Jump to content

Walkinguf61

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    190

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    N/A

Posts posted by Walkinguf61

  1. Posted

    8 hours ago, GRIZ said:

    Okay there are no training requirements listed in the 2A or anywhere in the COTUS.  Training requirements, if any, are RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY.  There is nothing that denies states the right to make training requirements UNLESS a court finds them unreasonable.  System sucks in so many ways but I don't think there is better.

    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.

    • Agree 1

  3. Posted

    37 minutes ago, DAHL said:

    Basically gov't buildings and state owned property are off limits. You also cannot carry to a place that serves alcoholic beverages. You can carry in your car, to the grocery store, in restaurants that do not served alcohol, fast food places, department stores, on the street and on private property.  You just cannot enter residences without permission.

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

  5. Posted

     

    28 minutes ago, High Exposure said:

    You’re right. That is deadly force.

    If they live, it’s also aggravated assault. If they die, it’s murder. That’s probably universally in the US.

    You’re out of your mind if you think that whacking someone in the head with a bat is an appropriate response to someone threatening suicide.

    So what? If my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle. But she doesn’t, so she’s still my aunt (maybe not a great comparison for 2023, but you know what I mean).

    There is no exemption. You are not permitted to use deadly force to prevent suicide.

    I have stopped more than a few myself.

    I am sorry you had to experience that.

    It’s a lonely, terrible, and hopeless feeling staring at someone ready to jump, swing, stab, or shoot themselves and trying to talk them out of it. But never once have I had the thought - “I know, let’s shoot them!”

    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 .

    37 minutes ago, High Exposure said:

    Jesus…

    Deadly force can also stop littering, speeding, jaywalking and shoplifting. 

    Doesn’t mean you are permitted to do it! 

    To stop a suicide ? It’s a big difference between that and littering . That’s like comparing a self defense shooting to littering too. 

  7. Posted

    21 minutes ago, Scorpio64 said:

    Dude, just give up this stupid quest of yours to be right.  You are obviously ignorant to the facts and making yourself look like a fool. 

    Kinda wondering why you are stuck on this incredibly improbable scenario like Rain Man and rejecting the contributions to this thread made by an actual expert .  That was a rhetorical question, please do not feel compelled to answer it because it will not be responded to.

    Just accept the fact that you are wrong and move on.  I think we are done here discussing your absurd claim that deadly force is appropriate to prevent suicide.  It was a ridiculous premise to begin with. 

    Seriously, let it go and if you can't, then go hire Evan Nappan for a proper legal answer that will straighten you out.  That would be the prudent thing to do before you go out looking to prevent suicides with deadly force.

    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. Posted

    38 minutes ago, High Exposure said:

    :facepalm: 


    Bud, with all respect - you couldn’t be more wrong about what I know. And - I knew you were going to cherry pick this exact instance.

    First - this incident in Ohio in 1993 has nothing to do with current NJ use of force laws. 

    Second - That sniper had to have special permission from superior officers to take that shot.

    Third - That was not just to stop a suicidal person. That was a standoff with an armed individual that was pointing a gun at other people as well as himself. He may have also been suicidal, but soon as he points the gun at others he becomes a threat to the public at large. The force employed by the sniper was authorized because it was justified to prevent the danger of serious bodily injury or death to the general public. That’s a completely different situation than a mere suicide.

    And before you go there - “Suicide by cop” isn’t really suicide. It’s a bad guy threatening violence on others to invoke a known outcome. From the “defenders” point of view, the use of deadly force was to prevent serious injury or death to themself or another, not to stop a suicidal person from completing the act.

    Just like stopping a “suicide bomber” - from a use of force standpoint, you are not using deadly force to stop someone from successfully completing suicide. You are preventing a deadly attack on the public.

    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.

    • Disagree 2

  10. Posted

    1 hour ago, High Exposure said:

    But it can’t.

    You can not shoot someone in the leg to prevent them from jumping off a cliff.

    You can tackle them, hold them, grab them, punch or kick them - if you think it will be successful - but you can’t shoot them, stab them, or run them over with your car.

    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. Posted

    1 hour ago, High Exposure said:

    I don’t understand the facepalm for this one. Fairly standard use of force language.

    No. You can not use deadly force to prevent suicide.

    Nowhere in the quoted text on section A is deadly force mentioned. Merely “force”. There are other types of force that one can use, not just deadly.

    Physical presence, constructive authority, physical force, mechanical force, or enhanced mechanical force (all of which are considered a lower level of force and deadly) can be used to prevent suicide, if appropriate and applicable.

    Nowhere in the quotes text of section B is suicide mentioned. It only refers to “harm upon another” - not self.

    No it doesn’t.

    That is not what it says.

    Yes. Any firing of a weapon - even a “warning shot” is considers deadly force. However, scenario you described has absolutely nothing to do with the quoted section of the UoF guideline from a practical standpoint.

    An individual threatening suicide can become a deadly force threat if they threaten to harm another with serious bodily injury or death and are armed with  a weapon, such as a firearm, that is capable of doing so. 

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

  12. Posted

    3 hours ago, JohnnyB said:

    So if I read this right, I am to use deadly force to stop a person from killing or hurting themselves? WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THESE IDIOTS?

    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. Posted

    4 hours ago, Fred2 said:

     

    You know they are full of shit when they lie in the first sentence.

    Introduction: Use of Force Training for Civilians
    Unlike an active duty law enforcement officer, private citizens have no responsibilities to protect the public.

     

    https://www.alternet.org/2022/06/supreme-court-cops-protect-individuals

    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. Posted

    13 minutes ago, Xtors said:

    Thanks for that. I am guessing it falls under existing trespass law then. For example, does NJ law explicitly state businesses can post a "no shirt, no service" notice or are there some general guidelines that allow business to post non-discriminatory conditions of entrance that when disobeyed can get you trespassed?

    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. Posted

    25 minutes ago, Xtors said:

    Having trouble locating what you mean by TRO on whole part 24. Would you please provide some more information? I am very curious.

    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. 

    • Informative 1

  18. Posted

    53 minutes ago, GrumpyOldRetiree said:

    Could our side request an en banc review? If we can, is there any downside to doing so?

    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 .

    • Like 2

  19. Posted

    56 minutes ago, CMJeepster said:

    IANAL, but signs would be obvious.  Perhaps government regulation / legislation as well?  A town can pass an ordinance restricting.

    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.

    • Informative 1

  20. Posted

    8 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

    nah. they're just throwing a hissy fit thinking they're gonna get away with it. hopefully they'll get spanked.

     

    that's not on him. if he's unloading, placing in a lockbox that's fastened in the vehicle, then he has complied with the law. if it's stolen at that point, then it is on the legislature, and/or the judges that just reinstated this crap, and perhaps they should all be sued accordingly.

     

     that all said.......i'm hoping that the 2a groups are "judge shopping" like the left does to find a judge that'll kill this latest problem.

    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. Posted

    3 hours ago, Xtors said:

    Utter BS. Obama, Trump and Biden appointees.

    Correct me if I am wrong but that includes:

    (6) within 100 feet of a place where a public gathering, demonstration or event is held for which a government permit is required, during the conduct of such gathering, demonstration or event;

    (9) a nursery school, pre-school, zoo, or summer camp;

    (10) a park, beach, recreation facility or area or playground owned or controlled by a State, county or local government unit, or any part of such a place, which is designated as a gun-free zone by the governing authority based on considerations of public safety;

    (12) a publicly owned or leased library or museum;

    (15) a bar or restaurant where alcohol is served, and any other site or facility where alcohol is sold for consumption on the premises;

    (17) a privately or publicly owned and operated entertainment facility within this State, including but not limited to a theater, stadium, museum, arena, racetrack or other place where performances, concerts, exhibits, games or contests are held;

    (18) a casino and related facilities, including but not limited to appurtenant hotels, retail premises, restaurant and bar facilities, and entertainment and recreational venues located within the casino property;

    (21) a health care facility, including but not limited to a general hospital, special hospital, psychiatric hospital, public health center, diagnostic center, treatment center, rehabilitation center, extended care facility, skilled nursing home, nursing home, intermediate care facility, tuberculosis hospital, chronic disease hospital, maternity hospital, outpatient clinic, dispensary, assisted living center, home health care agency, residential treatment facility, residential health care facility, medical office, or ambulatory care facility;

    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. 

    • Like 1

  22. Posted

    52 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

    I worked under the policies of my federal agency.  Much more liberal (for you) than state guidelines. I had to make it clear to state and local task force officers that when they.were working for us, on our jobs, our policies applied not state policies.

    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. 

    • Like 1

  23. Posted

    30 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

    Your response shows the disparity of policies of agencies.  Moreso differences between Federal and state policies. Pepper spray same as a punch in NYS?  My agency looked at pepper spray as a soft technique.  The same as putting your hand on their shoulder.

    Batons? Felony in NYS? Offensive weapon? My agency looked at then as a hard technique but better to use (in a disparity of force case) to maybe break a bone than have to shoot your opponent.

    I believe they are.

    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. Posted

    1 hour ago, GRIZ said:

    Okay you have to an agency approved holster when qualifying.  You can switch holsters but your agency will dictate what holsters you can switch to.

    Whilst.the state says you don't have to qualify with your off duty gun I don't know of any agency that doesn't require you to qualify with your off duty and any firearm you use on duty.

    The state requirements are interesting but the agency requirements can, and often are, more restricting.

    I know of at least a couple of agencies that require their LEOS to carry a less than lethal weapon if they're carrying a gun off duty.  I even know agencies that require you to carry expandable baton and pepper spray if you're carrying off duty.

    OT but 99.99% of the confrontations you might encounter will require less than lethal force.  If you're carrying a gun you should be carrying a ltl option.  If you see every confrontation as a nail you'll use the hammer.

     

     

    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. 
     

    • Informative 1

  25. Posted

       1 hour ago,  High Exposure said: 
       21 minutes ago,  1LtCAP said: 

    i personally am not fretting holster draw. i am fretting the moving of the goal posts. and i am fretting the fact that so many are over-looking that.

    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...