The law seems to be written in our favor. Anyone know where to look at cases that prove the law is enforced as it reads? I can see lawyers and judges twisting it.
Printable View
The law seems to be written in our favor. Anyone know where to look at cases that prove the law is enforced as it reads? I can see lawyers and judges twisting it.
[QUOTE=Tim_T;464930]I believe that would cover the situation posted by the OP.[/QUOTE]
I would have to ask a lawyer on that. I am not saying your wrong, but the title of the section, "[B]Use of defensive force regarding dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle[/B]," typically dictates the scope. And when they refer to, "[B][U]in any other place where he or she has a right to be [/U][/B]," I am not sure if they would be referring to public places. Given the title of the section they may be referring to another person's dwelling, residence, or vehicle where you have a right to be (like your buddy's house while you are a guest there). Again, I am not sure. That is why I encourage people to make sure to research the topic well if they ever think they may use deadly force in defense of themselves. I consider myself more knowledgable than most in this subject matter, but still find myself scratching my head now and again.
I still agree the guy at the creek would have right to defend himself.
[QUOTE=rdenny;464953]I would have to ask a lawyer on that. I am not saying your wrong, but the title of the section, "[B]Use of defensive force regarding dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle[/B]," typically dictates the scope. And when they refer to, "[B][U]in any other place where he or she has a right to be [/U][/B]," I am not sure if they would be referring to public places. Given the title of the section they may be referring to another person's dwelling, residence, or vehicle where you have a right to be (like your buddy's house while you are a guest there). Again, I am not sure. That is why I encourage people to make sure to research the topic well if they ever think they may use deadly force in defense of themselves. I consider myself more knowledgable than most in this subject matter, but still find myself scratching my head now and again.
I still agree the guy at the creek would have right to defend himself.[/QUOTE]
You might be right, but it sure sounds like that clause would give you protection under the law anywhere that you were, as long as you were legally allowed to be there.
There is a case in my neck of woods that is crazy. A man was robbed in a Walmart parking lot. While he was getting in his console to get the robber his money, the victim also had a gun in there. He pulled it out instead of money and the robber ran. He shot him in the back and killed him. Now the arguing on both sides have begun. I'd killed him to!
Yikes shooting the guy in the back seems like a mistake to me. I have never had to make that decision (and I don't want too) but that looks like trouble. I'm sure anger, confusion and adrenaline are running high and that could play into that decision to shoot but man it seems the threat was leaving.
[QUOTE=DJD;465033]Yikes shooting the guy in the back seems like a mistake to me. I have never had to make that decision (and I don't want too) but that looks like trouble. I'm sure anger, confusion and adrenaline are running high and that could play into that decision to shoot but man it seems the threat was leaving.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you DJD. I can tell from your avatar that it requires much pondering on your side.
This post is why i liked living in KY. be safe to all. hope none of you ever have to defend yourself or family in this manner. having dealt with folks who have killed others, i can tell you that regardless of the reason, it leaves marks on your humanity.
You can always shoot the perp in the back. He was not retreating, he was seeking a more strategic place to attack you from.. let a jury prove the scenario any different......
I carry a variety of sidearms. from a 45 taurus, 9mm glock all the way down to a .32 in my front pocket...Whichever suits my attire best.. Most of the time my shirt is un tucked hiding my 45 acp.
I am always armed.,.... always.
[QUOTE=llg;464599]Be prepared for the legal battles. You can't kill just one of three because the other two will have a different story for the Judge and jury. You have to kill all three. No witnesses. Even then, you can have trouble. Here is a link where the parents of a burglar sued for wrongful death--for the burglar's 3 year old daughter and won $300,000 because the burglar did not intend to hurt anybody.
[URL]http://www.gunreports.com/news/news/Colorado-burglar-family-wins-300K-in-wrongful-death-suit_3314-1.html?ET=gunreports:e1065:195766a:&st=email[/URL]
It's wrong, but that is the way this crazy country is.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but this is not quite the same............PreMeditated.......Even though I HATE that the business owner had to pay, he should have dealt with this differently and it doesn't sound like deadly force was necessary.
Later,
Geo
I am a former Marine, I can say, these guys will eventually mess with the wrong person and get there own life taken from them. I pack a Kimber Carry .45 and I also carry a backup. When alone, know your surrounding at all times and always position yourself to be able to see things clearly. Also, make sure if you do carry you are trained and able to operate your weapon with accuracy and speed. Does not help to have it, if you don't know how to use it. .02
Look up KRS LAW and it should give you what you want to know. If you can't find it let me know and I will try to find it at work tomorrow if I have the time. Ryan.
[QUOTE=DJD;465033]Yikes shooting the guy in the back seems like a mistake to me. I have never had to make that decision (and I don't want too) but that looks like trouble. I'm sure anger, confusion and adrenaline are running high and that could play into that decision to shoot but man it seems the threat was leaving.[/QUOTE]
My argument would be that no one can prove that his intent was not to go behind an automobile for protection then continue the conflict and shoot at you. In my opinion, which has absolutely no legal authority, there is no way to positively, without a doubt, know that he was in fact withdrawing from the conflict while you and he are in range of each other. Incidentially, I have seen people shoot who can reach way out there and tap you with a handgun.