Advice from the local press that can get you arrested or killed
Since the local press is All Lumpy All The Time, it’s no surprise that the inevitable bit about carry permits pops up. That’s a fine and noble cause until you start giving people misinformation that can get them arrested or killed. WATE’s Kristin Farley did just that in this piece. So, annotated with Uncle’s corrections (bear in mind, Uncle is no lawyer):
If you choose to carry a gun for protection, there are some places that are off-limits while you’re armed. Those include buildings where alcohol is sold and served, all courtrooms, school campuses, public parks and playgrounds.
Unless you’re a handgun carry permit holder or are transporting the firearm, all places are off-limits. If you choose to carry a gun for protection, you must first obtain a handgun carry permit. This includes taking a training course, passing a background check, and paying a $150 fee.
As for self-defense laws, the state of Tennessee says you are justified in threatening or using force against someone when you believe your life is in immediate danger from that person.
Actually, your life or the life of another are both justification for the use of force.
If you’re inside your home, you have increased protection under the law. That means, you’re justified in using deadly force, even if the perpetrator isn’t armed.
The perpetrator being armed is irrelevant. What matters is that you’re in fear of great bodily harm to you or others. For example, if a 6 feet, six inch tall 320 pound man is threatening severe bodily harm to a 5 feet, 2 inch 90 pound woman, use of force is justified.
But in the case of the attempted robbery at Knox County Commissioner Greg “Lumpy” Lambert’s car dealership, increased protection goes away.
No, it doesn’t. A place of business is neither more nor less special than a home.
Legally, Lambert could only use his gun if the suspect had one, too. And in that case, he did.
Err, wrong. If Lambert was in fear of his life or the threat of severe bodily harm, use of force is justified. For example, if the young man had grabbed a baseball bat or was easily capable of overpowering Mr. Lambert physically, use of force is justified.
WATE has done a disservice with this report and it could cost someone dearly. I hope that they correct this error.
Update: One I missed. In comments, Rustmeister notes that the report errs when it says off-limits places include where alcohol is sold. Actually, it’s where alcohol is sold for on-site consumption (i.e., grocery store that sells beer is OK, whereas Hooters is not).
Meanwhile, at WATE’s message board is exactly why a correction is needed:
Kristin Farley’s article about how to legally protect yourself is amazing to me! As a Wisconsin citizen whose right to security and defense is illegally being restricted by our state governor and being endorsed by the local media, it is very refreshing to see that other parts of America live free.
I hope you folks down there appreciate that even your media understands that presonal (sic) protection is a right guarenteed (sic) by the Constitution and not a privilege granted by law.
If a reader is registered there, they may want to let this person know.
Update 2: Heh. I get it wrong too. In comments, Kevin says:
Now, I am not a lawyer, but as a Tennessee permit holder I feel the need to clarify a few things. (Assuming the law hasn’t change in the two years since I took my permit course)
If you’re inside your home, you have increased protection under the law. That means, you’re justified in using deadly force, even if the perpetrator isn’t armed.
The perpetrator being armed is irrelevant. What matters is that you’re in fear of great bodily harm to you or others. For example, if a 6 feet, six inch tall 320 pound man is threatening severe bodily harm to a 5 feet, 2 inch 90 pound woman, use of force is justified.
Actually, if you’re inside your home you are always justified in using deadly force against an intruder. The act of illegally entering a home creates the presumption that you intend to commit serious bodily injured to the occupants.
But in the case of the attempted robbery at Knox County Commissioner Greg “Lumpy” Lambert’s car dealership, increased protection goes away.
No, it doesn’t. A place of business is neither more nor less special than a home.
No. A business is less special than a home. As above, any illegal entrance into a home creates the legal presumption that you are there to cause serious bodily injury to the occupants, therefore use of deadly force is always justified against intruders. In a place of business there has to be a threat of serious bodily injury before deadly force is justified.
Not meaning to pick a nit with the any of the above, but I think it’s important to get this stuff exactly right.
Uncle says: Indeed it is and corrects his error.
November 14th, 2006 at 10:09 am
It was just too tempting for WATE. Six shootings in 3 days was a seductive story line.
Rather than perform a community service WATE chose to sensational the story and as often is the case got major parts of it wrong. How hard would it have been to gotten in the truck and drove to Coal Creek Armory or any of the many gun stores. How about an interview with the KPD or Sheriff’s Department?
This is important information. I would hope WATE will do a follow-up story and straighten out the mess they made. Indecision can be fatal and that kind of reporting can lead to indecision. Sometimes you have to remember, better to be judged by 12 than carried by six.
November 14th, 2006 at 10:14 am
WATE, if I remember correctly, attempted to screw us at CCA over one fine day last year, and if I’m also remembering correctly we refuse to speak with them.
They are NOT our friends.
November 14th, 2006 at 10:38 am
I’m confused. Are you making WATE responsible for the News Sentinel’s reporting?
November 14th, 2006 at 10:43 am
Let me add some more to their error-filled piece:
Misleading in itself, as you can carry in liquor stores and retail outlets that sell beer.
What really matters is the fact that someone has willfully violated your home and has proven to have a value system substantially different that mainstream America. If they are willing to violate your home, you can reasonable assume they will also violate your body and therefore protect yourself. Size don’t matter.
And, I’d rephrase your last point a little:
For example, if the young man had grabbed a baseball bat or acted as if he was going to attack Mr. Lambert physically, use of force is justified.
He (or she) doesn’t have to be bigger than you to be a true threat.
November 14th, 2006 at 10:52 am
No, I am referring to last night’s 6:00 broadcast where the first three reports were about shootings then followed by the Lumpy Lambert story then followed by the Kristin Farley segment.
But the hyperlink to the Sentinel story is confusing. Your point is well taken. You have no responsibility for the Sentinel’s reporting.
I should have used this hyperlink or none at all.
I hope your station will consider a follow-up segment to clarify what the law is regarding the use of a firearm for self defense.
November 14th, 2006 at 11:03 am
Now, I am not a lawyer, but as a Tennessee permit holder I feel the need to clarify a few things. (Assuming the law hasn’t change in the two years since I took my permit course)
Actually, if you’re inside your home you are always justified in using deadly force against an intruder. The act of illegally entering a home creates the presumption that you intend to commit serious bodily injured to the occupants.
B
No. A business is less special than a home. As above, any illegal entrance into a home creates the legal presumption that you are there to cause serious bodily injury to the occupants, therefore use of deadly force is always justified against intruders. In a place of business there has to be a threat of serious bodily injury before deadly force is justified.
Not meaning to pick a nit with the any of the above, but I think it’s important to get this stuff exactly right.
November 14th, 2006 at 11:13 am
The media should be applauding Lumpy.
Criminals need to learn that armed resistance is a distinct possibility.
A couple of years ago, someone tried the same thing with a small business on Broadway or Magnolia, only to be shot in the butt by the store proprietor when he tried to get away.
Nothing personal to the various KPD and neighborhood posse, but I prefer my carry weapon and my various home defense weapons over neighborhood watch groups and candlelight vigils.
November 14th, 2006 at 11:25 am
No. A business is less special than a home. As above, any illegal entrance into a home creates the legal presumption that you are there to cause serious bodily injury to the occupants, therefore use of deadly force is always justified against intruders. In a place of business there has to be a threat of serious bodily injury before deadly force is justified.
Question for everyone. What happens if you are in a business after hours and the doors are locked and someone breaks in? I can understand that during business hours there would be a different threshold. But what about when the business is closed?
Does the event of the break in change the threshold?
This must be as clear as possible.
November 14th, 2006 at 11:29 am
Not sure, #9. I was operating under the assumption that private property is private property (whether it’s a business or a home). But, as Kevin said, that likely is the wrong assumption.
November 14th, 2006 at 11:48 am
I’d say (like I know anything) that shooting someone in #9’s scenario would not result in prosecution.
Breaking in after hours would, in my mind as a juror, warrant a “shoot to stop” situation.
November 14th, 2006 at 11:48 am
It may have been mentioned, but you do NOT need a carry permit to exercise your right to armed self-defense in your home or business–and it should be that way everywhere IF the wording of Article I, Section 26 of the State Constitution’s Declaration of Rights was being followed by our State government.
November 14th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
liquor stores dont sell beer . Liquor stores can only sell liquor and nothing else at all. Not shot glasses, not mixers, not food,not t shirts .they can sell liquor, Nothing else. Also I dont think you can carry in a liquor store dont they have something on the front door about that?
November 14th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
rep, I don’t think they do.
But, seriously, can you get the liquor laws changed? I’d like to be able to buy wine/bourbon/etc. at the grocery store and not have to make two trips.
November 14th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Doesn’t the law specify that carry permits are permitted where alcohol is sold, not consumed? Liquor, wine and beer would all be included as alcohol unless specifically specified.
And any business is free to post no weapons–as if armed robbers would be turned away. Such postings tends to turn me away in that they disrepect my right to carry for self-defense and create “gun-free” criminal-safe zones. Also with a gun permit carrier, we have already undergone intrusive criminal background checks so that when a business prohibits us from carrying on their premises, they are excluding the safest persons as ascertained by our State govenment.
November 14th, 2006 at 7:21 pm
The media should be applauding Lumpy.
Feel free to applaud on your own, Chris. Our job is only to report the facts.
I think it’s important to get this stuff exactly right.
And Kevin, it looks like you’ve proven how difficult it is sometimes to get the facts right.
November 14th, 2006 at 10:28 pm
Feel free to applaud on your own, Chris. Our job is only to report the facts.
But did you report the facts? Lumpy has posted that he showed your WATE reporters that the gun was unloaded and not chambered during his demonstration for WATE news. A very important fact you did not tell the Television audience. You should have also said something like “Don’t do this at home. This is a trained marksman doing a demonstration with an unloaded firearm”.
And Kevin, it looks like you’ve proven how difficult it is sometimes to get the facts right.
But that didn’t happen. What did happen is your station put a lot of incorrect information on the air that could have serious consequences. Today’s news cycle has come and gone and WATE did nothing to make it right. You have had a day to straighten out the mess made but WATE elected to do nothing. No one expects WATE to be perfect. There is an expectation that WATE will correct any errors aired.
When you don’t get the facts right you have an obligation to come back and correct the errors. Will that happen? I don’t mean on Gene Patterson’s blog either. Will you air a correction on the air?
Lumpy’s account:
November 15th, 2006 at 11:58 pm
The article got it right on the “alcohol” rule. Read the text again: “Those include buildings where alcohol is sold and served.” You cannot drink inside a grocery store, therefore carry is legal.
November 16th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
[…] Seems State Senator Burchett broke the law when he threatened lethal force against four teenagers because those teenagers were unarmed and the incident occurred at a place of business. Well, according to WATE, who said: Legally, Lambert could only use his gun if the suspect had one, too. […]
November 21st, 2006 at 11:01 am
[…] Advice from the local press that can get you arrested or killed; […]
November 29th, 2006 at 5:16 pm
[…] In today’s Metro Pulse Mr. Henderson writes a Commentary that strongly implies that Greg “Lumpy” Lambert pointed a loaded gun at a WATE Television cameraman. This is a blatant lie and I find it impossible that Barry Henderson could not know as of press time that the gun was unloaded. Henderson states that a “tirade of letters from hither and yon defending him” had been delivered to the Metro Pulse. In typical Metro Pulse fashion only three of those letters were published. I wonder how many of those letters pointed out that the gun was not loaded? Both Uncle and I made a issue of this on KnoxViews and at SayUncle. Gene Patterson also covered it on his blog as did Terry Frank and David Oatney on their blogs. […]
December 4th, 2006 at 11:44 pm
[…] And more from Knoxville from SayUncle. He’s using his wallet as his voice and boycotting Pilot Oil, the local mayor’s family business. For those of you not following his blog often, you might be shocked to learn that the Knoxville mayor has joined Bloomberg’s anti-gun group which hopes to export New York City style gun control around the country. He also responds to local press coverage of the politicians who used firearms in self defense. Since he may have a little kissing up to do to the wife, he needs to consider the necklace to the left. Actually, he needs to find something shinier and with diamonds, but that wouldn’t fit this carnival very well. […]