Posted: 3/2/2010 9:55:27 PM EDT
|
Did some searching and didn't find much... So I am curious does Nevada have some form of the castle doctrine or something similar. Since I am a former resident of both Texas and Indiana, I know how important that legislation is to gun owners. Although I've never had to enforce it, I've had a few buddies that did...
|
|
Quoted:
Did some searching and didn't find much... So I am curious does Nevada have some form of the castle doctrine or something similar. Since I am a former resident of both Texas and Indiana, I know how important that legislation is to gun owners. Although I've never had to enforce it, I've had a few buddies that did... Nevada does not have a "Castle Doctrine" in chapter and verse, but we do have NRS 200 I'm not an attorney. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Did some searching and didn't find much... So I am curious does Nevada have some form of the castle doctrine or something similar. Since I am a former resident of both Texas and Indiana, I know how important that legislation is to gun owners. Although I've never had to enforce it, I've had a few buddies that did... Nevada does not have a "Castle Doctrine" in chapter and verse, but we do have NRS 200 I'm not an attorney. Took some reading to sort through that page, but I guess I narrowed it down to: NRS-200.120 and 130 " NRS 200.120 “Justifiable homicide” defined. Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of habitation, property or person, against one who manifestly intends, or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against any person or persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein. NRS 200.130 Bare fear insufficient to justify killing; reasonable fear required. A bare fear of any of the offenses mentioned in NRS 200.120, to prevent which the homicide is alleged to have been committed, shall not be sufficient to justify the killing. It must appear that the circumstances were sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person, and that the party killing really acted under the influence of those fears and not in a spirit of revenge." Which i guess is a pretty basic take on the castle doctrine, but not quite there yet. The castle doctrine as I interpret it, just gives the individual a little more immunity in such an event. That basically means in such a situation where you are forced to defend yourself most likely you will be sweating it out it court. I mentioned that I had a buddy that had to put down a home invader and due to that l wonderful piece of legislation there were no charges. However, I understand this is all circumstantial, I just wanted to ask the hometown guys because I got to thinking about it recently. Since I've moved here I've had some things stolen out of the house, and there was an attempted break-in to my dad's car, ya never know... |
|
We've been all through this before. It's not codified as a single statute but as a series of statutes, that taken in their entirety, give the same protection as the vaunted "castle doctrine" laws in other places. There is one omission though and that is that the cone of immunity doesn't extend to your car or any place that's not your residence.
I don't have the time or desire to go traipsing through the NRS about this again but an archive search of the NVHTF will bring back that previous research. |
|
Quoted:
We've been all through this before. It's not codified as a single statute but as a series of statutes, that taken in their entirety, give the same protection as the vaunted "castle doctrine" laws in other places. There is one omission though and that is that the cone of immunity doesn't extend to your car or any place that's not your residence. I don't have the time or desire to go traipsing through the NRS about this again but an archive search of the NVHTF will bring back that previous research. Good info, thanks. |
|
Quoted:
We've been all through this before. It's not codified as a single statute but as a series of statutes, that taken in their entirety, give the same protection as the vaunted "castle doctrine" laws in other places. There is one omission though and that is that the cone of immunity doesn't extend to your car or any place that's not your residence. I don't have the time or desire to go traipsing through the NRS about this again but an archive search of the NVHTF will bring back that previous research. Once again, I'm not an attorney. Maybe this will define residence for you... 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) |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
We've been all through this before. It's not codified as a single statute but as a series of statutes, that taken in their entirety, give the same protection as the vaunted "castle doctrine" laws in other places. There is one omission though and that is that the cone of immunity doesn't extend to your car or any place that's not your residence. I don't have the time or desire to go traipsing through the NRS about this again but an archive search of the NVHTF will bring back that previous research. Once again, I'm not an attorney. Maybe this will define residence for you... 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) Was just looking through the archives and that me  , but I got it all figured out. I hate to bring up topics that have already been covered, but my searchfu wasn't coming up with the answers I needed. Thanks for the good info. 
|
|
depends on th DA in whatever county you reside in/or wherever something bad goes down.
her in Clark County, David Roger doesn't seem to intnet on prosecuting a citizen for defending their home. however, if you chace 'em down the street with a shotgun and shoot 'em half a black away, things might not go so well for you. same goes for property theft, or stealing stuff out of your car, etc. if you shoot the guy stealing your car stereo or flat screen TV... you can probably expect to lose in civil court. if you're in fear for your life... shoot to stop the perp from doing whatever he's doing that's making you fear for your life, shoot so YOU live. don't shoot because he's stealing your shit. i'm also not an attorney, there are several around here, i just don't know if one of them will offer any advice for free. another way to put it; if your face is burning, you're mad and it's probably not a good idea to shoot. if your hands are ice cold, you're in fear for your life and as long as you can express that reasonable fear you'll probably come out OK. i wish we had more clearly defined "castle doctrine" like SC for example, but at least we don' have a "duty to retreat", like IL has IIRC. if you're local to LV, take Joe's CCW class (ishoot2live) much better in several ways than some of the others. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We've been all through this before. It's not codified as a single statute but as a series of statutes, that taken in their entirety, give the same protection as the vaunted "castle doctrine" laws in other places. There is one omission though and that is that the cone of immunity doesn't extend to your car or any place that's not your residence. I don't have the time or desire to go traipsing through the NRS about this again but an archive search of the NVHTF will bring back that previous research. Once again, I'm not an attorney. Maybe this will define residence for you... 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) Was just looking through the archives and that me , but I got it all figured out. I hate to bring up topics that have already been covered, but my searchfu wasn't coming up with the answers I needed. Thanks for the good info. NP CW. Sometimes the smoke does get pretty thick in here . I am not always right, but I do try to clear the air. Be Safe. Joe 
|
|
My CCW instructor (Carson City Sheriff's Deputy Drug Enforcement/Gang Division) explained it to me like this: "You are justified in using deadly force in your own home if you are taken by surprise at an unexpected hour by forced entry where serious bodily harm to yourself or family is imminent." This is verbatim as I took copious notes during my class. He went on to say that if you were sitting in your chair watching the game and someone you did not know entered through your unlocked door, grabbed a beer from your fridge and sat down on your sofa, your actions to shoot the trespasser would not be justified and you would be arrested and charged.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer either.... |
|
Quoted:
depends on th DA in whatever county you reside in/or wherever something bad goes down. her in Clark County, David Roger doesn't seem to intnet on prosecuting a citizen for defending their home. however, if you chace 'em down the street with a shotgun and shoot 'em half a black away, things might not go so well for you. same goes for property theft, or stealing stuff out of your car, etc. if you shoot the guy stealing your car stereo or flat screen TV... you can probably expect to lose in civil court. if you're in fear for your life... shoot to stop the perp from doing whatever he's doing that's making you fear for your life, shoot so YOU live. don't shoot because he's stealing your shit. i'm also not an attorney, there are several around here, i just don't know if one of them will offer any advice for free. another way to put it; if your face is burning, you're mad and it's probably not a good idea to shoot. if your hands are ice cold, you're in fear for your life and as long as you can express that reasonable fear you'll probably come out OK. i wish we had more clearly defined "castle doctrine" like SC for example, but at least we don' have a "duty to retreat", like IL has IIRC. if you're local to LV, take Joe's CCW class (ishoot2live) much better in several ways than some of the others. Thats exactly the circumstantial grey area that the CD clears up... However, it all boils down to if your ever in that situation just use common sense. |
|
Quoted:
depends on th DA in whatever county you reside in/or wherever something bad goes down. her in Clark County, David Roger doesn't seem to intnet on prosecuting a citizen for defending their home. however, if you chace 'em down the street with a shotgun and shoot 'em half a black away, things might not go so well for you. same goes for property theft, or stealing stuff out of your car, etc. if you shoot the guy stealing your car stereo or flat screen TV... you can probably expect to lose in civil court. if you're in fear for your life... shoot to stop the perp from doing whatever he's doing that's making you fear for your life, shoot so YOU live. don't shoot because he's stealing your shit. i'm also not an attorney, there are several around here, i just don't know if one of them will offer any advice for free. another way to put it; if your face is burning, you're mad and it's probably not a good idea to shoot. if your hands are ice cold, you're in fear for your life and as long as you can express that reasonable fear you'll probably come out OK. i wish we had more clearly defined "castle doctrine" like SC for example, but at least we don' have a "duty to retreat", like IL has IIRC. if you're local to LV, take Joe's CCW class (ishoot2live) much better in several ways than some of the others. Very good points, fix. Right now we do have decent statutes regarding the Use of Force for Self-Defense in the State of Nevada. On the other hand, if a person lives by the old saying "I'd rather be Tried by 12 than Carried by Six" he (or she) needs to know that they might beat the rap, but they won't beat the ride (another old saying). True justice for decent people. That's what honorable attorneys and non-activist judges are for. 
|