Saturday, March 21, 2015

Kentucky's Vigilante, Stand Your Ground, and Castle Laws (2015)

"It is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs. He does not have to. He is not obligated to retreat, nor to consider whether he can safely retreat, but is entitled to stand his ground, and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon." ~Gibson v Commonwealth, 34 SW 936 (Ky. 1931)

Kentucky's Vigilante Law:

KRS 431.005(6)
Arrest by peace officers -- By private persons.

    (6) A private person may make an arrest when a felony has been committed in fact and he or she has probable cause to believe that the person being arrested has committed it. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=40581

The Louisville Jailers committed several felonies against me on December 8, 2012, and therefore, as a citizen of this Commonwealth, I had a right—as a private Kentucky citizen—to arrest them for the felonies they were committing.

The history of vigilante laws come from the glory days of yore, during frontier days in one-horse towns, whenever a crime was committed, especially felonies, but the Sheriff wasn't around to witness it, then it was up to the citizens to make the arrest against the criminalizing individual. In some cases, the person who witnessed a felony, but didn't do anything about it, was charged with negligence, or something, or another.

So, in Kentucky, at one time, if you DIDN'T arrest a felon, or shoot him or her dead, in the course of a bank robbery, a rape, or a murder, then you would be held criminally culpable.

120 Posse Comitatus's

All 120 Kentucky County Sheriffs also have a right to deputize any citizen at whim to form his or her “Posse Comitatus”.

“In 1876 a four-hundred-man posse killed one member of the infamous Jesse James gang and captured two others.”

“In 1878 the use of a posse comitatus was limited by the passage of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. This act, passed in response to theuse of federal troops to enforce reconstruction policies in the southern states, prohibited the use of the U.S. Army to enforce laws unless the Constitution or an act of Congress explicitly authorized such use. This act was amended five times in the 1980s, largely to allow for the useof military resources to combat trafficking in illicit narcotics.”

“Though rarely used, the posse comitatus continues to be a modern legal institution. In June 1977, for example, the Aspen, Colorado, sheriff called out the posse comitatus—ordinary citizens with their own weapons—to hunt for escaped mass murderer Theodore ("Ted") Bundy. Many states have modern posse comitatus statutes; one typical example is the Kentucky statute enacted in 1962 that gives any sheriff thepower to "command and take with him the power of the county or a part thereof, to aid him in the execution of the duties of his office" (Ky.Rev. Stat. Ann. § 70.060 [Baldwin 1996]).” http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Posse+comitatus

KRS 70.060

70.060 Sheriff may command power of county. Any sheriff, deputy sheriff or other like officer may command and take with him the power of the county, or a part thereof, to aid him in the execution of the duties of his office, and may summon as many persons as he deems necessary to aid him in the performance thereof. History: Amended 1962 Ky. Acts ch. 234, sec. 16. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 4578. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=24192

Wikipedia claims that the Posse Comitatus Law is “common law” meaning that it's so ingrained into our American institutions, it's the “assumed” law of the land. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_comitatus_%28common_law%29

When a private Kentucky citizen arrests another person committing a felony in their presence, they have the right to get the criminal subdued by any means necessary, and once the criminal has been subdued, and is being detained/arrested from movement (handcuffed, or hog tied up, on the ground, or a chair), then the private Kentucky citizen has to call The Law, and get a police officer to take over from there.

While one can use force to subdue a criminal, one may not derive pleasure from the beating, and the beating shouldn't be excessive. Only enough to get the handcuffs on the criminal.

Aaron Browning and Joel Casse was joyriding around Louisville, just looking for any ole body to assault, and I had a right to make a citizen's arrest. They were the ones who were menacing, disorderly, resisting arrest, and assaulted and batterized another citizen. They also tried to run me over, which is attempted vehicular manslaughter, which should be a Felony. Those boys were terrorizing Louisville that night, and they didn't serve and protect anybody in Louisville that night. I did what a righteous person would have done, and if Aaron or Joel were in my shoes, in my position on that December 7, 2012 night, I wouldn't have expected them to act any differently.
xxxXxxx

How to Make a Citizen's Arrest:


Ehow: http://www.ehow.com/about_6599400_citizen_s-arrest-act.html “The Kentucky Criminal Code states that a person is allowed to kill a fleeing felon during the act of a citizen's arrest if it is not viewed as excessive force.”

Famous Citizen's Arrest/Private Person's Arrest Cases:

“In 2010, Jodie Evans attempted a citizen's arrest on former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove while he was at a book signing in Beverly Hills. The woman accused Rove of committing “war crimes,” but her attempt was unsuccessful.”

“On March 17, 2009, political activist John Boncore attempted a citizen's arrest in Canada of former President George W. Bush. Boncore was arrested and the case went to trail, with no verdict delivered as of June 2010.”


“Kentucky law holds that a person witnessing a felony must take affirmative steps to prevent it, if possible. (See Gill v. Commonwealth, 235 KY 351 (1930.)”

and

“Indeed, Kentucky citizens are permitted to kill fleeing felons while making a citizen's arrest (Kentucky Criminal Code § 37; S 43, §44.)”


“Kentucky is the standard-bearer for citizen’s arrest laws; Section 503 http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/chapter.aspx?id=39367 of the state’s penal code lists all manner of circumstances where a person could make an arrest and a court case from the 1930s is interpreted to mean Kentucky law calls on citizens to intervene when they see a felony, especially one where another person is in danger.”

But this website claims that Kentucky switched from the Criminal Code system to the KRS (Kentucky Revised Statutes) system in 1942: http://www.kentuckyhunting.net/forums/showthread.php?107753-Did-you-know-this-about-citizens-arrest-in-Ky

KRS's Section 503 goes hard.

KRS 503.030 legalizes a citizen to use proper moral judgment when dealing with use of force in order to bring about the greater public good:

503.030 Choice of evils.

(1) Unless inconsistent with the ensuing sections of this code defining justifiable use of physical force or with some other provisions of law, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable when the defendant believes it to be necessary to avoid an imminent public or private injury greater than the injury which is sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense charged, except that no justification can exist under this section for an intentional homicide. (2) When the defendant believes that conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is necessary for the purpose described in subsection (1), but is wanton or reckless in having such belief, or when the defendant is wanton or reckless in bringing about a situation requiring the conduct described in subsection (1), the justification afforded by this section is unavailable in a prosecution for any offense for which wantonness or recklessness, as the case may be, suffices to establish culpability. Effective:January 1, 1975 History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 28, effective January 1, 1975. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=19667

503.020 Justification -- A defense.

In any prosecution for an offense, justification, as defined in this chapter, is a defense. Effective:January 1, 1975 History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 27, effective January 1, 1975 http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=19666

Legal Immunity

The most important, and potentially the most problematic change made by the Castle Doctrine for law enforcement, is the enactment of KRS 503.085.

503.085 Justification and criminal and civil immunity for use of permitted force – Exceptions.

  1. A person who uses force as permitted in KRS 503.050, 503.055, 503.070, and 503.080 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom the force was used is a peace officer, as defined in KRS 446.010, who was acting 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 was a peace officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1) of this section, but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful. (3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff, if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1) of this section. Effective:July 12, 2006 History: Created 2006 Ky. Acts ch. 192, sec. 6, effective July 12, 2006. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=19674
This new statute provides for legal immunity from criminal prosecution and civil actions.

One of the primary purposes of the Castle Doctrine was to protect people who justifiably used deadly force in defense of themselves, others or their homes from the costs and stress of criminal prosecution and civil litigation, when they ultimately would prevail. KRS 503.085 is intended to provide that protection, although it does not serve as a complete shield. It effectively creates a rebuttable presumption that when a person claims he or she was justified in using deadly force according to the law, that he in fact is justified. It shifts the burden of proof to law enforcement or the prosecutor to show that he was not justified in that belief.

The following hypothetical situation may be useful to illustrate the point.

Officers are dispatched to a shooting call. When they arrive, they find a subject dead of an apparent gunshot wound and the apparent shooter still at the scene. The shooter is cooperative and readily talks to officers. He claims he believed that the decedent was about to kill him, so he used his own weapon to shoot and kill the decedent. After interviewing other witnesses and collecting physical evidence at the crime scene, the officers conclude that there is probable cause to believe this was a criminal homicide, and that there is probable cause to believe the shooter committed the homicide. Prior to the enactment of the Castle Doctrine, the officers would probably have arrested the shooter at that time. However, subsection 1 provides that the person is immune from criminal prosecution – which includes the actions of arresting, detaining in custody and charging or prosecuting him. Subsection 2 does permit officers to arrest the shooter, but only if they “determine that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.”4 This is a fundamental change in the usual way such situations are handled by most law enforcement agencies. Affirmative defenses In criminal cases, affirmative defenses are what a suspect might raise when they admit they committed the act but claim some legal justification for committing the act. Officers can and should take a suspect’s affirmative defenses into account in determining if they have probable cause to believe both that the crime occurred and that the suspect committed it. The mere existence of a possible affirmative defense does not ordinarily bar an arrest. Usually it is the defendant’s responsibility to raise the affirmative defense in court. http://www.kledispatches.ky.gov/Schwendeman-Castle%20doctrine-EDITED.pdf

“With the Castle Doctrine, that usual process is cast aside. Officers must now have probable cause not only to believe the offense was committed and that the suspect did it, but also probable cause to believe that the affirmative defense will fail before they can arrest the suspect. In many cases, this will not be a problem in that the suspect’s claim will clearly be weak. The problem arises in cases where the claim is more credible. A likely result of this will be that officers have to contact the prosecutor to seek guidance as to how to proceed before arresting a suspect who is claiming justification under KRS Chapter 503. That contact will provide some shield from liability for the officers.”
Civil liability

“Further, KRS 503.085 creates potential civil liability for officers who arrest a suspect claiming legal justification for their action. If the suspect’s justification ultimately is accepted by the court or the case is dismissed, the suspect may sue the officers for false arrest. This is an issue that apparently is not well understood by the law enforcement community. Due to the newness of the law, Kentucky does not have any reported court cases that provide guidance on how the statute should be applied. All officers need to be familiar with the changes created by the Castle Doctrine to KRS Chapter 503. Caution is the byword in responding to deadly force cases where the suspect is claiming justification under the new laws. It is recommended that law enforcement agencies discuss the matter with their legal advisers and local prosecutors now to be prepared to deal with such cases before they arise. 1 34 S.W.2d 936 (Ky., 1931). 2 Id. 3 Hilbert v. Commonwealth, 162 S.W.3d 921 (Ky., 2005) 4 KRS 503.085(2).”

Violence can be used on those who threaten to kill themselves.

503.100 Prevention of a suicide or crime.

(1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent such other person from: (a) Committing suicide or inflicting serious physical injury upon himself; or (b) Committing a crime involving or threatening serious physical injury to person, substantial damage to or loss of property, or any other violent conduct. (2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection (1)(b) only when the defendant believes that the person whom he seeks to prevent from committing a crime is likely to endanger human life. (3) The limitations imposed on the justifiable use of force in self-protection by KRS 503.050 and 503.060, for the protection of others by KRS 503.070, for the protection of property by KRS 503.080, and for the effectuation of an arrest or the prevention of an escape by KRS 503.090 apply notwithstanding the criminality of the conduct against which such force is used. Effective:January 1, 1975 History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 35, effective January 1, 1975. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=19676

Timothy Boling of the LMPD was caught by other police drinking and driving. Timothy Boling is a law-breaker, and most probably, a hypocrite, if he's ever arrested others for doing the same offense he seemed all too willing to do. ALSO, Timothy Boling had sent some suicidal text messages to some woman with a gun pointed to his head and to his chest. While Boling was reprimanded by having to check into some mental clinic, he's still walking around with an LMPD badge, and a government issued gun. http://thefreethoughtproject.com/louisville-metro-police-awful-pr-spree-continues/

Since it looked as though Boling was being suicidal, force could have been used against him. Eventually, even though Boling and the Louisville SWAT team were at a standoff with each other, Timothy Boling fell asleep with the gun in his hand, and that's how the standoff ended.

This man still carries a gun, and walks around the streets of Louisville, looking for trouble.

503.110 Use of force by person with responsibility for care, discipline, or safety of others.

(1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant is a parent, guardian, or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a minor or an incompetent person or when the defendant is a teacher or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a minor, for a special purpose, and: (a) The defendant believes that the force used is necessary to promote the welfare of a minor or mentally disabled person or, if the defendant's responsibility for the minor or mentally disabled person is for a special purpose, to further that special purpose or maintain reasonable discipline in a school, class, or other group; and (b) The force that is used is not designed to cause or known to create a substantial risk of causing death, serious physical injury, disfigurement, extreme pain, or extreme mental distress. (2) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant is a warden or other authorized official of a correctional institution, and: (a) The defendant believes that the force used is necessary for the purpose of enforcing the lawful rules of the institution; (b) The degree of force used is not forbidden by any statute governing the administration of the institution; and (c) If deadly force is used, its use is otherwise justifiable under this code. (3) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant is a person responsible for the operation of or the maintenance of order in a vehicle or other carrier of passengers and the defendant believes that such force is necessary to prevent interference with its operation or to maintain order in the vehicle or other carrier, except that deadly physical force may be used only when the defendant believes it necessary to prevent death or serious physical injury. (4) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant is a doctor or other therapist or a person assisting him at his direction, and: (a) The force is used for the purpose of administering a recognized form of treatment which the defendant believes to be adapted to promoting the physical or mental health of the patient; and (b) The treatment is administered with the consent of the patient or, if the patient is a minor or a mentally disabled person, with the consent of the parent, guardian, or other person legally competent to consent in his behalf, or the treatment is administered in an emergency when the defendant believes that no one competent to consent can be consulted and that a reasonable person, wishing to safeguard the welfare of the patient, would consent. Effective: July 1, 1982 History: Amended 1982 Ky. Acts ch. 141, sec. 135, effective July 1, 1982. -- Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 36, effective January 1, 1975. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=19677

503.080 Protection of property.
  1. The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent: (a) The commission of criminal TRESPASS, ROBBERY, BURGLARY, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055, in a dwelling, building or upon real property in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts; or (b) Theft, criminal mischief, or any trespassory taking of tangible, movable property in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts. (2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection (1) only when the defendant believes that the person against whom such force is used is: (a) Attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or (b) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary, robbery, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055, of such dwelling; or (c) Committing or attempting to commit arson of a dwelling or other building in his possession.
    (3) A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be. Effective:July 12, 2006 History: Amended 2006 Ky. Acts ch. 192, sec. 5, effective July 12, 2006. -- Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 33, effective January 1, 1975. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=19673
xxxXxxx

Kentucky's “Stand Your Ground” Law:

503.080 Protection of property.

(3) A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be. Effective: July 12, 2006 History: Amended 2006 Ky. Acts ch. 192, sec. 5, effective July 12, 2006. -- Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 33, effective January 1, 1975. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=19673

We also see the exact same language in KRS 503.080—“a person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be”—in KRS 503.070 too.

KRS 503.070 Protection of another.

(1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when: (a) The defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect a third person against the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by the other person; and (b) Under the circumstances as the defendant believes them to be, the person whom he seeks to protect would himself have been justified under KRS 503.050 and 503.060 in using such protection.
  1. The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when: (a) The defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect a third person against imminent death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055; and (b) Under the circumstances as they actually exist, the person whom he seeks to protect would himself have been justified under KRS 503.050 and 503.060 in using such protection.
    (3) A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be. Effective:July 12, 2006 History: Amended 2006 Ky. Acts ch. 192, sec. 4, effective July 12, 2006. -- Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 32, effective January 1, 1975. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=19672

KRS 61.916 Use of deadly force to make an arrest.

A special law enforcement officer may, in the course of accomplishing any lawful arrest for a felony committed upon the public property as herein provided, use and apply that force which he believes is necessary to make the arrest, except that he may only use deadly force to make such an arrest if: (1) The officer, in making the arrest, is authorized to act as a special law enforcement officer; and (2) The arrest is for a felony involving the use or threatened use of physical force likely to cause death or serious physical injury; and (3) The officer believes that the person to be arrested is likely to endanger human life unless arrested without delay. Effective: January 1, 1977 History: Created 1976 Ky. Acts ch. 178, sec. 10, effective January 1, 1977. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=23083

xxxXxxx

Kentucky's Castle Laws

Castle Law is also called the “Make My Day Law”. Castle Law is where you're allowed to shoot anybody breaking into your house. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

“No duty to retreat from dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle.”

503.055 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. Effective:July 12, 2006 History: Created 2006 Ky. Acts ch. 192, sec. 2, effective July 12, 2006 http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=19670
xxxXxxx


A Kentucky appeals court, which only had 3 justices voting, voted 2-1 in a case that Kelly Thompson of Bowling Green, one of the Court of Appeals Justices, dissented on.

The case is centered around a man who acted in self-defense when he stabbed another man outside a night club in northern Kentucky back in 2008.

Kelly Thompson wanted to clarify Kentucky's “Castle Laws” because to consider this case, where the man wasn't inside his own home, as being relevant under Kentucky's “Castle Laws” doesn't make any sense.

Stand Your Ground laws perhaps, but not Castle Laws.

But in Kentucky's Castle Laws, there's mention of not having a “duty to retreat” if you have a rightful and legal justification for being where you're standing.

Kelly Thompson doesn't believe that Kentucky's Castle Laws was intended to be used for drunken bar fights.

According to Attorney Phil Kimbel, who teaches a concealed carry class, “The castle law says if you're confronted with serious bodily injury or death in your home, or in general circumstances of life, that you can defend yourself though against that threat.”

I believed Phil Kimbel up until he said “in general circumstances of life”.

The way Castle Law is being interpreted is making me question many cop's behavior. If there's a no-knock warrant, under Kentucky's Castle Law, one would be justified in protecting and defending themselves.
xxxXxxx

“Kentucky self defense laws explain that approaching someone's car in this situation is not illegal, but could lead to a deadly situation.

“When you are going to pull a gun on someone you have to be prepared and understand that you may have to use it,” says Kentucky conceal carry instructor Deborah Williams.

Deborah Williams explains this to students the first minute of every class.

Before 2006, Kentuckians were required to retreat in a deadly situation where someone was threatening them.

When the Castle Law was passed, it became legal for residents to use a deadly weapon if they felt they were in a life-threatening situation.

Deborah Williams was a co-writer on the Castle Law.

“You could meet deadly force with deadly force. You could not use it for example, with someone calling you names or someone that is just saying they are going to do something as far as beating you up, hitting you in the face or anything like that, you couldn't necessarily use deadly force,” Deborah Williams says.

The law says the person has the right to retreat from deadly situation, but has the option to use deadly force.

The Kentucky Castle Law permits a person to use deadly force in cases of rape, trespassing, and burglary.” http://www.wbko.com/home/headlines/The-Kentucky-Castle-Law-Explains-Your-Rights-In-Life-Threatening-Situations-200523671.html
xxxXxxx

Open carry is legal in Kentucky. This is another law from the days of yore. Since it was assumed most folks on the frontier were armed, the way they believed things would work best, would be if everybody who was carrying a weapon would wear that weapon on the outside of their body, so that anybody who came across them, could clearly see that they were armed, instead of having to speculate what might be underneath somebody's overcoat or trenchcoat.

It's also the reason why we “wave” to each other. We show each other our right hands to prove that we aren't carrying a weapon in our right hand... although, somes folks are leftys...

Places in Kentucky where firearms cannot be carried, with or without a permit, include:

xxXxx

According to Kentucky's Castle Law, those Occupiers in tents on the lawns in Louisville and Lexington and all throughout the nation were within their rights to defend themselves via Kentucky's Castle Law. So Africa, that homeless man in LA, would have been in his right to have murdered anybody trying to do him harm inside his “castle”, aka, his tent, including those police officers, who murdered him in cold-blood in California recently. http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-lapd-shooting-20150302-story.html#page=1

Jay Cicinelli, Manuel Ramos, and Joseph Wolfe murdered homeless man Kelly Thomas in 2011 in Fullterton, California, and were subsequently acquitted of all wrongdoing, even though they ended Kelly Thomas's life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Kelly_Thomas

So even in “liberal” California, there's fascist Nazi ACABs murdering willy-nilly, without regard to the sanctity of human life.

Two definitions were added to KRS 503.010 http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=19665 as a result of the Castle Doctrine, and the definition of “dwelling” in subsection 2 was modified. The definition of dwelling now “means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a TENT, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.”

This change now does not specify that the structure actually be occupied, only that it must be able to be occupied by people overnight. A definition for “residence” was added – “a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an INVITED GUEST.” This broadens the prior provision that presumed that an individual could only use deadly force to defend their own dwelling.

The final definition added is that of “vehicle,” which states it is “a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.” This would cover automobiles, boats, aircraft, buses, trains and anything propelled by muscle power, which would include animal drawn vehicles and bicycles.

503.010 Definitions for chapter.

The following definitions apply in this chapter unless the context otherwise requires: (1) “Deadly physical force” means force which is used with the purpose of causing death or serious physical injury or which the defendant knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury. (2) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night. (3) “Imminent” means impending danger, and, in the context of domestic violence and abuse as defined by KRS 403.720, belief that danger is imminent can be inferred from a past pattern of repeated serious abuse. (4) “Physical force” means force used upon or directed toward the body of another person and includes confinement. (5) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest. (6) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property. Effective:July 12, 2006 History: Amended 2006 Ky. Acts ch. 192, sec. 1, effective July 12, 2006. -- Amended 1992 Ky. Acts ch. 173, sec. 1, effective July 14, 1992. -- Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 26, effective January 1, 1975. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=19665

The “Self-Protection” Law, KRS 503.050:

KRS 503.050 Use of physical force in self-protection -- Admissibility of evidence of prior acts of domestic violence and abuse.

  1. The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by the other person. (2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection (1) only when the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat, felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055. (3) Any evidence presented by the defendant to establish the existence of a prior act or acts of domestic violence and abuse as defined in KRS 403.720 by the person against whom the defendant is charged with employing physical force shall be admissible under this section.
    (4) A person does not have a duty to retreat prior to the use of deadly physical force. Effective:July 12, 2006 History: Amended 2006 Ky. Acts ch. 192, sec. 3, effective July 12, 2006. -- Amended 1992 Ky. Acts ch. 173, sec. 2, effective July 14, 1992. -- Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 30, effective January 1, 1975.

Self protection The use of physical force in self protection is provided for in KRS 503.050 http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=19669.

Again we see the “Stand Your Ground” addition KRS 503.050(4): no duty to retreat.

Using Stand Your Ground as the standard, Trayvon Martin had a right to stand his ground, and murder his pursuer.

I also had a right to defend myself from the plain clothes plain car LMPD on December 7, 2012, since I had no idea who they were, and they intended me physical pain.

Subsection 2 provides for justification in using deadly force in self protection. As modified by the Castle Doctrine, it reads as follows, with the changes underlined: The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection (1) only when the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat, felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055. Two circumstances have been added under which a person may be justified in using deadly force for self protection. The first is if the defendant believes he is being threatened with a felony involving the use of force. This broad language includes felonies in which the person may or may not be in danger of death or serious physical injury. These would include, but not be limited to, second-degree assault, third-degree assault, first-degree sexual abuse, first-degree robbery, second-degree robbery and assault of a sports official. In all of these crimes, the victim might perceive himself to be in danger of death, serious physical injury, kidnapping or forcible sexual intercourse.

Defensive force KRS 503.055, which addresses the use of defensive force, is a significant, but potentially confusing, addition to Chapter 503. To a certain degree, however, it is redundant, merely restating justifications already set forth elsewhere in the chapter. One issue it creates is that it uses the term “great bodily harm,” but provides no definition for the phrase. The term “serious physical injury” is defined in KRS 500.080(15) as “physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes serious and prolonged disfigurement, prolonged impairment of health or prolonged loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.” Physical injury is defined in KRS 500.080(13) as “substantial physical pain or any impairment of physical condition.” The courts will have to apply some meaning to the term “great bodily harm.” Logically, it cannot mean exactly the same thing as the definition of serious physical injury, although, in states that use that phrase, it is obvious the meaning is essentially the same.

Kentucky law presumes the use of different phrases or terms to indicate different meanings. Since one aspect of serious physical injury is that a person could die as a result of it, logically there is no injury more serious than that. Furthermore, since physical injury covers any impairment of physical condition, however minor, that is presumably the lowest level of harm. The use of the word “great” in the term plainly intends a significant injury. Therefore, great bodily harm may be interpreted by the courts to mean some level of injury between physical injury and serious physical injury. What the courts may conclude great bodily harm means could greatly affect which uses of force are found to be justified and which are not. http://www.kledispatches.ky.gov/Schwendeman-Castle%20doctrine-EDITED.pdf

“Reasonable fear KRS 503.055(1) states that: [a] person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself 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 has 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 was occurring or had occurred. The next subsection of that statute sets forth exceptions to the above presumption. In these exceptions, the person using force will not have the benefit of presumption if the person against whom the defensive force was used falls into one of the categories listed in Subsection 2. These categories include (a) a person who “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 no domestic violence order or pretrial release order or any sort of no contact order; (b) “[t]he 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 actor using defensive force is engaged in unlawful activity or using the dwelling, residence or vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or (d) the person against whom the defensive force is used is a peace officer “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.”
No duty to retreat

A person who is not engaged in any sort of unlawful activity who is attacked in any place he has a lawful right to be, does not have a duty to retreat and may stand his ground and meet force with force, according to KRS 503.055(3). This includes the right to use 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.” This codifies and elaborates upon what Kentucky case law generally held, which was that there was no duty to retreat when confronted by a threat. However, it did not add anything to the existing state of the law in Kentucky regarding a person having no duty to retreat in self protection. In Gibson v. Commonwealth, the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, then Kentucky’s highest court, held that a self defense instruction to a jury was wrong because it included language that they had to find the defendant had no reasonable means of escaping in order to claim justified self defense. http://www.kledispatches.ky.gov/Schwendeman-Castle%20doctrine-EDITED.pdf

The Court stated: “It is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs. He does not have to.”

Subsequent cases generally have upheld the “no duty to retreat” ruling, but did not require it to be included in jury instructions when a defendant claimed to be acting in self protection. The fourth subsection addresses burglars, stating that “[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.” This subsection codifies and broadens the existing presumption regarding burglars, their presumed felonious intent and the clear and present danger they pose to the occupants of the dwelling. Deadly force was thus justified in dealing with the burglar. http://www.kledispatches.ky.gov/Schwendeman-Castle%20doctrine-EDITED.pdf

The language of subsection 4 applies the presumption of danger to any forcible intruder in a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle.

Protection of another

KRS 503.070, Protection of Another, also was amended by the Castle Doctrine. Subsection 2 addresses use of deadly force as it relates to protection of another. The same language that was added to KRS 503.050(2) was added to KRS 503.070(2)(a). That paragraph now reads “[T]he defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect a third person against imminent death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055.” The impact of these changes in 503.070(2) is the same as discussed for 503.050(2). http://www.kledispatches.ky.gov/Schwendeman-Castle%20doctrine-EDITED.pdf

The requirement in KRS 503.070(2)(b), that deadly force is only permitted when under the circumstances as they actually exist the person whom the defendant sought to protect would have been justified in using such protection, was not changed. Subsection 3 of this statute also provides that a person has no duty to retreat if he or she is in a place where they have a right to be.

Protection of property

Justification of force in the protection of property also was modified by the Castle Doctrine. The justification of using physical force in protection of property in KRS 503.080(1)(a) was changed as follows, with the new language underlined: The commission of criminal trespass, robbery, burglary or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055, in a dwelling, building or upon real property in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts; . . . Arguably, however, this language makes no substantive change in the law. Under the preexisting statute, a victim already was privileged by law to use physical force to defend his dwelling or building against a burglar, to defend himself with physical force against an attacker, including a robber and to protect any sort of property of his or another’s on whose behalf he acted against any sort of crime against it. http://www.kledispatches.ky.gov/Schwendeman-Castle%20doctrine-EDITED.pdf

The justification in using deadly force to defend property under KRS 503.080(2) was amended at paragraph b. As amended, it provides as follows, with the new language underlined: Committing or attempting to commit a burglary, robbery, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055, of such dwelling; . . . Again, the statutory changes may have little impact on the applicability of the justification defense. A burglary, as defined in KRS Chapter 511, has the criminal entering or remaining unlawfully in a building or dwelling with the intent to commit a crime. That language is very broad and not limited to felonies or any crime of violence. Therefore, such conduct would have encompassed crimes contemplated by the Castle Doctrine language. http://www.kledispatches.ky.gov/Schwendeman-Castle%20doctrine-EDITED.pdf

Under KRS 503.080 prior to enactment of the Castle Doctrine, the law did not consider any fear by the defendant that he or another was in physical danger of the suspect. If the defendant was acting in self protection, he would have invoked KRS 503.050 (the self protection law) as justification. Even if the suspect had been invited in and somehow never becomes a burglar within the meaning of KRS Chapter 511, it is hard to envision a scenario not covered by the preexisting statutes. Subsection 3 of this section also restates that a person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is where he or she has a right to be.http://www.kledispatches.ky.gov/Schwendeman-Castle%20doctrine-EDITED.pdf
xxXxx

Gibson v. Commonwealth (KY 1931)

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.
237 Ky. 33 (Ky. Ct. App. 1931)
GIBSON v. COMMONWEALTH
GIBSON ET AL. V. COMMONWEALTH.
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY.

DECIDED JANUARY 20, 1931.

APPEAL FROM KNOTT CIRCUIT COURT. *3434
JOHN W. CAUDILL for appellants.
J.W. CAMMACK, Attorney General, and HOWARD SMITH GENTRY for appellee.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY STANLEY, COMMISSIONER

Reversing.

In a drunken brawl Bud Slone was killed. For it John Gibson and Tony Slone, the appellants, and Colonel Gibson were convicted of manslaughter. Colonel Gibson has dismissed an appeal filed by him. The appellants seek a reversal of the judgment upon several grounds.

A decision of the case does not require a statement of the facts except to say that it is claimed by the appellants that John Gibson shot Bud Slone in self-defense.

In the self-defense instruction the court advised the jury that, though they might believe and find from the evidence that one or more of the defendants had shot and killed Slone, yet, if he or they shot him when Slone was attacking them or either of them, or if he or they believed in the exercise of a reasonable judgment that he was about to inflict death or great bodily harm upon them, "and that there was no other reasonable means of escaping or warding off such danger, or to the defendants, or the one or ones so shooting, wounding and killing him, or aiding and assisting therein, exercising a reasonable judgment, there was no other apparent reasonable means of escaping or warding off such dangers," they should acquit the defendants on the ground of self-defense, defense of another, or apparent necessity.

While the word “escape” has a secondary meaning, synonymous with “warding off,” in common parlance, or as construed according to its usual acceptation, it means to retreat or flee from danger. It is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs. He does not have to.

The noted Kentucky jurist, John M. Harlan, wrote for the Supreme Court in Bear v. United States, 158 U.S. 550,15 S. Ct. 962, 967, 39 L.Ed. 1086:

“The defendant was where he had the right to be, when the deceased advanced upon him in a threatening manner, and with a deadly weapon; and if the accused did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm, he was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground, and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such way and with such force as, under all the circumstances, he, at the moment, honestly believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, were necessary to save his own life, or to protect himself from great bodily injury.”

That doctrine of the law permeates the opinions of this court, and an instruction in almost the identical language to that given has been condemned in several cases; the more recent one being Caudill v. Commonwealth, 234 Ky. 142,27 S.W.2d 705.

No other ground is considered on the appeal, and the case is reversed because of this error in the instruction. https://casetext.com/case/gibson-v-commonwealth-16

A Louisville Kentucky Timeline “1833. The Importation of Slaves into Kentucky is abolished.”: http://thekentuckyrevolution.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-louisville-kentucky-timeline-1833-2012.html


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)