Is it legal or not?
M

marionandjohn

New member
I am fairly new and have been reading alot of laws. I have had my GFL for about 6 months and answered most of my questions by reading and researching. I currently reside in GA but frequently travel to TN and have a GA carry permit. My question is that if ever in a situation where I am carrying (I always carry where I legally can) and say the fastfood place gets robbed (as unlikely as it is) at gun point do I have the right to draw my weapon if they are not trying to rob me or my family? I am not sure how I would feel in that situation but I would think I would feel I were in danger. Is there any laws or court cases that have pertained to a similar situation. any help would be appreciated. Also sorry if I posted this in the wrong area.
 

If you truly felt you or your family's lives were in danger I would not be concerned about the legality of the issue. With that being said, I would try to get my family to safety and then call the police.
 
Now I aint no lawyer or nothin...But from the articles and things Ive read It would be best to try and get yourself/family to safety if at all possible. If the perp is just sticking up the register, gets the money and runs then you have to let him go. If you're talking about someone coming into a place and announcing a robbery and waving a gun around at people (including you) then I would think you could go ahead and dispatch of them with extreme prejudice (haha you dont get to use that phrase enough). And ofcourse if they start shooting/stabbing/whatever then do the same if you feel like your life is in danger. I think that is usually the selling point...If you can reasonably show your/family's life is in danger.
 
I am not sure of the GA or TN laws on that but in SC where we have "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand your ground" laws there is also the "Alter Ego" principle and it applies in many cases especially your question. If you are in the fast food place and the cashier is being robbed you can consider yourself to be that person for self-defense. That does not mean you can shoot at will but if you feel that the cashier is going to be shot you can defend the cashier as if you were defending yourself. In otherwords if the cashier feels that they are about to be shot by the robber then you have the right to protect the cahsier as if you were that cahier.

It is hard to explaing and tricky but as others have said get yourself and you family to safety first, don't trey to play Dirty Harry. The size up the situation and if someone else, customer, cashier, cook etc. is about to be killed but you are safe then you can defend them.
 
To directly answer your question without getting into subjective "what if's", Tennessee is a state that allows Deadly Force in defense of your life, or the life of others.

So, in your example, shooting someone in the process of robbing a facility where you are present IS a legally acceptable option (according to the TN laws).

The "should I" or "should I not" of the situation is strictly up to you.
 
This type of scenario comes up a lot.

Only if you or someone's else is facing possible death or permanent bodily injury. The best course of action is let them take the money and run. If it's clear that they're going to do more than that (i.e. San Ysidro or Luby's massacre) then I'd say intervene as you may be a victim yourself. The mindset of a robber is different than the mindset of a serial killer or mass murderer. Most robbers just want the money.

A situation like this occurred shortly after the Florida stand your Florida ground statute became law in Plantation Florida back in 2007 at a Subway. The robbers intended to not leave any witnesses. Well one of the customers was legally carrying a .45 ACP pistol who was a retired US Marine.

Is it legal to shoot a robber during a robbery in progress? In most States yes. However you don't necessarily know the players in the situation. If you know all the players and are reasonably certain someone is going to get seriously hurt or killed if you don't act then do what you believe needs to be done.
 
If they have a gun, knife, club, machete, etc., it can easily be assumed they are intent on bodily harm, and you would most likely be seen as using "reasonable force" if someone ended up dead.
 
PascalFleischman said:
If they have a gun, knife, club, machete, etc., it can easily be assumed they are intent on bodily harm, and you would most likely be seen as using "reasonable force" if someone ended up dead.
Click to expand...
While it's easier to dodge the criminal bullet, you have the issue of civil liability.

Keep in mind that not all States have a stand your ground statute similar to Florida or Missouri with blanket civil suit immunity for justifiable homicide in self defense or defense of a third person. Nevada and Utah do not. While it's unlikely that a PI or WD suit will be levied against you in the event of a justifiable homicide or act of self defense it could happen so be forewarned.

My favorite example of this is Bernie Goetz. The only thing he was convicted of was possession of a firearm without a NY(C) permit. If he had gotten a target or premise permit, that charge wouldn't have stuck. The jury found it was an act of self defense. However, he did lose a $43M civil case. If this type of incident would have happened in Florida or Missouri today it would have gotten a paragraph in the newspaper, maybe some time on the evening news and that would have been it after the homicide investigation was over with.
 
netentity said:
While it's easier to dodge the criminal bullet, you have the issue of civil liability.

Keep in mind that not all States have a stand your ground statute similar to Florida or Missouri with blanket civil suit immunity for justifiable homicide in self defense or defense of a third person. Nevada and Utah do not. While it's unlikely that a PI or WD suit will be levied against you in the event of a justifiable homicide or act of self defense it could happen so be forewarned.

My favorite example of this is Bernie Goetz. The only thing he was convicted of was possession of a firearm without a NY(C) permit. If he had gotten a target or premise permit, that charge wouldn't have stuck. The jury found it was an act of self defense. However, he did lose a $43M civil case. If this type of incident would have happened in Florida or Missouri today it would have gotten a paragraph in the newspaper, maybe some time on the evening news and that would have been it after the homicide investigation was over with.
Click to expand...

Not in TN. If you are found legally justified in the use of Deadly Force, you are protected by statute from civil lawsuit. Furthermore, if you are legally justified in carrying, any laws you may have broken by carrying where you are will not be prosecuted.
 
PascalFleischman said:
Not in TN. If you are found legally justified in the use of Deadly Force, you are protected by statute from civil lawsuit. Furthermore, if you are legally justified in carrying, any laws you may have broken by carrying where you are will not be prosecuted.
Click to expand...
That may be the case in GA and TN, however you both border NC which is one of the civil suit capitals of the US since that's where John Edwards is from.

If you or the OP venture into NC keep that in mind. Civil suit immunity in NC didn't pass because of how many PI and WD attorneys there are in that State along with John Edwards influence on the matter.
 
So as I have read the law (TN and GA) the "castle doctrine" covers me legally and civily as long as I am there legally wether it be my own property or a fast food/store/restaraunt/side of the street etc... With that being said I have to agree with everyone who has said to ensure my families safety first then see what I can do if anything (not chasing an armed robber down the street). Again thanks for the replies and I believe I will enjoy USAcarry.com and these forums.
 
This is a very interesting item.

John Edwards made his fortune suing people and businesses. :mad:
 
Oregon:

ORS 161.219 justifies the use of deadly physical force against a person if he/she is:

(1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
(2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or
(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person.
 
Well, In NY it would be a bit different.

You would be required to hold the door for the robber, assist him, if he needs it, getting to his car and if he's running low on gas....you are required to give him enough cash for at least 1/2 a tank of fuel. The Republicans in the assembly and senate are trying to get the requirement lowered to only 1/4 tank.





Of course, I could be kidding....but if you know NY laws....I may not be.
 
fataugie said:
Well, In NY it would be a bit different.

You would be required to hold the door for the robber, assist him, if he needs it, getting to his car and if he's running low on gas....you are required to give him enough cash for at least 1/2 a tank of fuel. The Republicans in the assembly and senate are trying to get the requirement lowered to only 1/4 tank.





Of course, I could be kidding....but if you know NY laws....I may not be.
Click to expand...

Of course you could be serious. Maybe not. Good fun.

:yu: :girl_wink: :wacko: :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:
 
I am living in new york, for the next few months and from what i understand that is pretty close to the law. you must make every attempt to escape from your own house, apartment, and car to avoid using force. I have a few friends that told me it would be better to pull my knife kill the guy trying to rob me then run away. you would think big cities with millions of muggings would change the law
 
Well, sort of.

Truth is, you do not have to retreat from your own house, but other than that you are correct. I describe it as a pseudo castle doctrine. You sure as hell can't use force to protect property....you must abandon it if you can retreat to safety.

The only time you can use deadly force is if you are SURE you are about in IMMINENT danger because, you cannot retreat any further, the perp has the ability to actually hurt you (i.e. he has a weapon and is close enough to wield it effectively). There are actually 4 things that must be present for a satisfactory self defense argument to fly. I think there is one more, but I can't remember it.

Nice, huh?




infntrysuicdekng said:
I am living in new york, for the next few months and from what i understand that is pretty close to the law. you must make every attempt to escape from your own house, apartment, and car to avoid using force. I have a few friends that told me it would be better to pull my knife kill the guy trying to rob me then run away. you would think big cities with millions of muggings would change the law
Click to expand...
 
FN1910 said:
in SC where we have "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand your ground" laws there is also the "Alter Ego" principle and it applies in many cases especially your question.
Click to expand...

The "Alter Ego" law is cool. It says that you can put yourself in someone else’s shoes and act accordingly. For example if two evenly matched men are fighting you cannot shoot. If a man was beating a woman she could shoot. If you saw a woman being beat by a man you could “put yourself in her shoes” and shoot. FN1910 did I explain this right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 78 (members: 0, guests: 78)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,535
Messages
610,831
Members
74,975
Latest member
GunGirl69

Share this page

Back
Top