Small Businesses In House Armed Guard Licensing

[Guest 270win]

Why would a small business, like a jewelry store, get armed guard licenses for say the jewelers instead of just having the jewelers carry on their handgun carry permits. I know it is quite expensive for a business to have a 'proprietary' security company because they have to pay for a bonding/insurance policy. Are there advantages for businesses to do this VS the handgun carry permit from a liability standpoint?

[DaveTN]

I would guess that they would still have liability, but they may be thinking it might reduce potential punitive damages by appearing to have some training.

[dunndw]

I would think it would shift the liability from the company to the individual with the carry permit. If the state could prove that were required to carry, then they might run into some issues. It's one of those grey areas. As a business owner, esp. if I was in that line of work I'd strongly encourage then to carry for their own protection, but if they were expected to protect the business assets/customers then they'd better get guard certified to CYA (the employees)

[Mdunntn]

The jewelers may also not want to carry a weapon. You know some people just wouldn't feel comfortable doing that, and would probably end up getting someone killed if a bad situation arrived.

[Guest 270win]

I guess it is similar to churches that have their own in house security and decide to get church members armed guard licenses and paying for the liability insurance VS having a few folks as an organized team at the church just carrying on handgun carry permits. It would seem especially useful at a church that also has a private school because someone with an armed guard license working on the church's security team on Sunday could carry but not someone with just a handgun carry permit.

[STS]

Technically the jewelers wouldn't even need an HCP. Either an owner, or an employee charged by the owner with protection of property can carry in the place of business. Having said that, there's a level of deterrence to having a uniformed guard on site, which does help to thwart the criminal element. Also, even if they don't like to admit it or not, many patrons can be put off by the presence of a firearm on a sales person. Sheep like sheep.

[Oh Shoot]

Technically the jewelers wouldn't even need an HCP. Either an owner, or an employee charged by the owner with protection of property can carry in the place of business. ...

This is no longer in the TCA, it was part of the "carrying in bars" statute, which has been deleted entirely. It was often debated as to whether this applied ONLY to alcohol serving establishments or businesses in general, but it's moot now, since it's gone.

AFAIK the only mention of carrying in one's business is still the defense to unlawful possession/carry in 39-17-1308 which allows carry at a "person's ... place of business or premises". Which is still debatable as to exactly WHO this applies to -- meaning "owner" or just "any employee", or what?

- OS

[STS]

Oh wow, thanks for the update. I missed that.

[Guest Dag123]

Ok I am in this almos exact position as I work in a family run jewelry store and have my hcp my father in-law (owner) has asked me what happens if i shoot someone legally. I told him that if that was to happen then the family could not sue me if it was found to be a self defense shooting and legal he then said ok but can they sue the store for allowing me to carry?? I dont know the answer to this but if they can what can we do as a business to protect it as well ?? Any help/advise on this would be greatly appreciated.

[DaveTN]

They can sue either one of you, and if you shot someone they would name you both in the suit.

The fact that you aren’t charged isn’t a ruling you were justified. Who is going to “Find†your shooting was justified if you don’t go to court?

The attorneys will go after the “Deep Pocketsâ€, I’m guessing that’s your Father-in-Law.

[Guest ArmaDeFuego]

Does the Castle Law's provision that says the aggressor can't sue not apply to a person's business?

[DaveTN]

Does the Castle Law's provision that says the aggressor can't sue not apply to a person's business?

There is nothing in the state of Tennessee that says you can’t be sued. (That I have ever seen)

There is a law that says if you are sued and it is determined you were justified the court can award you a judgment for your costs. But that doesn’t mean you will get paid back.

[quietguy]

There is nothing in the state of Tennessee that says you can’t be sued. (That I have ever seen)

There is a law that says if you are sued and it is determined you were justified the court can award you a judgment for your costs. But that doesn’t mean you will get paid back.

I am not an attorney, but this is my understanding as well. Tennessee's Castle Law only protects you from criminal liability, not civil action. Edited May 28, 2011 by quietguy
clarification

[Guest ArmaDeFuego]

"This bill provides immunity from civil liability for a person who uses lawful force in defense of self, others, or property except when the force is used against a law enforcement officer acting in an official capacity who identified himself or when the person using the force knew or should have known that the person against whom force was used was a law enforcement officer.

The court would award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by a person in defense of any civil action brought against the person based upon that person's use of force if the court finds that the person's use of force was justified."

Thats talking about TN's "Castle Law."

So I guess what DaveTN said was right. You CAN be sued, but you get attorney's fees & everything back once the case is resolved & your use of force is ruled justified.

Edited May 28, 2011 by ArmaDeFuego

[DaveTN]

So I guess what DaveTN said was right. You CAN be sued, but you get attorney's fees & everything back once the case is resolved & your use of force is ruled justified.

In a perfect world that is what would happen.

But we live in a world where even the court can’t make a dirt bag pay when they don’t have any money.

Anyone that carries a gun should know that if you shoot someone there is a very good possibility that it is going to get expensive if there was any doubt surrounding your shoot. That’s why you have a plan to makes sure that doesn’t happen to you.

My plan is very simple. Would a reasonable person (That means a Jury that has spent a week looking at what you did and what you should have done) believe that you were in danger of immediate death or great bodily harm? It’s just yes or no, and you better be able you answer it.

In the recent question the Father-in-law should be asking himself if his son-in-law has had enough training, both situational and legal, to risk his business on.

If anyone is under the impression that “Castle Law†creates some type of "free fire zone "anywhere, including your own home; you are mistaken. If you are going to rely on “Castle Law†to keep you out of prison or from being bankrupted; you should understand it.

[Guest ArmaDeFuego]

In a perfect world that is what would happen.

If anyone is under the impression that “Castle Law†creates some type of "free fire zone "anywhere, including your own home; you are mistaken. If you are going to rely on “Castle Law†to keep you out of prison or from being bankrupted; you should understand it.

Well it pretty much does create a "free fire zone" in your home doesnt it? You are automatically assumed to be in fear of serious injury or death as soon as they forcibly enter your home.

[Oh Shoot]

Well it pretty much does create a "free fire zone" in your home doesnt it? You are automatically assumed to be in fear of serious injury or death as soon as they forcibly enter your home.

It establishes a "presumption" that you were in fear of your life, a presumption you don't automatically get elsewhere.

You still can't execute someone, though.

One in the back of the head from close up might get you charged, for a quick example.

- OS

[DaveTN]

Well it pretty much does create a "free fire zone" in your home doesnt it?

No.

[Guest ArmaDeFuego]

It establishes a "presumption" that you were in fear of your life, a presumption you don't automatically get elsewhere.

You still can't execute someone, though.

One in the back of the head from close up might get you charged, for a quick example.

- OS

Yea I see where you guys are going with this. I guess I just have a different image in my head of someone breaking into my house. Where I live is pretty small so there would be no chance for me to sneak up behind someone or something if they broke in. It would be face to face definitely.

Just the other night right around here where I live a woman got drunk & broke into an apartment thinking it was her own. Thats probably a good example of Castle Law not creating a free fire zone. If an unarmed drunk woman broke in my back door & I shot her I doubt if that would be looked favorably on. Luckily where she broke into nobody was home.

[DaveTN]

Generally speaking…. Castle Law removes duty to retreat and gives you the “innocent until proven guilty†standing that you should already have; but don’t.

It’s not… “He was in my house so I killed him.â€

[Oh Shoot]

Yea I see where you guys are going with this. I guess I just have a different image in my head of someone breaking into my house. Where I live is pretty small so there would be no chance for me to sneak up behind someone or something if they broke in. It would be face to face definitely.

Just the other night right around here where I live a woman got drunk & broke into an apartment thinking it was her own. Thats probably a good example of Castle Law not creating a free fire zone. If an unarmed drunk woman broke in my back door & I shot her I doubt if that would be looked favorably on. Luckily where she broke into nobody was home.

Well, every case of a in-home shooting could have its complexities. It's certainly not as cut and dried as many think when they cite the "castle law". Infinite possibilities abound.

Even that fellow that breaks in that you confront head on; if he immediately drops to his knees and puts his (empty) hands up, your "fear for you life" would likely be seen as no longer there by a panel of peers. 'Course, ultimately things come down to what can be proven, not merely postulated.

- OS

[Guest Jon]

You guys have my interest.

Lets play what if, I just want to hear your guys thoughts.

Lets say your sound asleep and you awake to the sound of someone coming in your front door. You grab your weapon of choice and prepare to defend your home. You see your intruder but its dark. You give commands to stop inform him your calling the police but he is still moving towards you. You fire 3 rounds dropping him dead. Police arrive to find the intruder was unarmed.

To me I would feel this person had reason to fear for his life. But what do you guys think? Do you wait a little longer to find out if the person is armed and take your chances, or do you play it safe and engage?

If there is really that much "slack" in the law then I may hesitate a moment too long and it cost have deadly results. Likewise, I could react too soon and face financial headaches and possibly criminal actions if found that the "fear for my life" wasn't to the extent to justify a shooting.

[Oh Shoot]

You guys have my interest.

Lets play what if, I just want to hear your guys thoughts.

Lets say your sound asleep and you awake to the sound of someone coming in your front door. You grab your weapon of choice and prepare to defend your home. You see your intruder but its dark. You give commands to stop inform him your calling the police but he is still moving towards you. You fire 3 rounds dropping him dead. Police arrive to find the intruder was unarmed.

To me I would feel this person had reason to fear for his life. But what do you guys think? Do you wait a little longer to find out if the person is armed and take your chances, or do you play it safe and engage?...

If it happened just as you said, I doubt if you would be charged in TN. There's no "requirement to retreat" or "intruder must be armed" clauses in the statutes.

- OS

[Dolomite_supafly]

And one thing to realize. If someone is breaking in they are probably some low life with no money or assets to speak of so getting repaid your attorney fees and such will likely not happen. They have nothing to loose by suing but have everything to gain if they win. Makes sense for them to take a chance on suing.

And in most cases their attorney will make sure every juror knows poor little Johnny was turning his life around after being abused as a child. And that his death wasn't Johnny's fault, after all he didn't kill himself.

This stuff sickens me because the would be criminals have more rights than most home owners. I wish we could sue the criminals for the emotional stress of enduring a criminal act. And when they can't pay take whatever government assitance they receive.

Dolomite

[DaveTN]

You guys have my interest.

Lets play what if, I just want to hear your guys thoughts.

Lets say your sound asleep and you awake to the sound of someone coming in your front door. You grab your weapon of choice and prepare to defend your home. You see your intruder but its dark. You give commands to stop inform him your calling the police but he is still moving towards you. You fire 3 rounds dropping him dead. Police arrive to find the intruder was unarmed.

To me I would feel this person had reason to fear for his life. But what do you guys think? Do you wait a little longer to find out if the person is armed and take your chances, or do you play it safe and engage?

If there is really that much "slack" in the law then I may hesitate a moment too long and it cost have deadly results. Likewise, I could react too soon and face financial headaches and possibly criminal actions if found that the "fear for my life" wasn't to the extent to justify a shooting.

I’m not suggesting that you wait so long it gets you killed, or that you are required to. Whether he was armed really isn’t important, there is no requirement that an intruder is armed. The first question I had when I read your scenario was; who is it? Was it truly an intruder? Or was it a family member or someone else that has normal access to your house?

As OhShoot pointed out you can't execute someone simply because they are in your home, and that is not what the Castle doctrine is about.

You come home and find the 12 year old neighbor kid burglarizing your house. As you enter the back door he runs to the front door and is trying to get out when you shoot and kill him. You argue that “Castle Laws†protect you. Good luck with that. You enter the courtroom with the presumption that you were justified. The DA is free to tear that justification down and send you to prison if he can.

I always need to identify my target before I fire. If I can’t I seek cover until I can. That’s just how I was trained.