Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 2/6/2006 4:53:43 PM EST
Will Nevada ever have this law like Florida, or do we have too many liberals in Carson City ? Why do we have "The Duty to Retreat" in this state ?
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 5:09:38 PM EST
curious were you've seen the "duty to retreat" clause in the nrs codes
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 7:26:48 PM EST
Dare we say it doesn't exist???
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 8:32:33 PM EST
I'd also like to see the NRS requiring you to retreat from your domocile.
From every reading I have made of NRS, there is nothing that mandates a retreat.
Surely, our resident experts can clarify this.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 9:00:33 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 10:50:08 PM EST

Originally Posted By Wolfpack:
From what I've been told you can defend yourself if you fear death or great bodily harm. So if a guy kicks my door in with his hands up and yells he has no weapon can he take my tv and walk away with it?

Your word against his and he ain't talkin no more
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 1:26:44 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/7/2006 2:10:53 AM EST by ishoot2live]
Several criteria points must be met when using Deadly Force in Nevada, and they create an acronym JAM:

1. JEAPORDY: Has the assailant put you in "jeopardy" (danger) of grievous bodily harm or death against you or another?

2. ABILITY: Does the assailant have the "ability" (physical means) to inflict grievous bodily harm or death against you or another?

3. MEANS: Does the assailant have the "means" (a weapon) to inflict grievous bodily harm or death against you or another?

If all three of the above criteria points are met then Deadly Force would be authorized if the individual being attacked could clearly articulate that he/she were truly in fear of their life being taken.

"Bare Fear" in Nevada is not a defense to using deadly force.

One could argue "Preclusion." Def: To make impossible, as by action taken in advance; prevent.

The other side of the preclusion argument is that it is not always possible to preclude because the victim at the time of attack might not have a “clear avenue” of escape without putting himself/herself in further danger of death or grievous bodily harm.

Example #1: A person is confronted/attacked on the 10th story of a parking structure by an assailant meeting the "JAM" criteria. In this instance the victim clearly has an avenue of escape, but jumping off a 10 story parking structure would be certain death for the victim.

Example #2: A person is confronted/attacked in their garage by an assailant meeting the "JAM" criteria. In this scenario the victim has an unlocked door leading from the garage to the inside of the home. The victim clearly has an avenue of escape; therefore the victim could possibly retreat to safety, lock the door and call police.

If deadly force were applied by the victim in the latter, it could be argued that the victim could have retreated to relative safety without the use of deadly force.

No matter how you slice it, the preponderance of the use of deadly force relies solely on the victim’s ability to articulate the fact that they were “truly” in fear of their life being taken, or that they felt that grievous body harm would be inflicted upon them at the time of the attack.

Let me add that more often than not the victim does not have enough time to employ the preclusion option in a violent/deadly force confrontation. Therefore, there is no concrete answer to this question, as every shooting or defensive application is judged on the individual circumstances of the defending action.

Please don’t take the above as legal advice. I suggest that you always consult a criminal defense attorney if you are in question of your self-defense responsibilities.

Just my 2 pennies.....

Link Posted: 2/7/2006 3:59:28 AM EST
The closest thing I've found dealing with "duty to retreat" is NRS 200.200

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.

[1911 C&P § 137; RL § 6402; NCL § 10084]

Now IANAL, but this means to me that if you could safely retreat, you should attempt to do so, otherwise, stand your ground. If all about being able to articulate your reasons for your action.

The concept of "duty to retreat" in your home is covered in NRS 41.095:

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.

(Added to NRS by 1989, 1798)

So, IMO, there is no duty to retreat in your home.
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 8:22:02 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/7/2006 8:22:27 AM EST by DARKMAKER]
get out the peanut butterh.gif
Top Top