A simple summary of the Tennessee Castle Law

[Guest Son of Aslan]

My uncle and I recently had a debate. He says Tennessee has a castle law, where one is permitted to use deadly force to protect one's possessions. I recently completed a permit class held by the NRA (June 2009), and it was taught that deadly force was only permitted to protect one's life. You could not stop someone from trespassing and/or stealing your possessions.

So, if there is a castle law in Tennessee, and the NRA instructor was wrong, what does it actually say, in layman's terms? Links are appreciated, but I would still appreciate a dumbed down summary because I am not too intelligent.

[dunndw]

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache%3AQO2xB9eOI8kJ%3Afiles.statesurge.com%2Ffile%2F133355+HB+1907%2FSB+11&hl=en&gl=us&pli=1

Here's a copy of the law...basically if you are in your home/auto/business you can defend yourself. I don't see if giving the authority of using deadly force to protect property

[Guest Muttling]

The citation you referenced mentions a forced entry requirement. I seem to remember a ruling or a law of some sort that did away with the forced entry and simple burglary was enough.

Does anyone remember something like that or was it wishful thinking on my part?

[Fallguy]

The term "Castle Doctrine" or "Castle Law" are sometimes used to mean the collection of separate laws that have to do with self-defense and protection of property. IMO those terms are somewhat confusing because they can mean different things to different people and that laws vary from state to state even though both states may have the "Castle Doctrine"

Anyway....in TN, you can only use deadly force against someone if you are in fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm.

BUT...if someone forcibly (can mean just turning the door knob) and illegally enters your home, business, dwelling, occupied vehicle the law presumes you are in fear of of imminent death or serious bodily harm.

You can use reasonable force to terminate trespass or prevent theft of real property, but you can not use deadly force.

Because there are situations in which you may defending your life and property at the same time, a new law was passed that says if you are using deadly force as authorized under self-defense then you could not be charged with using deadly force for protection of property. But again, as said, only if you are also covered under self-defense.

I am running short on time at the moment, I will try to come back later and post links to the laws and the ones that have passed this session.

[Fallguy]

39-11-611 Self-Defense

39-11-614 Protection of property

Amended by Public Chapter 194

39-11-611((2) gives the situations where the use of deadly force is lawful.

39-11-611© gives the situations in which the law presumes you to be in fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury.

39-11-611(d) gives the situations in which 39-11-611© does not apply

[Guest Son of Aslan]

Okay, if "reasonable force" is not the same thing as "deadly force", then what constitutes "reasonable force"? A slug in the leg?

There was a lot of legaleeze in those links. What does "dispossessed" mean?

Anyway, I catch dude stealing my DVD player, what can I do?

I catch a guy on my property, what can I do?

I catch a guy prowling around my garage, what can I do?

Here's what the link says,

a person is not justified in using deadly force to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on real estate or unlawful interference with personal property.

Does that mean if someone if someone decides to invade my home and start stealing my stuff, I have to just sit back and watch, or call the police (which is pretty much the same thing)?

Edited July 27, 2009 by Son of Aslan

[E4 No More]

Dude unlawfully enters into your home, blow his a$$ away! If the garage is not part of your house, call the police, and make a good witness.

[Guest jos2f]

Me personally, if there's a guy on my private property (separate garage, on my back porch, ie any place not in my house) doing unlawful activities, I automatically will feel like my life is threatened.

Ideally, if you make it known you have a loaded weapon, hopefully he'll haul butt the other way. Nobody dies, makes for a good day.

If he sees you have a weapon and decides to pull his own out, then I think that is considered him threatening your life and you're justified to neutralize his threat.

[Guest Muttling]

Me personally, if there's a guy on my private property (separate garage, on my back porch, ie any place not in my house) doing unlawful activities, I automatically will feel like my life is threatened.

If you're in a second story bedroom and see the guy breaking into your car, he does not have access to you and it would not be reasonable to be in fear for your life.

Arm yourself in case he comes into the home, call the police, and be a good witness.

If he comes into the house....nuetralize the threat with lethal force.

[Guest jos2f]

If you're in a second story bedroom and see the guy breaking into your car, he does not have access to you and it would not be reasonable to be in fear for your life.

I can't see my car from my second story bedroom

But really, I'm still going to feel threatened because no telling if the car is his final destination, or he's just getting started on looting from my house.

Not to say I'd go out in my driveway and shoot him, just that I'd be prepared to use neutralizing force if he came upon me in any way (good time to call the police and all as you said)

[Fallguy]

Just a note, one line questions and answers are in no way going to cover all the variables that may come along with a situation.

Okay, if "reasonable force" is not the same thing as "deadly force", then what constitutes "reasonable force"? A slug in the leg?

A better term is proportionate force. You can use the amount of force necessary to stop the other persons unlawful use or attempted use of force. So once you've got the guy under control that was about to hit you, you can't keep beating on him.

There was a lot of legaleeze in those links. What does "dispossessed" mean?

Take from your possession.

Anyway, I catch dude stealing my DVD player, what can I do?

It depends, if he broke into you house in the middle of the night while you are asleep, the law will presume you were in fear of death or serious bodily harm. If you come back from the movies and he is standing in your driveway with it..you can try to tackle him, yell at him to stop or whatever you can think of to stop him or get him to drop it EXCEPT you can't use deadly force unless it would be ok under self-defense laws.

I catch a guy on my property, what can I do?

Tell him to leave and/or call the police. I personally believe you can be armed and let the trespasser know you are armed while telling them to leave, but some say that may be a no-no.

I catch a guy prowling around my garage, what can I do?

If it is an attached garage it is the same as your house. Even if it separated from your house and you are in it at the time, it is dwelling on your cutliage. You would be presumed to be in fear of death or serious bodily injury. If it is a detached garage and no one is in it, it's about the same as them being in your yard.

Here's what the link says,

a person is not justified in using deadly force to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on real estate or unlawful interference with personal property

Does that mean if someone if someone decides to invade my home and start stealing my stuff, I have to just sit back and watch, or call the police (which is pretty much the same thing)?

No, as said above, if they have broke into your house you don't have to wait and see if the mean you harm, the law presumes they do.

But you can not use deadly force just to stop someone from trespassing or stealing your property.

One more note.....when the law says it presumes you to be in imminent fear of death or serious bodily harm...it is just that a presumption. If the DA feels something is wrong or that the fear wasn't reasonable, he can still charge you and try to prove the shooting wasn't justified.

Edited July 28, 2009 by Fallguy

[Guest Son of Aslan]

So this law remains subjective regardless. Personally, I don't understand it. The minute anyone steps on to my property, uninvited, with malicious intentions, I fear for my life. I do not understand why the law does not allow for preemptive action.

Anyway, my garage is detached, and if I catch someone in it, it will probably be through a window in my house. My life will not be in immediate danger. If it happens, I will call the police, and then sit and watch them spoil my property.

[Fallguy]

So this law remains subjective regardless. Personally, I don't understand it. The minute anyone steps on to my property, uninvited, with malicious intentions, I fear for my life. I do not understand why the law does not allow for preemptive action.

Anyway, my garage is detached, and if I catch someone in it, it will probably be through a window in my house. My life will not be in immediate danger. If it happens, I will call the police, and then sit and watch them spoil my property.

The basic things to remember are:

if you reasonably feel the imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, then use deadly force.

you can not use deadly force just to protect property or terminate trespass.

The second item is why I still give serious thought about moving to TX.

[E4 No More]

Another thing, (from the State's training films), if you come home to find someone has unlawfully entered your home, it's the same as if they entered while you were in the home to begin with. Just because he/she broke in while you were gone doesn't make a difference.

[tntnixon]

I find it interesting that the amended law seems to give one less rights to pretection of property than the previous version. I thought we had a conservative legislature, yet they passed this bill during the current session. What gives?

[Fallguy]

Another thing, (from the State's training films), if you come home to find someone has unlawfully entered your home, it's the same as if they entered while you were in the home to begin with. Just because he/she broke in while you were gone doesn't make a difference.

I do believe that is correct.

But IMO that is more for when you come home and enter your home and someone is in there. Not if they are standing in the yard.

[Fallguy]

I find it interesting that the amended law seems to give one less rights to pretection of property than the previous version. I thought we had a conservative legislature, yet they passed this bill during the current session. What gives?

How do you think it gives you less? (No sarcasm, serious question)

It really doesn't change anything. It was to remove a loophole an overzealous DA could have used to prosecute you.

One example is...Self-Defense law allows you to use deadly force to stop a carjacking. However...that could have also been looked at as using deadly force to protect property (car) under 39-11-614 and a DA may have tried to charge you.

Now the law just says that if you were using deadly force as authorized under self-defense you can't be charged under 39-11-614.

[G27]

What constitutes 'deadly force'? Is it brandishing a firearm or actually discharging it?

Certainly one could confront a thief on his property armed and be legal, right?

[Fallguy]

What constitutes 'deadly force'? Is it brandishing a firearm or actually discharging it?

Certainly one could confront a thief on his property armed and be legal, right?

39-11-602(2)

“Deadly force” means force that is intended or known by the defendant to cause or, in the manner of its use or intended use, is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury;

AFAIK there is no legal definition of brandishing in TCA.

IMO there is a difference between OCing a handgun and/or holding a long gun and opening your coat to revel a concealed handgun or aiming a long gun at someone.

So I don't think being armed or letting the BG know your armed is threatening the use of deadly force. Otherwise OC would be illegal.

Just a note, 39-11-614 says you can threaten or use the amount of force necessay....but can not use deadly force, it doesn't say you can't threaten it. But that is my very non-legal opinion.

[E4 No More]

I do believe that is correct.

But IMO that is more for when you come home and enter your home and someone is in there. Not if they are standing in the yard.

Where'd you get "yard" in my post? I was talking about your home.

[Fallguy]

Where'd you get "yard" in my post? I was talking about your home.

I didn't from yours....it has been mentioned in other post, so I was just clarifing.

[tntnixon]

How do you think it gives you less? (No sarcasm, serious question)

In the original version the amount of force necessary to stop the perpetrator was authorized even though it stated not the use of deadly force. However, it did leave the door open to the use of appropriate force even if the ultimate outcome was death. The amended version clearly states that only if deadly force were otherwise appropriate is it Ok to use the amount of force necessary to stop the perp.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but that's the way I see it. And probably the way the jury would see it.

That being said, I don't know that is the original legislative intent. But, as we all know, the courts over-rule legislative intent constantly in todays society.

[Fallguy]

In the original version the amount of force necessary to stop the perpetrator was authorized even though it stated not the use of deadly force. However, it did leave the door open to the use of appropriate force even if the ultimate outcome was death. The amended version clearly states that only if deadly force were otherwise appropriate is it Ok to use the amount of force necessary to stop the perp.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but that's the way I see it. And probably the way the jury would see it.

That being said, I don't know that is the original legislative intent. But, as we all know, the courts over-rule legislative intent constantly in todays society.

The new law doesn't change the part about that you can use force or what kind or limit it from the previous version.

Now you can use deadly force as long as you are covered under self-defense, before you couldn't use deadly force at all to protect property, technically even if your life was in danger.

Using force that happens to result in death is not the same as using deadly force (see definition above)

If you tackle someone and they happen to somehow die from injuries resulting from that tackle, that is not the same as using deadly force. Because the tackle was not likely or intended to cause death or serious bodily harm.

I actually think the new law simply clarified a discrepancy in the law and did nothing to limit the amount of force you could use in protection of property. However I admit that could just be the way I am reading it.

[E4 No More]

I didn't from yours....it has been mentioned in other post, so I was just clarifing.

Oh, got'cha.

[Guest Son of Aslan]

Didn't mean to stir up a hornet's nest. It is just that it seems to me that common sense has checked out with these laws. First, what is the point in ownership if you cannot protect your assets? Secondly, does any legislature honestly believe they are going to to deter any criminal with a gun law? What do they hope to accomplish? Has any criminal planned any criminal activity involving a gun and then said, "Oh, wait a minute, we cannot do that. It says right here in the state laws that we cannot do that with a gun."?

Are they honestly that naive, or stupid?

All these laws do is tie the good citizen's hands.