• 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.

Bill proposed to strengthen right to use deadly force against intruders

yeahYeah

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
433
Location
Las Vegas, NV, ,
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?
 

varminter22

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
927
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
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.
 

jfrey123

Regular Member
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
468
Location
Sparks, NV, Nevada, USA
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. :lol:
 

Loneviking

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2008
Messages
344
Location
Carson City, Nevada, USA
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)
 

Vegassteve

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
1,763
Location
Las Vegas NV, ,
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.
 

Loneviking

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2008
Messages
344
Location
Carson City, Nevada, USA
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)
 

varminter22

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
927
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
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.
 
Top