"duty to retreat" laws are gun control laws.

[PirateMk1]

Invasion of premises is way too vague, what does that mean ?

Trespassing with intent to do further harm. Its a catch all. Quite frankly under the reasonable man theorem the man will probably walk because he was in fear of his life at the very least.

 

[Rich2018]

Trespassing with intent to do further harm. Its a catch all. Quite frankly under the reasonable man theorem the man will probably walk because he was in fear of his life at the very least.

You could have a 10 acre property every square inch is your premises

Most insurance coverage does not cover incidents of civil unrest or insurrection or terrorism unless explicitly specified, usually in a separate policy. As per usual however check your policy to be sure. Most all I have ever bound personal or business required the second policy specifically for terrorism insurrection civil unrest, especially since 2001.

"Riot, civil commotion, and vandalism are covered perils under virtually all commercial property policies. They are covered causes of loss under both named perils and "all risk" policies....the policy doesn't exclude riot, civil commotion, or vandalism so the damage to his property should be covered."

Property Coverage for Riots, Vandalism, and Civil Commotion

 

[Casper]

The (state) law is clear - you can't use deadly force to protect property.

Thankfully we don't have that form of stupidity here in Texas.

 

[Rich2018]

Thankfully we don't have that form of stupidity here in Texas.

Are you sure...can a convenience store clerk shoot a shoplifter ?

 

[Casper]

Are you sure...can a convenience store clerk shoot a shoplifter ?

Nope but they can shoot someone robbing the store.

 

[Rich2018]

Nope but they can shoot someone robbing the store.

But robbing the store would entail threatening the staff, not just the property, like shoplifting does.

 

[PirateMk1]

You could have a 10 acre property every square inch is your premises




"Riot, civil commotion, and vandalism are covered perils under virtually all commercial property policies. They are covered causes of loss under both named perils and "all risk" policies....the policy doesn't exclude riot, civil commotion, or vandalism so the damage to his property should be covered."

Property Coverage for Riots, Vandalism, and Civil Commotion

I stand by my statements, the article you provided is specific to an all risks policy which is a specific type of policy which details vary as to the insurer. As to the specifics one has to read their policy as I have specified.

I am not an insurance agent and certainly not getting into the weeds about the vagaries of insurance.

I've already stated the points I wanted to. You go ahead without me if you wish.

 

[danielpalos]

Cadillac Pawn Shop Owner Killed Suspected Looter: Report | Heavy.com



Unbelievable. This guy does the world a favor by shooting a looter and he ends up facing a murder charge. This kind of idiocy is just another form of gun control, because apparently in progressiveville they pass "duty to retreat" laws which makes it illegal to harm someone who is looting your store.

Instead of just banning guns, the scumbags make it illegal to use them to protect yourself and your property.

Due Process means nothing to the right wing?

 

[Rich2018]

I stand by my statements, the article you provided is specific to an all risks policy which is a specific type of policy which details vary as to the insurer. As to the specifics one has to read their policy as I have specified.

I am not an insurance agent and certainly not getting into the weeds about the vagaries of insurance.

I've already stated the points I wanted to. You go ahead without me if you wish.

Commercial insurance normally covers things like riots

 

[jotathought]

Kentucky appears to have more permissive statutes for protecting personal property

KRS 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.

Zed's dead ...

 

[ttwtt78640]

Thankfully we don't have that form of stupidity here in Texas.

At least not after dark.

 

[Casper]

At least not after dark.

Nope you need to read further down in what you posted, I can protect my property even in broad daylight.

 

[AmNat]

Is not looting, arson, invasion of premises, all felony acts in Minnesota?

Probably, but the statute limits deadly force against felons to a person's "place of abode".

 

[Rich2018]

Kentucky appears to have more permissive statutes for protecting personal property



Zed's dead ...

That's not particularly permissive at all. In fact it's fairly common.

There's nothing in there really that stands out as unique.

 

[PirateMk1]

Probably, but the statute limits deadly force against felons to a person's "place of abode".

So they may not defend themselves elsewhere? What kind of horse**** is that?

 

[Rich2018]

So they may not defend themselves elsewhere? What kind of horse**** is that?

They probably have a duty to retire elsewhere...so if you can avoid a fight by running away, then do so.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So they may not defend themselves elsewhere? What kind of horse**** is that?

The kind that cedes ever more power to government agents.

 

[ttwtt78640]

They probably have a duty to retire elsewhere...so if you can avoid a fight by running away, then do so.

In other words, might makes right for the criminal (alone) - the intended victim is ordered to submit or flee.

 

[Rich2018]

In other words, might makes right for the criminal (alone) - the intended victim is ordered to submit or flee.

No, the criminal is not right and if you're the victim of a crime and can retire, you should do (and then call law enforcement).


Obviously in your own home, you cannot retire and are not expected to.

 

[ttwtt78640]

No, the criminal is not right and if you're the victim of a crime and can retire, you should do (and then call law enforcement).


Obviously in your own home, you cannot retire and are not expected to.

If you are where you lawfully may be then you should have no duty to retreat.

 

[danielpalos]

If you are where you lawfully may be then you should have no duty to retreat.

Or any justification to murder an unarmed person. Due process applies; either hold them for the police or file a report. It should be an immediate self defense issue to "draw first".

 

[Rich2018]

If you are where you lawfully may be then you should have no duty to retreat.

Then you submit to a criminal's attack.


Why engage in a fight if you can retire ?
That's just encouraging shootings and knifings

Note: I say CAN retire ?


Why do you want to fight if you don't have to ?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Then you submit to a criminal's attack.


Why engage in a fight if you can retire ?
That's just encouraging shootings and knifings

Note: I say CAN retire ?


Why do you want to fight if you don't have to ?

It would seem that the decision to attack has already been made by the criminal - the choice is then self-defense (attempt to eliminate the criminal threat from society?) or trusting that the (armed?) criminal is content to let you leave (if so, then why the attack rather than an order to go home?).

 

[Rich2018]

It would seem that the decision to attack has already been made by the criminal - the choice is then self-defense (attempt to eliminate the criminal threat from society?) or trusting that the (armed?) criminal is content to let you leave (if so, then why the attack rather than an order to go home?).

Perhaps you didn't read or have some visual comprehension fault

I said "Why engage in a fight if you can retire ?"


So if you CAN run away, best that you do so

If to are presented with a mugger with a drawn gun, better you simply hand over your wallet and watch...it's far safer than trying to fight.

 

[aociswundumho]

Then you submit to a criminal's attack.


Why engage in a fight if you can retire ?
That's just encouraging shootings and knifings

Note: I say CAN retire ?


Why do you want to fight if you don't have to ?

One reason is because if you don't fight back and meekly give the criminal what he wants, you are incentivizing more attacks to take place in the future.

By killing the attacker it sends a message to other would-be criminals that such behavior will not be tolerated, thereby making the world a safer and better place.