Filed under: Government/Legal
Carjackers beware! New bill in Tennessee allows "deadly force" against attackers
Apparently the increase in violent crimes in Tennessee is leading legislators to take some unprecedented actions. They have filed bills that would increase the rights of citizens to bear arms and use those arms with deadly force in certain situations. Like during a carjacking. One bill in particular would allow motorists to kill an attacker that they feel is threatening to "murder, rape, kidnap, rob or carjack the car's occupants." Filing the bill was Rep. Ulysses Jones and Sen. Reginald Tate, two Memphis Democrats. "I've heard a lot of support for this. It's time to give citizens the opportunity to protect themselves. Right now, we're at the mercy of what I call 'scum'," said Jones, a Memphis Fire Department paramedic. The important shift here is that potential victims had only been allowed the right of defense inside their homes. Extending the right to outside the home, and particularly to a motorist in a vehicle, is a dramatic change. The NRA has helped push similar laws through in Florida, but Tennessee is believed to be the first effort to extend rights to motorists. These so-called "No Retreat" laws change the burden of attackees so that fleeing isn't the only option. Standing your ground and defending yourself and your property is allowed instead.
[Source: Memphis Commercial Appeal]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
NoNameDenton 4:02PM (2/15/2007)
Took them long enough, I am from Texas and travel to Tennessee a lot and I never feel safe up there because of the crime is some areas of the state
Reply
mark 4:10PM (2/15/2007)
Well it's about time. And before people start condeming this. How about this? Someone breaks into your home, shoots you, but if you shoot back to defend yourself, you're the one the ends up in jail. How messed up is that?
I think that now citizens can defend themselves and fight back against these losers, you watch crime go down. Now that the law isn't defending these loser criminals. Someone carjacks or thinks about it, they won't know if someone is packing a gun or not. Make them think twice.
Reply
Kit 4:10PM (2/15/2007)
Colorado has a bill much like this in the house right now. They just (narrowly) voted out the provisions about vehicles. Now it's just home and business where you are allowed to use deadly physical force.
Reply
Brad Evanson 4:12PM (2/15/2007)
About damn time. This country was founded on the principle of defending yourself against an unjust act, and I'd say carjacking is definitely unjust.
Reply
Richard Warren 4:30PM (2/15/2007)
"Officer, I didn't mean to shoot the parking attendent, I thought he was going to carjack it. God, the last time this happened it's when my ex wife tried to take the car."
Reply
Adam 4:39PM (2/15/2007)
This will change nothing. Criminals wont change their behavior and anyone who would have used a gun/deadly force would do it regardless of the laws.
Reply
Chris 4:42PM (2/15/2007)
Nothing would make me laugh more than some hood getting his ass blown off by a soccer mom. God, now I want to move to TN...
Reply
jg 4:56PM (2/15/2007)
Pointless legislation that gives the appearance of doing what the people want. There's probably a handful of people who would keep their heads and successfully throw down with a carjacker and those people won't get jacked. It'll be the soccer mom focused on her groceries or cell phone conversation who'll get snuck up on. Criminals prey on the weak and they're not looking for a challenge.
Reply
Nick 4:58PM (2/15/2007)
"This will change nothing. Criminals wont change their behavior and anyone who would have used a gun/deadly force would do it regardless of the laws."
It may not change behavior, but it will change the consequences. At least now the guy who shoots a carjacker to defend himself, his car, and/or his passengers won't go to prison for it.
Reply
Chris 4:59PM (2/15/2007)
Blah, blah, blah... the real reason we have legislation like this is because the federal government is incapable of taking care of us anymore, whether it be hurricane, criminal, or retirement. Welcome to anarchy folks...
Reply
Mike 5:04PM (2/15/2007)
The federal government is supposed to care of us?
Crap! All this time I been buyin' my own groceries, washin' my own clothes, goin' to work every day..
Reply
Hugo 5:09PM (2/15/2007)
The federal government is supposed to take care of our retirement? How about our salaries too? They're supposed to pick us up and move us out of hurricane zones when we're given hours or days to move? Welcome to communism, folks...
Reply
Chris 5:43PM (2/15/2007)
Let's see... FEMA's unbelievable incompetence in the wake of one of the largest natural disasters? Providing states with enough money to be able to hire and maintain a police force capable of protecting society? Uh, Social Security not being able to even provide half of our retirement now? I don't want a handout, but I do want to know that my taxes are paying for something other than the personal vendettas of a rich oil family.
Like I said, the more we support rich imbeciles with our money, the less we deserve and the less we get.
Reply
Allen K. 5:50PM (2/15/2007)
I think this is an excellent idea. We shouldn't have to back down from dangerous aggressors. All law is open to interpretation, but the general spirit of making everybody "run away" instead of standing their ground is ridiculous. No cop can be where trouble is all the time.
Reply
bernie 5:51PM (2/15/2007)
I'm originally from Tennessee, and frankly most of their legislative actions make me ashamed of that fact. But I think this one is okay. We live in an age when drug dealers who are shot evading arrest from border guards get immunity to testify against them and put our own public servants in prison.
Our legal system stacks the deck in favor of criminals, so the only deterrent is going to be a few heads on sticks in the town square - like the medievil days. Good on the Volunteer State!
Reply
risingsun 5:52PM (2/15/2007)
This will be interesting to see how it plays out. By all means I think a person should be able to defend themselves, but this could mean everyone and his dog will be driving around with a gun in their glovebox, good or bad.
The death sentence does not deter violent crime, this has been proven. I don't think the idea of the victim possibly having a gun will deter an attacker much either, because if you're desperate enough to carjack someone with a gun, then you've already thought over (or not, in which case you're just an idiot regardless) the consequences of your actions.
Strong families deter crime. Children with parents who care about them and are actively involved in their education are less likely to turn to crime. The best way to reduce crime is to raise the minimum wage and increase school funding.
Think about this: What is the most common cause for most fights/arguments in a family household? Money problems, fueled by alcohol or other substances. When parents are making a living wage, then they can spend more time with their children and be under less stress, reducing domestic violence. When parents have more time to spend with their kids, those kids are less likely to make bad choices later in life.
The increase in school funding will pay for itself over the long run when there are less people in prison. In my state, we spend about $30,000 per year per prisoner to house and feed them, while the state spends about $2,500 per student per year for education. Seem a little unbalanced?
Reply
Mike 6:09PM (2/15/2007)
This is a different Mike than #12 but I agree with him. It's ridiculous to expect the government will take care of everything.
As far as this act, maybe it won't change anything, but if one criminal is blown away by someone protecting themselves, it's worth it. We have to stop protecting the criminals and start protecting our citizens by making them able to protect themselves and not suffer for refusing to be a victim.
Have you ever heard the saying: Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime? It holds true here, people able to protect themselves will not be victims to the scurge of society.
Reply
Hugo 6:22PM (2/15/2007)
Light a match for a man, and he'll be warm for a minute; light him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
There's no deterrent to carjacking like thug after thug getting shot in the face. However, criminals might be tempted to get more violent and shoot first, even at the unarmed.
As for expecting Social Security to pay "even half of our retirement", forget it. Expect to pay "double the Social Security tax" - that's just math. The government invests your money like a 3 year-old. Is that a huge shock? Social Security should be eliminated, privatized, or minimized.
Reply
naggs 6:27PM (2/15/2007)
how rediculous is it that its illegal to use force agaist a car jacker? if you use the threat of force against other, you should not still have the protection provided by the law.
if 1/2 people had guns, noone would get carjacked
Reply
Chris 6:30PM (2/15/2007)
It's about damn time! Citizens can start pushing back against thugs.
No one is going to shoot a car attendant. Anyone who carries knows the responsibility they have taken on and know that even in a clean shooting, they are going to get arrested and lose their weapon for a time. But the key is, they are alive.
On a side note: the federal government has one job and one job only. Protect the country from other countries. They aren't their to take care of some nancy-ass who couldn't take care of themselves. We used to call that natural selection.
Reply