strange news story

[rentalguy1]

I wonder how that contrasts to the other laws stating that you cannot CC in a bar? Also, wouldn't it still be considered self defense, even though there was no forcible/illegal entry into the bar?

[Fallguy]

I wonder how that contrasts to the other laws stating that you cannot CC in a bar? Also, wouldn't it still be considered self defense, even though there was no forcible/illegal entry into the bar?

The law that says you can't carry in a bar is the same law that says an owner can. See 39-17-1305©(2)

Yes, it could very well still be self-defense. I'm just saying the presumption that you acted in self-defense (as provided for in 39-11-611©) would not apply.

[Guest archerdr1]

he really was not supposed to be in the bar (although, the bouncer should have checked his ID a little better. The sign says that nobody under the age of 25 was allowed, and he was I think 21, but he did not break in, it seems he snuck in. I don't know if that would factor into it at all though.

[Fallguy]

Well even if he had broke a door to "sneak in" doesn't mean you could shoot him in self-defense if he was just out on the dance floor with everyone else.

The part of the law that presumes you are in fear of death or serious bodily injury...is just that a presumption. If the DA feels it wasn't reasonable for you to have that fear and thinks he can prove it, he can still charge you.

[Guest archerdr1]

I know that, but when he pulled a knife, all that went out the window for me!

[Guest archerdr1]

ok, so I read an article on Chattanoogan.com and it said "the victim, Marcus Boston, 23 was treated at erlanger for a gunshot wound to the neck", so I wrote an article in the opinion section 12/27/2009 - The Real Victim In The 45th Street Lounge Shooting - Opinion - Chattanoogan.com and not only did they post it, but now the article says, "Marcus Boston, 23, was treated at erlanger..." We need to start calling these things for what they are, start blaming the criminals and start congratulating the right people.

[DaveTN]

I think we need to wait and see if there is more to the story.

If a guy pulls a knife on me, I don’t care if I’m standing in my living room or on the street corner the law is no different; I can protect myself.

Unless…. If this guy was so obviously falling down drunk that he was not a credible threat, or if a bunch of people grabbed him and he was under control when the owner shot him.

I have no idea what happened, but apparently someone at the scene thought there was reason to charge him. Guess we will have to wait and see what that reason is.

[Fallguy]

I know that, but when he pulled a knife, all that went out the window for me!

If a guy pulls a knife on me, I don’t care if I’m standing in my living room or on the street corner the law is no different; I can protect myself.

I understand....

All I was trying to do is answer the question about "the castle doctrine" which is a term I hate....because there is no single document or doctrine, it is just a general term for a collection of self-defense and firearms laws and varies greatly from state to state.

So I was just pointing out that the shooter probably wouldn't have the the automatic presumption of acting in self-defense in this case like he might in another situation.

Another article I read said the guy that was shot didn't want to press charges. So it does seem there may be more to it than what is known now.

[rentalguy1]

Probably why he chose not to press charges against the bar owner cuz he knew he was breaking the law himself and was afraid that the bar owner would then press charges against him.

The only law he broke by not heeding the bar's sign was trespassing. I'm guessing that the shooter's story about the BG pulling a knife is most likely true and can be corroborated by numerous witnesses. If that's not the case, then the BG is not a BG at all, and instead he is a flaming idiot for not pressing charges.

[JayC]

Does the castle doctrine still apply to the owner of a bar, where alcohol is served? I know it would in his home, but I'm not sure about inside the bar.

The law allows business owners to carry at their place of business, this includes bars and restaurants.

[Guest louderthebetter]

archerdr1

Good job on your write-up in Chattanooga.Com opinion section.

Well done..

[jaysouth]

Probably why he chose not to press charges against the bar owner cuz he knew he was breaking the law himself and was afraid that the bar owner would then press charges against him.

Help me out, I assume that wielding a knife in a threatening manner is a felony and that shooting someone(without sufficiant justification) is also a felony.

In felony cases, a citizen does not have the option of pressing charges. One can be a complainant, but the state is the "plaintiff" and the only party that has the option of prosecuting(bringing charges) or not(dropping the charges).

Despite sloppy reportage, the shootee(clown with the knife) does not have the option of "pressing charges". In mediaspeak, I interpet this to mean that the shootee did not want to file a complaint.

Media screwed the pooch on this one again. We are all doomed as long as the average idiot believes what they see or hear on the media.

[Guest HexHead]

You are dead wrong on this. If you shoot someone you are going to either be sued criminally by the victims family or may even wind up in jail for a short time or a long time.

Hmmm, I think you're the one wrong on this.

[Guest HexHead]

IF that is what you want to believe go ahead and shoot someone you will see just how right I really am. If you dont believe me ask an attorney.

Perhaps you should read up on TN's Castle Doctrine, then get back to me?

[Currently]

I believe you have to qualify that statement with this sentence ....

If your shoot is ruled a "bad" shoot by the DA and judge, ... yada yada yada.

If your shoot is ruled a "good" shoot by the DA or judge, the castle doctrine applies.

[Krull]

First of all a family can sue you for wrongful death, however they can not sue you for "criminal charges" only civil. Our fabulous legal system can only bring criminal charges against you. The shooter can claim self defense in this case but if there was a bar seperating them he might have a hard time if the dude wasn't lunging at him or making a throwing gesture toward him. Stranger things have happened though.

Edited January 2, 2010 by Krull

[DaveTN]

Perhaps you should read up on TN's Castle Doctrine, then get back to me?

Laws based on the Castle Doctrine do not allow a free shoot or create free fire zones. If investigation shows that a person has submitted, is incapacitated, has surrendered or is fleeing; you may still find yourself in court if you shoot them. They mainly just acknowledge the presumption that you are in danger if engaged by an intruder.

Tennessee’s law change didn’t make as big a splash as Florida’s because Tennessee never had a duty to retreat; Florida did.