• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Question

DooFster

DooFster

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
445
Location
Nellis AFB, Nevada
Here's a hypothetical situation:

Say "Old Lady Smith" is walking down the street and I am OC'ing. All of the sudden, I see that she's now getting mugged and is in a situation where her life counts on a decision that needs to be made. Am I allowed to defend her by taking the mugger out, saving "Old Lady Smith", or am I supposed to let her go, keeping myself from being in violation of any NV state law? Since I "saved" OLS, I'm thinking it'd be 100% acceptable but something also tells me I would be convicted of a crime of some sort...

The wife and I were discussing a similar situation (hypothetical of course) and the question came up...

Any input?

DooF
 
Last edited:
S

Steve Larson

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
83
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
DooFster said:
Here's a hypothetical situation:

Say "Old Lady Smith" is walking down the street and I am OC'ing. All of the sudden, I see that she's now getting mugged and is in a situation where her life counts on a decision that needs to be made. Am I allowed to defend her by taking the mugger out, saving "Old Lady Smith", or am I supposed to let her go, keeping myself from being in violation of any NV state law? Since I "saved" OLS, I'm thinking it'd be 100% acceptable but something also tells me I would be convicted of a crime of some sort...

The wife and I were discussing a similar situation (hypothetical of course) and the question came up...

Any input?

DooF
Click to expand...

Would "defense of a third person" not still be considered "self defense" as it is in most jurisdictions U.S and Canada?
 
MAC702

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
Yes.

If the defense is lawful, it can be to save anyone in your company or presence. This is actually one of the test questions in the CCW class.

But you had better be damned sure you know what is going on if you get involved.
 
Last edited:
battleborn

battleborn

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
49
Location
United States
This is not legal advice.

Here is the Nevada Revised Statute on Justifiable Homicide...

NRS 200.120 “Justifiable homicide” defined; no duty to retreat under certain circumstances.
1. 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.
2. A person is not required to retreat before using deadly force as provided in subsection 1 if the person:
(a) Is not the original aggressor;
(b) Has a right to be present at the location where deadly force is used; and
(c) Is not actively engaged in conduct in furtherance of criminal activity at the time deadly force is used.
[1911 C&P § 129; RL § 6394; NCL § 10076]—(NRS A 1983, 518; 2011, 265)
Click to expand...

Additionally here is the statute governing "Self Defense"

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 the person’s own life, or to prevent the person from 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]
Click to expand...
 
W

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
The Big Guy said:
Seems the 2 statutes are somewhat at odds with each other.

TBG
Click to expand...

Not really.

One statute is 'justifiable homicide,' and covers the action to stop a felony in progress.

The other statute speaks of 'self defense'.

200.200 presents the legal definition of one element covered under 'justifiable homicide.' Specifically, " Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in necessary self-defense, or "
from 200.120.
 
Last edited:
MAC702

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
wrightme said:
Not really.

One statute is 'justifiable homicide,' and covers the action to stop a felony in progress.

The other statute speaks of 'self defense'.

200.200 presents the legal definition of one element covered under 'justifiable homicide.' Specifically, " Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in necessary self-defense, or "
from 200.120.
Click to expand...

Thank you! I was racking my brain trying to think of a succinct way to highlight the difference.
 
T

tonnere

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2010
Messages
13
Location
Las Vegas, NV
When stepping in to protect a third party, like Mrs. Smith, you essentially step in to their shoes. Be certain that person was not the aggressor. If you stepped in to defend someone that was unknown at the time to be the initial aggressor, your actions would no longer be defensible.
 
C

crash5150

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2010
Messages
76
Location
Sacramento, CA
I'd let old lady smith fight on her own, be a good witness, and call the police. It isn't my job to protect other that choose to not protect themselves AND I wouldn't loose everything to save a stranger.
 
MAC702

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
The only detail that matters if it is "lawful self-defense." And the only problem with intervening is knowing the FULL situation. But no one can tell you what you should or should not do.
 
B

bigguyswife

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
67
Location
Henderson
Just because she's 80 plus and frail doesn't mean she can't defend herself by owning and carrying a gun. I plan to OC when I'm 80 (I have a few years to wait) as long as its still legal!

Stephanie
the big guys wife
 
W

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
bigguyswife said:
Just because she's 80 plus and frail doesn't mean she can't defend herself by owning and carrying a gun. I plan to OC when I'm 80 (I have a few years to wait) as long as its still legal!

Stephanie
the big guys wife
Click to expand...

A simple choice she makes to NOT carry a firearm does not make her worth not defending if a person does have the the means.
 
B

bigguyswife

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
67
Location
Henderson
I never meant to imply that she's not worth defending please don't even suggest that's what I meant. I'd be the first person to come to her defense if she was in trouble.

Stephanie
the big guys wife
 
M

Merlin

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
487
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
This was a topic well covered in my ccw class back in the 90s. The main thing that I took away from it is to be absolutely certain you know what is happening. The example I recall was being behind someone in line at the c store, and the guy in front of you pulls a gun...(BANG)....on his buddy who is working the register that day. Prank-fail.
Sent from my Windows Phone using Board Express
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top