New TN. self defence bill ! [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : New TN. self defence bill !


SMSTRICK
02-15-2007, 14:12
BILL WOULD ALLOW DEADLY FORCE AGAINST HIGHJACKERS

Ulysses Jones


Lawmakers consider extending self-defense outside homes
By Richard Locker

February 14, 2007
NASHVILLE -- Spurred by violent crime in Memphis and elsewhere, Tennessee legislators have filed several bills to expand the legal rights of people to use deadly force when threatened by would-be attackers.

One would specifically allow people in motor vehicles to kill or "cause serious bodily injury" to attackers -- both inside or outside the vehicle -- who they believe are threatening to murder, rape, kidnap, rob or carjack the car's occupants.


That bill was filed Rep. Ulysses Jones and Sen. Reginald Tate, both Memphis Democrats. "I've heard a lot of support for this. It's time to give citizens the opportunity to protect themselves. Right now, we're at the mercy of what I call 'scum'," Jones, a Memphis Fire Department paramedic, said Tuesday.

Another bill by Jones and Sen. Dewayne Bunch, R-Cleveland, would extend the right of business owners or their security guards to use deadly force inside or immediately outside their businesses, against a person who "unlawfully and forcibly" enters or attempts to enter, if they have a "reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury" to themselves, employees or customers.

Those two proposals are among 11 bills filed through Tuesday that would extend rights of citizens to defend themselves outside of their homes. Current Tennessee law allows residents to use deadly force against someone who breaks into their homes while they're at home; there's a legal presumption that an intruder intends to cause occupants harm.

Shelby County Dist. Atty. Gen. William Gibbons, who was in the State Capitol Tuesday meeting with lawmakers on other matters, said he "conceptually supports" legislation such as Jones' anti-carjacking bill but couldn't comment on it specifically because he hadn't seen it.

Several of the newly filed bills would enact "no-retreat" laws, permitting the use of deadly force in self-defense against would-be malefactors that a citizen believes is threatening to attack them. The National Rifle Association has pushed similar laws in other states, and won approval of one in Florida in 2005 that says citizens have no duty to back down from an attacker before firing a weapon.

Jones said he filed his two bills because crime in Memphis and elsewhere leaves people feeling vulnerable. He said he hopes people will seek proper training before using the force the bills would -- if signed into law -- authorize.

Tennessee's gun-carry laws require people to undergo firearms training with certified instructors before being issued permits.

Other Memphis area lawmakers who have filed bills expanding the legal authority for self-defense with deadly force include Sens. Mark Norris, R-Collierville, Paul Stanley, R-Germantown, and Roy Herron, D-Dresden.

All of the bills are expected to undergo close scrutiny and face an uphill battle becoming law. No law can be enacted without approval of both the Senate and House of Representatives, and ultimately the governor.

-- Richard Locker: (615) 255-4923

IMHerDad
02-15-2007, 18:35
+1 :thumbsup:

GlockCarry
02-17-2007, 23:58
I don't get it. TN. laws already allow for use of deadly force when in fear of life, regardless of where it happens.

MakinItWorse
03-08-2007, 21:50
Those two proposals are among 11 bills filed through Tuesday that would extend rights of citizens to defend themselves outside of their homes. Current Tennessee law allows residents to use deadly force against someone who breaks into their homes while they're at home; there's a legal presumption that an intruder intends to cause occupants harm.

...basically you can assume if they're trying to get in your car, like your house, they mean you harm and can assume it might include great bodily injury or w/e

ecmills
03-26-2007, 06:40
Originally posted by GlockCarry
I don't get it. TN. laws already allow for use of deadly force when in fear of life, regardless of where it happens.
You do realize that if you're forced to defend yourself with a firearm, the odds are very high that you'll face a criminal trail, civil lawsuit from the family, or both... right?

This makes it more of an open-and-shut case against the victim who chose to defend themselves.

If I'm correct, many of the other states laws also leave you immune to civil lawsuits if the shooting is fount to be justifiable.

;)

CRUEL HAND LUKE
03-29-2007, 09:15
Read the Tennessee law about immunity from civil suit arising from shooting someone in the commission of violent felony.

Essentially in TN, IF your shoot is a good one - you are OBVIOUSLY the good guy acting in self defense- you will RARELY have any issues. Now, if it is a shooting arising from going stupid places with stupid people to do stupid things(involving drugs and booze), you will likely be prosecuted. But if the shoot is good you cannot be sued civilly. Check the TN law.

You're in Memphis. Tom Givens (Rangemaster) has had 50 students involved in shootings. I don't know if ANY of them were ever prosecuted. Again if you are OBVIOUSLY the good guy, legal issues rarely come into play in Tennessee.

armed
03-29-2007, 21:57
None may have ever been PROSECUTED by the state, but have any ever been SUED by a private party? Or did you intend for "sued" and "prosecuted" to mean the same thing?

CRUEL HAND LUKE
03-30-2007, 08:14
This SHOULD have been covered in your CCW class.

TCA 29-34-201. Injuries suffered in committing or attempting to commit felony on property of another Recovery barred Scope of immunity for one injuring a perpetrator of a criminal offense.

(a) Any person who is injured while committing a felony or attempting to commit a felony on the real property of another is barred from recovery of actual or punitive damages resulting from injuries, either accidentally or intentionally inflicted by the owner, lawful occupier or tenant of such property, which the person receives while committing or attempting to commit a felony.

(b) (1) A person who accidentally or intentionally causes property damage to or inflicts injury or death upon the perpetrator of a criminal offense is absolutely immune from civil liability for or the payment of monetary damages from such person's actions if at the time such damage, injury or death occurred:


(A) The person was preventing or attempting to prevent the perpetrator from committing the offense or was apprehending the perpetrator of the offense; and


(B) The perpetrator was committing one (1) or more of the offenses specified in subdivisions (c)(1)-(9) or was attempting to commit one (1) or more of the offenses specified in subdivision (c)(10).

(2) The immunity conferred by this subsection shall only apply to property damage caused to or injury or death inflicted upon a perpetrator of an enumerated offense and only under the conditions set out in this subsection. Such immunity shall not be construed to extend to property damage caused to or injury or death inflicted upon a bystander or other person who is not the perpetrator of an enumerated offense.


(c) The offenses for which such immunity applies are:

(1) Any criminal homicide;

(2) Aggravated rape;

(3) Kidnapping;

(4) Aggravated kidnapping;

(5) Especially aggravated kidnapping;

(6) Especially aggravated burglary;
(7) Aggravated robbery;
(8) Especially aggravated robbery;
(9) Carjacking; and
(10) Attempt to commit first or second degree murder.

[Acts 1971, ch. 177, 1; T.C.A., 23-3003, 29-34-103; Acts 1999, ch. 268, 2.]

Sorry for any confusion. I was referring to the fact that RARELY in Tennessee is someone prosecuted when a shooting is a clear case of Good vs Bad. This is NOT Massachussetts! And if you are in the process of committing a violent felony (listed above)when you are killed or injured you and your family are barred from collecting damages in a civil suit. Again, this SHOULD be covered in your CCW class. We cover it in ours.

armed
03-30-2007, 20:00
Thanks.

I don't remember any of this from my CCW class, but it has been 5 or 6 years.

CRUEL HAND LUKE
03-31-2007, 15:48
It just frankly may not have been covered.

There really is just a basic outline that he state wants covered which can be added to , but lots of schools just teach the minimum. I frankly do not believe in the minimum in any endeavor.

Personally , I think this is IMPORTANT info the students should have. I also make sure the students do not leave my class thinking guns will solve all of their problems. In fact the gun is RARELY the best solution and almost NEVER the IMMEDIATE solution. I teach the class within the context of real physical assault not within the context of square range target shooting. But that is just what I think is the right thing to do.....

ecmills
04-01-2007, 20:14
Thanks. Good to know. :)

7 years ago when I took the class, it was not covered. Was this law on the books then?

Our instructor pretty much just drilled into our heads NOT to expect to be carried off like a hero by the LEOs after being forced to use your sidearm, and that lawsuits were commonplace.

In other words, a handgun on your person might save your life, but it could very well make it hell afterwards. So use extreme discretion. Which is good, since a fair share of the people taking CCW classes probably have closet-Rambo syndrome. ;)

CRUEL HAND LUKE
04-02-2007, 15:19
I might be mistaken but I think that went into effect in 1999 with the "good Samaritan" protection act-where you can legally defend a 3rd person just like yourself if THEY are in danger of death or grave bodily injury.

ecmills
04-05-2007, 11:45
Originally posted by CRUEL HAND LUKE
I might be mistaken but I think that went into effect in 1999 with the "good Samaritan" protection act-where you can legally defend a 3rd person just like yourself if THEY are in danger of death or grave bodily injury.
That would explain it, if the law went into effect after my class. Thanks.