HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Tennessee has a "Sta...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 11:13 AM

Tennessee has a "Stand your ground" law............

If it's going to be interpreted like the Florida law is being interpreted by their courts, the only logical thing to do, if you're being harassed by someone, is to take them out first BEFORE they have the chance to pull a weapon and claim self-defense.

These laws are going to cause a LOAD of grief before this is all over. I've had a LOT of training in self defense and it's always been very carefully crafted to warn about overreacting to situations. But with these interpretations, overreacting becomes a MUST for self preservation. If I'm attacked and I kick their ass, EVEN IF I USE APPROPRIATE FORCE IN DEFENDING MYSELF, they could shoot me and claim THEY were in fear of their life.

This is SO fucked up. It leaves no room for appropriate graduated escalation of force. It jumps immediately to 10 on the self defense scale.

19 replies, 3630 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 19 replies Author Time Post
Reply Tennessee has a "Stand your ground" law............ (Original post)
socialist_n_TN Mar 2012 OP
seabeyond Mar 2012 #1
socialist_n_TN Mar 2012 #2
X_Digger Mar 2012 #3
socialist_n_TN Mar 2012 #4
X_Digger Mar 2012 #18
socialist_n_TN Mar 2012 #19
ericearl Mar 2012 #6
X_Digger Mar 2012 #17
samsingh Mar 2012 #5
socialist_n_TN Mar 2012 #8
Yavin4 Mar 2012 #7
socialist_n_TN Mar 2012 #10
Hoyt Mar 2012 #13
spanone Mar 2012 #9
socialist_n_TN Mar 2012 #11
ericearl Mar 2012 #12
Uncle Joe Mar 2012 #14
socialist_n_TN Mar 2012 #15
Uncle Joe Mar 2012 #16

Response to socialist_n_TN (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 11:17 AM

1. so, i gotta ask. all this attention to it. doesnt it encourage ALL people, kids included

to make damn sure they have a gun. cause with zimmerman following and then confronting a kid that had ALL right to walk on a sidewalk to his home, doing NOTHING wrong, having a face off. i would say it is telling us, we ALL must have a gun to balance the inequality in said face off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 11:33 AM

2. Yep that's exactly what it's implicitly saying..........

As I said in my post, it erases any sort of requirement for a "graduated" response. A graduated response will get you killed, so everybody has to go to lethal self defense immediately. Luckily I've had the training to still gradually escalate and maybe survive (and old habits die hard. I'd probably still attempt a graduated response), but most people don't have 30 years of training, so they will feel the need to be armed from the start.

However, if I'm attacked NON-lethally and I defend myself NON-lethally, but in a strong enough fashion to let my opponent know that he can't win a fistfight, under these interpretations of "stand your ground", he would have the right to pull a gun and try to shoot me out of some nebulous "fear of his life". So he could kill me LEGALLY, even though he started a confrontation he couldn't win.

That's what I mean about how fucked up it is. MY options for self defense now key on lethality (or at least SERIOUS bodily damage) from the first moment of my harassment. I can't just bloody my attackers nose and not worry about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialist_n_TN (Reply #2)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 11:38 AM

3. Not quite..

And I'm assuming TN's law is like FL's, so bear with me..

If you were kicking someone's ass who attacked you, and they tried to get away, and you wouldn't let them- then and only then would they be legally within their rights to escalate.

FL's SYG defense doesn't apply if you are the aggressor, generally.

Here's the language in their statute:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter {SYG} is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.


(Bold mine.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #3)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 11:45 AM

4. So I'm to let them get away from hand to hand range............

and into gun range? When I'm not armed with anything other than my skills? I'm supposed to just "assume" good faith on the part of someone who confronted and attacked me first? That's a pretty big (and dangerous) assumption for me to make.

That said, I'm NOT going to keep on beating an outclassed opponent once he's been rendered defenseless. I'm not inclined that way and my training doesn't call for that.

I suppose in this situation, I would stay close, stop the counterattack and call the cops. But I wouldn't let him get out of the range of my fists until the cops got there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialist_n_TN (Reply #4)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 01:33 PM

18. Well, the first thing to do would be avoid confrontation altogether.

Being aware of your surroundings, making eye contact, not having your head buried in a phone conversation or ipod track- most criminal attackers choose potential victims that they think are easy. The concept is called situational awareness.

Head up, shoulders back, eye contact.

(I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, having studied self-defense, but others may not be familiar with the premise.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #18)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:01 PM

19. Yep as an instructor, situational awareness IS..........

The first thing I do teach. Along with graduated response. Or at least that used to be the pattern. I'm not so sure about the second part now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #3)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 11:53 AM

6. If that is so,

If what you posted is what the FL law states then why is it that Zimmerman hasn't been arrested. He violated both parts of section 2. He was the one that was the aggressor when he chose to follow the kid even when told not to by the 911 operator.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ericearl (Reply #6)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 01:09 PM

17. That's my frustration with the PD, too. The law is clear.

But given their racist history, it doesn't surprise me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialist_n_TN (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 11:50 AM

5. that is the logical conclusion because they will feel threatened and shoot first and get away w it

in fact, isn't someone having a gun threatening?

in fact, to the gun lovers, someone without a gun might be threatening because they may be hiding some other weapon.

it is a barbaric law that shows the thinking of the NRA and its supporters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #5)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 11:56 AM

8. Yep. I actually think a lot about self defense........

and as I said, I have a lot of training in that area and this conclusion IS logical to me. EVERY confrontation now will involve a HIGHER possibility of lethality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialist_n_TN (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 11:54 AM

7. If NYC Had This Law...

The population would drop real quick. Confrontations and conflicts happen all of the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #7)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 11:58 AM

10. Well if the RW gets their way, NY state would have to.........

honor CC from other states. Imagine it. Armed tourists from TN and FL walking your streets armed and paranoid from Faux Noise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialist_n_TN (Reply #10)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 12:08 PM

13. That is a scary thought. I hope NYC does not knuckle under to those who want more guns in public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialist_n_TN (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 11:56 AM

9. they should be called 'the last man standing' laws....the last man standing wins

he's the only one left to tell the story....true or false

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #9)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 12:00 PM

11. VERY good point...........

And also another motivation for lethality in a confrontation. Someone whose dead can't contradict your claims of self defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialist_n_TN (Reply #11)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 12:06 PM

12. i.e.

Just ask Zimmmerman

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialist_n_TN (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 12:17 PM

14. And in Tennessee, you might be "standing your ground" while you're drunk in a bar.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/us/04guns.html

"Tennessee is one of four states, along with Arizona, Georgia and Virginia, that recently enacted laws explicitly allowing loaded guns in bars. (Eighteen other states allow weapons in restaurants that serve alcohol.) The new measures in Tennessee and the three other states come after two landmark Supreme Court rulings that citizens have an individual right not just in connection with a well-regulated militia to keep a loaded handgun for home defense."

Thanks for the thread, socialist_n_TN.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #14)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 12:26 PM

15. You're welcome Unk..........

I also worked in bars around these parts for 20+ years and I NEVER knew a bar owner who thought guns in bars was a good idea. And a LOT of these guys were some of the most rabid rednecks you'll ever want (or not want ) to meet.

These idiotic laws are being introduced and enacted in these states by people (legislators) who have NO FUCKING CLUE about the realities of confrontations. Either that or they have another agenda entirely. I'm not sure whether they're clueless or evil. Or both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialist_n_TN (Reply #15)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 01:04 PM

16. I'm putting my money on both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread