Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 4/5/2006 9:40:05 PM EDT
I have been watching as alot of states have been passing Castle Doctrine Laws. I want to know if Nevada is ever going to pass such a law ? We need three important aspects of our right to self defense set in stone:

1. The presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm. Therefore, a person may use force to stop the intrusion.

2. The Castle Doctrine removes the "duty to retreat" if you are sttacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked, which in many cases could offer an assailant an easier traget. Instead, you may stand you ground and fight back, meeting force with force-including deadly force-if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.

3. The Castle Doctrine provides that person using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force. Also, prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.


When it all comes down, We need to give law abiding people of Nevada their rights back and make judges and prosecutors who are prone to coddling criminals to instead focus on protecting victims. No one should ever be forced to use deadly force, but should not be worried that they will go to jail or be sued for protecting their lives.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 9:59:30 PM EDT
Where is this "duty to retreat" law???

Never seen it.......

The civil lawsuit side is one I fully endorse, but the libs won't go for it.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 5:33:48 AM EDT
Porcher, are you saying that we currently don't have laws that cover your three issues? We currently have statutes for your #1 and #2, and i wholeheartedly agree with your #3. The 'going to jail' part is tough though; the responding LE will come to a scene where there's one guy dead/wounded, and one guy alive holding a gun. Your initial custody status remains in the responding officer's hands. If it's evenly remotely questionable to the officer what happened, of if current department doctrine is to take a shooter in, I don't see what will prevent you from going along for the ride.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 8:28:26 AM EDT
Well, they can't arrest you without Probable Cause. A good shoot is usually pretty obvious.

As for bringing you in, that becomes a pseudo arrest and you are basically in custody. The PC requirement isn't there until you are actually under arrest, but Miranda would be required.

I don't know...they are pretty obvious to me. In the several I have responded too, the good guys call the police, the bad guys is the one needing the medical assistance, and the good guy gets a big handshake. All the interviews were done at the scene.

#3-well, that is one of those areas that some Nazi prosecutors in this country feel they need a grand jury to decide if it is actually criminal. I don't know of a single DA in NV that does it that way. The police make the decision. If it is close or media pressure, they put it off to the DA to deny the case.

The only case that rings a bell is the guy that killed one guy in the house then chased the other one down the street and shot him in the back. Then you add they were all associates and involved in dope. He was charged...only for the guy he chased down and shot in the back though.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 10:47:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/6/2006 10:55:03 AM EDT by JimMayhugh]

Originally Posted By porcher:
I have been watching as alot of states have been passing Castle Doctrine Laws. I want to know if Nevada is ever going to pass such a law ? We need three important aspects of our right to self defense set in stone:

1. The presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm. Therefore, a person may use force to stop the intrusion.


We've got that partially covered here:


NRS 41.095 Presumption that person using deadly force against intruder in his residence has reasonable fear of death or bodily injury; “residence” defined.

1. For the purposes of NRS 41.085 and 41.130, any person who uses, while lawfully in his residence or in transient lodging, force which is intended or likely to cause death or bodily injury is presumed to have had a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily injury to himself or another person lawfully in the residence or transient lodging if the force is used against a person who is committing burglary or invasion of the home and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that burglary or invasion of the home was being committed. An action to recover damages for personal injuries to or the wrongful death of the person who committed burglary or invasion of the home may not be maintained against the person who used such force unless the presumption is overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

2. As used in this section, “residence” means any house, room, apartment, tenement or other building, vehicle, vehicle trailer, semitrailer, house trailer or boat designed or intended for occupancy as a residence.





Originally Posted By porcher:
2. The Castle Doctrine removes the "duty to retreat" if you are sttacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked, which in many cases could offer an assailant an easier traget. Instead, you may stand you ground and fight back, meeting force with force-including deadly force-if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.


Covered here:


NRS 200.200 Killing in self-defense. If a person kills another in self-defense, it must appear that:

1. The danger was so urgent and pressing that, in order to save his own life, or to prevent his receiving great bodily harm, the killing of the other was absolutely necessary; and

2. The person killed was the assailant, or that the slayer had really, and in good faith, endeavored to decline any further struggle before the mortal blow was given.


Earl v. State, 904 P2d 1029 (Nev. 1995) further states:


A person who reasonably believes that he is about to be killed or seriously injured by his assailant does not have a duty to retreat before using deadly force unless he is the original assailant




Originally Posted By porcher:
3. The Castle Doctrine provides that person using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force. Also, prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.



See the answer to #1 above.

Of course, you'd have known all of this if you'd taken my CCW class


Link Posted: 4/6/2006 11:31:33 AM EDT
What is the going rate for your class??

Another solution is to sue the suspect first..........for whatever issues you can.

BTW, make sure you homestead your property!!!!
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 12:12:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By RDP:

BTW, make sure you homestead your property!!!!



What is this and what does it do for you?

It sounds very intriguing
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 12:27:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GryphonX:

Originally Posted By RDP:

BTW, make sure you homestead your property!!!!



What is this and what does it do for you?

It sounds very intriguing



You can't loose it in a lawsuit.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 2:02:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ANIMUS:

Originally Posted By GryphonX:

Originally Posted By RDP:

BTW, make sure you homestead your property!!!!



What is this and what does it do for you?

It sounds very intriguing hinking.gif



You can't loose it in a lawsuit.



Not exactly.

Your home equity is only protected up to $350k. After $350k you can be forced to sell.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 2:52:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AndrewS:


Your home equity is only protected up to $350k. After $350k you can be forced to sell.





......."only" $350k???? when I did mine it was even less, "only" $100k.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 3:13:00 PM EDT
For your reading pleasure.

NRS 115.050 Execution against homestead.

1. Whenever execution has been issued against the property of a party claiming the property as a homestead, and the creditor in the judgment makes an oath before the judge of the district court of the county in which the property is situated, that the amount of equity held by the claimant in the property exceeds, to the best of the creditor’s information and belief, the sum of $350,000, the judge shall, upon notice to the debtor, appoint three disinterested and competent persons as appraisers to estimate and report as to the amount of equity held by the claimant in the property, and if the amount of equity exceeds the sum of $350,000, determine whether the property can be divided so as to leave the property subject to the homestead exemption without material injury.

2. If it appears, upon the report, to the satisfaction of the judge that the property can be thus divided, he shall order the excess to be sold under execution. If it appears that the property cannot be thus divided, and the amount of equity held by the claimant in the property exceeds the exemption allowed by this chapter, he shall order the entire property to be sold, and out of the proceeds the sum of $350,000 to be paid to the defendant in execution, and the excess to be applied to the satisfaction on the execution. No bid under $350,000 may be received by the officer making the sale.

3. When the execution is against a husband or wife, the judge may direct the $350,000 to be deposited in court, to be paid out only upon the joint receipt of the husband and wife, and the deposit possesses all the protection against legal process and voluntary disposition by either spouse as did the original homestead.

[3:72:1865; B § 188; BH § 541; C § 552; RL § 2144; NCL § 3317]—(NRS A 1975, 215; 1979, 282, 984; 1981, 625; 1983, 663; 1989, 3, 647; 1995, 226; 2003, 1009; 2005, 1010, 2227)

Link Posted: 4/6/2006 3:23:35 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 4:06:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/6/2006 4:10:34 PM EDT by chiz45]

Originally Posted By RDP:
Well, they can't arrest you without Probable Cause. A good shoot is usually pretty obvious.



I would imagine that the only way you could clear the shooter was with his personal account of the event?

I tend to get cases where the facts are not so obvious. I suspect that there are several justfied shoots that one might only hear about in a 2" x 3" block on page B7 in the RJ. I sure hope you are the responding officer IF something like this happens to me ;)

Some past cases that were NOT so clear:

Client was in a condo complex, which had single bay garages, and very narrow streets. Client, waiting for a friend, parks in front of someone else's garage bay. Homeowner sees this, tells him to move. Client tells him he's just waiting for a friend, so he'll be gone soon. Homeowner throws some harsh words, client does the same. Homeowner comes out with a bat, saying "I'll make you leave." Client exits car, points pistol at bat-wielding guy, telling him to go inside. Homeowner calls police, saying "there's a guy with a gun outside." Police come, client is arrested, client pays us money.

case ultimately dismissed.

Second one:

Two FINE gentlemen at the Little Carey Arms apartments near the corner of MLK and Lake Mead Client is at his girlfriend's house. 'Victim'--it offends me to call him that--hears that Client is at home, and wants to pick a fight with him. He puts on a solid arm brace, grabs a homie, and goes down to Client's home. He ends up walking probably 250 yards from his house to Client's. He engages in conversation, with homie standing by. Victim claims that Client swung on his first; he does NOT get hit, and hits client 3 times, knocking him to the ground. Homie is still right there. Client draws a small caliber pistol, shoots a single round, and victim retreats.

Shots fired call out, cops told that out of the blue, Client shoots a round into Victim. Client arrested, prosecuted.

What do you all think?

As a slight hijack, there are some colliding concepts here when it comes to a shoot/no shoot, good shoot/bad shoot scenario. Many today are trained to STFU in a defensive shooting. What may be reasonable, rational to YOU might be deemed otherwise by the Government. Do you talk, tell your side of the story? Or just STFU and let the cops/DA decide?
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 6:57:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By chiz45:
Porcher, are you saying that we currently don't have laws that cover your three issues? We currently have statutes for your #1 and #2, and i wholeheartedly agree with your #3. The 'going to jail' part is tough though; the responding LE will come to a scene where there's one guy dead/wounded, and one guy alive holding a gun. Your initial custody status remains in the responding officer's hands. If it's evenly remotely questionable to the officer what happened, of if current department doctrine is to take a shooter in, I don't see what will prevent you from going along for the ride.



No sir, I am not saying we do not have laws that protect us. What I am trying to clarify is, during my last CCW Clas at The Gun Store, Tony Dee told the class, "if you able to retreat you must". This was back in 2003. Maybe the law changed since then. I am trying to understand my rights in Laymen's Terms.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 7:09:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/6/2006 7:53:34 PM EDT by chiz45]

Originally Posted By porcher:

No sir, I am not saying we do not have laws that protect us. What I am trying to clarify is, during my last CCW Clas at The Gun Store, Tony Dee told the class, "if you able to retreat you must". This was back in 2003. Maybe the law changed since then. I am trying to understand my rights in Laymen's Terms.



As you've seen above, there's no duty to retreat...not quite sure why he said 'must' rather than 'should.' The reality of it is, YOU might be better off in the long run, considering the full legal ramifications and psychological impact a shooting/killing may have on you.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 7:52:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By citizen2:

Originally Posted By AndrewS:


Your home equity is only protected up to $350k. After $350k you can be forced to sell.





......."only" $350k???? when I did mine it was even less, "only" $100k.



When I did mine it was $250K
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:42:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By chiz45:

Originally Posted By porcher:

No sir, I am not saying we do not have laws that protect us. What I am trying to clarify is, during my last CCW Clas at The Gun Store, Tony Dee told the class, "if you able to retreat you must". This was back in 2003. Maybe the law changed since then. I am trying to understand my rights in Laymen's Terms.



As you've seen above, there's no duty to retreat...not quite sure why he said 'must' rather than 'should.' The reality of it is, YOU might be better off in the long run, considering the full legal ramifications and psychological impact a shooting/killing may have on you.



The fight you'll always win is the one you AVOID.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:43:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RDP:
What is the going rate for your class??

Another solution is to sue the suspect first..........for whatever issues you can.

BTW, make sure you homestead your property!!!!



Eighty-five bucks for the group class, one-fifty for the private class.
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 1:53:54 PM EDT



.
Top Top