Anyone ever have to use their R9 for self defense?

[Richard S]

Here is the applicable statute in Tennessee:

[size=10]39-11-611. Self-defense.
 (a)  As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:
      (1)  “Business” means a commercial enterprise or establishment owned by a person as all or part of the person's livelihood or is under the owner's control or who is an employee or agent of the owner with responsibility for protecting persons and property and shall include the interior and exterior premises of the business;
      (2)  “Curtilage” means the area surrounding a dwelling that is necessary, convenient and habitually used for family purposes and for those activities associated with the sanctity of a person's home;
      (3)  “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, that has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed for or capable of use by people;
      (4)  “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides, either temporarily or permanently, or is visiting as an invited guest, or any dwelling, building or other appurtenance within the curtilage of the residence; and
      (5)  “Vehicle” means any motorized vehicle that is self-propelled and designed for use on public highways to transport people or property.
 (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.
 (d)  The presumption established in subsection (c) shall not apply, if:
      (1)  The person against whom the force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, business, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder; provided, that the person is not prohibited from entering the dwelling, business, residence, or occupied vehicle by an order of protection, injunction for protection from domestic abuse, or a court order of no contact against that person;
      (2)  The person against whom the force is used is attempting to remove a person or persons who is a child or grandchild of, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;
      (3)  Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, the person using force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, business, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
      (4)  The person against whom force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in § 39-11-106, who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, business, residence, or vehicle in the performance of the officer's official duties, and the officer identified the officer in accordance with any applicable law, or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
 (e)  The threat or use of force against another is not justified:
      (1)  If the person using force consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other individual;
      (2)  If the person using force provoked the other individual's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
           (A)  The person using force abandons the encounter or clearly communicates to the other the intent to do so; and
           (B)  The other person nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the person; or
      (3)  To resist a halt at a roadblock, arrest, search, or stop and frisk that the person using force knows is being made by a law enforcement officer, unless:
           (A)  The law enforcement officer uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest, search, stop and frisk, or halt; and
           (B)  The person using force reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary to protect against the law enforcement officer's use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
[/size]

[flintsghost]

After reading the case details, and the original circumstances of the shooting, i am kind of undecided on where i stand on the case. i believe he should have least tried to run away first and put some distance between himself and the unarmed attacker. maybe even another warning shot, into the ground. then if you get cornered and the guy keeps coming, you might seem more justified. I dont know, i'm just glad it is not me.

It is an interesting case and has lots of unusual details that struck me.    I read everything there was on line about it and even had the opportunity at one point to read the original court transcript online.    Several things struck me as salient points that were never really emphasized at the time.  My memory could be a little faulty but these are some of the things that stuck out in my mind...

1.  The incident was on a dirt trail and one would initially be led to believe it was way out in the middle of nowhere when in actuality  Fish, dogs and victim were a little over 100 yards from a rest area on a major highway, the trails end.  There were people there who heard the shots but not the ensuing commotion.  The shot timing as recalled by witnesses was entered at the trial.

2.  Fish was carrying a commercial walking stick, one of the ski pole types and had it in his hand when it started.   Is there some reason he didn't try to use it to keep the dogs at bay or was he someone who is afraid of animals just because they are agressive.   All cops have walked up on cars and pickup trucks that have the hound of the baskervilles in it and acts like they will eat you.   I never was afraid of a dog and usually mere voice commands will cause them to back off from me.   And I'm not the "dog whisperer" but have had several and still do and have a firm voice.  The only ones I ever had to shoot, I did because they were so badly injured from encounters with vehicles that my ranch experience with cattle and horses led me to believe they were a lost cause for the best vet in the world.

3.   There are lots of intermediate methods of dealing with hostile people before one gets to a firearm.  To a cop it's called the escalation of force continuum.   Did Fish use anything like that?  He was a high school teacher and used to dealing with teenagers.  Surely he must undertand handling problems.   He had a walking stick and voice that he never by his own admission attempted on the dogs and then with pistol in hand claims he told the victim to halt.  Then fired.   The victim was far enough away that there was not any trace of powder residue on the victim (at least not noted at trial).   Fish was carrying a 10mm S&W with (as I recall, and maybe wrong,  200 grain HP ammo).  The hollow points were a big issue at trial, way overblown.   How far away does one have to be before powder residue is no longer deposited on their person or clothing by a 10mm?   That was never brought up at trial.   When I go off trail I usually carry a S&W 58, .41 mag with full house factory 210 Jacketed SP's.  So I can't fault the cannon he was carrying.  I think it was a good choice.   But my .41 will leave traces on a paper target out to 15 feet or so.   It's a bigger cartridge but has the same shorter barrel as Fish's 10mm so he would have unburned powder exiting the muzzle also.  

4.  Forensic evidence at the scene was poorly explored.  As I recall a cartridge case from Fish's pistol was found subsequent to the investigation by some long period of time.  As I recall it was when the judge and jury were transported ot the scene to see where it happened.  How good does that look?   The local authorities did not do anyone any good with their casual approach to  investigation.  

We'll never know exactly what happened.  But those things were points I noticed and left unanswered questions in my mind that I would have wanted to know.   Some of those things such as his walking stick were not even points that were asked in his interviews as near as I could tell.   He needed good legal council while he was being questioned and the investigation needed to be more comprehensive.  If I was a juror I'm not sure if I could have reached a verdict based on what I read.

[flintsghost]

Here is the applicable statute in Tennessee:

[size=10]39-11-611. Self-defense.
        
[/size]

Richard,  that is good stuff and something that everyone should know for their state.   In addition everyone who carries should know what their county and municipality has passed that is an addendum to the state statutes or differs from them.   In some states that can happen while in others it can't.