So a guy just walks in to my apartment

[Guest db99wj]

Rather than try to argue with those of you who think pointing the gun at the guy was wrong. I'll just say this: MY house, MY rules. Rule #1: Walk into my home, unannounced and uninvited, you WILL be staring down the barrel of a firearm until I can ascertain you are not a threat. Don't care if any of you like it or not, do what you wish in your own home. I'll take the legal ramifications if it means I'm still alive.

Fine, take what I was trying to get across in 75% less writing and make it more clear in the process.

:D:p:D:p

[Guest bkelm18]

Fine, take what I was trying to get across in 75% less writing and make it more clear in the process.

:p:D:p

I do what I can.

[Kano]

Easy for others to now say what they would have done... you did great no one got hurt and he left your apartment. I would have not had any choice in the matter in my house .. my dogs would have torn his ass up before I got out of the head.

[VERO1]

Next time you could just order him into your freshly vacated bathroom.:poop: On a serious note I think you handled it well.

[Guest Jamie]

I would hate to think that this website is full of murderers, it is my thought and training that the only time you point your pistol at someone is if you are pulling the trigger.

.................................................................................................

And of course the guy must be dead because again we all know never point your gun at someone unless your going to destroy him.

I was taught to clear a building or room in a particular way. And one aspect of that method is to be looking over the sights of your weapon, whatever that weapon may be.

I was also taught not to shoot until I was sure I need to.

P.S. I did NOT shoot the dummy sitting in the lawn chair, the night I and another officer had to clear one of Randy Travis' houses, after the alarm went off.

I did jump a bit when the beam from the flashlight fell on it though...

[Guest jackdm3]

Boo!

[Guest Jamie]

Now you I'd shoot.

J.

[Rightwinger]

I was taught to clear a building or room in a particular way.

P.S. I did NOT shoot the dummy sitting in the lawn chair, the night I and another officer had to clear one of Randy Travis' houses, after the alarm went off.

I did jump a bit when the beam from the flashlight fell on it though...

So, was it really a dummy or was Randy just really really still at that moment?

[Guest Jamie]

So, was it really a dummy or was Randy just really really still at that moment?

Nope, it was a dummy.

Probably still is, for that matter.

J.

[Guest jth_3s]

I would have done the same thing. I could have never shot him, and I think you would be in the wrong to shoot an unarmed man for opening an unlocked door. I would point the gun at him just in case he did cause any problems. The man could have thought your apt was someone elses, and this happens alot so I keep my doors locked at all times.

[Fallguy]

To the OP, very good job sir!

[Fallguy]

Unarmed or not if the is inside the home the assumption of great bodily injury or death is is also there. Therefore, he could have put a 45 through this dude and would not have gone to jail for it as due to the castle law you do not have to retreat if inside your home.

Way, way wrong!! See below.

I am not posting to bash the OP. Let me repeat that, I'm not posting to bash the OP. He made a quick decision under lots pressure, no one got shot and he kept himself safe from harm. That is why we train. It is for self-preservation, not just to spill some blood.

I didn't really want to reply to this post since I've previously stated on the board that I'm an attorney. Before you read further understand that unless you've been in my office and signed a retainer agreement, please don't take what I say as legal advice that is applicable in to any specific factual scenario that you may be involved in.

I feel a duty to clarify a couple of things:

First, in Tennessee you must have a reasonable fear of imminent death or substantial bodily injury to be justified in using deadly force. The castle doctrine grants you a rebuttable presumption that your fear is reasonable if someone has invaded your residence. It is a wonderful defense and I'm glad we live in a state that has adopted it. It is only a defense, however, it doesn't guarantee you won't be prosecuted or even convicted of a crime. In English, the castle doctrine says your fear is reasonable if you act against a home invader unless the prosecution proves it otherwise. For example, if you left your door open and they could prove that you knew someone might be coming to your home to do repairs they may argue that your fear was unreasonable.

Second, you can still be prosecuted for a shooting in your own home. Let's say a drunk wanders in, a home repairman comes in without annoucing, or your super duper armor peircing bullets go through your assailant and into another painter who is saying, "hey asshat, wrong apartment". Any of these scenarios could result in criminal liability if a DA convinces a jury that you weren't reasonable. You could face anything from second-degree murder to voluntary manslaughter to negligent or reckless homicide. The castle doctrine is not a "get out of jail" free card and it only takes the slightest blurring of the lines (along with an overzealous DA or LEOs) to result in criminal prosecution. I'm a huge proponent of self-defense but please understand the possible results of your actions. Finally, if you are involved in any shooting, even if the charges are dismissed eventually, be aware that you will most certainly lose your HCP until the issue is completely resolved.

I apologize if the above is a little rambling. I felt a need to chime in but I've got no time to proof-read. Gotta get back to work.

Excelent post sir!

[Alpha7]

Way, way wrong!! See below.

Excelent post sir!

Way way right,

If they are inside your home you have a right to gun them down no questions asked. You do not have to retreat. It is expected that if someone is in your home without your permission it is automatically assumed there is likelyhood of imminent bodily injury or death. Also, I was told this in carry class and it even said it on the carry video (even though the video sucks) it was still dead on on that part.

[Alpha7]

In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

• An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car. THE DUDE JUST WALKED IN and unlawfully entered.
  
• The intruder must be acting illegally(again he walked in uninvited that is acting illegally)—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
  
• The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home If he is in the home and is walking towards you like this gentleman was the thought is there of bodily injury or death.
  
• The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary (why the hell else would they be there DUH?)
  
• The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force Dude didnt instigate dude to come in.
  

In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an officer of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties.

TN is a no retreat state in your home from what I understood.

So according to the above deal dude could have capped him and been in the right.

[Fallguy]

Way way right,

If they are inside your home you have a right to gun them down no questions asked. You do not have to retreat. It is expected that if someone is in your home without your permission it is automatically assumed there is likelyhood of imminent bodily injury or death. Also, I was told this in carry class and it even said it on the carry video (even though the video sucks) it was still dead on on that part.

As the lawyer said, it is only a presumption that you were in fear. If the police and/or DA doesn't think it was a reasonable fear and that they can prove it, they very well can charge you and convict you.

You do not have an "automatic right" to gun down someone no matter what the situation.

Even if they feel it was a good shoot, there are going to be very many questions asked. Do you really think the police are going to show up, see someone shot and not ask any questions?

[Alpha7]

As the lawyer said, it is only a presumption that you were in fear. If the police and/or DA doesn't think it was a reasonable fear and that they can prove it, they very well can charge you and convict you.

You do not have an "automatic right" to gun down someone no matter what the situation.

Even if they feel it was a good shoot, there are going to be very many questions asked. Do you really think the police are going to show up, see someone shot and not ask any questions?

Of course they will ask questions. It is how you answer them that can get you in trouble. You should advise the police, I was in imminent fear of my life. Then advise them I would like to cooperate with this investigation but before I do I need to consult with an attorney. I reckon I will be doing hard time then cuz if someone breaks into my house which is basically what this fella did he is getting capped. At the very least he is getting shot in the leg or something. If someone breaks in while you are there they are up to no good and usually intent on bodily harm.

[Fallguy]

In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

• An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car. THE DUDE JUST WALKED IN and unlawfully entered.
  
• The intruder must be acting illegally(again he walked in uninvited that is acting illegally)—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
  
• The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home If he is in the home and is walking towards you like this gentleman was the thought is there of bodily injury or death.
  
• The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary (why the hell else would they be there DUH?)
  
• The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force Dude didnt instigate dude to come in.
  

In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an officer of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties.

TN is a no retreat state in your home from what I understood.

First TN is a "stand your ground" state anywhere you have a legal right to be, not just in your home.

Secondly, the "Castle Doctrine" is just a term for carry and self-defense laws. There is no universal rules for the "Castle Doctrine" you must look at and apply the specific carry and/or self-defense laws for the situation. Like in TN you don't have to think the person is there to commit a felony, like in NC.

[Alpha7]

I aint gonna argue with ya fall guy. I know im right. That is all that matters. My attorney has advised me if I am there and they are in my home shoot em if need be.

[Fallguy]

Of course they will ask questions. It is how you answer them that can get you in trouble. You should advise the police, I was in imminent fear of my life. Then advise them I would like to cooperate with this investigation but before I do I need to consult with an attorney. I reckon I will be doing hard time then cuz if someone breaks into my house which is basically what this fella did he is getting capped. At the very least he is getting shot in the leg or something. If someone breaks in while you are there they are up to no good and usually intent on bodily harm.

I'm not saying anyone will go to jail. Also remember, I'm the guy that thinks it should be legal to use deadly force to protect property. I'm just saying that you need to think and assess the situation (like the OP) for just a second before you shoot. And that just because they are in your home doesn't "automatically" mean everything will be ok.

[Fallguy]

I aint gonna argue with ya fall guy. I know im right. That is all that matters. My attorney has advised me if I am there and they are in my home shoot em if need be.

My point exactly, there may not be a need to shoot them....and if there isn't and you do anyway, there could be consequences.

It is not my intention to argue, but to discuss.

[memphismason]

To the OP, I think you handled the situation perfectly.

I hear something funny in my home "Code Orange". I hear the door open "Code FIRE ENGINE RED". Walking into the living room with your gun drawn is the only way to protect yourself if the intruder has a weapon. Walking in there with nothing but your c*** in your hands is dumb.

There is a reason we carry and train, and this my friend is a perfection example of how to handle this particular scenario.

[threeshot]

I have been thinking about how the OP handled this encounter in his apartment. Sometimes a foreigner will pretend to be unable to speak English when the situation is against them.

As it stands, the OP will forever wonder if this was a simple mistake of entering the wrong apartment or someone trying to rob him. If it were a simple mistake, it must have been the first time this person has visit these apartments to see a friend. Otherwise, the person should have recognized immediately that interior of the apartment does not look like his friend’s apartment when he entered the door. In which he should have left the apartment immediately.

Would it have been better to try to detain the person and call 911?

My thinking is that you do not know this person, what was their motive or criminal history. It could be a simple mistake of accessing the wrong apartment. Or maybe not. Were there accomplices waiting near the building or in a car?

By detaining the person, I am not suggesting going hands-on. Using the gun as a pervasive tool, motion to him to get on the floor. Yell GET DOWN while motioning with the gun you want him to lay down.

Of course, if he turns and runs for the door I would not shoot, however I would give chase to my door to see where he goes, if others are involved, get physical descriptions and to call 911.

What are your thoughts?

[G27]

Would it have been better to try to detain the person and call 911?

I'm not a cop, haven't been trained in detention, and don't want to increase my time and exposure around a potential threat. If I can encourage the guy to move on, that's exactly what I'll do.

[Seaslug]

I'm not a cop, haven't been trained in detention, and don't want to increase my time and exposure around a potential threat. If I can encourage the guy to move on, that's exactly what I'll do.

I AM trained in restraint and detention, and I also keep a pair of cuffs in the house. I've often wondered what I would do if I were ever in that situation. I am somewhat familiar with the laws re: citizen's arrest, but I don't believe that allows for cuffing. I might be a bit concerned about the potential for civil liability after the fact if it were to come to that, as stupid as that sounds. Any one of you legal-types wanna weigh in?

[Fallguy]

I AM trained in restraint and detention, and I also keep a pair of cuffs in the house. I've often wondered what I would do if I were ever in that situation. I am somewhat familiar with the laws re: citizen's arrest, but I don't believe that allows for cuffing. I might be a bit concerned about the potential for civil liability after the fact if it were to come to that, as stupid as that sounds. Any one of you legal-types wanna weigh in?

Don't want to turn this into a citizens arrest thread, but the law says you "may use force reasonably necessary to accomplish the arrest of an individual who flees or resists the arrest", but not deadly force. 39-11-621. So the question becomes would handcuffing be reasonably necessary?

All that being said, I'm not sure I would have tried to detain the guy in this situation, restrained or not..