convenient store? - Page 3
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 44

Thread: convenient store?

  1. #21
    CRIMINAL CODE
    CHAPTER 627
    JUSTIFICATION
    Section 627:4
    627:4 Physical Force in Defense of a Person. –
    I. A person is justified in using non-deadly force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person, and he may use a degree of such force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose. However, such force is not justifiable if:
    (a) With a purpose to cause physical harm to another person, he provoked the use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person; or
    (b) He was the initial aggressor, unless after such aggression he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so, but the latter notwithstanding continues the use or threat of unlawful, non-deadly force; or
    (c) The force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not authorized by law.
    II. A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person when he reasonably believes that such other person:
    (a) Is about to use unlawful, deadly force against the actor or a third person;
    (b) Is likely to use any unlawful force against a person present while committing or attempting to commit a burglary;
    (c) Is committing or about to commit kidnapping or a forcible sex offense; or
    (d) Is likely to use any unlawful force in the commission of a felony against the actor within such actor's dwelling or its curtilage.
    III. A person is not justified in using deadly force on another to defend himself or a third person from deadly force by the other if he knows that he and the third person can, with complete safety:
    (a) Retreat from the encounter, except that he is not required to retreat if he is within his dwelling or its curtilage and was not the initial aggressor; or
    (b) Surrender property to a person asserting a claim of right thereto; or
    (c) Comply with a demand that he abstain from performing an act which he is not obliged to perform; nor is the use of deadly force justifiable when, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, the actor has provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter.
    (d) If he is a law enforcement officer or a private person assisting him at his direction and was acting pursuant to RSA 627:5, he need not retreat.

    627:7 Use of Force in Defense of Premises. – A person in possession or control of premises or a person who is licensed or privileged to be thereon is justified in using non-deadly force upon another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate the commission of a criminal trespass by such other in or upon such premises, but he may use deadly force under such circumstances only in defense of a person as prescribed in RSA 627:4 or when he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent an attempt by the trespasser to commit arson

    627:8 Use of Force in Property Offenses. – A person is justified in using force upon another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what is or reasonably appears to be an unlawful taking of his property, or criminal mischief, or to retake his property immediately following its taking; but he may use deadly force under such circumstances only in defense of a person as prescribed in RSA 627:4.

    627:6 Physical Force by Persons With Special Responsibilities. –
    I. A parent, guardian or other person responsible for the general care and welfare of a minor is justified in using force against such minor when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or punish such minor's misconduct.
    II. (a) A teacher or person otherwise entrusted with the care or supervision of a minor for special purposes is justified on the premises in using necessary force against any such minor, when the minor creates a disturbance, or refuses to leave the premises or when it is necessary for the maintenance of discipline.
    (b) In a child care program licensed or exempt from licensure under RSA 170-E, necessary force shall be limited to the minimum physical contact necessary to protect the child, other children present, the staff, or the general public from harm.
    III. A person responsible for the general care and supervision of an incompetent person is justified in using force for the purpose of safeguarding his welfare, or, when such incompetent person is in an institution for his care and custody, for the maintenance of reasonable discipline in such institution.
    IV. The justification extended in paragraphs I, II, and III does not apply to the malicious or reckless use of force that creates a risk of death, serious bodily injury, or substantial pain.
    V. A person authorized by law to maintain decorum or safety in a vessel, aircraft, vehicle, train or other carrier, or in a place where others are assembled may use non-deadly force when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary for such purposes, but he may use deadly force only when he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury.
    VI. A person acting under a reasonable belief that another person is about to commit suicide or to inflict serious bodily injury upon himself may use a degree of force on such person as he reasonably believes to be necessary to thwart such a result.
    VII. A licensed physician, or a person acting under his or her direction, or an advanced registered nurse practitioner (ARNP) working for the department of corrections may use force for the purpose of administering a recognized form of treatment which he or she reasonably believes will tend to promote the physical or mental health of the patient, provided such treatment is administered:
    (a) With consent of the patient or, if the patient is a minor or incompetent person, with the consent of the person entrusted with his care and supervision; or
    (b) In an emergency when the physician or the advanced registered nurse practitioner (ARNP) reasonably believes that no one competent to consent can be consulted and that a reasonable person concerned for the welfare of the patient would consent.

    THEY MAY TAKE OUR LIVES BUT THEY'LL NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOM!!!!!

  2.   
  3. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    1,322
    Quote Originally Posted by S&WM&P40 View Post
    CRIMINAL CODE
    CHAPTER 627
    JUSTIFICATION
    Section 627:4
    627:4 Physical Force in Defense of a Person.
    I. A person is justified in using non-deadly force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person, and he may use a degree of such force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose. However, such force is not justifiable if:
    (a) With a purpose to cause physical harm to another person, he provoked the use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person; or
    (b) He was the initial aggressor, unless after such aggression he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so, but the latter notwithstanding continues the use or threat of unlawful, non-deadly force; or
    (c) The force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not authorized by law.
    II. A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person when he reasonably believes that such other person:
    (a) Is about to use unlawful, deadly force against the actor or a third person;
    (b) Is likely to use any unlawful force against a person present while committing or attempting to commit a burglary;
    (c) Is committing or about to commit kidnapping or a forcible sex offense; or
    (d) Is likely to use any unlawful force in the commission of a felony against the actor within such actor's dwelling or its curtilage.
    III. A person is not justified in using deadly force on another to defend himself or a third person from deadly force by the other if he knows that he and the third person can, with complete safety:
    (a) Retreat from the encounter, except that he is not required to retreat if he is within his dwelling or its curtilage and was not the initial aggressor; or
    (b) Surrender property to a person asserting a claim of right thereto; or
    (c) Comply with a demand that he abstain from performing an act which he is not obliged to perform; nor is the use of deadly force justifiable when, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, the actor has provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter.
    (d) If he is a law enforcement officer or a private person assisting him at his direction and was acting pursuant to RSA 627:5, he need not retreat.

    627:7 Use of Force in Defense of Premises. A person in possession or control of premises or a person who is licensed or privileged to be thereon is justified in using non-deadly force upon another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate the commission of a criminal trespass by such other in or upon such premises, but he may use deadly force under such circumstances only in defense of a person as prescribed in RSA 627:4 or when he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent an attempt by the trespasser to commit arson

    627:8 Use of Force in Property Offenses. A person is justified in using force upon another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what is or reasonably appears to be an unlawful taking of his property, or criminal mischief, or to retake his property immediately following its taking; but he may use deadly force under such circumstances only in defense of a person as prescribed in RSA 627:4.

    627:6 Physical Force by Persons With Special Responsibilities.
    I. A parent, guardian or other person responsible for the general care and welfare of a minor is justified in using force against such minor when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or punish such minor's misconduct.
    II. (a) A teacher or person otherwise entrusted with the care or supervision of a minor for special purposes is justified on the premises in using necessary force against any such minor, when the minor creates a disturbance, or refuses to leave the premises or when it is necessary for the maintenance of discipline.
    (b) In a child care program licensed or exempt from licensure under RSA 170-E, necessary force shall be limited to the minimum physical contact necessary to protect the child, other children present, the staff, or the general public from harm.
    III. A person responsible for the general care and supervision of an incompetent person is justified in using force for the purpose of safeguarding his welfare, or, when such incompetent person is in an institution for his care and custody, for the maintenance of reasonable discipline in such institution.
    IV. The justification extended in paragraphs I, II, and III does not apply to the malicious or reckless use of force that creates a risk of death, serious bodily injury, or substantial pain.
    V. A person authorized by law to maintain decorum or safety in a vessel, aircraft, vehicle, train or other carrier, or in a place where others are assembled may use non-deadly force when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary for such purposes, but he may use deadly force only when he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury.
    VI. A person acting under a reasonable belief that another person is about to commit suicide or to inflict serious bodily injury upon himself may use a degree of force on such person as he reasonably believes to be necessary to thwart such a result.
    VII. A licensed physician, or a person acting under his or her direction, or an advanced registered nurse practitioner (ARNP) working for the department of corrections may use force for the purpose of administering a recognized form of treatment which he or she reasonably believes will tend to promote the physical or mental health of the patient, provided such treatment is administered:
    (a) With consent of the patient or, if the patient is a minor or incompetent person, with the consent of the person entrusted with his care and supervision; or
    (b) In an emergency when the physician or the advanced registered nurse practitioner (ARNP) reasonably believes that no one competent to consent can be consulted and that a reasonable person concerned for the welfare of the patient would consent.
    What state is this from? Thx.

  4. #23
    This is from New Hampshire Code.. Is yours the same out in NV?

    THEY MAY TAKE OUR LIVES BUT THEY'LL NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOM!!!!!

  5. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Green Valley (Henderson) NV
    Posts
    853
    Quote Originally Posted by S&WM&P40 View Post
    This is from New Hampshire Code.. Is yours the same out in NV?
    It's similar.

    NV justifiable homicide statutes are NRS 202.120 through NRS 202.200 inclusive and NRS 202.275. The language is a bit archaic as the original justifiable homicide statutes were adopted in 1911.

    We also have civil suit immunity for domicile defense under NRS 41.095 and thus a castle doctrine. We do not have a stand your ground statute yet.
    Know the law; don't ask, don't tell.
    NRA & UT Certified Instructor; CT, FL, NH, NV, OR, PA & UT CCW Holder
    Happy new 1984; 25 years behind schedule. Send lawyers, guns and money...the SHTF...

  6. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    1,322
    Quote Originally Posted by S&WM&P40 View Post
    This is from New Hampshire Code.. Is yours the same out in NV?
    I've read thru the Nevada NRS202.x code pertaining to firearms and concealed carry but I cant find anything that governs the issue of when or where to shoot or not to shoot. I also went thru all the paperwork from class;nada. I'm still looking.

  7. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    1,322
    I read thru the Nevada NRS code sections a bit more thoroughly and found the following. I can not find anything pertaining to shooting in the back or defending a third party. I'm still looking...



    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 his own life, or to prevent his 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]

  8. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    1,322
    Upon further reading I found the answer addressing the defense of a third party. See #1:
    I'm still researching shooting in the back.


    NRS 200.160 Additional cases of justifiable homicide. Homicide is also justifiable when committed:

    1. In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

    2. In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode in which he is.

    [1911 C&P 133; A 1931, 160; 1931 NCL 10080]—(NRS A 1993, 932)
    Last edited by gdcleanfun; 10-21-2008 at 05:01 PM.

  9. #28
    Mother of god... I think it's time they updated your laws for the 21st Century. You have to be a lawyer to understand that talk lol. There is no Black and White with your laws it's like all Gray matter lol. There is no "if he pulls a knife you can kill him". That's why i keep saying i would/need to fully understand all the laws before i would pull the trigger. I am a family man so yes on one hand i want to stay alive and b around for my family. On the other hand it does not do them much good to come see me behind class for years because the system says. What i did was murder under state laws and as such i am going to jail " Do not pass go". On a whole from reading and trying to under stand the laws in my state. From every thing that i have read it looks like i would be in the clear if something like this happened. That does not mean i turn into the guy from the movie's "Death Wish" and take it upon my self to clean up the city. That's why i say know the laws and really think about it "If you have time to do so" before pulling the trigger. Because in a heart beat you can end up being the Bad Guy.

    THEY MAY TAKE OUR LIVES BUT THEY'LL NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOM!!!!!

  10. convenient store

    In the scenarion you gave, the BG has already committed the crime of Assault with a Deadly Weapon, He is also committing the crime of Armed Robbery. I was once asked what I would have done if I had been at the Luby's in Killeen, TX the day the guy murdered all those people. Had I been there, I would like to think that a lot fewer people would have died, as I would have put two .45 rounds in the perp's X-ring. The question over where on the body of the BG your rounds impacted are not worth thinking about, No one is going to fault you if you are only in a position to hit the BG in the back. If he is pointing a gun at other people and demanding the money, he is bought and paid for. I would shoot him anyplace I could get a bead on, and I would try to shoot whiole he was talking, It has been proved you cannot talk and shoot at the same time.. As a trainee cop, I was taught to nail the BG while he was running his mouth, before he could shift gears to trigger pulling mode. A friend of mine had something happen, his fiancee walked to the convenience store to buy some cigs when a Mexican National grabbed her and pulled her into the entrance of a law office, where he broke her arm and tried to rape her. She managed to get her French .32 Auto out of her purse and shoot him through the neck. He tried to tell the police she attacked him, then tried saying she approached him to buy dope, then attacked him. She was not charged, and they even gave her gun back to her. He was sentenced to the California Prison system, then will be deported when released.
    A man without a gun is a subject; a man with a gun is a citizen.
    I'll keep my freedom, my guns and my money. You can keep THE CHANGE.
    An armed society is a polite society.

  11. #30
    boyzoi Guest
    is it honestly a question.................shoot the /sob.........the deader the better

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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