A Bill to Protect Justified Defenders

[Guest Phantom6]

In another thread Marswolf posted the following observation:

My point, if I have one, is that some training may help you survive but also be a liability in a courtroom after the event.

To which I responded, in part:

True, true. There is hope however, as a bill was introduced in the state house last year that would protect you from the "civil suit assault" from the mothers, brothers, sisters, wives, third cousins twice-removed, et aux that would sue you for defending your life when involved in an unprovoked attack from the likes of "poor ol' Johnny who (and they just don't understand why though he used to routinely set the neighbor's cats on fire as a child) just suddenly snapped" and tried his damnedest to make you a part of your family's historical record. It was passed out of the Judiciary Committee last year with the reccomendation that it be heard and passed. In a nut shell it said that if in the course of local and or state law enforcement investigation it is determined that criminal charges can not be brought against you then civil recourse is not available. In other words, if the local and/or state law enforcement agencies found that the shooting was justifyable under the laws of the state, i.e. unprovoked attack, you are in iminant fear of loss of life or serious bodily harm, etc. (just as you are (or should be) taught in your carry permit class) then the suit would be rejected by the court and could not be persued further.

Unfortunately I have lost track of this bill and can't even find my notes on the bill number. Anyone else know anything about this?

[Guest jackdog]

I believe that the bill you are referring to is currently in committee, but I can't come up with the number. What we need is a castle docrine that mirrors other states such as Florida and Michigan

[Guest jackdog]

Maybe this is what we are referring to.

HB0756/SB0536

Criminal Procedure - Extends presumption that use of force to protect self or others is justified self-defense to dwellings other than residence and vehicles and expressly provides that person is immune from criminal prosecution or civil liability for lawful exercise of self-defense. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 11, Part 6.

*HB0171/SB1864

Criminal Procedure - Confers civil immunity upon a person who uses force in justifiable self defense or defense of others and expands circumstances under which use of force is justified. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 11, Part 6.

[Guest Len]

Couple of interesting notes:

1) The bill was co-sponsored by the guy who used to be my state rep before the last re-districting and my current state rep. They are from different parties, so there is bi-partisan support. A good sign.

2) The "fiscal note" attached shows a DECREASE in state expenditures if this is enacted. This is great news. The fiscal note is an estimate of how much a bill will cost the state. A low-cost, zero-cost, or net-gain bill stands a MUCH better chance of getting passed, and such bills may not have to go through House and Senate Finance Committees -places where many bills go to die because they cost too much money.

I support this bill (which is rare, since usually the General Assembly makes things worse when they tinker with TCA), as I have always felt that criminal and civil liability for the same event is a form of double jeopardy, and thus unconstitutional. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm probably wrong from a legal standpoint, but it just always felt wrong to me.

I just looked the bill up, and its been sitting in committees in both chambers for over a month. I will ask around and see what the deal is.

[Guest Phantom6]

Thanks guys. I can't believe that I lost track of this which I consider one of the most important pieces of legislation pending. I would submit that each and every one of us should contact our respective representatives and urge positive movement on this matter.

[Guest jackdog]

Damn, Hey wheres my other sock.

Babe have you seen the keys to my truck.

Seems we all have these issues at times

[Guest Voodoo_1]

From the Commercial Appeal, Wednesday,February 14,2007

"Spurred by violent crime in Memphis and elsewhere, Tennessee legislators have filed several bills to expand the legal rights of people to use deadly force when threatened by would-be attackers"."One would specifically allow people in motor vehicles to "kill" or "cause serious bodily injury" to attackers-both inside or outside the vehicle-who they believe are threatening to murder, rape, kidnap, rob or carjack the car's occupants". This bill was filed by Rep. Ulysses Jones and Sen. Reginald Tate, both Memphis Domocrats.

Another bill by Jones and Sen. Dewayne Bunch, R-Cleveland," would extend the right of business owners or their security guards to use deadly force inside or immediately outside their businesses, against a person who "unlawfully and forcibly" enters or attempts to enter, if they have "reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury" to themselves, employees or customers"."These two proposals are among 11 bills filed through Tuesday (Feb. 13) that would extend rights of citizens to defend themselves outside of their homes."Current Tennessee law allows residents to use deadly force against someone who breaks into their homes while they're at home; there's a legal presumption that an intruder intends to cause occupants harm".

"Several of the newly filed bills would enact "no-retreat" laws, permitting the use of deadly force in self-defense against would-be malefactors that a citizen believes is threating to attack them". "This is similar to a new law in Florida that says citizens have no duty to back down from an attacker before firing a weapon".

"Other Memphis area lawmakers who have filed bills expanding the legal authority for self-defense with deadly force include Sens. Mark Norris, R-Collierville, Paul Stanley, R-Germantown, and Roy Herron, D-Dresden".

I believe all 11 bills (as of Feb. 13) are all in part of the need for the civil suit bill. We should show our support to these Representatives and Senators for their concearn with our right to protect ourselves and our families.

[Marswolf]

Glad this was found. Saves me some time looking for it.

Main problem in getting it passed is probably that it would take some ambulance-chasing revenue away from attorneys. For a lot of legislators, that's a powerful reason to not pass it.

Anyone remember 1788? The State of Franklin's Constitution forbade lawyers and clergy from being legislators. I think that was very wise.

[Punisher84]

Good news in alot of ways though. Hope they all pass!