Asked for HCP while on your property?

[Guest AmericanWorkMule]

If someone questions an action by the state, why does everything then seem to have a nefarious angle? You might need to start your own thread, I didn't notice any bashing in this thread until you started in.

Why does everything seem to have a nefarious angle with some on this forum when the subject is guns and police?

I guess you've never complained about a pot hole in the road either?

...I don't go around criticizing an engineer about how he/she goes about doing their job. I've never been an engineer. I don't know all of the subtleties of being an engineer. I know about science and mathematics, but that doesn't qualify me to dissect what he does.

[E4 No More]

If someone questions an action by the state, why does everything then seem to have a nefarious angle? You might need to start your own thread, I didn't notice any bashing in this thread until you started in.

I guess you've never complained about a pot hole in the road either?

No one was questioning the state; they were questioning the LEO. Granted, they were also questioning the mom.

Your analogized question is so dissociated from my example as to defy reason on its face: however, I have never complained about how a road crew filled a pot hole. I have complained about their failure to do within a reasonable amount of time.

[Motasyco]

And the beat goes on.....

[Guest AmericanWorkMule]

My mention of "The state" would refer to the "Government" as that would pertain to a Government employee such as a "LEO" you mentioned, that my cognitive resources reason me to believe is short for Law Enforcement Officer. Please don't confuse my mention of "LEO" with the Zodiac sign Leo, or the Lion constellation in the Northern Hemisphere. Are you following me so far?

Also, if you admit to complaining about timely pot hole repair then you must've been criticizing how an Engineer goes about doing their job (which you deny). Be it a Road Maintenance Engineer; Highway Engineer; Highway Maintenance Engineer; Road Safety Engineer; Traffic Engineer; or Traffic Planning Engineer?

Thus, complaining about timely pot hole repair, a governmental task, could also be as reasonable as someone questioning law enforcement actions in a situation, also a governmental task.

If these are too dissociated of analogies for you, maybe an employee of the state can read and explain it to your face so as it not to defy reason.

Like I stated earlier, instead of :poop:ing on other's, why not start you own thread Bashing Citizens for questioning the actions of government? You just need to click on an icon that looks like this:

No one was questioning the state; they were questioning the LEO. Granted, they were also questioning the mom.

Your analogized question is so dissociated from my example as to defy reason on its face: however, I have never complained about how a road crew filled a pot hole. I have complained about their failure to do within a reasonable amount of time.

Edited August 7, 2009 by AmericanWorkMule
Apologies, forgot to expalin how to start your own thread.

[titan14]

You guys that are saying that the lady handled it wrong....WHAT would you DO if you saw someone breaking into YOUR car on YOUR carport???????????????

Just walk outside and tell him to leave????? NO FREAKIN WAY!!!!

[memphismason]

SWJewel I want to publicly apologize to you. I was wrong. I asked a very good freind of mine that is a MPD, and he said that if the mom was outside her home, then she is technically "in public" so asking for a HCP was in order. I was under the impression that while on your property you could carry your firearm, but he said that rural property and urban property are different, and while the law may not be written that way common sense explains the reasoning.

Now in response to Titan, I don't not know how I would handled that situation. I have thought about it numerous times and have not came to a conclusion that I deem correct. All I am saying is there is nothing covered under the law (that I know of) that enables a person to hold someone at gunpoint. In my opinion my firearms are for hunting and self defense, not for holding someone at gun point. If this practice was indorsed yuen I think it would have been covered in the HCP class. My instructor taught us "low and ready" but not gun poin. This is just my opion and does not have to represents anyone else's.

[titan14]

Low and ready sounds good in theory....but...how do you "hold" someone for the police to arrive at low and ready? The "robber" would laugh and walk(run) away. The "robber", @ my house, would KNOW to be still and not move....period. Although, I will state that I would not shoot the "robber" unless i felt in fear of my life. With that being said....would the "robber" have a few knots on his head when the police arrive?

[56FordGuy]

... I asked a very good freind of mine that is a MPD, and he said that if the mom was outside her home, then she is technically "in public" so asking for a HCP was in order. I was under the impression that while on your property you could carry your firearm, but he said that rural property and urban property are different, and while the law may not be written that way common sense explains the reasoning.

I'd love to hear from one of our resident lawyers on that. I've always been told that private property is private property, regardless of it's location. I believe that your friend is incorrect about being outside your home, but still on your property, and thus needing a carry permit.

It really doesn't make a hill of beans in this scenario, because the mother had her HCP. It is a good question, though.

[56FordGuy]

Alright, I got curious about this and talked to a very good friend of mine who is an attorney.

According to him, if you are on your own property, you may carry a handgun or a long gun with no HCP. No issues with in public, etc. If it is your property, you are legal to carry with or without a HCP.

The potential issue would be disturbing the peace. Just like the Harvard professor, you can be charged with disturbing the peace regardless of who owns the property that you are on. There would need to be just cause for that, though. If you are carrying a holstered weapon while raking the leaves or mowing the grass, disturbing the peace will be hard to use. If you're waving a weapon in the air or otherwise actively doing something to cause a ruckus, that may be a different story.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, that ain't legal advice. It's just what an attorney told me.

[TripleDigitRide]

Anyone have proof that it's against the law to hold a criminal at gunpoint?

Edited August 8, 2009 by TripleDigitRide

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

Anyone have proof that it's against the law to hold a criminal at gunpoint?

Sorry I can't quote you a statute, but I'm fairly certain it's unlawful to arrest anyone in Tennesse, as a private citizen, unless you've observed a felony or certain misdemeanors. Someone made a good point, though......I'm pretty sure I'll see something in this person's waistband or see them reaching for a coat pocket, etc. Training a weapon on a potential threat is different than "arresting" someone. It's all in how you phrase things. When the law arrives, less is more, too.

[memphismason]

Low and ready sounds good in theory....but...how do you "hold" someone for the police to arrive at low and ready? The "robber" would laugh and walk(run) away. The "robber", @ my house, would KNOW to be still and not move....period. Although, I will state that I would not shoot the "robber" unless i felt in fear of my life. With that being said....would the "robber" have a few knots on his head when the police arrive?

Let me state this as plain as I can.....I am not nor will I ever hold someone for the police. That is not my job nor will it ever be.

Low and ready is for me to be ready to defend myself, not hold anyone. I only mentioned it because that was the only instance the instructor spoke about that dealt with pulling a firearm and then talking.

Again, I am not nor will I ever hold someone for the police. That is not my job nor will it ever be.

I do not aim a firearm at someone to talk to them. I am not going to shoot a person over the protection of property.

Again, I am not nor will I ever hold someone for the police. That is not my job nor will it ever be.

Edited August 8, 2009 by memphismason

[memphismason]

I'd love to hear from one of our resident lawyers on that. I've always been told that private property is private property, regardless of it's location. I believe that your friend is incorrect about being outside your home, but still on your property, and thus needing a carry permit.

It really doesn't make a hill of beans in this scenario, because the mother had her HCP. It is a good question, though.

My friend did not quote law. We spoke in a common sense manner.

Edited August 8, 2009 by memphismason

[E4 No More]

My mention of "The state" would refer to the "Government" as that would pertain to a Government employee such as a "LEO" you mentioned, that my cognitive resources reason me to believe is short for Law Enforcement Officer. Please don't confuse my mention of "LEO" with the Zodiac sign Leo, or the Lion constellation in the Northern Hemisphere. Are you following me so far?

Also, if you admit to complaining about timely pot hole repair then you must've been criticizing how an Engineer goes about doing their job (which you deny). Be it a Road Maintenance Engineer; Highway Engineer; Highway Maintenance Engineer; Road Safety Engineer; Traffic Engineer; or Traffic Planning Engineer?

Thus, complaining about timely pot hole repair, a governmental task, could also be as reasonable as someone questioning law enforcement actions in a situation, also a governmental task.

If these are too dissociated of analogies for you, maybe an employee of the state can read and explain it to your face so as it not to defy reason.

Like I stated earlier, instead of :poop:ing on other's, why not start you own thread Bashing Citizens for questioning the actions of government? You just need to click on an icon that looks like this:

I submit that you are challenged if you think your analogy is similar. The fallacy of your point is that the State was in direct control of the LEO's actions during this encounter as if the entity of the State was controlling his/her every action while they are on duty.

But I will not argue with the challenged, for as you pointed out in this system of freedom of speech that we are free to do so: however, that same system grants me the freedom to say whatsoever I desire to counter what I feel is ridiculous whether it be in this thread or another.

If you feel that simply asking for reasoning from members is ":poop:ing" on them, well, I'd say to grow a thick skin.

[E4 No More]

SWJewel I want to publicly apologize to you. I was wrong. I asked a very good freind of mine that is a MPD, and he said that if the mom was outside her home, then she is technically "in public" so asking for a HCP was in order. I was under the impression that while on your property you could carry your firearm, but he said that rural property and urban property are different, and while the law may not be written that way common sense explains the reasoning.

Now in response to Titan, I don't not know how I would handled that situation. I have thought about it numerous times and have not came to a conclusion that I deem correct. All I am saying is there is nothing covered under the law (that I know of) that enables a person to hold someone at gunpoint. In my opinion my firearms are for hunting and self defense, not for holding someone at gun point. If this practice was indorsed yuen I think it would have been covered in the HCP class. My instructor taught us "low and ready" but not gun poin. This is just my opion and does not have to represents anyone else's.

Well, thanks, but there's no need to apologize to me. The laws in Tennessee are quite convoluted in these matter compared to Missouri - which is where I was a policeman.

As for the woman, the way I understand the law in Tennessee is that we have no duty to retreat. She was on her own property investigating a noise that lead to the discovery of a crime. She does not know what that noise is: therefore, she has fear and thus justification to arm herself. She has the right to protect herself, and she discovers a criminal in the act. She doesn't know the criminals intent or if he's armed or not. It is reasonable under these circumstances to aim her weapon at the criminal until the threat was removed - which she did once the police arrived.

I would not hold the same thought if it occurred somewhere off her property.

[pegasusrider]

I had an incident that happened a couple months ago where LEO's responded to my property when I found teenage trespassers in my barn at 1 am. I wasn't holding them at gunpoint when the deputies showed up more than 20 minutes later but the kids sure had the 4 letter word scared out of them when they were called out of the barn and faced me armed with an assault rifle. I was never asked for any ID by the LEO's or told my actions were improper.

[Punisher84]

SWJewel I want to publicly apologize to you. I was wrong. I asked a very good freind of mine that is a MPD, and he said that if the mom was outside her home, then she is technically "in public" so asking for a HCP was in order. I was under the impression that while on your property you could carry your firearm, but he said that rural property and urban property are different, and while the law may not be written that way common sense explains the reasoning.

Yea that's wrong. Your property is your property. Now I will say this, there are some differences in the Castle law about dwellings,curtilage,forced entry,etc that make you being in your front yard different than being in your own home, but you can carry your gun in your driveway without an HCP no problem. You are not "in public" until you are on "public" property. We can all agree our lawn is not public property.

Anyone have proof that it's against the law to hold a criminal at gunpoint?

The law says you cannot threaten or use deadly force to effect a citizen's arrest. You may use reasonable force to do so and may only employ deadly force if it comes to that point that you would otherwise be justified.

So an example would be if you pepper sprayed the guy and tackled him and held him for PD, that's reasonable force.

Holding a gun on him is threatening deadly force which you cannot do over property.

[Guest benchpresspower]

Yeah, I'm thinkin if I was holding someone in my driveway at gunpoint that I'd be going to jail along with them.

I don't believe in Tennessee you have the right to protect property "outside" your home or a car if you aren't in it physically.

Apparently you can fire through the door during a home invasion though.

I thought TN legislation expanded the castle doctrine law to protection of personal property this year. Am I missing something?

[Punisher84]

I thought TN legislation expanded the castle doctrine law to protection of personal property this year. Am I missing something?

No they just said that if you are justified in using deadly force to protect yourself you are justified in using it to defend property.

Basically it's so a DA couldn't say you killed a guy coming at you with a knife over him trying to steal your car.

[Fallguy]

Ok..I've tried to read all of the post.

At first I did question about asking for the HCP and I don't think she would have had one, but I too have heard that if you are outside your door within the city limits, you are in public...at least to some degree. But you still do not have to have a HCP to be armed on your property. So overall no harm no foul I guess.

Now...on the mom. I don't think she was making a citzens arrest, nor did she need to. Someone breaking into an attached garage is the same as them breaking into your house.

39-11-611© says "Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, business, dwelling or vehicle is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury"

39-11-611(a)(4) defines a residence as "a dwelling in which a person resides, either temporarily or permanently, or is visiting as an invited guest, or any dwelling, building or other appurtenance within the curtilage of the residence"

So IMO she could have used deadly force, but made what was probably a wiser decision and only threatened it....you can threaten deadly force if you are in a situation you can use it.

However she very could have made a citzens arrest legally if she wanted to, the powers of arrest by citizens are very close to those of LEO. See 40-7-109 LEOs can make an arrest for a select few misdemeanors that didn't occur in his presence. See 40-7-103

Edited August 8, 2009 by Fallguy

[DaveTN]

You guys that think she violated some law need to help me out here.

I am fully aware that you can’t use deadly force to protect property. But you are going to have to point me to the Tennessee law that says you can’t pull a gun on a person committing a felony on your property.

(Auto burglary is a felony in Tennessee is it not?)

[macville]

You guys that think she violated some law need to help me out here.

I am fully aware that you can’t use deadly force to protect property. But you are going to have to point me to the Tennessee law that says you can’t pull a gun on a person committing a felony on your property.

(Auto burglary is a felony in Tennessee is it not?)

I thought the law changed this year for home protection and that you could now shoot someone to protect your property--IF you are on your own property? If it did not change, isn't that the law in some other states though?

If people think tax law is confusing, they should look at gun laws!

Matthew

[Guest AmericanWorkMule]

At the risk of upsetting the drama queen with the nefarious angle of my question...

The way the Mom described it to me is that she was under her carport, which is attached to her house. The car being broken into was parked under the carport right next to her bedroom window. Her kitchen door opens under this carport. She confronted the thief at gunpoint while standing in her opened kitchen door way.

She said she yelled, "If you move and I'm going to shoot you dead."

To me, she was on her property and much like being inside her home while under that carport. She felt her children and herself were threatened as if the thief was standing in their living room.

So.... I wondered why the cops had asked for her HCP permit. I agree, as others have stated, it was most likely a short cut for the cops to clear up matters. No cop bashing intended or perceived by those that aren't obtuse as chicken little.

39-11-611(a)(4) defines a residence as "a dwelling in which a person resides, either temporarily or permanently, or is visiting as an invited guest, or any dwelling, building or other appurtenance within the curtilage of the residence"

[Punisher84]

You guys that think she violated some law need to help me out here.

I am fully aware that you can’t use deadly force to protect property. But you are going to have to point me to the Tennessee law that says you can’t pull a gun on a person committing a felony on your property.

(Auto burglary is a felony in Tennessee is it not?)

It is a felony, but you can't threaten deadly force to stop it. You can only threaten or use deadly force to protect life. Pointing a gun is threatening deadly force.

That being said I doubt alot of cops are going to run you in for holding a criminal you caught in the commission of a felony at gunpoint. There was an incident here a few years ago where a HCP holder held a guy who was trying to stab people in a Schnuck's at gunpoint and he was basically hailed as a hero.

I thought the law changed this year for home protection and that you could now shoot someone to protect your property--IF you are on your own property? If it did not change, isn't that the law in some other states though?

If people think tax law is confusing, they should look at gun laws!

Matthew

You can't shoot over property period. The law merely says if you are justified in using deadly force your are justified in using that force to protect property. It was nothing more than a statement by the legislature saying "If you walk up on someone burglarizing your car and they run at you with a screwdriver a DA can't say you shot them just to protect your Acura."

[memphismason]

Even if it was legal to shoot someone in the name of protecting one's propert, morally I don't think I could do it.