When standing your ground, how far should you go?

[JRWnTN]

Does the Tennessee vs Garner apply only to police?

I'm learning here....very good thread!!

Garner was a civil rights lawsuit that limits a police officer's use of deadly force to arrest a fleeing felon.  Tennessee prohibits the use of deadly force by non-law officers to make an arrest.

39-11-621.  Use of deadly force by private citizen:  A private citizen, in making an arrest authorized by law, may use force reasonably necessary to accomplish the arrest of an individual who flees or resists the arrest; provided, that a private citizen cannot use or threaten to use deadly force except to the extent authorized under self-defense or defense of third person statutes, §§ 39-11-611 and 39-11-612.

 

[JayC]

Not saying what he did was a good idea, but IMHO would have been 100% legal under TN law.  You don't loose you right to 'stand your ground' just because you were robbed...  The good guy had every right to follow a criminal on a public street, and when that criminal once again became a threat to use deadly force to defend himself.

 

I'd go one step further though, under TN law the good guy would have been well within his rights to follow and attempt to arrest the robber (again not something I would recommend doing), although he wouldn't have been allowed to use or threaten deadly force in doing so...  but the instant the robber pointed a firearm at the good guy during the arrest, justified self defense would kick in.

 

"As his assailant fled, the victim followed"

 

I was told once the threat is no longer a threat you go from justified actions to unjustified actions.  This guy should be in some hot water.

 

[JayC]

In short yes, Garner would only impact police officers and others acting as an agent for the state.

 

Citizens would only be confined to state law, which on this subject says you may use reasonable force, but not deadly force to effect arrest of a person you believe has committed a felony or misdemeanor.  But, if they are a criminal and you effecting a citizens arrest is a legal action, if during the course of the arrest the criminal threatens you with death or serious bodily injury, then you would be justified in using deadly force to defend yourself. 

 

Again, I'm NOT recommending that people use the citizens arrest law, only pointing out how stand your ground allows for a wider range of self defense situations.

 

But, under TN law, there are situations where you can give chase, and legally be the aggressor and still result in a justified self defense shooting.  

 

Does the Tennessee vs Garner apply only to police?

I'm learning here....very good thread!!

Edited February 21, 2013 by JayC

[RED333]

I have been giving this some thought, I dont know if I would have "chased" the crook,

but would have kept him in my eye sight, and be on the phone with 911.

If he turned and saw me and I was on the phone, report that to 911, then I just dont know.

I do not cherish the thought of firing my firearm at another person.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You go as far as you need to to protect your life and your property. The things you value should determine

your extent. That's something only you can decide. I don't like others making my value judgements for me and I

can't make them for others. If you base your life on the highest moral principles and that you can't do anything

for others until you consider your own life first, which is not the common good, but which is self survival, you

might start to get the picture. You're no good to anyone if you die. If someone threatens your life and you let

his life get in the way of your life, you have submitted. Serves no purpose.

[NoBanStan]

I have been giving this some thought, I dont know if I would have "chased" the crook,

but would have kept him in my eye sight, and be on the phone with 911.

If he turned and saw me and I was on the phone, report that to 911, then I just dont know.

I do not cherish the thought of firing my firearm at another person.

 

I can agree with this. I certainly don't A.) want to see my stuff get taken B.) want to see some thug allowed to wander the streets uncontested. But at the same time I really don't want to shoot someone unless i have to.

 

Tough call really. We can speculate all we want but at the end of the day... the law said he was justified, so our opinions don't matter. The criminal got what he deserved, the victim is ok and the law was alright with it. Sounds like a win to me.

 

Now the guy robbed just needs to keep tabs on when they let this bozo kid go because i'm sure he'll be seeking revenge.

[10-Ring]

In my eyes when you take my stuff, where ever my stuff is is now my "ground."  Following at a distance while police arrive is fine.  If they want to shoot at me because of that I'll shoot back.  I'm not threatening their life by following them but when they produce a gun they are threatening mine.  Extreme, I know, but I would also support public floggings for thieves anyhow.

[BryanP]

Reading through this, I come away with two things.

 

1.  What he did was completely legal.

 

2.  What he did was completely stupid.

 

He was shot at when he pursued the robber after the robber was no threat to him.  Deliberately moving into a situation where you can be shot at when you have a choice not to (no lives are at risk, just property) is stupid.  I'm glad everything worked out for the best, but the story could have ended very differently.

[QuietDan]

Stand your ground says if you are where you have every right to be, and are engaged in lawful activity, you can stand your ground and use lethal force in defense of your life.

 

Was the victim in a place where he had every right to be?

 

Was the victim engaged in lawful activity?

 

It doesn't matter if the victim changed the ground he was standing on, as long as he was where he had every right to be and was engaged in lawful activity.

 

****************************

 

Some states let you stand your ground on your own property and the stand your ground provision ends where your property ends. I don't think this is one of them.

Edited February 25, 2013 by QuietDan

[sgjay]

Reading through this, I come away with two things.

 

1.  What he did was completely legal.

 

2.  What he did was completely stupid.

 

He was shot at when he pursued the robber after the robber was no threat to him.  Deliberately moving into a situation where you can be shot at when you have a choice not to (no lives are at risk, just property) is stupid.  I'm glad everything worked out for the best, but the story could have ended very differently.

That sums it up well, in my opinion.

[Chief07]

From what I'm reading, he didn't chase after the guy to shoot him, he followed him to get his property back and/or get a good description for law enforcement.  He had every right to do so.  The thief didn't like being followed, so he attacked the HCP holder with lethal force.  It might not have been the smartests course of action, but the HCP holder is 100% in the right.  His self defense claim was based on the second attack, not the initial robbery, which was indeed over and no longer presented a threat. 

Your right it wasn't the smartest thing to do to follow him, I would have made the call. 

The law could have got his stuff back for him. 

Why take a chance.