Question regarding protection property?

[CM1021]

I have been reading some of TN's laws and found this.
[b](a) [/b]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.
[b]( [/b]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:
[b](1) [/b]The person reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when the other dispossessed the person; and
[b](2) [/b]The other accomplished the dispossession by threatening or using force against the person.
[b]© [/b]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.

[Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 2009, ch. 194, § 1.]

[s]Now while this says you may use force it doesn't say deadly force. So what is everyone's thoughts on this?[/s] Misread. Dolomite clarified it for me. Delete Edited November 19, 2012 by CM1021

[Dolomite_supafly]

[quote name='CM1021' timestamp='1353342442' post='848182']
I have been reading some of TN's laws and found this.
[b](a) [/b]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.
[b]( [/b]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:
[b](1) [/b]The person reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when the other dispossessed the person; and
[b](2) [/b]The other accomplished the dispossession by threatening or using force against the person.
[color=#FF0000][b]© [/b]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.[/color]

[Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 2009, ch. 194, § 1.]

Now while this says you may use force it doesn't say deadly force. So what is everyone's thoughts on this?
[/quote]

Not really sure I understand what you are asking.

You cannot use deadly force to protect your property or prevent trespassing. The only time deadly force can be used is to protect yourself or another from having deadly force used upon you or another. You cannot shoot someone for trespassing unless they are threatening you with deadly force while trespassing.

Dolomite

[midtennchip]

[quote name='Dolomite_supafly' timestamp='1353342840' post='848185']
Not really sure I understand what you are asking.

You cannot use deadly force to protect your property or prevent trespassing. The only time deadly force can be used is to protect yourself or another from having deadly force used upon you or another. You cannot shoot someone for trespassing unless they are threatening you with deadly force while trespassing.

Dolomite
[/quote]

I agree with Dolomite. Not sure what you are really asking.

[CM1021]

I misread...My apologies! This is why I have been reading case studies and TN laws

[Guest kcb37]

I would agree the way I understand/interpret the law it is that your life/or anothers life must be threatened to use deadly force.
I believe what you are asking get's into the castle doctrine.
Howeve in Tn, basically in your house if you have the doors locked and someone gets in, your in fear of your life. If the doors are unlocked and they get in, no different then being at Wal Mart.
Either way shooting in the back is a no no. As you can only shoot at a threat, once they turn and run they are no longer a threat and one shot can mean jail.

[macville]

[quote name='kcb37' timestamp='1353750337' post='849969']
Howeve in Tn, basically in your house if you have the doors locked and someone gets in, your in fear of your life. If the doors are unlocked and they get in, no different then being at Wal Mart.
Either way shooting in the back is a no no. As you can only shoot at a threat, once they turn and run they are no longer a threat and one shot can mean jail.
[/quote]

Where are you getting your info? Could you find the section in the TN code where it says your house has to be locked to feel "threatened"? And shooting in the back is not automatically a no no. Research the whole law first.

[Guest Carfreak70852]

Castle Doctrine...?

[TMF]

Ya can't shoot someone for protecting your property, however, it is reasonable to assume that someone who has forced entry into your home is armed and that you would be in fear for you life (at least I would). I don't suppose in that situation I'm going to take the time to account for which direction they're facing.... fear for your life and all.

[Glenn]

I see why it is confusing. You can use force to protect property, just not deadly force. Exactly what force can you use? If you punch someone in the nose, they might die. If you threaten to whip their butt for stealing from you, and they produce a weapon, can you then use deadly force or would you be considered the aggressor?

[JayC]

[quote name='kcb37' timestamp='1353750337' post='849969']
I would agree the way I understand/interpret the law it is that your life/or anothers life must be threatened to use deadly force.
I believe what you are asking get's into the castle doctrine.
Howeve in Tn, basically in your house if you have the doors locked and someone gets in, your in fear of your life. If the doors are unlocked and they get in, no different then being at Wal Mart.
Either way shooting in the back is a no no. As you can only shoot at a threat, once they turn and run they are no longer a threat and one shot can mean jail.
[/quote]

This information isn't correct... 'forcible entry' is opening a door, even if it's not locked.

And your information on the shooting people in the back is incorrect as well... Not that I would suggest shooting people who are clearly running away... but the law assumes somebody who breaks into your house is there to do you harm, if you get the drop on them inside your house and end up shooting them in the back, it's no different than shooting them in the front as far as the law is concerned.

[JayC]

[quote name='Glenn' timestamp='1353769122' post='850015']
I see why it is confusing. You can use force to protect property, just not deadly force. Exactly what force can you use? If you punch someone in the nose, they might die. If you threaten to whip their butt for stealing from you, and they produce a weapon, can you then use deadly force or would you be considered the aggressor?
[/quote]

IANAL, but here is my understanding of current TN law.

First, the stand your ground law in TN requires that you not be committing a crime when you use self defense.

If you see somebody breaking into your car, you have every right in TN to confront the criminal, and use reasonable force (but not deadly force) to stop them from breaking into your vehicle (house, barn, shed etc)... If while you're legally confronting them, they turn and produce a weapon, and you're in fear for your life (or serious bodily injury) then the stand your ground law would apply to you, not the bad guy.

There is some question whether threatening deadly force to stop a property crime is legal under current law, there are a number of cases where people have done so, and not been arrested, but it's a grey area at best, one that could land you in jail for a long time.

[kieefer]

Correct me if I'm wrong but this is the way I see it and hypothetically experienced it.

Recently my bike was stolen out of the back of my truck in a restaurant parking lot. If I caught them in the act I could not shoot them, even if they were running or driving away and I yelled stop. IF I caught them in the act and they turned on me with a gun or knife I have the right to defend myself and property and could shoot away.

The same applies IF the incident took place on my own property BUT if they were in my house I would assume they intend to do harm.

After my bike was stolen I was contemplating what would I do because I was seriously ready to shoot the punk who stole my bike. Glad I had time to think it through.

[Guest kcb37]

Maybe I should have worded that a bit different.
I will still stand by my statement of the doors being locked or not. If they are locked they forced entry. If the doors are open not so much. Now I am not saying you cannot shoot, you just need to be more careful about it. I am also not saying they are not trespassing as they would be, but that does not constitue a forced entry.

Shooting in the back I should have added more. In general it's a not a good option. Saying this because you can use deadly force against a threat, once someone turns and runs they are no longer a threat. However given the right situation yes absolutely nothing wrong with it.

[DaveS]

[quote name='kcb37' timestamp='1353784875' post='850125']
Maybe I should have worded that a bit different.
I will still stand by my statement of the doors being locked or not. If they are locked they forced entry. If the doors are open not so much. Now I am not saying you cannot shoot, you just need to be more careful about it. I am also not saying they are not trespassing as they would be, but that does not constitue a forced entry.

Shooting in the back I should have added more. In general it's a not a good option. Saying this because you can use deadly force against a threat, once someone turns and runs they are no longer a threat. However given the right situation yes absolutely nothing wrong with it.
[/quote]

If someone comes into my house uninvited, doors unlocked or not, I would only hope he has prepared himself by having all his personal affairs in order for his next of kin. It doesn't matter to me which way he is facing, left, right, front or back. As long as he is in my house he is a threat, and will be dealt with in an appropriate manner!

Dave S

[Guest fauklin]

I was taught by my hcp instructor that anyone entering into your residence without permission is seen as a direct threat to you and you can exercise deadly force upon them whether they are coming or going, facing you or back turned, armed or unarmed. He said that was the way the law was written. I/he might be incorrect, but this is the position I've taken since I've had my hcp.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

[DaveTN]

[quote name='fauklin' timestamp='1353813373' post='850292']
I was taught by my hcp instructor that anyone entering into your residence without permission is seen as a direct threat to you and you can exercise deadly force upon them whether they are coming or going, facing you or back turned, armed or unarmed. He said that was the way the law was written. I/he might be incorrect, but this is the position I've taken since I've had my hcp.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2
[/quote]
Well your instructor is FOS. There are no Free Fire Zones.

[Guest fauklin]

[quote name='DaveTN' timestamp='1353813973' post='850296']
Well your instructor is FOS. There are no Free Fire Zones.[/quote]
Please direct me to your source of information. All the carry laws are provided on the department of safety website. I'm not saying you are right or wrong. I just want to know where you get your information.

Bionic Post Edited November 25, 2012 by fauklin

[Guest fauklin]

TCA Title 39, Chapter 11, Part 6, relative to the use of self defense and deadly force
Section C) 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.

The way I read that section is just as i said in my previous post. Bodily harm is assumed by the law in this situation.
Bionic Post

[Guest richief]

Reading this it sounds more like I catch someone stealing from me and follow them to their house and kick the bejeezes out of em, and take my stuff home, I'm not getting arrested.
Guns and shooting someone is covered elsewhere.

[JayC]

[quote name='kcb37' timestamp='1353784875' post='850125']
Maybe I should have worded that a bit different.
I will still stand by my statement of the doors being locked or not. If they are locked they forced entry. If the doors are open not so much. Now I am not saying you cannot shoot, you just need to be more careful about it. I am also not saying they are not trespassing as they would be, but that does not constitue a forced entry.

Shooting in the back I should have added more. In general it's a not a good option. Saying this because you can use deadly force against a threat, once someone turns and runs they are no longer a threat. However given the right situation yes absolutely nothing wrong with it.
[/quote]

You need to go re-read TN law on forcible entry... People have been charged and convicted of forcible entry for merely opening a door that was closed, but unlocked. The same would be said of opening an unlocked (or broken window) and climbing in... they are all forcible entry.

Walking onto a covered but open porch is not forcible entry... See the difference?

Again, TN says that somebody who forcible enters your house is assumed under the law to be a there to cause death or serious bodily injury... The DA would have to prove you knowingly shot somebody who wasn't a threat and were not in fear for your life... Could it happen sure... how likely? We're much more likely to see snow in May here than a DA go after an otherwise law abiding home owner.

Have you seen some of the cases in TN where DA's have refused to charge citizens who used castle doctrine, or stand your ground? If somebody breaks into your home, and you shoot them, and you're not committing a crime at the time, you have little to fear from most TN DA's.

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='fauklin' timestamp='1353817473' post='850322']
Please direct me to your source of information. All the carry laws are provided on the department of safety website. I'm not saying you are right or wrong. I just want to know where you get your information.

Bionic Post
[/quote]

The point is that "presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily" is still not a license to execute an intruder.

Just one example, perp throws himself on his knees with hands up to surrender. At that point you no longer have that presumption, and the testimony of witnesses, or the forensics of a point blank head shot, etc could still get you charged with murder or manslaughter.

Any provable circumstances that remove the "reasonable belief" part of the "Castle Doctrine" also remove the "presumption" for it.

- OS

[Guest fauklin]

The law doesn't say that. There are a couple of exceptions listed in section d, but they are very specific. Here they are:
d) The presumption established in subsection (c) shall not apply if:
(1) The person against whom the force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, provided such person is not prohibited from entering the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle by an order of protection, injunction for protection from domestic abuse, or a court order of no contact against that person;
(2) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to remove a person or persons who is a child or grandchild of, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of § 39-17-1322, the person using force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(4) The person against whom force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in § 39-11-106(21), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties, and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law, or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

I stand by my statement that barring any of the 4 scenarios above apply to me at the time of the incident, deadly force is justified according to the law. I wouldn't shoot an unarmed intruder who was attempting to surrender personally.
Bionic Post Edited November 25, 2012 by fauklin

[Guest fauklin]

[quote name='OhShoot' timestamp='1353869243' post='850484']

The point is that "presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily" is still not a license to execute an intruder.

Just one example, perp throws himself on his knees with hands up to surrender. At that point you no longer have that presumption, and the testimony of witnesses, or the forensics of a point blank head shot, etc could still get you charged with murder or manslaughter.

Any provable circumstances that remove the "reasonable belief" part of the "Castle Doctrine" also remove the "presumption" for it.

- OS[/quote]
It's not your presumption. The law presumes there is a threat. This means you don't have to prove the threat. The law "presumes" the threat is there simply by the perp's act of forcible entry.

Bionic Post

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='fauklin' timestamp='1353882406' post='850555']
It's not your presumption. The law presumes there is a threat. This means you don't have to prove the threat. The law "presumes" the threat is there simply by the perp's act of forcible entry.

Bionic Post
[/quote]

That is correct. However, regardless of how rare it may actually happen, if circumstances come to light to counter that presumption, in other words you being shown NOT to have been in reasonable fear of death or serious injury, you could be charged as per the terms in the rest of the same statute you quoted. Any lawyer on board will tell you the same.

You don't have to prove anything -- the state has to prove the contrary beyond a reasonable doubt. The point is, that as Dave says, the "Castle Doctrine" does not create a "free kill zone".

Nor does it insulate you from any collateral injury to other persons or their property, even while in defense of your life.

- OS Edited November 25, 2012 by OhShoot

[Guest fauklin]

I definitely agree with you on collateral damage. As to the interpretation of "presumption ", i would refer that question to my lawyer. I could also see where the phrase "unlawful and forceable entry" could be left to legal interpretation as well.

Bionic Post Edited November 25, 2012 by fauklin