Good News for Nevadans

whyipackmy45 · August 25th, 2008, 07:23 PM

ReviewJournal.com - Breaking News - Lawmaker wants to allow homeowners to use deadly force against attacker

Quote:

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."

Shotdown · August 25th, 2008, 07:37 PM

Yes

.

whyipackmy45 · August 25th, 2008, 07:44 PM

I wonder if it will include immunity from civil suits. That's very important too.

retsupt99 · August 26th, 2008, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whyipackmy45

I wonder if it will include immunity from civil suits. That's very important too.

Regardless of the law...I say this carefully, wouldn't one defend his home and family, anyway? What else could you do...allow BG's to harm your loved ones? I'm not promoting anything illegal, but the human spirit would require one to 'naturally' defend loved ones, no matter what.

I would add that the immunity from civil suits for defending yourself or family from BG's, which then prevents criminals then suing the victims for being harmed (by their victims)...is an important point in this doctrine.
This is more important than the doctrine giving one the "OK" to defend a home...most would do it any...am I wrong?

Go NV...

Stay armed...guard the home...stay safe!

MsXD9 · August 26th, 2008, 02:49 AM

Nice to know this especially being a Nevadan myself. But, if necessary I agree most would use whatever force would be necessary to stop the threat!

dukalmighty · August 26th, 2008, 05:39 AM

I remember when I was an LEO in KS. in the 80's if somebody forced their way into your home and you had a means to escape you had to run out of your own house and could only defend yourself if there was no way to escape and you were being attacked with deadly force,and I thought that's the dumbest thing I ever heard what moron came up with that law, a career burglar

whyipackmy45 · August 26th, 2008, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by retsupt99

most would do it any...am I wrong?

Sure would. But it would be nice to have the laws on our side, instead of on the criminals' side.

whyipackmy45 · August 27th, 2008, 01:35 PM

Here are some more links:

Law May Allow Homeowner To Shoot Intruder - Las Vegas News Story - KVVU Las Vegas

Castle Doctrine Inspires Heated Debate - Las Vegas News Story - KVVU Las Vegas

Metro Talks About Possible 'Castle' Law - Las Vegas News Story - KVVU Las Vegas

Sheldon J · August 28th, 2008, 12:24 AM

Michigan castle law was upgraded a while back, you were solid in your home but no place else, you had a duty to retreat, Now it applies to any place you have a legal right to be, and the duty to retreat has been removed, and that is the way it should be, you should be able to defend your family and self without having to try and run your self into a state of hysteria first.

MIrefuge · August 30th, 2008, 01:55 AM

From the Nevada Revised Statutes:

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)

Hopefully this rep is trying to expand this to outside of the home. I'd like to see that actual text of what is being proposed, and make sure this isn't some sneak attack to weaken the existing law.

August 25th, 2008, 07:37 PM	#2
Shotdown Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 126	Yes . __________________ http://militarysignatures.com/signatures/member1484.png

August 25th, 2008, 07:44 PM	#3
whyipackmy45 Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 402	I wonder if it will include immunity from civil suits. That's very important too. __________________ That's right, this sweet baby was made in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Retails for about a hundred and nine, ninety five. It's got a walnut stock, cobalt blue steel, and a hair trigger. That's right. Shop smart. Shop S-Mart. You got that? http://www.nevadashooters.com

August 26th, 2008, 02:49 AM	#5
MsXD9 Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 54	Nice to know this especially being a Nevadan myself. But, if necessary I agree most would use whatever force would be necessary to stop the threat! __________________ MsXD9 "When seconds count police are minutes away"!

August 26th, 2008, 05:39 AM	#6
dukalmighty VIP Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: texas Posts: 3,425	I remember when I was an LEO in KS. in the 80's if somebody forced their way into your home and you had a means to escape you had to run out of your own house and could only defend yourself if there was no way to escape and you were being attacked with deadly force,and I thought that's the dumbest thing I ever heard what moron came up with that law, a career burglar __________________ I like Poetry,Long Walks On The Beach,And Poking Dead Things With A Stick

August 27th, 2008, 01:35 PM	#8
whyipackmy45 Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 402	Here are some more links: Law May Allow Homeowner To Shoot Intruder - Las Vegas News Story - KVVU Las Vegas Castle Doctrine Inspires Heated Debate - Las Vegas News Story - KVVU Las Vegas Metro Talks About Possible 'Castle' Law - Las Vegas News Story - KVVU Las Vegas __________________ That's right, this sweet baby was made in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Retails for about a hundred and nine, ninety five. It's got a walnut stock, cobalt blue steel, and a hair trigger. That's right. Shop smart. Shop S-Mart. You got that? http://www.nevadashooters.com

August 28th, 2008, 12:24 AM	#9
Sheldon J Distinguished Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Battle Creek, Mi. Posts: 1,686	Michigan castle law was upgraded a while back, you were solid in your home but no place else, you had a duty to retreat, Now it applies to any place you have a legal right to be, and the duty to retreat has been removed, and that is the way it should be, you should be able to defend your family and self without having to try and run your self into a state of hysteria first. __________________ "The sword dose not cause the murder, and the maker of the sword dose not bear sin" Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac 11th century

August 30th, 2008, 01:55 AM	#10
MIrefuge New Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Sparks, Nevada Posts: 12	This is Already Law From the Nevada Revised Statutes: 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) Hopefully this rep is trying to expand this to outside of the home. I'd like to see that actual text of what is being proposed, and make sure this isn't some sneak attack to weaken the existing law. __________________ "We have every right to dream heroic dreams" - Ronald Reagen, 1st inaugural Address

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode