Walkinguf61

Go read the Heller decision and the second amendment. “ well regulated” had a different meaning in the 1790s just as militia didn’t mean the national guard but the people . It meant well trained. While I disagree with NJ’s standard, it is grounded in law and don’t let someone blow smoke to argue otherwise. The argument isn’t that they can require training but how much is reasonable. The kneeling part is going to get tossed out if just on the fact that disabled people might not be able to do it and to require that would deny their 2nd amendment rights.

Look at the good news on this. If everyone is confused over it, imagine the AG lawyer attempting to explain it to the judge to where the judge can understand it

I thought the TRO was against the need for affirmative permission to enter private property.

Agreed. I was writing out my response before I read your post

As I said , I was explaining why it was not an oxymoron to put such language in a law and how such force could be used. As far as hitting someone with a bat in the head to stop suicidal actions— someone on dust who is cutting themselves might be a reason if you don’t have other tools. I started out before tasers were made available to us grunts at the time. While I personally knew and worked with some guys who attempted suicide, my experience doesn’t compare to the emotional toll their loved ones experienced. It was my job . Agg assault . It depends on the jurisdiction and justification laws. Here. Agg assault is assault 2. Striking anyone with a weapon is an assault 2 or assault 1 but the CPL allows peace/police officers to use batons and other weapons in many circumstances. It’s the same in many jurisdictions that a justification is recognized. So might they write in the law such a justification . To stop a suicide ? It’s a big difference between that and littering . That’s like comparing a self defense shooting to littering too.

I use some places as opposed to all places but I should have used most places .

Again, I do know what I am talking about . If one takes a baseball bat and hits someone in the head — is that deadly force ? The answer is yes in most cases. That’s deadly force. If an exemption is written into the law, then it can stop a suicide . And I have stopped many suicide attempts.

Again. My explanation has little to do with NJ law. I am simply explaining how deadly force can be used to stop a suicide , period. The poster questioned why would an exception such as use of deadly physical force to stop a suicide be put in a law as of its an oxymoron to use such force. Remember that in some places a chokehold is now considered deadly physical force. Knocking someone out with bat to the head is considered in some places deadly physical force . Deadly physical force can stop a suicide . That’s why it might be written into a law to stop a suicide.

You have no idea what you are talking about . Here is one example

In reality, yes. By the law in NJ, no, unless they write it into the law. I’m just explaining how deadly force could stop a suicide attempt and why someone might write it into the law.

I’m just explaining why deadly force can be used to prevent suicide

Any shot even if not fatal, is considered deadly force. When the police sniper literally shot a gun out of the hands of someone who wanted to kill themselves, it was still considered the use of deadly force . So if you were shoot someone in the leg to prevent them from jumping off a cliff, it’s still deadly force .

You aren’t really understanding the case and the fact pattern. The officers involved did not interact with the victim. In Wren , the person called the police but no one answered the door. The police officers never saw the victims or the perpetrators. Certain fact patterns do set up a “special relationship “ where the officer/department can liable if they become a victim. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurman_v._City_of_Torrington?wprov=sfti1

I won’t cite NJ precedent on the “no shirt , no service “ because I don’t know it but I never heard of that being a straight up trespass charge on its own . They have to ask the person to leave first as a violation of their conditions but not if the actual law yet.

The part of the TRO that stood up was section 24 A4769] 7. (New section) Places where the carrying of a weapon is prohibited. a. Except as otherwise provided in this section, it shall be a crime of the third degree for any person, other than a person lawfully carrying a firearm within the authorized scope of an exemption set forth in N.J.S.2C:39-6 and only to the extent permitted by the entity responsible for security at the place in question, to knowingly carry a weapon, as defined in subsection r. of N.J.S.2C:39-1, in any of the following places, including in or upon any part of the buildings, grounds, or parking area of: (24) private property, including but not limited to residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, institutional or undeveloped property, unless the owner has provided express consent or has posted a sign indicating that it is permissible to carry on the premises a concealed handgun with a valid and lawfully issued license under N.J.S.2C:58-4; Part 24 is not enforceable under the TRO. There is no prior signage law to fall back upon if this part of the law is negated that I know of.