TN Castle Laws!

[kckndrgn]

I'm guessing if the BG kicks in your door, but hasn't crossed the threshold yet when you stop him, Castle Law would apply.

I'm no physics expert but in order to break your door in, or break your window, they would have to "break the plane" as mentioned earlier, so they have already "entered".

I know that's splitting hairs. The way I have heard it explained if even a finger tip of the person has gone past the door/window frame they have entered your house or car.

I may be wrong, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not even a THCC instructor, I just didn't fall asleep in class

[ZenDog]

The Tueller Drill illustrates that waiting too long because of trying to be totally obviously legal can get you killed.

The aggressive threatening BG wielding a screwdriver or a crowbar can rapidly close the space between you and strike a fatal blow even after being shot- unless you use an RPG or something. My wife and I have made our decision- if they get in and advance, we will shoot them as much as needed until they stop advancing into our home. Then we'll retain Leslie Ballin if a defense is needed.

[Punisher84]

Also keep in mind that what gets you off the hook criminally, might be another matter civilly -- although you can certainly use the criminal allowance as evidence of an exception to civil liability.

Doesn't mean a civil jury will buy it, though.

Once again, that dog don't hunt anymore. With the new laws in place, if you are not held criminally liable you cannot be held liable in civil court. The new laws even state that if a suit IS brought the person must reward you all lawyer's fees, missed work, etc.

A suit can still be brought, but it was basically put in place to keep it from ever going to court because it's a lose/lose situation for anyone dumb enough to say " I was in his house and he shot me. I'd like damages please?"

.

[tnvols]

Criminally or civilly, plan to spend $30,000 to have someone explain your actions in court. My family's safety is worth it but, shooting someone for being in my yard???? Not so much.

agreed, but if you look at this from a woman's view.. say a crazy ex-boyfriend, thats got double the weight on her, is beating on her door... shoot 'em. you have no idea what he would do if he got in.. emphasis on *crazy* btw..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept derived from English Common Law, which designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.

[E4 No More]

I had a guy try to break into my house while I was living in Clarksville. Woke up in the middle of the night to a guy trying to break down the door. So I grabbed the 12 Gauge and went to the door. He said he wanted gas, and I told him to get off my porch. I racked the shotgun and he ran off. I probably should have shot first, but control got the better of me.

I'd say it was good judgement.

[E4 No More]

I'm an ex-LEO from 15 years ago in Missouri, and I do not pretend that Tennessee law is familiar to me. So with that qualifying statement, (both good and bad), what I will say is that to kick the door in requires breaking the plane and thus entry: however, you are much better off to shoot only if it's the last resort unless you have the money to defend your actions in ANY court. You are much better off, (financially), to scare them off with things like racking the shotgun. If you do shoot, make sure you are deadly accurate so that the BG isn't able to come up with some fantasy BS explanation that will create any doubt in a jury's mind during a civil trial.

[Guest Astra900]

THe man who gave me my carry permit course (RIP ole buddy) was a retired FBI and he told us, it's a horrible truth, but IF you have to shoot someone.....KILL them, make no mistakes, because they will glamorize the whole deal and sue you in civil court, and you could lose everything! That's the of our legal system. Plain and simple, if it's the last resort, do it and remember that dead men tell no tales.

[Guest HexHead]

THe man who gave me my carry permit course (RIP ole buddy) was a retired FBI and he told us, it's a horrible truth, but IF you have to shoot someone.....KILL them, make no mistakes, because they will glamorize the whole deal and sue you in civil court, and you could lose everything! That's the of our legal system. Plain and simple, if it's the last resort, do it and remember that dead men tell no tales.

But isn't one of the provisions of TN's Castle Law that you're shielded from those lawsuits?

[Guest Astra900]

Doesn't matter. I can sue you in civil court for farting next to me. Where do you think all the insane lawsuits you read about go to. It almost seems that the written law and common sense are banned from civil court.

[Guest GUTTERbOY]

Doesn't matter. I can sue you in civil court for farting next to me.

Maybe, but you won't win.

[Guest Astra900]

Maybe, but you won't win.

I'm just sayin'. There are cases in Kalifornia where people are suing GOD. Now while suing our Lord or a suit over flatulence may be silly, there are crazy cases argued in court everyday. People lose everything in these cases, why? A good attorney and a dip:poop: jury. It happens.

[Punisher84]

I keep saying though.... If you are not legally liable you are NOT liable in a civil suit.

The case will be thrown out IF it's ever even heard.

[E4 No More]

I keep saying though.... If you are not legally liable you are NOT liable in a civil suit.

The case will be thrown out IF it's ever even heard.

Do you mean like OJ? Yes, that's extreme, but the only time I was sued as an LEO was when I didn't do what I was accused of, and there were 3rd party witnesses who testified that I didn't do what I was accused of.

Edited December 12, 2008 by SWJewellTN

[Punisher84]

Do you mean like OJ? Yes, that's extreme, but the only time I was sued as an LEO was when I didn't do what I was accused of, and there were 3rd party witnesses who testified that I didn't do what I was accused of.

No, not like OJ. TN state law specifically states that if you are found to be justified in using deadly force then you are not liable in a civil suit.

Yes you can be sued, but the case will be thrown out. The law was put in place to dissuade lawyers from taking up frivilous lawsuits against people defending their lives.

The law also states you will be rewarded all reasonable loss of work and lawyer's fees that you incur should someone actually attempt to sue you.

It's basically just a roadblock to keep you from going to civil court if you acted in self-defense and were cleared legally.

[Guest Astra900]

That's good to know:up:

[E4 No More]

No, not like OJ. TN state law specifically states that if you are found to be justified in using deadly force then you are not liable in a civil suit.

Yes you can be sued, but the case will be thrown out. The law was put in place to dissuade lawyers from taking up frivilous lawsuits against people defending their lives.

The law also states you will be rewarded all reasonable loss of work and lawyer's fees that you incur should someone actually attempt to sue you.

It's basically just a roadblock to keep you from going to civil court if you acted in self-defense and were cleared legally.

Please don't take this wrong, (my LEO service was in Missouri), but considering my very experienced HCP trainer was adamant that you would be sued even after a righteous shoot, would you please give your source? I've been looking through the statutes, and I cannot find anything saying you were exempted from a civil suit. I am no lawyer, but it is my understanding that Castle Law is from Common Law, and the latter is superceded by Statutory law.

[Fallguy]

Please don't take this wrong, (my LEO service was in Missouri), but considering my very experienced HCP trainer was adamant that you would be sued even after a righteous shoot, would you please give your source? I've been looking through the statutes, and I cannot find anything saying you were exempted from a civil suit. I am no lawyer, but it is my understanding that Castle Law is from Common Law, and the latter is superceded by Statutory law.

As was said, you can be sued, but if it ruled justified the person bringing the suite can not prevail and has to pay some of your expenses

39-11-622 Justification for use of force — Exceptions — Immunity from civil liability.

(a) (1) A person who uses force as permitted in §§ 39-11-611 — 39-11-614 or § 29-34-201, is justified in using such force and is immune from civil liability for the use of such force, unless:

(A)

The person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in §

39-11-106

who:

(i)

Was acting in the performance of the officer's official duties; and

(ii)

Identified the officer in accordance with any applicable law; or

(iii)

The person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer; or

(

The force used by the person resulted in property damage to or the death or injury of an innocent bystander or other person against whom the force used was not justified.

( The court shall 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 the person's use of force, if the court finds that the defendant was justified in using such force pursuant to §§ 39-11-611 — 39-11-614 or § 29-34-201.

[E4 No More]

As was said, you can be sued, but if it ruled justified the person bringing the suite can not prevail and has to pay some of your expenses

Thanks for that. It's nice to know you get BS information from your "experienced" HCP instructor.

[E4 No More]

One last thing: Is a prosecutor chosing not to prosecute considered the same thing in this state as a ruling of a justifiable homicide from a jury or judge? I ask because prosecutors don't always pursue a case that they think they'll lose, and if their judgement isn't the same as a ruling, then the above wouldn't apply, would it?

[Fallguy]

One last thing: Is a prosecutor chosing not to prosecute considered the same thing in this state as a ruling of a justifiable homicide from a jury or judge? I ask because prosecutors don't always pursue a case that they think they'll lose, and if their judgement isn't the same as a ruling, then the above wouldn't apply, would it?

I'm not sure, but I don't think so. If the DA did not bring charges in the shooting and you were sued, it would be up the judge/jury in that suit as to whether it was justified for the purposes of that suit. (I think). But the DA not bringing charges would have to go a long way in your favor.

Also if it was presented to a grand jury and they returned a no bill, still don' think that is the same as it being ruled justified for the purposes of a law suit.

I think the hope is that if a DA doesn't bring charges or a grand jury doesn't return a true bill, that most lawyers wouldn't take a civil suit without really thinking they could prove their case, which should be hard since no criminal charges were brought. But there are all types of lawywers out there.

As far as HCP instructors giving out wrong information, it seems to happen more than it should.

[Punisher84]

Please don't take this wrong,

Believe me I didn't I like to ask for sources myself, I've seen alot of Instructor "experts" that will probably land half their classes in jail.

I was going to post sources, but I was at work and short on time. Thanks again for Fallguy beating me to the punch.

[kckndrgn]

Thanks for that. It's nice to know you get BS information from your "experienced" HCP instructor.

When did you get your TN HCP? That would have a bearing on whether your instructor was wrong or not. Since TN "castle" law just went into effect within the last year, if you had taken your HCP class prior to that, what your instructor said was true.

I may be wrong, and will be corrected shortly if I am

[Punisher84]

When did you get your TN HCP? That would have a bearing on whether your instructor was wrong or not. Since TN "castle" law just went into effect within the last year, if you had taken your HCP class prior to that, what your instructor said was true.

I may be wrong, and will be corrected shortly if I am

That's a good point.

[Guest Provence]

I thankful for the immunity provided in 39-11-622 but the likelihood of being sued and being out time and money is still there.

Say the family of the BG sues you even though you is was a righteous shoot and you were never charged. You hire an attorney who files a motion for dismissal based on 39-11-622. Plaintiff's attorney answers the motion and contends that 39-11-622 does not apply in this case. The court sets a hearing on these motions. . . The case drags on for a while.

Even if the court ultimately finds in your favor, you have spent your time, your money, and had aggravation and stress throughout the process. The court orders the Plaintiffs to pay your expenses, but they don't have two nickels to rub together. They don't have jobs any more than their dearly beloved relative did when he was shot while trying to rob you.

[E4 No More]

When did you get your TN HCP? That would have a bearing on whether your instructor was wrong or not. Since TN "castle" law just went into effect within the last year, if you had taken your HCP class prior to that, what your instructor said was true.

I may be wrong, and will be corrected shortly if I am

I took the class last August.