Castle Doctrine Expanded

[Guest 2HOW]

· Castle Doctrine expanded – An expansion to last year’s “Castle Doctrine,†House Bill 3509, was passed unanimously by the House this week. Recently the General Assembly passed a law that allows the use of deadly force in defending oneself against an imminent threat of harm while in one's own home or vehicle. The bill passed this week expands the law to allow someone to use deadly force to defend oneself in his/her own business.

[Guest nraforlife]

Does the Castle Doctrine apply IF I am at a friends house and have to use deadly force to defend myself or my friend?

[Guest bkelm18]

Does the Castle Doctrine apply IF I am at a friends house and have to use deadly force to defend myself or my friend?

Pretty sure it does.

[BimmerFreak]

What if you arent really good friends, but more like acquaintances?

[Guest bkelm18]

Oh well in that case, no.

[dralarms]

Ok, my place of business is where ever I am, I install alarm systems and my "place of business" changes almost daily. Does it apply to my situation?

[Fallguy]

You can use deadly force for self-defense ANYWHERE you are not engaged in illegal activity, if you are in fear of death or great bodily harm. T.C.A. 39-11-611

There are a list of places in 39-11-611© where the law presumes you are in fear of death or great bodily harm if someone breaks in. They are a residence, dwelling or vehicle. HB3509 would add "business" to that list of places.

The bill defines a business as....

(1) “Business†means a commercial enterprise or establishment owned

by a person as all or part of such person’s livelihood, or is under the owner’s control or who is an employee or agent of the owner with responsibility for protecting persons and property and shall include the interior and exterior premises of such business;

[Fallguy]

To add to above, remember as others have said, a presumption is just that. If the DA can prove you weren't in fear of your life or great bodily harm you could still be charged. Of course whether he would do that would depend on the circumstances. The one case I know of was when a new boyfriend shot the old boyfriend in the girlfriends house. As it turned out the girlfriend had asked to the old boyfriend to come over. But anyway.

After reading the bill a little further it seems to almost grant more of presumption to business owners and those hired to protect the business than people in there own house.

As it is now a person has to break in to your Residence or a Dwelling within your curtilage before the law presumes you in fear of death or great bodily harm. Not just kick the gate down on you picket white fence. The new bill for business says...shall include the interior and exterior premises of such business. Now, I could be reading that wrong, but as I take it let's say you have a junk yard with a fence that surrounds the grounds. If some runs a car through the gate of that fence they have unlawfully and forcibilly entered the "exterior premises" of that business, right?

Also it seems the bill trys to clear up the part 39-17-1322 a little bit. As far as the places/activites where the presumptions don't apply the new bill says..

Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, the person using force is engaged in

an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, business, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity;

Although I know some might still not agree, I think in the other

thread we established that 39-17-1322 still applies and this is an attempt to make it more clear that you have to be engaged in a unlawful activity or using the dwelling, business, residence of occupied vehicle to further an unlawful actvity.

[Guest nraforlife]

Knowing what sh%tbirds interpet the law, it is specific in that it states 'in one's own home or vehicle.' I maybe nitpicking but....

[Fallguy]

Knowing what sh%tbirds interpet the law, it is specific in that it states 'in one's own home or vehicle.' I maybe nitpicking but....

Um....no it doesn't...

Below is when self-defense applies....

39-11-611

( (1) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

(2) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, if:

(A)

The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury;

(

The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and

©

The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.

...and below are the places where it is presumed you are in fear of death or great bodily harm.

39-11-611© (current)

Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, 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, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

39-11-611© as in HB3509

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.

Both say "within a" not "within your own"

Here are the defintions for residence, business, dwelling and vehicle.

39-11-611(a) as in HB3590 (Same as current 39-11-611(a), just "Business" is added)

(a) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:

(1) “Business” means a commercial enterprise or establishment ownedby a person as all or part of such person’s livelihood, or is under the owner’s control or who is an employee or agent of the owner with responsibility for protecting persons and property and shall include the interior and exterior premises of such business;

(2) “Curtilage” means the area surrounding a dwelling that is necessary, convenient and habitually used for family purposes and for those activities associated with the sanctity of a person's home;

(3) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of

any kind

, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, that has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed for or capable of use by people;

(4) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides, either temporarily or permanently,

or is visiting as an invited guest

, or any dwelling, building or other appurtenance within the curtilage of the residence; and

(5) “Vehicle” means

any motororized vehicle

that is self-propelled and designed for use on public highways to transport people or property.

As you can see it says "Dwelling" is building or coneyance of any kind, not just yours; a "Vehicle" is any motorized vehicle not just yours; and a residence is either where you live OR are there as invited guest.

Edited May 9, 2008 by Fallguy