A Memphis man who defended his property from a car thief now faces seven felony charges — prosecutors say the crime wasn’t stopping the burglar, but missing him.
Demarcus Collier, 27, fired at least nine rounds at a teenager trying to break into his car after the would-be thief acted as if he had a weapon, according to Action News 5. Some of the rounds Collier fired hit a nearby room with children inside and a parked vehicle, leading Shelby County prosecutors to charge him with aggravated assault and vandalism. The incident has sparked debate about the boundaries of lawful self-defense and the legal obligations gun owners face when protecting their property, particularly in densely populated residential areas where errant gunfire can endanger innocent bystanders.
Not the first time I’ve seen this out of Memphis:
A legal gun owner faces 7 felony charges after an armed confrontation with a car thief.
The felonies technically aren’t for shooting the thief.
They’re for shooting at the thief – and missing. https://t.co/CCj1H1t5eH
— Amy Swearer (@AmySwearer) September 22, 2026
The case turns on a legal technicality that punishes gun owners not for the initial act of self-defense, but for the outcome of the shots fired. This represents a critical distinction in how self-defense cases are prosecuted: whether the evaluation should focus on the defender’s state of mind and reasonableness at the moment of the threat, or whether it should also account for the consequences of their actions on third parties who were never part of the initial confrontation.
“What the police do when the process starts to charge you is result-based. Did you intentionally fire and did it put the other people, the victim in fear?” Memphis attorney Michael Working told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “And so in Tennessee that case is an aggravated assault and it’s for the homeowners that had a bullet come through the wall, a reasonable fear of serious bodily injury. That’s an entirely separate inquiry from whether the defendant or the gun owner acted reasonably from a legitimate fear himself.”
This dual legal standard creates a situation where a person can simultaneously be justified in using defensive force against an immediate threat while also being criminally liable for how that force was deployed. The framework reflects the law’s attempt to balance individual rights to self-defense with community safety concerns, though critics argue it creates confusion for gun owners who must make split-second decisions under extreme stress.
Investigators say Collier saw the suspect breaking into his car on a home security camera and responded. His family expressed shock at the charges, noting that he was acting to protect his property from what he perceived as a potentially dangerous criminal threat in the moment.
“He’s a hardworking man, family man, doing the right things in life. He reacted like any human being should do, you know? Because, it could’ve been the other way.”
Tennessee has the Castle Doctrine, which creates a presumption that a person has a reasonable belief of imminent danger when they use defensive force against someone who unlawfully and forcibly entered their property. Working says the law still falls short. The Castle Doctrine, adopted in various forms across numerous states, was designed to eliminate the duty to retreat when facing threats in one’s home or property. However, the doctrine’s protections may not extend to situations where defensive actions create risks to uninvolved parties, highlighting potential gaps in how these laws function in real-world scenarios.
“Tennessee is an 88% Republican conservative lawmakers in our state Legislature. I mean, it is an overwhelming Republican supermajority,” Working told the DCNF. “But the law is still written with this disconnect where police come out and apply the perspective of the victims only and not the gun owner.”
This political context is significant because Republican-controlled legislatures have typically championed expansive self-defense rights and Second Amendment protections. The fact that even in such an environment the law creates potential criminal liability for property defenders suggests the complexity of balancing competing interests and the challenge of crafting legislation that accounts for all possible scenarios.
Second Amendment Foundation President Massad Ayoob, a self-defense instructor and expert witness on use of force, said more information was needed on the specific case. His perspective underscores that self-defense law isn’t simply about whether a threat existed, but also about whether the response was executed with reasonable care under the circumstances.
“If the shots were fired with a reasonable degree of responsibility, the law has historically said they should be treated as if they had struck their intended target,” Ayoob told the DCNF. “If there is Ring camera video of the shooter firing wildly with his eyes closed or over his shoulder blindly, there is a negligence element.”
This distinction between justified use of force and negligent execution of that force may ultimately determine the outcome of Collier’s case, as prosecutors and defense attorneys examine the security footage and other evidence to determine whether his actions, while perhaps justified in principle, were reckless in practice.
The charges remain allegations. The case has not been proven in court.
