Jump to content

Walkinguf61

Members
  • Content Count

    190
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    N/A

Everything posted by Walkinguf61

  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. I thought the TRO was against the need for affirmative permission to enter private property.
  4. Agreed. I was writing out my response before I read your post
  5. 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.
  6. I use some places as opposed to all places but I should have used most places .
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. You have no idea what you are talking about . Here is one example
  10. 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.
  11. I’m just explaining why deadly force can be used to prevent suicide
  12. 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 .
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. While the TRO is in effect, there is no enforceable sign law in NJ . It is consequence of their overreach.
  17. And is it truly enforceable? The TRO is on the whole part 24. NJ doesn’t have a previous “sign “ law for a gun charge that I know of. Worse case appears to me is a trespass if one doesn’t leave when asked .
  18. It’s not likely for a temporary injunction but possible. Not worth the trouble/money. Let the actual decision come down then see where it goes. The important thing is the private property presumption was kicked by two liberal justices— an indication it’s a slam dunk at the appeal hearing .
  19. It’s why LEOSA was written the way it was. To prevent an out of state LEO from violating some small town ordinance while traveling with a firearm . Some states have a presumption clause in such laws, and others have it in case law. The private property BS is what effected LEOSA for me but that part of the injunction is still in effect . As long as they don’t drink , retired and current LEOs can carry in restaurants that serve alcohol as well as carry in “restricted “ areas as long it’s not government property, the private owner does not bans guns or it’s not a violation of federal law. The judge or SCOTUS has to make a ruling to have a similar effect on what they strike down in these laws to prevent a local government from passing such ordinances. Just to give an example , the second circuit has set a ten round “bottom “ to these magazine restrictions but NYC still has a 5 round limit on long guns.
  20. Do you think it will be that simple? They will suspend th permit pending their investigation of the theft if what happens in NY is any indication.
  21. Thank you for the breakdown. Let’s look at the positives. Even the anti-2A judges are saying the new private property assumption is BS.
  22. Compared to some of our policies, the feds have less stringent policies. My fed friends can’t believe what we had to deal with. But I have done joint task forces/operations with other departments/agencies. Some have it worse. The guys I know love working on fed joint task forces— a lot less headaches.
  23. Yes, different departments have different use of force policies. My old department can use the baton and such but you never know what these DAs are going to do. I would leave that thing in my locker when possible. The pepper spray the equivalent to a punch is what the criminal law says for everyone and not under police powers or department guidelines. Use of pepper spray by police can be the equivalent of simple physical force depending on the circumstances in NY too but it’s not a “soft technique “ here like a hand on the shoulder. If it’s used, a use of force report is generated. My commentary of “ offensive” vs “defensive “ is not how the departments would describe it but rather how it’s seen by outsiders. The departments like the taser and pepper spray over many uses of physical force beyond wrestling because it doesn’t cause lasting physical injury. Heck, if you use more than an arm grab like wrestle some to the ground, a use of force report has to be generated now in my old department. It wasn’t always like that.
  24. Most departments tend to just have general guidelines toward off duty holsters. It leaves a lot of room to choose. And even then, I know cops who violate these guidelines all the time off duty . As far as less lethal Even when I was an active LEO with all the gear actually on me, I was more hands on than to use the gear such as pepper spray or the taser. I also did plainclothes where I didn’t always have all the equipment. Pepper spray before the taser because if I used the taser it was a pain afterward. The paperwork and the required trip to the hospital to remove the prongs . And when I did use the taser, it only worked — as in desired effect about 50% of the time. Todays cops seem too reliant on it and hesitate when it doesn’t work. Pepper spray, especially with the foam feature tends to work to at least blind the guy. The downside is one can build a tolerance to it. And the possible blowback from wind . Also I have been pepper sprayed ( blowback or just having to wrestle with someone covered in it )that I could still fight after exposure. But I would usually go hands on— usually more effective but I’m old and broken now. Pepper spray isn’t bad. Stun gun? It is not like the movies where the person gets knocked out. It’s just pain. The taser drive stun is just a stun gun. Without the prongs in properly , the muscles won’t contract the same way . But people can power thru it , especially if they are on drugs . For most departments, off duty carry of less lethal is not required with or without their off duty firearm. They tend not want the off duty to get directly involved unless it’s a serious crime and even then they usually want the off duty to report it and let the on duty officers handle it if possible. The off duty firearm is for the protection of the officer. The same reason retired officers carry. The difference is that the off duty could be called in at any moment to act. Most departments don’t require less lethal because it’s just too much to carry all the time . Also, do you think most of those officers in those departments follow that policy? Just being authorized to carry department issued pepper spray or less lethal off duty is relatively new to most LE departments. Just in my career time , I remember when NJ officers were not allowed to carry some of these less lethal while on duty and I remember when departments around the country started to authorize its off duty carry. Go ahead and carry less lethal . And even off duty, and an active LEO., handcuffs aren’t a bad idea ( I made an off duty arrest and had to explain why I had handcuffs to the grand jury— I was in plainclothes and it was easier just to leave the stuff on then take it off — see the movie - In the Line of Fire- for an example why.) But carrying all of this stuff will make you look like a nut case especially if a civil suit comes. I also made off duty arrests with just the gun too. As far as an ASP or Billy club/nightstick, that is a no go. Besides the Rodney King look and definitely considered a weapon, it can be seen as a deadly weapon as opposed to less lethal . In NYS, pepper spray misuse is the same as a physical punch— a misdemeanor. A Billy club strike is a felony and is not perceived as a self defense tool and more of an offensive one. I guess this was just a long winded way to say having just a gun and getting to a defense physical altercation doesn’t mean you will use the gun.
  25. I edited my post after you responded. I read this whole thing . It doesn’t say anything about holsters except it has to department/agency approved to qualify from. It says nothing about having to use a IWB . Just the person should be dressed in accordance with their assignment. But that’s not a hard rule at all. Plainclothes jump between uniformed duties and plainclothes all the time with out requalification in between. And even then , a lot of departments let their officers carry in vest holsters and shoulder holsters but won’t let them qualify with them for range safety reasons — you flag the other shooters on the line when you draw. If there are rules about off duty holsters it appears to be left to the individual departments, not on the HCQ1or2 https://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcj/agguide/firearms2001.pdf
×
×
  • Create New...