Recent "Carport Break In" Riverside Plantation, West Nashville

[Obiwan]

Just because you're afraid of a threat does not require that you retreat from your dwelling, nor does it prevent you from confronting the threat.

 

I understand the absence of the requirement to retreat, as well as stand-your-ground. I'm just curious how an advance (to confront the threat) would be treated. (staying with the example that you are in safety, for example your home, and are moving to another area, say the shed mentioned previously, or car port). If you are unaware of the threat, it seems clear that you can advance and investigate the shed. But if you know, or opposing attorney can spin it such that you should have known that there is a lethal threat, how would that play out in court? (assuming it went to trial)

 

"Sir, you claim you were in fear of your life, yet you entered the shed knowing that the burglar was in there and shot the deceased without allowing him to escape. Your honor, this is not a case of justifiable homicide, this is premeditated murder!"

Edited April 30, 2016 by Obiwan

[Omega]

"Sir, you claim you were in fear of your life, yet you entered the shed knowing that the burglar was in there and shot the deceased without allowing him to escape. Your honor, this is not a case of justifiable homicide, this is premeditated murder!"

Yes Sir, I keep gas, oil, propylene glycol, and other potentialy dangerous things there.  I was worried he would injure himself and hire an attorney like you to help him steal err, I mean sue me. So I figured I would go in there and make sure he was OK and he decided to attack me, and what do you know, I guess he had you on retainer.

[dralarms]

Yes Sir, I keep gas, oil, propylene glycol, and other potentialy dangerous things there.  I was worried he would injure himself and hire an attorney like you to help him steal err, I mean sue me. So I figured I would go in there and make sure he was OK and he decided to attack me, and what do you know, I guess he had you on retainer.

And omega for the win.

[JayC]

It's perfectly legal under TN law to confront a would be thief on your property, but you're only allowed to use deadly force you have a reasonable fear of death or injury.  If said thief has unlawfully entered a dwelling on your property, then under TN law you have the assumption of a reasonable fear of death or injury.  

 

I honestly think it's as simple as that, and there aren't any known cases that conflict with that assessment that we're aware of in the firearms/self defense community here in TN.

 

Using your logic, the DA could make the same argument as to why you even left your bedroom if you heard a would be thief downstairs... and we know that isn't an example that would hold up under TN law.

 

Now, if somebody pulls a Byron Smith, I suspect we'd see a trail and a conviction, but then again he executed both thieves with shots to the back of the head after they had already been shot and were begging for their lives.

 

If a bad guy makes the decision to break into a persons home or dwelling, I have no sympathy if their own criminal actions leads to their death. 

 

I understand the absence of the requirement to retreat, as well as stand-your-ground. I'm just curious how an advance (to confront the threat) would be treated. (staying with the example that you are in safety, for example your home, and are moving to another area, say the shed mentioned previously, or car port). If you are unaware of the threat, it seems clear that you can advance and investigate the shed. But if you know, or opposing attorney can spin it such that you should have known that there is a lethal threat, how would that play out in court? (assuming it went to trial)

 

"Sir, you claim you were in fear of your life, yet you entered the shed knowing that the burglar was in there and shot the deceased without allowing him to escape. Your honor, this is not a case of justifiable homicide, this is premeditated murder!"

 

[Obiwan]

It's perfectly legal under TN law to confront a would be thief on your property, but you're only allowed to use deadly force you have a reasonable fear of death or injury.  If said thief has unlawfully entered a dwelling on your property, then under TN law you have the assumption of a reasonable fear of death or injury.  

 

I honestly think it's as simple as that, and there aren't any known cases that conflict with that assessment that we're aware of in the firearms/self defense community here in TN.

 

Using your logic, the DA could make the same argument as to why you even left your bedroom if you heard a would be thief downstairs... and we know that isn't an example that would hold up under TN law.

 

That was the kind of reply I was hoping for, thanks! Good point on the bedroom (leaving the "security" of the bedroom to investigate). I understand that ones house is treated as one (not subdivided into rooms), but I wasn't sure about detached structures (shed, etc). It sounds like all dwellings on ones property are considered under the law as one (one castle so to speak). So much for the shed scenario.

 

I guess that leaves the car port (or other areas immediately outside of a dwelling, like a front porch) for consideration. Since the aggressor didn't enter, the presumption of fear of death doesn't seem to apply. However, it sounds like it is still legal to confront, and one can use deadly force if the situation escalates into fear of death. It sounds then that the fear of death may need to be proven as it's not automatically applied as is in the case of entry. In other words, there seems to be a gray area where we are at the discretion of the DA, rather than having a legal footing due to preexisting case law.

 

Anyway, thanks for your reply!

 

Edit: Never mind. Re-reading previous post seem to clarify some things, like the front porch. And it looks like I missed some other interesting posts.

Edited April 30, 2016 by Obiwan

[JayC]

If you go back a couple of pages, I posted the different sections of the law having to do with 'castle doctrine' in TN.

 

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/95243-recent-carport-break-in-riverside-plantation-west-nashville/page-2#entry1365282

 

You'll see that both the carport and front porch are covered as long as there was an unlawful entry made.  Pretty much anything that has a roof over it... and any curtilage.  It's a very broad law.

 

 

That was the kind of reply I was hoping for, thanks! Good point on the bedroom (leaving the "security" of the bedroom to investigate). I understand that ones house is treated as one (not subdivided into rooms), but I wasn't sure about detached structures (shed, etc). It sounds like all dwellings on ones property are considered under the law as one (one castle so to speak). So much for the shed scenario.

 

I guess that leaves the car port (or other areas immediately outside of a dwelling, like a front porch) for consideration. Since the aggressor didn't enter, the presumption of fear of death doesn't seem to apply. However, it sounds like it is still legal to confront, and one can use deadly force if the situation escalates into fear of death. It sounds then that the fear of death may need to be proven as it's not automatically applied as is in the case of entry. In other words, there seems to be a gray area where we are at the discretion of the DA, rather than having a legal footing due to preexisting case law.

 

Anyway, thanks for you reply!

[Obiwan]

Yup, did exactly that while you were replying.   :)  Thanks! 

[Roche]

FWIW, this video was shown during my CCW class and most likely in many classes throughout TN.  Watch and decide for yourselves:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UQaQZtV56s

[JayC]

Other than some really bad suggestions, none of this conflicts with anything we've been saying in this topic.

 

FWIW, this video was shown during my CCW class and most likely in many classes throughout TN.  Watch and decide for yourselves:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UQaQZtV56s

[chances R]

Other than some really bad suggestions, none of this conflicts with anything we've been saying in this topic.

Regarding "really bad suggestions", in video or thread?

[JayC]

The video, the video is just awful and full of mis-information or half truths.  One would think after watching that that it's required that you inform officers you're armed, and provide a copy of your permit when you hand over your drivers license - which is clearly not required under state law.

 

I'm sure there are some 'bad' ideas in this topic, but I was talking about the video.

 

Regarding "really bad suggestions", in video or thread?

[chances R]

As you stated, it is erroneous and misleading about the 'stops' and inform.  I don't think it is a bad idea, just not a requirement as it is in some states.  However, it is required to be shown in HCP classes.

[DaveTN]

Those classes are to inform the people; the classes are not bound by the letter of the law. Laws generally let you know what you can’t do; not what’s a good idea to do.

I am fully aware (as are most here) that I’m not required to hand over my HCP; just like I’m not required to roll down my widows and turn on my dome light at night. I do those things for several reasons; I respect cops, I have been in their shoes, and by showing them that courtesy I reduce the chances of me getting a ticket. Nothing wrong with teaching that in a class. Edited May 2, 2016 by DaveTN

[Hershmeister]

I think we got trolled in ranting 5pages

[chances R]

Dave the classes have outlines which have to be followed, to include certain videos. There are also discussions which include various topics of law. Those things you mentioned I bring up just for the reason you gave. One other reason it may keep one from having to guess what size bore they are staring at.

[JayC]

This isn't a generic video made by the NRA or some other association/training group.  It was made by TDOS with HCP Permit money...  I don't think it's unreasonable to expect they tell the exact requirements and not push an agenda which they obviously did in this video.

 

But again, the video has nothing to do with this topic really, they mention 'castle doctrine' for a few sentences and none of that conflicts with the basic review of the laws that have been posted here.

 

Dave the classes have outlines which have to be followed, to include certain videos. There are also discussions which include various topics of law. Those things you mentioned I bring up just for the reason you gave. One other reason it may keep one from having to guess what size bore they are staring at.

[chances R]

And IMO the video spends way too much time addressing alcohol.  Basically all they need to say is if one is carrying a firearm you cannot consume alcohol....zero, nadda, zilch.

[Oh Shoot]

And IMO the video spends way too much time addressing alcohol.  Basically all they need to say is if one is carrying a firearm you cannot consume alcohol....zero, nadda, zilch.

 

Well, that wouldn't be exactly correct according to TCA either.

 

- OS

[JayC]

Exactly ;)  And you catch them in the very last sentence talking about alcohol add the correct words...  but if you don't know the law already you would miss it entirely and think drinking is completely prohibited by law while carrying a firearm.  And again I don't think people should drink while carrying, but I also don't think we need a law against it either.

 

Well, that wouldn't be exactly correct according to TCA either.

 

- OS

[Dustbuster]

go to ring.com buy their stickup camera, mount it in your carport. it will send video or an alert to your cell phone etc and will ket you know and see activity in seconds. works like a charm!!!! have 200 for ring ready,and a baseball bat in hand. happy hunting


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk, its either this or smoke signals! Edited May 4, 2016 by Dustbuster

[chances R]

OK....please explain how one would justify drinking per TCA.

[DaveTN]

OK....please explain how one would justify drinking per TCA.

You can’t argue that you can drink alcohol unless you argue “under the influence”. Problem with that is that it doesn’t require being intoxicated or impaired, and has no BAC levels, or even the requirement that you be offered a BAC test.

So unless there is case law on it I would guess it would be you and the Officer showing up in front of the Judge and testifying as to what happened; and him making a decision. Good luck with that if you have been drinking and carrying.

[Oh Shoot]

OK....please explain how one would justify drinking per TCA.

 

My comment was not to "justify" it, only that TCA does not prohibit drinking and firearm possession per se, only that you can't drink at all in an establishment that sells booze for onsite consumption while packing.

 

As per Dave's post, other than that, it's a gray area call regarding being "under the influence". And note that even the drinking in the public establishment part makes a distinction between doing that at all and being under the influence while doing it, which garners an additional penalty.

 

- OS

Edited May 5, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[chances R]

The video explains varying levels of "influence". That would seem that any alcohol would violate 39-17-1321(a). For me, I will continue to teach that it is zero tolerance until someone argues successfully - on their dime - otherwise.

[JayC]

There is case law on being 'under the influence' of alcohol back before the MADD crappy laws were passed, there were a number of cases where BAC levels were argued in front of judges, and there are ruling from those cases that would still stand today...  You can't use those as precedence in cases involved the operating of a motor vehicle because the legislature has lowered the BAC level for the purpose of driving a vehicle/boat but they would probably still stand for operating a firearm.

 

More importantly, 39-17-1321a clearly does not prohibit all consumption of alcohol while carrying.  You're right at some point somebody will be stupid and get charged and we'll have better case law...  but lets not scare otherwise law abiding citizens that they can't carry a gun because they had a sip of beer at home 2 hours ago ;)

 

The video explains varying levels of "influence". That would seem that any alcohol would violate 39-17-1321(a). For me, I will continue to teach that it is zero tolerance until someone argues successfully - on their dime - otherwise.