The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Kip Capley (R-Summertown) and Sen. Joey Hensley (R-Hohenwald) would allow people to use deadly force to protect their property if they believed they had no other option and there was a serious threat to human safety.
“Right now under current law, if someone is breaking into your property, if they’re stealing from you, if they’re destroying what you’ve worked your entire life to build, you’re expected to wait,” Capley said. “You’re expected to hesitate. You’re expected to second-guess and take a calculated risk at defending what’s yours.”
Democrats pushed back on the legislation.
“The reason we were taught you don’t kill people over property is because they are not putting at risk an innocent human life,” Rep. Justin Pearson (D-Memphis) said. “What this legislation seems to be doing is lowering that threshold significantly and substantially, and the department is going to have to reteach in future classes for those who get their lifetime permit that you can now kill people over property, and I don’t think that is right.”
— Tori Gessner in Tennessee lawmakers pass bill allowing deadly force to defend property
Hooray for Tennessee and good luck getting this legislation in the law books.
If bad guys were not doing bad things:
Breaking and entering uninvited(like someone is going to invite a person to break and enter)
Destroying someone else’s property
Stealing someone else’s property
Being aggressive
Carrying weapons
Commit: rape, battery, murder
Note: Elders like me can’t run, therefore things others than firearms present a grave danger.
If the bad guys were not a participant in those things above and others, then they would be conducting their lives as honorable responsible citizens. But some play deadly games and suffer the consequences and all the while the choice is theirs, i. e., the bad guys.
This could be dangerous because people are stupid. Someone might get shot just for trespassing if a property owner thinks they’re stealing. If your response is “then don’t trespass,” you’ve probably lived a very sheltered life.
Hey Dude: “The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Kip Capley (R-Summertown) and Sen. Joey Hensley (R-Hohenwald) would allow people to use deadly force to protect their property if they believed they had no other option and there was a serious threat to human safety.”
The wording is odd. If there’s “a serious threat to human safety,” you can already use your firearm. I’m not sure about this.
The article gave an example of potentially losing millions, but in reality this will be used to protect an $80 grill. That’s not justice or remotely necessary.
I need more information, but based on the linked article this doesn’t sound great, IMO. I’ve seen too much stupidity. People don’t exercise good judgment when emotion is involved.
comment is awaiting moderation.
that’s not what the law would do, not allow someone to shoot someone for trespassing if they thought they were stealing.
There still has to be ‘no other option’ of preventing the crime AND a serious threat to human safety. Its basically the same standard we have now for self defense (less stand your ground), only applied to include property.
“AND a serious threat to human safety.” Then what’s the point? If the threat exists, then you don’t need this law. Something’s off here.
because the theft of property can also pose a serious threat to human safety.
“The reason we were taught you don’t kill people over property is because they are not putting at risk an innocent human life,”
No, that’s not true.
It was because the law limited defense with deadly force to cases of ‘imminent’ risk of serious harm or death to the victim.