Stand Your Ground Law

Ronni

Ronni

Well-known Member
Location
Nashville TN
Self-defense laws in the US typically justify a person’s use of lethal force in public in situations where lethal force was necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm to themselves or another person.

Traditionally, these laws have been clear that taking human life is not necessary, and is therefore not justified, if the person could have avoided using lethal violence by retreating, or simply stepping away from a confrontation. A person does not have a duty to retreat from a conflict before using force in their home, however (known as the Castle Doctrine).
Stand your ground laws upend centuries of legal tradition, allowing a person to use deadly force in self-defense in public, even if that force can be safely avoided by retreating or when nonlethal force would suffice.

Tennessee Law​

Tennessee has a stand your ground law which removes the duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense when a person is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where a person has a right to be. The state’s laws also make it harder to properly investigate these cases by limiting law enforcement’s ability to arrest someone who claims to have acted in self defense.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-611(b)(2).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1322.

Do you know what the Stand Your Ground codes are in your State?
 

Utah has something of a Stand Your Ground law or laws. Lethal force can be used to protect yourself, third parties, or in some cases to prevent the commission of the felony. We do not seem to have a specific duty to retreat requirement, but self defense can only be used if a person has a reasonable belief that they or others are threatened, or in some cases a felony is being or about to be committed. So if someone threatened you and it would be easy for you to just turn and get away then you might not be able to claim self-defense. We also have a castle law which gives you more defense for shooting an intruder in your home. And recently we got a law that allows for a justification hearing, pre trial, in which the prosecutor must prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that self defense was not appropriate, a high bar.

I have mixed feelings on this, I believe that any time a person has a way to resolve a threat without violence then they should be obligated to do so. Any killing is a bad thing. On the other hand many of these decisions have to be made in a split second, what seems in retrospect to have been a reasonable course of action may not have occurred to the person at the time. In these cases I believe the shooter should be allowed a legal self defense claim. The responsibility for such things should fall on the criminal perpetrator, not on the stressed potential victim making that split second decision. I am lucky never to have been in that position, and sure hope never to be.
 
Since I don't carry, I am unfamiliar with the policies. If I do carry, I'd be a fool to still be so ignorant.
 

Ronni said:
Tennessee has a stand your ground law which removes the duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense when a person is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where a person has a right to be. The state’s laws also make it harder to properly investigate these cases by limiting law enforcement’s ability to arrest someone who claims to have acted in self defense.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-611(b)(2).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1322.

Do you know what the Stand Your Ground codes are in your State?
Click to expand...
@Ronnie, I read over the two TN codes you listed. I'm not sure I follow you when you said it makes it harder to investigate with limitations for arrest. If someone was following the law, why would they be arrested?
 
Lilac said:
@Ronnie, I read over the two TN codes you listed. I'm not sure I follow you when you said it makes it harder to investigate with limitations for arrest. If someone was following the law, why would they be arrested?
Click to expand...
I worded that badly. Sorry.

Law enforcement ability to investigate is made harder because it’s difficult to prove with certainty that it WAS self defense.

if someone breaks into my home, stand my ground law means that I am not obliged to retreat before using deadly force, I can just stand there and blow the person’s head off, then claim I was afraid for my life and so I acted in self defense. There’s no way to prove that the person was in fact being threatened.
 
Ronni said:
Do you know what the Stand Your Ground codes are in your State?
Click to expand...

California is both a “Stand Your Ground” and “Castle Doctrine” state. “Stand Your Ground” means that if someone is threatening you or someone else, you or under no duty to retreat if you wish to claim self defense. You are allowed to remain present and defend yourself, no matter what.
 
Nathan said:
California is both a “Stand Your Ground” and “Castle Doctrine” state. “Stand Your Ground” means that if someone is threatening you or someone else, you or under no duty to retreat if you wish to claim self defense. You are allowed to remain present and defend yourself, no matter what.
Click to expand...
Same in Pennsylvania.
 
If someone forcibly entered my home, that, in and of itself, is a threat. I'm a small woman. I'm not going to wait for the intruder to make a move on me. Furthermore, I wouldn't stand a chance against someone who attacked me physically. If I had the means to stop him, I most certainly would.
 
Ronni said:
.
if someone breaks into my home, stand my ground law means that I am not obliged to retreat before using deadly force, I can just stand there and blow the person’s head off, then claim I was afraid for my life and so I acted in self defense. There’s no way to prove that the person was in fact being threatened.
Click to expand...
Well, I honestly never heard of anyone breaking into a house wanting directions to the local bakery.
 
Ronni said:
Law enforcement ability to investigate is made harder because it’s difficult to prove with certainty that it WAS self defense.
Click to expand...

The basic presumption in the law is if there is a home invasion, the law assumes the intruder has entered to inflict bodily harm. While that premise is subject to legal rebuttal, the burden then shifts to the Prosecution to cut through a self defense justification.
 
Disgustedman said:
Well, I honestly never heard of anyone breaking into a house wanting directions to the local bakery.
Click to expand...
Strange things happen.

I had a friend years back who go so drunk she stumbled into the wrong house by mistake. Layed down on the couch and passed out. She woke the next morning to see an older couple looking at her in amazement. Glad they did not take advantage of any stand your ground law.

On business travel I rented a car and parked it. After the meeting I got into what I thought was my rental car but the key wouldn't work. It wasn't until a surprised lady asked what I was doing that I realized it was the wrong car. Same color, make and model as my rental.
 
Last edited:
Alligatorob said:
Strange things happen.

I had a friend years back who go so drunk she stumbled into the wrong house by mistake. Layed down on the couch and passed out. She woke the next morning to see and older couple looking at her in amazement. Glad they did not take advantage of any stand your ground law.

On business travel I rented a car and parked it. After the meeting I got into what I thought was my rental car but the key wouldn't work. It wasn't until a surprised lady asked what I was doing that I realized it was the wrong car. Same color, make and model as my rental.
Click to expand...
True, but they shouldn't have left the door unlocked, and shooting you for trying to enter the wrong car isn't equal to breaking into a domicile.
 
Ronni said:
Law enforcement ability to investigate is made harder because it’s difficult to prove with certainty that it WAS self defense.

if someone breaks into my home, stand my ground law means that I am not obliged to retreat before using deadly force, I can just stand there and blow the person’s head off, then claim I was afraid for my life and so I acted in self defense. There’s no way to prove that the person was in fact being threatened.
Click to expand...
You make several gratuitous assumptions. The first is that no one is in fear of their life when their home has been broken into. The second is the homeowner decides to claim self-defense as an after-thought of shooting the criminal. And thirdly, you assume the detectives aren't smart enough to figure it out. It's not the detectives first rodeo.

Do you realize that when people turn & run away from the threat, they get shot or stabbed in the back. Read Lt. Col. Grossman's book On Killing which will explain more to you.

Good people don't break into other people's houses. Good people don't threaten others with bodily harm or death. In the real world, bad people do bad things to good people.
 
You enter my home without consent, I'm not going to wait for you to explain yourself (drunk, by mistake, etc.). By waiting for your explanation, I may end up dead! I don't have a gun but if I could hit him/her on the head with something heavy, damn right I'm doing it.
 
The law in Britain would seem to favour the criminal. If you are attacked you may use reasonable force to defend yourself, but if the attacker's dodgy lawyer successfully argues that you used excessive force, you could end up being the criminal and sued for injuring your attacker.
The law is "an ass" in many cases.

There was an amusing case where a woman saw an intruder in her garden and called the police. The police said that they didn't have any officers available, so the woman said OK, I've got a gun and I'm going to shoot him. Next thing a squad car races up and the cops ask "where's the gun?". Woman says she doesn't have one. Cops say, you said you had a gun and woman says, you said you didn't have any officers available!
 
Lilac said:
You make several gratuitous assumptions. The first is that no one is in fear of their life when their home has been broken into. The second is the homeowner decides to claim self-defense as an after-thought of shooting the criminal. And thirdly, you assume the detectives aren't smart enough to figure it out. It's not the detectives first rodeo.

Do you realize that when people turn & run away from the threat, they get shot or stabbed in the back. Read Lt. Col. Grossman's book On Killing which will explain more to you.

Good people don't break into other people's houses. Good people don't threaten others with bodily harm or death. In the real world, bad people do bad things to good people.
Click to expand...
*I* didn’t make any assumptions. Did I not cite the source? I guess I didn’t. My bad. 🤦🏼‍♀️

This is not directly quoted but It’s from an article I was reading which is similar to dozens of other things I’ve read on the subject, articles from lawyers, law enforcement personnel, victims, even a few perps lol!!

I’ll see if I can find the article again, and I’ll link it.
 
The subway system in the Chicago Metro area often runs through high crime neighborhoods. I rode it by myself frequently starting about the age of 11, but things have gotten worse. Last time I was there, all the cars had signs saying,
IF YOU FEEL THREATENED
MOVE TO ANOTHER CAR
​
It makes sense, but may not be as satisfying as blowing someone away. However, I do realize that those instructions may not be adequate in all situations. I favor much stricter gun laws, but in all honesty, I've never decided if Bernard Goetz was a hero or menace, martyr or fool.
 
JustDave said:
The subway system in the Chicago Metro area often runs through high crime neighborhoods. I rode it by myself frequently starting about the age of 11, but things have gotten worse. Last time I was there, all the cars had signs saying,
IF YOU FEEL THREATENED
MOVE TO ANOTHER CAR
​
It makes sense, but may not be as satisfying as blowing someone away. However, I do realize that those instructions may not be adequate in all situations. I favor much stricter gun laws, but in all honesty, I've never decided if Bernard Goetz was a hero or menace, martyr or fool.
Click to expand...
A few things to consider:
1. After Bernard Goetz was hospitalized from a previous mugging, he decided to protect himself.
2. Of the 4 dirtbags he shot, the only one who didn't continue to commit violent crimes was the one who was permanently paralyzed.
As for Goetz's victims, Barry Allen and James Ramseur both went to prison on unrelated matters, Ramseur for a brutal rape that sent him to jail for many years. Ramseur died in 2011 of a drug overdose at the age of 45. Troy Canty shortly landed in a drug treatment program.
 
I remember when CO passed the so called make my day law, which allows for deadly force if someone enters your home. There have been more than a few cases where people dragged the body inside after shooting them, and subsequently found guilty of murder. I'm also pretty confident there are cases where people got away with it. I would also hope that I am never again in a position where taking a human life would be necessary.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top