What If scenario?

[Fallguy]

Hmmmmm......

I admit, I don't think it was the intent of the legislature to say that if someone accidentally finds themselves in a park after closing (technically trespassing) that they no longer have a right to self-defense.

Also it does seem that 39-11-611((1) and 39-11-611((2) have more to do with the duty to retreat before using force and not the actual use of force.

And 39-11-611(d)(3) seems to be saying that the presumption in part © will not apply if you are engaged in illegal activity or using the places (home, car, dwelling etc...) for illegal activity. But doesn't flat out say that self-defense would never apply. You just wouldn't have the presumption of the fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm that you otherwise have.

Hmmmm......

I came into this thinking that if you were doing something illegal, that there is no way you can claim self-defense, but I admit after reading it a bit closer I more think that you just wouldn't have stand your ground or presumption parts, not that you couldn't ever claim self-defense. You just would have much more of burden to prove it than you might otherwise have.

The person in the park after closing would probably have much less of burden than the guy engaged in a drug deal.

***But remember..IANAL nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night....

Edited June 25, 2009 by Fallguy

[Punisher84]

Hmmmmm......

I admit, I don't think it was the intent of the legislature to say that if someone accidentally finds themselves in a park after closing (technically trespassing) that they no longer have a right to self-defense.

Also it does seem that 39-11-611((1) and 39-11-611((2) have more to do with the duty to retreat before using force and not the actual use of force.

And 39-11-611(d)(3) seems to be saying that the presumption in part © will not apply if you are engaged in illegal activity or using the places (home, car, dwelling etc...) for illegal activity. But doesn't flat out say that self-defense would never apply. You just wouldn't have the presumption of the fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm that you otherwise have.

Hmmmm......

I came into this thinking that if you were doing something illegal, that there is no way you can claim self-defense, but I admit after reading it a bit closer I more think that you just wouldn't have stand your ground or presumption parts, not that you couldn't ever claim self-defense. You just would have much more of burden to prove it than you might otherwise have.

The person in the park after closing would probably have much less of burden than the guy engaged in a drug deal.

***But remember..IANAL nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night....

I can agree with that mostly. I said earlier this is the law and the law is open to interpretation, but I think the language is pretty clear that if you are engaged in a criminal act you do not have the ability to claim self-defense in alot of cases.

Being in a park conducting a drug deal is a willing, intentional act. You go into that KNOWING that something could happen.

[Guest Ggun]

Yes BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE LAW SAYS!

No, I think it'd be thrown out, because it's not a valid argument. The law can be applied and not applied at will and I think trespassing is different from dealing drugs and other illicit activities the legislature had in mind when they wrote this law.

1. He is not my guy. 2. You need to learn reading comprehension. There is NOTHING clearer in that law than when it says NOT ENGAGED IN ILLEGAL ACTIVITY AND in a place you have a legal right to be. You cannot be engaged in criminal activity, that you knowingly and willingly put yourself into and claim self-defense. That is the law, that is what is written.3. You seem to have missed that they also quoted a Judge in there. You know those guys in the robes that enforce the law and pass judgement?

I have posted hard, cold facts and statements of lawyers and judges in Memphis who damn well outta know how a criminal case goes since we certainly have enough here and all you can do is pull out straw man arguments and stupid "Well what if he was doing this" hypotheticals.

Your sheer ignorance of fact and logic is astounding.

Laws are not enacted to let you apply the law at will or not apply the law at will. It's called equal protection under the law.

Once you learn about equal protection then you can start applying the law to the facts in these scenarios, otherwise you are still missing the forest for the trees.

You should also learn to frame your thoughts by reason, logic and legal principles, instead of quoting internet articles. All you have is an article about a lawyer and some judge in Memphis, which is not sufficient for you to come to this forum with your *definitive* statements on Tennessee Self Defense Law.

[Guest canynracer]

You should also learn to frame your thoughts by reason, logic and legal principles, instead of quoting internet articles. All you have is an article about a lawyer and some judge in Memphis, which is not sufficient for you to come to this forum with your *definitive* statements on Tennessee Self Defense Law.

Which is more than you have to counter the argument. Yet you come to this forum with YOUR *definitive* statements that a crack dealer has a right to self defense cause his deal went wrong.

I am going to err on the side of caution because of the "opinion" of a lawyer, and a judge, unless of course your profession is one of a higher ranking that states otherwise.

[Guest canynracer]

I am a robber, I broke into YOUR house, I got one of YOUR guns, you come home and confront me by drawing your carry weapon, I shoot you...

Self-Defense...

makes perfect sense..... LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!

we can play this all day...the what ifs are endless....

[Fallguy]

I still maintain that 39-11-611((1) and 39-11-611((2) are saying if you are doing something illegal, the "no duty to retreat" does not apply if you are acting illegally and that 39-11-611(d)(3) is saying the "presumption of part ©" does not apply if you are acting illegally. Neither have to do with the actual use of the force.

Restrictions on the use of force are covered under part (e)

(e) 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:

(A)

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:

(A)

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.

If the legislature intended to not allow you to use force at all to defend yourself if you are acting illegally, it would have been under part (e). But being where it is they are saying you don't have certain other privileges, such as being able to stand your ground or the presumption of being in fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm.

[Punisher84]

Laws are not enacted to let you apply the law at will or not apply the law at will. It's called equal protection under the law.

Once you learn about equal protection then you can start applying the law to the facts in these scenarios, otherwise you are still missing the forest for the trees.

You should also learn to frame your thoughts by reason, logic and legal principles, instead of quoting internet articles. All you have is an article about a lawyer and some judge in Memphis, which is not sufficient for you to come to this forum with your *definitive* statements on Tennessee Self Defense Law.

Laws are subject to individual interpretation by the courts. You believe what you want to believe, but I have posted the actual law and the opinion of a judge and a lawyer. You have posted nothing but your own rambling opinions, which no one else seems to agree with by the way.

Since you refuse to ever answer any question about your area of expertise, I'm just going to say you're wrong, but believe what you want. If you are a law abiding citizen it doesn't apply to you anyway does it?

Edited June 25, 2009 by Punisher84

[Guest canynracer]

OK everyone, a friendly reminder......

Argue your point or dont, just be careful of the personal attacks.

thank you,

carry on.

[Punisher84]

OK everyone, a friendly reminder......

Argue your point or dont, just be careful of the personal attacks.

thank you,

carry on.

Edited. I apologize. Bad day.

[Guest Ggun]

I still maintain that 39-11-611((1) and 39-11-611((2) are saying if you are doing something illegal, the "no duty to retreat" does not apply if you are acting illegally and that 39-11-611(d)(3) is saying the "presumption of part ©" does not apply if you are acting illegally. Neither have to do with the actual use of the force.

Restrictions on the use of force are covered under part (e)

If the legislature intended to not allow you to use force at all to defend yourself if you are acting illegally, it would have been under part (e). But being where it is they are saying you don't have certain other privileges, such as being able to stand your ground or the presumption of being in fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm.

Exactly. Good *lawyering*! And, it makes sense. Our legislature is giving law abiding citizens extra safeguards and presumpltions, not taking away common law defenses and principles.

[Punisher84]

Oh...my...god. B)B)

[Guest Ggun]

Oh...my...god. :wall:

I guess the thread can be closed now...

[Punisher84]

I guess the thread can be closed now...

I think it should remain open so future generations can marvel at the stupidity that was displayed here.

[netmindr]

I believe the law is allowing for the situation where a BG retreats or otherwise withdraws his threat and that the shooter is no longer in imminent danger.

You can no longer claim self defense yourself if the threat has ceased and it may indeed be up to the court's decision as to whether the BG can claim self defense, regardless of the fact that he was headed out the door with the money. He may actually be allowed to do so if the court decides that his illegal activity of threatening you or others with bodily harm or death had ceased when you pulled the trigger. At this point he is no longer a threat and you were the aggressor.

In this scenario, expect to lose your right to carry and spend some time in jail for, at the very least, aggravated assault and battery, or at worse whatever homocide charge your attorney can negotiate. You may be lucky, however, as the law does state that the offender or someone on his behalf will not be able to bring a civil suit against you as that is not allowed when the assault occured while they were committing a crime.

I'm not trying to reopen this for further heated discussion but I did not see this scenario spelled out and this is my interpretation of the law.

Edited July 1, 2009 by netmindr

[Guest ab28]

Self defense is self defense, doesn't matter what the law says. If I am homeless and sleeping in a warehouse, I am defending myself. Law as a whole is made to help people, I think it has gotten away from that, we have way too many laws now.

[Guest Muttling]

You can't worry about being sued. You can be sued for anything. And if you can't afford an attorney one will be appointed (man I have heard that phrase a million times).

Public defenders are ONLY appointed for criminal cases. A suit is a civil case and an attorney will not be appointed for you if you can't afford one.

[Guest mosinon]

Public defenders are ONLY appointed for criminal cases. A suit is a civil case and an attorney will not be appointed for you if you can't afford one.

That's right as far as I know but from what I hear you'd be just about as good doing it for yourself as going with the "public option" when it comes to criminal cases. Pun intended.