Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Posted: 2/11/2015 2:03:53 PM EDT
So I was watching a youtube video of a car chase in LA today, and the perp who carjacked multiple cars on the highway was doing so with a gun. That got me thinking about the use of force laws here in Nebraska. I've looked up some Nebraska codes to try and answer my own question but the way some of those read is confusing.

In Chapter 28-1409 paragraph 4 it states "The use of deadly force shall not be justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat," and then goes on to say in subparagraph b that deadily force is not justified if "The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take,"

But in Chapter 28-1411 paragraph 1it says "Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 28-1414, the use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary:
    (a) To prevent or terminate an unlawful entry or other trespass upon land or a trespass against or the unlawful carrying away of tangible, movable property; Provided, that such land or movable property is, or is believed by the actor to be, in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts;"

MY question is that if you carry a concealed weapon, and someone tries to carjack you with a gun saying get out or I'll shoot you, is that reasonable enough justification to shoot first and defend yourself as stated in 28-1411 paragraph (1) subparagraph (a)? Or that shooting first to defend yourself is NOT justified as stated in 28-1409 paragraph (4) subparagraph (b)?
Link Posted: 2/11/2015 5:44:28 PM EDT
[#1]
Only you can make that call...

Basically chapter 28-1409 (Par.4 Sub-Par.B) is briefly explaining the "Stand Your Ground Law" and how it doesn't apply in Nebraska. In court, it always boils down to what ones mind set was during these crimes or in such scenarios like this. The prosecutor could argue that you were NOT in a life or death situation or at risk of serious injury and you were given the opportunity to escape and surrender over property that could potentially prevent harm to yourself or others but you chose not to. However, it's very hard to prove that you THOUGHT you could escape unharmed. You could argue that you were in fear of your life because he had you at gun point with his finger on the trigger causing you to believe he was going to shoot. Remember, the prosecutor must prove you had the opportunity AND the belief you could escape unharmed... You do not need to prove anything.




Link Posted: 2/11/2015 6:23:24 PM EDT
[#2]
but 28-1411 goes on to say that it is justifiable if i believe deadily force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate an unlawful carrying away of tangible, movable property. which to me would include a vehicle, yes? and also, a gun in my face, a finger on the trigger, and the perp yelling death threats would make one seem that they are in an immediate life/death situation.

but now i have another question. could a bystander who witnesses a carjacking with gun, who hears the perp yelling death threats intervine by shooting? b/c according to how I am reading this... i have the right of self defense of others who i think are in immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm..

Link Posted: 2/11/2015 6:40:26 PM EDT
[#3]
If you go on to read 28-1411 further down to (6), it spells out the stipulations for use of deadly force.  The first paragraph you quoted speaks of force, not deadly force.
Link Posted: 2/11/2015 6:48:03 PM EDT
[#4]
either way it doesn't matter b/c it goes on to state in sub para (b) "The person against whom the force is used is attempting to commit or consummate arson, burglary, robbery or other felonious theft or property destruction and either:

(i) Has employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the actor;"

the felonious theft being the carjacking
and the threatening of deadly force being the perp obviously yelling such threats.

Link Posted: 2/12/2015 9:38:01 AM EDT
[#5]
Link Posted: 2/12/2015 2:55:00 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
but 28-1411 goes on to say that it is justifiable if i believe deadily force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate an unlawful carrying away of tangible, movable property. which to me would include a vehicle, yes? and also, a gun in my face, a finger on the trigger, and the perp yelling death threats would make one seem that they are in an immediate life/death situation.

but now i have another question. could a bystander who witnesses a carjacking with gun, who hears the perp yelling death threats intervine by shooting? b/c according to how I am reading this... i have the right of self defense of others who i think are in immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm..
View Quote

I'll try to be more clear; if someone is robbing your property (car considered property), you can not use deadly force just for that reason alone. That part is clear and we both know it, regardless of what you've read in that section. However, if someone has you at gun-point, that COULD be justifiable means to use deadly force. I'm not saying it is or it is not. Only you can make that call during the crime. There's no other way I can put that and there's no right answer. I'm a law student and can't just advise you that it's OK or not to use deadly force, nor is it right for someone else to, including the state of Nebraska, when your life is being threatened in that manner.

The law is filled with gray areas and people try to clear those areas up all the time. Maybe they purposely wanted it to be unclear so they won't be liable in the end?

It's not unlawful to intervene to prevent death or serious harm to others if the location of the crime is within your vicinity and current time.
Link Posted: 2/12/2015 6:45:48 PM EDT
[#7]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I'll try to be more clear; if someone is robbing your property (car considered property), you can not use deadly force just for that reason alone. That part is clear and we both know it, regardless of what you've read in that section. However, if someone has you at gun-point, that COULD be justifiable means to use deadly force.  
View Quote



I'm a retired LEO and realize my previous rules of engagement are much different since I'm retired, but,  I think you maybe misspoke?  Did you mean someone is burglarizing your car ( a property crime) or did you actually mean robbing?  Quite a different thing, as I'm sure a law student should know.   Without massive mental contortions, I can only figure you mean a person (you) are in the car and being carjacked? (Robbed).   I can't imagine a weapon based bad guy taking your vehicle, armed, with you in it, not being fully covered by the statute.  Maybe as a civilian now I'm wrong?  I don't think so though.

BTW join NFOA it's helps us 2A folks.
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top