Homeowner pleads not guilty to murder of unarmed trespassers in Nevada

[chrisj1968]

Stand your ground would only apply if they attacked him first and he had to defend himself. Them simply being in a property he owns (he wasn't living there and was not on the property when the people arrived) then no, he does NOT have the right to shoot them dead. That's only if he tries the make them leave peacefully and they attack him (even if they refuse to leave, if they are not hostile he has NO right to shoot them).

 

One of two scenarios happened here:

 

1) He arrived and asked them to leave, they became hostile and he defended himself. - THIS IS LEGAL IN NEVADA AND MANY OTHER STATES

2) He arrived, maybe asked them to leave, and shot them, killing one and injuring the other. - THIS IS ILLEGAL AS HE IS THE AGGRESSOR AND THEREFORE STAND YOUR GROUND DOES NOT APPLY

 

Not enough info to plainly state one way or the other. Fact is too much info is missing at this point, and what the man did may have been murder, not stand your ground.

 

Not in Nevada.California for example, you'd have to fear for your life. Nevada, anyone who enters your home.. they're goners. if it were squatters in an empty home of yours, you have no idea if they are armed. besides, it still constitutes "that persons home and personal property." clear and simple! now, they they were to run out, vacating said premises, then you have to let them go. you can only shoot someone in your home. gotta remember, the laws of this state are because we are a mining state. so our laws are alot better in terms of self defense. I cannot see this person getting found guilty unless a liberal anti gun judge decides to find him guilty. however

 

 

 

NRS 244.364, NRS 268.418, and NRS 269.222 state that the legislature reserves to itself the right to regulate the transfer, sale, purchase, possession, ownership, transportation, registration and licensing of firearms and ammunition in Nevada, and that no county, city or town respectively may infringe upon these rights. (emphasis added)

 

so if he IS found guilty, the homeowner can appeal and win because the judge violated state laws listed at the above mentioned Nevada laws.and Nevada's constitution:

 

 

?Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.?

Article 1, Section 11, Paragraph 1

[Nagisan]

Not in Nevada.California for example, you'd have to fear for your life.

Really? Funny, the Nevada law I found and quoted earlier read differently:

 

 

NRS?200.120???Justifiable homicide? defined; no duty to retreat under certain circumstances.

 

      1.??Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of habitation, property or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against any person or persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein.

      2.??A person is not required to retreat before using deadly force as provided in subsection 1 if the person:

      (a.)?Is not the original aggressor;

      (b.)?Has a right to be present at the location where deadly force is used; and

      (c.)?Is not actively engaged in conduct in furtherance of criminal activity at the time deadly force is used.

Note section two.....it clearly says you are not required to retreat before using deadly force IF you meet parts a, b, and c......therefore if the squatters did NOT attack him first, he does NOT meet the qualification for section 2 part a, meaning he did NOT have the right to shoot them.

 

EDIT: Here's more to the story, seems it is quite an old story, interesting excerpt:

 

 

Burgarello entered the duplex with a .357 Smith and Wesson and a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun in each hand as Lilla followed behind, Lilla told police.

 

As he approached the duplex, Burgarello told Lilla, "Shhh, don't make any noise," the affidavit said.

 

As he entered the home, Burgarello said, "If anybody's in here, I'm the owner, you better not be in here, this is a private property, and nobody better be in here," the affidavit said.

 

As Burgarello approached the bedroom, Devine said, "We are just sleeping," as he started to get up from the ground on his elbows, Wilson told police.

 

The bedroom was dark with a blanket covering the window, Burgarello told police. Devine was under blankets, Wilson said.

 

Lilla then told police he heard "numerous gunshots, a pause, and then a final gunshot," the affidavit said.

 

Apparently the guy was on the floor under blankets and was attempting to get up when he was shot. If any of you have ever been woken from mid sleep, you can imagine how confusing and disorienting it may be to see someone approaching you with guns drawn, you might not know what the ###### is going on and possibly react in an odd way.

 

Fact is the guy was on the floor when he was shot.

[Buttus]

does anyone know if maybe he did call the cops previously, and they did go to the house and it was empty?   Just because squatters are living there doesn't mean that they are there 24/7.

 

maybe he went to the house and no one was there, so he went inside.  then, while he was inside, the squatters came back, and he felt threatened.

 

lots of conclusions being made here with no evidence....

[Nagisan]

does anyone know if maybe he did call the cops previously, and they did go to the house and it was empty?   Just because squatters are living there doesn't mean that they are there 24/7.

 

maybe he went to the house and no one was there, so he went inside.  then, while he was inside, the squatters came back, and he felt threatened.

 

lots of conclusions being made here with no evidence....

According to the additional story I found, they were in the house, he went in with weapons drawn, and ended up shooting a man who was waking up from a slumber. Police were never notified until after the shooting, and it doesn't sound like the owner of the property was the one it call, it was the person who told him there were squatters in his vacant property.

[chrisj1968]

Quote

 

NRS?200.120???Justifiable homicide? defined; no duty to retreat under certain circumstances.

     

1.??Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of habitation, property or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against any person or persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein.

      2.??A person is not required to retreat before using deadly force as provided in subsection 1 if the person:

      (a.)?Is not the original aggressor;

      (b.)?Has a right to be present at the location where deadly force is used; and

      (c.)?Is not actively engaged in conduct in furtherance of criminal activity at the time deadly force is used.

 

 

 

Emphasis mine. it is his/her property and in defense of such property. so he was clearly defending his habitation or property.

[chrisj1968]

does anyone know if maybe he did call the cops previously, and they did go to the house and it was empty?   Just because squatters are living there doesn't mean that they are there 24/7.

 

maybe he went to the house and no one was there, so he went inside.  then, while he was inside, the squatters came back, and he felt threatened.

 

lots of conclusions being made here with no evidence....

 

also clearly trespassing. entering a dwelling that doesn't belong to you is breaking and entering. squatters only endeavor is to steal a home to get a free lodging. that's a crime in itself.

 

also this use of lethal force law http://lasvegas.informermg.com/2014/08/06/lethal-force-authorized-defend-home-nevada/

 

 

Castle Defense Laws?Justified Use of Lethal Force

 

State legislatures, which are the governmental bodies responsible for determining a state?s gun policies, do so through the passage of gun laws?within the parameters set by the United States Constitution and the respective state?s constitution. Many states, including Nevada, have passed what are known as ?stand your ground? or ?castle defense? laws. These laws set forth the limits within which residents responding to a home invasion can use lethal force to defend their homes and their families and what duty, if any, they have to retreat to avoid harm to the invader.

 

The purpose of these laws is not only to promote safety of persons within their homes, but also to deter home invaders. Because the statute is meant to carve out a scenario when the killing of a human being is acceptable, it is very careful crafted, which means, unfortunately, ?difficult for a layman to understand.? Although the statute is fairly broad, for purposes of this article, the focus will be on the rights of individuals present in their homes during a home invasion.

 

Nevada defines a homicide as ?justified? if it is in defense of self, habitation, property, or person against someone who attempts to commit a felony by violence or surprise, or who intends and attempts to enter the habitation of another violently or in secret ?for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person ? therein.? This deadly force can be used to repel invaders without first retreating as long as the defender is not the first aggressor, has a right to be at the location being defendant, and is not committing a crime at the time deadly force is used.

 

The law also clarifies that fear that one of the offenses might occur in insufficient justification to use deadly force. ?It must appear that the circumstances were sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person and that the party killing really acted under the influence of those fears and not in a spirit of revenge.?

 

In other words, you have a right to use lethal force, without first retreating, if you are home when a home invasion occurs (or if you come home and interrupt a home invasion) as long as either (1) the home invasion constitutes a felony by violence or surprise, or (2) the person entering the habitation intends violence upon the occupants.

 

As written, this places an undue burden on a homeowner (or renter), who, during a home invasion, has neither the time to analyze Nevada?s felony statutes nor the information necessary to ascertain whether their particular home invader intends violence. Fortunately, there is another statute that makes the analysis easier.

[Nagisan]

Emphasis mine. it is his/her property and in defense of such property. so he was clearly defending his habitation or property.

That's open to interpretation. What was he defending his property from? Were the squatters causing damage to the property? I can understand protecting your property if someone is attacking it and causing damage or trying to (for example) burn it down, but someone simply sleeping in on the property without causing damage, in my opinion, is not someone who the property needs defending from.

 

Again though, following your interpretation, the man may still have been the aggressor, which completely negates the fact that he was "protecting his property". Your emphasis also excludes the part about "intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony", from the articles I've read, it does not sound like the squatters were violent or tried surprising the owner, and therefore he was not protecting his property, he was murdering them.

[Noir Angel]

Different circumstances, same arguments most of the time. The pro gun guys seem to have a disturbing lack of respect for human life.

[Lamp0]

I think this man has the rights to shoot who ever he damn well pleases if they are trespassing

 

Brilliant.

[chrisj1968]

That's open to interpretation. What was he defending his property from? Were the squatters causing damage to the property? I can understand protecting your property if someone is attacking it and causing damage or trying to (for example) burn it down, but someone simply sleeping in on the property without causing damage, in my opinion, is not someone who the property needs defending from.

 

Again though, following your interpretation, the man may still have been the aggressor, which completely negates the fact that he was "protecting his property". Your emphasis also excludes the part about "intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony", from the articles I've read, it does not sound like the squatters were violent or tried surprising the owner, and therefore he was not protecting his property, he was murdering them.

 

that's why we have problems with the 2nd amendment. People like to get philosophical and try to reason there way around a law. the spirit of the law.. protecting ones property. people to try interpret, re-interpret and spin a law as long as the outcome fits there thinking. face value, you and I can protect our property, homes ourselves period.