Carjacker shot... How does Utah law differ from TN?

[jgradyc]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/05/03/cops-man-who-shoots-kills-would-be-carjacker-outside-store-did-right-thing-by/

 

 

Police Capt. Ned Jackson says he doesn't think the shooter would face charges because Utah law allows the use of guns for self-defense and to prevent the commission of a "forcible felony" including an attempted car theft.

 

 

Are we allowed to do this in TN?  Specifically, I'm asking about the underlined statement above. I thought it was only fear of loss of life or serious bodily harm.

[monkeylizard]

You're correct. Our law doesn't have the "forcible felony" part. If a reasonable person would be in fear of their life or serious bodily harm (or the same for another person) then lethal force can lawfully be used in TN. It can't lawfully be used to protect property.

Edited May 4, 2015 by monkeylizard

[dralarms]

True, but if I'm gettin car jacked I most definitely will be in fear of my life.

[bersaguy]

If I was staring down the muzzle Last thing I am going to do is move towards it to try and take it away. That is just asking to be shot......... :shrug: :shrug:  When the bad guy moved in the direction of the man with the gun I would think at that point his life was in danger and either way he had a right to pop the bad guy.................... :shrug:

[sschrick]

my thought would be if I am in the car and someone forcibly tries to take the car from me, then I can shoot.  Especially since most of the time the "jackers" have some type of weapon.  If I am out of the car and he gets in it, then better to not shoot. 

[JAB]

The only way someone is jacking my car is if they threaten my life in order to do so.  Otherwise, if there isn't a threat of death or serious, bodily injury why in the heck would someone just let some jackhole take their vehicle?  I mean, what else would a carjacker do?  I don't think a carjacker would just walk up to the car and say, "Gimme your car or I'll tell you to gimme your car, again!"  I don't think, "Gimme your car or I'm gonna throw a huge hissy fit right here in the street," would get their desired results, either.  Without the threat, I would just tell them to eff off and drive away.  There is no duty to retreat from such a threat in Tennessee and once that threat is out there I'm not shooting them to protect my vehicle but, instead, I am shooting to protect my life.

Edited May 4, 2015 by JAB

[monkeylizard]

If I read the story correctly, the shooter was not being carjacked. He saw someone else being carjacked and intervened. I would agree that a reasonable person would think that the vicitm's life is in danger.

 

However, the unarmed carjacker turned from the car and moved towards the shooter. That's where I'd need more information to give my own opinion about if this would be a legal shoot or not in TN. Did the shooter know or should have known the perp was unarmed? What distances are we talking about here? Was there a significant size disparity between the shooter and the perp? Stuff like that and others would all come in to play here in TN.

 

The article does say the perp was lunging in an effort to grab the gun. At that point, yeah, a reasonable person would have been in fear of his life and lethal force would be good to go, in my not-a-judge-or-jury opinion,

Edited May 4, 2015 by monkeylizard

[chances R]

THIS : "If a reasonable person would be in fear of their life or serious bodily harm (or the same for another person) then lethal force can lawfully be used in TN."  In addition one's automobile comes in under the Castle Doctrine.  Not to mention the attacker, whether armed or unarmed, now turned their attention towards the one who interrupted his initial attack.  Nothing says that an attacker has to be armed to kill/harm another.  Looks like 3 good reasons to get shot IMO.

[monkeylizard]

Nothing says that an attacker has to be armed to kill/harm another. 

 

No, but it could play into whether or not a "reasonable person" would consider the attacker to be a threat to their life or of serious bodily harm as defined in TCA. No weapon, in my mind, makes that a little harder to establish. Not impossible, just more difficult.

[chances R]

Maybe, but the circumstances I think, put the shooting in a much more favorable light.  The attacker's initial intent and then aggressive move towards the rescuer would make any reasonable person in fear of life/injury.  Now if he ran away.....whole different story.  I don't think one has to wait to see a knife or feel that you are on the losing end of an attack before shooting.  In fact, that kind of delay, and weighing all the pros and cons may be the difference in whether you shoot or not and thus live or not.

[monkeylizard]

I agree in this case. I think it would be justified here, but for different legal reasons than it was in Utah. Some other fact could surface such as the perp being 20 yards away at the time he was shot and that would change things here, but would make no difference in Utah.

[E4 No More]

Doesn't Tennessee law give the same standing of your car as your home?

 

I would think that when the carjacker disengaged from the victim and engaged another a separate set of circumstances come into play, but it would depend on a lot of factors to speculate on the Interwebz.

[AtomicRooster]

Lorcin....throw down.....win.

[monkeylizard]

Doesn't Tennessee law give the same standing of your car as your home?

 

I would think that when the carjacker disengaged from the victim and engaged another a separate set of circumstances come into play, but it would depend on a lot of factors to speculate on the Interwebz.

Yes, and you're correct.

[dralarms]

Lorcin....throw down.....win.

That kinda action can get you thrown in jail.

[AtomicRooster]

That kinda action can get you thrown in jail.

Or a justifiable homicide virdict by a grand jury. Don't be so naive to think it hasn't happened. My remark was in humor. Guess I need to find the smiley faces.

[TNWNGR]

Or a justifiable homicide virdict by a grand jury. Don't be so naive to think it hasn't happened. My remark was in humor. Guess I need to find the smiley faces.

Yep. That form of humor is just what attornies look for and they pay folks to do social media research to find it. It's been used in police disciplinary actions and in prosecuting other folks.

As to shooting a carjacker... I believe in the concept of defense of life...mine or another's. Use of Force or Lethel Force is fluid and dynamic so predicting the future outcomes is iffy. Do train and pay for professional training as well as mental prepairedness and when under arms curb your words.

[AtomicRooster]

Unmitigated expertise. .....this forum has it.

[suspiciousmind]

The endless hypotheticals of firearm usage in self-defense is why it really pays to keep your mouth shut and call the best lawyer you know if it happens.

I've heard lawyers say nothing good can come from talking to the police after an incident.