Vegas Question

[CowboyKen]

imported post

Pace wrote:

If anyone has told you that you have a right to shoot anyone in the state of nevada for any other reason than "reasonable fear of death or bodily injury" they are completely WRONG, and they have never taken a NRA course, or a CCW course.

Sir, that is not the only "justification" listed in the NRS. I would suggust that You might want to read the relevent sections on use of force, justification of homicide, self defense and the defence of others, etc. again.

Ken

p.s.; If you need references or links to the NRS please let me know.

 

[Pace]

imported post

-

 

[wrightme]

imported post

Pace wrote:

Forget it, pleaes read a book on nevada gun laws and applications. This is scary.

Please read the statute. Other than that, what book are you getting your information from?

 

[Pace]

imported post

I really don't want to go into law school 101 about affirmative defenses and so on. The statue as read gives a defense only if there is immediate danger, and in other statues it clearly defines what that is as "serious bodily harm or death"

I actually know the law, the application of the law, and all the court cases that have determined the application of the law.All CCW tests have this seriously bodily harm as part of it, because of the courts decisions.

The Supreme Court of Nevada Stated in regards to this, in decision # 34832. Read below, this is the decision that governs the APPLICATION OF THE LAW IN NEVADA.

"With these considerations in mind, we hold that a private person, when arresting another person pursuant to NRS 171.126, may use no more force than is necessary and reasonable to secure the arrest. We further hold that deadly force is, as a matter of law, unreasonable, unless the deadly force is used in defense of self or others against a threat of serious bodily injury."

I apologize if I am coming off rude, this is a required part in CCW tests and its what I teach when teaching theory of deadly force in Nevada. You can never just 'read the law' and assume what you want, there is always application and courts decision based on the law.

You will be arrested unfortunately either way, but only will get off if you can prove not only immediate dangerous but death or serious injury of yourself or others as any prudent person would see it.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

What does "arresting" pursuant to 171.126 have to do with a homeowner defending himself as we were discussing wrt statute?

It isn't so much as coming across as rude, it is that you are making statements referencing statute, with quotes that are not in statute.

If it is as you state above, and that such case law is used to determine self-defense as you state above, you should be able to follow with case law references, right?

 

[Pace]

imported post

Do you want to argue, or really listen. This is the case that every CCW instructor in nevada teaches, and is required to teach about the application.

The case was a 1997 on an escaping felon, btu the courts decided in general that you can only use proportionate force in general. It's the court case that all prosecutions of gun holders continues to be prosecuted by.

We further hold that deadly force is, as a matter of law, unreasonable, unless the deadly force is used in defense of self or others against a threat of serious bodily injury."

This is a required question on the CCW test, fyi.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

Pace wrote:

Do you want to argue, or really listen. This is the case that every CCW instructor in nevada teaches, and is required to teach about the application.

IT IS A REQUIRED QUESTION ON THE CCW TEST!!!!

We further hold that deadly force is, as a matter of law, unreasonable, unless the deadly force is used in defense of self or others against a threat of serious bodily injury."

The main part where you left us is why you are even arguing that point? It was not relevant to the discussion in any form, other than when you misconstrued my comments about NRS and Castle Doctrine.

 

[Pace]

imported post

I'm done, poke me with a fork.

 

[Felid`Maximus]

imported post

...

 

[timf343]

imported post

171.126 applies to a citizens arrest. And while it could theoretically be applied to a homeowner faced with a burglar, I think it tends to apply more to an in-general citizens arrest. For example, you witness someone run over a pedestrian in a cross walk and speed off. You can follow and "arrest" pursuant to this section. Agreeing with Pace, you may not shoot this person unless you reasonably fear this person intends to kill or seriously injure you.

However, I do not believe wrightme was referring to an out-of-home arrest. There was a comparison between the rights of private property owners of two classes. The first class is any person in his home. My home is not open to the public, my doors are locked, my yard fenced. The fence, the locks, and any signs I may choose to put up are unquestionable. The second class of property owner is a business open to the public. Walmart has the same "rights" as me, as a property owner, but waives some of them by allowing the general public free access.

A man with a gun in a Walmart is probably a shopper, having lawful business with the property owner. A man with a gun in my home is an intruder with no lawful business in being there (obvious exceptions for me and my guests).

Requoting the applicable NRS 200.120:

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.

(emphasis added)

Someone in my home without my permission is felony burglary, and since I didn't know they were coming in, I'm sure as hell surprised to see them. There are a lot of "OR's" in this paragraph, not "AND's" leaving quite a few options. Another option for a homeowner's defense is that if someone came into my home knowing I'm there and I might have a gun, I have to believe they intend to deal with me and my gun by assaulting me or committing some other violent act.

Pace, you said it is not a defense to shoot someone for stealing your car, but that's not true in all cases is it? For example, if I'm stopped at a light, and someone runs up with a knife trying to jack my car, doesn't this violent felony justify use of deadly force in response?

 

[wrightme]

imported post

timf343 wrote:

Pace, you said it is not a defense to shoot someone for stealing your car, but that's not true in all cases is it? For example, if I'm stopped at a light, and someone runs up with a knife trying to jack my car, doesn't this violent felony justify use of deadly force in response?

timf, I would like to be able to answer your last question in the affirmative, but Bernie Anderson made sure to not allow AB288 to committee. AB288 would have extended the boundaries of the NV resident's castle.

I think some of the position that Pace takes is the reason AB288 would have been good, and also some of the reason it met resistance. It would have given Nevadan's nearly the same level of "Castle Doctrine" as that in Texas, which included deadly force in the protection of property. It would have included civil immunity, basically placing the blame for a death or injury upon the criminal, beyond the boundaries of a person's own home.

 

[timf343]

imported post

Glad that SOB is out. Has he mentioned he's going to run for Senate?

 

[wrightme]

imported post

timf343 wrote:

Glad that SOB is out. Has he mentioned he's going to run for Senate?

I sure hope not. Last I heard he was intending for Mayor of the citizens of Sparks. Hopefully they know of him there.
I did meet him at one of the sessions this past year, and also spoke to Frank Adams during a break in Judiciary about AB244, which was tabled.

 

[Pace]

imported post

Thanks regarding above, I apologize for being frustrated.

There is "proportionate force" regarding use of any deadly force in Nevada as determined by the courts. This means that if a person threats you with a knife, you can only do what is necessary for a prudent person to defend yourself proportionately.

This requires a citizen to make unreasonable on-the-fly decisions in life and death situations.

Two people approach you, the threat to kill you, tell you that you have a gun, what do you ? Well, some people could argue that they have disproportionate force by being two people,a nd they claim they have a gun. If they reach for their wallet and you pull and shoot them, what would happen? You'd be arrested, charged with murder and most likely found guilty. The police would testify that you shot two unarmed citizens during a fight, period.

Car Jacking? Hard to say, they would argue that the use of the knife was a disproportionate force, that you could have driven away, etc. What if there were no witnesses?

The fact is that the courts in Nevada have held two things required about gun use of civilians. Its codified in the law, and is in the court decisions. I don't agree with it. I think if someone pulls a weapon on me while I am stopped at a traffic light, I should have the same rights of a police officer - tell them to get on the ground, tell them I will shoot and then shoot to kill.



- Proportionate Force
- Immediately Risk of Death of Serious Bodily Injury

That is the only reason you can shoot someone. Not because they threat you, take away your car, scare you, say they are going to kill you in the future, or even look at your wife funny

 

[wrightme]

imported post

The Knife item is a given. Ask an LE what he does to defend against an assailant with a knife. 7 Yards or closer, use the force necessary to defend, which if I have no knife, but a firearm, will result in immediate action.

As for the rest, you are arguing against a point which NONE of us in this thread have taken.

 

[Pace]

imported post

--

 

[wrightme]

imported post

Pace wrote:

LE has a requirement to STAND and DEFEND.

Really? Where is that written? Where do they stand, who do they defend?


Pace wrote:

Civilians in Nevada have a requirement to RETREAT.

No they do not. There is not a "duty to retreat." If you believe that, you should be prepared to follow up under Forum Rule 7. Cite to authority. Provide the statute or case law that defines Nevada as a "Duty to Retreat" locale.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

Pace wrote:

I do not agree with this, but it is the law at the moment, and needs to be changed. I believe if someone pulls a knife out and threats to kill you, you should assume that the person is a danger to others, he is a felon, that you are protecting society, and that you can pull your weapon, tell him to get on the ground and then fire if he approaches you.

A person 21 feet away with a knife is an immediate threat of bodily harm if that person shows solid intent to use it. This is straight from the CCW course I took.
It isn't something I chose to believe or not, it is something that is recognized and taught.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

Pace wrote:

I actually know the law, the application of the law, and all the court cases that have determined the application of the law.All CCW tests have this seriously bodily harm as part of it, because of the courts decisions.

I note that you moved here from NYC less than a year ago, and now you are holding forth as an expert in NV case law?

 

[Pace]

imported post

-