Makes a Difference Where You Defend Yourself

[Guest Catfish36]

Airborn, 48 South, TMF 18b: You all seem to be making my sarcastic point. The bottom line is you all admit that you would all being holding and pointing a firearm to subdue the situation. You are all employing deadly force. (whether you shoot or not). So the point is to those who say robbery is not justification for the use of deadly force, I say, What other way are you to end the conflict?? He is not taking my stuff and I want him to leave in the back of a Police Cruiser I helped to pay for!!

[~48_South~]

Airborn, 48 South, TMF 18b: You all seem to be making my sarcastic point. The bottom line is you all admit that you would all being holding and pointing a firearm to subdue the situation. You are all employing deadly force. (whether you shoot or not). So the point is to those who say robbery is not justification for the use of deadly force, I say, What other way are you to end the conflict?? He is not taking my stuff and I want him to leave in the back of a Police Cruiser I helped to pay for!!

When I read your original post I wasnt reading in the way of you being sarcastic, I visualised I big man standing there with his hands up saying he isnt armed and means no harm(As others have stated that is highly unlikely situation). Im not saying shooting the man would be wrong per say, I was simply stating in those circumstances I think you would be in violation of the law if you did shoot, do I think its right...NO, definitely not,but laws are laws. Think of it this way, if I heard something outside late at night I grab my gun and go out and investigate to find someone breaking into my car, I confront them at gun point and they run away into the opposite direction of me, would I shoot them in the back as the fled probably not,reason being I dont want to go to prison and lose all of my rights over someone trying to steal my stereo. Now if the laws were different to where I knew me shooting someone that was trying to steal my property be he armed,unarmed,advancing,or fleeing was justified then ofourse I would shoot them,they could comply with my commands and likely live with a painful wound and a strong memory,or take door number 2 and leave in a bag.

[TMF]

Airborn, 48 South, TMF 18b: You all seem to be making my sarcastic point. The bottom line is you all admit that you would all being holding and pointing a firearm to subdue the situation. You are all employing deadly force. (whether you shoot or not). So the point is to those who say robbery is not justification for the use of deadly force, I say, What other way are you to end the conflict?? He is not taking my stuff and I want him to leave in the back of a Police Cruiser I helped to pay for!!

Pulling your weapon is not using deadly force, shooting them is.

Once again, IT IS UP TO THE CRIMINAL IF DEADLY FORCE IS USED!

There are only 3 options for someone being held at gunpoint: flight, fight, submit. If they flee they get away and they are the cops' problem. If they submit you get to hold them 'til police arrive. If they fight you're left with few options, shoot them or get shot by your own gun.

Edited January 16, 2012 by TMF 18B

[Guest Catfish36]

Pulling your weapon is not using deadly force, shooting them is.

Once again, IT IS UP TO THE CRIMINAL IF DEADLY FORCE IS USED!

I agree with what you are saying, but does the law?

Does the law make a distinction between "theft or robbery" and "Armed Robbery"? Does the Robber have to fire his weapon before it is considered "Armed Robbery"? Or is it Armed Robbery because he is pointing a weapon with threat to use?

If I pull my weapon on an unarmed man..even a theif in my house..is it "Aggrevated Assault"? ( A worse crime than the robbery itself)...

Yes when the man flees and the LEO's catch up with him..they will approach him with their guns drawn...

No one get mad at me..we are all in agreement here I believe..I am just making conversation.

If I pull my weapon on said robber, and demand him to lay flat with his hands in plain site until officers arrive, and he does not obey my demands at gun point...Can I perceive his non compliance as a threat?

What would an LEO do in the same situtaion?

[TMF]

I agree with what you are saying, but does the law?

Does the law make a distinction between "theft or robbery" and "Armed Robbery"? Does the Robber have to fire his weapon before it is considered "Armed Robbery"? Or is it Armed Robbery because he is pointing a weapon with threat to use?

If I pull my weapon on an unarmed man..even a theif in my house..is it "Aggrevated Assault"? ( A worse crime than the robbery itself)...

Yes when the man flees and the LEO's catch up with him..they will approach him with their guns drawn...

No one get mad at me..we are all in agreement here I believe..I am just making conversation.

If I pull my weapon on said robber, and demand him to lay flat with his hands in plain site until officers arrive, and he does not obey my demands at gun point...Can I perceive his non compliance as a threat?

What would an LEO do in the same situtaion?

Well, like the title of this thread says..... it depends where you are and the opinions of the DA. I don't consider they hypotheticals because what happens after the shooting won't concern my at the time of the shooting. If my gun starts talking it'll be because I'm in fear for the lives of my family or myself. A trespassing criminal who charges me (after pulling my weapon and telling him I'm armed) is a threat in my book. I don't think I'd have any problems explaining that to police/DA/Jury.

But that's a lot different than just walking up to a guy breaking into your car and putting some rounds in his back, or catching someone on your property and just opening fire on them. Or if you tell him to lie down and he takes off running you obviously can't shoot him.

Once again, pulling your weapon on an intruder/criminal on your property is not deadly force. It doesn't become deadly force until you start shooting, which again, is up to the criminal; his choice. I can't see any police officer in TN arresting you for aggravated assault for pulling your weapon on a trespasser/theif.

[daddyo]

Airborn, 48 South, TMF 18b: You all seem to be making my sarcastic point. The bottom line is you all admit that you would all being holding and pointing a firearm to subdue the situation. You are all employing deadly force. (whether you shoot or not). So the point is to those who say robbery is not justification for the use of deadly force, I say, What other way are you to end the conflict?? He is not taking my stuff and I want him to leave in the back of a Police Cruiser I helped to pay for!!

How is it that you can't see the difference between pointing your weapon at someone and actually pulling the trigger?

It's not THAT hard.

[Guest Catfish36]

How is it that you can't see the difference between pointing your weapon at someone and actually pulling the trigger?

It's not THAT hard.

I get it brother..pointing is one thing..shooting is another...remain calm.

But I may be being misunderstood. My original point was directed at the family members of the criminal or LEO's or Lawyers or even the Law itself if they suggest that the guy breaking into this house didn't get what he deserved. Those that would take the side of the criminal. Those that like to say "the punishment doesn't fit the crime", "he would never hurt anyone", etc. etc.

When you pull your weapon you are using Deadly force or at least could be worded the Implication of Deadly Force. Using the threat of Deadly Force to get what you want. You are not relying on reason to get what you want ..you are relying on Force. Once you pull the trigger..the conflict is generally over..and the other party can no longer meet your demands. (This applies to both good guys and bad guys) If you ever have to use your weapon to defend yourself, it will be because you feared for your life..because you percieved your attacker to be capable of using Deadly Force..you will not wait until they actual fire before you make that perception.

But that is not the point I was trying to make..

I was trying to say "Yeah for the old man who killed the CRIMINAL!, BOO for the family members trying to defend him!"

[Guest Catfish36]

When we say "Stop or I'll shoot!" ..Apparently we mean "Stop or Run Away or I'll shoot!"

[Guest FroggyOne2]

Just remember that, this case was in Fla, where if I remember correctly, there is a stand your ground rule in effect, therefore, you do not have to retreat to anywhere. Also, when talking about this case, you can apply how Tennessee law applies to this situation if it were to happen in this state, but also remember not apply Tennessee law to a case that has happened in another state, due the differences in laws and how they are applied. Just sayin.

[~48_South~]

I agree with what you are saying, but does the law?

Does the law make a distinction between "theft or robbery" and "Armed Robbery"? Does the Robber have to fire his weapon before it is considered "Armed Robbery"? Or is it Armed Robbery because he is pointing a weapon with threat to use?

If I pull my weapon on an unarmed man..even a theif in my house..is it "Aggrevated Assault"? ( A worse crime than the robbery itself)...

Yes when the man flees and the LEO's catch up with him..they will approach him with their guns drawn...

No one get mad at me..we are all in agreement here I believe..I am just making conversation.

If I pull my weapon on said robber, and demand him to lay flat with his hands in plain site until officers arrive, and he does not obey my demands at gun point...Can I perceive his non compliance as a threat?

What would an LEO do in the same situtaion?

You cant base your decisions off of what a LEO would do in that situation, no offense to LEO's but I have seen several get out of some sticky **** just because they have a badge. There is definitely a difference between theft and robbery though,Robbery differs from simple theft in its use of violence and intimidation. Armed robbery would be if he threatend you with a weapon and took your stuff,kind of like aggravated assault, I can point a gun at you and get an aggravated assault charge or I can shoot you in the knee and get a aggravated assault charge. In the end you have to decide the threat level and act accordingly,but for me personally them running from me is not enough of a threat for me to shoot(Not saying I wouldnt want to),them advancing towards me is a different story.

Edited January 16, 2012 by ~48_South~

[Will H]

If someone were to go at you in public chances are they do not know you. You may be able to secure the situation and/or detain the individual via a verbal or visual warning that you are armed. The situation can be ended with no loose ends.

If someone breaks into your home and you detain them with a weapon and have them arrested you give them the opportunity to stew it over in the pokey. There they can harbor they ideas that you are responsible for them being there. This opens the possibility that they may decide to go for round 2 when they get out. They know where you live.

If in a public setting my intention would be to secure the situation. In my own home my intention would necessitate the need for Stanley Steamer to clean up the mess... I freely admit that I place a higher priority on the lives of myself and my family than I do on a criminal.

[TMF]

To me this isn't grey area territory at all:

1. I have no requirement to flee my own property or stand by while it is stolen. I don't have to be a victim if I don't want to.

2. If someone decides to invade my property with felonious intent, then I will intervene by confronting the criminal and let him know by sight and sound that I am armed and will defend myself if he becomes a threat.

3. If he chooses to run I have no recourse to shoot. I also don't have reason to pursue unless he has my property. It is now the realm of Law Enforcement to enforce the law and arrest him.

4. If he chooses to submit I will maintain control of him until police arrive. Once police arrive he is now a Law Enforcement problem and the law should be enforced upon him.

5. If he chooses to attack me I am within my rights to defend myself. He now becomes the Coroner's problem.

At no point is "justice" being doled out by the civilian here. You see? So saying that someone doesn't deserve to die for theft is irrelevant. An intruder isn't killed because their intent is theft, they're killed because of the perceived threat they present themselves as. So while they don't deserve the death penalty for stealing, they do deserve to be shot for being a threat until they are no longer a threat. When that happens I don't see why anyone would feel compassion for the dead POS or remark as to the use of deadly force being unnecessary.

[~48_South~]

To me this isn't grey area territory at all:

1. I have no requirement to flee my own property or stand by while it is stolen. I don't have to be a victim if I don't want to.

2. If someone decides to invade my property with felonious intent, then I will intervene by confronting the criminal and let him know by sight and sound that I am armed and will defend myself if he becomes a threat.

3. If he chooses to run I have no recourse to shoot. I also don't have reason to pursue unless he has my property. It is now the realm of Law Enforcement to enforce the law and arrest him.

4. If he chooses to submit I will maintain control of him until police arrive. Once police arrive he is now a Law Enforcement problem and the law should be enforced upon him.

5. If he chooses to attack me I am within my rights to defend myself. He now becomes the Coroner's problem.

At no point is "justice" being doled out by the civilian here. You see? So saying that someone doesn't deserve to die for theft is irrelevant. An intruder isn't killed because their intent is theft, they're killed because of the perceived threat they present themselves as. So while they don't deserve the death penalty for stealing, they do deserve to be shot for being a threat until they are no longer a threat. When that happens I don't see why anyone would feel compassion for the dead POS or remark as to the use of deadly force being unnecessary.

Very well said

[Fallguy]

Ok...I skipped a few post...but...

Just because you have a firearm doesn't mean the only choices are shoot or do nothing......

If someone is stealing your stuff, if you're not going to shoot them, DOES NOT mean you just have to watch them or help them.... You CAN use FORCE to stop a theft, just not deadly force...unless it becomes a self-defense situation.

This is not MA...if a thief gets a broken jaw or a scratch (not a total beat down) in your use of force while stopping his attempted theft/robbery I really don't think any reasonable DA is going to charge you.

If they do...please let me know...I will be at the jail/courthouse everyday with my sign and chanting "Free xxxx"

[Fallguy]

To me this isn't grey area territory at all:

1. I have no requirement to flee my own property or stand by while it is stolen. I don't have to be a victim if I don't want to.

2. If someone decides to invade my property with felonious intent, then I will intervene by confronting the criminal and let him know by sight and sound that I am armed and will defend myself if he becomes a threat.

3. If he chooses to run I have no recourse to shoot. I also don't have reason to pursue unless he has my property. It is now the realm of Law Enforcement to enforce the law and arrest him.

4. If he chooses to submit I will maintain control of him until police arrive. Once police arrive he is now a Law Enforcement problem and the law should be enforced upon him.

5. If he chooses to attack me I am within my rights to defend myself. He now becomes the Coroner's problem.

At no point is "justice" being doled out by the civilian here. You see? So saying that someone doesn't deserve to die for theft is irrelevant. An intruder isn't killed because their intent is theft, they're killed because of the perceived threat they present themselves as. So while they don't deserve the death penalty for stealing, they do deserve to be shot for being a threat until they are no longer a threat. When that happens I don't see why anyone would feel compassion for the dead POS or remark as to the use of deadly force being unnecessary.

Yeah...that is pretty much what I was saying...

[daddyo]

Ok...I skipped a few post...but...

Just because you have a firearm doesn't mean the only choices are shoot or do nothing......

If someone is stealing your stuff, if you're not going to shoot them, DOES NOT mean you just have to watch them or help them.... You CAN use FORCE to stop a theft, just not deadly force...unless it becomes a self-defense situation.

This is not MA...if a thief gets a broken jaw or a scratch (not a total beat down) in your use of force while stopping his attempted theft/robbery I really don't think any reasonable DA is going to charge you.

If they do...please let me know...I will be at the jail/courthouse everyday with my sign and chanting "Free xxxx"

Which begs the question: If you are physically trying to stop someone from taking your belongings, and it becomes a life-threatening situation, and you end up having to shoot, could you be found guilty of escalating the situation?

[jtmaze]

How is it that you can't see the difference between pointing your weapon at someone and actually pulling the trigger?

It's not THAT hard.

The rules on aggravated assault are different at home than on the street. TN has a castle law where you have the right to defend your home against unwanted intruders.

JTM🔫

Sent from my iPhone

[TMF]

Which begs the question: If you are physically trying to stop someone from taking your belongings, and it becomes a life-threatening situation, and you end up having to shoot, could you be found guilty of escalating the situation?

I'm no lawyer, but I'm sure there are aggravating factors that could contribute to such a charge from the DA. For example, if the guy tries to flee, you chase him down, it turns into a SD shoot. The DA could argue that you shouldn't have chased him. I can live with that. I know that my only job as a husband and a father is to protect my family and our assets. Once I have done that I should leave it alone. I don't think pulling a weapon is escalating anything because if the individual presents himself as a threat after pulling said weapon, it is clear that his intent is to do great bodily harm or worse.

[Fallguy]

Which begs the question: If you are physically trying to stop someone from taking your belongings, and it becomes a life-threatening situation, and you end up having to shoot, could you be found guilty of escalating the situation?

IANAL butI really don't see how. As long as you don't go beyond the "reasonable force necessary" to prevent or terminate the interference with your property and somehow the BG would become justified under the SD law to use force against you.

When this comes up I always here the "escalating the situation" thing...but I just don't understand...someone is trying to steal from me, I am trying to stop them...how is that escalating anything? Now if the BG somehow tries to kill or seriously injury me...then HE is the one that escalated it to a SD situation...NOT me.

Of course 9 times out of 10 I doubt I'm going to be chasing them down....so as long as my threat or start of the use of force causes them to drop my stuff and run.....I'll watch them run away and be thankful I didn't just watch them take my stuff and that I still have it.

But...maybe this is just me....if someone wants to sit and watch and call 9-1-1 then that is their prerogative as well.

[Fallguy]

I'm no lawyer, but I'm sure there are aggravating factors that could contribute to such a charge from the DA. For example, if the guy tries to flee, you chase him down, it turns into a SD shoot. The DA could argue that you shouldn't have chased him. I can live with that. I know that my only job as a husband and a father is to protect my family and our assets. Once I have done that I should leave it alone. I don't think pulling a weapon is escalating anything because if the individual presents himself as a threat after pulling said weapon, it is clear that his intent is to do great bodily harm or worse.

Well as I said...I doubt I will often chase them (unless they still have something of mine) but the defense of property law specifically mentions "fresh pursuit". So of course not saying a DA can't do whatever they want....but you'd have the law on your side.

But also, even if they don't still have something and someone chases them...remember the citizens arrest law allows the use of force to make the arrest.

I'm not saying these laws are air tight and I don't have any case law right off the bat.....but I still stand by you don't have to just let Thugs get away with doing Thuggy things if you choose not to.

[Fallguy]

The rules on aggravated assault are different at home than on the street. TN has a castle law where you have the right to defend your home against unwanted intruders.

JTM

Sent from my iPhone

Can you elaborate?

The actually Aggravated Assault law 39-13-102 doesn't mention any differences between your home or on the street.

Now if you are talking about the difference of your home and the street as far as the Self Defense law 39-11-611, there is no difference on when deadly force is allowed. The difference comes into whether you have the presumption of being in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm, in your house (and some other places) you have that presumption, in the street you don't.

[Fallguy]

I guess I hadn't looked at the defense of property in a while and/or didn't clearly read it when it changed in 2009. From what I can tell, it doesn't prevent the "threat" of deadly force, just the "use" of it.

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

39-11-614. Protection of property.

(a) A person in lawful possession of real or personal property is justified in threatening or using force against another, when and to the degree it is reasonably believed the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

( A person who has been unlawfully dispossessed of real or personal property is justified in threatening or using force against the other, when and to the degree it is reasonably believed the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property, if the person threatens or uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession:

(1) The person reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when the other dispossessed the person; and

(2) The other accomplished the dispossession by threatening or using force against the person.

© Unless a person is justified in using deadly force as otherwise provided by law, a person is not justified in using deadly force to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on real estate or unlawful interference with personal property.

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

Sort of like the threat/use of deadly force for LEOs making an arrest, there are times you can threaten it, but not use it.

But also...after a closer reading it would seem ((2) if they have already got the property from you...you can only threaten/use force to get it back, if they threatened/used force to take it from you.