A simple summary of the Tennessee Castle Law

[Fallguy]

Although I don't think you have to go this far on your own property you can always make a citizens arrest 40-7-109 Of course the amount of force you can use in making the arrest is about the same as protection of property 39-11-1322.

However one reason I say you don't have to arrest them is you can confine a person if you can legally use force 39-11-603

So while I'm not saying it hasn't happened to others, if I'm ever arrested or charged for using force (non-deadly of course) for protecting my property....a lawsuit is the next step after the charges are dismissed.

Edited July 30, 2009 by Fallguy

[mrbond]

you can not use deadly force just to protect property or terminate trespass.

The second item is why I still give serious thought about moving to TX.

The neighboring state of Georgia allows you to use deadly force to protect your property. When my dad (from Georgia) was visiting me in Tennessee, he was surprised that TN doesn't allow you to use deadly force to protect your property.

Edited July 30, 2009 by mrbond

[E4 No More]

Ain't it something in our society where the criminal can sue the homeowner for injuries sustained during his criminal actions. WTF kind of jury started that one?

[Fallguy]

The neighboring state of Georgia allows you to use deadly force to protect your property. When my dad (from Georgia) was visiting me in Tennessee, he was surprised that TN doesn't allow you to use deadly force to protect your property.

I don't think that is 100% correct.

O.C.G.A. § 16-3-24 says you can use deadly force to protect property only if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

O.C.G.A. § 16-1-3.(6) defines a forcible felony as any felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any person.

So it is very close as the same as TN.

The main difference on using deadly force in protection of property is:

in TN you have to reasonably be in imminent fear of death or serious bodily injury (Self-defense)

in GA you only have to reasonably believe the other persons is using or threating the use of force or violence against you.

So while it doesn't seem to have quite as high of a standard as TN, in GA you still can't use deadly force just to protect property like in TX.

TX Penal code Sections 9.41 & 9.42 Hell in TX you can even use deadly force to protect a third persons property Section 9.43 Remember Joe Horn?

[Guest NeuralFizz]

According to that Wiki article,

"Quanell X said he is meeting with civil attorneys to discuss the next legal move. He said he planned to lobby lawmakers to change the Castle Doctrine, which he believes is racially motivated."

Racial Motivated? That's nuts.

[Guest NeuralFizz]

Oops, double.

So essentially this guy is saying only white people own property, if this law is racially motivated.

[wjh2657]

If I have a house break in the last thing I am going to be considering is the BG's color. Chances are he will have his face and hands covered anyways and I won't know his race until the police officer takes his ski mask off! In my area I have a much higher chance it will be a another white. probably a crackhead or overzealous 19-21 year old local punk.

[Guest 3pugguy]

Ain't it something in our society where the criminal can sue the homeowner for injuries sustained during his criminal actions. WTF kind of jury started that one?

The same kind made up of people who believe in such mythical creatures as an economic stimulus or effective government run healthcare.

[Guest Muttling]

According to that Wiki article,

"Quanell X said he is meeting with civil attorneys to discuss the next legal move. He said he planned to lobby lawmakers to change the Castle Doctrine, which he believes is racially motivated."

Racial Motivated? That's nuts.

Quanell is a hate mongerer. He's got such a history of inciting violence and riots that the Nation of Islam threw him out of their organization. He can spew all he likes, he won't get anywhere.

[OngoingFreedom]

I'm not satisfied the OP was answered in regards to the "Castle Doctrine," so I went to Wikipedia. This description seemed pretty good.

[Fallguy]

I still really feel that "Castle Doctrine" or "Castle Laws" are really bad terms.

Just because State A and State B both have what they may call the Castle Doctrine doesn't mean their laws are anywhere near the same on self-defense or defense of property.

Also I think the Orginal Question was about TN laws, not the laws across the land.

[Guest Son of Aslan]

Ain't it something in our society where the criminal can sue the homeowner for injuries sustained during his criminal actions. WTF kind of jury started that one?

A friend told me that today. He said that if a customer is in a bank during a armed robbery, and the gunman, with his bounty, turns to walk out of the building, and the customer pulls his gun and aims it at the robber, the robber is justified in dropping the customer.

My friend was apparently told this while taking a permit course.

It is really one thing to have differing political opinions, but it seems to me like there is no common sense in some of these laws.

[OngoingFreedom]

Waitaminit, "armed" robbery implies the use of or threat of deadly force, right? Might not be too hard to sell to a jury.

[Fallguy]

A friend told me that today. He said that if a customer is in a bank during a armed robbery, and the gunman, with his bounty, turns to walk out of the building, and the customer pulls his gun and aims it at the robber, the robber is justified in dropping the customer.

My friend was apparently told this while taking a permit course.

It is really one thing to have differing political opinions, but it seems to me like there is no common sense in some of these laws.

Well...let me ask you this....in the situation you describe above, how is the customer justified in shooting the robber? You've said he has turned and walked out. So there is no longer and imminet threat of death or serious bodily harm.

Now if the customer would have shot at him while he was still in the process of robbing the place with the gun out....probably a whole different story.

You know my feelings on protection of property, so I'm not saying it's right, just that it is the way it is.

We had a discussion on this part of it before, but after looking a little closer, as far as I can tell, commiting a crime does not mean you give up your right to self-defense. It only means the parts about no duty to retreat and presumed to be in fear of imminet death or serious bodily harm to do not apply. So as long as the criminal can show he had no way of getting out of the siuation or that he was trying to get out of it and he can prove he was in reasonable fear of imminet death or serious bodily harm, even the BG can claim self-defense.

[Currently]

Just because you have a HCP does not give you the same rights and duties as a LEO. You are not a comic book hero trying to rescue the helpless and get a pat on the back when you do it.

Lord only knows how many "whackers" are out there pretending that they are pseudo-LEO's and really believe they have to power to protect the public. Believing that they have that power automatically puts into question their rationality and judgement.

The HCP grants you the power to protect yourself against threat of grievous bodily injury or death. PERIOD. You may choose to use that power to protect someone else facing that situation, however, don't be surprised if your motives and personal life comes under a microscope where you have to defend your actions in a court of law.

That, by the way, will cost you a lot of money and time.

With power comes responsibilty. Use it wisely or it will bite you in the a$$.

[Worriedman]

Sound advise in the last two post.

Not even LEO's are "required" to intervene in a robbery attempt, however, they can, where a HCP Holder does not have that leeway, unless by invoking their right to perform a "Citizens arrest." But as Currently stated, be prepared to spend a lot of time and money defending your thought process.

TN law holds that LEO’s have no duty to prevent crime, only to investigate it.

There is no such legal duty for either "on duty" or "off duty" officer. On and off duty officers are not a separate "class" of citizens. Police officers are citizens engaged in a specific category of employment - they are not a better nor a worse "class" of citizen as a consequence of their jobs.

Officers "on duty" have no specific duty to intervene to stop a crime in progress (most will, should the situation warrant in their estimation). They have the authority to do so (just as any citizen can effect a citizen's arrest) but not the obligation to do so, as stated by the TN Supreme Court in it's Revco decision.

HCP Holders would do well to revisit the civil and criminal laws that govern the use of deadly force.

[Guest Muttling]

Ain't it something in our society where the criminal can sue the homeowner for injuries sustained during his criminal actions. WTF kind of jury started that one?

Filing a suit and winning a suit are very different things. You can sue for absolutely anything (as it should be), but you have to spend money to file the suit and you can be counter sued for filing a frivilous law suit.

It's actually pretty rare for someone to win suits like the one you describe.

[Guest jwb68]

Threads like this meander around and all kinds of crazy stuff gets thrown out. Of course you can stop someone on your property from stealing your stereo. Turn that shotty around and because you were not rambo cool and put the folder or pistol grip on it smack him in the teeth with it AFTER you have told him who you are and to get out of your car.

If he comes after you hit him again. The trick is to cause him to focus on the blood an broken teeth and not focus on your stereo. You cant shoot him though... after all it only a car stereo.

[Guest carter]

if I’m not mistaken...I remember something about "if the BG is ONLY committing a felony" in my HCP class…if someone remembers or what that‘s in reference to please elaborate...I have some nasty Fox pepper foam if I decide to confront someone on my property... I will use that first... and a few pair of handcuffs you can detain someone until LEO arrives you can also tell them they are under arrest ... but this is how it went down... few weeks ago I was sitting on my couch...I sleep weird hours being I work 7p-7a so on my off days I’m up all hours usually... I just happened to look out my front door window about 4am or so...and saw a bicycle on its side in my driveway (live in an older neighbor hood and very short driveway) so...I grab my trusty G19 and cell phone and call the police... the dispatcher was very nice, I told her what was going on...haven't seen anyone YET just the bicycle and thought it was odd like someone had gotten off the bike and laid it down walked some where close to my house like UP MY DRIVE WAY maybe... so she dispatched 3 police officers... I had my flood lights on and told the dispatcher I was armed but am not going outside... so yea seemed like it took for ever for the officers to come... but I think they where looking around the neighbor hood for people or person walking first... I was peaking out the window...saw an officer walk by my truck gun drawn and weapon mounted light on, the dispatcher told me to put my gun up per officer request...( didn't do that until the officer knocked on the door) and I go outside...knew all of them from work, stood in the driveway and chatted a bit, they told me I have a free bicycle now (which was a POS and is still sitting beside my trashcan) and said I did the right thing...by calling them, also glanced over and saw my GPS gleaming from my truck, I had accidentally left it on that night... and thought I bet that's what they wanted, so I go over and get it out the truck... and that was about it...

I did get all pumped up at first...but was not going outside to confront anyone... but if they tried to gain entry and confronted me... I would have shot, I NEVER keep anything valuable in my vehicle that I couldn't replace easily or insurance wouldn't cover, my neighbor has had her house broken into 4 times since Christmas eve (I think they have something against her) so I am on the look out all the time, and will not hesitate to call the police, I have had someone kick in my door before when I lived in Antioch... but was not armed then (which was pointless, there where about 5 people outside my door...they kicked it in and then hauled ass... then came back when we weren't home and robbed us) also my roommate now has had his car gone threw because he forgot to lock his doors... Nothing was stolen though

This stuff is very real and happens....

[Fallguy]

if I’m not mistaken...I remember something about "if the BG is ONLY committing a felony" in my HCP class…if someone remembers or what that‘s in reference to please elaborate

Well you are remembering wrong (perhaps) or the instructor was wrong (more likely). Other states mention that phrase but it is not in TN law.

The laws you want to see are §§ 39-11-611 -- 39-11-614 at http://www.michie.com/tennessee/

Basically you can only use deadly force if you have a "reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury."

If you are within your "residence, business, dwelling or vehicle" and someone "unlawfully and focibly" enters it is presumed you had that belief.

You can not use deadly force to protect property unless a situation comes up that would be covered under self-defense above.

[E4 No More]

Filing a suit and winning a suit are very different things. You can sue for absolutely anything (as it should be), but you have to spend money to file the suit and you can be counter sued for filing a frivilous law suit.

It's actually pretty rare for someone to win suits like the one you describe.

Yet it has happened neverhteless.

[Guest mds3d]

One thing...

Someone above mentioned something about a Bank Robber being justified in self-defense because he was leaving and no longer a threat...

Doesn't Tennessee law exclude the possibility of being "justified" in the use of deadly force if you are in the process of committing a crime? I just want this to be clear... I do not think that the perpetrator of a crime can legally use deadly force as long as he is still in the process of committing a crime.

[Guest friesepferd]

You can always defend yourself with deadly force if you feel your life is in danger.

If you are in a parking lot, on the sidewalk, in another's place of business, etc... you need to prove that you felt your life was in danger some how.

(not saying you will necessarily be charged, sometimes its pretty darn obvious you were in fear for your life, but there is always the possibility of you being required to prove in court that you were afraid for your life)

TN castle doc simply states that if someone forcebly enters your home, it is automatically assumed that you are in fear of your life. It just means that you arent going to have to go and prove it when the time comes. The law already assumes as such.

[JAB]

You can always defend yourself with deadly force if you feel your life is in danger.

If you are in a parking lot, on the sidewalk, in another's place of business, etc... you need to prove that you felt your life was in danger some how.

(not saying you will necessarily be charged, sometimes its pretty darn obvious you were in fear for your life, but there is always the possibility of you being required to prove in court that you were afraid for your life)

TN castle doc simply states that if someone forcebly enters your home, it is automatically assumed that you are in fear of your life. It just means that you arent going to have to go and prove it when the time comes. The law already assumes as such.

TN laws are also in line with so-called 'Castle Doctrine' in that if you are in fear of death or serious, bodily injury there is no duty to retreat or attempt to retreat before responding to the threat with deadly force. This applies not only in your own home but anywhere that you have a legal right to be. In other words, apparently in some states if a BG kicks down your front door you are legally required to try and escape or 'retreat' from him, even though you are in your own home. Only if the BG chases you to, say, your bedroom and has you cornered where you can no longer retreat are you considered 'justified' in using deadly force. Thankfully, this is not the case in TN nor in most other states that have laws based in the Castle Doctrine.

39-11-611. Self-defense.

...

( (1) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

(2) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, if:

(A) The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury;

( The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and

© The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds

[Guest 10mm4me]

I've talked to alot of TN LEO's and let's just say they are extremely lenient on upstanding citizens who defend themselves. Bottom line, if you are a good citizen without a mile long rapsheet, and commkinsense says you were defending yourself, you will be alright. I personally don't care about all these technicalities. Someone's in my house, they're dead, someone attacks me, they're dead, someone attacks my wife or family, they're dead, someone threatens me, I call the police and let them know