Castle Doctrine in NV possible in near future [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Castle Doctrine in NV possible in near future


crazypilot
08-25-2008, 16:49
Lawmaker wants to allow homeowners to use deadly force against attacker
A state lawmaker wants Nevada to adopt a legal doctrine that allows homeowners to use deadly force to protect a person's life from an intruder.

Called the "castle doctrine," a bill draft request to implement the idea has been submitted for the 2009 legislative session by Assemblyman Harry Mortenson, D-Las Vegas.

The castle doctrine has some variations, but essentially says that someone attacked in his home can use reasonable force, including deadly force, to protect his or another's life without any duty to retreat from the attacker.

At least 15 states, including Arizona, have adopted the doctrine in the past few years.

"I support the old philosophy that a man's home is his castle and people should not invade it with impunity," Mortenson said. "We've moved so much in the direction of helping the invader that I think we need to go a little bit in the other direction."

http://www.lvrj.com/breaking_news/27373244.html

osiruscyn
08-25-2008, 17:23
although this is pretty much the norm in Clark County and i'd assume the state, It would be nice to have a law in place that specifically states such rather than leaving it up to the interpretation of the sitting District Attorney in each district.

jpa
08-25-2008, 23:58
I just saw this on Fox News tonight, I giggled like a giddy schoolgirl when I saw that it was a DemocRAT proposing this law. I too believe it's pretty much already understood that it's standing policy, but with the influx of liberals from California, who knows what kind of DA we'll have in the future.

1337-G
08-26-2008, 00:11
It's already codified in the NRS. I wonder if lawmakers actually read the existing laws before putting pen to paper. Sure it's a nice gesture, but it buys us exactly nothing.

jpa
08-26-2008, 00:27
It's already codified in the NRS. I wonder if lawmakers actually read the existing laws before putting pen to paper. Sure it's a nice gesture, but it buys us exactly nothing.

Cite?

osiruscyn
08-26-2008, 08:16
NRS 200.160 Additional cases of justifiable homicide. Homicide is also justifiable when committed:

1. In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

2. In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode in which he is.

[1911 C&P § 133; A 1931, 160; 1931 NCL § 10080]—(NRS A 1993, 932)




of course, that somewhat contradicts the NRS for Self Defense in that the NRS for self defense requires you do everything possible to avoid killing someone.



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]

jpa
08-26-2008, 16:17
I looked up those same sections right after I posted my request for the cite, I thought maybe the poster found something other than those chapters which as you admit are somewhat contradictory. Perhaps the good assemblyman can clarify the existing "castle doctrine" and remove the ambiguities. I'd be even happier if he included a "stand your ground" or "no retreat" clause as well.

osiruscyn
08-26-2008, 16:33
if you notice in those 2 NRS's, the first one was updated as recently as 1993. The second one, last updated 1911. I think that kind of gives you an idea of which one is more apt to be applied and considered relevant.

What i would like to see included in the new proposed "castle doctrine" is a clause stipulating that if you do not face criminal prosecution from the action, then you are automatically precluded from any civil litigation arising from the incident.

1337-G
08-26-2008, 20:42
Cite?

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)

1337-G
08-26-2008, 20:46
What i would like to see included in the new proposed "castle doctrine" is a clause stipulating that if you do not face criminal prosecution from the action, then you are automatically precluded from any civil litigation arising from the incident.

Already there. See above.

Don't get me wrong, it's nice that someone is thinking about this, especially a Blue county democrat, but it's redundant and he hasn't done his research.

jpa
08-27-2008, 08:00
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)

That chapter only applies to civil liability for wrongful death or personal injury claims. As it stands, you can be arrested and charged criminally, but you can't be sued. Personally I'd prefer a stand your ground law that includes immunity for in AND out of your residence.

crazypilot
08-29-2008, 10:20
Just wanted to throw this in.

NRS 41.135 Liability of victims of certain crimes limited for injuries to offender. A person who is convicted of committing or attempting to commit:

1. A felony;

2. An act that would have been a felony if committed by an adult; or

3. A misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor that constitutes domestic violence pursuant to NRS 33.018,

Ê may not bring an action against the victim or the estate of the victim for injuries sustained by the offender or damage to property of the offender that occurred during the course of the crime or delinquent act.

(Added to NRS by 1985, 968; A 1989, 1453; 1997, 2, 1811)

digitspaw
09-09-2008, 14:28
NRS 200.160 Additional cases of justifiable homicide. Homicide is also justifiable when committed:

1. In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

2. In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode in which he is.

[1911 C&P § 133; A 1931, 160; 1931 NCL § 10080]—(NRS A 1993, 932)




of course, that somewhat contradicts the NRS for Self Defense in that the NRS for self defense requires you do everything possible to avoid killing someone.






You gotta be careful reading these statutes as every word depends on whether or not you might be charged with a crime.

In this case, the word "and" in red mandates that the rest on that sentence happens in concert with the first part of the paragraph.

digitspaw
09-09-2008, 14:53
Just wanted to throw this in.

NRS 41.135 Liability of victims of certain crimes limited for injuries to offender. A person who is convicted of committing or attempting to commit:

1. A felony;

2. An act that would have been a felony if committed by an adult; or

3. A misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor that constitutes domestic violence pursuant to NRS 33.018,

Ê may not bring an action against the victim or the estate of the victim for injuries sustained by the offender or damage to property of the offender that occurred during the course of the crime or delinquent act.

(Added to NRS by 1985, 968; A 1989, 1453; 1997, 2, 1811)


Nice find, Bobby.

Keep in mind that the DA will plea bargain when it makes sense for the County. That means that if you defend yourself in a situation that to you, is clearly a felony or attempted felony, it needs to end in a CONVICTION of same. Too often, domestic violence and many felonies are plea bargained down to disturbing the peace, etc.

Just be careful how you read and interpret the statutes. Once again, every word in the statue constitutes statutory law. How the law is interpreted and apply by the justice system is case law.

All three branches of government are involved.
The legislative branch writes the statute and that is the law as written or as it is often referred to "the word of the law".
The judicial branch, in most cases, interprets the law and can make a judgment call on what they feel is the "spirit" of the law. The executive branch enforces the laws as directed by the CLEO and/or District Attorney in most cases. LEOs are under the umbrella of the executive branch of government and NOT the judicial branch as many mistakenly believe. The departments of corrections and prisons also fall under the executive branch.


This is why one should never call a local police or sheriff office to inquire about gun laws. ALWAYS contact the correct entity which in most cases is the state attorney general.

This past weekend, Maw and I ran into SinCityGlocker at the grand opening of the new Sportsman's Warehouse in Henderson and chuckled when we discovered that we both bought a copy of the same book.
It's the Traveler's Guide to the Firearm Laws of the Fifty States by J. Scott Kappas, Esquire.

It's very informative without going ridiculously into details and it's authored by an attorney. I plan to use this book many times in my CCW courses.




Paw:wavey:

This brief insight was brought to you courtesy of the San Diego Police Academy where I learned this the second day I was there.:wavey:

SinCityGlocker
09-17-2008, 13:35
Originally Posted by crazypilot View Post
Just wanted to throw this in.

NRS 41.135 Liability of victims of certain crimes limited for injuries to offender. A person who is convicted of committing or attempting to commit:

1. A felony;

2. An act that would have been a felony if committed by an adult; or

3. A misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor that constitutes domestic violence pursuant to NRS 33.018,

Ê may not bring an action against the victim or the estate of the victim for injuries sustained by the offender or damage to property of the offender that occurred during the course of the crime or delinquent act.

(Added to NRS by 1985, 968; A 1989, 1453; 1997, 2, 1811)






What would be the case if the perp was killed while trying to commit a felony, then his family sued you. I doubt the state would hold a trial to convict a dead man, just to protect a citizen from civil liability.

osiruscyn
09-17-2008, 13:48
what exactly do you mean by trying to commit a felony? generally, there are felony charges for attempting to commit a felony, therefore, you are commiting a felony.

There doesn't need to be a criminal trial to absolve you or civil liability, the fact that they were in the comission of a felony is enough to absolve you from civil liability.

SinCityGlocker
09-18-2008, 18:20
what exactly do you mean by trying to commit a felony? generally, there are felony charges for attempting to commit a felony, therefore, you are commiting a felony.

There doesn't need to be a criminal trial to absolve you or civil liability, the fact that they were in the comission of a felony is enough to absolve you from civil liability.

I mean a guy breaks into your house and you shoot him (per castle doctrine). If he dies, he will not be convicted of a felony (why bother). Would you still be able to be found civilly liable due to his not having been convicted of the felony he committed by breaking into your house.

osiruscyn
09-18-2008, 22:46
I mean a guy breaks into your house and you shoot him (per castle doctrine). If he dies, he will not be convicted of a felony (why bother). Would you still be able to be found civilly liable due to his not having been convicted of the felony he committed by breaking into your house.

nope, he was in the comission of multiple felonies (burglary, invasion of home, etc). The fact that he was in the comission of a felony absolves you from any civil liability.

jpa
09-18-2008, 23:13
nope, he was in the comission of multiple felonies (burglary, invasion of home, etc). The fact that he was in the comission of a felony absolves you from any civil liability.

Although proving they were in the commission of a felony is a lot easier if they are criminally convicted as well. Of course that kind of trial won't happen if the offender is dead, so I guess gathering witnesses as if it were a criminal trial would be in order if you were sued civilly.

osiruscyn
09-19-2008, 09:48
Although proving they were in the commission of a felony is a lot easier if they are criminally convicted as well. Of course that kind of trial won't happen if the offender is dead, so I guess gathering witnesses as if it were a criminal trial would be in order if you were sued civilly.

there will also be police reports, corner's reports, etc. that would already be there to back up your story. Plus the fact that some stranger is in your house, uninvited, and is lying dead on the floor negates the need for a criminal trial. He was in the comission of multiple felonies therefore he's the one that is ****ed.

rwschill
09-20-2008, 15:37
I agree this looks redundent but I have never seen Nevada mentioned as one of the states that has enacted the "castle doctrine" law. Why would this be if we already have a law on the books covering this? How has law enforcement intertputed this law in Nevada?

osiruscyn
09-21-2008, 00:17
I agree this looks redundent but I have never seen Nevada mentioned as one of the states that has enacted the "castle doctrine" law. Why would this be if we already have a law on the books covering this? How has law enforcement intertputed this law in Nevada?

Becuase it's already on the books and it isn't explicitly called "the castle doctrine" law.

As for how the police interpret it, it's in regards to civil liability after a justified shooting. The police aren't involved in the civil liability aspect of a case. However, they are involved in the ciminal aspect and how many home owners have you seen been arrested after the shot a home intruder? How many have you seen been prosecuted by the DA?

digitspaw
09-24-2008, 11:22
there will also be police reports, corner's reports, etc. that would already be there to back up your story. Plus the fact that some stranger is in your house, uninvited, and is lying dead on the floor negates the need for a criminal trial. He was in the comission of multiple felonies therefore he's the one that is ****ed.


I dunno about that. It's incumbent upon the state to prove true your last sentence. Otherwise, it's hearsay evidence. I certainly wouldn't bet the bank on this.
However, with a specific Castle Doctrine Law, (if written correctly) one can (in most cases) automatically assume that a stranger in the home is there to offer you harm.

That's just my opinion though. Along with a Castle Doctrine, I want a Stand Your Ground statute. That would nullify some of the ambiguities in the Nevada law regarding our duty to retreat.

It would sure make my classes a little easier to teach.:whistling:

osiruscyn
09-24-2008, 11:53
I dunno about that. It's incumbent upon the state to prove true your last sentence. Otherwise, it's hearsay evidence. I certainly wouldn't bet the bank on this.
However, with a specific Castle Doctrine Law, (if written correctly) one can (in most cases) automatically assume that a stranger in the home is there to offer you harm.

That's just my opinion though. Along with a Castle Doctrine, I want a Stand Your Ground statute. That would nullify some of the ambiguities in the Nevada law regarding our duty to retreat.

It would sure make my classes a little easier to teach.:whistling:

While it's true that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of someone comitting a crime, my example is far more than hearsay evidence. Hearsay evidence pertains to statements whether made in or out of court. It's actual physical evidence. With the totality of cicrcumstance surrounding the incident, police officers/detectives doing the preliminary investigation would be able to deduce that the person was not invited considering the time of day it occurs, relationship between victim and victim (that was done on purpose because i do not believe that the person who defends himself from an intruder should be considered a suspect and is in all actuality the true victim) and so on. Then when the case is referred to the DA he would be able to conclude that the intruder was there unlawfully and therefore in the comission of a home invasion and burglary and whatever other crimes were being comitted.

I cannot recall one case where the DA filed criminal charges against someone defending himself in his own home even when they did not retreat within the last 10 years. In addition, i have yet to hear of any civil cases being filed in those instances either.

1337-G
09-27-2008, 10:23
It goes beyond that even, at least here in the valley. There was a case last year where a guy shot someone in the process of coming in his window. The dirtbag wasn't even in the house yet, he was removing the screen from the outside of the window and the homeowner unloaded on him. There were no charges filed against the homeowner.

osiruscyn
09-27-2008, 11:22
It goes beyond that even, at least here in the valley. There was a case last year where a guy shot someone in the process of coming in his window. The dirtbag wasn't even in the house yet, he was removing the screen from the outside of the window and the homeowner unloaded on him. There were no charges filed against the homeowner.

exactly, or the case where the guy heard someone playing with his window, saw someone and shot through the window and killed the intruder, a 16 year old scum bag. Didn't even see the kid, just saw a head and shot once. Killed the kid. Never got charged.