Self Defense Law

[M1152 713]

Self Defense and the Law

 Info Tech Tip -->  Since most newer TVs have a USB port so you may be able to download the video with an FireFox extension in the mp4 format and place on thumb drive and view on your TV. I watched it last night. In any case TV or PC very good info

[DAHL 58]

The simple message to NJ Gun owners is that a firearm can be used for self defense against an assailant with a deadly weapon only in the most extreme circumstances when your life or the life of a loved one is in imminent danger . If a burglar enters your home and is stealing jewelry or other valuables, you may not point a firearm at him or shoot unless he displays a lethal weapon and threatens deadly force.  You also cannot shoot a burglar who is retreating.  I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advise but an understanding of the law as I interpret it. It may sound passive but it seems best to always keep your carry pistol holstered.

[JohnnyB 4,322]

 

 

23 minutes ago, DAHL said:

The simple message to NJ Gun owners is that a firearm can be used for self defense against an assailant with a deadly weapon only in the most extreme circumstances when your life or the life of a loved one is in imminent danger . If a burglar enters your home and is stealing jewelry or other valuables, you may not point a firearm at him or shoot unless he displays a lethal weapon and threatens deadly force.  You also cannot shoot a burglar who is retreating.  I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advise but an understanding of the law as I interpret it. It may sound passive but it seems best to always keep your carry pistol holstered.

Yeah....Watch me keep it it in my holster! 

[Scorpio64 5,147]

29 minutes ago, DAHL said:

you may not point a firearm at him or shoot unless he displays a lethal weapon and threatens deadly force.

Yes, by all means, wait until an assailant pulls their gun and shoots you.  I think three bullets is the safe legal threshold.  Then you can draw.  You have to wait for the third shot because you have to be 100% certain that the person killing you really means it.  Their first two shots could have been warning shots and the attacker missed the air and unintentionally hit you.

When someone attacks you, they are a threat of an unknown quantity.  They could kill you with one punch, a crow bar, a knife, a gun.  Who knows?  Unless you have X-ray vision and are ALSO a mind reader you have no idea, ZERO, what level of threat you are facing. 

I can tell ya one thing.  If you wait around to find out how far your attacker is willing to go, you are probably going to be dead soon anyway, so it doesn't matter much.

What about rape?  I mean, a rapist isn't necessarily going to kill their victim.  Should deadly force be used as a defense against rape?  I don't believe I've ever seen a news piece about a woman charged with murder shooting an unarmed rapist.  How the fuck are those skanks getting away with that (satire mode off)

Guns are used to neutralize threats.  If someone is carrying with visions of OK Coral in their minds, they probably shouldn't be carrying.  As far as I am concerned, if someone is behaving threateningly towards me, I back off.  I tell them to back off.  If that does not work, peppa spray deployed and sprayed...  that is, if the threat is standing down wind.  If the wind is blowing in your face, you are going to have a real shitty night getting caught up in your own defensive attack. 

If you are packing, I do not see a problem with drawing and holding low ready.  Some may say that's brandishing, but it's not.  Brandishing is more like pulling your shirt up to intimidate someone or waving the gun around in a manner meant to threaten.

At low ready, you are consciously pointing in a safe direction that the attacker can see.  This opens a crossroads.  Your next move will be based on the attackers next move.  Whether or not the gun goes back in the holster cold is entirely up to your attacker.

If your attacker pulls a gun and you have a faster draw, you could possibly neutralized the threat.  If you are slow to react, you could become worm food.  If the attacker sees you at low ready, pisses their pants and runs, you have neutralized the threat.  I prefer the not shooting the attacker option.  I would totally shoot someone if I absolutely had no other option, but I don't think I could feel good about it.

Anyway.  To quote Red Haired Shanks.  Guns are not for threats, guns are for action.

 

 

 

 

[DAHL 58]

19 minutes ago, Scorpio64 said:

Yes, by all means, wait until an assailant pulls their gun and shoots you.  I think three bullets is the safe legal threshold.  Then you can draw.  You have to wait for the third shot because you have to be 100% certain that the person killing you really means it.  Their first two shots could have been warning shots and the attacker missed the air and unintentionally hit you.

When someone attacks you, they are a threat of an unknown quantity.  They could kill you with one punch, a crow bar, a knife, a gun.  Who knows?  Unless you have X-ray vision and are ALSO a mind reader you have no idea, ZERO, what level of threat you are facing. 

I can tell ya one thing.  If you wait around to find out how far your attacker is willing to go, you are probably going to be dead soon anyway, so it doesn't matter much.

What about rape?  I mean, a rapist isn't necessarily going to kill their victim.  Should deadly force be used as a defense against rape?  I don't believe I've ever seen a news piece about a woman charged with murder shooting an unarmed rapist.  How the fuck are those skanks getting away with that (satire mode off)

I may agree with you but in NJ the criminal has the upper hand. If you decide to use your pistol for self defense, a liberal prosecutor could still indict you. Then it goes to trail and the jury will decide whether your action was reasonable or not. If you watch old Westerns the outlaw must draw first or its murder. Pretty much the way it is here in NJ. 

[Displaced Texan 11,731]

Adding to the points @Scorpio64 made above…I’ve always thought of the use of deadly force in self defense the way the Navy taught us, and beat into our heads…the mantra was:

“Deadly force is the force that a person uses, which he/she knows, or SHOULD know, creates a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm. 
Its use is justified only under conditions of extreme necessity, as a last resort, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed.”

They also maintained that the level of force you use must be reasonably proportional to the force being used against you.

In other words, you can’t shoot a person who throws a rock at you and calls you an asshole. 
If someone is attempting to drag you into a van and haul you off, or is waving a firearm at you, it’s reasonable to assume they are intent on causing you death or serious bodily harm…and the use of deadly force against them is appropriate. 
 

It’s a complex set of decisions for YOU to make, in a very short amount of time, in what will probably be an extremely stressful situation. 
You WILL be dragged in front of a grand jury at minimum if you make the decision to employ deadly force. 
At worst, you’ll be on trial for homicide of some flavor. 
 

I think everyone should make themselves intimately familiar with the justified use of deadly force in their state, as they differ slightly. Some states require you to retreat until you are unable to retreat any more (and I’m not completely sure WHAT that means!). Some states, like Texas and Florida, have stand your ground and/or Castle Doctrine laws. This doesn’t mean you can Willy-Nilly shoot someone who assaults you, it just means you don’t have the duty to retreat, but you have to meet the force with an appropriate counter force. 
 

It’s not an easy equation, and a lot of responsibility. One way or another, your life will be drastically affected by the decision. I personally hope I never have to make that decision. 

[Grima Squeakersen 482]

***DELETED***

[YankeeSC 1,204]

11 hours ago, Displaced Texan said:

you can’t shoot a person who throws a rock at you

I don't entirely agree with that, the context and circumstance matter.

[Displaced Texan 11,731]

20 minutes ago, YankeeSC said:

I don't entirely agree with that, the context and circumstance matter.

I’ll somewhat give you that. 
 

The context of what I meant was: there you are, walking down the sidewalk, minding your own business. Some guy across the street doesn’t like the cut of your jib. He calls you names, and picks up a rock, and hurls it at you. 
 

Is the use of deadly force justified in that scenario? 
 

If it’s a small rock, more than likely,  not. A Gorn sized boulder, possibly..lol.

 

There are SO many ‘what if’ scenarios, and so many variables. 
 

[LTC 10]

The use of any level of force, as defined by NJ statute, must not be more than what a "reasonable" person would generally agree was correct & immediately necessary, given the circumstances of the incident. NJ has published guidelines concerning "Use of Force". The key word throughout the document is "Reasonable and or Reasonably Believe". I use the document during my Permit to Carry a Handgun presentation and qualification process. It was suppled to me by the NJSP RPO qualification program.

LTC