Vegas Question

[wrightme]

imported post

Pace wrote:

You are becoming rude and frankly abusive. I've been respectful and while I disagree with you and believe case law is on my side, I haven't asked your education in the law or your experience teaching, because I felt it would be demeaning.

I'm going to ask this thread to be closed.

Good luck with that request. Actually, I have been most respectful to you in this conversation. I do not agree with what you present, and you have not supported your points in the trespass signage, nor in duty to retreat. Per Rule 7 of this forum, you presented a point of law, and did not cite to authority. In fact, if you check the AB288 legislative digest, even our assemblymen recognize that Nevada is not a "duty to retreat" state.

Legislative Counsel’s Digest:
1 Under existing case law, there is no duty to retreat before using deadly force if the person using deadly force is not the aggressor and reasonably believes that he is about to be killed or seriously injured. (Culverson v. State, 106 Nev. 484 (1990))

Case law. No duty to retreat. I was not being "rude," I was attempting to point out where you appear to be incorrect.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

gutshot wrote:

wrightme wrote:

Pace wrote:

You are becoming rude and frankly abusive. I've been respectful and while I disagree with you and believe case law is on my side, I haven't asked your education in the law or your experience teaching, because I felt it would be demeaning.

I'm going to ask this thread to be closed.

Good luck with that request. Actually, I have been most respectful to you in this conversation. I do not agree with what you present, and you have not supported your points in the trespass signage, nor in duty to retreat. Per Rule 7 of this forum, you presented a point of law, and did not cite to authority. In fact, if you check the AB288 legislative digest, even our assemblymen recognize that Nevada is not a "duty to retreat" state.

Legislative Counsel’s Digest:
1 Under existing case law, there is no duty to retreat before using deadly force if the person using deadly force is not the aggressor and reasonably believes that he is about to be killed or seriously injured. (Culverson v. State, 106 Nev. 484 (1990))

Case law. No duty to retreat. I was not being "rude," I was attempting to point out where you appear to be incorrect.

Pace has now deleted that post. Jeese, ask a guy to back up his opinion and you are "rude and abusive".

Along with many other posts he deleted in this thread.

 

[Pace]

imported post

Actually, I'm considering that you've made a very good point, and that you have brought some really good thoughts that should be considered. I'm thinking about what you said, because there have been some cases recently of civilians brought on charges who didnt retreat.

Still, please keep it civil.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

Pace wrote:

Actually, I'm considering that you've made a very good point, and that you have brought some really good thoughts that should be considered. I'm thinking about what you said, because there have been some cases recently of civilians brought on charges who didnt retreat.

Still, please keep it civil.

Thanks.
I have been keeping it civil. I also will point out where I disagree, and why I disagree with points presented.

 

[Pace]

imported post

Well, I knew of your case law and am reading it. Its actually interesting, because this is not what is taught in the police academies and not what the prosecutors believe. It's pretty obvious what you have shown. I'm educated both in civilian firearms and LE firearms (email if you curious) and know what they teach in LVMPD.

From what I am reading in this and some other decisions, there is no Duty to Retreat in immediate danger, but perhaps only if you aren't in immediate danger?

It makes sense then why we need a better law that clarifies this!

Thanks for the education! (I've been schooled)