Agree or Disagree?

One of the main things I remember from my CCP class is “We protect LIFE not Stuff”.


We understand the law, we abide by it. The question becomes do you confront a thief? Do you attempt to physically stop them? Do we just let the thief have his way ? If you confront it could turn deadly. Have you ever been a property crime victim. Was the thief caught later. Was your property returned or were you ever made whole again? Innocent lives and families have been ruined and/or later lost due to property crime. How much do we as a society put up with from the criminal element. Things are rarely black and white. What might be a small impact to some can be a very serious impact to others. Our system is turning criminals back out on the streets in record numbers. Many of these people have no fear of the justice system. Many more people fall victims to these thugs.

I wish I could answer my own questions, but I can not. I will continue to abide by the law. At the same time I can not turn away from a crime in progress which can lead to a more serious problem.


If he’s pointing a gun at me, my wife, my kids, or someone else, yup, with as many rounds as needed.

If he’s just stealing my crap, I’d lock myself in my bedroom, call 911, point my Ruger at the door, and wait patiently.


Under Kentucky’s Castle Doctrine Statute, the person who was carjacked would be protected. KRS 503.055(1)(a) creates a presumption that a person has a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm … if

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[n] … occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the … occupied vehicle.


@MikeBKY - does it apply also to the case when car’s owner is not inside the car?


That is the “or if that person had removed another….” “Another” means anyone other than “the person against whom defensive force was used.”
The statute gives identical protections to a motor vehicle as it does to a dwelling or residence.


Thank you Mike.


If the hypothetical thief already has physical possession of “your stuff” and is simply taking it away, I think it is problematic for the legitimate owner to introduce actual or threat of lethal force in order to regain immediate possession of “your stuff”. In most jurisdictions.

One would be justified in saying “Stop!” or physically attempting to restrain the thief or grab “your stuff” back. But that involves the gamble that you will be able to stay ahead (i.e. come out uninjured or at least alive) if the miscreant decides to initiate a force escalation race.

The same gamble (that you could lose the escalation race) will come up if the thief does not yet have “the stuff”, and one chooses to say “No!” or refuses to yield possession or access. Depending upon local rules of engagement, one might be justified a head start in escalation (i.e. display of weapon) if currently in possession of a residence or vehicle. Still the gamble.

Probably, it is best to decide for yourself — ahead of a given circumstance — whether it is more important to walk away, or to not yield. The bad guy probably did, and there’s no point yielding that advantage.


I had my first new car stolen when I was young. The police initially assumed I was the perp, asking if I was late on the payments or was contacted by a repo company. That irked me initally, as I had not realized that people would even do such a thing, and for the officer to imply that I had was a off-putting. After the vehicle was found - burned, the police notified me and explained it was found where they typically find vehicles that were stolen for “joy riding” and that it was typically teens that did that. So, no, no one was held accountable for that crime, but I paid dearly for it financially.

I had the car for about 2 1/2 years and still had a loan against it. It was financially difficult as the insurance company would not begin the settlement until the car was found or finished their investigation and, of course, I still had to pay the loan on it while they were investigating and settling the claim. It was found a few weeks after it was stolen. I got a settlement of about $1,500 about 6 weeks or so after the car was stolen. A net loss of about $6,000 of car payments, not including loss of the vehicle and personal property in the vehicle that was not covered due to being under the deductible, and having to buy another vehicle. We were fortunate that we could afford to buy another vehicle after we got the settlement.

It annoys me when I hear comments about those that lose property having insurance to cover their losses so its no real loss. That only typically covers current estimated value, such as my vehicle’s blue book value, not what I paid for it, less any deductibles. That also does not cover financial hardships, such that I had or worse, loss of the actual property, time and work put into maintaining it, having to obtain new property, which normally costs more than the insurance payments, property having more intrinsic value than extrinsic value, such as my grandmother’s family heirlooms that were burgled from her home (not recently), and other property that cannot be replaced, etc., etc.,


Need more info as to whether it may have been "legally " justified. Of course if you’re old enough to steal a car you’re old enough to get shot for it. But it’ll probably depend on if they offered a threat to his well being, or if he was just defending his property.

1 Like

That’s good, but may irrelevant. Depends on what the DA thinks, not the cops.


The big conundrum. What’s right vs. what’s legal. Often the law has little more than a nodding acquaintance with Right.


If they knocked on his car window and said, “we’re taking your car!” without showing a firearm or weapon, it’s a property crime.

This changed the complexion of the crime:
The vehicle was stolen at gunpoint 0-100 of West Golf Road, police said. The victim fired shots at the suspects, who fled in the vehicle, which was later recovered after being abandoned a short distance from the scene.

Many people do not understand this. We too have been victims. It is a very real hardship for many.


@MikeBKY …it is still not clear enough for me.
I was thinking about the situation, when I was not sitting in my car, fe. doing shopping or paying for the gas and car was being stolen the moment I was walking back to it.
Does the Castle Doctrine Statute apply?


And then, there’s the mental and emotional part of it that an insurance check will never repay.


My Father-in-law after his wife passed had a break-in while he was out. It bother him so much he would not go out after dark. We installed a monitored security system for him and it helped somewhat. However I don’t think he ever had a good nights rest for the rest of his life. Sometimes the cost is much higher than property lost.


No @Jerzy, in those situations it would not apply. The Kentucky law is specific with some key phrases that relate to a robbery as opposed to a theft.

*was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering
*had unlawfully and forcibly entered
*or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another person
*against that person’s will


Thank you for your input and expertise, Mike. It is quite educational.


Thank you @MikeBKY