Extended Castle Doctrine is law

[DaveTN]

In my opinion this legislation does not mean that you can’t be sued. It only has provisions for you to recover costs if the court so finds. If you shoot a bad guy and the States Attorney feels the shooting was justified and decides not to charge you criminally; I don’t think that is a ruling that the shooting was justified.

The dirt bags family can sue you and you will have to pay for your defense in civil court. If the civil court rules that you were justified they can order the person bringing the suit to pay your fees and costs. Anyone ever tried to collect a civil judgment from a dirt bag?

Just like the Florida law; this stops short of doing the right thing. This should be black or white. If you are not charged criminally, you should not be able to be charged civilly for shooting a person that is committing a crime against you. As I read this; that is not the case.

[Punisher84]

I don't know and I forgot to ask John Harris about this at the last meeting. I had read somewhere that there was a "safe harbor" provision that kept you from being charged for carrying illegally (only if the location made it a misdemeanor offense, not a felony) if you used the weapon in legitimate self defense.

I do not know if that is true or not!!! <-- Disclaimer, very important!

Just to let you know, it wasn't true. The old law actually left you very open ended, the new law offers far more protections if you read it thoroughly. The whole idea about not being prosecuted if you used your gun in self-defense when you were carrying illegally came from a situation where an older gentleman who was an ex-convict had his house broken into here in Memphis. He shot the two guys and killed one or both. Since he was an ex-con he had the gun illegally, but the DA didn't charge him because it was a good shoot.

Just about everyone that brings up the story of not being charged when carrying illegally, but acting correctly refers to that story when they talk to me about it. It's just like anything else, it's up to the DA to charge you or not.

[The Rabbi]

As I wrote above, police and prosecutors here have the right attitude overall and know an honest citizen from a criminal. They just will not charge someone involved in a good shoot on a technical violation. It would get laughed out of court, no jury is going to convict in this state. In MA, CA, IL, NY etc, all of that is out the window. Prosecutors will nail honest citizens for any reason at all because in those locales only police and criminals have/need guns so if you're not one you must be the other. Thats the thinking anyway.

[towerclimber37]

I agree with the last bit there, that is certainly a more pressing issue.

I think the main thrust of this law was giving the "presumptions" part. IMHO, that shouldn't be necessary (you know, innocent until proven guilty and all), and it's a sad state that they felt they had to enumerate the instances in which the presumptions were valid.

Also, I do think it was a grievious error to have the "unlawful" portions added, as that would include carrying in prohibited locations as Tungsten astutely pointed out.

I agree, and I think that one of the biggest and best provisions of this bill is where they give immunity to the victim from civil prosecution...thats a huge win no matter what!

remember before the law was signed, you could be found innocent in criminal court, but the bad guys' relatives could still sue you in civil court.

[The Rabbi]

I was relatively sure that was not the case, that TN had an exclusion if someone was shot while attempting to commit a crime.

Third parties of course are another matter.

[DaveTN]

I agree, and I think that one of the biggest and best provisions of this bill is where they give immunity to the victim from civil prosecution...thats a huge win no matter what!

remember before the law was signed, you could be found innocent in criminal court, but the bad guys' relatives could still sue you in civil court.

Maybe I’m reading the law wrong, but I disagree. This legislation provides for immunity from civil liability not civil prosecution; if.. “ the court finds that the person's use of force was justified.”

If you are charged criminally and found not guilty; a civil court Judge might dismiss a civil suit. But if you aren’t charged criminally (which most people won’t be in a good shooting) I’m guessing the bad guy or his family can still sue you. You will have to hire a lawyer and defend yourself.

As I said earlier and also about the Florida legislation this is far short of “You can’t be sued” legislation. This merely offers you an opportunity to get a judgment to recover your costs. IMHO this is a step in the right direction but it is surely nothing to get excited about.

Maybe someone can get John Harris to clarify this.

This bill provides immunity from civil liability for a person who uses lawful force in defense of self, others, or property except when the force is used against a law enforcement officer acting in an official capacity who identified himself or when the person using the force knew or should have known that the person against whom force was used was a law enforcement officer.

The court would award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by a person in defense of any civil action brought against the person based upon that person's use of force if the court finds that the person's use of force was justified.