From what I've seen those lawsuits are often the family of the intruder suiing for wrongful death. Even if you win the suit you are out a small fortune defending yourself. Yet another argument for loser pays.
If anyone has anything of value to be sued over(large bank account, home...) you should consider getting an umbrella liability policy. They are not expensive, they provide coverage against things that are more likely to occur like a kid hurting himself climbing over your fence and suing you for his mistake. A $1million policy costs somewhere around $250 per year, more or less, depending on where you live.
Did I ever mention I belong to the N.R.A.?
Ben, the umbrella policy is an excellent idea, although it merely extends the coverage of underlying policies. Most homeowner policies would not insure against an intentional act.
Although it doesn't preclude suit or, for that matter, prosecution, "castle doctrine" statutes do help. Kentucky's castle doctrine reads as follows:
KRS 503.080 (partial)
(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.
Of course, the obvious question would be - "is the detached shop considered a dwelling?" This law is only a couple of years old, and we have a couple of cases progressing through the system. I am not aware of any that involve that particular issue.
I think #3 covers not being in a dwelling.
OK folks....this thread has ventured all over the map from the original OP's post. Either keep it on direct topic or this thread will come to a close.
Thanks & Happy Wood Chips,
Dennis -
Get the Benefits of Being an SMC Contributor..!
....DEBT is nothing more than yesterday's spending taken from tomorrow's income.
I run a service truck and carry a chemical mace in gel form (sticks to them and they can't breathe) mainly for dogs but easy to clip on your belt or tool apron. It's easy to reach and if used by accident reversible, not so with a bullet!
I agree with the mods on the path we have taken, but it has been an interesting trip!
If they will induldge one more diversion, I would like to address the comments on #3 of the castle doctrine. The statute has two sections, the first of which outlines those situations that justify the use of "physical force" (not in the quote) and the other the use of "deadly physical force." #3 pertains to both, but doesn't expand either. In other words, it speaks to the issue of whether retreat should be an option before the use of the "permitted" level of force. I doubt it resolves the issue posed regarding a detached shop. I still think resolution of that issue will rest in the definition of a "dwelling."
If I have disobeyed the warning, please delete this post. My apologies for any past diversions, and for this one.