BOLO: Police seek burglary suspect after scuffle with armed homeowner

[QuietDan]

BOLO - Be On the Look Out: Police seek burglary suspect after scuffle with armed homeowner

Thought you all would rather see this twice instead of not at all:

Police seek burglary suspect after scuffle with armed homeowner | Nashville City Paper

An argument for Carry. You know neither the day nor the hour . . .

[Fourtyfive]

Once the suspect was in his car fleeing would the homeowner have been in the right to use deadly force ? I would think not.

[LagerHead]

Once the suspect was in his car fleeing would the homeowner have been in the right to use deadly force ? I would think not.

And you would be correct.

[Guest ArmaDeFuego]

Once the suspect was in his car fleeing would the homeowner have been in the right to use deadly force ? I would think not.

Not usually, but according to the story the owner said that the guy was reaching behind him in his shorts to get something (supposedly a weapon) as they were fighting inside his house. The homeowner followed the guy outside with his gun (to get his plate number maybe?) & said that he then saw the intruder reaching in his car for something (again, presumably a weapon.) At this point the homeowner had no duty to retreat, & if he felt that his life was in danger he could defend himself.

Its probably not what I would have done, but looks like the cops are on his side or more than likely would have already been charged with something.....

[Makiaveli]

What Arma said. Most of the officers (speaking purely on my own behalf and as a civilian) in Nashville seem to be able to tell the difference between a citizen who might have acted a bit rashly and the bad guys who are likely to cause trouble down the road.

[Guest ArmaDeFuego]

What Arma said. Most of the officers (speaking purely on my own behalf and as a civilian) in Nashville seem to be able to tell the difference between a citizen who might have acted a bit rashly and the bad guys who are likely to cause trouble down the road.

Yea I've ridden along with several officers in Nashville & Clarksville & as a general rule the cops seem to want to side with law-abiding citizens against the crooks. I dont think they would pursue charges against someone who fired at an intruder unless it was blatantly obvious that it wasnt called for.

Thats not what happened in this instance. The homeowner said the guy was reaching in his car for a gun. Thats good enough for me. (And the cops too obviously....)

[Ebow1]

Oh great. It had to be a guy who looks almost just like me.

[hornett22]

Once the suspect was in his car fleeing would the homeowner have been in the right to use deadly force ? I would think not.

The politicians don't think so. I have no problem with shooting until the perp is dead or you're out of ammo. I'm all for saving tax dollars.

[Guest brandon_pitt]

Oh great. It had to be a guy who looks almost just like me.

+1 lol. Exactly what I thought!! Glad I drive a truck!!

[QuietDan]

. . . . he then saw the intruder reaching in his car for something . . .

And that's his story and he's sticking to it. And it seems that the police are just fine with that.

[Guest ArmaDeFuego]

. . . . he then saw the intruder reaching in his car for something . . .

And that's his story and he's sticking to it. And it seems that the police are just fine with that.

/shrug.... Maybe thats really what happened. We dont know. We werent there.

[Fourtyfive]

And if he had hit him and killed him and there was no gun ....?

[Guest BungieCord]

And if he had hit him and killed him and there was no gun ....?

I've got one I would have "loaned" him.

If a homeowner draws down on an intruder and the intruder 1) resists and 2) continues to make theatening movements, it ain't the homeowner's fault if the burglar wins a free toe tag.

Edited August 17, 2011 by BungieCord

[JAB]

And if he had hit him and killed him and there was no gun ....?

The way I read the story, the burglar wasn't already in the car and fleeing. Instead, he went to his car and appeared to be reaching in it for something. At that point, the homeowner (who was still on his own property) believed that the burglar was reaching for a gun. Such a belief, IMO, would result in the homeowner having a reasonable fear of death or serious, bodily injury as nothing is to say that the burglar wasn't planning to retrieve a gun from the car and come back into the homeowner's house - possibly planning to kill the homeowner and the homeowner's young son. As the burglar doesn't seem to be coming forward to tell his side of the story, the homeowner's version is the only one being told and I imagine LEOs are willing to take that at face value. Even if the lowlife had been killed and there was no gun, the homeowner had no way of knowing - at the time - that there was no gun and no reason to believe the burglar wasn't reaching for one. Therefore, based on the fact that the scumbag had just broken into his home, it would seem to me that the reasonable FEAR of death or serious, bodily injury would still stand. Of course, I am not a lawyer. I'm simply stating why, if I were called as a juror in such a case, I would refuse to go along with a guilty verdict of any kind.

I know state law says we can't shoot in defense of property and can't shoot if the assailant is retreating and I would abide by that. That doesn't mean a jury would convict someone who did (I know that if I were on the jury it certainly wouldn't - might end in a hung jury but not a conviction.) Personally, if a lowlife gets killed as the result of his own actions (i.e. breaking into someone's home) I don't really give a crap.

Edited August 18, 2011 by JAB

[Fourtyfive]

Trust me , I ain't defending the trash , I would have shot him in the house before he knew I was there. Just wondering about different outcomes. So if he is only wounded and says in court he was retreating , one word against the other. I suppose we can count on our judicial system to guarantee we are not sued or convicted ......

[Makiaveli]

Trust me , I ain't defending the trash , I would have shot him in the house before he knew I was there. Just wondering about different outcomes. So if he is only wounded and says in court he was retreating , one word against the other. I suppose we can count on our judicial system to guarantee we are not sued or convicted ......

It's not just about what he was actually doing. Let's say the burglar could prove that he was retreating (reaching for his running shoes say ) that doesn't change the fact that the home owner was in fear. Most people can see that since the guy ran outside, and reached into his car as opposed to getting into the car, it was reasonable to believe that he was reaching for a weapon. So that would help justify the home owner.

In other words, if you can articulate why you believed you were in danger, then you are safe unless you get a liberal gun-hating judge or jury. As a side note, I've had many officers tell me to say "I was in fear of my life and or great bodily harm. I want a lawyer." Then you can proceed to say Hi Bob how are the wife and kids? That way they can testify in court that the only statement you made was that you were in fear etc. So that if you later blurt out something due to stress that could be misinterpreted it isn't admissible.

[Guest BungieCord]

Trust me , I ain't defending the trash , I would have shot him in the house before he knew I was there. Just wondering about different outcomes. So if he is only wounded and says in court he was retreating , one word against the other. I suppose we can count on our judicial system to guarantee we are not sued or convicted ......

If you have that many concerns, you should sell all your fireams and invest in tasers, OC sprays and stun guns. Because when the moment of truth arrives, you will stop to ponder the consequences, and in that instant of hesitation you will make any perp worth his prison ink a gift of your weapon. And your family will be glad you gave him a can of pepper spray and not a 9mm auto.

#1. You can't be sued. The amendment to Tennessee's Castle Doctrine that Phil Bredesen signed in 2007 (HB1907) immunizes the victim against civil suits if he shoots an attacker.

#2. The word "retreat" does not appear in TCA 39-11-611. So long as the perp continues to present a threat, he remains a viable target. His direction of movement is immaterial.

If he lives, of course he's going to swear he was retreating. If you thought it would cut you some slack, wouldn't you? That's exactly why the court doesn't care.

#3. The TCAs stipulate you may presume the perp intends you harm from the fact he unlawfully and forcibly entered your house (or store or barn or car). The law does not further burden your need to provide for your own safety by requiring you to wait until X, Y or Z happens before you are entitled to act. Nor does it take him off limits if he decides to back up.

#4. The TCAs stipulate that your justification to respond in force ends if the perp "abandons the encounter." This does not mean he's retreating, this means he is making clear (to you) monstrations that he no longer poses a threat. But the onus is on him, not you, to make certain his intent is clearly understood.

So it doesn't matter whether the perp was reaching in his car to get a gun or his Mary Kay sample case or his Watchtower pamphlets, if his actions gave the victim reason to doubt the encounter was abandoned, it (probably) was his own fault and the victim (probably) was justified.

If you're concerned that his story will conflict with yours because you failed to kill him when you were justified in doing so, that's on you. But when the police arrive, if there's only one warm body, there's also only one story.

In the words of Clint Smith, one shot or 50, the amount of paperwork is the same. So shoot and keep shooting until the target changes shape or catches fire.

[Punisher84]

#1. You can't be sued. The amendment to Tennessee's Castle Doctrine that Phil Bredesen signed in 2007 (HB1907) immunizes the victim against civil suits if he shoots an attacker.

That's actually partially wrong. You CAN still be sued. The law you're referencing only states that you will not be held liable in a civil suit if you are not held criminally liable. And that whoever brings the suit will award you attorney fees etc. They can still file the suit though.

[Makiaveli]

That's actually partially wrong. You CAN still be sued. The law you're referencing only states that you will not be held liable in a civil suit if you are not held criminally liable. And that whoever brings the suit will award you attorney fees etc. They can still file the suit though.

That's good to know. Thanks for the clarification.

[Fourtyfive]

If you have that many concerns, you should sell all your fireams and invest in tasers, OC sprays and stun guns. Because when the moment of truth arrives, you will stop to ponder the consequences, and in that instant of hesitation you will make any perp worth his prison ink a gift of your weapon. And your family will be glad you gave him a can of pepper spray and not a 9mm auto.

That was rather offensive towards my judgment and family , I stated what I would have done. Who pissed on your parade ?

[Punisher84]

That's good to know. Thanks for the clarification.

No problem. When it first came out I was working at a training school and we were all trying to figure out the deal with it. The understanding was that it was basically an incentive for lawyers not to take bogus cases.