Tennessee's new "Castle Doctrine."

S

Samurai

New member
Tennessee has apparently just passed a new castle doctrine. Among the "cool" things in the law, there is a provision which prevents civil lawsuits against people who use justified self-defense. Also, the first sub-part of the law disposes of any "duty to retreat," anywhere, at any place, at any time, provided you have a right to be there.

I found a version of the law on the Tennessee Legislature's webpage. For this thread, please read the law carefully.

http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/bills/currentga/Amend/HA0176.pdf

My question is this: What happens when you shoot from within your "vehicle or residence" at a person who is outside your "vehicle or residence"? In other words, do you have to wait until the bad-guy has actually entered your vehicle before you shoot them, or can you shoot them if they are merely trying to enter your vehicle? How about your house? Can you stand in the house and shoot a guy who is on your porch or in your yard?

Take some time with this one. The law is complex and there are subtle fine points. Your comments are welcome.
 
I have to admit, I haven't read Tenn. new law but it sounds similar to Fl.'s and I can relate a couple of incidents that happened here since it was enacted last year.

The first incident was a neighborhood dispute. I'll call them neighbor 1 and neighbor 2. This is a waterfront neighborhood so they can see each others back yards across the water, a 100ft wide canal. Neighbor 1 was recently divorced so he was enjoying his new found freedomw ith his friends. They had recently before the shooting started skateboading in his empty pool. Well, none of the neighbors appreciated it because it echoed loudly across the water. Neighbor 2 got tired of it and went over to neighbor 1's house and asked them to stop. Neighbor 1 said go float your boat buddy. Within the next week Neighbor 1 had his tires slashed. Neighbor 1 continued his partying and skateboarding in the pool. One night around 2am they were up to their fun and I'm not clear if neighbor 2 said anything or what happened to cause the confrontation. But Neghbor 1 and two of his buddies went over to neighbor 2's house at around 2 am or so and started banging on his door and yelling obsenities. Neighbor 2 opened the door and shot neighbor 1 and killed him. The freinds ran away. It was ruled self defense because of the disparity of force even though they never entered the house or had any deadly weapons. He was never arrested.

Incident 2 was a domestic dispute. They argued. She left the house with some male friends. Apparently there was some phone threats from her friends. She told him she just wanted to come over to get her stuff. She came over with her friends but no police and proceeded to pound on the door which he wouldn't open because he said he was afraid her friends were going to harm him. She didn't have her keys so she counldn't get in. She broke a side-light window next to the door and was reaching in to unlock it when he fired a 22 rifle threw the door striking and killing her. He was arrested and stood trial. He was found not guilty probably because of the castle doctrine. Another disparity of force also? I would agree. I certainly wouldn't have shot threw the door blindly but I can understand his side. His arrest and trial may have also been because we have an exemption for all permanent occupants to the household to prevent dv I assume. She was outside and breaking in even though she was a permanent resident of that household.

It's nice knowing the criminals relatives cannot sue you civily.

:)
 
Hmmm... interesting...

So, Neighbor 1 was a jack-tard, acted like a royal pain for many, many days, and after being asked to stop many times, he finally took the fight to Neighbor 2's doorstep, along with friends to back him up... Idiot Neighbor 1 pounds on the door at 2 am shouting obscenities, until Neighbor 2 finally shoots him. Yeah, that's a hard one for the Prosecutor to sell to the jury. I'd have probably not pressed charges either.

As for the domestic disturbance, that one's puzzling... It's not uncommon at all during a split-up for a female to bring male escorts over to the house while she moves out her stuff. Yet, he was justified in shooting her through the door??? I wonder if there's some "reading between the lines" to be done here... What don't we know about this case?...

Good comments! Keep 'em coming!
 
Those two stories really give munchies for thought.

Is the "disparity of force" bit really that broadly defined? An ex-girlfriend climbing through your window, or your rambunctuous neighbor hardly counts as a knife weilding rapist chasing 95-pound lady. A line has to be drawn somewhere.

Even all you GOA no-compromises dudes have to admit that shouting obscenities at 2 a.m. does not count as a life-threatening situation.

I do like the no "duty to retreat" thing though.
 
that one's puzzling.
Click to expand...

It was a side-light window. She wasn't climbing through. A hand and arm was reaching in to unlock the door. She should have contacted the police. I'm positive they would have been happy to accompany her.
Yes, "disparity of force" is really big. Think about all the child gangs down in brazil. Even though they may only weigh in at 75 lbs. when there is more of them than you they can easily take you down.

But who really knows if they were going to attack him. You don't. He was at home at 2 am. He had no duty to retreat. They were the aggressors. They have no excuse to go over there yelling obscenities at 2 am.

I'm playing the devils advocate here because I don't think I would have done the same thing in the same circumstances but the law is designed to especially protect the homeowner from criminals.
 
I would say that shouting obscenities at 2 am, while pounding on your door, actually DOES constitute life-threatening behavior, if those obscenities include the words, "Open this door; I'm gonna kill you," or some variation thereof.

Still, I get your point, and it's the point of this thread: Where is the line? Do you have to wait for the person to open a hole in the door wide enough for them to fit through? Or, do they just have to be reaching in through a busted window? Do they even have to be reaching in at all!?!? Or, can they simply be pounding outside your door, shouting obscenities and threatening to kill you?

Tough question. That's why I brought it here.

Edit: Oooh! Oooh! New thought: What if Neighbor 1 had been standing on his own property, shouting obscenities at Neighbor 2 and walking aggressively toward Neighbor 2 (weapon in hand, or whatever makes the fact pattern show present ability to inflict harm...). Can Neighbor 2 stand on his own property and shoot into Neighbor 1's property, thereby killing Neighbor 1 in self-defense? I believe that, by the new Tennessee law, Neighbor 2 would NOT get the benefit of the presumption of reasonable fear of imminent death or severe bodily injury. Thoughts?
 
Yeah, good topic. I think the bottom line is every incident will be given it's own examination as they should but within the guidelines of law abiding citizens no longer have an obligation or a duty to retreat from someplace they are legally allowed to be at and especially not our homes and our vehicles and are being given the benefit of the doubt back like, we should have.

The tide is turning back to the people being considered innocent until proven guilty, at the state level anyway, instead of "how dare you protect yourself."
 
Can Neighbor 2 stand on his own property and shoot into Neighbor 1's property, thereby killing Neighbor 1 in self-defense? I believe that, by the new Tennessee law, Neighbor 2 would NOT get the benefit
Click to expand...

Of course he would be covered. Neighbor 1 is still the aggressor and has the means to inflict great bodily harm with a deadly weapon and he is advancing aggressively which makes it an imminent fear. I believe this would also be a good example of stand your ground anywhere.
 
Look at this from the other POV:

Neighbor 1 comes in at 2 am and bangs on door. Not a very smart idea.

Lady comes in with friends (Who threatened the homeowner via phone - a federal no-no) and tries to break in. Another darwin idea.

If both parties sobered up and thought about this BEFORE they did these not very intelligent actions - they would probably still be alive.
 
The way I read it, yes.

Provided the force you use is "necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force."

I would see it as no different than being on the street with your firearm concealed on your person and having to defend yourself. Again, provided you are in a place in which you have the right to be, and you believe yourself to be in imminent danger.

Danger changes with distance. A man [in his yard] is only threating to me [in my yard] if he has a means to hurt me (i.e. a projectile weapon). A man [on my porch] is threatening to me [in my doorway] if he is within range of his weapons (be it fists, baseball bat, etc.), and shows he intends on using said weapon(s).

My biggest question about this Castle Doctrine is does one's locked vehicle count the same as one's locked house? What about on school property?
 
What if I was the really, really paranoid ("they're watching me... they're always watching!") and easily spooked type, and one day, a baseball-sized projectile comes flying through my window, followed by a bunch of very shady looking kids, wearing clothes with matching colors (a gang thing), baseball-style gloves (to avoid leaving fingerprints), and holding giant wooden clubs (the kind you use to beat people!), and their shoes have giant spikes (the better to kick you in the face with).

They come to my property. They looked really anxious.

"But officer, they threw stuff at me, and they came with weapons! They looked like gangbangers! I had to defend myself!"

As John Rambo says, "They drew first blood!"
 
By my reading of the law, yes! Your vehicle is your "castle," and you have the right to defend it, provided the requisite "reasonable fear, blah, blah" exists. You can defend your vehicle like you would defend your house.

Now, it has always been legal in Tennessee to carry in your car, even on school grounds. (Lots of technicalities about only being on school grounds for purposes of dropping off or picking up kids, or other such brief purposes, etc... The law on carrying on school grounds is COMPLICATED!) So, if you're threatened in your vehicle on school grounds, then I would say that you could shoot. (Provided you have the "right to be there," i.e., you're not on the grounds for an "unlawful purpose," i.e., you're not carrying illegally. Again, gun law on school grounds is very complicated.)

And, remember, all the new law does is give you the presumption in court that you were in reasonable fear of imminent danger. That presumption can STILL be refuted. So, I would say that if you're in a parking lot, and you see a guy picking the lock on your car, you can't just sneak up behind him and shoot him in the head. That wouldn't be "reasonable fear of imminent harm." But, if you yelled at the guy to stop, and he spun around on you, then you wouldn't have to go much further before you would be justified in shooting, and protected by the law.

Thoughts?
 
Applesanity, if you're that paranoid, should you be allowed to own a firearm in the first place? That's an entirely different topic, I'm just saying...

In that wonderfully produced video they made us watch for our carry permits in TN, I believe this situation is presented exactly. A man is in his living room reading, watching TV, etc., whereupon he hears a noise. After investigating, he finds a rather surly individual trying to break into his car. He yells at the would be robber, who runs away. (In the video the guy shoots, showing what not to do in a real scenario.)

In the next scenario, same setup, same thing happens, except the car jacker turns and starts stalking toward the homeowner, who pulls his gun and shoots.

Samurai, I believe you bring up a good point. Yes it would still be legally wrong to shoot the man in the back as he runs away, but if he turns in a threatening manner (possibly brandishing a gun) and you shoot, there is less required of you to defend your actions.

Just be sure it's your car and not one similar.:eek:
 
Just be sure it's your car and not one similar.
Click to expand...

And why should that matter? If you yelled at someone breaking into a car, and they turned and started toward you threateningly, and you believe they have the means and the intent to cause you grevious bodily injury, it would be a justifiable shoot if they didn't stop when you draw. Whether it's your car or not is irrelevant.
 
Applesanity, if you're that paranoid, should you be allowed to own a firearm in the first place? That's an entirely different topic, I'm just saying...
Click to expand...

No, I'm generally a pacifist when comes to matters that I'm involved in personally. If I ever have to pull the trigger on someone, I'll probably end up hating myself for a long time. But hating yourself is better than being dead. I will pull.

I'm just saying - as are many others - where do you draw the line?

The one thing that should be black and white, though, is the burden of proof. It should always be the prosecutor's burden to prove I acted with malicious intent, and not my burden to prove my innocence.
 
Cpaspr, you're right, but please understand I was joking (hence the crazy bug-eyed animation I inserted at the end). That said, you know how the legal system and the general mentality of our society goes. Their first question would not be, "Why was he breaking into the car?" It would be "Why did you provoke this mislead youth?"

Applesanity, I understand what you're saying. This is something we all, at the point in which we as a civilian choose to go armed, must figure out for ourselves. We must know where our line in the sand is. The classes one takes in order to get their permit, and hopefully the continuing education one seeks afterward, should help them understand whether their line needs to be moved a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top