|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
August 15, 2011, 12:06 PM | #1 |
Junior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2011
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5
|
Staying at someone else's house, still legal to use deadly force against intruder?
I have been staying at my girlfriend's house a lot, and recently had a scare during which I thought someone might be in the house. Luckily, the dog was just barking at the wind! But it made me consider the scenario that someone had entered her house without welcome. Am I still legally allowed to defend that property with deadly force if necessary, even though it is not my house?
|
August 15, 2011, 12:20 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Generally yes, but check TN laws re: defence of property vs defense of self/others. In most states, AFAIN, any home you legally occupy qualifies.
|
August 15, 2011, 12:25 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 13, 2011
Location: San Berdoo
Posts: 269
|
Total conjecture here, but if threatened with loss of life, my guess would be you could (and should) protect yourself no matter where you are...
|
August 15, 2011, 01:09 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Tennessee is a castle doctrine state, so there's no duty to retreat if you're in your home -- or an invited guest in someone else's home. That said, it makes a difference whether you're defending your girlfriend and yourself, or whether you're protecting property: you may use deadly force to defend yourself and/or someone else, but not to protect property.
You can find the relevant bits of the Tennessee code here. A couple of excerpts: 39-11-611 (a) (4) Residence means a dwelling in which a person resides, either temporarily or permanently, or is visiting as an invited guest...So if someone has forcibly broken in, you may use deadly force to defend yourself and your girlfriend. But for practical and ethical reasons, doing so should always be an absolute last resort: if you and your girlfriend can retreat to a safe place, hunker down, and call the cops, it's a wise choice to do those things rather than opening fire immediately, attempting to "clear the house" by yourself, etc. If you have a chance to retreat safely, it's still the smart thing to do, even when it's not legally required.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
August 15, 2011, 05:22 PM | #5 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
Or are you really asking if you are allowed to defend yourself and/or your significant other? |
|
August 16, 2011, 09:20 AM | #6 |
Junior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2011
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5
|
A couple of you have brought up another question in my mind now, about defending property. In my original post I was really referring to defending myself and my lady, but I was also under the impression that the castle doctrine meant I could defend my property as well, am I wrong about that? If I were to come home and find intruders loading up my things, can I not take action against them? Or do they have to come at me before I could justify that?
|
August 16, 2011, 10:44 AM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Location: Sunny Southern Idaho
Posts: 1,909
|
Quote:
I'm hesitant to say that common sense says that you should be able to do what is necessary to defend your property, even in a Castle Doctrine state because common sense isn't a legal standard. The best advice that I can give is that if you are presented with a situation like you describe is to use only the force necessary to defuse it. And be a good witness. Edit: I would also add this: when I got my CCW permit in Idaho, my military service stood in lieu of a formal course. When my wife got hers, I took the course with her. It wasn't the standard, boilerplate CCW course - the instructor went well beyond what the state required. One of the things that we discussed was how to avoid using a firearm. In fact, we discussed that a lot. His contention was that the best outcome to any situation is to avoid it in the first place. And if that means running away, that's not a problem. Because as soon as you're in a situation where you have to use any kind of force, the chances of it escalating are quite high. And if you and/or the other guy has a gun, well, there acme of escalation, as it were, is a place that none of us wants to go. As is said elsewhere, get a description, get a license number. Do witness-y type things. Let the police earn their pay. It was an excellent course.
__________________
Well we don't rent pigs and I figure it's better to say it right out front because a man that does like to rent pigs is... he's hard to stop - Gus McCrae Last edited by Hardcase; August 16, 2011 at 01:21 PM. |
|
August 16, 2011, 11:13 AM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
In Tennessee, it's legal to use force, but not deadly force, to protect property. Deadly force is justified only in response to a threat to life or limb.
39-11-614. Protection of property.So you can "take action," but not by using, or threatening, deadly force. And in the example you give, it would be a lot smarter to stay away, call the cops, and be a good witness: get descriptions and license plate numbers, and perhaps follow the thieves at a distance. If an armed gang is cleaning out your house, and you confront them, you may lose the fight. If you're outside your house and provoke a confrontation that could have been avoided, and end up shooting someone, you'll be on much shakier legal ground, and the aftermath won't feel much like a victory. Possessions can be replaced -- that's why you have insurance. It's not, IMHO, worth risking a violent confrontation over "stuff." You can find the passage I quoted above, as well as the rest of the TN code dealing with justification for the use of force, through the link in my first post. Read up, bookmark, and learn. And consider discussing this with a lawyer who specializes in such cases -- if you're ever actually involved in a self-defense shooting, it's vital to have a lawyer you can reach in a hurry.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. Last edited by Evan Thomas; August 16, 2011 at 11:55 AM. Reason: punctuation. |
August 17, 2011, 05:31 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 1, 2011
Location: Nassau County NY
Posts: 378
|
In NYS, the code reads when in your own dwelling or in a dwelling in which you are licensed or privileged to be in. This means, your friend's home, a hotel room, a B&B etc.
Also, we may use deadly force to prevent the arson of an occupied dwelling. Generally, deadly force may not be used in a pure property crime.
__________________
Int'l Assoc. of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors |
August 17, 2011, 08:47 PM | #10 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 12, 2000
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Posts: 9,494
|
Quote:
|
|
August 18, 2011, 10:43 AM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
Preventing future crimes is never a legal justification for deadly force. It's irresponsible, IMHO, to suggest that it might be; not to mention that, as is often pointed out, the Internet is forever, and this is exactly the kind of comment that could come back and bite you.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
|
August 18, 2011, 12:55 PM | #12 |
Junior member
Join Date: November 12, 2000
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Posts: 9,494
|
I know, it sounds bad how I said that. The other side of the coin is that the thieves read this stuff too and we don't want to encourage them do we? Let's all get on here and talk how we wont shoot thieves, and how we have a plan to run out of our house if they come so we don't break any precious laws, and how they can take what I have worked for, and my tools which are my livelyhood and I wont do anything about it because I want to be a good citizen. Horse hockey.
We are allowed to protect property in Colorado with lethal force. I have no desire to shoot anyone but if they want to come steal from me and mine...let them be real careful because they might get hurt. See how my words put out a deterrent? This is how it used to be all over. Crime is more widespread now because the people are being conditioned to not fight back. Being scared to stand your ground because of what might happen is not a proper response to crime. |
August 18, 2011, 02:13 PM | #13 |
Member in memoriam
Join Date: April 9, 2009
Location: Blue River Wisconsin, in
Posts: 3,144
|
Laws be damned, if your life is in danger you have a right to defend yourself. Failure to do so means you chose to be a victim.
If you choose to be in a place unarmed because they don't allow guns you have made your choice.
__________________
Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern will, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. --Daniel Webster-- |
August 18, 2011, 02:18 PM | #14 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,704
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
August 18, 2011, 02:18 PM | #15 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
Quote:
I suppose you could try standing your argument on its head, and say that if crime is declining, more people must be fighting back, but that would be... a considerable flip-flop. I get that you're making a rhetorical point, but I think the possible deterrent effect on the multitudes of thieves who frequent TFL (:snort:) is outweighed by the potential harm of such statements: as a practical matter, they offer bad advice to folks who are new to the idea that they can and should defend themselves and their homes, and as a matter of PR for gun owners... very uncool. Quote:
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. Last edited by Evan Thomas; August 18, 2011 at 02:27 PM. |
|||
August 18, 2011, 03:25 PM | #16 | |
Member
Join Date: August 13, 2007
Location: Alabama
Posts: 30
|
Quote:
AFM |
|
August 18, 2011, 03:54 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Location: Sunny Southern Idaho
Posts: 1,909
|
This may be a little tangential, but I recall a case, in Washington state, I think, or maybe Oregon, where a guy saw a thief steal something from his car. He retrieved his trusty Mosin-Nagant rifle and dispatched the thief with a shot to the back.
His defense was that he was defending his property. As I expected, he lost his case.
__________________
Well we don't rent pigs and I figure it's better to say it right out front because a man that does like to rent pigs is... he's hard to stop - Gus McCrae |
August 18, 2011, 06:08 PM | #18 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,714
|
Quote:
No, we won't out and out illegally shoot thieves. It would be stupid to claim otherwise. --------------------- Quote:
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
||
August 18, 2011, 06:39 PM | #19 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
John Lott has done some excellent and valuable work strongly suggesting that some part of the decline in violent crime may well be attributable to "shall issue" right to carry laws and private citizens having firearms. But John Lott has not accounted for the entire decline in crime. Indeed, the decline in crime rate is most likely due to many and varied factors. For example, in New York City, beginning in 1990, the crime rate dropped precipitously. Murders were reduced by two-third, felonies fell by 50%; and by 2000, felonies on the subways had declined 75% (The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell, Back Bay Books, 2002, pg. 137). The RKBA and liberalized right to carry laws certainly had nothing to do with that. I'm making this point because a misuse of statistics does the RKBA no good. We have to be careful about making claims that we can't substantiate, because when we do, it erodes our credibility. |
||
August 18, 2011, 07:05 PM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 6, 2011
Posts: 231
|
I believe in WA actually that you are allowed to fire in defense of yourself or someone else in grave danger; moreover, you can defend yourself when you are somewhere which you have the right to be. From my state's supreme court:
"there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be." So despite having no castle doctrine, our laws do not have a duty to retreat, and allow you to defend others as well. From my state's law force is lawful when: "Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;" and homicide is justifiable when: "In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or" And after reading that law 20 times (I'm no lawyer...) my understanding is exactly as I said above: I (the "slayer") can lawfully use deadly force when I or someone else in my company is in danger. Now, what felonies qualify for this WITHOUT being tagged as using excessive force, I do not know. Source is my own state's gov't site: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.a...true#9A.16.020 |
August 18, 2011, 10:53 PM | #21 |
Junior member
Join Date: November 12, 2000
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Posts: 9,494
|
I didn't tell anyone to illegally use lethal force. Please do not misunderstand my terms either. When I say defend property, that's my house and I will not run out the back door because I have an intruder on my property.
I would not shoot a kid stealing a lawn ornament and I'll thank you not to paint me like that just because I wont get on here and say the politically correct No property is worth fighting for. Some things are worth fighting for, and especially at home. I do not go looking for trouble. If it comes to me at home...I have more rights at home than anywhere. |
August 19, 2011, 07:26 AM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Posts: 190
|
Just going back on the OP. Even if the law allows you to use deadly force against an intruder, if you aren't at your place you may not be actually sure about who's an intruder.
In my corner of the world (a remte hill of Tuscany) if I hear noises in the house it is likely a friend of my kids entering the usual way thru the window. I do know this and my only reaction is to run to padlock the fridge. I cannot imagine what would happen if I had an armed guest and he/she decided that a wild Tuscan Kid is an intruder..... K. |
August 19, 2011, 02:03 PM | #23 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
Quote:
If it's the the Tuscan Kid, he'll then say something along the lines of "Aspetta, prego non sparare, รจ Pulcinello!" And all will be well, if your guest's Italian is up to it.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
||
August 20, 2011, 09:27 AM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Posts: 190
|
Actually here the average Tuscan kid would comment about the rifle and tell that his dad-granddad-uncle has a nicer rifle for wild hog hunting.
Then would kick the padlocked fridgr until it opens and start raiding it making London looters look amateurs.... 8-) Trust me, I have two tuscan kids at home... K. |
August 20, 2011, 01:01 PM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
|
From WA state.
My understanding is this: If a person is attacking you, or someone else, and you are in a place that it is legal for you to be, you may use whatever force is necessary to stop that attack (felony assault). The assault does not have to be on your person, you can defend someone else in your presence. The limiting factor would be, say someone came into your yard and stole your car...If that person were driving away from your person...you do not defent, you call the cops. If the thief was driving your car in your direction (potential deadly threat, using the car as a weapon), you would have the right to stop him by what ever means you had. Oh yes, in the car senario...It just happened a few days ago in Seattle...someone with a gun or a knife trys to hijack your car...it is permissible for you to use deadly force to prevent that carjacking. I disagree with backing yourself into a corner. I do not, will not, retreat. Someone comes into my presence to do me or mine harm, they will pay immeadiately. I also will not purposely put myself in harms way, unless there is some compelling reason to do so. (someone else in my presense is being hurt) |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|