What If scenario?

[JayC]

would that not be reckless endangerment?

Well I'm pretty sure it's a "grey" area at best... I wasn't there so I'm not going to question the judgment of the HCP holder... but the HCP holder clearly convinced the police officers at the scene it was justified and was not charged with a crime... but IMHO it's a grey area for sure...

I'm just trying to point out that in reality, law enforcement gives a great deal of slack when it comes to true citizen vs bad guy robber in this state as far as justified shootings go...

I'm not suggesting you should push you're luck, but you're hard pressed to find cases in the last 10 years where bad guy walks in with handgun, threatens to rob the place and gets shot by HCP holder, and the HCP holder gets charged with anything.

The big concern you should take is to avoid hitting innocent bystanders, that will get you into trouble IMHO... not shooting a criminal in the process of waving a gun around during a robbery.

Edited June 22, 2009 by JayC

[nightrunner]

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

pretty much. winchester voluntarily discontinued the black talon line of ammo after a couple of lawsuits calling them "cop-killers" however they introduced the ranger line of ammo and removed the black teflon coating from the bullets, to make them less evil looking and all was well.

its all about the look

[Guest foister82]

im starting to think maybe he was trying to make a point with the new to gun people there... we had one guy make a comment about being HCP rambo and guarding his local bank before he started talking about the scenarios. I think the original question to him was "when is it ok to shoot a BG" in which his response was the generic "whenever you know that without acting you or someone else is gonna die or get seriously injured" which ended up spewing more questions than it answered.

You could tell he was a little agitated with a lady in the class who was calling anyone in support of the guns in bars law "irresponsible and stupid," and from that point he seemed to be very conservetive in what he said.

[Guest HexHead]

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.

I agree. That he's in the same room with you waving the gun around makes him a threat, facing you or not. He's threatening someone. But don't chase him out in the street because you're angry.

[Oh Shoot]

pretty much. winchester voluntarily discontinued the black talon line of ammo after a couple of lawsuits calling them "cop-killers" however they introduced the ranger line of ammo and removed the black teflon coating from the bullets, to make them less evil looking and all was well. ...

It's not teflon, and is still used on some of their rifle bullets.

It's tradename is Lubalox.

And it is indeed a bore protector, not a piercing enhancer.

- OS

[Guest HexHead]

You could tell he was a little agitated with a lady in the class who was calling anyone in support of the guns in bars law "irresponsible and stupid," and from that point he seemed to be very conservetive in what he said.

He should of failed her just on principle.

[JayC]

im starting to think maybe he was trying to make a point with the new to gun people there... we had one guy make a comment about being HCP rambo and guarding his local bank before he started talking about the scenarios. I think the original question to him was "when is it ok to shoot a BG" in which his response was the generic "whenever you know that without acting you or someone else is gonna die or get seriously injured" which ended up spewing more questions than it answered.

You could tell he was a little agitated with a lady in the class who was calling anyone in support of the guns in bars law "irresponsible and stupid," and from that point he seemed to be very conservetive in what he said.

I understand, but it's important that we don't allow his "politically correct" version of the "law" to get passed along any further...

Clearly what he said isn't completely accurate.

[JayC]

I agree. That he's in the same room with you waving the gun around makes him a threat, facing you or not. He's threatening someone. But don't chase him out in the street because you're angry.

I'd go a step further, he doesn't have to point the handgun at anybody for a real threat to be there... Him just displaying the weapon while telling people to get down, or robbing the bank is an implied threat to use the handgun if you don't comply... And that makes it an imminent threat of death or serious injury.

[Punisher84]

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.

Why? Why should a person committing a criminal act be able to claim self-defense? Bill and Joe are at a drug deal. Joe knows it's dangerous, but goes anyway. Bill tries to shoot Joe. Joe kills Bill. Joe put himself in that situation. He had a choice.

Now a permit holder carrying in a posted location, illegal, but not the same in my eyes, a judge or jury maybe, but not mine. Now your average criminal, no they do not have a right to self-defense if they are committing a criminal act.

That is why we are law-abiding. We make alot of pro-gun arguments based on this remember? The law clearly states you DO NOT have a right to self-defense if you are engaged in illegal activity. That is the law of the state of TN. There is no misconstruction.

[Fallguy]

im starting to think maybe he was trying to make a point with the new to gun people there... we had one guy make a comment about being HCP rambo and guarding his local bank before he started talking about the scenarios. I think the original question to him was "when is it ok to shoot a BG" in which his response was the generic "whenever you know that without acting you or someone else is gonna die or get seriously injured" which ended up spewing more questions than it answered.

You could tell he was a little agitated with a lady in the class who was calling anyone in support of the guns in bars law "irresponsible and stupid," and from that point he seemed to be very conservetive in what he said.

That does seem to put what he said in a little bit of a different light...

If you've got someone who is about to go out and basically look for situations to use his firearm, he needs to be backed down a little.

As far the lady goes....I'm just tired of dealing with these people...lol

[ftncityfatboy]

....if you can't afford an attorney one will be appointed (man I have heard that phrase a million times).

this is determined by the judge. real life scenerio: two people stand before judge facing a DUI charge. One not working, one working but for minimum wage. Judge ask both can you afford an attorney?? both say no, judge ask if both are working, one says no other says yes. judge says one working can afford an attorney. Hummm....

[threeshot]

Can you provide a case where that has happened?

My point is that the lawyers treat this as some sort of chess game of explaining and influencing the jury to find in their favor.

Both sides will use any means (or more likely budget; i.e. what they will be paid) to win their case. So when you are the defendant, how much money do you have in reserve to fight the criminal & civil cases? I am sure it will be into the thousands of dollars. I am not sure how many thousands of dollars. Anyone know?

Now having said all of that, I agree with you that people should use the caliber, bullets and modifications that provide them with more accuracy to prevent collateral damage and to eliminate the threat ASAP.

[JayC]

My point is that the lawyers treat this as some sort of chess game of explaining and influencing the jury to find in their favor.

Both sides will use any means (or more likely budget; i.e. what they will be paid) to win their case. So when you are the defendant, how much money do you have in reserve to fight the criminal & civil cases? I am sure it will be into the thousands of dollars. I am not sure how many thousands of dollars. Anyone know?

Now having said all of that, I agree with you that people should use the caliber, bullets and modifications that provide them with more accuracy to prevent collateral damage and to eliminate the threat ASAP.

My point is, there are a lot of possible things that can go wrong... the truth is that justifiable shootings are very rare, and the cases where a HCP shoots a bad guy in the process of committing a robbery and then gets charged are even more rare... to the point I'm not aware of that happening in this state in the last 10 years, are you?

Folks should worry about making sure they understand the LAW as it involves self defense and making shots count under stress... Most important being sure they truly have a justifiable self defense shooting before even allowing their gun to clear the holster... Not worrying about some possible legal theory which hasn't happened before in this state, and may never happen in the future.... If you get the three things above correct the chances you'll ever see the inside of a jail cell is pretty darn remote let alone the inside of a courtroom.

We've got a lot of stuff to worry about, making up more stuff that might be a problem in .00001% of incidents isn't worth focusing on.

[Guest m&p40]

When I started to pursue getting a permit, my thoughts were to save the day if that situation arose. Now, after reading so much over the last two years about such situations, I subscribe to what many say, "Let the 'sheeple' protect themselves." There is too much chance for getting my butt sued. The person or business that you become the free security guard to will not pay for your legal fees.

Am I saying I would never act in such a situation? No. I think many people have an instinct and an extra sense that can kick in, and you "just know it's the right thing to do." Sometimes reacting with instinct or even what some could say is a "knowing" from a higher power will yield better results than a pre-thought-out plan.

Also, your wording above is would you "... out of fear of..." You shouldn't shoot merely out of fear what the crook might do. Maybe he is as scared of the trigger as the clerk. He's just brandishing it to get his way. You fire, you miss (hey, it can happen), and then someone that has zero knowledge on how to use a firearm starts firing hysterically.

You fire, you hit, you wound. You probably get sued.

You fire, you hit, you kill. Some pansy-@$$ liberal minded witness claims the situation didn't warrant your actions. The nearly scared-to-death person you saved is traumatized, and thinks your actions were overboard, too.

Lose, lose, lose. Just duck, keep an eye out, and as I've seen elsewhere, "be a good eye-witness for the police."

Laslty, I could not say "yeah, I'd shoot the guy" until the question states it is clear the perp is completely unstable and could do anything at any moment. At that time, you yourself and your loved ones are clearly in danger, and you have the law clearly on your side.

You should hop on youtube and watch a few security camera clips of armed robberys and watch how many times the robbers walk in, rob whos there and shoot all the witnesses, me myself, I wouldnt give them the chance to see if it would happen, If they have a weapon out in my presence committing a crime, Im in fear for my life and will fire a few warning shots into their chest.

[Guest m&p40]

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"

You need to get your money back and take the course over with a REAL instructor.

[Guest Ggun]

Why? Why should a person committing a criminal act be able to claim self-defense? Bill and Joe are at a drug deal. Joe knows it's dangerous, but goes anyway. Bill tries to shoot Joe. Joe kills Bill. Joe put himself in that situation. He had a choice.

Now a permit holder carrying in a posted location, illegal, but not the same in my eyes, a judge or jury maybe, but not mine. Now your average criminal, no they do not have a right to self-defense if they are committing a criminal act.

That is why we are law-abiding. We make alot of pro-gun arguments based on this remember? The law clearly states you DO NOT have a right to self-defense if you are engaged in illegal activity. That is the law of the state of TN. There is no misconstruction.

I haven't seen any statutory law in Tennessee that says a citizen does not have a right to self-defense if the citizen is engaged in illegal activity. You are confused.

Look at your scenario. If a person purchases bootleg whiskey(or marijuana, he is in possession of illegal goods, hence engaged in illegal activity. If he is threaten with deadly force while in possession of the illegal goods, do you really think he has no right to legally defend his life in this state? If so, what source? Don't confuse yourself with the no duty to retreat statute, that is a different rule of law.

[Guest canynracer]

I haven't seen any statutory law in Tennessee that says a citizen does not have a right to self-defense if the citizen is engaged in illegal activity. You are confused.

Look at your scenario. If a person purchases bootleg whiskey(or marijuana, he is in possession of illegal goods, hence engaged in illegal activity. If he is threaten with deadly force while in possession of the illegal goods, do you really think he has no right to legally defend his life in this state? If so, what source? Don't confuse yourself with the no duty to retreat statute, that is a different rule of law.

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.

[Punisher84]

I haven't seen any statutory law in Tennessee that says a citizen does not have a right to self-defense if the citizen is engaged in illegal activity. You are confused.

Look at your scenario. If a person purchases bootleg whiskey(or marijuana, he is in possession of illegal goods, hence engaged in illegal activity. If he is threaten with deadly force while in possession of the illegal goods, do you really think he has no right to legally defend his life in this state? If so, what source? Don't confuse yourself with the no duty to retreat statute, that is a different rule of law.

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:.

Canyn thanks, beat me to it.

Ggun, I know you like to argue, but really know your facts before you stir crap up. That is the law, it is the intention of the law. If you are committing a criminal act you have NO, NONE, ZIP, ZERO, ZILCH right to claim self-defense in TN.

[Guest Ggun]

I have already pointed out to you all that the statutes that you keep referring to pertain solely to the old common law view that one must retreat before using force against another. The statutory law changed that in this State.

Take your point to the extreme to see how it doesn't make sense legally. A couple is making love in a park (indecent exposure=illegal activity) and they are faced with a scenario of death or immenint serious bodily injury, are you seriously thinking that the law of self defense is not applicable to them because they were engaged in illegal activity?

[Punisher84]

I have already pointed out to you all that the statutes that you keep referring to pertain solely to the old common law view that one must retreat before using force against another. The statutory law changed that in this State.

Take your point to the extreme to see how it doesn't make sense legally. A couple is making love in a park (indecent exposure=illegal activity) and they are faced with a scenario of death or immenint serious bodily injury, are you seriously thinking that the law of self defense is not applicable to them because they were engaged in illegal activity?

That is the new law. Valid now. You don't know what you are talking about. Your ridiculous scenario isn't even valid. You're just trying to muddy the waters.

Look, the OLD laws never really specified if you had a duty to retreat or not. The NEW laws state that if you are in a place where you have a LEGAL right to be and are not engaged in illegal activity you do NOT have a duty to retreat. It's a "Stand your ground" law as it is commonly referred to in Florida. The TN state legislature specifically wanted the law written this way so drug dealers and the like could not claim self-defense while engaged in illegal activity.

Your scenario about the couple in the park is misleading and invalid for several reasons. 1. Indecent exposure is a minor misdeameanor, it's a friggin' citation 9 times out of 10. 2. It is only going to be a crime in that situation if you are caught in the act by an LEO. When someone approaches you and threatens you harm, you are no longer committing the crime and you are still in a place you have a legal right to be.

It's different if you are in the middle of a drug deal.

You really need to spend some time getting acquainted with the actual laws of this state instead of coming back to the boards every few weeks and trying to stir up a debate after your ban-stick vacations.

[Punisher84]

Google. Works like a charm. This is from 2007. When the NEW laws went into effect.

The 'Stand Your Ground' defense - WREG

MEMPHIS, TN -- With a legal handgun carry permit and a clean criminal history, there is no limit to how and where you can kill someone in self-defense in Tennessee, according to a Shelby County judge.

Shelby County Criminal Court Judge Chris Craft says the state's new 'Stand Your Ground' law, which went into effect May 22, not only gives "persons (with gun carry licenses) who are not engaged in criminal activity" limitless power to kill in self-defense, but it also strips criminals of their rights to self-defense, even against other criminals.

"Hopefully, there will be a lot less drug-dealers killing each other...a lot other people who won't be, particularly gangs, that are shooting at each other," Craft says. "They won't be able to claim self-defense because they are breaking the law."

"For the person who does not have a permit and is illegally carrying a gun, there is no more self-defense as I understand this statute," says Marvin Ballin, a Memphis criminal defense attorney.

Edited June 24, 2009 by Punisher84

[Guest Ggun]

Google. Works like a charm. This is from 2007. When the NEW laws went into effect.

The 'Stand Your Ground' defense - WREG

Your SOURCE is a lawyer in Memphis who is quoted in an internet newspaper article?

You think seriously that if a person buys a $20 amount of marijuana, in a drug deal, and is in possession of it, i.e. illegal activity, that he is barred by the State of Tennesse to invoke the rule of self defense if he is attacked?

If a person is on the rail tracks, i.e. tresapassing, do you think seriously that he is not entitled to invoke the rule of self defense if he is attacked?

Your guy Marvin is OK, I guess, but you need to realize that the statute you and he talk about only implies that the person cannot invoke the no retreat rule if he is not legally where he should be, not that he must die after trying to get away from his attacker.

[Punisher84]

You think seriously that if a person buys a $20 amount of marijuana, in a drug deal, and is in possession of it, i.e. illegal activity, that he is barred by the State of Tennesse to invoke the rule of self defense if he is attacked?

Yes BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE LAW SAYS!

If a person is on the rail tracks, i.e. tresapassing, do you think seriously that he is not entitled to invoke the rule of self defense if he is attacked?

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.

Your guy Marvin is OK, I guess, but you need to realize that the statute you and he talk about only implies that the person cannot invoke the no retreat rule if he is not legally where he should be, not that he must die after trying to get away from his attacker.

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.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Punisher84
Trying to be nicer.

[Wingshooter]

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

I've got a handful of those in .44mag. I won't shoot 'em because they look too cool

[Guest canynracer]

I have already pointed out to you all that the statutes that you keep referring to pertain solely to the old common law view that one must retreat before using force against another. The statutory law changed that in this State.

Take your point to the extreme to see how it doesn't make sense legally. A couple is making love in a park (indecent exposure=illegal activity) and they are faced with a scenario of death or immenint serious bodily injury, are you seriously thinking that the law of self defense is not applicable to them because they were engaged in illegal activity?

The statute is titled 39-11-611. Self-defense.

This is the CURRENT law for SELF DEFENSE.

One of the Lawyers/LEOs/Instructors wanna jump in here???