• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Civil liabilty for only wounding an attacker???

self preservation

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
1,036
Location
Owingsville,KY
I found myself in a discussion today about being sued by an attacker that you only wounded. I advised not to "finish off" an incapacitated attacker because that would be murder. I also assured them that under KY. law, if the force you used was found to be justifiable, then you would be shielded against civil suit from your would be attacker. When I was asked to produce said law, I immediately pulled up the "castle doctrine" only to be surprised that no such statement was in the law. So I went to the sticky "KY gun laws" section of this forum and started looking. Either I have overlooked such a statement, or I imagined that such an immunity existed for justifiable uses of force. Can anyone advice on this?
 

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
I found myself in a discussion today about being sued by an attacker that you only wounded. I advised not to "finish off" an incapacitated attacker because that would be murder. I also assured them that under KY. law, if the force you used was found to be justifiable, then you would be shielded against civil suit from your would be attacker. When I was asked to produce said law, I immediately pulled up the "castle doctrine" only to be surprised that no such statement was in the law. So I went to the sticky "KY gun laws" section of this forum and started looking. Either I have overlooked such a statement, or I imagined that such an immunity existed for justifiable uses of force. Can anyone advice on this?

Try Kentucky Revised Statutes 503.085
 

DrakeZ07

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
1,080
Location
Lexington, Ky
Or the common law elements of self-defense; be innocent of instigation, be in reasonable fear of bodily harm, use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil, and attempt to withdraw.

"Attempt to withdraw" ??? What is this nonsense? We're a stand your ground state. only thing that'll be near "attempt to withdraw" will be my sidearm from its holster if someone makes the mistake to try and cause me bodily harm. Ain't gonna 'withdraw' or leave a scene; if in my home, or on a public places where i have a right to be, then im staying put until my lawyer instructs me further, or im pulled away by LEO and questioned for standing my ground.
 
Top