Help please??

[DaveTN]

This is why I cant get a clear answer because I read all different statements?

IWhat if you are in the gas station in line and a guy comes in and points a gun at the clerk, i would be in fear of my life so therefore i would use deadly force! How is that looked at '"By law"?

Also if i see someone kidnapping a child can I use deadly force? See this is where the line starts to get gray for me?

See this doesnt cover the protection of a 3rd party (ex kidnapping?)

What about for the protection of a 3rd party such as kidnapping?

Sorry if i seem annoying or like a post whore, but it seems like there are a lot of others who have the same questions, and by some of the answers it seems as if some of them have been wrong?

I just think its odd how many people on here have a HCP and carry on a daily basis and don't know the answer the these what seem like simple questions?

The use of deadly force is really pretty simple. But it is up to you to understand the law and its intent.

You will see the endless arguments about when you are justified, but keep in mind that is ultimately for a Jury or judge to determine.

I have my own requirements for the use of deadly for that I feel confident will protect me in all 50 states. Although I admit I have not researched the laws of all 50 states.

Would a reasonable person believe that you or another is in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm?

There you have it in a nutshell. Keep in mind…

1. No one really cares what you thought; only what a reasonable person would think in that circumstance.

2. A reasonable person will be presented in this order… Responding and investigating Officers, District Attorney, Judge or Jury.

3. The fact that you are justified in using deadly force doesn’t relive you from liability (either criminal or civil) if an innocent person gets hurt.

4. You will be judged by people that have days to decide what you should have done in the seconds prior to the shooting.

So to answer to your questions…

Can you shoot a person that is robbing another at gun point? Sure. Someone is in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm. Is it a good idea? Sure, if no one else is behind the suspect or in the line of fire and you shooting the suspect will not result in him killing the victim or you. Then it’s a free shoot, like shooting fish in a barrel. But realistically how often will that scenario present itself?

Kidnapping? Sure, if you are absolutely sure that is what you are seeing. Someone grabs your kid off the street; you can do whatever you need to stop them. If they let your kid go and are fleeing the threat is over. If you see some guy grabbing a woman off the street and it is a domestic situation and you kill him; you have a problem.

The problems come into play with what people believe "danger of death or great bodily harm†is. Some believe that the threat of getting their azz kicked satisfies that requirement. Unfortunately they will end up making that argument to a jury. Having a pretty good idea of how that will go; I’ll take the azz kicking.

The other problem is “Immediateâ€. Not did it happen or will it happen; but is it happening right now. Let fleeing suspects flee. If they are running you can’t shoot them unless they are a threat while they are running.

[tntnixon]

?

Kidnapping? Sure, if you are absolutely sure that is what you are seeing. Someone grabs your kid off the street; you can do whatever you need to stop them. If they let your kid go and are fleeing the threat is over. If you see some guy grabbing a woman off the street and it is a domestic situation and you kill him; you have a problem.

As, I stated earlier, you have to make sure the third party had a legal right to self defense. I could see a scenario where a runaway was being picked up by their parents and started screaming bloody murder. Being a good samaritan, you just popped a worried parent.

[Guest archerdr1]

I would think that kidnapping would be a good shoot, again, if you KNOW that it is a kidnapping... the reason I would say that it is a good shoot is that most kidnappings end up in murder, or in some instances, sex slave trade (Which would be worse than death). If I saw my kids getting taken, homeboy is gonna be swiss cheese!

[Fallguy]

As, I stated earlier, you have to make sure the third party had a legal right to self defense. I could see a scenario where a runaway was being picked up by their parents and started screaming bloody murder. Being a good samaritan, you just popped a worried parent.

That is not exactly correct, what the law says on 3rd party defense is "Under the circumstances as the person reasonably believes them to be"

So if it is determined that it was reasonable for you to think one thing (that justified self-defense), even if later it was shown that wasn't actually what was happening, you should be ok....if your lawyer can make the jury believe that.

[Guest spoolie]

Yea I really need to. I just think its odd how many people on here have a HCP and carry on a daily basis and don't know the answer the these what seem like simple questions?

This question is like going to a car forum and asking "what should I do to my car to make it fast"...come on guy. In your mind you think this is a clear cut answer when it really isn't. So don't make statements like that and stick your foot in your mouth.

[Guest bkelm18]

Yea I really need to. I just think its odd how many people on here have a HCP and carry on a daily basis and don't know the answer the these what seem like simple questions?

If these are simple questions, then why don't you know the answer? You appear to already have a carry permit so by your logic you should know the answer to these questions already. Give us a break, dude.

[Guest m&pc9]

Yea I really need to. I just think its odd how many people on here have a HCP and carry on a daily basis and don't know the answer the these what seem like simple questions?

They may be simple questions, But they don't have simple answers.

[JayC]

Your LEO friends are mistaken... The law was changed years ago allowing HCP to carry in places that sell beer, wine, and liquor for off site consumption. That law was changed about 10 years ago.

Because of a court ruling we're no longer allowed to carry in locations which sell beer, wine, or liquor for on site consumption (because of a lone judge ruling the restaurant carry law unconstitutional a little over a month ago).

In either case, you can't be charged with carrying a firearm if you're involved in a self defense shooting under TN law.

According to all of my LEO friends, that's alcohol SELLING establishments, too. However, they have all also told me if I broke up a robbery at the Quikie Mart with my CCW, nobody on the local department would make a issue of it.

Remember also on deadly force, it has to be what a "reasonable person" would perceive as a immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death. If grandpa is on the other side of a car threatening to whup yer a$$, that is not a real threat. If grandpa whips out a knife, it's still not a threat until he is on the same side of the car as you, and in close proximity. If grandpa pulls a handgun, send him on a one way journey to see his elders.

[rentalguy1]

Your LEO friends are mistaken... The law was changed years ago allowing HCP to carry in places that sell beer, wine, and liquor for off site consumption. That law was changed about 10 years ago.

Because of a court ruling we're no longer allowed to carry in locations which sell beer, wine, or liquor for on site consumption (because of a lone judge ruling the restaurant carry law unconstitutional a little over a month ago).

In either case, you can't be charged with carrying a firearm if you're involved in a self defense shooting under TN law.

Ya...FallGuy cleared that up last night. He posted the actual statute on page 3 of this thread. Thanks, though. I'll be hanging out with one of my LEO friends tomorrow and I'll run it by him. He may have mis-spoke or maybe I even heard him wrong a few weeks ago after the judge overturned the new law.

[Fallguy]

Ya...FallGuy cleared that up last night. He posted the actual statute on page 3 of this thread. Thanks, though. I'll be hanging out with one of my LEO friends tomorrow and I'll run it by him. He may have mis-spoke or maybe I even heard him wrong a few weeks ago after the judge overturned the new law.

If you're LEO friend is still not sure....the law changed in July 2001 when SB0193/HB0227 passed and became public chapter 345 of 2001

See here

[TLRMADE]

This question is like going to a car forum and asking "what should I do to my car to make it fast"...come on guy. In your mind you think this is a clear cut answer when it really isn't. So don't make statements like that and stick your foot in your mouth.

Had a feeling you would be lurking around on here.

Edited December 28, 2009 by TLRMADE
spell

[TLRMADE]

If these are simple questions, then why don't you know the answer? You appear to already have a carry permit so by your logic you should know the answer to these questions already. Give us a break, dude.

Unfortunately I have been given many different answers to my questions as you can see by the posts?

[Fallguy]

Unfortunately I have been given many different answers to my questions as you can see by the posts?

That's because some of the questions you have asked are not as simple as you may think they are.

Very rarely are there simple black and white answers when it comes to the law.

So I'd wager that many on here that have a HCP and carry daily would find it odd, that you find it odd that there aren't such clear cut answers.

[Guest Moody]

Hey TLRMADE - this wouldn't by chance be the Taylor that had the Silver Lexus GS, lives in Franklin/Brentwood, is it?

(p.s. - good perspective in this thread, as well).

[rentalguy1]

Unfortunately I have been given many different answers to my questions as you can see by the posts?

There are many different answers, because there are many different scenarios. No two are alike...ever.

[saintsfanbrian]

It's like dating twins - sure they may look alike but they both have their own identities.

Sure. I walk down the street and I see a woman holding a gun on a guy. I shoot the woman because I see that there is imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death to the guy. Turns out the woman happens to be a police officer and the guy she is pointing the gun at just robbed and murdered someone. Who is going to jail now?

I walk down the street and I see a woman holding a gun on a guy. I shoot the woman because I see that there is imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death to the guy. Turns out the guy had cheated on this woman and she was about to exact her revenge. Who is going to jail now?

See how the scenario is the same as far as I an innocent bystander can tell?

One scenario I end up the "hero" the other I end up in jail. Likely in both I will end up in front of a judge.

Even a liar (lawyer ) will not give you a straight answer.

Remember - you have a defense to homicide. You are still "breaking the law" it is just that your reason is justifiable therefor you will not go to jail.

[Currently]

Before putting on the "special cape" and going out to save the world ...

Keep these points in mind.

1. Odds are good that you will be arrested after an ambiguous shoot.

2. You need to protect yourself by shutting up and immediately asking for a lawyer.

3. There is no homeowners insurance that will protect you from being sued if you are wrong.

4. It will cost you a minimum of $50K to cover your legal fees.

5. You better know in advance who the "good" lawyers are AND know their phone number.

6. While TN does have a castle doctrine law with the stand your ground clause, you may want to ask yourself if the situation can be defused.

7. Pointing a gun at someone OR using it against someone carries the same penalty if it is a bad decision. So does opening your jacket and showing your weapon as an implied threat.

8. Most "good" shoots just happen, there is no time to think ... just react.

9. You are responsible for the bullet that misses or goes through the person and strikes an innocent bystander.

10. You actually have less rights as a CHP carrier than a person who does not have one. This one creates a lot of debate.

Edited December 29, 2009 by Currently

[TLRMADE]

Hey TLRMADE - this wouldn't by chance be the Taylor that had the Silver Lexus GS, lives in Franklin/Brentwood, is it?

(p.s. - good perspective in this thread, as well).

Haha nope not me, I drive the silver 350.

[TLRMADE]

Well sorry if i stirred up anything in this thread. Thanks to all who tried to help.

[saintsfanbrian]

I don't think you stirred up anything. To answer your question there is no definitive answer to whether or not you should intervene if you see some one being attacked. It is up to you and your morals/code of conduct whether or not you want to risk jail to "save" some other person.

My family comes first, then me, then the rest of the public at large. I am not paid to "protect and serve" and don't want to risk going to jail over what may or may not be considered a "good shoot".

I also don't typically find myself in places where I would need to defend another person but that's because I don't get out much.

[Guest Moody]

Haha nope not me, I drive the silver 350.

Yeah, you know I realized that after you PM'd me. I would like to see your car, because I'm looking at getting a used 350 to run around in, if my Lexus kicks the bucket.

[Guest Muttling]

That is not exactly correct, what the law says on 3rd party defense is "Under the circumstances as the person reasonably believes them to be"

So if it is determined that it was reasonable for you to think one thing (that justified self-defense), even if later it was shown that wasn't actually what was happening, you should be ok....if your lawyer can make the jury believe that.

I agree with you, but that "if your lawyer can make the jury believe that" part is the problem.

If you shoot a parent trying to take home a runaway child, it's going to be a REAL hard sell to a jury unless the events you were witnessing were pretty violent. Furthermore, even if the jury finds you not guilty of a crime...you're highly likely get nailed to the wall in a civil suit for damages.

NOW for the legal question that is intriguing about this.....

Murder is a felony crime. As I understand it, the vast majority of felony crimes come with a strict liability. Even in check fraud, they get around the intent requirement by arguing that a reasonable person would know what's in their checking account before writing the check. I suspect a good prosecutor would get around the "reasonable to think" aspect of the law in the vast majority of situations.

[DaveTN]

If you kill an innocent person you aren’t going to get off.

You are going to prison and the victims family will take everything you have; leaving you in jail and your family with nothing.

[Fallguy]

Can't really disagree with either of you....

[Guest HoneyBaer]

Murder is a felony crime.

I was recently watching TN v Taylor on CourtTV and was surprised to hear the defense attorney tell the jury that homicide - the killing of a human - is not [necessarily] a crime. I guess because I've always associated that word with "murder"...

Our justice system frequently commits "homicide" when we execute folks or when a policeman kills someone in the line of duty and isn't brought up on "murder" charges.

As someone pointed out elsewhere, murder is the UNLAWFUL killing of another person.