I am dustin eads first cousin. I love my family very much and I have learned over my 29 years how important family is. I am tired of people assuming crap. None of us were there to know exactly what happened all I really know is that my cousin got shot and now he is fighting for his life for a crime he committed and the crime he comitted IS NOT ONE SOMEONE SHOULD HAVE TRIED TO TAKE HIS LIFE FOR. WE ALL KNOW WHAT HE DID WAS WRONG AND NO ONE IS TRYING TO DEFEND THAT but sometimes no matter how much you love your family member they do things or incounter problems in their life and turn to other things to try to fix those problems and no matter how much their family is behind them and try to help them the family isn't always able to change the person but the family CAN STILL LOVE THEM AND NOT TURN THEIR BACK ON THEM. WE ALL LOVE DUSTIN AND I PERSONALLY AM TRIED OF HEARING ALL THIS HE SAID SHE SAID BULL CRAP. I would like to say that you just don't know how hard it is to go to the hospitlal and see someone must less your cousin who is the same age as you laying there fighting for his life. Another thing I wish everyone that has crap to say would stop if not for dustin for HIS DAUGHTER. HIS DAUGHTER HAS TO START SCHOOL IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS AND SHE DON'T DESERVE TO BE HASSELED AT SCHOOL FOR SOMETHING HER DAD HAS DONE. She is having a hard enough time as it is. Please don't make it any harder on her. IF IS NOT FAIR FOR HER TO PAY FOR WHAT HER DAD MAY HAVE DONE. I AM SORRY THAT WE DO NOT GET TO PICK OUR FAMILIES IN LIFE AND THAT OUR FAMILY ISN'T PERFECT LIKE EVERYONE ELSES BUT ONE THING I CAN SAY IS THAT WE LOVE OUR FAMILY AND WE WILL STICK BY OUR FAMILY NO MATTER WHAT AND EVERYONE ELSE CAN KISS OUR BUTTS. I LOVE YOU GUYS!!!!!

WELL GOOD MORNIN' TO ALL OUR FRIENDS OUT THERE IN NEWSPAPER LAND. THIS HERE'S DEACON BROTHER MALACHAI HARLY SWAGART FROM THE SWORD OF JOSHUA INDEPENDENT FULL-GOSPEL PENTECOSTAL ASSEMBLY...JUST OFF STATE ROAD 23 ON THE FRONTAGE ROAD.

OUR PREACHER BROTHER PASTOR DR. JERMEAH JONES HAS ASKED ME TO UPDATE YOUINS ON OUR 2009 VACATION BIBLE SCHOOL THAT WAS A SATAN-SMASHIN' SUCCESS. ALTHOUGH, HE DID GET SOME PHONE CALLS SAYIN' "PREACHER...YER BEIN' WAY TOO NARROW IN WHAT YOU TEACHIN THESE YOUNG'UNS." WELL... DON'T WORRY, SKEPTICS AND AGNOSTICATORS -- YER GETTIN' SOME EQUAL TIME DOWN THERE IN GATLINBURGER, TENNESSEE. FELLER'S GOT A FESTEYVAL SPECIALLY FOR...EXTREME TEENAGERS. READ A STORY BOUT IT IN THE NEWSPAPER. LISTEN AT THIS:

"EXTREME FUN: SUMMER MUSAC FESTEYVAL FOR KIDS OFFERS THEM A ROCK AND ROLLER HIPPY STYLE MUSIC FESTEYVAL."

SEE, THERE'S THE PROBLEM WITH KIDS TODAY: THEY'S JUST GETTIN' WAY TOO MUCH OLD TIME GOSPEL MUSAC. SO WELCOME TO "EXTREME TEENS." THAT'S A YOUNGIN FER YA -- FIRST THEY KICKED GOD OUTTA THE SCHOOLS...NOW THEY'S TRYIN' TO KICK HIM OUTTA THE MUSIC, TOO.

"ADVERTISED AS AN EXCITING ENVIRONMENT, "EXTREME" BOASTS THAT THE YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ATTEND WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORSHIP ROCK STARS WHO MENTION THE LORD ONCE NER TWICE, THE IDEA OF GOD WILL NOT BE PART OF THE EQUATION." SO MUCH FOR A PRAISIN GAWD'.

WE KNOW THE PARENTS HAS GOT PROBLEMS. WHY WOULD A KID WANNA GO TO AN EXTREME FESTEYVAL? WELL... HERE'S WHAT ONE GIRL SAID: "I DIDN'T LIKE HAVING TO SING "GO TELL IT ON THE MOUNTAIN" AT EVERY SINGLE REVIVAL ONE MORE TIME."

"AT THE OPENING EXTREME "INIQUITY" CONCERT, THE "ROCK STAR" ISSUED A SET OF CHALLENGES FOR CAMPERS TO RESPOND TO. ONE CHALLENGE: HELP THE STARVING PEOPLE IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WELL THE STARVIN' PEOPLE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD SEEM PRETTY HAPPY THEYRA MAKING ABOUT $3 A DAY IN NICKELS BEGGIN. SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD MEAL ON THE DOLLAR MENYA TO ME.

BUT THAT AIN'T ALL -- THE CHILDREN ALSO GET A WEEK OF SEMINARS THAT SALUTE THESE CRAZY STORIES NARNY, LAWD OF THEM RANGS, AND VEGINAL TAILS. WELL NOW -- MAKES THAT "MTV BEACH HOUSE- SOUND LIKE A BOOGER, DON'T IT?

THERE YA GO, JUNIOR HEATHERNS -- Y'ALL HAVE FUN SITTIN' AROUND TALKIN' BOUT THE GOOD OL' DAYS WHEN YOUR EARS FIRST FELL OFF. HAVE YOU A GOOD OL' FASHIONED SINGALONG LIKE "IF YER HAPPY AND YOU KNOW IT BECAUSE YOUR SWOONIN' OVER A BOY WITH EYELINER AND EARRINGS IN HIS FOREHEAD, BUT ONE DAY WHEN IT'S YOU INSTEAD OF A PYROTEKNIC ON THE END OF THE "INIQUITY" STAGE...AND YER BEIIN' ROASTED ON THE DEVIL'S BONFIRE...DON'T SAY I DIDN'T TRY TO WARN Y'UNS!

I TELL YA, BELOVED -- THIS COUNTRY IS HEADED FOR SATAN'S RUMPUS ROOM FASTER'N OL' OKRA WINFREY GOIN' THRU THE LINE AT GOLDEN CORRAL!

IF YOU DON'T WANNA BE A PERMANENT RESIDENT OF SOMETHING DESCRIBED AS EXTREME (EMPHAS ON X), COME ON OUT THIS SUNDAY MORNIN' FOR A DOUBLE-DOSE OF THE GOD'S HONEST TRUTH AT THE SWORD OF JOSHUA INDEPENDENT FULL GOSPEL PENTECOSTAL ASSEMBLY...JUST OFF STATE ROAD 23, ON THE FRONTAGE ROAD. WHERE WE KEEP ALL TEN COMMANDMENTS ALL THE TIME. THIS HERE'S THE DEACON BROTHER MALACHAI HARLEY SWAGART REMINDIN' Y'UNS IT'S TIME TO TURN...SO YOU DON'T BURN.

Tennessee blue get a grip guns are here to stay along with concealed carry permits no matter how you vote its all about the money . oh yeah your alarm system wont stop anyone who really wants to get to you or your stuff . i hope you realize that when it comes to crime criminals have no morals you should think about a good dog and a good weapon.

My alarm system weighs 150 pounds and eats Alpo. WWW.NRA .COM

Tennessee blue-

Your $40 a month security system can be deactivated with nothing more than a pocket knife. Short of just spelling it out for all of Dustin's other thief friends that are surely reading these articles, just think about how your alarm works, how it notifies the authorities, and then tell me how secure it is.

Just what we need and should expect now that the Capital Gang down in Nashville & the NRA has deputized the entire state with their wide-sweeping conceal-carry laws. Vigilante crazies lurking behind every bush. Was the shooter even concerned that he might hit innocent neighbors or passers-by?

Personally, we've the good sense to have a monitored burglar alarm system, which for less than $40 a month, provides security whether we're home or not and our neighbors don't need to take the law into their own hands. PLEASE stop the craziness before we all are afraid to walk out of our homes because of the wild wild west shenanigans unleased by the Nashvillle legislative loonies!

I hope we take account of ervery unecessary injury and death directly attributable to Tennessee's irresponsible gun carry laws and add them up when it's time to vote against the ones who have brought us this mess.

Just last week someone broke into my house and both of my lawn buildings and stole several thousand dollars worth of stuff. The material stuff can be replaced, but having to worry about leaving your wife or kids home alone is something you can never get back. I wish my neighbor had been as kind as this one and shot the guy. Stealing from a store is one thing, but when you break into someones home and violate their privacy, steal their personal belongings and take away their sense of security then you deserve whatever you get.

who knows what the guy said to the man during the "scuffle"...

maybe he threatened to go get his gun, or come back later and kill the man....

was that "imminent danger"....no. but we weren't there to hear the words that were exchanged. if i had a gun and someone was threatening to come back later and kill me (hypothetical here) i sure wouldn't give them the opportunity!

the point is...we don't know all the facts. we know what the paper reported, and if you've lived here very long....u know that's not very reliable.

Attn. Currer Bell,

"How, exactly, are you getting all of this from the simple statement that Eads had a prior DUI and open container citation?"

The above article states:
According to a 2004 Times-News report concerning Eads’ prior conviction for DUI and violation of the open container law, Eads lived there at one time.

However, Eads was last booked into the Sullivan County Detention Center on June 23 with a Gravely Road address.

I am pretty sure that a first time DUI conviction does not carry a 5 year sentence, nor even a 5 year probation time. If he was booked on June 23 of this year, that implies to me that he has had more than one brush with the law.

No, I don't think that one mistake constitutes being shot in the back and losing your life. Having said that, I don't plan to be where I shouldn't be, doing what I shouldn't, to increase the chance of that happening. If the man had robbed a convenience store and was shot in the back fleeing the building, would he deserve what he got more?

If it had been me, I would not have shot at the guy unless he was threatening bodily harm to me or someone else, especially if I knew the identity of the person. Still, I don't feel sorry for the guy, if he got shot at while burglarizing someone's property in broad daylight.

Moral to the story "Don't steal, you might get shot".

Great Point Mr. Long.
IF IF IF everyone gave up their guns then I would be okay with it ,but as you well know, when they outlaw guns only the criminals will have them. Just look at NYC for example..Not everyone that has a gun is a NUT JOB. Well at least not yet anyway. I was in the middle but am leaning to the right.

wild jones, u forgot those people in between.

i don't own a gun. i think the world may be better without them. call me a tree hugging liberal if you want.

at the same time, if my neighbor who did own a gun (since they ARE around) came to my aid and did what this man did, i would in no way want him to face charges. this man isn't my neighbor and i don't want him to face charges.

do i still think the world would be better without guns? yeah. do i think it would be better without thieves? yeah. it doesn't really matter what i think....what matters is reality. just because i don't own a gun doesn't mean i think everyone who does own a gun and those who use them in cases like this are wrong.

i've seriously debated getting a gun for my own protection, but cases like these are the exact reason why i don't own one. so, there is an in between....it's not just black and white.

I say: who cares what the law is. What the law says and what it should be are two different things. If the guy was caught stealing he deserved what he got. And all you tree hugging liberals can all go live in one community how ever you want. Just don't cry to us when your left wing world gets overran with these type thugs. You keep bailing them out of the revolving door judicial system we have. Upon reading the above post, I believe there are two types of people represented here. #1 The hard working folks who are sick and tired of being victim to these people who are are too sorry to work and do whats right. #2 Those that will eventually be victims of these thugs and see it the way as #1 . I will pose a deeper question. How many of you liberal Gun-haters have ever served in any capacity to defend the public whether it be police, fire/rescue or military?(Girl scouts don't count.) My point is I think it makes a difference in the fact that your B.S. filter is diminished if you are out on the beat everyday dealing with these thugs...I am sick of it and think Mr. McClanahan should be given a MEDAL OF HONOR....

Mr. Stevenson you are the first one to make EVERYTHING a liberal v. Conservative issue until it's done to you and then Katie bar the door it violates all laws of the liberal agenda...after all you should know? We still have rights in this country, at least for now and I intend to use mine! Pull a gun on me and see, rob my house and see...

What a great and wonderful story. It is so refreshing to read a positive story like this. Mr. Dennis McClanahan should be nominated as man of the Year. If more people were like him, we would have much less crime. Thank God for Guns and people who are willing to look out for their fellow man. I hope everyone who knows the thief, gets a laugh out of this also. If he ever thinks of stealing again, I guarantee he will think about this incident again and will at least think twice. Once again Thank You Mr. McClanahan, I appreciate your actions.

i'm not a "gun-natic" or whatever everyone is calling it. i don't own one for the very simple reason that i'm afraid i'd use it. however, i'd sure like to have one if some unemployed, able-bodied, young punk was on my property trying to steal my stuff! this happened during the day! what if that woman was at home with her children when this man showed up? i can't IMAGINE being home with my kids and some man rummaging around my home. a lot of you might not agree with what the neighbor did, but i assure you if you were the one in the house, or if your wife in kids were in the house....you'd WISH their was a neighbor nearby with a gun.

i still think that legally he was in the wrong and will probably be charged....and i think it's a shame.

I believe vigilantism is wrong. Such activity should be punished to the fullest extent of the law just as the burglar should.

currer bell, it's in the news story that there was a scuffle when he confronted the robber. It's not like I made that up, it's in the story.
Eric Taylor, again, it's in the news story. This guy was breaking in someone's house and was stopped by a law-abiding neighbor and was ILLEGALLY trespassing on their property with the intent to steal. He is far from a victim. Yes, it is unfortunate that he was shot, but face reality, this man was standing up for his neighbor because he may be next if he lets this go in his neighborhood. If you don't think I should own a gun because I believe a man has a right to protect himself and his neighbor's property, then if I am around when someone tries to rob/rape/kill you and your family, I promise I will not use my gun to help. I am a law-abiding citizen, and I have my permits, thank you, so it really doesn't matter what you think or whether you agree or not.
Peter Stevenson, this will not hurt any laws concerning weapons, seeing as Mr. McClanahan has not been convicted of any wrongdoing whatsoever. If he was convicted of something, yes, he would be hurting law-abiding citizens, but he has not been, because he did nothing wrong.
I am not turning this into a liberal/conservative thing, people arguing the law and what should or should not be allowed have done that.

Not trying to be nosy, but do you go to Higher Ground Mason?

Janey's got a gun.

hope the damn theif dies and the county pays to paint dennis's house. hell of a job dennis, keep up the good work

Kingsport is getting scary.

You're right Eric. The day those repercussions are realized, we (the responsible holders) will become the criminals while these folks who passed high school typing class and learned to connect to the internet scream about their god-given rights to kill. It doesn't matter, really. The gun will still serve it's purpose whether I'm "legal" or not. I just hope I have the judgment to prevent me from shooting anyone in the back, unless of course that is my choice.

If only life were as simple as we who pretend to live it.

"He probably did not mean to shoot him,just scare him on off."

Delusional doesn't seem to do you folks justice. Keep it up. The gun owners who are responsible holders will soon enough feel the repercussions of the ignorant, loud, obviously uneducated minority.

More power to the man with the gun.He probably did not mean to shoot him,just scare him on off.Maybe if more people came with a gun when they here a noise like he did ,these little nittwitts would get out and get a job instead of thinking they can go in someone elses home and take it.my house was broke into three times after my husband passed away ,they took one time some old jewelry and
$430.00 in gold dollars.broke in his building one night ,my little dog started barking ,I went to look and my big old timme collie had one on the ground .I had to call the law to report the dog bite. Now i am prepared if they come back ,which they have not come. people have a right to protect theirselves and neighbors.

It seems as though you are confusing "what the law is" with "what you think the law should be". If it is your opinion that what McClanahan did in this case should be legal then that is fine, but to suggest the law as it currently exists makes McClanahan's conduct permissible is mistaken. Unless the grand jury (or the jury subsequent to indictment) believes this man truly acted in self defense by shooting the robber in the back then he (McClanahan) is going to have a difficult time being found innocent. A "scuffle" does not imply a life threatening situation. Whether there was a threat to McClanahan's life is a question for those fact finders (grand jury and jury). It appears from the facts as written that there was no threat to his life, that what McClanahan was doing was shooting a fleeing robber, i.e. attempting to recover property through use of deadly force, and thus the use of deadly force was legally inappropriate. There is copious legal precedent on the issue of use of deadly force to protect property and those precedents are uniformly in accord that use of deadly force is not legally permitted in those cases. In the case of the robber, I assume he will be charged with breaking and entering, robbery and perhaps assault, but we all presumably know from the story the nature of his conduct. The issue in the discussion thread is the conduct of the shooter and whether that conduct is legally permissible. From the facts as they appear in the story, McClanahan's conduct was clearly criminal.

I am finding this all too entertaining to the point of ridiculous. This story has been turned around in these postings too many times. Some of you have it right. Some, well, to say the least are way off.
1. Ms. Georgia Moody - you, my dear have publicly accused this Mr. Eads two-three times of burgularly in a public environment. Watch yourself, my friend as it as all too well seen you are running your mouth off a vindeta. I see you going after Mr. Eads once he is well and out of the hospital. What happened to the "innocent until proven guilty"? Oh, that is thrown out the window. If you are so sure this is the same person, what held you back??? Huh????? Your actions are very questionable. Did the dog tell you there were 5 people. Amusing, you are.
2. The "shooter" shot Mr. Eads NOT only while he was fleeing, but Mr. Eads was unarmed and WAS SHOT WHILE IN HIS CAR!!! Yes, did you know that?
3. I would be upset if I saw this going on at my neighbors house but no so that I would feel so high and mighty that I felt like I had the right to take another persons life.
4. Like another blogger said, he could have taken tag # and he knew what he looked like and OH, Ms. Moody knows him!!
5. The altercation happened between a 300 lb man vs a 120-140 lb man. The "shooter" assaulted Mr. Eads with the gun leaving wounds to be attended to by the hospital staff. Did "shooter" have any wounds, I haven't heard anyone say.
6. Shooter shot the tires out and back and side windows. I understand it looked like a mafia hit by "shooter". OH MY, watch that temper!!!!
7. Shooter acted upon concern to begin with and then it turned to rage and anger - this is where people such as he should not be allowed to carry guns, b/c he proved he doesn't know how to control his emotions while handling a gun.
8. You have the right to protect you and your family. But, was he appointed "shooter" if there was an alleged burgularly? YES, Mr. Eads should not have been there......Mr. Shooter came to Mr. Eads and began to assault him and Mr. Eads had no weapon and certainly at no time should he have felt he was going to be harmed. If so, then he shouldn't have approached Mr. Eads. Because his big muscular build could not hold down lanky Mr. Eads, his ego was hurt and OH MY, I have a gun and I'll beat him about the head he must have said to himself, and OH MY, he got away from me, well I can stop that car but I will shoot it up like in the movies......

YES, Mr. Eads should not have been where he was.
YES, "shooter" should have called 911 before he went to "check it all out" got tag # and NOT have shot to the car that was leaving as to have shot Mr. Eads in the back missing his heart by less than ONE INCH. Did you understand that folks???? Mr. Eads was in his car fleeing the scene when the bullit of a 45 went into his back and exited his chest. Why was "shooter" so afraid at this point? He wasn't!!! He lost control and wanted to win you see.
Was it worth that? Well, his emotions were so gone he did not really know. This is where gun owners should not have rights to bear arms is when they know they can't control their emotions. Because "shooter" is now going to be in more trouble than he cares to admit. Neighbors, start saving your money for his court and attorney fees...
I am a member of NRA, love my guns. Never would I take one OUTSIDE in broad daylight to what I thought was a burgularlly. That was just DUMB.

EXCUSE ME readers, I must go, I see a strange care on MY STREET (how dare they?), I have to get my 45 because you never know, they could be here to steal some apples to bake their child a pie and I won't let that happen by gollies!!!

Brooks

Anyone who has taken the one-day course required to carry a concealed weapon should know the law, and according to this article, Dennis McClanahan broke that law. Whether he was right or he was wrong, we may never know. But we can know the law. If I forget everything else the instructor told us at class that day, I will remember one thing for sure. He said, make sure there's only one side to the story. Dennis McClanahan's only problem may be if Eads lives to tell his side of the story.

I guess you just had to be there.

Why yes Doris, and I bet Dustin remembers you from the days on the hill.

I actually agree with Bro. Early. Hell must be at 0 degrees. They all know each other. Except the good neighbor that used his good sense.

"You DO have the right to protect your property, AND your neighbors!"


Absolutely!



"You have the right to use deadly force to protect yourself OR another person!"


Absolutely. (provided they are threatening your life at the moment you use such force. I see you conveniently left that part off. I wonder why?)

In the first paragraph of the KTN story it says ....A SCUFFLE insued.

What should the thief be charged with? If he lives? If he wasn't out robbing people of their personal property and breaking into homes this would not have happened. I believe the neighbor was in the right. The story by the KTN says that a stuggle happened between the two a 52 yr. old and a 29 yr old. This wasn't the first time this type of robbery had been done using this same honda....... this was the first time he got stopped .
The same description of the Honda broke into my daughter's house in sevier terrace the day after christmas. There were 5 that night and the dog ran them off. Always use bird or buck shot in a shotgun. When you have a group or even one. The neighbor use good aim when he shot out the tires on the honda. This is not funny, this has been going on for sometime.

all i can say is bravo ti the shooter in alsost saving us tax payers some money and that i sure hope i have people around me that would do the same cause if it happend to you or one of your loved ones you would want some one to stop them too

Legally speaking, it is never appropriate to use deadly or near deadly force to protect items of personalty. In this case, McClanahan used near deadly force to protect someone else's personalty, which is even stranger. To shoot a man in the back because you think he is fleeing with an item of property is going to be assault with a deadly weapon (or the Tennessee equivalent); however, shooting a man in the back because he just popped you a couple of times and is running toward his car to, what you believe, retrieve a gun so as to shoot you could create the self-defense inference McClanahan would need to have a chance of getting off. It seems a long shot at best and that he will be guilty when tried. I'd suspect he will enter a plea bargain. It is refreshing that most see this issue as a vigilante taking the law in his own hands rather than as a referendum on the merits of gun control. If the facts are as they appear, what this man did in shooting a fleeing robber in the back was wrong and he should be punished for that conduct. You have the right to own a gun. You have the right to use a gun in self-defense. You do not have the right to shoot people for stealing stuff. So if McClanahan gets off, can I get a carry permit, hang outside Wal-Mart waiting for shoplifters and enforce some "justice"? I don't think anyone would say I should have the right to do that and likewise McClanahan should not have the right to shoot a thief when his personal safety is not in imminent danger.

Under no circumstances do you EVER have the right to use deadly force to defend someone else's property. Defense of someone else's property is not even an affirmative defense. Shooting someone in the back is almost always an utter negation of justifiable self-defense. Quit reading the NRA website and talk to an actual criminal attorney. Or a judge. Or someone that works in OLB (attorneys and such who actually draft the statutes).

"Mr Eads asaulted Mr. McClanahan while committing this crime.." You are making up "facts" again there, fedup. Youve managed to twist this story into something it is absolutely not. You want this story to agree with your mental status, which it also will not.

Taking a defenseive status for the neighbors' actions tells us all here that there is at least ONE more gun owner who certainly should not be...you.

THE GOOD NEIGHBOR SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH ATTEMPTED MURDER.

fed up - please read my post far down about the law. Or read the law. Self-defense, defense of others, and defense of property are three distinct affirmative defenses. They must be proven and the shooter's subjective belief is not proof. Before you accuse others of not knowing the law, perhaps you should first make sure that you understand it. Some kind poster linked this previously, but here it is again: http://state.tn.us/sos/acts/105/pub/pc0210.pdf.

I wonder how many of the respondants to this thread have actually READ the laws that are applicable to this shooting? You DO have the right to protect your property, AND your neighbors! You have the right to use deadly force to protect yourself OR another person! Tennessee DOES NOT require you to flee if threatened! The threshold for a justifiable shooting is as simple as feeling you are in immenent danger. If a shooting is deamed justifiable, the asailant has NO RIGHT to civil courts or restitution.

I'd be extremely surprised if Mr. McClanahan is charged with anything! Mr Eads asaulted Mr. McClanahan while committing this crime, and as far as Mr. Eads trying to flee in his car, ever hear of a person using a car as a deadly weapon? As to Mr. Eads being shot in the back while in his car, as far as I know every car that has been sold in the US has a reverse. If the story printed here is anywhere near accurate, Mr. Eads could also be charged with attempted assault with a deadly weapon! He should have given up! A charge of burglary would have been much easier on him than what he got for his crime.

Every shooting, be it a civilian or a police officer, has to be reviewed by the AG and the Grand Jury. In this case, I doubt an indictment is forthcoming.

I would like to observe that the general caliber of the comments has gone up markedly in the last few hours; something which I find very comforting. I am happy to see other pro-Second Am. people weighing in against what McClanahan did and expressing dismay and shock.

Tony P, despite the fact that numerous Republican conservative gun owners have stood up and said the guy was wrong, your continued attempts to paint this as a liberal vs. conservative issue only demonstrates that some people cannot move beyond divisive, partisan approaches even while the majority has moved on.

David W, I totally agree with you that prisons should not be country clubs, and the system is broken when it endorses such.

"Whether you see it as a gun-nut tactic or not, it doesn't change the fact that he confronted the assailant and was assaulted.
The intruder was in his curtilage and had already assaulted him and demonstrated that he was robbing the neighbor..."

Where are you getting this from? Nowhere does it say that McClanahan was assaulted. In fact, the article very clearly states that EADS "broke free" from McClanahan. Furthermore - Eads was not in McClanahan's curtilage. If you are going to use a new word, take the time to learn what it means. Eads MAY have been in the owner's curtilage. Also, nowhere does it say anything proving OBJECTIVELY that Eads was robbing the neighbor. Just that McClanahan thought he was.

If you can't look at a situation rationally and objectively, then you should not have a gun in your hands. Don't know about you folks, but this was one of the first lessons we were taught in gun safety class.

RE: "Hey David, a better way would be to get rid of these idiotic mandatory sentences for minor drug offenders. That'd free up half the space. "

I find that statement ironic based on the probability that acquiring drugs was the robber's end goal.

"...he confronted the assailant and was assaulted." WHERE are you reading this? Is there a missing part of the story that only shows up on some folks' monitors?

The story says "scuffle", and after knowing the conclusion of the neighbor shooting the man in the back and wildly firing off more rounds, one could assume the neighbor was the person who aggravated this scenario.

Whether you see it as a gun-nut tactic or not, it doesn't change the fact that he confronted the assailant and was assaulted.
The intruder was in his curtilage and had already assaulted him and demonstrated that he was robbing the neighbors.
Like I said, it doesn't make it harder for law-abiding citizens, Mr. McClanahan has not been convicted of any crime yet, and I doubt very seriously that he will be. We will see if he is, and when he is not, as said again, the liberals will come back here and eat their words.

Hey Peter Griffin, I love it when folks can't present a intelligent argument and resort to name calling. Now I'm a "Buick driving, blue hair". I thought you would see me more as a 4-wheel drive, war-mongering redneck clinging to my guns and religion. Better be careful running me off in a ditch though. You wouldn't serve any time for it but you know how us "vigilantes" are.....

Peter, you need to sign up for a remedial reading class.

Hey David, a better way would be to get rid of these idiotic manditory sentences for minor drug offenders. That'd free up half the space.

Peter, how tempting would that be. LOLOLOL

In response to Peter Stevenson's post on 8/4/2009 - 3:05 PM in regard to my 8/4/2009 - 2:57 PM post : I agree with one statement. "The system only works as good as its equipped to work." I'll give you another one. "Insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect different results." The system is broke. The message currently being sent is that, "Crime Does Pay". My point is the jails and prisons wouldn't be so overcrowded if we made people serve time on their first offense. By the time they spend any time in a cell they are already habitual offenders. If that doesn't work how about getting Sheriff Joe Arpaio who created the “tent city jail” in Arizona here. He has Jail meals down to 40 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them. He stopped smoking and porno magazines in the jails. Took away their weights. Cut off all but “G” movies. He started chain gangs so the inmates could do free work on county and city projects. Then he started chain gangs for women so he wouldn’t get sued for discrimination. Someone stealing a T.V. and serving 6-months under these conditions probably wouldn't want to come back any too soon. What do you say Tri-Cities, you agree with me? Let's see a post if you do!!!

Mr. Wright it appears that you are a proponent of vigilante justice. Hot dog!!! With that theory in mind, next time one of you blue hairs cuts me off on I-26 and goes 55mph in the left-hand lane for 10 miles, I'm going to PITT your Buick right in to a ditch. After all, you are breaking the law and I'm just defending my rights!

I believe Mr. McClanahan is in trouble. If he was going to get involved he should have just gotten a tag number ( may not have been valid ) and description of the vehicle and alleged burglar. Sorry, be you cannot shoot someone in the back.

Do any of you actually believe Anderson who referred to the shooter as "being a good neighbor" will charge this vigilantly? I will be shocked if he does. I think the citizens of Sullivan Co. need to demand the sheriff and Attorney General follow the law. Dustin broke the law and deserves to be punished in a court of law, not shot in the back.

I simply don't understand the sentimental treatment that this neighbor seems to be receiving here, much less the outright praise and "attaboy" comments.

To put this situation in such a softened, mild act as if the neighbor "just made the wrong decision" in the heat of the moment is absurd. The instant this guy decided it was his perogative to intervene, instead of following law that most of you here are such adamant defenders of, he turned a burglary into an attempt to kill another human being. He most certainly should be charged with a felony offense, possibly several, though here in the hills of East Tennessee, ya just never know who ya know when it comes to getting those charges erased.

Jamie Hickman, I know perfectly well what I'm talking about. If the Grand Jury follows the letter of the law he will be indicted on aggravated assault or one of several felonies that this could fall under. Show me the law that states where you can shoot an unarmed person in the back while they are fleeing from your neighbors house. Regardless, the castle doctrine is basically the same for every state that has adopted it. You must be in fear of serious bodily injury or death to use deadly force, you can't shoot them because they stole a weedeater out of your garage. I'm all for some vigilante justice but don't bastardize the law if you do not know what you are talking about.

"Not a single case actually was going to serve any time! Every sentence was suspended and they were ordered to report to the probation officer. It was many of these folks 3rd, 4th or more time in front of the same judge but no time was being served."


Thats a seperate issue, David. How many of these gun-equipped property defenders are willing to pay more taxes to incarcerate more people doing petty crimes? The system only works as good as its equipped to work.

I feel many posts are simply looking at this isolated incidence and not the bigger picture. If we, the citizenry are not willing to defend the lives and property of not only ourselves but the innocents around us we only embolden the criminal. If the criminal in question had successfully escaped and never been caught, it only encourages another attempt. Most violent criminals begin with petty theft and work their way up. Even if caught, punishment is almost non-existent in the absence of a violent act. I witnessed this recently in a Kingsport courtroom. The judge was giving out sentence after sentence for lower-level crimes for anywhere from 6-12 months. Not a single case actually was going to serve any time! Every sentence was suspended and they were ordered to report to the probation officer. It was many of these folks 3rd, 4th or more time in front of the same judge but no time was being served. And what if the fleeing thief had just left a dead body in the house he had just robbed and the guy let him get away and he was never caught? He may be in your house next week. I recently listened to a forensic psychologist from the California Pelican Bay Supermax prison. He has studied for years why criminals do what they do. Know what the answer was? Because they could. Honestly. It was nothing more complex than that. Guess what else he learned? To cooperate with the criminal only emboldened them more. They also said they didn't care about gun laws. They were going to carry a gun anyway and stated they were more afraid of a citizen with a gun than they were of the police! Guess they could always break into cars or rob property in the Bristol or Johnson City parks without worry of that. They have stripped the citizenry of the ability to protect themselves there. Thank goodness Kingsport didn't follow their lead. Pacifists better wake up. Where good men do nothing, evil will flourish. Are you gonna let evil flourish or are you gonna do something when it comes your way? I've already answered this question for myself.

No matter how "well meaning" McLanahan may have been, you don't have the right the put a bullet through someone's chest to protect someone else's property. He's a vigilante, and there's no place for that in a cilivized country. He could have simply called 911 and gave an account to the police, and let those with the proper authority and training do their jobs.

Well said, I.M.

U.R. Wright.

It gives me pause when so many "responsible" gun owners defend the absence of responsibility on behalf of other gun owners who happened to make a wrong decision in the midst of a crisis.

McClanahan's vigilantism should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. The proper and lawful thing for a good neighbor to do would have been to get the tag number, contact the police, and cooperate with catching the guy. Although Dustin broke the law and should also be punished, for Mr. McClanahan to take the law into his own hands, firing multiple times at an unarmed individual driving away is a far more serious offense. But, knowing some of the morons around here they'll throw the shooter a parade.

Tony, I think you may be misstating some things here so that you can make it a liberal vs. conservative thing, which it is not. No one has been shedding any tears over Eads the burglar and no one has been condemning Mr. McClanahan as a bad person. Rather they have been lamenting the fact that a well-meaning individual may, I say may, have made a less than optimum choice in a difficult situation. In your second point, you counsel that lady retrieving her daughter’s medicine to meekly explain to a nosey neighbor who suddenly confronts her flashing a weapon what she is doing. Faced with such a situation, a person in the mother’s place might reasonably conclude that they are being assaulted with a deadly weapon, punch the guy out and run like hell. That shouldn’t get you shot in the back. Your third point is valid to a point. Mr. McClanahan might have believed that Eads was going to get a gun and that he would shortly be facing an imminent threat of death or severe bodily harm. But until Eads actually flashed a weapon there was no imminent threat. In this case, it appears that the threat Mr. McClanahan “might” have been anticipating did not materialize; Eads kept running and was shot in the back. In a larger sense, this incident is an important cautionary tale for anyone bent on exercising their right to bear arms. As with any other right, there comes a responsibility to exercise it appropriately. Be sure you understand exactly what you can and cannot do.

having an HCP doesn't make you any more subject to the laws than not having one. the law are on the books and apply to all citizens, regardless of permit. you can't shoot someone over your property. if someone is breaking into your car you can let them know you're calling the police and you have a gun, but you can't shoot them. now nowhere does it say you can go whack the guy with a golf club or something. but you cannot use deadly force over personal property. "third party defense" is also a difficult situation as it is on you to prove that the third party feared for their life and needed you to intervene. this man shot a fleeing burglar of a neighboring property. he was in no immediate danger for his life. if he was worried about the man having a gun why did he shoot the tires? would this not induce the suspect to use the immobilized car as cover for a shootout? the man did what he could to restrain the suspect, the guy got away, he should have left it at that. now you've shot some lowlife who can probably sue you and win. i'd say the odds he gets charged are low, but you can bet your life he can't make it out of a civil suit unscathed.

Mr Griffin you are right permit holders must follow the laws on use of deadly force ,now who knows if this guy is a permit holder or not but just as you said you can not shoot someone in the back he was on the retreat and all that should have been done as far as i am concerned is getting a tag number and calling the police . i don't recall this article saying the guy had a gun even at that if he did he was still shot in the back this is the stuff that gives me and all other gun owners a bad name.

Angela, the burglars car would not have been fleeing in a way that draws attention to himself if the neighbor had kept his perimeter, not announced himself, and followed the guy.

The "scumbag" "S.O.B" that everyone is refering to is a Dad, Husband, Son, and friend. He made a bad mistake that he and his family will carry with them everyday. I do agree that he was in the wrong, but no one has the right to shoot anyone that is not being threatening towards that individual. He did take the chance of being shot or worse, but when a person is trying to flee and gets shot in the back it is not justified. Do you really want this guy for a neighbor, what if there were kids around when he fired off 5 to 7 rounds outside. Why didn't he just let the police deal with this guy? Was this neighbor hired to protect this house? He put himself in this situation when he decided to take the "law" in his own hands. There is no hero, both need to be punished or just be like GA, and give everybody a gun!

Tony Patrick spins the story with "This man had been assaulted, threatened..."

Always a cute gun-nut tactic.

You readers who are patting Mr. McClanahan on the back for using unjustified deadly force will be the downfall of our 2nd Amendment rights, not our "Socialist" President or our "bleeding heart" liberal Congress. Vigilante justice has no place in our country PERIOD. You must be a moron if you can't comprehend that you will never EVER be justified shooting someone in the back and still claim self-defense. Not even in the days of the wild west, when everyone carried a gun and gun laws were non-existent, were you allowed to shoot someone in the back and not be thrown in jail or put to death. As a CCW permit holder, avid hunter and sport shooter, this causes me more concern then some crackhead with a throw away gun. This is just the kind of justification that law enforcement officials will cite in attempting to pressure lawmakers to have our carry laws repealed and tighter restrictions placed on all firearms. There is no secret agenda by the government to take our guns because of whatever reason you've been fed. They wouldn't even need one. With acts like this, we're already well on our way to doing it to ourselves. Mr. McClanahan should absolutely be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

"For all we know, he feared that the assailant was going back to his car to get his own weapon to come back and kill the man."


When the assailant turns and points that possible weapon, then sure its justified. But not until.

Like it or not, Tony, as Tiger Miller says, incidents like this only make it tougher for law abiding gun owners. Rationalize that if you will for your own satisfaction, but we all know better.

As for your perception that this is a lesson to other would-be robbers, a lesson implies the ability to learn. When a person is strung out on drugs, the ability to learn is compromised. When someone is jonesing, being driven by addiction, its hardly the "lesson" you think it is. The "need" is going to trump the "lesson" any day.

I'm going to correct myself, there was no struggle at the time of the shots fired. Had McLanahan shot DURING the scuffle then it's justified as self defense as disparity of force and case closed.

Bad timing, should have shot sooner.

As much as I love to see a gun used for lawful self defense, this was not a justified shooting. I own guns, I carry a gun and I strongly believe in self defense but legally the shooter was wrong. I've had hundreds of hours of training in weapons, including legal ramifications and judgment scenarios and this was NOT lawful self defense with a firearm.

1) Castle doctrine- Would not apply as intruder was fleeing and not even inside the home.

2) The age argument- Could be made as disparity of force had a struggle ensued but since there was no struggle, it's not applicable.

3) Fleeing felon- Tough to stand on this one, even cops have a hard time with a fleeing felon argument in a shooting. if the guy had just murdered someone or had a hostage it would be different but on a burglary....tough to hang your hat on that one.

Like I said, this was not a justified shooting in the LEGAL sense. Whether it was MORALLY right or wrong is a greater question.

And yes, I'm in the NRA, I'm a Republican and I support the 2nd Amendment but the facts are the facts.

According to the law posted, if the shooting was justified, all expenses incurred will be placed on the person who was shot (because he was breaking the law), including "reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by a person in defense of any civil action brought against such person based upon the person’s use of force if the court finds that the defendant was justified in using such force pursuant to §§ 39-11-611--- 39-11-614, or § 29-34-201."
This means that we are probably not going to have to pay anything out of taxpayer money for this investigation.
Secondly, if you are an unarmed mother breaking into your sister's house to get medication for her, then don't start a scuffle if a neighbor confronts you and asks you what you are doing. Simply tell that neighbor what is going on and leave. Don't hit him and then leave, don't threaten him and leave, just leave. If you had planned on starting a scuffle or hitting the neighbor who asked what you were doing, then you really aren't all that innocent.
Thirdly, as I stated in the first post, no innocent person got killed. This man had been assaulted, threatened and had already witnessed his neighbor's belongings being stolen. For all we know, he feared that the assailant was going back to his car to get his own weapon to come back and kill the man. When he didn't stop (as he should have legally done when a citizen detains him for witnessing a felony), he was shot, and in my opinion, yes, rightfully so.
We will see if any charges are brought against the defender. I bet you there won't be. When there isn't, the liberals rejoicing that he will have charges against him can come back here and eat their words. This is what our judicial system is set up to do, there was a shooting, they have to check it out, and they should. The Sheriff obviously thinks that there was no wrongdoing or he would have charged the fellow. He left it up to the DA and grand jury to decide, so there obviously isn't any clear wrongdoing on the man's part.
Yes, this should be a lesson to all other would-be robbers, you may get shot and die if you try to rob someone's house. Don't be surprised and cry when you do. This is the real world, and in the real world, thankfully we have men like Mr. McClanahan that will look out for their neighbors.
Take a lesson from Kennesaw, GA, where every household is REQUIRED to have a gun (unless you object or you aren't capable and fit to own one). You know what happened after this law was passed? 89% drop in the burglary rate, 89%! If these thieves know they may die, they are less likely to break in. When one of them almost does, why do people rally around them like they are a victim? The guy was breaking into someone's home and assaulted the neighbor who asked him what he was doing.
I bet if it was your house, you'd feel different.

Whether the thief deserved it or not, shooting a man in the back as he is retreating is not an imminent threat. Unfortunately, Dennis broke the law and whether we agree with his actions on a moral basis is irrelevant. He acted illegally. In fact, he ought to be thanking his maker that the thief did not overpower him and use his own weapon on him.

Is a T.V., stereo, or jewelry worth a life? No. I commend the man for trying, but, he was wrong to shoot the man. He had shot two tires out, he couldn't have gotten very far anyway. Belongings can be replaced, life can't, yes the young man was wrong as hell, but, the man should have not taken deadly force over belongings that wasn't his to begin with.

FYI the Castle Doctrine was ammended this year to include your car if you are in it. However that still dosent apply here, this was outdoors and the threat subsided the moment the intruder began to flee......... I suspect that either an aggrivated assault charge will be forthcoming if it does not turn into manslaughter.

It appears the law is pretty clear in this case. Neighbor had no justification to shoot 5 or more times at a burglary suspect NOT on or with his property, while the suspect was obviously running AWAY from neighbor.

You gun nuts should mentally get a grip, or else it shall be your own "justifications" and actions which will bring about more control of your toys, no matter how much you pout, shout or cry.

this is so sad because in my opinion the punk got what he deserved. you don't go around robbing people's houses without assuming the risk of getting shot. he was willing to take that risk, so i don't really feel sorry for him.

unfortunately, if the law is followed (from what i understand...i could be wrong) the good neighbor will be charged. i hope that isn't the case. maybe he could get off if his intent wasn't to shoot the guy, but to stop his car....i don't know. unless there's some loophole...i'm afraid the good guy will be the one in the most trouble. i hope not.

FYI the Castle Doctrine was ammended this year to include your car if you are in it. However that still dosent apply here, this was outdoors and the threat subsided the moment the intruder began to flee......... I suspect that either an aggrivated assault charge will be forthcoming if it does not turn into manslaughter.

I dont claim to know the law as alot of the people on this thread seem to claim. Also im not here to judge in anyway. My comment is simple, if the guy robbing the house wasnt there robbing the house, he wouldnt be shot... pretty much the way it is. To anyone who feels the shooter over reacted, well i say to you there comes a point when enough is enough. I have personally shot an intruder in my home and hope im never put into that situation again. however if someone enters my home without my permission, he wont walk out.

Opinion's are like ass-holes we all have one. If someone is trying to break into my home you better believe i'm going to protect it.

http://state.tn.us/sos/acts/105/pub/pc0210.pdf

There's the law. Interperate carefully.

Gun ownership is a right. Using the gun has responsibilities.

Many people who are congratulating this neighbor do not carry the legal costs that will arise from the question of whether this neighbor used his gun in a responsible manner. Like rubbernecking at an accident scene, I guess its human nature for many behind an anonymous keyboard to be glad that someone else is taking on the financial burden that goes along with promoting your cause.

Not all states have a castle law, and those that do have different interpretations. A moot point as far as this article concerns, as the shooter was not defending his own property.

For the Castle Law to work u dont have to be inside your home. Someone can be breaking into your neighbors house, if u feel endangered u have the right to protect. I own a hand gun and have a hand carry permit. The problem is people who dont know the law's. Thank GOD for the right to bear arms.

To clarify, there is no 'Castle Law' that would allow one to use deadly force to protect their property. This is an archaic rule that has been abrogated in most jurisdictions. Defense of property and self-defense are two distinct affirmative defenses.

Jamie is right .

"This is for BRUCE WAYNE i dont think u know what u are talking about. Every state has a law called the CASTLE LAW, gives a home owner the right to protect their property and if they feel endangered they can use deadly force maybe u should know the facts before u comment."

I am not Bruce Wayne, but I cannot let this slide. First, there is no such thing as a "Castle Law" in effect in ANY state (with the possible exception of Texas) as I write this. Second, McClanahan was not protecting his property, and thus cannot claim the protection of the non-existent Castle Law (or "CASTLE LAW," if you prefer). Third, and pay close attention here, you do not have the right to use deadly force to stop another person unless that person poses an imminent risk of death or great bodily harm to you. This is not a subjective determination. Self-defense is an affirmative defense and must be proven. The fact that Eads was shot in the back effectively negates the necessity element of the self-defense claim.

IF YOU ARE NOT AN ATTORNEY WITH MORE THAN 5 YEARS EXPERIENCE, OR A JUDGE, OR A LEGISLATOR DO NOT PRESUME TO TELL PEOPLE WHAT THE LAWS ARE. And if you own a gun and think that you have the right to invoke the "Castle Defense," then you are serving as a HUGE liability to all the reasonable and responsible gunowners. You are the reason that people want to take guns and gun rights away. And maybe they are right to do so unless people show a little more care and responsibility.

The Castle Doctrine is wonderful. A man or woman's home is their castle. Now with the article in the Tennesseean we can at last feel safe in our own homes and cars and on our property. IN TENN. that is. There ya go.....Jamie beat me to the punch but just go to the nra website or google the above-mentioned .Me personally ......Imminent danger of harm is my rule.

(Sigh) Jaime, Jaime, Jamie. Read the article. The action all took place out of doors. It wasn't in Mr. McClanahan's house, it wasn't in his neighbor's house. And Eads was running away. Your "Castle Law," therefore, doesn't apply.

Apparently you haven't been through anykind of training in using firearms. Apparently you do not have a carry permit. In the training you learn ONE thing FOR SURE IMMINENT DANGER OF HARM. That is the reason for shooting. Dusin is lucky...... Deacon's kids and preachers kids, you know what they say???????

This is for BRUCE WAYNE i dont think u know what u are talking about. Every state has a law called the CASTLE LAW, gives a home owner the right to protect their property and if they feel endangered they can use deadly force maybe u should know the facts before u comment.

To Ms. Roberts:

You state: "It sounds as if this Mr. Eads has been in trouble with the law on more than one occassion. Evidently, he isn't afraid of the law anymore, nor does he respect its authority."

How, exactly, are you getting all of this from the simple statement that Eads had a prior DUI and open container citation?

And even if what you claim is true, how does that give a citizen the authority to take Eads' life?

WWJD?

He would have been able to say that he was in fear for his life and been fully justified had he shot him while they were wrestling around. He could have brought up the age issue. When the 29 year old turned to run away, the violence stopped and he was fleeing from the older man, at that point the older man can no longer say that he was in fear for his life. What happened is that became an angry citizen and shot because the younger man broke the law. I'm cool with it and I personally think it should happen more often but the law is the law. In the state of Tennessee you cannot shoot someone to protect property plain and simple.

He would have been able to say that he was in fear for his life and been fully justified had he shot him while they were wrestling around. He could have brought up the age issue. When the 29 year old turned to run away, the violence stopped and he was fleeing from the older man, at that point the older man can no longer say that he was in fear for his life. What happened is that became an angry citizen and shot because the younger man broke the law. I'm cool with it and I personally think it should happen more often but the law is the law. In the state of Tennessee you cannot shoot someone to protect property plain and simple.

Perhaps you would rather live in L.A., where good neighbors are more terrified of the 'bad guys' than the 'bad guys' are of the law. Perhaps you would like to live in Knoxville, where drive by shootings are common place on the south side of town. Perhaps you would prefer to live in an area where neighbors keep their eyes and ears on their own business and wouldn't get involved to help you whether someone was threatening bodily harm or not.

Chasing a fleeing vehicle in your own car is dangerous and not advisable. You could wreck, on an isolated road, and who would help you?

It sounds as if this Mr. Eads has been in trouble with the law on more than one occassion. Evidently, he isn't afraid of the law anymore, nor does he respect its authority. The law can't keep him out of trouble; Private citizen can't put his money where his mouth is when confronting him with a weapon; what is the solution?

If I understand the problem correctly... the 'bad guys' frequently rob the neighborhood. The good citizens call the police. If an arrest is made, the 'bad guys' evidently find themselves back on the street relatively quickly, and resume their behavior in the same neighborhoods. The good citizens get tired of the routine and threaten the 'bad guys' with guns. The good citizens get reprimanded for being 'too fed up', and another 'bad guy' gets released to plan his next robberies, while the good citizens go to jail.

Who pays for all the court costs, the jail time, the police investigations, etc. when 'bad guys' get a little time, get released, get arrested, get released, cycle after cycle after cycle? Mr. Stevenson?

Holy Crap! I had to break into my sister's home recently while she was out, with her permission, to get some medication she urgently needed for her daughter (what she had with her was stolen). What if one of her crazy redneck neighbors had tried to shoot me, even after I was leaving the property? Would you guys still be defending a neighbor, who doesn't know what was gong on at the home, for shooting a young mother trying to help a family member get medication for an ill child? I would assume, well, hope, not. There are reasons we have processes and laws in place. If Mr. McClanahan was my sister's neighbor, you guys could possibly have three orphans on your hands right now, as what I appearred to be doing, and what Mr. Eads apprearred to be doing, would look the same to him. In my eyes, someone who jumps to conclusions enough to shoot at someone he doesn't know, on someone else's property, who is fleeing, is no hero, but a risk to all of us who could find ourselves in a similar looking situation.

peter, you are usually against the police!

"Someone 29 and someone 52 that is trying to keep the theif from fleeing the shoother would be justified"


You do not have the right to use deadly force to protect property. Bruce Wayne says that in the 7th post.

I don't know what "law" you are quoting, Doris? The one in your head?

McClanahan could have grabbed his cell phone, called the cops, and followed the guy in his car. And yes, carried his gun along in the car for self defense. But the way he chose to play this out puts him up for the big M should this known criminal die. McClanahan's choice now created life-critical health costs that would not be there if he just followed the guy and led the police to the criminals location. Hey conservative gun lovers, who is going to pay those medical costs that McClanahan created by his own actions?

This was amateur hour, and is precisely why the police professionals were against the emboldenment that goes along with new gun laws. They are the ones who clean up after amateur hour plays out.

You do NOT have the right to kill someone because you think they might have done something illegal. First, McClanahan didn't know what Eads was doing there - it wasn't McClanahan's home. Second, the point of defense of property is to get the possibly "bad" person off of your property. The right ends there. You do not have the right to shoot them in the back. How can you even think that this is appropriate? Not to mention that while a citizen arrest MAY have been appropriate, McClanahan cannot invoke defense of property because it wasn't his property.

If this happened more often to burglers, it wouldn't take long till there would be no more burglaries. The risk would outweigh any possible gain. However Mr McClanahan has acted wrongly. Had he taken the time to get a legal carry permit, he would have been taught in the classes when he is permited to fire his weapon. IN SELF DEFENCE ONLY. Had he done so during the struggle, he could have been justified if he felt he was in danger if iminent threat of death or severe bodily injury, instead, he got his butt kicked, and acted out of anger after the asailant (and the threat) were leaving, and put another bad mark on all us legal (and responsible) carry permit holders. I commend him on being a good neigbor, and acting instead of sitting by pretending he didn't see anything. Just wish he had used a level head.

I'd say the biggest personal mistake Dennis made was to make that 911 call. No good deed goes unpunished.

Got my "citizen of the year" vote!

thief and shooter Correction for the spelling police.

It's the law.

I'd say that this is a well know theif and I thank the man with the gun that used it correctly. With a stuggle , Someone 29 and someone 52 that is trying to keep the theif from fleeing the shoother would be justified . Imminent danger of harm is the key phrase.

He wasn't in imminent harm when the criminal is shot in the back running away.

But thanks for the attempt at justification. That 'age thing' was a nice touch as well.

If a stuggle took place which is in the report. The man was older , 52, and felt he was in imminent danger of harm......that is a CAUSE to fire a gun.

If our just laws are adhered to in this case, the shooter should be in some trouble here. If the claim of hearing "five or more" shots turns out to be a true statement, this neighbor should be the setting example of what NOT to do in this situation.

"Dennis could have shot and killed this scumbag..." He shot the guy in the back, allegedly firing multiple shots at the suspect as he ran from him. That act would logically appear to be attempted murder.

I do not condone theft of anyone's property. What this neighbor did was wrong, and his deadly attempt to stop a thief was outright illegal.

The gun nuts have been emboldened by the recent laws in this state, and I dare say this was the result of the hyped frenzy. Instead of one person facing serious felony charges as a result of this event, there shall now be two. How any of you can can scrape together justification for this act is beyond reason. We now cheer the attempted murder of someone who stole from us? Are we still that primitive and shallow-minded in these parts?

My daughter's house was broken into by 5 people after Christmas. They were in a older model HONDA with clear Euro tail lights. It was really scarry ....their dog scared them off. The gang broke 3 windows . It was an attempted home invasion. I would suggest to people that they be careful about putting pictures of the inside of their house on myspace or facebook. Buglar's cruise places like this. They usually have a drug problem and they are stealing to get money to fuel their addiction. Plus we know this guy too. It's just too obvious that this was the same person that was involved in her atempted robbery. I have the liscense tag number.

Yes, an untrained armed citizen uses deadly force into the back of a criminal in a situation that doesn't require it nor affects his personal property. Lets break out the party hats!

McClanahan had better hope this guy who is in critical condition doesn't die.

Thankful for good neighbors.GIVE this neighbor an award.

oh and let me say that Mt. Carmel police rock! It's sad that a small town like Mt. Carmel out shines the police in larger towns...I just think they are awesome and a role model to other towns in the area! Not mentioning any names but when some police forces won't even direct traffic during a wreck, that's pretty bad!

now that's funny...I think the man deserves a medal! It's about time for citizens to stand up, protect their neighbors, protect their country, and by GOSH take back the Constitution! KUDOS to this neighbor, he can live beside me any day!

I live right beside of Dennis McClanahan. He is the best neighbor I have ever had. We have been having trouble with people stealing and drug dealing in this neighborhood lately. I had just told Dennis Sat that we needed to start a neighborhood watch program. I didn't think at that time, something like this would happen so soon. Dennis could have shot and killed this scumbag while they were fighting, but he didn't. Dennis had 911 on the phone all the time. He tried to get the guy to stop and he wouldn't so when he got into his car to drive off, all he was trying to do is shoot the tires so he couldn't get anywhere. We are tired of the druggies out there stealing what we are working for!! I am glad to have Dennis for a neighbor. We live on the Sullivan/Hawkins co line. When we call the police, it takes them forever to get here. In this case, with shots being fired-it took them 20 mints. I want the city to come and annex us now more than ever. It's a shame that I have never saw a Sullivan co police car have anyone pulled over on this road. Mt. Carmel police chase people across the bridge all the time and pull them over in front of my house. I feel more protected by them than I do my own county.
It is time we law abiding citizens stand up to the people who can't get work to support their own habit. They are taking over and seem to be relentless. I am fed up and so was Dennis. I wish everyone had a neighbor like him.

You are not allowed to shoot a dog that is pooping in your yard unless that dog is an immediate threat to you so why should one be allowed to shoot a human being who is running away from him? Even the police are not allowed to shoot someone who is fleeing from them unless that person is shooting at them. If you are going to own a fire arm, which by the way, you don't have to have a carry permit to own in your own home. You are allowed to use deadly force only when your or another's life is in danger. In Texas you have the right to use deadly force in defense of property but in Tennessee you don't. So if you are going to own a firearm make sure you know and understand the laws for it's use. If this man dies then Mr. Dennis McClanahan is guilty of murder. Though he will probably only be charged with Manslaughter.

Although I may disagree with it, the citizen's case will be taken to the Grand Jury. If the Jury follows the letter of the law, the citizen will be arrested. I don't think a Sullivan County Jury would actually find the citizen guilty in a trial though. You cannot use deadly force to protect property and there's no way you can convince anyone that it was self defense when the guy is 20 feet away getting into a car and you shot him in the back. Two big thumbs up to the citizen though and I hope the good people of Sullivan County take care of you.

This situation is a perfect example of why those who demand their right to bear arms really need to understand and take seriously the responsibilities that come with the exercise of that right. You may be called upon to make critical decisions in a fast-moving, highly stressful situation. And, if you get it wrong, you may find yourself jammed up with the law. Among the laws the district attorney will probably be reviewing here will be Tenn. Code Ann. 39-11-621. This provides that “A private citizen, in making an arrest authorized by law, may use force necessary to accomplish the arrest of an individual who flees or resists the arrest; provided, that a private citizen cannot use or threaten to use deadly force except to the extent authorized under self-defense or defense of third person statutes.” Under the self-defense statutes a citizen generally is authorized to use deadly force when faced with an imminent threat of death or severe bodily harm to himself or another.
Based on the story presented here, Mr. McClanahan’s attempt to subdue Eads was probably an authorized arrest attempt. He reasonably believed that he was witnessing the commission of a felony by Eads. The issue for Mr. McClanahan is going to be, whether, at the time he shot Eads, Eads presented an imminent threat to kill of severely injure him. If the story is correct that Eads was shot in the back while fleeing from Mr. McClanahan then it could be hard to make that case.

I know Mr. McClanahan felt he was doing the right thing and I also believe he did the right thing in attempting to stop a robbery in progress. I also believe in the right to bear arms for personal, family, and community protection. However, if this story is accurate, and I assume that it is, then even the police would technically be in trouble for shooting a fleeing, unarmed suspect who was posing no immediate danger to their life.

Calm down citizens. The process must must run it's course. that's how our system works. I am sure that after a a review that the good neighbor will be found just in his actions. that is if his story is accurate and truthful. Just because the district attorney and/or grand jury has to review the incident doesn't mean that they are treating this as a lawless attack, rather it is just proof that the system has a set procedure that must be followed. I wish Mr. McClanahan all the best and I hope that this process doesn't change his view on doing the right thing.

Let me get this straight. The decision must be made as to whether to charge an individual with a crime who tried to stop a robber, the robber struggled with the individual, then effectively caused the robber to get caught. Maybe next time he should just help him carry the stolen items to his car. That might embolden him enough that next time it won't just include theft but possibly murder or rape to go along with it.

You mean someone actually owned a gun, used it to actually shoot at a bad guy and no innocent kids got killed? Wow! There must be something to this right to bear arms...