Is pointing a gun always considered using deadly force?

[Smith]

Also to add, if you chase down a person that is fleeing whether he has your stereo or not you are not you are the one instituting the aggression. Hitting him over the head or on the back with a baseball bat could be met with you getting legally shot and killed by him whether he is legally carrying a gun or not. Remember - you escalated the aggression. A baseball bat is a lethal weapon. Several people have been killed by them.

Once a person steps OUTSIDE of my house, the threat is over. I have no more right to fire upon them.

You use a firearm to stop a threat. Once the threat is over you stop using the firearm.

My 2 cents worth.

And I don't care what Merriam Webster Dictionary says-

irregardless is not a word.

They also claim that AIN'T is a word.

Irregardless of your 2 cents, it is defined and accepted by Merriam-Webster which is the accepted word validation in academia. But feel free to argue with the brick wall.

What if said thief has a child instead of said property? would you still not fire on him. What if the property were firearms... a dog? What is the dividing line?

[Guest Muttling]

Turn the question around and you will get your answer....

A shotgun is being pointed at you, how do you respond??? Do you ask "Is that weapon loaded?" Do you ask "What type of shell is in that weapon?" Do you dodge and return fire without asking questions?

If you point a gun at me, I presume you mean to kill me and I will respond with lethal force to prevent you from doing so. That is my right.....I hope we both survive, but if you die....so be it. If you didn't mean to kill me, you're an idiot for threatening me in a lethal manner.

EDIT: LEO's get exceptions to this. A LEO can point a weapon at me and I won't be happy about it, but I will assume that he is trying to gain control of the situation without killing me unless he really has to do so. We put LEO's in a tough spot and they deserve our support.

Edited August 15, 2009 by Muttling

[saintsfanbrian]

What if said thief has a child instead of said property? would you still not fire on him. What if the property were firearms... a dog? What is the dividing line?

You are kidding right? A kidnapping vs. taking my TV? I am not going to shoot you over a TV. If you take my child there is nothing that will stop me from chasing you down and getting my kid back. Take that however you intend it.

As for if you are taking my guns? If you are running away you are not a threat to me. If you are taking my dog-well she is 13 years old incontinent and eats really expensive food. I hope you can afford it.

[Smith]

You are kidding right? A kidnapping vs. taking my TV? I am not going to shoot you over a TV. If you take my child there is nothing that will stop me from chasing you down and getting my kid back. Take that however you intend it.

As for if you are taking my guns? If you are running away you are not a threat to me. If you are taking my dog-well she is 13 years old incontinent and eats really expensive food. I hope you can afford it.

Nah, I'm not kidding. Your premise was if the person is not a "threat", meaning apparently running away, then no shot. I was just raising the point that it depends. It also needs to be said that he may be running away to return with reinforcement. Be that people or armed.

Personally I assume if they are willing to steal, it is a small step to stealing a life. If I can get a clean shot, I'm taking it, irregardless of the "property" they have. Self defense is not a cost evaluation.

That being said, a bullet in the back is going to look bad and I would avoid it. Not because of a lack of threat but because of civil liability.

[DaveTN]

What if said thief has a child instead of said property? would you still not fire on him. What if the property were firearms... a dog? What is the dividing line?

There is a clear cut dividing line. Immediate danger of death or great bodily harm.

<O:p</O:p

You do not need our approval, and what someone tells you does not matter.

<O:p</O:p

You will be judged first by the responding and investigating Officers. Their decisions could determine if you go to court or not.

<O:p</O:p

You will next be judged by the District Attorney’s office. They will determine if you go to court or not.

<O:p</O:p

You will next be judged by a jury of your peers. They will decide if you go to prison or not.

<O:p</O:p

All of these people will have from hours to weeks to decide if the decision you made in seconds was reasonable. They will be armed with all the facts; things that you may not have known at the time.

<O:p</O:p

After that you either go to prison or you start round 2. If you find yourself in criminal court there is a pretty good chance you screwed up. So round 2 consists of the civil trial. Here a whole new group of people get to decide your fate again.

<O:p</O:p

Oh and BTW…. Am I going to open fire on someone that has my kid or my dog? I don’t think so.

[Guest grimel]

But taking this in another direction - I also have an aluminum bat I keep at the ready ... So what if I can run him down and whack him across the back with my trusty slugger to incapacitate? Non-lethal but how would that be viewed? Suppose we can "what if" this one for a while...

Reverse the situation, someone comes at you with an aluminum ball bat, would you shoot, why/why not?

Same answer for pointing a gun, the other person has zero idea what is in the gun (or where you intend to strike with the bat). You point a gun you have implied the threat of lethal force.

[VolunteerGuns]

<O:p</O:p

Oh and BTW…. Am I going to open fire on someone that has my kid or my dog? I don’t think so.

Dog, Property... Thats one thing...

Grab my kid and try and take off -see what comes next. If I can get a clean shot:death:BANG. If not a good candidate for a lead infusion a tire iron, pocket knife, steel toed boot, etc. will have to suffice. Dont mess with the fam.

[Guest Ggun]

Nah, I'm not kidding. Your premise was if the person is not a "threat", meaning apparently running away, then no shot. I was just raising the point that it depends. It also needs to be said that he may be running away to return with reinforcement. Be that people or armed.

Personally I assume if they are willing to steal, it is a small step to stealing a life. If I can get a clean shot, I'm taking it, irregardless of the "property" they have. Self defense is not a cost evaluation.

That being said, a bullet in the back is going to look bad and I would avoid it. Not because of a lack of threat but because of civil liability.

It doesn't depend at all. If you shoot a fleeing thief you will be prosecuted and convicted, and serve time most likely.

Your theory that civil liability is worse than that is misguided.

[Fallguy]

Also to add, if you chase down a person that is fleeing whether he has your stereo or not you are not you are the one instituting the aggression.

No direct or indirect source for my non-legal opinion, but I greatly disagree, the thief initiated the confrontation by taking my property. The law says you can use reasonable force to get it back. Any reasonable force I use is just a continuation of the confrontation he started by thieving my property.

[Guest grimel]

No direct or indirect source for my non-legal opinion, but I greatly disagree, the thief initiated the confrontation by taking my property. The law says you can use reasonable force to get it back. Any reasonable force I use is just a continuation of the confrontation he started by thieving my property.

He ran away breaking off the initial confrontation. You chased him down, starting a new confrontation as the aggressor.

[Fallguy]

He ran away breaking off the initial confrontation. You chased him down, starting a new confrontation as the aggressor.

Not in my opinion.

...and if a guy ever stills my stuff and I chase him down and tackle him, guess we'll find out the legal systems opinion, because I'll be damned if I'm just going to watch someone run off with my property.

Now if he has dropped my property and is running away empty handed, that might be a different situation.

Edited August 16, 2009 by Fallguy

[saintsfanbrian]

Yes, the person ran away breaking off any threat you have. By running after and confronting them you are initiating a new threat. I am not a lawyer but I would imagine that a jury would probably find you guilty of battery at the least and manslaughter at the worse depending on what happens. I don't know about you but I am not Dante Stallworth. I cannot afford to pay off a persons family to prevent myself from being incarcerated for more than 28 days.

A threat to a person that might be inflicted with serious bodily harm who could if they had a weapon of their own be justified in taking a life you are justified if you do it for them. My child - and we are going to fight - my dog or my stereo - I am making a good witness for the police and contacting my home owners.

Sorry - possessions are not worth going to jail over.

P.S. You raise an aluminum bat to me and I am in fear of serious bodily harm or death.

Enough said.

[Fallguy]

Why in the world do y'all keep talking about a threat?!?

There doesn't have to be any threat to you for you to use force to protect property you can use force to recover it, if they used force to take it. You just can't use deadly force, don't think tackling someone would be considered deadly force.

39-11-614 Protection of property.

(a) A person in lawful possession of real or personal property is justified in threatening or using force against another, 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.

( A person who has been unlawfully dispossessed of real or personal property is justified in threatening or using force against the other, when and to the degree it is reasonably believed the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property, if the person threatens or uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession:

(1)

The person reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when the other dispossessed the person; and

(2)

The other accomplished the dispossession by threatening or using force against the person.

[Fallguy]

I will say after a bit further review the law on recovering property that you witness someone taking is a bit different than I thought.

It does appear if you look out your window and see someone taking something, you just about have to let them run off with it.

Sad...sad....sad....

Even though as has been said, you might go the citizens arrest route, the law seems to be a little in conflict on the use of force for a citizens arrest and the use of force for as described in 39-11-614(

It would appear that even if you were making a citizens arrest a DA could say you were using force to recover property, which is a no no unless the thief used or threatened force against you to steal your property..

Guess clearing that discrepancy was missed on the amendment to 39-11-614 earlier this year.

[Guest Engloid]

I remember a couple years back that some local politician had been the victim of some thieves. They were stealing from a storage building where he had some stuff. He stayed there one night and caught the guys. He held them at gunpoint (deadly force) until police arrived. It was decided that he would not be charged with anything since they were in the act of a felony when he caught them and detained them.

[Fallguy]

True, but they didn't run and he and they were still on his property.

The question is...what if they ran?

He couldn't have legally shot them.....if had chassed them......who knows....

[Punisher84]

I will say after a bit further review the law on recovering property that you witness someone taking is a bit different than I thought.

It does appear if you look out your window and see someone taking something, you just about have to let them run off with it.

Sad...sad....sad....

Even though as has been said, you might go the citizens arrest route, the law seems to be a little in conflict on the use of force for a citizens arrest and the use of force for as described in 39-11-614(

It would appear that even if you were making a citizens arrest a DA could say you were using force to recover property, which is a no no unless the thief used or threatened force against you to steal your property..

Guess clearing that discrepancy was missed on the amendment to 39-11-614 earlier this year.

Be that as it may I'd be REALLY hard pressed to see charges come against the property owner for that.

I guess how it all went down would determine the final outcome, but if someone breaks into your car, then takes off, you catch them, tackle them, and hold them for the cops I would be shocked if you were charged with anything and even further I doubt a jury would convict on it.

Also for the 2 or 3 of you that are talking about "initiating a new threat" I think you need to go back and read over the new laws on use of force in TN. You have many more laws on your side as a private citizen to make a citizen's arrest and use deadly force then a person does that is in the commission of a crime.

You can't steal someone's stuff then suddenly not be breaking the law anymore, and I know there are a couple people here that disagree with me, but if you are in the midst of committing a criminal act you cannot claim self-defense.

I want to see the court case where a guy rips out a stereo, takes off, the owner chases him, the criminal shoots him, and the DA says it was self-defense. BULL ****!

[Fallguy]

Punisher84 I tend to agree on the not being charged or convicted in the scenario, but the fact it appears to technically still be against the law bothers me.

But I have to slightly disagree with you on the criminal and self-defense...even though he is committing a crime he can still claim self-defense, he just doesn't have the luxuries of standing his ground or any presumption of fear of death or serious bodily harm.

But again I don't think your tackling him would rise to the level of a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm on his part. I also think unless you did actually draw on him and fire, he would have a very, very, very tough case to claim self-defense, although he could try of course.

Edited August 16, 2009 by Fallguy

[DaveTN]

I tend to agree on the not being charged or convicted in the scenario, but the fact it appears to technically still be against the law bothers me.

I still contend that there is no problem with threatening someone with a gun that is stealing your property. Kicking their ass is also allowed.

I am not aware of any law on “threatening deadly force”; only actually using deadly force. Threatening deadly force would be aggravated assault if you were not justified. However… 39-11-164 allows you to use the threat; it does not allow you to use deadly force to protect property.

It does allow you to use force other than deadly force and I contend that includes the threat of deadly force.

39-11-614. Protection of property.

<O:p</O:p

(a) A person in lawful possession of real or personal property is justified in threatening or using force against another, 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.

( A person who has been unlawfully dispossessed of real or personal property is justified in threatening or using force against the other, when and to the degree it is reasonably believed the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property, if the person threatens or uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession:

<O:p</O:p

(1) The person reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when the other dispossessed the person; and

<O:p</O:p

(2) The other accomplished the dispossession by threatening or using force against the person.

<O:p</O:p

c) 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.

<O:p</O:p

[Fallguy]

I agree that there doesn't seem to be a limitation on threating deadly force.

But I think a lot of this all depends on different situations and locations.

One whether you are on your property or have chased the thief off your property.

Also whether you are preventing a theft from occurring or attempting to recover items immediately after their theft.

I think you will have greater leeway...or at least will be looked upon in a more favorable light, if you are still on your own property and attempting to hold someone there than after a person has ran off and you have chased them down.

39-11-614( covers the use and threat of force (deadly or otherwise) on recovering property. It fairly clearly says, you must be in fresh pursuit (not see the guy with it 2 days later), you must believe the other person has no claim to the property and the other person threatened or used force against you to steal the property.

IMO all 3 aspects have to apply for you to use or threaten force to recover property.

The first 2 are almost always going to apply if you saw someone steal your property and you have chased them, but the part in 39-11-614((2) would not apply if just looked out your window and saw someone steal your property.

Edited August 16, 2009 by Fallguy

[Guest Ggun]

I still contend that there is no problem with threatening someone with a gun that is stealing your property. Kicking their ass is also allowed.

I am not aware of any law on “threatening deadly forceâ€; only actually using deadly force. Threatening deadly force would be aggravated assault if you were not justified. However… 39-11-164 allows you to use the threat; it does not allow you to use deadly force to protect property.

It does allow you to use force other than deadly force and I contend that includes the threat of deadly force.

<O:p</O:p

This is a reasonable approach, although the threat to use deadly force, in reality, would have to be more of a bluff if a thief ignored you and ran away from you to escape.

[Punisher84]

Dave, I'm inclined to agree with you after reading over that. It doesn't seem holding someone at gunpoint would be against the law, but you just couldn't really back up the threat if they ran away, unless you pursued and applied the citizen's arrest laws.

Fallguy,

I agree with you mostly, I think the application of "can't claim self-defense while committing a criminal act" may be used extremely broad or limited, but I believe the intent of the legislature was that if you were committing a crime, especially against another person or property, you would not be able to claim self-defense period, not just having the stand your ground removed,etc.

[Guest Ggun]

Be that as it may I'd be REALLY hard pressed to see charges come against the property owner for that.

I guess how it all went down would determine the final outcome, but if someone breaks into your car, then takes off, you catch them, tackle them, and hold them for the cops I would be shocked if you were charged with anything and even further I doubt a jury would convict on it.

Also for the 2 or 3 of you that are talking about "initiating a new threat" I think you need to go back and read over the new laws on use of force in TN. You have many more laws on your side as a private citizen to make a citizen's arrest and use deadly force then a person does that is in the commission of a crime.

You can't steal someone's stuff then suddenly not be breaking the law anymore, and I know there are a couple people here that disagree with me, but if you are in the midst of committing a criminal act you cannot claim self-defense.

I want to see the court case where a guy rips out a stereo, takes off, the owner chases him, the criminal shoots him, and the DA says it was self-defense. BULL ****!

If you include the scenario where the owner chases the thief, shoots him in the leg, then walks up and points the gun at the thief's head, and threatens to kill him for stealing the stereo, the thief certainly has a constitutional right to assert self defense if the thief shoots.

Even if he still has the stereo in his pocket.

[DaveTN]

If you include the scenario where the owner chases the thief, shoots him in the leg, then walks up and points the gun at the thief's head, and threatens to kill him for stealing the stereo, the thief certainly has a constitutional right to assert self defense if the thief shoots.

Even if he still has the stereo in his pocket.

Any time the bad guy kills the good guy (and it happens a lot) they claim self defense. It rarely works.

[Punisher84]

If you include the scenario where the owner chases the thief, shoots him in the leg, then walks up and points the gun at the thief's head, and threatens to kill him for stealing the stereo, the thief certainly has a constitutional right to assert self defense if the thief shoots.

Even if he still has the stereo in his pocket.

I don't personally believe so, but that is my interpretation of how the law is stated. I think the intent of the legislature is pretty clear when they go so far as to state:

a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where such 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 the provisions of § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where such 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:

(d) The presumption established in subsection © shall not apply if:

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of § 39-17-1322, the person using force is engaged in an unlawful activity

Now I can understand the argument that if you were engaged in illegal activity you would just have to attempt to retreat and exhaust all options before using deadly force, but I just don't see a sudden rash of gangbangers claiming self-defense for capping a rival member during a drug deal, drive-by or an innocent citizen during a robbery and winning their court case happening.

I do believe that the shooter would be charged in that scenario however.