• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

KS Gun Laws

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.


PayrollHRGuy

Senior Member
You keep adding to the story. You never mentioned that the tow driver aimed brandished the gun in any way other than towards the dog that had already bitten him.

Are you simply asking all this out of curiosity?
 

Smittyks

Active Member
2-1 that he's the guy who lost the car.
Below is the Kansas law on deadly force and self-defense. I've bolded the important part. Please note that it says person, not a dog or property.

Article 52. - PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

21-5222. Same; defense of a person; no duty to retreat. (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such use of force is necessary to defend such person or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force.

(b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force under circumstances described in subsection (a) if such person reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person.

(c) Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat if such person is using force to protect such person or a third person.
So by this law if someone starts breaking the windows to your car you can't "assault" i.e brandish a firearm ?
 

PayrollHRGuy

Senior Member
If you are in the car and you were in fear for your life you could use deadly force to defend yourself or another person. Not your dog or your property.
 

Smittyks

Active Member
You keep adding to the story. You never mentioned that the tow driver aimed brandished the gun in any way other than towards the dog that had already bitten him.

Are you simply asking all this out of curiosity?
Well the property owner and dog were next to one another...to be fair I don't know what details you need. Very curious my neighbor is good people. It's sad. When the police arrived my neighbor didn't open the door.
 

quincy

Senior Member
So by this law if someone starts breaking the windows to your car you can't "assault" i.e brandish a firearm ?
Did the repo man break the car's windows?

The car no longer belonged to the homeowner. It was being repossessed. The homeowner had no right to use a gun to prevent the repossession.
 

Smittyks

Active Member
Did the repo man break the car's windows?

The car no longer belonged to the homeowner. It was being repossessed. The homeowner had no right to use a gun to prevent the repossession.
[/QUO
the neighbor wasn't attempting to prevent the repo the neighbor was asking them to get off the property claiming tresspassing. The gun was involved when the repoman brandished it after the dog bit him
 

PayrollHRGuy

Senior Member
Well the property owner and dog were next to one another...to be fair I don't know what details you need. Very curious my neighbor is good people. It's sad. When the police arrived my neighbor didn't open the door.
Did the police then just leave?
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
As long as the proper paperwork had been done, and as long as the repo man didn't have to break through a locked gate to get to the car, the repossession was legal. The repo man was not a trespasser. The repo man drew a weapon because he was in fear for his life (legal). Your neighbor drew a weapon to threaten a person who was doing nothing illegal. I don't believe this would be "assault", but I do believe that your neighbor would be in violation of other laws. Since you're not an involved party in the matter, I'll leave you with this advice: Research the Kansas laws regarding unlawful use of a weapon, etc.
 

FlyingRon

Senior Member
The problem is here that this doesn't sound like an "unlawful" act with regard to the repo man. The repo in this case appears to not be an "unlawful act." There's no "brandishing" statute per se in Kansas. If you point the gun or otherwise put the other person in "reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm" it's called aggravated assault.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Ad

Top