fisherman pistol-whipped in Jessamine County

[TimE]

Thug would have been good shoot!

KRS 503.055

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.

[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.

[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.

[rdenny]

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

I would have to ask a lawyer on that. I am not saying your wrong, but the title of the section, "Use of defensive force regarding dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle," typically dictates the scope. And when they refer to, "in any other place where he or she has a right to be ," 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.

[Tim_T]

I would have to ask a lawyer on that. I am not saying your wrong, but the title of the section, "Use of defensive force regarding dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle," typically dictates the scope. And when they refer to, "in any other place where he or she has a right to be ," 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.

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.

[bigwormy]

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!

[DJD]

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.

[markmac60]

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.

I agree with you DJD. I can tell from your avatar that it requires much pondering on your side.

[Olgrey]

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.

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.

[RoadToad]

There's one big problem with the argument that he could have shot them in the back and had nothing to worry about. There's nothing in the story that indicates the other two were even armed. Had he shot the first one, and then the other two turned and ran (which I believe they most likely would have), and he then shot them in the back, and they turned out to be unarmed, I think there's an excellent chance he would've ended up being charged with manslaughter.

[NedFlanders]

A family member of mine was in a bad situation and had to take someones life. He doesnt regret doing it as it was necessary , but I can tell you that although he needed to do it it still bothers him to this day and it was some 20 years ago...............

[Carter1]

If killing someone didn't bother a person then that person might have some problems.