Texas's New Law

[DaveS]

I think this new Law passed in Texas is pretty cool, and maybe Tennessee should follow suit.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/03/27/us-texas-deadlyforce-idUSN2721289620070327

 

Dave

Edited January 4, 2014 by DaveS

[glock55]

• Article

<a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/N4735792/jump/us.reuters/news/us/article;type=poe;sz=1x1;articleID=USN2721289620070327;taga=aaaaaaaaa;ord=1110?" target="_blank"> <img src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/N4735792/ad/us.reuters/news/us/article;type=poe;sz=1x1;articleID=USN2721289620070327;taga=aaaaaaaaa;ord=1110?" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt=""> </a>

 

Texas signs new self-defense by gun law

By Ed Stoddard

DALLAS  Tue Mar 27, 2007 4:14pm EDT

 

 

This may not be breaking news

[RED333]

TN already has

Castle Doctrine

Tennessee has a self-defense law based on the castle doctrine. Enacted in 2007, the law does not require a duty to retreat. It extends the right for persons to defend themselves from attacks by using physical or deadly force in any place they have a legal right to be. The law provides civil immunity for persons using physical or deadly force to protect themselves from an attacker.

[Randall53]

Well, that article was from 2007, but I do agree with you DaveS that the stand your ground laws just make sense. Retreat in the face of a criminal is not always possible due to many uncontrollable factors and a victims abilities (older, physically unable, etc.) and just plain stupid. Retreat will do no more to increase your chances of survival than begging for mercy in the face of a criminal. It will actually make the attacker more bold. A criminal confronted with a flash from a firearm being shot at their arse however sends a strong message and most of the time from what I've read, puts the criminal in "get the hell outta Dodge" mode or saves the state a ton of money on room and board, if you know what I mean. Either one is much more appealing than say, a woman performing the famous Liberal 3-P (PEE-PUKE-POOP on yourself) method of deterring a rapist for example.

[DaveS]

Old news...my bad (as the young people say).

 

Dave

[JAB]

It sounds like the Texas law in question (even if it is old news) simply provided exceptions to laws in their state that must require an intended victim to retreat or attempt to retreat in many situations.  As RED333 poisted, in Tennessee there is no duty to retreat as long as you are in a place where you are legally allowed to be, so I think what we have is better.

 

Now, if TN wanted to follow Texas' example and allow the legal use of deadly force to protect property and not just when one is in fear of one's life...

Edited January 10, 2014 by JAB

[chances R]

I advocate always trying to retreat and avoid confrontation if possible and one can do so safely.  Just because you have a gun does not make you the automatic winner.  However, when one does not have a choice, hopefully, the bad guy suffers the consequences of 'poor victim selection'.

[bersaguy]

I agree with chances R and  over the years I have had people ask me if I could or would actually shoot another human being?  I sometimes won't answer and other times depending on who is asking the question I will answer. In most cases it is someone that knows I have an HCP but does not know me all that well and don't know my history. As far as killing another human being. I spent 4.5 years in Vietnam so killing a human being was almost a way of life depending on your circumstances. Mine called for and required it if I wanted to come home and not in a pine box. When I tell a person that killing a human being is not something anyone that is just not an evil person never chooses to take another persons life. During my life as a military person in a war zone did not have much choice. I can still remember the first person I killed like it was yesterday. I can remember killing the last person I killed like it was yesterday also. Would I kill again? Not unless I had no other option but yes I would if I had to. Everyday when I wake up I hope and Pray that i have another uneventful day of not needing to use a firearm. I think everyone here that has been in the military and served in a live action war zone can relate to what i am saying. This may be a little off topic but I think it fits a little.............jmho

[DaveTN]

We don’t need it; we don’t have a duty to retreat.

Tennessee is at a point where the only states we need to copy are the four states that recognize Constitutional carry. Everything else at this point is just noise.

[Guest RebelCowboySnB]

Texas is only a Castle state? wow...

[Guest gundaddytactical]

Any comments on the 4th Amendment? Just saw this today.  http://www.mintpressnews.com/does-the-4th-amendment-apply-to-gun-owners/186627/

[DaveTN]

Any comments on the 4th Amendment? Just saw this today.  http://www.mintpressnews.com/does-the-4th-amendment-apply-to-gun-owners/186627/

I don’t think any court ruling will ever keep the occupants of drug houses from getting shot by the Police when they pull guns. An occupant of the house pointed a gun at an Officer and got shot. Unless they had the wrong house, it’s kind of hard to argue their concerns were unfounded.
 
I don’t agree with no knock warrants except in cases where the suspect is believed to be armed. That is not a violation of rights. There was probable cause for a search and a warrant was signed by a Judge. There was concern they could be met with armed resistance and that is exactly what happened.
 
The story makes the point that the Rutherford Institute is a nonprofit organization that helped get this case to the SCOTUS. However, they go on to say that their President wrote a book about a Police state. I suggest the person pushing this may be more interested in book sales than this case. This is not the case for the SCOTUS to make a ruling on.
 
There have been plenty of bad cases where innocent people got shot; why not use those? Lebanon, TN is one example.

[Jonnin]

The law also provides civil immunity for a person who lawfully slays an intruder or attacker in such situations.

 

We need more of this --- it should be immunity for any justified act of self defense (among other things).  

[DaveTN]

The law also provides civil immunity for a person who lawfully slays an intruder or attacker in such situations.

We have that in this state. It’s just unclear when that civil immunity kicks in. If you have never been charged there is no “lawfully” ruling. The DA not charging you doesn’t always mean you won’t be charged or that you are justified in you actions.

If a dirt bag with no money finds an attorney to sue you, and you then sue him for costs because a Judge ruled you justified, and he decides not to pay the judgment; you are out of luck.
 

We need more of this --- it should be immunity for any justified act of self defense (among other things).

Not sure what you mean by that?