If someone breaks into my apartment, what are my rights?

[NeveSSL]

Hi all!

I've heard several rumors about this stuff.

Ultimately, what are my rights if someone breaks into my apartment? Is it just flat out lethal force allowed, or are there catches?

One such rumor was that if you do not kill the perp, he/she or their family can sue for harm.

Anything like that I need to be aware of? Or should I just unload on whoever is in my house?

Thanks much!

Brandon

[Guest bkelm18]

Hi all!

I've heard several rumors about this stuff.

Ultimately, what are my rights if someone breaks into my apartment? Is it just flat out lethal force allowed, or are there catches?

One such rumor was that if you do not kill the perp, he/she or their family can sue for harm.

Anything like that I need to be aware of? Or should I just unload on whoever is in my house?

Thanks much!

Brandon

The Castle Doctrine pretty much states that if someone is trespassing in your home, you may immediately assume that he/she is there to do you bodily harm and authorizes you to use deadly force. No matter what the situation is, shoot to kill. I have heard of instances where the perp is shot but does not die, and sues the person who shot him/her and won. Never shoot to wound. Now you said you live in apartment, so you should not "unload" on whoever is in your home. Be mindful that there are other people living within close proximity to you and may be harmed by bullets flying through the walls. Now always take what you read online with a grain of salt. Call the proper authorities on the matter of self defense and get the real scoop.

[Mike.357]

Never shoot to wound.

Stop shooting once the threat is over. You do not shoot to kill or to wound, but only to stop the threat. Death may be a result of you stopping the threat, that is not your problem. I believe the Castle Doctrine protects you from civil lawsuits in these instances.

[Guest bkelm18]

Stop shooting once the threat is over. You do not shoot to kill or to wound, but only to stop the threat. Death may be a result of you stopping the threat, that is not your problem. I believe the Castle Doctrine protects you from civil lawsuits in these instances.

Ok I guess I should have phrased it better. Never shoot with only the intent to wound in any situation in or out of your home. I agree you should shoot until the threat is neutralized, but that doesn't mean trying to shoot him in the legs or something in the hopes that he won't die. I wasn't speaking specifically of the Castle Doctrine, just in general. And yes, to answer one of the original questions, if your shooting is justified, no matter if the perp dies or not, you are protected against civil suits by the Castle Doctrine.

For further reading, TN's Castle Doctrine: http://state.tn.us/sos/acts/105/pub/pc0210.pdf

[Im Neero]

I have heard of instances where the perp is shot but does not die, and sues the person who shot him/her and won.

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the castle doctrine also protect you from civil liability if the shooting is ruled good?

[DMark]

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the castle doctrine also protect you from civil liability if the shooting is ruled good?

That is the intent of the law, but I am not aware of any case study yet.

Its important to know that the castle doctrine can be applied to any place where you have a legal right to be. So far that is consider to be your real property = home, land, car, etc., but it could be anywhere - so long as you have the best of lawyers.

[The Rabbi]

This was raised at the talk given by John Harris.

Let me clarify:

Castle Doctrine here means that there are certain areas, your house, your car, your rented motel room, etc, that you are presumed to be in fear of death or serious bodily harm should someone enter.

But that is only a presumption. If you find the guy hoisting your TV out the window with one leg over the sill you are probably not in fear of your life and you cannot shoot him.

You can be sued for anything. That's what makes America great. You can raise as a defense the fact that it was a lawful shoot. But it is no guarantee. You might be found guilty of excessive force in a civil trial. One case was mentioned where police were called. They judged the shooter justified and didnt even arrest him or detain him. He was sued by the "victim" and lost in civil court.

Always shoot to neutralize the threat. Never shoot more than necessary. Why did you shoot him 10 times? The answer is not because my gun only holds 10 rounds. The answer is, because 9 wasn't enough and 11 would have been too many.

When the threat stops, so does your ability to use deadly force.

[NeveSSL]

Ahhh... ok. Thanks guys. That helps a lot. I'll review the Castle Doctrine some and probably come back with more questions.

Brandon

[Guest Boomhower]

The answer is, because 9 wasn't enough and 11 would have been too many.

I like that.....Note to self......

[Guest 2HOW]

Simply said, the castle doctrine means you do not have to retreat and you have the right to defend you life. So shootem to the ground . if they come into your home or car.

[Guest canynracer]

stop the threat by whatever means necessary.

[Guest looneeetunes]

depends on calibur two shots with 45 to stop the threat, or with a 25, he may have as many holes as spongebob.. stop shooting tho when the threat is neutralized. in the case of your apartment as thread says

[Fallguy]

The Rabbi is right in that anyone can be sued at anytime for any reason. What the law, T.C.A. 39-11-622, says is that if you are sued and the shooting is ruled justified the person that sued you has to pay your attorney's fees, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by you in your defense of the lawsuit.

I have to admit I'm not sure of the burden of proof, I would "guess" that since the other party brought the suit, they would have to prove it wasn't justified.

[Guest Glknknox]

You house is considered your last place of retreat.

Somebody enters with intent to harm, stop the threat.

The Castle Doctrin just expands on the places and protection from having law suits brough against you.

Just within the last week or so here in knoxville (Powell) guy broke into a house with a young teenager at home. He called mom, mom called his grandparents.

Long story short they shot him in the front yard becase crack head was making a move towards G/ma...........police justified it as a good shoot and let the G/pa off.

People can sue for anything, but it takes a whole lot more for them to get what they want.

[DaveTN]

Anything like that I need to be aware of?

You should be aware of the fact that if you use deadly force at any time other than when a reasonable person would believe that you are in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm; you will more than likely find yourself in criminal court fighting for your freedom.

There is no guarantee against a civil suit. If you are not charged in a shooting that is not a ruling that it was a justifiable shoot. A court would need to determine that it was a good shoot, and then you could try to recover expenses from whoever sued you. Good luck with that.

There is no “Free shoot†in any state that I have ever heard of simply because someone is in your home.

[Marswolf]

But that is pretty much what the new law is intended to do.

[DaveTN]

But that is pretty much what the new law is intended to do.

What new law are you referring to?

[Marswolf]

Castle Doctrine. If they break in, you get to shoot them.

[saintsfanbrian]

When I took my carry class it was explained that you did not have to retreat if someone was breaking in to your home. It was even on the video. They did say you couldn't chase some one down that was stealing your car from your driveway, but inside your garage/home was a totally different story.

[The Rabbi]

No, no. Let me clarify, again based on John Harris' comments at the talk I sponsored.

The law gives the presumption of being in fear of death or serious bodily harm any time someone is in your house unlawfully. But it is a presumption. The prosecutor can overcome that by showing that the criminal was, e.g. down the driveway running away when you shot him in the back. But the prosecutor would have to overcome the presumption. This is as opposed to e.g. on the street where the shooter would have to prove he was in fact in such fear.

The new law simply extends that presumption to other areas outside your house: the curtilage, a rented hotel room, your car.

The law does not allow a free fire zone. Nor does it hamstring a homeowner from legitimate self-protection. It does give the homeowner the benefit of the doubt though.

[DaveTN]

Castle Doctrine. If they break in, you get to shoot them.

It is my understanding that Tennessee has recognized the Castle Doctrine for many years.

Most of the “noise” that is being made about the Castle Doctrine is either removing the “duty to retreat”, which I don’t think Tennessee has ever had, or extending your rights to the rest of your property and a motor vehicle (car jacking).

Are you saying that if you enter your home through the back door and you see a 12 year old kid that has been burglarizing your home trying to get out the front door; you can just shoot him in the back and call it a day?

I contend that unless a jury would believe that you are in danger of death or great bodily harm; you will most likely do prison time.

But I could be wrong.

[The Rabbi]

DaveTN, see my previous comments.

[Marswolf]

We have another topic on this somewhere. Basically the new law says there is a presumption of their intent to kill or seriously harm you if they break in while you are home and not committing other crimes (like drug sales, for example), so there is now a presumption that you have a right to use deadly force to protect yourself. This was not the presumption before.

[Mike.357]

What Mars just said was how it was explained by a LEO in my carry class.

[DaveTN]

We have another topic on this somewhere. Basically the new law says there is a presumption of their intent to kill or seriously harm you if they break in while you are home and not committing other crimes (like drug sales, for example), so there is now a presumption that you have a right to use deadly force to protect yourself. This was not the presumption before.

I think you are misunderstanding the law. There may well be a presumption if you are trying to protect yourself. I contend there is no such presumption if someone is trying to get away or surrender.