convenient store?


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.
 

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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]
 
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:
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.
 
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. :triniti:
 
is it honestly a question.................shoot the /sob.........the deader the better
 
Man, there are alot of laws out there just to answer this question. Can you imagine, You're in the store (from the original posting scenario) and depending on which state you're from you have all these laws running in your head! Hmm, let me see now....I can shoot only if he is holding the weapon over the counter instead of behind it; or maybe I cannot shoot because the BG is holding a weapon in one hand and the money in the other which now makes the BG handicapped? Or the BG has a hearing problem and doesn't know You're there which now the BG cannot hear you as that .45 comes out of your holster to blow the BG away! Are we allowed too shoot BG's on Leap Year (thought I saw that somewhere :rolleyes:? Nahhhh, shoot em up and hopefully you'll have a good lawyer. :dance3:
 
I disagree. I sure don't want to go to jail and sort it out later. I'd throw something to make noise or shout something, and when they turn back toward me then I'd shoot. I don't want to be Monday-morning-quarterbacking from a jail cell. I want to know what the law says ahead of time. Like the commercial says, "Don't hope so, know so."
 
Last edited:
"I want to know what the law says ahead of time"/gdcleanfun.
So don't the rest of us..................
I was busting balls at the end of my previous post :biggrin:.
 
I disagree. I sure don't want to go to jail and sort it out later. I'd throw something to make noise or shout something, and when they turn back toward me then I'd shoot. I don't want to be Monday-morning-quarterbacking from a jail cell. I want to know what the law says ahead of time. Like the commercial says, "Don't hope so, know so."

THANK YOU GOD!!!! Some one who thinks like me THANK YOU for posting that. Every one on here is great but they all seem to just want to shoot first. I mean shit i would to and i like being alive but I DO NOT HAVE MONEY FOR A GOOD LAWYER. So i would be stuck with a PD ( Public Defender) Who would tell me all this shit and get me to plead out to murder 1. Then following what my lawyer says i would and end up in jail for like 40 to life or some crap. I want to come home to see my family again ( I cant do it if (1, I'M dead 2, I am in jail for most of my life) All said in done i take life over death and would pull the trigger.
 
I disagree. I sure don't want to go to jail and sort it out later. I'd throw something to make noise or shout something, and when they turn back toward me then I'd shoot. I don't want to be Monday-morning-quarterbacking from a jail cell. I want to know what the law says ahead of time. Like the commercial says, "Don't hope so, know so."
If you elect to use lethal force you need to be prepared to possibly go to jail for your actions while it's being sorted out. That is a given. That's part of the good, bad and the ugly of lawful CCW.
 
THANK YOU GOD!!!! Some one who thinks like me THANK YOU for posting that. Every one on here is great but they all seem to just want to shoot first. I mean shit i would to and i like being alive but I DO NOT HAVE MONEY FOR A GOOD LAWYER. So i would be stuck with a PD ( Public Defender) Who would tell me all this shit and get me to plead out to murder 1. Then following what my lawyer says i would and end up in jail for like 40 to life or some crap. I want to come home to see my family again ( I cant do it if (1, I'M dead 2, I am in jail for most of my life) All said in done i take life over death and would pull the trigger.

I don't think many of us on here have the shot first mentality. I think the majority of us have researched the laws in our area and keep up with the changes. Like I said, Florida has Stand your ground laws, laws to protect you in the defense of a third party, law allowing lethal force to stop a forcible felony, and laws to protect you from civil suits from the BGs family after a justified shooting. According to what I've read, many times, in the Florida statute and the scenario you described I do not yell, scream, announce, or get the BG attention in anyway. As soon as his attention is diverted I stop the threat!

One thing to remember, if you get the BG attention and don't drop him on that first shot he IS going to shot back.

Also, if you get a chance watch some of Tactical Responses tactical handgun video's. Yager goes through this exact scenario. I think you'll be surprised at how he would handle the situation.
 
I don't think many of us on here have the shot first mentality. I think the majority of us have researched the laws in our area and keep up with the changes. Like I said, Florida has Stand your ground laws, laws to protect you in the defense of a third party, law allowing lethal force to stop a forcible felony, and laws to protect you from civil suits from the BGs family after a justified shooting. According to what I've read, many times, in the Florida statute and the scenario you described I do not yell, scream, announce, or get the BG attention in anyway. As soon as his attention is diverted I stop the threat!

One thing to remember, if you get the BG attention and don't drop him on that first shot he IS going to shot back.

Also, if you get a chance watch some of Tactical Responses tactical handgun video's. Yager goes through this exact scenario. I think you'll be surprised at how he would handle the situation.

I found his web site (Tactical Response) and registered, but there is A LOT of information to sift through. Too bad for me he's located on the other side of the lower 48. I was wondering if you could provide a link to the video that addresses this scenario. Are the videos free? Thx!
 
I found his web site (Tactical Response) and registered, but there is A LOT of information to sift through. Too bad for me he's located on the other side of the lower 48. I was wondering if you could provide a link to the video that addresses this scenario. Are the videos free? Thx!

I'll see if i can find the clip or atleast the name of the video. I beleive its just his tactical pistol video but I'll double check. A buddy of mine bought the video and let me barrow it. It had a lot of great info and worth watching. Also Clint Smith is another name to look up. He has a few good pistol and carbine videos out.
 
Your right KImber that came across wrong. Sorry for that..


No biggy. I knew what you were getting at. I just didn't want some new reading it and thinking we are a bunch of shot first ask questions later type. No food for the anti! lol
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,542
Messages
611,259
Members
74,964
Latest member
sigsag1
Back
Top