The adaptation of the Arizona Castle Doctrine (Senate Bill 1145) reversed the laws back to be in favor of individual citizens, not prosecutors. The Castle Doctrine has 5 main points:

(1) Previously, "justification" defenses, including self-defense, were affirmative defenses. The defendant (or self-defender) had to prove them by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., proof of "more likely true than not). Under SB 1145, if the defense presents "evidence" (quantum undefined) of justification, the prosecution must disprove justification to a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. This change is not limited to defense of home or car, but applies anywhere.

(2) No duty to retreat before using force to prevent certain serious offenses, including aggravated assault. Again, this applies anywhere, any place a person has a legal right to be, in the language of the law.

(3) A person is presumed to be justified in using force or deadly force if he/she reasonably believes they or another person are in imminent peril and the attacker has entered or is trying to enter a residence or occupied auto. Once again, there is no duty to retreat.

(4) A person is generally presumed to be justified in use of force if the attacker has unlawfully forced his way into residence or car or is trying to do so (with certain exceptions, such as if the person forcing in had a legal right to be in there). This means that justification is automatically presumed when a person uses physical or deadly force against an intruder. It is now the prosecutor’s job to prove there was no justification, which once again falls within our legal system’s concept of innocent until proven guilty.

(5) If the aggressor is foolish enough to sue, and the defender wins, the defender recovers attorney fees and lost income (presumably, lost while at the courthouse). This not limited to the home invasion situation.

 

A gun may be great for self-defense, but if your motorcycle is stolen from you and there's nothing you can do about it perhaps a GPS tracking device secretly placed on the motorcycle beforehand might be useful? That way when the police are notified of the theft you can tell them that bike is being tracked. Perhaps they'd hunt down the criminals for you as well as relocate your bike.

 

That's sort of the point of the weapon. When someone tries to attack you to take your motorcycle, you shoot them.

 

One part that's not explained clearly in this outline is that in order to be successful in suing you, the aggressor must prove that he/she had a lawful and legal reason to be doing what it was that they were doing.

 

He has to use to hands at some point. That's an easy win.

 

In Kentucky, the person is committing a robbery, even as they ride away, and our statutes would allow deadly force to prevent the robbery as a felony involving violence. It's only a "theft" if they take it without using force or a threat. It is still justified under our self-defense statute, which allows deadly force to prevent any felony involving force.