A new gun law in Tennessee could soon make defending property much safer – legally, anyway. The GOP-controlled state legislature passed a bill along party lines (23-5 in the Senate and 62-24 in the House) that expands the legal use of deadly force. If Republican Gov. Bill Lee signs the legislation, the Volunteer State will give private property the Texas treatment.
Firmer Ground to Stand on in Tennessee
Right now in Tennessee – and most states, in fact – one has the right to defend oneself with deadly force if there’s a reasonable belief that one’s life or someone else’s is in danger. This new law, however, would change what it means to stand your ground.
On April 23, the Tennessee House and Senate both passed the Senate’s version of the bill. In its final form, the new legislation changes the allowance for the use of deadly force, such as when a person legally in possession of “real or personal property” reasonably believes force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate another’s trespass or unlawful interference with the property, when a person has been forced off the land unlawfully and needs to use force to re-enter, or when deadly force is reasonably believed to be necessary to prevent or stop arson, damage to property, burglary, theft, robbery, damage to livestock, or aggravated cruelty to animals. Finally, the new bill allows the use of deadly force to prevent or stop another’s actions that would expose the defender or another to risk of death, serious bodily injury, or “grave sexual abuse.”
The initial House version included an exception that made it illegal if the person was faced away – that is, no shooting in the back – but the Senate version that was ultimately passed removed that clause.
Understanding Self-Defense Nationwide
Each state has its own laws regarding the use of defensive force, but they can more or less be sorted into a few categories. Some states impose a duty to retreat before resorting to deadly force. Some require one to attempt retreat first, but not in one’s own home. Other states extend that to places of work and vehicles. These last two examples fall under what is often called the Castle Doctrine. A person’s home and, in some cases, workplace and vehicle constitute his or her castle, the theory goes. Then there are considerably more permissive “stand your ground” states, where one has no duty to retreat anywhere.
Still, it can be confusing. It is legal in all states to use force to defend self, others, and property – but the use of deadly force is where things get sticky. Just how hard did you try to retreat before pulling that gun? Was your life really in danger or just your stuff? Then there’s the changing situation. In a post explaining Connecticut self-defense law posted on the website of Allan F. Friedman, an attorney serving the Fairfield County area, this hypothetical shows just how confusing it can get: “This rule [the duty to retreat] doesn’t apply to ordinary, non-deadly self-defense. For example, if someone pushes you or tries to hit you, you can use reasonable physical force to defend yourself without needing to flee. But if you escalate to using a weapon or deadly force, prosecutors will ask whether you could have safely walked away instead.”
Now imagine that same situation, but you aren’t the first one to pull a deadly weapon – the assailant is. Does that turn the entire conflict into a deadly force situation? Do you have a duty to disengage and attempt retreat then, or would it be argued in court that you should have done so in the beginning? What if you use force to defend your property (rather than yourself) and then it turns deadly? Where are the lines going to be drawn by the police, the prosecutors, and the judges who weren’t there in the thick of it when life and death hung in the balance?
Even though just about all states can fall into this small handful of categories, each law, each self-defense situation, is unique. Generally, however, the more “progressive” the prosecutor and the stricter the duty to retreat, the more likely one is to find oneself locked up for self-defense.
And Then There’s Texas
The idea of standing your ground goes a little further in Texas than it does just about anywhere else. According to the Texas Constitution and Statutes, Penal Code Chapter 9, a person is “justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property … when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary” to prevent arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime. Deadly force can also be used on those attempting to flee after committing one of the aforementioned crimes.
This is serious business in the Lone Star State. An employee of the Union Pacific railroad company explained that when trains break down, employees don’t dare cut across personal property in Texas to get to the nearest road for fear of being shot as a trespasser. Rather, they’ll walk potentially hours out of their way down the tracks to hit the next crossing over a public roadway.
Once Gov. Lee signs this bill, Tennessee will join Texas in a category all their own of states that allow the use of deadly force to prevent or stop property crimes in which no human lives are threatened. Each instance will still be a special case – and using deadly force always carries the possibility of prosecution. But for Tennesseans, it seems the ground they can stand is about to get a little more solid.
