Police shooting black man in the back ... again (Kenosha, WI)

#3,526
#3,526
84Volfan said:
I never argued you can use deadly force to get a trespasser off one's property. You also can't shoot someone for stealing your property either. I am simply trying to inform you on how stand your ground works. This is one subject I am well versed in.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of Tennessee's 'stand your ground statute', and castle doctrine. I've got property there, and keep abreast of the self-defense laws in states where I typically carry or use firearms.
 
#3,527
#3,527
BeardedVol said:
I'm aware of Tennessee's 'stand your ground statute', and castle doctrine. I've got property there, and keep abreast of the self-defense laws in states where I typically carry or use firearms.
Click to expand...

The problem with you is you continually try to build outlandish arguments. Nobody is talking about killing someone over trespassing and or petty theft.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb and Behr
#3,529
#3,529
BeardedVol said:
"continues to advance" alone with no other evidence =/= "I've got carte blanche justification to produce a firearm and shoot the advancing person dead". You are still going to have to prove, that you were in defense of your life.

Feel free to try it out, let us know how that works out for you.
Click to expand...
From the earlier link I shared.

"It is important to emphasize that you must prove you feared imminent harm, such as someone coming at you aggressively, swinging a punch, or driving toward you in their car as if to hit you. Self-defense would not be justified if someone threatened later violence against you. For example, if a person at a bar said they were going to fight you outside in 20 minutes, you would not be justified in using violence right then to prevent later harm."

Once you have a gun pointed at someone if all other criteria is met and command them to stand down, but they continue towards you that is considered an aggressive movement thus putting you in fear of imminent harm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol and InVOLuntary
#3,530
#3,530
hog88 said:
The problem with you is you continually try to build outlandish arguments. Nobody is talking about killing someone over trespassing and or petty theft.
Click to expand...
hog88 said:
And the law in TN and many other states gives me the right to protect my property.
Click to expand...

You don't have the right to protect your property with deadly force, unless doing so meets the requirements for the use of deadly force under Tennessee's self-defense laws.
 
#3,531
#3,531
BeardedVol said:
We are talking about Tennessee, not Texas...so...cool.
Click to expand...
No YOU are talking about TN and applying it generally and broadly. The point I engaged you on was in response to lil’reb and you inserting your own phrases and defending them. You know... a straw man fallacy?
 
#3,532
#3,532
MontyPython said:
Trump is inciting violence.

When protesters and anti-protesters get together, bad things happen.

When anti-protesters include minors with semi-automatic weapons, we enter the realm of full-on stupidity.
Click to expand...
Last I checked there can’t be “anti-protesters” without “protesters”. So it’s cool to burn $hit down when it’s just protesters, but when you add a group that’s anti-burning $hit down and put them around “protesters” it’s only their fault?
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#3,533
#3,533
BeardedVol said:
You don't have the right to protect your property with deadly force, unless doing so meets the requirements for the use of deadly force under Tennessee's self-defense laws.
Click to expand...

No **** sherlock and I have agreed with that. It's you that continue with the "stand there and make faces at you" idiocy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb, Behr, davethevol and 2 others
#3,534
#3,534
BeardedVol said:
You don't have the right to protect your property with deadly force, unless doing so meets the requirements for the use of deadly force under Tennessee's self-defense laws.
Click to expand...
Partially correct....actually mostly correct but add to that with the fact that if someone is trying to burn your "castle" down you have the right to then use deadly force.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb
#3,538
#3,538
MontyPython said:
My original post:

"Unless that act directly endangers you or your family (e.g. burning down your house), the use of deadly force against the simple destruction of property would result is against the law in nearly every state.

So, in short, you'd find yourself behind bars if you did that. "

Thank you for acknowledging that I was correct.
Click to expand...
Unless you're a liberal with a BLM shirt on then it's a misdemeanor and a $50 fine.
 
#3,539
#3,539
hog88 said:
No **** sherlock and I have agreed with that. It's you that continue with the "stand there and make faces at you" idiocy.
Click to expand...

So it makes you feel better if I type "walks towards you making faces"? You still aren't legally justified to use deadly force in that scenario either, so I'm not sure what you are so upset about.
 
#3,540
#3,540
BeardedVol said:
So it makes you feel better if I type "walks towards you making faces"? You still aren't legally justified to use deadly force in that scenario either, so I'm not sure what you are so upset about.
Click to expand...
Yes you are sir. If you command someone who is tresspassing at gun point to stand down and they continue to advance regardless of the face they are making it is considered an agressive act.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88 and NorthDallas40
#3,541
#3,541
84Volfan said:
Partially correct....actually mostly correct but add to that with the fact that if someone is trying to burn your "castle" down you have the right to then use deadly force.
Click to expand...

Inside your house/business/car castle doctrine is going to apply, but not just out on your property, or in a scenario where just "stuff" is in danger outside of your house/business/car but not yourself of your family.
 
#3,544
#3,544
MontyPython said:
Defense of Property:
The right of a person to protect one's property with reasonable force against another person who is threatening to infringe on one's possessory interest in such property.

Where a defendant is on trial for criminal assault or battery, he may argue, in certain instances, that he reasonably believed that his actions were necessary to defend his property from the victim. However, as we will see, the use of force to protect property is much more limited than the right to use force to protect oneself or other people.

It is important to remember that deadly force can never be used simply to defend property against someone else’s interference with that property, even if that interference is unlawful and even if there is no other way to prevent that interference. See State v. Metcalfe, 212 N.W. 382 (Iowa 1927). Please note, however, that deadly force may be used where the facts also support another privileged use of force.

SOURCE: Lawshelf

# # #

There are exceptions - particularly in regards to one's home (e.g. states with Castle laws) - but outside of your house, shooting someone stealing your ten-speed bike, for example, will land you behind bars.
Click to expand...

You can't lead with deadly force but it gets convoluted after. (as most things legal become)

Are People Allowed to Use Deadly Force to Defend Property?
 
#3,546
#3,546
BeardedVol said:
So it makes you feel better if I type "walks towards you making faces"? You still aren't legally justified to use deadly force in that scenario either, so I'm not sure what you are so upset about.
Click to expand...

Yeah you are. It's absolutely reasonable to feel that your life is in imminent danger if someone keeps advancing on you after you have told them to leave your property.
 
#3,547
#3,547
84Volfan said:
Yes you are sir. If you command someone who is tresspassing at gun point to stand down and they continue to advance regardless of the face they are making it is considered an agressive act.
Click to expand...

Well, good luck with that if you end up in court and the entirety of your defense is "they walked at me", with no other evidence of provocation; I'll be interested to see how that works out.
 
#3,550
#3,550
hog88 said:
In Tn it carries to your automobile.
Click to expand...
The general argument will always come down to was your life being threatened and was the force applied to negate the aggressor at an appropriate level. In most states if you're being "attacked" or "Car jacked" you can shoot the aggressor. When it comes to people on your property any aggressive action towards the property owner can be seen as life threatening and dealt with in an appropriate manner. People here seem to think the only way to die when breaking the law is if you go in guns blazing. Guns kill. Cars kill. Fists kill. Kicks kill. Knives kill. Tasers kill. Falls kill..etc, etc.

Someone is on my property, ignores commands to leave, "comes right for me" they'll get shot. Its my word against, well, the corpse. I'm going to win every time.

 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol, 84Volfan and hog88
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top