by the bottle (Krogers, local gas station) you'll note a number of justified shootings from HCP permit holder that had technically violated the law carrying into the location but were not charged with any crimes while involved in a justified self defense shooting.

I'll also point out another recent case, where a father with a HCP used a pistol to "scare off" a would be attacker on school grounds, and was charged with a crime... The judges own ruling even said if he had produced the gun in self defense he would not have been guilty of a crime, it's because he didn't not remove the firearm from it's holster, and just showed it to scare off the attacker that got him into trouble.

As for "synthetic rounds" I'm assuming you mean teflon coated bullets... I can't find a law that prohibits these bullets in TN, can you please provide a cite? Even AP rounds for handguns which the sale or importing of which are banned under federal law, possession is not banned.

You're right you might well be have a lawsuit filed, but TN has one of the best self defense laws in the country. Which includes the judge having to award you attorney fees, and lost income if you're involved in a justifiable shooting lawsuit. This tends to keep the lawyers away.

I would agree that knowing the law is important for everybody carrying a handgun for self defense...

I just a new punk to the board so take this with a grain of salt....

That said, I think Phantom double capped the 10 ring with...

I would also like to add one comment to the notes about being charged and being sued.

I don't care how RIGHT you are in using your weapon. If you don't have a license to carry or you're carrying where you shouldn't be or you're packing synthetic hollow points (e.g. illegal rounds), you WILL be charged with a crime even if you're doing the right thing. Keep your carry legal or you will be charged with a felony for illegal carry. What you did with the weapon you carried is irrelevant.

Next, I don't care how right and legal you are....If you shoot someone, you will be sued. It's total crap and you will win if you keep your ducks in a row, but you will have to pay money to defend yourself against the suit. Welcome to the wonderful world of ambulance chasing laywers.

Know the laws about when you can and can't use. If you are forced to use, then do so. After have been required to use, don't talk to anyone without a lawyer. It really screws the police, but it may save your butt when the law suit comes and saving your butt should be the reason you used in the first place.

[Guest bkelm18]

As for "synthetic rounds" I'm assuming you mean teflon coated bullets... I can't find a law that prohibits these bullets in TN, can you please provide a cite? Even AP rounds for handguns which the sale or importing of which are banned under federal law, possession is not banned.

There is no law (state or federal) that bans teflon coated rounds. That is just misinformation spread on the internet.

[threeshot]

The type of bullet you use may not be illegal, however you need to consider how a jury will be influenced either negative or positive regarding the type of ammo that was used in the shooting.

If you are using Teflon coated bullets, the DA in a criminal court or plaintiff that is suing you in civil court are going to tell the jury that you were looking for bloodlust by using these specialty ammo.

Again, it is how the jury will perceive your intentions and lawyers telling the jury their version of events that may hurt your case.

When a case goes to jury trial, you never know what the outcome will be until the jury provides their verdict.

[Guest foister82]

i mentioned a similar scenario in my HCP class this past weekend. What the instructor told us is that if a guy comes in threatening he has a gun but doesnt show it, you might have a case but you will be fighting the whole trial for your freedom. He stated that if a BG comes in with a weapon in plain sight and threatens someone, the same would still apply. He compared it to someone threatening you with a knife - if someone pulls a knife and is not striking range and you shoot, you're not within the law even if they are telling you that they're gonna gut you. Once it becomes an immediate threat (the guy is closing in) can you brandish your firearm and neutralize the situation. In a case where the BG has a firearm and does not directly point it at anyone, you cannot legally shoot them.

He even went to say that if he robs the place and is on his way out and you shoot at (or threaten to shoot), the BG can turn around and shoot you "in self defense"

[Guest foister82]

oh, and a previous question of mine here about a failure to act law... there is none when it comes to HCP.

[Punisher84]

He even went to say that if he robs the place and is on his way out and you shoot at (or threaten to shoot), the BG can turn around and shoot you "in self defense"

Who the hell was your instructor?! That is complete BS. First, you cannot claim self-defense while committing a crime. PERIOD. The new self-defense laws in TN specifically state you cannot claim self-defense while committing a criminal act. This is why there is much debate about the 39-17-1322 thing, because technically by carrying in an off-limits location you are committing a criminal act. That defense just supposedly gives you an out if it was a gun charge and you used it justifiably, but it has not been case tested yet.

Second, there is nothing in the law that says a gun must be pointed at someone before you can shoot or how close a person with a knife has to be. A person can close a 21 foot gap in about a second. You just need to be able to articulate Intent, Ability, and Jeopardy.

[Guest foister82]

he stated that as the BG is on his way out, he is no longer "committing the crime" and "presenting an imminent threat of seriuos injury or death" and that the crime has been committed and if he is facing away from you with no one in imminent danger in front of him that yes, he can claim self defense for shooting you.

[Guest HexHead]

he stated that as the BG is on his way out, he is no longer "committing the crime" and "presenting an imminent threat of seriuos injury or death" and that the crime has been committed and if he is facing away from you with no one in imminent danger in front of him that yes, he can claim self defense for shooting you.

While that would be a stretch, why would you fire on someone on his way out the door and shoot him in the back? He's still "committing the crime", but at that point you are no longer in danger. Now if he stops and turns in the door way and points a weapon at you, the situation has changed.

[Punisher84]

he stated that as the BG is on his way out, he is no longer "committing the crime" and "presenting an imminent threat of seriuos injury or death" and that the crime has been committed and if he is facing away from you with no one in imminent danger in front of him that yes, he can claim self defense for shooting you.

Sorry, but that is BS. While I agree with Hex you shouldn't shoot him in the back because he is no longer a threat, he still can't claim self-defense. If he is running out the door with a bag of money he is still committing the crime.

Your instructor's logic is akin to an officer showing up at a robbery scene, the perp dropping the money and his gun, and the officer going 'Well crap Frank we can't arrest him now, he's not doing anything." It doesn't work like that.

You would actually be within the law if you pursued him and placed him under citizen's arrest. Not advocating that, but just saying there is not a time in that scenario where the crime just stops. The threat to use deadly force yes, but not a time where the BG can suddenly claim self-defense.

[Punisher84]

39-11-611. Self-defense. —

( (1) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before 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.

(2) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, if:

(A) 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.

Edited June 22, 2009 by Punisher84

[Guest foister82]

I think the idea is, say a robber goes into a bank with gun in the air and tells everyone to get down. He points gun at teller, you can shoot. He points gun at you or any other civilian, you can shoot. He points gun in air and then puts it up and gets money and is running out the door - you cant shoot. he stops and turns around - you can shoot.

If you shoot him in the back after the fact then you've engaged in deadly force. At least thats what he was trying to tell us

[Punisher84]

I think the idea is, say a robber goes into a bank with gun in the air and tells everyone to get down. He points gun at teller, you can shoot. He points gun at you or any other civilian, you can shoot. He points gun in air and then puts it up and gets money and is running out the door - you cant shoot. he stops and turns around - you can shoot.

If you shoot him in the back after the fact then you've engaged in deadly force. At least thats what he was trying to tell us

That I'll agree with. If someone is running away and no longer a threat you can't shoot, but if he turned around and shot you and killed you, even if you did fire at him, he can't claim self-defense because he is engaged in illegal activity.

[Guest foister82]

this is good info regardless though, thanks for digging that up! I've done alot of research on the laws but i feel so unversed due to the mass amount of them

[Punisher84]

this is good info regardless though, thanks for digging that up! I've done alot of research on the laws but i feel so unversed due to the mass amount of them

It can be overwhelming. My advice is the same as the Instructor's I work with always give, follow the law. If you are unsure about something always ask or talk to a lawyer.

[Guest Ggun]

That I'll agree with. If someone is running away and no longer a threat you can't shoot, but if he turned around and shot you and killed you, even if you did fire at him, he can't claim self-defense because he is engaged in illegal activity.

It is a misconstruction of the law to state that a person engaged in illegal activity cannot invoke the law of self defense in any circumstance.

[JayC]

There is no law (state or federal) that bans teflon coated rounds. That is just misinformation spread on the internet.

There are some states which ban teflon coated rounds... But for no good reason since it only impacts wear and tear on the gun, and does not impact the effectiveness of 'bullet proof' vests.

[JayC]

The type of bullet you use may not be illegal, however you need to consider how a jury will be influenced either negative or positive regarding the type of ammo that was used in the shooting.

If you are using Teflon coated bullets, the DA in a criminal court or plaintiff that is suing you in civil court are going to tell the jury that you were looking for bloodlust by using these specialty ammo.

Again, it is how the jury will perceive your intentions and lawyers telling the jury their version of events that may hurt your case.

When a case goes to jury trial, you never know what the outcome will be until the jury provides their verdict.

Can you provide a case where that has happened?

The truth is most justified self defense (or defense of others) shootings in TN don't result in any charges or successful civil cases. The reason for this is, it's not good politics to charge a law abiding citizen for defending them self (or their family) against a scumbag bad guy in TN currently. There is really good advice on this forum about what to say (and what not to say) to the police after you've been involved in a justified self defense shooting.... So I won't go over it again...

But you've got to go pretty far outside the lines of common sense to get yourself charged in this state for shooting a man waving a gun around in a public business trying to rob the place... You've got too many examples of robbers killing all witnesses in this state to not call that a reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm... (Paul Reid for example)

It's not going to matter what caliber gun you're carrying, or what bullets it had in it, no DA in his right mind is going to want to charge an otherwise law abiding citizen in that type of case... UNLESS you manage to kill an innocent bystander in the process, but even then it's likely the bad guy would be the one charged with felon murder not you.

The fact is most common self defense rounds are carry by law enforcement as well... it shouldn't take a half decent lawyer 15 minutes to find an 'expert witness' to testify the reason their department uses brand X of ammo is because testing shows it works to stop the THREAT quickly.

[nightrunner]

if im not mistaken, the "teflon coated rounds" that are being referred to are the winchester black talons that are now collectible and were discontinued. there are better bullets out there loaded for self-defense so there is no reason to use them. they were ahead of their time in bullet technology but they arent anymore, they're still good but not the best

[JayC]

As Hex and Punisher already stated... you either misunderstood your instructor or he doesn't know what he's talking about.

A guy walks up to you in a parking lot holding a handgun and says 'give me all your money', any reasonable person would believe there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury... The fact he isn't pointing the handgun at you doesn't change the fact there is a real threat.

So take the same bad guy walking into a restaurant or gas station and doing the same thing... What changes all of a sudden? He's still a imminent threat to your life or to a third parties life...

We've seen example after example of HCP holders killing people robbing businesses in TN and there being no charges filed against the shooter because it was a justified shooting. I'll go as far as to point out we've even had at least 1 HCP holder firing on a fleeing 'get away' vehicle in the parking lot after a robbery and not get changed here near Nashville in the last 6 months (not that I would recommend doing that in any way shape or form!)....

i mentioned a similar scenario in my HCP class this past weekend. What the instructor told us is that if a guy comes in threatening he has a gun but doesnt show it, you might have a case but you will be fighting the whole trial for your freedom. He stated that if a BG comes in with a weapon in plain sight and threatens someone, the same would still apply. He compared it to someone threatening you with a knife - if someone pulls a knife and is not striking range and you shoot, you're not within the law even if they are telling you that they're gonna gut you. Once it becomes an immediate threat (the guy is closing in) can you brandish your firearm and neutralize the situation. In a case where the BG has a firearm and does not directly point it at anyone, you cannot legally shoot them.

He even went to say that if he robs the place and is on his way out and you shoot at (or threaten to shoot), the BG can turn around and shoot you "in self defense"

[Guest foister82]

I'll go as far as to point out we've even had at least 1 HCP holder firing on a fleeing 'get away' vehicle in the parking lot after a robbery and not get changed here near Nashville in the last 6 months (not that I would recommend doing that in any way shape or form!)....

would that not be reckless endangerment?

[Guest bkelm18]

There are some states which ban teflon coated rounds... But for no good reason since it only impacts wear and tear on the gun, and does not impact the effectiveness of 'bullet proof' vests.

Well, I shoulda said in TN. That's what I meant.

[JayC]

I think the idea is, say a robber goes into a bank with gun in the air and tells everyone to get down. He points gun at teller, you can shoot. He points gun at you or any other civilian, you can shoot. He points gun in air and then puts it up and gets money and is running out the door - you cant shoot. he stops and turns around - you can shoot.

If you shoot him in the back after the fact then you've engaged in deadly force. At least thats what he was trying to tell us

I'm sorry but I disagree... a robber comes into the bank holding a gun in the air and tells everybody to get down... I think if I don't get down on the ground he's going to shoot me... That meets the definition of a imminent danger of death/serious injury in my book...

I'm pretty sure he doesn't even have to be facing you for the threat to continue to be real... if he's still in the process of robbing the place he's still a threat... so shooting him in the back while in the bank waving a gun in the air is still going to be a justified shooting...

Once he reaches the door, you're right continuing to chase him and shoot at him at that point would be a possible criminal act. But everything before that point in time sure sounds like a justified shooting to me.

Keep in mind him HAVING the gun in his hand is an implied threat to use it to commit his crime. The fact he isn't pointing it at you does not change the fact in a split second he could shoot you with it... The threat is real and imminent the entire time he's committing his crime.

[Guest bkelm18]

if im not mistaken, the "teflon coated rounds" that are being referred to are the winchester black talons that are now collectible and were discontinued. there are better bullets out there loaded for self-defense so there is no reason to use them. they were ahead of their time in bullet technology but they arent anymore, they're still good but not the best

Aren't they called Winchester Rangers now? Same bullet, different name?