A simple summary of the Tennessee Castle Law

[E4 No More]

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.

This implies that you feel you're justified to use deadly force to protect your things. Ok, do you want to shoot someone who tries to walk off with your pen?

[Fallguy]

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.

It seems in the above, you sort of blend self-defense and protection of property together.

If the thief has a gun, that introduces a new element..and if he makes any attempt for it, you might have a decent argument for self-defense.

However as a victim of theft I do feel your pain.

[Fallguy]

This implies that you feel you're justified to use deadly force to protect your things. Ok, do you want to shoot someone who tries to walk off with your pen?

I really feel that deadly force should be allowed for protection of property.

Does that mean shooting is always the answer? No.

Does it mean that I would shoot someone over a pen? Of course not.

But if someone was stealing my car, my lawn-mower, etc... and deadly force was the only way to stop them and keep my property with me...then Yes I would use deadly force, if it was legal.

For those that say is my property worth the the thief's life.....well he is the one that made that choice when he decided to steal, not me.

[G27]

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.

Yah, thats kinda what I was thinking. I mean if I walk out and find someone messing with my car, I'm going to draw my firearm before confronting them.

[Guest unreconstructed1]

For those that say is my property worth the the thief's life.....well he is the one that made that choice when he decided to steal, not me.

my feelings exactly.

while our newer laws do a somewhat better job, they are still some ways off; but they ARE getting better.

one thing that I have wondered :

§39-11-614 (a) gives you authority to threaten or use force "when and to the degree it is reasonably believed the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property." , with the specific exclusion of deadly force [ §39-11-614©]

§39-11-611 (e) (2). states that you are not justified in using deadly force if "the person using force provoked the other individual's use or attempted use of unlawful force"

now, given a "what if" situation,

-you catch some guy in the process of stealing your car ( or some other property) , and you run outside to stop him.

-you announce you presence and intent "STEP AWAY FROM MY CAR"

-he appears to become confrontational and or violent.

does this exclude you from legal justification, since you were the one who provoked the confrontation, or are you still justified, since you were at your residence ( or another place where you have a legal right to be), and you were justified in teh confrontation pursuant 614?

any time I hear my dogs barking incessantly in the dead of the night and I step outside to investigate, this though pops into my head.

[Fallguy]

my feelings exactly.

while our newer laws do a somewhat better job, they are still some ways off; but they ARE getting better.

one thing that I have wondered :

§39-11-614 (a) gives you authority to threaten or use force "when and to the degree it is reasonably believed the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property." , with the specific exclusion of deadly force [ §39-11-614©]

§39-11-611 (e) (2). states that you are not justified in using deadly force if "the person using force provoked the other individual's use or attempted use of unlawful force"

now, given a "what if" situation,

-you catch some guy in the process of stealing your car ( or some other property) , and you run outside to stop him.

-you announce you presence and intent "STEP AWAY FROM MY CAR"

-he appears to become confrontational and or violent.

does this exclude you from legal justification, since you were the one who provoked the confrontation, or are you still justified, since you were at your residence ( or another place where you have a legal right to be), and you were justified in teh confrontation pursuant 614?

any time I hear my dogs barking incessantly in the dead of the night and I step outside to investigate, this though pops into my head.

IMO he provoked the incident by trespassing on my property.

[Guest unreconstructed1]

IMO he provoked the incident by trespassing on my property.

well, I would certainly think so as well, but I am more oncerned with the legal view. most assuredly, it would depend on the county which it took place in, and the personal biases of the DA's Grand Juries, etc...

but I woudl certainly hate to be the test case...

[Currently]

One thing to remember ...

If you do choose to use it AND the District Attorney disagrees with your reasoning, it will cost you $20k to $60k in legal fees to clear your name.

All this bench racing "what if" is worthless if you have a DA bound and determine to screw with you.

AND your homeowners insurance won't pay a fricken dime.

[Fallguy]

Well...all I will say is, I am not going to just watch someone steal my property, I will confront them and try to get them to stop and I will more than likely be armed when I do.

If that causes me legal trouble, so be it

But I do expect to see at least one or two people from here in the court room every day supporting me...

[Guest unreconstructed1]

If that causes me legal trouble, so be it

But I do expect to see at least one or two people from here in the court room every day supporting me...

well, even before the law was passed, I always quoted the old "judged by twelve" axiom, and it is no different now.

BTW, I'll be the one wearing the "FALLGUY isn't a fallguy" t-shirt, with a larger version of your avatar on it...

[Guest unreconstructed1]

All this bench racing "what if" is worthless if you have a DA bound and determine to screw with you.

true, but I use "what if's" quite frequently, just so that I can examine and analyze various aspects of my daily routine... might sound weird, but that's me

come to think of it,. isn't carrying a firearm a "what if" situation?

[Guest 3pugguy]

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.

Or get better locks for your garage...

[Fallguy]

well, even before the law was passed, I always quoted the old "judged by twelve" axiom, and it is no different now.

BTW, I'll be the one wearing the "FALLGUY isn't a fallguy" t-shirt, with a larger version of your avatar on it...

Thank you sir....and not a half-bad slogan...

[Guest unreconstructed1]

and not a half-bad slogan...

maybe I should get the © on it, just in case we ever need to raise the funds to get Johhny Cochran to defend you in court....

[Guest dizzielizzie]

I asked an ex-cop I know his interpretation of HB 70 and he said "If you're sitting in your house or business with the doors locked, and someone breaks in & is in your home / business, you have the right to defend yourself because they're not supposed to be there, and their being there (i.e. through a window) means they're up to no good." So if there's someone standing out in your yard with your car stereo, all you can do is call the police and wait. But if they're standing in your living room with your cd player, then you can shoot first and ask questions later.

But - you've heard of the term "throw away"? can't say anymore or I'll voilate the rules of tgo!

[Fallguy]

I asked an ex-cop I know his interpretation of HB 70 and he said "If you're sitting in your house or business with the doors locked, and someone breaks in & is in your home / business, you have the right to defend yourself because they're not supposed to be there, and their being there (i.e. through a window) means they're up to no good." So if there's someone standing out in your yard with your car stereo, all you can do is call the police and wait. But if they're standing in your living room with your cd player, then you can shoot first and ask questions later.

But - you've heard of the term "throw away"? can't say anymore or I'll voilate the rules of tgo!

Well I think he is basically right, other than you saying you can't do anything if they are in your yard with your property. 39-11-614 clearly says you can use force to protect property, just not deadly force.

On the other...sort of reminds me of what may dad used to say, "Shoot 'em in the yard and drag them in the house." ....not serious of course...

[G27]

FYI: The 2nd Amendment is My Gun Permit Shirt

[Fallguy]

FYI: The 2nd Amendment is My Gun Permit Shirt

Exactly where I got my avatar...

and these two t-shirts.

ATF Convenience Store tshirt

Fred Thompson I'm With Fred Tshirt

[Guest Muttling]

Fred Thompson for Pres - Cause Russians don't take a dump without a plan.

[Guest 3pugguy]

Exactly where I got my avatar...

and these two t-shirts.

ATF Convenience Store tshirt

Fred Thompson I'm With Fred Tshirt

Cool and thanks for the links! Wondered about that avatar.

The ATF shirt is a hoot (and true).

[Guest dizzielizzie]

Well I think he is basically right, other than you saying you can't do anything if they are in your yard with your property. 39-11-614 clearly says you can use force to protect property, just not deadly force.

So as an "as if" situation, you can go out and punch them or push them down? I have to admit, the wording on the house bill got me a little confused.

I need to go back & re-read this thread, but if there's anyone out there (active police, lawyer, etc.) that can help clarify this, it would be much appreciated!

[wjh2657]

In response to the "shoot them in the leg" post: If you discharge your weapon at all you have employed deadly force. It counts even if you miss, it is still employing deadly force.

Sat on a jury on case involving this. two guys fired at each other, both missed! Both still got convicted of using deadly force (actual charge for both was attempt to commit murder). I believe the law's outlook is that the potential is there to kill, even if you are a bad shot!

[Guest Son of Aslan]

So as an "as if" situation, you can go out and punch them or push them down? I have to admit, the wording on the house bill got me a little confused.

That is another issue I have. The wording is vague, and so much can be left up to the subjective mind of the responding officer and judge. If they feel your force wasn't "reasonable", who are we to argue?

If someone is standing in my front yard with one of my possessions in his hand, I am going to walk out and confront him, while calling 911. If he starts to walk away, or make for a getaway car, that is where I am fuzzy. If he leaves before the cops show up, I have to let him leave with my possessions?

Some of you might say that physically stopping them is allowed. But I can assure you, any physical altercation and you WILL be charged with assault, even if he's on your property with your property in his hands. In the long run, it will probably be cheaper to buy a new stereo... LOL.

I agree with Fallguy, the use of "any necessary force, including deadly force" should be allowed when one is protecting their assets. But I also partially understand the legislature's position on this. There are a lot of hotheads out there who would shoot someone over a stolen chocolate chip cookie. They are locked into the unfortunate American mindset of acting before you think.

But, as a whole, I still agree wit Fallguy. The hotheads I bring up shouldn't disallow me to protect my home and property. It seems to me like a textbook example of punishing the whole class because one student acts up.

In response to the "shoot them in the leg" post: If you discharge your weapon at all you have employed deadly force. It counts even if you miss, it is still employing deadly force.

Sat on a jury on case involving this. two guys fired at each other, both missed! Both still got convicted of using deadly force. I believe the law's outlook is that the potential is there to kill, even if you are a bad shot!

I don't know why, exactly, but your Yoda avatar makes your posts sound weighty... I guess it makes me feel like "Yoda has spoken"... LOL.

And, I am afraid you are correct. Even an attempt with a gun will be considered implementing deadly force. I am glad you caught that question and answered it.

It is funny, in a way. I know people who believe that they are within the boundaries of the law to kill someone for merely trespassing. I have told them repeatedly that Tennessee has no such law, but they are old-school individuals, and their mind is not changed easily.

Edited July 30, 2009 by Son of Aslan

[Guest NeuralFizz]

I'm not trying to say I'm a lawyer or expert in any sense here, but Poli Sci with a pre-law concentration is my degree. I asked one of my teachers who is a retired lawyer about it a few years ago, and he taught that if a BG was attempting to leave your property (even with all your stuff) you COULD NOT shoot or otherwise harm him. If he was attempting to flee there is nothing you can do.

Take that for what it's worth.

[wjh2657]

Key here is the connection between leaving and threat. If BG is leaving and not sling lead over his shoulder, he is no longer a threat to your life.You no longer can use deadly force. I am afraid that there are many nuances to "Castle Doctrine" , it does not make your home or property a free fire zone and the other rules of self defense may apply. Before too long I think we are going to see somebody end up in jail for muder after they have shot a burglar in their house and not all of the conditions of CD applied.