Self Defense and 39-17-1322

[Guest Roscoe]

That you are no longer afforded protection under 39-17-1322. It's saying despite what 39-17-1322 says, if you are acting illegally you are acting illegally, not despite 39-11-611 as Fallguy had mentioned. I was really hoping for Fallguy's answer to be the end all, but it seems there is still debate. Anyone else have similar confusion?

Refer to my post of 4-7-08. These two defenses are mutually exclusive of one another, hence the "notwithstanding." They address defenses to different offenses.

Edited May 2, 2008 by Roscoe

[Fallguy]

No offense intended Punisher, but I'll take the word straight from a State Representative over that of LEO Lt. who supposedly has spoke with the author of the new law.

I do agree with your definition of "Notwithstanding" But in this case to me it means the rest of the self-defense law, after the comma and that phrase, does not withstand 39-17-1322 (In other words 39-17-1322 is still good despite the rest of the wording). NOT that 39-17-1322 doesn't withstand the self-defense law.

[cadillacdude1975]

all i will say on this and other topics speaks my opinion.

It is better to be judged by 12

Than to be carried by 6.

[Punisher84]

No offense intended Punisher, but I'll take the word straight from a State Representative over that of LEO Lt. who supposedly has spoke with the author of the new law.

None taken. I agree from your standpoint. While I do trust my friend and am familiar with his knowledge, I understand your hesitancy. I think regardless of what it means it's at least a viable defense at any rate. It seems odd they would afford more protection to permit holders, but take away an act that afforded them protection from prosecution if they acted in defense of life.

Roscoe, I went back and read your post again and it's a little clearer now. I get what you're saying now is that it is still a defense to be raised per the statute.

Edited May 2, 2008 by Punisher84

[Fallguy]

As we have also talked about in other threads the statute says and what a DA or a LEO does can be two (or even three) different things as well.

There was a shooting in Lexington, TN (Thread here) a few weeks ago. It was ruled self-defense and no charges are being brought for the shooting. But a charge of a felon in possession of a firearm is being sent to the grand jury.

No you would think that 39-17-1322 would render him safe of the charge under 39-17-1307 but the DA is going to leave it up the grand jury and the possibly a trial jury to decided.

[Fallguy]

I think regardless of what it means it's at least a viable defense at any rate.

Yep.