Â
Criminal Procedure – Extends circumstances under which there is a legal presumption that a person using deadly force in self defense had a reasonable belief of death and confers civil immunity upon person properly using self defense. – Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 11, Part 6.
That is language from a bill filed for introduction into the Tennessee Legislature last Wednesday.
My rational, though utterly non-legal, opinion tells me that if I harm an attacker in self-defense that I cannot be sued by family of said attacker after the legal system decides: 1. Not to try me, or 2. I am found not guilty.
I’m sure that David can make much more of it that I, but I cannot see why it could mean anything else.
I also cannot see why this law isn’t on the books in every state. Which is why I asked where I can get one?
Pingback: SayUncle » Bloggin’ da law
The standard for a verdict in your favor is more strict in a criminal trail than in a civil trial. Hence it can resonably be concluded that you could be legally liable in a civil trial but not in a criminal trial.
Think about O.J. Simpson who was not guilty in the criminal trail but lost in the civil trial for the murder of his ex-wife and her friend.
But it may also be that Tennessee law currently doesn’t recognize self-defense as valid in a civil lawsuit for damages. I.E. “Yes you were about to be raped and murdered and no prosecutor would spend 10 seconds considering filing criminal charges of any type against you. However, the plaintiff did wet his pants when you pointed the gun at him and from said wetting of the pants he developed a rash that lasted for a week and caused him considerable mental anguish. Therefore you must compensate him. You will now write a him a check for $50,000. Your claim of self defense does not alter the fact that the plaintiff did suffer the claimed damages because of your actions. You suffered no damages in the encounter and even if you had the plaintiff has no assets.”
Well, sort of. There are two parts to it — the first and longest part “extends circumstances” etc. as stated above. It simply provides there’s a presumption that you were reasonable in your use of deadly force against an attacker in most circumstances. It doesn’t mean you can’t be prosecuted in criminal court — just that the prosecution will have to overcome the presumption with evidence, which can be difficult enough that a prosecutor would pass on the opportunity.
Most Western states don’t need to pass a law like this part — it’s designed to eliminate the fact that most states East of the Mississippi require that you run away (“retreat”) when possible for you to do so if your life is threatened. Only when you can’t retreat may you respond with deadly force. That’s just a laughable concept in most of the West, thank goodness.
The second part of the bill confers civil liability protection. This is very good and should be enacted in every state IMHO. It’s been part and parcel of the NRA’s “Castle Doctrine” drive.
Note that there are explicit exceptions to both parts of the bill, specifically including when the “attacker” is a LEO in the lawful performance of his or her duties. Interestingly, if the LEO failed to announce him or herself, the first part of the bill would not apply, but the second part still would. So if this passed, and you had a no-knock, no-announce raid in Tennessee, the defending homeowner would be presumed to have reasonably used deadly force against the officers, so it would be that much more difficult to criminally prosecute her. But the officers could still sue her in civil court.
Aha! I knew we had someone of the proper legal fortitude who could decipher this!
A tip of the wig to thee, good barrister!