Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Bill proposed to strengthen right to use deadly force against intruders

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV, ,
    Posts
    433

    Post imported post

    http://www.lvrj.com/news/27425129.html


    CARSON CITY -- A state lawmaker wants Nevada to adopt a legal doctrine strengthening a homeowner's right to use deadly force to protect someone's life from an intruder. A bill draft request to implement the "castle doctrine" was 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 person's life without any duty to retreat from the attacker. It clarifies that a homeowner does not have a duty to retreat in the face of a robbery or break-in. 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 Monday. "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." Mortenson's request was one of several new measures listed by the Legislature's Web site on Monday. The request comes just as a poll conducted for the Review-Journal was released showing that 14 percent of Nevadans view the state's gun control laws as too strict, 41 percent say they are not strict enough, and 38 percent view them as adequate. The remainder were not sure. Mortenson said he keeps weapons in his home but does not have a concealed weapons permit.

    No specific incident prompted the bill request, but the lawmaker noted a recent rash of burglaries in his neighborhood. "It just seems to me the homeowner is at a disadvantage if he is invaded and he's impeded by the thought that if he protects himself, he may end up in jail for the rest of his life," Mortenson said. If potential burglars or robbers know they might be confronted with an armed homeowner, the law might serve as a little bit of a deterrent, he said. Contact Capital Bureau reporter Sean Whaley at swhaley@reviewjournal.com or 775-687-3900.
    i thought we had a castle doctrine type law on the books?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927

    Post imported post

    I don't think NV has a real "castle doctrine" law on the books.

    On this subject, our DA has always said "NV law isn't real bad, but needs to be strengthened."

    I sure hope Mr Mortenson's bill is good and will be passed! Am anxious to see a copy of it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sparks, NV, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    471

    Post imported post

    Every time the sheriff or police would talk to us in our classes (growing up in Sparks, NV), they always somehow made it a point to tell us we are well within our rights to blow away a BG who's broken into our home. And sometimes, they were as literal and to the point to actually say "blow him away"... That always made me feel good as a kid.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV, ,
    Posts
    433

    Post imported post

    do our current laws protect the homeowner from civil suits?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Carson City, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    344

    Post imported post

    yeahYeah wrote:
    do our current laws protect the homeowner from civil suits?
    Yes, and we have the equivelent of the Castle Doctrine:

    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)


  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas NV, ,
    Posts
    1,763

    Post imported post

    Loneviking wrote:
    yeahYeah wrote:
    do our current laws protect the homeowner from civil suits?
    Yes, and we have the equivelent of the Castle Doctrine:

    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)




    Well almost. It really does not extend to our cars because we do not live in them.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Carson City, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    344

    Post imported post

    No, but outside the home we have this:

    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,

    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)



  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Carson City, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    344

    Post imported post

    So, why is someone introducing a Castle Doctrine bill in the next session? It looks like we are pretty well covered from liablity...

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927

    Post imported post

    I reckon we'll have to wait for the draft bill in order to determine the difference between it and the current law.

    I'mno expert on current law. But I have heard it said our current law could/should be better. Perhaps this new bill will enhance current law.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •