Can You Defend Someone Else from Rape

My question involves criminal law for the state of: Nevada

I have recently purchased a fire arm and have been listening to instructors and reading the State Statute. But in one of the books I got it said that Nevada prohibited the use of deadly force to prevent rape of another person who was not family. Is this true? If I am at my girlfriends house and someone is trying to rape her, am I not allowed to use my fire arm and say "Stop, or I'll shoot" and if he does not stop, then am I not allowed to shoot him once? I use the term deadly force only to note that I view any shot from any gun to any area of the body(even the leg or shoulder) as a use of deadly force. I am just all confused and do not want to over step my bounds.

Quote:

---

NRS 200.200Killing 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]

---

and although your use of the term of deadly force is ultimately correct, the state views any use of force able to cause death as deadly force. It doesn't matter where the person was shot. Even shooting them in the little toe would be considered to involve the use of deadly force.
It appears that there is an duty to retreat, if possible. Once that is not possible, if there is a true belief there is the possibility of death or great bodily harm, lethal force can be used. It does not matter that she was not a family member.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

and although your use of the term of deadly force is ultimately correct, the state views any use of force able to cause death as deadly force. It doesn't matter where the person was shot. Even shooting them in the little toe would be considered to involve the use of deadly force.
It appears that there is an duty to retreat, if possible. Once that is not possible, if there is a true belief there is the possibility of death or great bodily harm, lethal force can be used. It does not matter that she was not a family member.

---

That leads me to the next question.........Is rape considered "Great bodily harm"? Is rape a violent felony?

good question but due to the hour, I am not going to research it tonight.

Well, to answer your second question first: Yes, rape is fairly universally considered a violent felony.

But, whether it would reasonably constitute a threat of "great bodily harm" would likely depend on the circumstances. "Great bodily harm" has a legal definition that may vary some from state to state (some even change the wording slightly to things like "serious bodily harm" or "grievous bodily injury"). Likewise, there are a variety of ways that a rape can occur. Generally, rape is considered to have occurred whenever the victim does not consent or is unable to consent to the act. A person under a certain age (again, that age varies from state to state) is considered unable to consent due to immaturity. So, (according to the ages specified in some states) a 21 year old man having consensual sex with a 17 year old girl qualifies as rape. However, it is highly doubtful that such circumstances would be considered great bodily harm justifying deadly force.

On the other hand, at the other extreme, if a man were attacking a woman, physically overpowering her resistance, and holding a knife to her throat to commit a rape, that would be ample justification for blowing the dirtbag away.

Between those extremes, things would likely depend on the specific facts and circumstances...and how a jury views them.

Check google scholar for citizens arrest in your state ... my state..I can use deadly force if its reasonable,,

Quote:

---

Quoting PTPD22

---

On the other hand, at the other extreme, if a man were attacking a woman, physically overpowering her resistance, and holding a knife to her throat to commit a rape, that would be ample justification for blowing the dirtbag away.

Between those extremes, things would likely depend on the specific facts and circumstances...and how a jury views them.

---

I was kinda looking for some case law here. But oh well. Let me share some of what I have learned from my search.


You cannot just blow the dirt bag away. You have to actually announce yourself as have a fire arm, you have to give him at least one warning with an if-then sentence. Like "If you don't stop immediately, then I will shoot you" or "Stop, or I'll shoot". Also there must be some proof that she simply wasn't cheating on me, the rape will actually have to be violent, she will have to resist with enough force so he has to cause her some bruising, cuts, and scraps. Unless she is completely unconscious, which would present other issues.


It sounds like I know more than I do about this. I still don't know of any cases where someone prevented the rape of another person by using deadly force, when that person was only a boyfriend/girlfriend. Would love to know case law here. I might search some forums and report back later.

Quote:

---

Quoting HardTime

---

My question involves criminal law for the state of: Nevada

I am just all confused and do not want to over step my bounds.

---

Don't get your boxers in a wad. The odds of you encountering a rapist in the act of assaulting anyone, much less your girlfriend or family, are somewhere in the neighborhood of slim and none. Quite frankly, if you tried to shoot a rapist in the act, you have a fairly good chance of injuring the victim being the close contact required for the crime, so it isn't all that great a plan even if lawful. If your neighborhood is so dangerous that you worry your girlfriend might be raped at any moment, why not invest in an alarm and a German Shepherd for her.

I see nothing in the law that requires a warning be given. You have to realize that using a hammer would also be considered lethal force. So would a knife, a baseball bat, and many other weapons. What you are finding seems to speak to a gun only. Obviously that is not all inclusive of the possibilities.

there are some other statutes that speak to justifiable homicide as well. They are actually more lenient and more descriptive with their allowances to act.

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.

---

Quote:

---

NRS 200.160Additional 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 or her 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 or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode in which the slayer is. [1911 C&P § 133; A 1931, 160; 1931 NCL § 10080]—(NRS A 1993, 932)

---

a bit of research seems to suggest that you can only act with enough force to overcome the offense presented although the statute 200.120 above seems to suggest differently.

The reality of how such situations play out is that if deadly force is employed in a situation where police don't feel that the victim was in imminent danger of death or SEVERE bodily harm, and there isn't an exception in state law such as Florida's Castle Doctrine, or Colorado's "Make My Day" law, they're going to make TWO arrests - one for the rapist (of any number of types as noted above), AND one for arrest for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon for the defender - then they'll let the DA evaluate the case for prosecution. As horrible as rape is, unless the attacker were in possession of a weapon, or the victim was already obviously extremely injured, the continuum of use of force that is generally followed is that you don't get to use more force than is NECESSARY to stop or prevent the crime taking place.