Clarification on castle doctrine?

[Guest dotsun]

Ok, I was reading another thread about TN gun laws and Chip posted a link to 39-11-611: http://www.michie.com/tennessee/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=

Now if I understand this part of it correctly:

( (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.

If, for instance, an unarmed person attempts to get into your car forcibly (which seems to me to constitute unlawful force), you would be justified to threaten or use deadly force. Is that correct?

[Guest bkelm18]

I believe you are correct.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

If, for instance, an unarmed person attempts to get into your car forcibly (which seems to me to constitute unlawful force), you would be justified to threaten or use deadly force. Is that correct?

I'm not sure it's been litigated yet, but, yes, this would be a good shooting.

And how do you know this person attempting to forcibly enter your car is unarmed?

[Guest janwbrown616]

I think the totality of the circumstances might mean somthing also. You'd still be in a hearing of some sort.

1. Could you have driven away?

2. Was it a incapacitated drunk who could hardly stand?

3. Was it a skinny dopped up kid wondering around acting crazy?

I know that any of these above could still inflict bodily harm but that's not the point. Due you have an alternative other than deadly force?

Or, was it a gang that meant business, or a guy out to hurt you?

Lots of ofther if's here.

The law might be on the books and you might be right, but again, still a few issues.

I'm not saying you should'nt, just that there will aways be issues in a shoot that will be questioned?

If you get past the could you drive away question the real problems start.

Been there done that......

Edited June 28, 2008 by janwbrown616
Addition

[The Rabbi]

There's a presumption of threat that didnt exist previously. But it is only a presumption. If circumstances warranted a prosecutor could overcome them.

And +1 on how do you know if someone is unarmed. I presume everyone is armed unless I've done a body cavity search.

[Guest dotsun]

Yeah that was my take on it, too. Obviously if one were to threaten or use deadly force on the donate to whatever cause crowd at the red light I'd expect to be prosecuted. I was thinking more along the lines of a stuck in traffic situation and some guy comes running up to the car with some unknown level of violence in mind. Another good reason to always keep the doors locked while driving.

[Guest Phantom6]

Yeah that was my take on it, too. Obviously if one were to threaten or use deadly force on the donate to whatever cause crowd at the red light I'd expect to be prosecuted. I was thinking more along the lines of a stuck in traffic situation and some guy comes running up to the car with some unknown level of violence in mind. Another good reason to always keep the doors locked while driving.

Yeah, it would be a little bit embarassing to draw down on the volunteer fire dept. at the "boot drop fundraiser. Plus you might run off into a ravine off Hwy 62 and they'd pull up and say "aw shucks, that's just dotsun. Let him rot 'cause he drew down on us at the boot drop last 4th of July".

Yup and you should wear your seat belts too 'cause it keeps 'em from yankin' you right out of the window while at a light.

[strickj]

[ame]http://youtube.com/watch?v=_aEC4Gw0bSc[/ame]

[Guest eyebedam]

There's a presumption of threat that didnt exist previously. But it is only a presumption. If circumstances warranted a prosecutor could overcome them.

And +1 on how do you know if someone is unarmed. I presume everyone is armed unless I've done a body cavity search.

For some strange reason this does not surprise me:).

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_aEC4Gw0bSc

This dude right here wouldve become a greasy spot in the road so fast he wouldnt have known what hit him.

[midtennchip]

( (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.

Not to get too technical, because I think the prior responses are fairly accurate. However, the issue would be the two underlined requirements. "Degree" has the meaning of what type of force is justified while the "when" means what it sounds like it means. To some degree, the issue boils down to what a "reasonable person" would do in the same situation. "Reasonable" is basically whatever a jury thinks whether we would agree or not (although the judge or an appellate court could overrule the jury if they are patently ignoring the term "reasonable").

Generally, the more problematic issue would likely be a civil lawsuit. I can't tell you when the time is, there are simply too may factors making each particular situation different.

[towerclimber37]

Not to get too technical, because I think the prior responses are fairly accurate. However, the issue would be the two underlined requirements. "Degree" has the meaning of what type of force is justified while the "when" means what it sounds like it means. To some degree, the issue boils down to what a "reasonable person" would do in the same situation. "Reasonable" is basically whatever a jury thinks whether we would agree or not (although the judge or an appellate court could overrule the jury if they are patently ignoring the term "reasonable").

Generally, the more problematic issue would likely be a civil lawsuit. I can't tell you when the time is, there are simply too may factors making each particular situation different.

I'm a bit ignorant here of this..but what happened to being judged by your peers?

so Jury nullification is just a myth?

I don't know..so I'm asking..how can a Judge go against the judgement of the defendants' peers?

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

I'm a bit ignorant here of this..but what happened to being judged by your peers?

so Jury nullification is just a myth?

I don't know..so I'm asking..how can a Judge go against the judgement of the defendants' peers?

Jury nullification is no myth. Courage among Citizens, however, is too often not to be found.

Jury nullification has never really been tried, not as a stand alone issue. Not really. Not as such, and not in the last few hundred years. People just buckle, cave, and bleat the way in which they're instructed.

[midtennchip]

I'm a bit ignorant here of this..but what happened to being judged by your peers?

so Jury nullification is just a myth?

I don't know..so I'm asking..how can a Judge go against the judgement of the defendants' peers?

Sorry, I should have been more clear. A judge acts as the "13th juror" in cases where a jury finds a defendant guilty. What I was trying to say was that, if a jury finds that a defendant in a "castle doctrine" case acted unreasonably and therefore guilty, a judge can overrule the guilty verdict. A judge cannot find a defendant guilty where a jury finds the defendant not guilty. Likewise, an appellant court could toss a guilty verdict if the court finds that the jury was wrong. The evidence would need to clearly show that the defendant was acting reasonably and the jury basically ignored that provision of the law.

The trial judge rarely overrules the jury, but it has happened. An appellant court reversal is more common, but obviously not a situation you would want to find yourself in.

The idea of "jury nullification" is, at least in the legal community, arguing that the jury should ignore the law. For example, a defense attorney in a "castle doctrine" case could argue that the jury should find the defendant not guilty even though they believe the defendant was unreasonable in using force. That is, the defendant committed the elements of the crime. The Wikipedia entry is actually pretty good on this issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Edited June 30, 2008 by midtennchip

[bajabuc]

Case in point: It's 3 AM The perp has just smashed the window in my car and is crawling through it with the slidehammer in his hand. He has the intent to pop my lock and steal my car. Bang...he's dead. The slidehammer is sufficent to establish intent. True or False?

[JayC]

We've seen some very interesting self defense shootings reported here in TN over the past few years. Not that I would want to rely on that past history... You've got to be very wrong it seems to get yourself charged... if we're to believe the news reports...

Case in point, in the last 12-14 months we've had 2 shootings on property that probably weren't covered under the letter of the law... Shooting of an off duty sheriff deputy through a door in the back of the head and shooting of a kid to was playing ring the doorbell and hide... While the sheriff deputy case did require 2 or 3 no bills from the grand jury before the local sheriff finally gave up... neither case resulted in criminal charges.

Edited April 30, 2011 by JayC

[lunarpowered]

Case in point: It's 3 AM The perp has just smashed the window in my car and is crawling through it with the slidehammer in his hand. He has the intent to pop my lock and steal my car. Bang...he's dead. The slidehammer is sufficent to establish intent. True or False?

It's my understanding that would be false unless you sleep in your car. It's illegal to defend property, but when you are inside that property then castle doctrine takes effect.

[DaveTN]

Case in point: It's 3 AM The perp has just smashed the window in my car and is crawling through it with the slidehammer in his hand. He has the intent to pop my lock and steal my car. Bang...he's dead. The slidehammer is sufficent to establish intent. True or False?

False. You are on your way to court and probably prison. Not only that but you may have let your family down by possibly bankrupting them with legal bills and you may then be leaving them on their own while you go off to prison.

Would a reasonable person (that means a jury) believe you were in danger of death or great bodily harm? Nope.

Think of the Castle Doctrine this way.... It doesn't say who or when you can shoot. It doesn't create any free fire zones. What it does is, in certain circumstances, it allows you to go into court with a presumption that you were justified. The Prosecutor can tear apart that presumption and send you to jail.

You seem to be lost in 2008 lately.

Edited April 30, 2011 by DaveTN

[JayC]

It's my understanding that would be false unless you sleep in your car. It's illegal to defend property, but when you are inside that property then castle doctrine takes effect.

It's not illegal to defend your property... it's illegal to use deadly force to defend your property. So, while you might not be able to shoot the bad guy for breaking into your car, if you confront him, and he moves towards you with a weapon in his hand, you may very well have a justified self defense shooting.

We had a report of a similar case here on this forum about 2 years ago, a woman confronted a bad guy breaking into hear car, she held him at gun point until the police showed up... They asked to see her permit and let her go without charging her.

If somebody is breaking into my car... I'm going to go outside and confront them... if while confronting them, they turn towards me with a weapon in their hand... I'm very likely to believe they pose a serious threat of bodily harm or death to me... I seriously doubt under those conditions any DA in TN would file charges.

[CQB Elite]

I'm going to go outside and confront them... if while confronting them, they turn towards me with a weapon in their hand... I'm very likely to believe they pose a serious threat of bodily harm or death to me... I seriously doubt under those conditions any DA in TN would file charges.

Good luck with that course of logic. If someone is stealing your car, let them! If you go out to confront them and end up using deadly force you find yourself in a pickle. Any half decent ADA (and any civil attorney) will bring up the fact that you left the safety and security of your home to confront someone trying to steal your property. They will ask why you didn't simply call 911 and let the police handle it.

Either way, you must ask yourself if you are willing to kill someone over a piece of property. A piece of property that you have insurance on.

[JayC]

Good luck with that course of logic. If someone is stealing your car, let them! If you go out to confront them and end up using deadly force you find yourself in a pickle. Any half decent ADA (and any civil attorney) will bring up the fact that you left the safety and security of your home to confront someone trying to steal your property. They will ask why you didn't simply call 911 and let the police handle it.

Either way, you must ask yourself if you are willing to kill someone over a piece of property. A piece of property that you have insurance on.

You might believe that, but history doesn't seem to be on your side... The legislature even changed to law last year to keep a "half decent" ADA from charging you, by making an exception that allows you to defend property if you feel threatened with serious bodily injury or death. Tell you what, cite a single case in TN where a homeowner was changer under those circumstances. I'm betting you won't find one in the last 10 years.

Also, I'm allowed to leave the safety and security of my home to perform lawful activities, I have no duty to retreat from one part of my property if somebody is trespassing or breaking into my vehicle...

I'll call 911, but I'm not going to rely on the police to show up 15 minutes later and fill out a report... I'm going to confront people breaking into my car... you're welcome to hide in your home and pray they don't do anything other than steal your property.

And I wouldn't kill somebody over a piece of property... but I would assume somebody willing to steal my property and not run away when confronted and holding a weapon is willing to do me serious bodily harm or worse... and I could see how that could turn into a justified self defense shooting...

If somebody can shoot a teenager hiding on their property for playing a ring the door bell and hide game... and can't even get arrested, let alone charged by an ADA... Again, ADA don't like loosing cases... bad guy vs home owner, tend to be loosing cases, unless the homeowner acts so outrageously that they can not have been in fear for their life.

As for shooting somebody over property, I'm all for us enacting Texas law concerning other crimes we can use deadly force against, frankly I think it would make people think twice about breaking into a car or back shed in the middle of the night if they knew it was open season on bad guys.

[CQB Elite]

You might believe that, but history doesn't seem to be on your side... The legislature even changed to law last year to keep a "half decent" ADA from charging you, by making an exception that allows you to defend property if you feel threatened with serious bodily injury or death. Tell you what, cite a single case in TN where a homeowner was changer under those circumstances. I'm betting you won't find one in the last 10 years.

Also, I'm allowed to leave the safety and security of my home to perform lawful activities, I have no duty to retreat from one part of my property if somebody is trespassing or breaking into my vehicle...

I'll call 911, but I'm not going to rely on the police to show up 15 minutes later and fill out a report... I'm going to confront people breaking into my car... you're welcome to hide in your home and pray they don't do anything other than steal your property.

And I wouldn't kill somebody over a piece of property... but I would assume somebody willing to steal my property and not run away when confronted and holding a weapon is willing to do me serious bodily harm or worse... and I could see how that could turn into a justified self defense shooting...

If somebody can shoot a teenager hiding on their property for playing a ring the door bell and hide game... and can't even get arrested, let alone charged by an ADA... Again, ADA don't like loosing cases... bad guy vs home owner, tend to be loosing cases, unless the homeowner acts so outrageously that they can not have been in fear for their life.

As for shooting somebody over property, I'm all for us enacting Texas law concerning other crimes we can use deadly force against, frankly I think it would make people think twice about breaking into a car or back shed in the middle of the night if they knew it was open season on bad guys.

OK, if you say so. I'm not gonna find myself being a test case and putting my life in jeopardy over personal property.

I agree with you 100% on the Texas law.

[Guest Jon]

I see both sides but if someone is brave enough to come into my driveway and attempt to steal my car who's to say that person didn't already intend on coming in my house after his get away ride was prepped?

I would call the police then confront the perp. I would at least want them on their way just in case I had to use force or the perp got to me first. But I wouldnt think twice in shooting someone on my property coming at me with intent to harm me or my family. They just better hope I shoot to neutralize. 2 1/2 years as a Army Ranger says one shot one kill

[Guest Volfan615]

You might believe that, but history doesn't seem to be on your side... The legislature even changed to law last year to keep a "half decent" ADA from charging you, by making an exception that allows you to defend property if you feel threatened with serious bodily injury or death. Tell you what, cite a single case in TN where a homeowner was changer under those circumstances. I'm betting you won't find one in the last 10 years.

Also, I'm allowed to leave the safety and security of my home to perform lawful activities, I have no duty to retreat from one part of my property if somebody is trespassing or breaking into my vehicle...

I'll call 911, but I'm not going to rely on the police to show up 15 minutes later and fill out a report... I'm going to confront people breaking into my car... you're welcome to hide in your home and pray they don't do anything other than steal your property.

And I wouldn't kill somebody over a piece of property... but I would assume somebody willing to steal my property and not run away when confronted and holding a weapon is willing to do me serious bodily harm or worse... and I could see how that could turn into a justified self defense shooting...

If somebody can shoot a teenager hiding on their property for playing a ring the door bell and hide game... and can't even get arrested, let alone charged by an ADA... Again, ADA don't like loosing cases... bad guy vs home owner, tend to be loosing cases, unless the homeowner acts so outrageously that they can not have been in fear for their life.

As for shooting somebody over property, I'm all for us enacting Texas law concerning other crimes we can use deadly force against, frankly I think it would make people think twice about breaking into a car or back shed in the middle of the night if they knew it was open season on bad guys.

This specific incident was part of my HCP class a couple of weeks ago and I believe was on the video from the state. It showed two incidents. First one was someone breaking into a car and when confronted they ran away. The second incident when confronted the perp ran toward the property owner with intent to harm them. In the second instance shooting would be justified.

[JayC]

This specific incident was part of my HCP class a couple of weeks ago and I believe was on the video from the state. It showed two incidents. First one was someone breaking into a car and when confronted they ran away. The second incident when confronted the perp ran toward the property owner with intent to harm them. In the second instance shooting would be justified.

I'll be honest I used this example because it's one of the state videos.

[Fallguy]

Good luck with that course of logic. If someone is stealing your car, let them! If you go out to confront them and end up using deadly force you find yourself in a pickle. Any half decent ADA (and any civil attorney) will bring up the fact that you left the safety and security of your home to confront someone trying to steal your property. They will ask why you didn't simply call 911 and let the police handle it.

Either way, you must ask yourself if you are willing to kill someone over a piece of property. A piece of property that you have insurance on.

I've had just one too many thing stolen from me to just "let" someone steal my car or any other piece of property. The law allows me to use force (not deadly) to protect my property and I will. I will also be armed and if a self-defense situation arises then so be it. Since when do we have to hunker down in our homes and not protect it or ourselves?

If I end up in jail because of this, so be it.

911 is not a magic number (I dispatched for them for many years) just because you dial it, it doesn't make everything instantly better. The BG doesn't just disappear into thin air.

As to your question...If I lived in TX (since it is legal to used deadly force for the protection of property there) and if it was the only way to keep my property from being stolen....Yes. If when confronted they drop it and run....I'll watch them run.