• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

TN bills to amend state tort law to protect drivers from protesters.

DeSchaine

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2013
Messages
537
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 19; Title 20; Title 29, Chapter 34; Title 54 and Title 55, relative to civil liability.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:
SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 29, Chapter 34, Part 2,is amended by adding the following as a new section:

(a) A person driving an automobile who is exercising due care and injures another person who is participating in a protest or demonstration and is blocking traffic in a public right-of-way is immune from civil liability for such injury.

(b) A person shall not be immune from civil liability if the actions leading to the injury were willful or wanton.

SECTION 2. This act shall take effect July 1, 2017, the public welfare requiring it.

So long as one does not deliberately target a protestor, it removes the spectre of having to hire a lawyer at great expense to defend oneself against a frivolous civil lawsuit.


We in Georgia seem to be mostly envious
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Attempting to vandalize my vehicle (beating on it as is shown in the short video) is a crime and could quite likely meet the reasonable man test where the use of lethal force is concerned.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Attempting to vandalize my vehicle (beating on it as is shown in the short video) is a crime and could quite likely meet the reasonable man test where the use of lethal force is concerned.

I'm fairly sure that in the great majority of states the courts will agree that a 'reasonable man' doesn't resort to lethal force over mere property vandalization.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I'm fairly sure that in the great majority of states the courts will agree that a 'reasonable man' doesn't resort to lethal force over mere property vandalization.
The citizen escaped with mere vandalism. What would a reasonable man believe at that moment his vehicle is surrounded by rioters as is shown in the video? Or, do subscribe to the "I must suffer serious bodily harm before I must" act in that situation. You comment sugest to me that you do hold such a subscription.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
I'm fairly sure that in the great majority of states the courts will agree that a 'reasonable man' doesn't resort to lethal force over mere property vandalization.

I am fairly certain one could make a "reasonable" argument that a mob rioting and attempting to break into an occupied car (attempted carjacking) would be justification for attempting to leave the location or even defending oneself!
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
The citizen escaped with mere vandalism. What would a reasonable man believe at that moment his vehicle is surrounded by rioters as is shown in the video? Or, do subscribe to the "I must suffer serious bodily harm before I must" act in that situation. You comment sugest to me that you do hold such a subscription.
Thankfully, I'm not responsible for your suggestibility. The Tennessee Code (coincidentally, state we're discussing) requires a 'reasonable belief' that violence is imminent, not that violence is occurring or has occurred.
§ 39-11-611. Self-defense.
...
(b) (1) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

(2) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, if:

(A) The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury;

(B) The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and

(C) The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.

(c) Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, business, dwelling or vehicle is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household or a person visiting as an invited guest, when that force is used against another person, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, business, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
........



I am fairly certain one could make a "reasonable" argument that a mob rioting and attempting to break into an occupied car (attempted carjacking) would be justification for attempting to leave the location or even defending oneself!
I cannot help but notice that you have 'moved the goalposts' (so to speak) and not the crowd is violent and attempting to harm an auto's occupants.

In the situation you just described, yes, it would be in keeping with § 39-11-611 to use or threaten to use force to protect oneself or an innocent third party.
Slapping hands on an auto is generally not going to break windows and it's unreasonable to think that it would. The court is properly going to look at the totality of the situation and if one claims it's 'reasonable' to suspect that someone is going to break into a car with an ostrich feather then it's not likely the court will be convinced.
See 39-11-614. Protection of property, sub-paragraph (c).
(c) Unless a person is justified in using deadly force as otherwise provided by law, a person is not justified in using deadly force to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on real estate or unlawful interference with personal property.

Damage to your car, broken windows, vandalized with paint sprayed on windows and hood? Nope, no justification in using deadly force. Broken windows and someone possesses a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury? Light 'em up.

Simple, n'est-ce pas?
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Thankfully, I'm not responsible for your suggestibility. The Tennessee Code (coincidentally, state we're discussing) requires a 'reasonable belief' that violence is imminent, not that violence is occurring or has occurred.
Really? The proposed legislation, the point of this thread, indemnifies the innocent driver for attempting to leave the location that violence is occurring to them. If in the process of leaving the scene of violence the driver strikes and injures a rioter statutory protection is required.

I submit that this is the proper function of government, to protect my individual rights.

Cite to the entire code that applies to our discussion.

39-11-611. Self-defense.

(c) Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, business, dwelling or vehicle is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household or a person visiting as an invited guest, when that force is used against another person, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, business, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
Interesting. It seems that the authors of the proposed legislation know what they are


I cannot help but notice that you have 'moved the goalposts' (so to speak) and not the crowd is violent and attempting to harm an auto's occupants.

In the situation you just described, yes, it would be in keeping with § 39-11-611 to use or threaten to use force to protect oneself or an innocent third party.
Slapping hands on an auto is generally not going to break windows and it's unreasonable to think that it would. The court is properly going to look at the totality of the situation and if one claims it's 'reasonable' to suspect that someone is going to break into a car with an ostrich feather then it's not likely the court will be convinced.
See 39-11-614. Protection of property, sub-paragraph (c).
Do not move the goal post yourself. The video does no show a ostrich feather. It shows a violent attack on property and the driver surrounded by other violent individuals.


Damage to your car, broken windows, vandalized with paint sprayed on windows and hood? Nope, no justification in using deadly force. Broken windows and someone possesses a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury? Light 'em up.

Simple, n'est-ce pas?
Which is it? Does it take the drawing of blood, via a broken window, to me your standard of reasonable belief? I suspect that it does based on your comments. The example video would seem to illustrate the situation the proposed legislation is attempting to address. Injuring a rioter by attempting to leave the scene of that violence is, when using the vehicle, using deadly force. If a cop can shoot you for driving towards him, while not striking him, a citizen is owed the same privilege.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Attempting to vandalize my vehicle (beating on it as is shown in the short video) is a crime and could quite likely meet the reasonable man test where the use of lethal force is concerned.

It would not be difficult to prove in a court of law that a reasonable person faced with a violent crowd of even five people would (should) be in fear for their life. Five people can topple a small car. Ten adults can topple a large pickup truck.

There are far too many videos of people all around the world, including here in America, doing precisely that, not to mention some of the atrocities that follow.
 
Top