• 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.

Excessive Force?

langzaiguy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
916
Location
Central KY
A Madison County man is suing another man after he was shot in the head when police say he was trespassing on the man's property.

The shooting happened in November 2009 off Simpson Lane in Richmond. In a lawsuit, Charlie Harvey claims when he broke into John Fair's barn, Fair used excessive force when he fired a shot into the barn door, hitting Harvey in the head.

Harvey is seeking compensation for physical and emotional pain.


http://www.lex18.com/news/man-shot-in-head-while-breaking-into-barn-sues-barn-owner/
 

Ivan Sample

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
295
Location
Louisville, Kentucky, USA
The man should be thankful that he is not dead. Plus I don't think this guy has a leg to stand on due to the fact that if wouldn't have been trespassing, he wouldn't have been shot in the head. What's wrong with people these days!
 

neuroblades

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
1,240
Location
, Kentucky, USA
Some people these days, it's nearly laughable sometimes. Harvey should be thanking God above and Fair for not killing him.
 

Tribunal Power

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
136
Location
, Kentucky, USA
This clod broke into a man's property and got shot. The lawsuit should be tossed out.

Excesive force would be if the man shot the trespasser a couple more times after he went down. Shooting him one time to neautralize a possible threat, even if it's happens to be in the face, is not excessive force. He was justified in firing-- the law does not specify where you can and cannot shoot an intruder.

Injustice at its finest.
 

Tribunal Power

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
136
Location
, Kentucky, USA
Gotta love the fellow who commented and said, "If he broke into my place, he wouldn't be suing anyone."

Methinks Fair needs to invest in a higher caliber firearm.

Justified deadly force + Castle law + Headshot =/= lawsuit
Justified deadly force + Castle law + Headshot == funeral
 

langzaiguy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
916
Location
Central KY
Devil's advocate: In KY, you cannot shoot someone who is trespassing. You cannot use lethal force to prevent property damage or loss (except arson). If the home owner thought the man had a gun and that his life was in danger, it's another story. It's my understanding that if a perp is in the process of breaking into your house, you can use lethal force as the law assumes the perp is out to harm you. If you're in the house and he's breaking into your barn, it's a different story.


That being said, I don't feel bad for him. This is yet another reason one should shoot to kill rather to wound (assuming shooting is justified in this instance)--dead perps don't sue.
 

Gray Rider

New member
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
80
Location
, ,
False assumptions

Stand Your Ground, and the Castle Doctrine are not synonymous. l

Use of force for the protection of property is covered in K.R.S 530.080. While "Stand Your Ground" would apply to the barn, the Castle Doctrine whereby the act constitutes a presumption of intent to cause death or great bodily harm would not apply unless the barn was being used as a residence. The Castle Doctrine only applies to an occupied residence or vehicle - see K.R.S. 503.055

So while one may use non deadly force to terminate a trespass, burglary, or theft in a barn, one may not use deadly force. These crimes simply do not rise to the level of of grave risk to persons.

Formulating a belief that deadly force is justified is covered under K.R.S. 503.120. Although you may believe deadly force is justified but are wanton or reckless in formulating said belief, you may still be prosecuted for Manslaughter.

A visceral response vs. a reasoned response has resulted in a number of good men ending up in prison.

Tough talk is cheap. A ride through the Criminal Justice System is not a pleasant one.

Think first, shoot second.
 

Slidell Jim

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
177
Location
Slidell, La
Shoot to kill?

This is yet another reason one should shoot to kill rather to wound (assuming shooting is justified in this instance)--dead perps don't sue.


The story does say that he shot the trespasser in the head. What is this guy, the T-1000?


*snip*

"If he broke into my place, he wouldn't be suing anyone."

Methinks Fair needs to invest in a higher caliber firearm.

Justified deadly force + Castle law + Headshot =/= lawsuit
Justified deadly force + Castle law + Headshot == funeral
+1
 
Last edited:
Top