Kentucky presumes you reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily harm when you use defensive force intended or likely to cause death or great...
Reviewed by Will Luker, Founder of CCW Hub. USCCA Training Counselor, USCCA Certified Instructor, NRA Certified Instructor, Law Enforcement.
Kentucky presumes you reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily harm when you use defensive force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm against someone who was unlawfully and forcibly entering a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or who had removed or was attempting to remove another from it against that person's will, and you knew or had reason to believe that was happening. Four situations in KRS 503.055(2), listed below, take the presumption away.
The statute names three protected places.
The vehicle branch reaches an occupied vehicle, which is the word KRS 503.055(1)(a) uses.
Two kinds of conduct set the presumption off.
Both words in the first one matter. KRS 503.055(1)(a) reaches a person who was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or who had unlawfully and forcibly entered, so the entry has to be unlawful and forcible together.
Under KRS 503.055(1), a person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm when using defensive force against someone who was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or who had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from it. The presumption runs only to defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm. It arises only if the person using that force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred, under KRS 503.055(1)(b). And it does not arise at all in the four situations KRS 503.055(2) lists, set out under the next heading.
A second presumption runs against the intruder. Under KRS 503.055(4), a person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. That presumption is about what the entrant meant to do. It does not supply the knowledge KRS 503.055(1)(b) requires of the person using defensive force, and it does not reach the four situations in KRS 503.055(2).
Under KRS 503.055(3), a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand that ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another, or to prevent the commission of a felony involving the use of force.
Under KRS 503.055(2), the presumption does not apply in these four situations.
The second one runs the opposite way from how it reads at a glance. Force is used against the adult doing the removing, and the exception applies when the person being removed is that adult's own child, grandchild, or ward.
Being engaged in unlawful activity, or using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further unlawful activity, defeats the presumption under KRS 503.055(2)(c).
Two more limits sit outside the castle doctrine statute and reach the justification itself. Under KRS 503.120(1), where the defendant is wanton or reckless in believing the use of any force, or the degree of force used, to be necessary, or in acquiring or failing to acquire any knowledge or belief which is material to the justifiability of that use of force, the justification is unavailable in a prosecution for an offense for which wantonness or recklessness suffices to establish culpability. Under KRS 503.120(2), a defendant who is justified in using force against another but who wantonly or recklessly injures or creates a risk of injury to innocent persons loses the justification in a prosecution for an offense involving wantonness or recklessness toward those persons.
Kentucky can also take the justification away for how the encounter started. Under KRS 503.060, self-protection is not available to an initial aggressor unless his initial force was nondeadly and the force returned put him in imminent danger, or he withdrew and effectively communicated that intent, and it is not available to a person who provokes the other person's use of force intending to cause death or serious physical injury.
A person who uses force as permitted in KRS 503.050, KRS 503.055, KRS 503.070, and KRS 503.080 is justified in using that force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for it, under KRS 503.085(1), unless the person against whom the force was used is a peace officer who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law, or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a peace officer. For that immunity, criminal prosecution includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
Both halves of that are decided after the fact. A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures to investigate the claimed justified use of force, and may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful, under KRS 503.085(2). Under KRS 503.085(3), the court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff, if the court finds the defendant immune. That award is made in a civil action a plaintiff has already brought, and after a court has ruled on immunity.
| Rule | Citation | What it does |
|---|---|---|
| Presumed reasonable fear | KRS 503.055(1) | Presumes a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm, subject to the drop-out row below |
| Trigger | KRS 503.055(1)(a) | An unlawful and forcible entry into a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or a removal or attempted removal of an occupant against that person's will |
| Force covered | KRS 503.055(1) | Only defensive force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm |
| Defender's knowledge | KRS 503.055(1)(b) | The defender knew or had reason to believe an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred |
| When the presumption drops out | KRS 503.055(2) | A person with a right to be there or a lawful resident, absent a domestic violence injunction or written no-contact order against them; a person removing their own child, grandchild, or ward; a defender engaged in an unlawful activity or using the place to further one; a peace officer entering on official duties who identified himself as the law requires or whom the defender knew or should have known was an officer |
| Intruder's intent | KRS 503.055(4) | An unlawful and forcible entry or attempted entry is presumed to be made with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence |
| Retreat | KRS 503.055(3) | A person not engaged in an unlawful activity, attacked where he or she has a right to be, has no duty to retreat if he or she reasonably believes force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm or a felony involving the use of force |
| Reckless belief | KRS 503.120(1) | The justification is unavailable in a wantonness or recklessness prosecution where the belief that force, or that degree of force, was necessary was wanton or reckless |
| Bystanders | KRS 503.120(2) | Justified force against the attacker does not cover wantonly or recklessly injuring or endangering innocent persons |
| Immunity | KRS 503.085(1) | Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for force permitted by KRS 503.050, KRS 503.055, KRS 503.070, and KRS 503.080, unless it was used against a peace officer on official duties who identified himself or whom the person using force knew or should have known was an officer |
| Arrest standard | KRS 503.085(2) | An agency may investigate but may not arrest without probable cause that the force used was unlawful |
Kentucky's castle doctrine rules turn on the circumstances of the encounter, and they read the same whether or not you hold a license to carry concealed deadly weapon (CCDW license). What a course adds here is instruction. A firearms safety course offered or approved by the Department of Criminal Justice Training must include information on and a copy of the laws relating to the use of force set out in KRS Chapter 503, under KRS 237.110(4)(i). That is the chapter the castle doctrine statute sits in, so a course on that list is where the presumption, its four exceptions and the bars on the justification get worked through. A course that is not offered or approved by that department carries no such requirement.
It does. The presumption applies to defensive force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm used against someone who was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or who had removed or was attempting to remove an occupant against that person's will, where you knew or had reason to believe that was happening. It drops out in the four situations set out under the exceptions heading above.
Not if you are not engaged in an unlawful activity and are attacked in a place where you have a right to be. In that case there is no duty to retreat and there is a right to stand that ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or another, or to prevent the commission of a felony involving the use of force.
A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures to investigate the claimed justified use of force, and it may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful. The agency makes that call itself, and criminal prosecution for the immunity provision includes arresting and detaining in custody.
A plaintiff can bring the civil action. Immunity is what ends it: the court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff, if the court finds the defendant immune. That immunity does not apply where the force was used against a peace officer acting in the performance of official duties who identified himself as the law requires, or whom the person using force knew or reasonably should have known was a peace officer.
A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. It does not remove the four situations in which the presumption of reasonable fear does not apply, it does not remove the requirement that you knew or had reason to believe the unlawful and forcible entry or act was occurring or had occurred, and a wanton or reckless belief that force was necessary still forfeits the justification.
This page covers one part of our Kentucky concealed carry guide.
Read the complete Kentucky guideBrowse local instructors offering state-approved training in your area. Book online, complete your training, and get one step closer to your concealed carry permit.