Fallguy

Welcome

I've got to work, otherwise would have loved to come. Let us know how it goes.

Pretty funny....

39-14-205 Intentional killing of animal. ( A person is justified in killing the animal of another if the person acted under a reasonable belief that the animal was creating an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to that person or another or an imminent danger of death to an animal owned by that person. A person is not justified in killing the animal of another if at the time of the killing the person is trespassing upon the property of the owner of the animal. The justification for killing the animal of another authorized by this subsection ( shall not apply to a person who, while engaging in or attempting to escape from criminal conduct, kills a police dog that is acting in its official capacity. In that case the provisions of subsection (a) shall apply to the person.

I think if you simply appeal their decision as you can under 39-17-1353 (looks like they enclosed the form to do that) and show them the order of dismissal of the Order of Protection they should reinstate without any problem. Of course I know this is more time out of your life that there is no compensation for..... Guess it's the back log why it took a month from the time the ex parte order was issued until the revocation letter... I'm still somewhat amazed about how little it took to get an ex parte order of protection for a stalking by a stranger.... I am proponent of OC if that is what the person wants to do, but I have to wonder if it played a factor in this case, had she not claimed you were armed, would it have made a difference? Guess we'll never really know.

Um....no it doesn't... Below is when self-defense applies.... 39-11-611 ...and below are the places where it is presumed you are in fear of death or great bodily harm. 39-11-611© (current) 39-11-611© as in HB3509 Both say "within a" not "within your own" Here are the defintions for residence, business, dwelling and vehicle. 39-11-611(a) as in HB3590 (Same as current 39-11-611(a), just "Business" is added) As you can see it says "Dwelling" is building or coneyance of any kind, not just yours; a "Vehicle" is any motorized vehicle not just yours; and a residence is either where you live OR are there as invited guest.

To add to above, remember as others have said, a presumption is just that. If the DA can prove you weren't in fear of your life or great bodily harm you could still be charged. Of course whether he would do that would depend on the circumstances. The one case I know of was when a new boyfriend shot the old boyfriend in the girlfriends house. As it turned out the girlfriend had asked to the old boyfriend to come over. But anyway. After reading the bill a little further it seems to almost grant more of presumption to business owners and those hired to protect the business than people in there own house. As it is now a person has to break in to your Residence or a Dwelling within your curtilage before the law presumes you in fear of death or great bodily harm. Not just kick the gate down on you picket white fence. The new bill for business says...shall include the interior and exterior premises of such business. Now, I could be reading that wrong, but as I take it let's say you have a junk yard with a fence that surrounds the grounds. If some runs a car through the gate of that fence they have unlawfully and forcibilly entered the "exterior premises" of that business, right? Also it seems the bill trys to clear up the part 39-17-1322 a little bit. As far as the places/activites where the presumptions don't apply the new bill says.. Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, the person using force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, business, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; Although I know some might still not agree, I think in the other thread we established that 39-17-1322 still applies and this is an attempt to make it more clear that you have to be engaged in a unlawful activity or using the dwelling, business, residence of occupied vehicle to further an unlawful actvity.

Welcome

You can use deadly force for self-defense ANYWHERE you are not engaged in illegal activity, if you are in fear of death or great bodily harm. T.C.A. 39-11-611 There are a list of places in 39-11-611© where the law presumes you are in fear of death or great bodily harm if someone breaks in. They are a residence, dwelling or vehicle. HB3509 would add "business" to that list of places. The bill defines a business as.... (1) “Business†means a commercial enterprise or establishment owned by a person as all or part of such person’s livelihood, or is under the owner’s control or who is an employee or agent of the owner with responsibility for protecting persons and property and shall include the interior and exterior premises of such business;

Probably with a camera when he was at her door.

Yep...I think JavaGuy sums it up fairly well and as it seems all view points have been discussed many times...I think it is time for this thread to close.

Welcome

Yep...good situational awarness...and glad it was nothing more than an anxious friend.

I think he is saying that the dispatcher would take the info that comes back on checking the plate to see if that person has a DL/HCP, which can be done. Of course this has been discussed in other threads....nothing says the registered owner is the one driving, even if it is nothing says that because he has a HCP he is armed at that time. However when I was dispatching and went to the TIES (TN Information Enforcement System) class, they told us we aren't supposed to do anything without the officers request first...so while no one will really know I guess...not supposed to get ahead of the game.

I agree with that....

Southron Boy help us out....I think there are two different situations... In Dave's case it sounds like the DA appealed because the judge made a procedural error. Which they can do. But the state can't appeal simply because the don't like the verdict, like a defendant can. Right?

My apologies Dave....I took that to mean you were saying No (you shouldn't refuse the request to search) it would be ignorant. LOL...no I've not been drinking....though I could use one but it's off to work soon so it'll have to wait for the weekend. I probably read it with my presumption of your meaning. Not and excuse, just and explination....those are two different things of course.

I admit I am losing my taste for all of this, but Dave I have to ask. Why is refusing a request to search such a bad idea? I mean hell let's anyone just do any damn thing they want..... Maybe next time the officer will ask your wife for some favor to get out of the ticket...hell that's fine because he is a LEO and we can't or shouldn't say no..... Sorry.....got a little off base, but decided to leave it on here.

I did not say what treatment would make someone feel like a criminal. As far as being ordered out of the car, it would depend on the situation if it made some feel like a criminal I guess. Especially if the LEO is doing it just to show he can for no other valid reason.

As a LEO... Thinking everyone is a criminal and mentally preparing what to do, will get you home safe at night. Treating everyone as a criminal will get you a reputation as a-hole officer.

Cool beans...

Yes, ex parte, means at least one person (party) wasn't present. Yes a hearing is required before a regular Order of Protection can be issued. You are right about the basic reason emergency ex parte orders should be issued and your case didn't seem to quite meet that standard, that is why I was curious. From what Tungsten said, maybe it was Judge Robinson that issued the ex parte order. But all in the past now anyway.

For that matter how do we know the back of the bag isn't slit wide open and is just being held close by the guy's hand? But it does make for a funny pic....

Glad it worked out for ya.... Out of curiosity, was it the same judge that issued the ex parte order in the first place? I've always thought a person had to show pretty good cause to get an ex parte order of protection issued. Usually both people have to appear before and order of protection is issued, a judge an issue one ex parte if the other party can't be found, doesn't show up or the one can show good cause at that moment. Just curious as to why the original judge found sufficient cause to issue one ex parte in the first place.

Um.....as long as it doesn't have to be issued by the court, I think I can come up with one....lol