Castle Doctrine

[Guest cheez]

Last night I attended a neighborhood watch meeting. During the meeting the local sheriff gave a speech then a couple deputies gave speeches of the do's and don't's of watching the neighborhood. I suppose in any of these type meetings the question of using firearms comes up. Well this meeting was no exception. The lead deputy who was the shift sargent told the audience that if you shoot someone you have to be able to prove that yours or someone elses life was in danger. I raised my hand and mentioned the Castle Doctrine. He quickly and firmly told me that the Castle Doctrine was merely a doctrine and not law in Tennessee. Also that even in your own home if someone breaks in the door and comes in that you still have to prove that the perp was intending bodily harm before we could use deadly force. I disagreed but at the time I did not have the code handy where the Castle Doctrine became law in Tennessee. Later on I searched and found that the Castle Doctrine actually became law in Tennessee in 2007. The way I read the law is that if someone enters your home uninvited it is presumed that they mean you harm and that deadly force can be used to defend you and yours without the burden of proof that the person meant harm. I also read the Castle Doctrine law to say that in defending your home that you are immuned from civil penalties as well. I would like to see some discussions and opinions from the knowledgable folks here about this.

BTW I did try a search here on this topic but everytime I tried I got time out errors.

[Motasyco]

The Castle Doctrine has been discussed here before. At some length. I'm no legal expert but it is my understanding that it is applicable in Tennessee.

if you break into my home I'll expect you're not there to deliver flowers. I read, probably at least once a week, about armed individuals breaking in to someone's home and it often ends badly for the intruder of the home owner. Recently, on TGO, I read statistics about the percentage of intruders being armed. I don't recall the exact numbers but it was surprisingly high. If you break in, I'm going to expect you're armed and my life is in danger. Hesitation could be deadly.

My situation may be different than others. In a discussion with my cousin, he expressed concerns that one of his kids could have had an argument with their spouse and come to his home unannounced. A valid point. None of my kids live in this area and nobody has keys other than my wife and I. My wife and I have a routine of calling to let the other know if we are coming home unexpectedly so there is no question.

I also have several deterrents. An alarm system. A dog that is small but barks at any unusual sound. I have motion detector lights in my small home. If you enter a room leading to the hallway that leads to our bedroom, the hall light will come on and it shines in through the bedroom doorway. My wife and I have a planned response. All I can say is you better not step into the doorway to the bedroom.

If you are bold enough to bust in while I'm not in bed, you will get to meet Commander Bob Tail.

Edited February 23, 2011 by Motasyco

[midtennchip]

It sounds like you have a pretty good understanding of the so-called Castle Doctrine. Under the Tennessee version, if someone "unlawfully and forcibly enters" another person's residence, business, dwelling, or vehicle and the person defending himself knew of the "unlawful and forcible entry," the person defending him is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury. Obviously, the deputy didn't know the law in this case.

For a more in-depth discussion of using self-defense in court, the following thread is a good start:

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/tennessee-politics-legislation/51654-has-tn-law-changed.html

[Fallguy]

Chip has it down pretty good (of course )

It boils down that to use deadly force period, you must have a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm.

In some situations (out on the street) you may have to prove that was the case.

In others (in your house etc.. as stated above) it is presumed you had that fear. Of course the DA could still try to prove that you didn't have that fear and/or it wasn't reasonable depending on the situation.

While it doesn't sound like the deputy knew the law, he may have been trying to balance a belief that some have that you can just shoot anyone in your home period without any consequences, which is not 100% true.

Of course I have to say again...this is another example of why I sort of hate the term "Castle Doctrine" That term is just a generic term for Self-Defense and Defense of Property laws, that vary from state to state.

[Guest nosnos]

It's just that using the words "castle" and "doctrine" together sounds so awesome!

From what I understand, if you have to shoot someone, when talking to police (or anybody, for that matter) you better not stray from "I was afraid for my life." Anything outside of that starts to get messy for your defense.

--------

[Guest cheez]

I fully understand that I cannot shoot my drunk brother in law because he won't leave my home. On the other hand if my door comes crashing in I will not hesitate to see if the door breaker person(s) has a weapon.

[vontar]

in the Old TN HCP video, a guy returns home and an intruder was in the home and runs toward him and the door. The home own just reacts and shots. Our class was advised that was a justified because the intruder was already inside the home and coming toward the home owner. The home owner is not required to back down/retreat or determine threat. With the intruder already in the home, it can be assumed they are there to do harm.

(I am not a lawyer nor a spokes person for one.)

I might go to some of my neighborhood watch meetings this year. Just to see what they are about. I haven't went to one yet.

A couple years ago, some people a few houses down set it up and it just seems like they want to be in control of the neighborhood. So I have declined to go to any meeting. I kinda felt like who put them in charge. I may go to a meeting and see what kind of people they are this year.

This year they went around asking for people's email address's so they could email if someone important happened. I gave them one, figured what could it hurt. I can always block it or auto trash can it if needed.

Edited February 23, 2011 by vontar

[JAB]

in the Old TN HCP video, a guy returns home and an intruder was in the home and runs toward him and the door. The home own just reacts and shots. Our class was advised that was a justified because the intruder was already inside the home and coming toward the home owner. The home owner is not required to back down/retreat or determine threat. With the intruder already in the home, it can be assumed they are there to do harm.

I remember that scenario. I also remember the other scenario presented which was the same situation except the intruder ran the other direction, toward a sliding glass door or something with some of the homeowner's electronic equipment in his hand. The commentators on the video advised that shooting the burglar in that situation was questionable because he was running away, not threatening the homeowner, and the homeowner had no legal right in TN to shoot to protect his property (the electronic equipment.) Personally, I think that could be a situation where the prosecutor might try to argue against the general assumption that you should be considered to have been in fear for your life because the guy had broken into your home.

[Guest DMasterson]

While it doesn't sound like the deputy knew the law, he may have been trying to balance a belief that some have that you can just shoot anyone in your home period without any consequences, which is not 100% true.

I think Fallguy hit on the central issue here. Every class I've attended regarding the legality of firearm use manages to have this one person who, when Castle Doctrine is mentioned, pipes up with the classic:

"Hell, I'll just shoot him, then drag him in the front door and they won't be able to do sh*t to me"

Usually after the instructor stops screaming 'No no no no' for about 5 minutes, the discussion begins. Perhaps the deputy was just trying to avoid this scenario

[Tim Nunan]

Chip has it down pretty good (of course )

It boils down that to use deadly force period, you must have a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm.

In some situations (out on the street) you may have to prove that was the case.

In others (in your house etc.. as stated above) it is presumed you had that fear. Of course the DA could still try to prove that you didn't have that fear and/or it wasn't reasonable depending on the situation.

While it doesn't sound like the deputy knew the law, he may have been trying to balance a belief that some have that you can just shoot anyone in your home period without any consequences, which is not 100% true.

Of course I have to say again...this is another example of why I sort of hate the term "Castle Doctrine" That term is just a generic term for Self-Defense and Defense of Property laws, that vary from state to state.

Don't forget this part of the law: "...and forcibly enters" another person's residence, business, dwelling, or vehicle and the person defending himself knew of the "unlawful and forcible entry,"

One has to wonder about the scenerio of an illegal intruder that gains entrance without forcible entry.

[GhstFace38]

If someone turns my door knob and enters my home it's considered forcible entry. They don't have to kick the door down/ break a window, etc.

Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

[Guest BenderBendingRodriguez]

If someone turns my door knob and enters my home it's considered forcible entry. They don't have to kick the door down/ break a window, etc.

Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

Exactly. The "breaking" part of breaking and entering refers just as much to simply breaking the plane of a door or window as it does to physically breaking that same door or window.

[Guest clownsdd]

in the Old TN HCP video, a guy returns home and an intruder was in the home and runs toward him and the door. The home own just reacts and shots. Our class was advised that was a justified because the intruder was already inside the home and coming toward the home owner. The home owner is not required to back down/retreat or determine threat. With the intruder already in the home, it can be assumed they are there to do harm.

(I am not a lawyer nor a spokes person for one.)

I might go to some of my neighborhood watch meetings this year. Just to see what they are about. I haven't went to one yet.

A couple years ago, some people a few houses down set it up and it just seems like they want to be in control of the neighborhood. So I have declined to go to any meeting. I kinda felt like who put them in charge. I may go to a meeting and see what kind of people they are this year.

This year they went around asking for people's email address's so they could email if someone important happened. I gave them one, figured what could it hurt. I can always block it or auto trash can it if needed.

Join, get active, our association IS in control of our neighborhood. Volunteer you time. Help out. It will all work out. Just do your homework, know what you are talking about and let them know what you think. It took a while for our group to really "come together" but it's worth it.

[Fallguy]

Don't forget this part of the law: "...and forcibly enters" another person's residence, business, dwelling, or vehicle and the person defending himself knew of the "unlawful and forcible entry,"

One has to wonder about the scenerio of an illegal intruder that gains entrance without forcible entry.

True...that is what I meant "as stated above" was talking about in Chip's post. But i wasn't very clear...sorry.

[Fallguy]

If someone turns my door knob and enters my home it's considered forcible entry. They don't have to kick the door down/ break a window, etc.

Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

That is correct...turning a door knob, opening a window etc...does require "force" and meet the "forcibly" part of unlawfully and forcibly.