Question regarding protection property?

[midtennchip]

[quote name='fauklin' timestamp='1353884781' post='850567']
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
[/quote]

Well, this lawyer agrees with those who have said that the presumption is not a blanket allowance. Presumption means that it can be overcome by the facts.

Also, it appears many people are interchanging "reasonable belief of imminent threat" with "threat." Those are NOT the same. The law presumes the shooter's state of mind, not the actions of the intruder. The distinction is important. For example, if a 6 year old came through the door and as presumed to be a threat, a prosecutor could show that there was no way the 6 year old was an actual threat and defeat the presumption. But if the 6 year old came through the door in the dark and you are presumed to be in fear of your life, it doesn't matter if the 6 year old was an actual threat. What matters is your state of mind.

So, if you find someone in your house and he immediately stops, there is a distinct possibility that a prosecutor could show that you were not, in fact, in fear for your life. The presumption just changes who has to prove it. If facts exist that allow the prosecutor to PROVE that you were not in reasonable fear, you still lose. Edited November 26, 2012 by midtennchip

[Guest fauklin]

Thank you for that. Do you have any input to the interpretation of "unlawful and forceable entry"?

Bionic Post

[midtennchip]

[quote name='fauklin' timestamp='1353893954' post='850635']
Thank you for that. Do you have any input to the interpretation of "unlawful and forceable entry"?

Bionic Post
[/quote]

I think Jay had it right. Case law on that has held that any force used is enough. However, I always say to use caution on these. A more conservative reading is good. But, I would expect that anyone who entered a closed door or window would have forcibly entered.

[Guest 270win]

It would be much better if TN law just allowed deadly force for burglary and arson. I think that would be more clear on paper than just 'forced entry' and 'presuming fear of life'.

But it seems pretty clear that you can be presumed to be in fear for your life if someone breaks into your house or business place.

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='razorback2003' timestamp='1354065906' post='851682']
....But it seems pretty clear that you can be presumed to be in fear for your life if someone breaks into your house or business place.
[/quote]

Yes, that's why the law gives you that presumption. But like all things, only up to a point.

You wouldn't fare so well doing the same as this guy:

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/55513-how-not-to-defend-your-self-in-a-break-in-situation/

- OS

[Makiaveli]

[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]

I have to disagree. I was in my house when I stuck a revolver in a guy's face when he walked onto my screened in porch and the screen door was NOT locked, AND the front door to my house was wide open.

Long story made short, the cop agreed that since I had just gotten into a verbal argument with his mother (who lived next door) I could've made a case for shooting him. Furthermore, the unlocked/open doors has no bearing on this. He entered my primary, legal, etc residence without permission and was obviously angry etc. The look on their faces was priceless.

**edit** Should've read all the thread before posting, but I think the above holds. The keyword I think to fauklin's comments is "reasonable". If the government can prove your presumption wasn't reasonable, then you are likely to be charged.

For example, the guy you shot in the back from 50' away wasn't armed, the neighbors heard him screaming "I'm not armed, I'm leaving" etc etc., then yea, you are gonna need a good lawyer. Edited December 4, 2012 by Makiaveli