Castle / Vehicle Doctrine?

[Proscene]

I'm familiar with the Castle doctrine and our rights as the law defines them in the use of deadly force.

My question would be this: Hypothetically, what if you're sitting in your car at Wallyworld waiting on your spouse to finish shopping and two young perps walk up with a baseball bat and knife and try to gain access to hijack your vehicle. Would you be justified while fearing for your life to draw your weapon (if time allowed-assume here the car is not running). This is quite a bit different than just defending your property, these guys are ready to do bodily harm to gain access and the keys!

[Guest lostpass]

Here's the problem with your question: I'm sitting in a Wal Mart parking lot while my wife shops. There is a better than even chance that I'll put a bullet in my own head out of boredom...

That noted, I think it would all come down to whether or not you were in fear for your life. If these guys are wearing clown makeup and juggling the bats and knives while telling jokes and ask you for your car then you'll probably end up in jail. If they have worse intentions then you are probably okay. But that is no guarantee, I'm no lawyer and every case revolves around the facts and so forth.

You think this scenario is likely?

[Guest pfries]

If they are tyring to gain access to your car with a bat and a knife, you have no duty to retreat if you are in fear of imediate grest bodily harm or life you are justifide, if the threat is not imediate (car is started and you could drive off prior to injury) you would be up a creek IMO.

[PolePosition]

In my HCP class somebody asked a similar question. Basically, unless your car is completely immobilized, it is more than likely unjustifiable to use deadly force. You would have a tough time defending yourself in court because the first question that would get asked would be "why didn't you just honk the horn and drive off?"

[Pain103]

Is there fear of serious bodily injury or death from a bat and a knife? You better believe it. You are not defending your property but your life. In a perfect world you could safely drive away but you do what you have to do to go home.

[Oh Shoot]

Vehicle is specifically mentioned under the "castle doctrine" statute. (39-11-611)

If you are IN it, you are awarded same presumed reasonable fear of your life due to forcible entry as if you are in your home. Then again, they must "enter" your vehicle. Whether that means they need to have their whole body in there or not I dunno. I'd think that breaking the window with a baseball bat would suffice.

------------

"Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, business, dwelling or vehicle is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household or a person visiting as an invited guest, when that force is used against another person, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, business, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred."

-------------

Ironic, since you can possess loaded gun in your home without permit, but can't in your car.

Then again again, if you use your gun in a good shoot, you won't be charged with any of the weapons violations, so at that point doesn't matter whether you were carrying illegally in the first place.

TCA is soooo wacky that way.

- OS

Edited November 29, 2011 by OhShoot

[DaveTN]

No need to worry about legal terms likes “Castle Doctrineâ€; you are the victim of an armed robbery whether in your car or standing in the parking lot. If someone threatens me with a knife or a bat no matter where I am, I’m justified in using deadly force.

[gl19gobang]

Exactly the way I see it too. Thats what a HCP is for, places other than the castle.

No need to worry about legal terms likes “Castle Doctrine”; you are the victim of an armed robbery whether in your car or standing in the parking lot. If someone threatens me with a knife or a bat no matter where I am, I’m justified in using deadly force.

[Fallguy]

In my HCP class somebody asked a similar question. Basically, unless your car is completely immobilized, it is more than likely unjustifiable to use deadly force. You would have a tough time defending yourself in court because the first question that would get asked would be "why didn't you just honk the horn and drive off?"

There is no duty to retreat in TN.

[JayC]

I'm familiar with the Castle doctrine and our rights as the law defines them in the use of deadly force.

My question would be this: Hypothetically, what if you're sitting in your car at Wallyworld waiting on your spouse to finish shopping and two young perps walk up with a baseball bat and knife and try to gain access to hijack your vehicle. Would you be justified while fearing for your life to draw your weapon (if time allowed-assume here the car is not running). This is quite a bit different than just defending your property, these guys are ready to do bodily harm to gain access and the keys!

The Castle doctrine requires a forced entry to kick in... they have to open the unlocked car door, break a window, etc to official meet the requirements of the TN 'Castle statue'. If they force entry into the vehicle it's assumed under the law you have a reasonable fear of death of serious bodily injury. If they're still outside the vehicle, the standard reasonable person test still applies, would a reasonable person fear death or serious bodily injury.

As a matter of common sense, if 2 armed men approach you with a baseball bat and a knife displayed, and are within 21 feet you're going to be hard pressed to find a DA in TN who would charge you with a crime.

[MikePapa1]

I doubt you'd be charged under this scenario, but, if you were, it would be a very defensible case. I'd be happy to defend it, for a fee, of course.

[Oh Shoot]

I doubt you'd be charged under this scenario, but, if you were, it would be a very defensible case. I'd be happy to defend it, for a fee, of course.

Who says America is in decline? One still gets all the medical care and justice he can afford!

- OS

[Glock30]

Vehicle is specifically mentioned under the "castle doctrine" statute. (39-11-611)

If you are IN it, you are awarded same presumed reasonable fear of your life due to forcible entry as if you are in your home. Then again, they must "enter" your vehicle. Whether that means they need to have their whole body in there or not I dunno. I'd think that breaking the window with a baseball bat would suffice.

------------

"Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, business, dwelling or vehicle is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household or a person visiting as an invited guest, when that force is used against another person, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, business, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred."

-------------

Ironic, since you can possess loaded gun in your home without permit, but can't in your car.

Then again again, if you use your gun in a good shoot, you won't be charged with any of the weapons violations, so at that point doesn't matter whether you were carrying illegally in the first place.

TCA is soooo wacky that way.

- OS

+1, as always

The principal difference in this scenario with HCP/no HCP is this:

HCP gives you statutory immunity from civil suit. No HCP = no statutory immunity. The cost of the permit/class alone are worth the no-lawsuit clause.

[MikePapa1]

Who says America is in decline? One still gets all the medical care and justice he can afford!

- OS

Amen, OS, Amen.

[sigrug17]

I'd like to suggest some readings and research on the subject. Massad Ayoob (In the Gravest Extreme or The Gun Digest Book of CCW), and Massad Ayoob Group. He's been on the subject since 1960's. This and OF COURSE other good 'training' courses should apply. Courts can be turned against you, & so can the law. HCP or not, its a great responsibility to have and carry.

Remember although you do not have an obligation to retreat, but by using "LETHAL FORCE" one must be prepared for the consequences and aftermath. KNOW YOUR "UnLock Codes" for the use of Lethal Force by heart and burn them to your memory: Lethal Force should be your final option. (A.O.J.)

1. Ability (the attacker HAS the ability to do you harm or death, the disparity of force is in attackers favor)

2. Opportunity (the attacker is capable of immediately employing that harm/ power) you cannot de-escalate or avoid.

3. Jeopardy (the intent of attacker is reasonable or prudent to conclude that attack's intent is to kill or cripple you and/ or yours)

Just my 2 cents, be smart, be careful out there.

Edited November 29, 2011 by sigrug17

[Oh Shoot]

I'd like to suggest some readings and research on the subject. Massad Ayoob (In the Gravest Extreme),....

ITGE is over 30 years old, and much has changed in self-defense law in most states. After you read that you'll be more likely to throw a law book at the thug than shoot him.

- OS

[sigrug17]

Doesn't mean the information is invalid or not helpful for you in the decisions to use Lethal Force. And taking time to learn about this responsibility before hand is better than learning about it while your in a court, or God forbid jail.

ITGE is over 30 years old, and much has changed in self-defense law in most states. After you read that you'll be more likely to throw a law book at the thug than shoot him.

- OS

Edited November 29, 2011 by sigrug17

[MikePapa1]

I don't think OS was saying that Ayoob's work wasn't useful, merely that the particular title you cited was, well, outdated in its legal information.

[sigrug17]

Please re-read his second sentence.... I do understand that some of his information especially in the book I cited is dated.

I don't think OS was saying that Ayoob's work wasn't useful, merely that the particular title you cited was, well, outdated in its legal information.

Edited November 29, 2011 by sigrug17

[MikePapa1]

Again, OS can speak for himself, but I took his comments to mean that because Ayoob's work is outdated, in that it does not reflect the evolution of self defense law over the past couple decades that it might well convince you not to use force even though you may be perfectly justified under current law to do so. Hence rather than using your weapon you might feel compelled to throw law books at them. Now, though I'm loath to speak for OS, I honestly don't think he meant that throwing law books was an appropriate self defense measure. As someone fairly well acquainted with law books, my personal opinion is that they are lethal weapons when hurled correctly so I'd check the use of deadly force before I began chucking them.

[PolePosition]

What do the lawyers on the board say? I guess that would be a better source of information.

[Proscene]

+1, as always

The principal difference in this scenario with HCP/no HCP is this:

HCP gives you statutory immunity from civil suit. No HCP = no statutory immunity. The cost of the permit/class alone are worth the no-lawsuit clause.

Wow! I didn't know that one!! Thanks to all of you for your remarks :-)

[Oh Shoot]

Again, OS can speak for himself, but I took his comments to mean that because Ayoob's work is outdated, in that it does not reflect the evolution of self defense law over the past couple decades that it might well convince you not to use force even though you may be perfectly justified under current law to do so. Hence rather than using your weapon you might feel compelled to throw law books at them. Now, though I'm loath to speak for OS, I honestly don't think he meant that throwing law books was an appropriate self defense measure. As someone fairly well acquainted with law books, my personal opinion is that they are lethal weapons when hurled correctly so I'd check the use of deadly force before I began chucking them.

Thanks, counselor, your expanded paraphrase will suffice quite nicely.

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

What do the lawyers on the board say? I guess that would be a better source of information.

Except that they don't always agree here, just like in court. And here, they're not even being paid to take a side!

- OS

[sigrug17]

Hmm. I guess a 'thick' enough 'law book' can save a life too, kevlar covers and all. ; )

Thanks, counselor, your expanded paraphrase will suffice quite nicely.

- OS