Can you just shoot a BG without saying anything to him first?

imported post

We-the-People wrote:

DVC wrote:

Felid`Maximus wrote:

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...

Click to expand...

There is your legal requirement to warn before shooting. "Mortal blow" is any mechanism which proves to be the cause of death.

Mitigating circumstances would be if the BG is in the process of the actual assault (such as raising is gun to fire), giving you no time to issue a warning or him no time to react to one.

Ever seen the William Shatner clip where his TV character is being mugged, then pulls a pistol and shoots the mugger? He gives warning, announcing that he has a gun, but gives the BG no time to react because the BG is holding a gun on him. He then shoots twice, stopping when the threat has been reduced.

Click to expand...

ONE You are mis reading section two of the statute. What the part that is boldedis saying is that if the person who ORIGINALLY instigated the situation (the original assailant) makes a good faith effort to stop his attack but is then faced with deadly force from the person he attacked (or a concerned OCer) he may then defend his own life and be justified in exerting deadly force.

This one is VERY tough for an attacker to prove in court but with all the video soruces out there these days, it's not inconceivable. This concept is apparent in many state statutes.

As for the William Shatner character, it is "Denney Crane" from the show "Boston Legal" and it was three shots. It's a favorite. "Watch, wallet, gun, left foot, right foot, knee". It's funny but it is NOT a very smart move....it should have been "Watch, wallet, gun, center mass, center mass, center mass"

Click to expand...

Agreed on the TV clip, but you are wrong on the law. The words "assailant" and "slayer" are divided by the word "or" -- meaning that they are not necessarily the same person. The law says that it EITHER must appear that the victim is the assailant OR is must appear that the slayer tried to de-escalate the situation.

imported post

I disagree, and so would just about any lawyer, defense or prosecution, on the meaning of the law.

What it is saying is that "The person killed was the assailant" - simple enough, the bad guy got killed.

the "OR" means that if it is not the assailant that gets killed (if it's not the assailant it is the one either assaulted or someone coming to their defense) that the SLAYER (who is now the original assailant) must have attempted to end the assault (i.e. disengage or surrender).

Like I said, it's a common concept in the laws of many states. Ifthe bad guy shoots someone then throws down the gun and says "I give up"he has made a good faith effort (threw down the gun and yelled surrender) to disengage and therefore the threat has ended and you can not employ deadly force. NOTE: he doesn't have to throw down the gun necessarilly but if it's still in his hand there is an argument to be made that he is still a threat.

You simply aren't allowed to employforce (deadly or otherwise) against someone who has communicated IN GOOD FAITH that he wants to stop his attack.

An example that gets people in trouble. Someone starts a fight, knocks you around a bit (or a lot) and knocks you down then says "I'm done with you" and starts to walk away. The LAW (in general every state is different to some extent) says that at that point he has stopped his attack and if you then come at him and attack him, you are not covered by "self defense" statutes as you are now committing a new assault.

Some jurisdictions allow the use of force to arrest the original assailant, depending on how they are worded and the severity of the original crime.

Disagree all you like, but if you parse the sentence, you see that I'm right.

Essentially, the idea is that the original assailant was killed (defense in the act), OR that the person who DID kill someone tried to avoid doing so ("Don't make me shoot you!"), giving the victim a chance to save his or her life.

The word "OR," when found in the law, separates individual persons, actions, etc. For instance, if the title on your car says Jack AND Jill, then both must sign to transfer the car -- if it says Jack OR Jill, then either can sell it.

Likewise, "assailant" and "slayer" are not equal terms. One is a person who attacks, the other is a person who kills.

In this case, the law is making a distinction between the original assailant OR the slayer. Your reading is that the law says "if the victim is the original assailant, or if the original assailant tried to de-escalate. . ." but doesn't give that protection to a victim.

The way the law is written, WHOMEVER the slayer is, if they tried to de-escalate, then that part of the requirement is satisfied.

It would be rude to shoot him without asking him to turn around and introducing yourself first.










.

Firearm aimed at someone = shoot first ask questions later.

firearm displayed, but not yet aimed = warn, then shoot. It doesn't say how long you have to give the assailant to comply with your warning.