fisherman pistol-whipped in Jessamine County

[rdenny]

Here is the full statute regarding the "Castle Doctrine":

Title L. Kentucky Penal Codehttp://images-statcont.westlaw.com/i...uperbrowse.gif Chapter 503. General Principles of Justification (Refs & Annos)
http://images-statcont.westlaw.com/images/arrow.gif503.055 Use of defensive force regarding dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; exceptions



(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) of this section does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

(b) The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of the person against whom the defensive force is used;

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a peace officer, as defined in KRS 446.010, who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties, and the officer identified himself or herself 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 peace officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a felony involving the use of force.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

I am not a lawyer, so will not give legal advice. Here is a link to the KRS Chapter on Self Defense http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/503-00/CHAPTER.HTM. Just note the castle doctrine creates a presumption, not an absolute.

Also, the guy at the creek certainly had a right to defend himself.

[redneckshadrap]

Guess who else packs now.....ME!

[Ky Trophy Fish]

Guess who else packs now.....ME!

WOULD THIS BE CONSIDERED OVERKILL?? Having a small horse trail ride yesterday and today on my property and several of neighbors.After reading this post ,did a quick check to see what 16 riders were packing-- 1- Para Ordinance 45acp,2- 9mm Glocks,2 Judges,1 Remington 380,2 -Walther 380's, a couple 22's, 1 -Colt 1911 45 acp and 1 -Taurus 357.Pity a thief/mugger/bad a$$ that might want to try this bunch.

[striperjoe]

I too carry when I fishing or even on the road for a fishin trip. Will have no problem defending myself.
These idiots are to well described and they will get caught or some one will turn them in.

[MrSplitshot]

WOULD THIS BE CONSIDERED OVERKILL?? Having a small horse trail ride yesterday and today on my property and several of neighbors.After reading this post ,did a quick check to see what 16 riders were packing-- 1- Para Ordinance 45acp,2- 9mm Glocks,2 Judges,1 Remington 380,2 -Walther 380's, a couple 22's, 1 -Colt 1911 45 acp and 1 -Taurus 357.Pity a thief/mugger/bad a$$ that might want to try this bunch.

No sir....I'd just consider that "good company" to be in....especially if Canada invades or zombies attack. I carry a Sig 380, because it's convenient and accurate...and because it's a 1911 platform that can be "cocked and locked." I'd carry a bazooka if it was easy to conceal. LOL

[MrSplitshot]

Guess who else packs now.....ME!

Get-R-Done...

What are you packing?

[UpaCrick]

Get-R-Done...

What are you packing?

Samsonite............purple paisley pattern

[HURRICANEBOB]

Having read this, if you invite me to your house:
1. I'm calling first before I arrive.
2. Then ringing the door bell.
3. Then knocking.
4. Then stripping down naked with my hands on my head before you open the door to show I have no weapons.

When I do #4 for the wife, she confirms I'm unarmed.

[MrSplitshot]

Samsonite............purple paisley pattern

I just spit some Diet Mountain Dew on that one....good stuff right there....LMAO

[stoner]

Geez I fish that area once in a while. I learned years ago to carry my pistol when out wading and I very seldom go wading alone. I hope they find these losers and neuter them before they muliply with their mom and sisters.
I hate a low life thief!

What he said ^^^^^

[Fishin is life]

When you talk about killing all three of the guys heres the problem you're going to run into....You're going to have to shoot atleast one of them in the back while they're running away...Self defense ends when you have sucessfully defended yourself...Did they all three deserve to be shot, sure...Can you prove that in court, probably not

[Tim_T]

Here is the full statute regarding the "Castle Doctrine":

Title L. Kentucky Penal Codehttp://images-statcont.westlaw.com/i...uperbrowse.gif Chapter 503. General Principles of Justification (Refs & Annos)
http://images-statcont.westlaw.com/images/arrow.gif503.055 Use of defensive force regarding dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; exceptions



(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) of this section does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

(b) The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of the person against whom the defensive force is used;

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a peace officer, as defined in KRS 446.010, who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties, and the officer identified himself or herself 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 peace officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a felony involving the use of force.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

I am not a lawyer, so will not give legal advice. Here is a link to the KRS Chapter on Self Defense http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/503-00/CHAPTER.HTM. Just note the castle doctrine creates a presumption, not an absolute.

Also, the guy at the creek certainly had a right to defend himself.

I believe that would cover the situation posted by the OP.