This has been an interesting topic and somewhat close to an actual experience as a result of a home intrusion a few years back.
The following is submitted for anyone who may undergo a similar experience in the future.
This pertains to the State of Nevada but may be somewhat similar to the "law' within the state in which you reside, but check it out before you cock that trigger.
Sorry for the length of this but it may prove to be of some importance to one of more GetBiggers.
It is legal in Nevada to batter, injure or even kill another person in self-defense. However, self-defense is lawful only when you reasonably believe you are facing immediate harm and you inflict no more force than is necessary to protect yourself.
Our Las Vegas criminal defense lawyers have been very successful in fighting violent crimes charges by claiming self-defense. Scroll down to learn more about self-defense laws in Nevada and how we can help your case.
Self-defense in Las Vegas is a legal defense which excuses violent behavior that otherwise would be criminal. As long as you are reasonably trying to protect yourself, the law recognizes that you should not be penalized for hurting or even mortally wounding someone else.
In Nevada Self-defense is justified in the following circumstance:
1 The defendant reasonably believes he/she is facing immediate bodily harm, and
2 The defendant uses no more physical force than necessary to protect him/herself.
In order to explain the concepts of "immediate bodily harm" and "necessary physical force," let us look at some examples:
Example: Tom tells John to leave his Henderson home, but John refuses. Tom then puts John in a headlock and leads him out of the house. While trapped in the headlock, John reaches for his knife and stabs Tom in the chest. Tom survives, but the police arrest John for attempted murder with a deadly weapon in Henderson.
Here, odds are John would not win on self-defense grounds. Even though Tom was the aggressor by putting John in the headlock, the court would probably find that John overreacted with unnecessary physical force. If John had merely bit or punched Tom to get out of the headlock, John would have a much better case for self-defense in Henderson. Now let us change this example slightly:
Example: Tom puts John in a headlock and leads him out of Tom's house. Once outside, Tom lets John go and walks back inside the house. John then turns around, goes back in the house and punches Tom. The police arrest John for battery in Henderson.
Here, John would not have a viable self-defense claim either. Since Tom had let John go, John was no longer in any immediate physical danger. It does not matter if John honestly believed that he was acting in self-defense . . . the courts care only about whether his belief was reasonable. let us take one final example:
Example: Tom yells at John, "Look out! I am gonna kick your ass!" and punches him. John punches back harder, causing Tom to fall back and pass out. The police arrest John for battery in Henderson.
Here, John's battery charges probably would be dismissed on self-defense grounds. Even if Tom never intended to punch John more than once, John reasonably believed he faced immediate physical harm in the form of Tom's punch and verbal threat. Furthermore, John retaliated using only as much force as necessary to stop him.
As you can see, self-defense cases are very fact-specific. Nevada courts look very closely at the details of exactly what happened when in order to decide whether the defendant acted reasonably.
