LOL<quoted text> Read, carefully.
Tenn. Code Ann.§ 39-11-611(a) In specific declares there is no duty to retreat before using force:
(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.
§ 39-11-611(c) Any person using force intended or likely to cause but it sets a standard, or more specifically, it "presumes" that if a person uses deadly force, then that person must have felt fear or felt he was threatened. That being the case and from that point forward, it would be the duty of the District Attorney(court etc...) to prove that the person didn't feel fear or was not threatened.
You must not comprehend what you read, or, you didn't look at the links I provided in the earlier post made to you.
In either case, you didn't comprehend.
From the earlier post made to you:
"Our current law doesn't change anything with respect to the presumption of fear," Nashville attorney David Raybin said. "Home, car, business _whatever you want to call it _ you have a presumption of fear with somebody breaking in and you can shoot him."
A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read.
Do you understand the difference between being able to stand your ground and STILL needing the necessarily elements to use deadly force?
For the FOURTH time. Nobody is saying you have to flee
But to use deadly force, two things are required:
1) The person had a reasonable fear for their life
2) They were in IMMINENT Danger
You don't get to combine the two and claim the person gets to believe he may have been in imminent danger even though he wasn't
Let me help you understand why both are needed. Someone can be in imminent danger but that danger may not be life-threatening. In which case they are allowed to use self-defense but self-defense is defined as only enough force necessary to stop an attack
That is why they also must prove they had a reasonable reason to fear for their life
Standing your ground is not synonymous with justification of using deadly force
You don't understand the law
Even when the words are right in front of you
Give it up. You are wrong