Ashli Babbitt’s Killer is a blm Militant

#576
#576
hndog609 said:
This is what TN law has to say on the matter.

39-11-611 (c)
Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, business, dwelling or vehicle is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household or a person visiting as an invited guest, when that force is used against another person, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, business, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

I'm reading that as a presumption of deadly force being justified in the described areas if the boldened is met. Assuming there is credible evidence in CW's scenario that the person had in fact forcibly broken through a window and was in the process of entering the home it certainly reads as though deadly force can be brought into play.
Click to expand...
Pretty much exactly as I stated. Enters or entered you've got a green light, in the process of entering not so much. Only the exact wording of the law appliesIf you take a class I can promise you'll think hard before carrying or at least you should. Carrying a firearm is a huge responsibility.
 
#577
#577
KB5252 said:
It could be argued that the bible has been modified literally dozens of times. The old testament etc. Books completely left off because they didn't adhere to more recent interpretations, the list goes on and on.

The Bible is a guide IMO. You interpret it the way you want, but you can't claim some superiority or purer understanding.
Click to expand...
Agree to disagree.
 
#579
#579
bamawriter said:
Not being a gun owner I may be confused, but didn't Tennessee just say you don't even need a permit to concealed carry? That doesn't seem terribly "left" to me.
Click to expand...
TN stand your ground and castle laws are weak. They favor the criminal more than the defendant. KY straight up says that if your are in a domicile you can be shot legally.
 
#580
#580
KB5252 said:
There is no refuting the first paragraph, but the latter is up to personal interpretations. If you get caught up in that last sentence you've missed the point completely.
Click to expand...
I got your point, I just disagree. It should be ok to disagree.
 
#581
#581
tnmarktx said:
Pretty much exactly as I stated. Enters or entered you've got a green light, in the process of entering not so much. Only the exact wording of the law appliesIf you take a class I can promise you'll think hard before carrying or at least you should. Carrying a firearm is a huge responsibility.
Click to expand...
Much like everything else, you missed the crucial word...forcibly.
 
#583
#583
82_VOL_83 said:
Much like everything else, you missed the crucial word...forcibly.
Click to expand...
If you're in TN and I break your window and look inside to see you holding your gun, then turn and run. If you shoot and kill me while running away, you'll go to jail. There must be actual entry.
 
#584
#584
tnmarktx said:
Pretty much exactly as I stated. Enters or entered you've got a green light, in the process of entering not so much. Only the exact wording of the law appliesIf you take a class I can promise you'll think hard before carrying or at least you should. Carrying a firearm is a huge responsibility.
Click to expand...

I have taken the class and have taken in a large amount of knowledge on the subject. (and heartily agree with the responsibility)

If I may point out something that might not leap to one's attention in the wording of the cited statute:

who unlawfully and forcibly enters

or

has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence

Note the distinction laid out here in the wording. You stress the 2nd part (which is obviously more self evident) but in CW's scenario he is relying more on the first. I think it could very easily be argued that once you have forced yourself in any bodily way into the home you have opened yourself up to lawful use of lethal force. In truth it might be easier to consider the also included "vehicle" being included in the Castle Doctrine. Do you assume that a person would have to be fully inside your vehicle before deadly force would be considered valid? I think not.

Even setting aside a prosecution's desire to nuance a home window from a vehicle window there looks to be a tremendous amount of leeway afforded to "inside".
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#585
#585
tnmarktx said:
If you're in TN and I break your window and look inside to see you holding your gun, then turn and run. If you shoot and kill me while running away, you'll go to jail. There must be actual entry.
Click to expand...
You broke the window = force. Not what you said earlier.
 
#586
#586
hndog609 said:
I have taken the class and have taken in a large amount of knowledge on the subject. (and heartily agree with the responsibility)

If I may point out something that might not leap to one's attention in the wording of the cited statute:

who unlawfully and forcibly enters

or

has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence

Note the distinction laid out here in the wording. You stress the 2nd part (which is obviously more self evident) but in CW's scenario he is relying more on the first. I think it could very easily be argued that once you have forced yourself in any bodily way into the home you have opened yourself up to lawful use of lethal force. In truth it might be easier to consider the also included "vehicle" being included in the Castle Doctrine. Do you assume that a person would have to be fully inside your vehicle before deadly force would be considered valid? I think not.

Even setting aside a prosecution's desire to nuance a home window from a vehicle window there looks to be a tremendous amount of leeway afforded to "inside".
Click to expand...
There should be, but I wouldn't bet my freedom. I'm good enough with a shotgun to allow entry after warning before using deadly force, personally.
 
#587
#587
tnmarktx said:
If you're in TN and I break your window and look inside to see you holding your gun, then turn and run. If you shoot and kill me while running away, you'll go to jail. There must be actual entry.
Click to expand...

Now this is absolutely true. The mere act of breaking a window and peering inside only to be shot as you run away isn't covered by any law I'm aware of*.

*Maybe something regarding a threat to a 3rd party...the person was running towards your wife/kids/etc...there could be some defense mounted. Upshot is once a threat can be reasonably described as over that pretty much disengages your lawful force threat use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tnmarktx
#590
#590
tnmarktx said:
I actually read forced entry. If someone is forcibly kicking my door to enter, I will stand at the ready. I won't just shoot thru the door.
Click to expand...

There is significant difference between shooting thru a closed door and shooting someone climbing thru a window that he/she just busted out. There is no rational comparison between the two.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#591
#591
bamawriter said:
There is significant difference between shooting thru a closed door and shooting someone climbing thru a window that he/she just busted out. There is no rational comparison between the two.
Click to expand...
There's a distinct difference between a private residence and the "peoples house'. There's no rational comparison between the two. Furthermore, a veteran capitol police officer stated this.

“I’m not sure how he was justified shooting her when there was a SWAT team right behind her,” added a veteran Capitol officer, referring to three heavily armed USCP officers who had positioned themselves between the doors and the mob. “They saw no immediate threat.” The officer spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter.
Click to expand...
 
#592
#592
tnmarktx said:
There's a distinct difference between a private residence and the "peoples house'. There's no rational comparison between the two. Furthermore, a veteran capitol police officer stated this.
Click to expand...

The public does not enjoy unfettered access to every single room of "The People's House."

And the fact that some cops stood by and failed to stop a crime in progress is of no moment to whether or not another cop took action.
 
#593
#593
bamawriter said:
The public does not enjoy unfettered access to every single room of "The People's House."

And the fact that some cops stood by and failed to stop a crime in progress is of no moment to whether or not another cop took action.
Click to expand...
Did what she did warrant her murder?
 
#596
#596
bamawriter said:
She wasn't necessarily murdered, so you're simply begging the question.
Click to expand...
I believe it was settled in the George Floyd thread that death at the hands of another is murder. There are lots of categories but it’s murder
 
#597
#597
tnmarktx said:
Did she deserve the use of deadly force against her?
Click to expand...

"Deserve" is a moral conclusion. I would never say that she deserved losing her life in that manner.

From a practical point of view, her death was a foreseeable consequence of her actions.

A skydiver whose parachute doesn't open does not deserve to die by slamming into the ground at 120 mph. But such a death is an easily foreseeable consequence of skydiving.
 
#598
#598
Wireless1 said:
I believe it was settled in the George Floyd thread that death at the hands of another is murder. There are lots of categories but it’s murder
Click to expand...

I don't know that I participated in that conversation, but that conclusion is wrong. Homicide is the killing of one person by another. Murder is the unlawful killing of one person by another. All murders are homicides but not all homicides are murders. Murder requires a legal conclusion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#599
#599
bamawriter said:
"Deserve" is a moral conclusion. I would never say that she deserved losing her life in that manner.

From a practical point of view, her death was a foreseeable consequence of her actions.

A skydiver whose parachute doesn't open does not deserve to die by slamming into the ground at 120 mph. But such a death is an easily foreseeable consequence of skydiving.
Click to expand...
Was the correct legal action taken by the shooter?
 
#600
#600
bamawriter said:
"Deserve" is a moral conclusion. I would never say that she deserved losing her life in that manner.

From a practical point of view, her death was a foreseeable consequence of her actions.

A skydiver whose parachute doesn't open does not deserve to die by slamming into the ground at 120 mph. But such a death is an easily foreseeable consequence of skydiving.
Click to expand...
I've agreed with you up to now. This is ********. She posed absolutely no threat. The cop knew it and shot her anyway. She could have been subdued and arrested after falling through the glass.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top