Hypothetical Situation Question?

[MSaxatilus 1]

In a hypothetical situation......

 

An intruder breaks into your home at night and you, unfortunately, are forced to defend yourself in your own home. The result is a wounded/dead bad guy, but you and your family are safe and sound. The police have been called and respond to the scene.

 

Would the police be required to take you into custody, and would they also be required to take all of your firearms from the home until the case is settled in the courts?

 

Just curious how that would work? Any LE guys here?

 

MSax

[coldsolderjoint 84]

I'll give you my non-leo/non-educated opinion..

 

You have the duty to retreat.. so you have to take every possible action to avoid using deadly force before you are justified.. and then.. you can only use appropriate (up to deadly) force.. when your life, or your family's life is in danger.

 

So say.. the crack head is rooting around in your living room, stealing your tv.. you are supposed to get as far away as possible and call the police.. once he backs you up into the corner..and is coming at you with reasonable fear for your life.. then you may be justified in killing him..

 

The police will take the weapon you used in the incident.. they are not supposed to take ALL your guns.. but be prepared for it to happen.

 

And.. be prepared to spend at least the night in jail..

 

I'm sure every situation is different, so you can't monday-morning quarterback it before the incident happens..

 

I've heard that one way to avoid going to jail is claim that you are in shock and/or cant hear/see straight anymore.. and request to go to the hospital.. For what it's worth.. I don't know..

[Lublin 3]

And.. be prepared to spend at least the night in jail..

 

I know everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but getting arrested and hauled to jail for rightfully wasting some scumbag who breaks into your home and threatens your life and/or the lives of your family is really annoying.

[PK90 3,573]

MSaxatilus,

As you described the incident and in my opinion:

99% certain ONLY the gun used will be taken and you will be interviewed ONLY.

[MSaxatilus 1]

MSaxatilus,

As you described the incident and in my opinion:

99% certain ONLY the gun used will be taken and you will be interviewed ONLY.

 

Thanks. That's kindof what I thought. It sounds completely absurd to me that the police would take you into custody if you were forced to use ultimate force while protecting yourself and your family from harm in your own home. I think the situation itself would be tramatic enough for one night.

 

As a side note, I'm thinking that the police would not take the same care and handling of my valuable collection as say.... I would. So it would be nice to know that they would only take the weapon used in the situation.

 

MSax

[GoNRA 12]

the public majority shown in most if not all polls in similar instances are on the side of defending yourself in your own home.. of course it would probably be better if he was also armed with a weapon and you felt that you or your families life is in danger. 9 out of 10 times a home invader see's or hears something that sounds like a gun, they will jet out the door and probably never come back. I think the NRA has a free DVD about this paticular topic, and exactly what to do in this circumstance.

[tinyboy 1]

the public majority shown in most if not all polls in similar instances are on the side of defending yourself in your own home.. of course it would probably be better if he was also armed with a weapon and you felt that you or your families life is in danger. 9 out of 10 times a home invader see's or hears something that sounds like a gun, they will jet out the door and probably never come back. I think the NRA has a free DVD about this paticular topic, and exactly what to do in this circumstance.

 

oh yeahhhhhhhhh

 

I don't even keep ammo near my guns, all I have to do if I hear someone was in the house would be to rack the slide of my shotgun and they would instantly shit their pants and drop on the floor crying.

 

then I wait for the Police to get there and take him into custody

[Lublin 3]

oh yeahhhhhhhhh

 

I don't even keep ammo near my guns, all I have to do if I hear someone was in the house would be to rack the slide of my shotgun and they would instantly **** their pants and drop on the floor crying.

 

then I wait for the Police to get there and take him into custody

 

F*ck that.

 

Loaded but not chambered for me.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

I'll give you my non-leo/non-educated opinion..

 

You have the duty to retreat.. so you have to take every possible action to avoid using deadly force before you are justified.. and then.. you can only use appropriate (up to deadly) force.. when your life, or your family's life is in danger.

 

So say.. the crack head is rooting around in your living room, stealing your tv.. you are supposed to get as far away as possible and call the police.. once he backs you up into the corner..and is coming at you with reasonable fear for your life.. then you may be justified in killing him..

 

The police will take the weapon you used in the incident.. they are not supposed to take ALL your guns.. but be prepared for it to happen.

 

And.. be prepared to spend at least the night in jail..

 

I'm sure every situation is different, so you can't monday-morning quarterback it before the incident happens..

 

I've heard that one way to avoid going to jail is claim that you are in shock and/or cant hear/see straight anymore.. and request to go to the hospital.. For what it's worth.. I don't know..

 

NJ Law has no provisions for Duty to Retreat or a Castle Law. Shoot them dead. That way you won't have to worry about reprisals. Just make sure they were actually in your house, and that it was "dark".

[NJ609 22]

NJ Law has no provisions for Duty to Retreat or a Castle Law.

 

I know we don't have a written Duty to Retreat law but then why is everyone in the state so scared to defend themselves? Is there a defacto DtR enforced on law abiding citizens when they have to make the difficult choice to defend their property/faimly in the courts?

[bullpin 0]

I think its a good idea to make sure the perp was armed!

[Malsua 1,422]

NJ has a duty to retreat outside of the home. Inside of the home, NJ's castle statues apply. You are allowed to use deadly force if there is a deadly threat and you are immune to prosecution assuming the above is true.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

NJ has a duty to retreat outside of the home. Inside of the home, NJ's castle statues apply. You are allowed to use deadly force if there is a deadly threat and you are immune to prosecution assuming the above is true.

 

NJ has no Castle statute. I'd be surprised if we did.

[Malsua 1,422]

NJ has a duty to retreat outside of the home. Inside of the home, NJ's castle statues apply. You are allowed to use deadly force if there is a deadly threat and you are immune to prosecution assuming the above is true.

 

NJ has no Castle statute. I'd be surprised if we did.

 

Yes there is a Castle doctrine in NJ. It was one of the first enacted.

 

----------

2C:3-4 Use of force in self-protection.

 

2C:3-4. Use of Force in Self-Protection. a. Use of force justifiable for protection of the person. Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 2C:3-9, the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.

 

b.Limitations on justifying necessity for use of force.

 

(1)The use of force is not justifiable under this section:

 

(a)To resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a peace officer in the performance of his duties, although the arrest is unlawful, unless the peace officer employs unlawful force to effect such arrest; or

 

(b)To resist force used by the occupier or possessor of property or by another person on his behalf, where the actor knows that the person using the force is doing so under a claim of right to protect the property, except that this limitation shall not apply if:

 

(i)The actor is a public officer acting in the performance of his duties or a person lawfully assisting him therein or a person making or assisting in a lawful arrest;

 

(ii)The actor has been unlawfully dispossessed of the property and is making a reentry or recaption justified by section 2C:3-6; or

 

(iii) The actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily harm.

 

(2)The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily harm; nor is it justifiable if:

 

(a)The actor, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or

 

(b)The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:

 

(i)The actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling, unless he was the initial aggressor; and

 

(ii)A public officer justified in using force in the performance of his duties or a person justified in using force in his assistance or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape is not obliged to desist from efforts to perform such duty, effect such arrest or prevent such escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom such action is directed.

 

(3)Except as required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity of using force when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.

 

c. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:3-5, N.J.S.2C:3-9, or this section, the use of force or deadly force upon or toward an intruder who is unlawfully in a dwelling is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself or other persons in the dwelling against the use of unlawful force by the intruder on the present occasion.

(2)A reasonable belief exists when the actor, to protect himself or a third person, was in his own dwelling at the time of the offense or was privileged to be thereon and the encounter between the actor and intruder was sudden and unexpected, compelling the actor to act instantly and:

 

(a)The actor reasonably believed that the intruder would inflict personal injury upon the actor or others in the dwelling; or

 

(b)The actor demanded that the intruder disarm, surrender or withdraw, and the intruder refused to do so.

 

(3)An actor employing protective force may estimate the necessity of using force when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, withdrawing or doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.

 

L.1978, c.95; amended 1987, c.120, s.1; 1999, c.73.

[Malsua 1,422]

As a note, there is no STAND YOUR GROUND doctrine. Retreat is required outside of the home.

[coldsolderjoint 84]

Well.. I stand corrected.. I have been known to put my foot in my mouth before... :mrgreen:

 

There is no duty to deescalate the situation?

[Malsua 1,422]

Well.. I stand corrected.. I have been known to put my foot in my mouth before... :mrgreen:

 

There is no duty to deescalate the situation?

 

No, but note the language. If they are in your home, you demand they disarm and they don't, you can take the shot. You have to be in immediate danger but there is no negotiations required.

 

(b)The actor demanded that the intruder disarm, surrender or withdraw, and the intruder refused to do so.

[Joeybones 1]

Racking the slide on your pump - I read an article somewhere that that can be a bad idea because it lets the intruder know your location. It also mentioned they could be on drugs and not respond as we think they would or possible be a career criminal who would not be so intimidated by the sound.

I guess it's a judgement call.

[PK90 3,573]

"The actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling"

 

One must still retreat within the dwelling.

[Malsua 1,422]

"The actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling"

 

One must still retreat within the dwelling.

 

Read it again. Is says you are under no obligation to retreat within your dwelling if you are threatened.

 

(3)An actor employing protective force may estimate the necessity of using force when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, withdrawing or doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.

 

edit to add: The language here says "estimate". This is intended to prevent a lawyer/prosecutor from demanding absolute certainty as a legal standard. If you estimated that your life was in danger and it was a sudden burst in the door, you can take the shot. If it wasn't instant, and you demanded they drop their weapons and they do not, you can take the shot.

[PK90 3,573]

correct

[DevsAdvocate 112]

SWEET! I never knew we had a Castle Law. Now if only we had Stand Your Ground... that would be great.

[KpdPipes 388]

Bumped Forward, since it comes up a lot

[robot_hell 72]

Racking the slide on your pump - I read an article somewhere that that can be a bad idea because it lets the intruder know your location. It also mentioned they could be on drugs and not respond as we think they would or possible be a career criminal who would not be so intimidated by the sound.

I guess it's a judgement call.

 

I don't agree with that article. I certainly wouldn't leave a round chambered all the time, nor would I wait until making visual contact with a threat before priming the weapon for use. Did it explain when exactly is the "right" time to rack the slide?

 

Oh I know-- while rounding the corner, like you're in an action flick?

[Guest]

Racking the slide on your pump - I read an article somewhere that that can be a bad idea because it lets the intruder know your location. It also mentioned they could be on drugs and not respond as we think they would or possible be a career criminal who would not be so intimidated by the sound.

I guess it's a judgement call.

 

I don't agree with that article. I certainly wouldn't leave a round chambered all the time, nor would I wait until making visual contact with a threat before priming the weapon for use. Did it explain when exactly is the "right" time to rack the slide?

 

Oh I know-- while rounding the corner, like you're in an action flick?

 

 

your individual situation will vary but there is a round in the chamber of my HD firearm.. i do not have any small children.. and guns don't shoot themselves.. if you think a loaded gun is dangerous consider the THOUSANDS of cops and military world wide walk around with loaded firearms constantly, and rarely do you encounter accidents....

[bulpup 98]

 

your individual situation will vary but there is a round in the chamber of my HD firearm.. i do not have any small children.. and guns don't shoot themselves.. if you think a loaded gun is dangerous consider the THOUSANDS of cops and military world wide walk around with loaded firearms constantly, and rarely do you encounter accidents....

 

In deference to your point, I have to agree. It does make a lot of sense when you have no children, but I would like to add that there are many more instances within the military of negligent discharges. The M9 pistol being the worst offender.

 

Most discussions I have had with police and military (mostly cops that I was deployed with) is that cops are not required to rack and clear their weapons as often as the military does. In other words, load it and don't f*ck with it and you are good to go.

[Guest]

In other words, load it and don't f*ck with it and you are good to go.

 

 

that is my situation.. I a couple firearms that i consider reasonable HD firearms.. if just my g/f and I are home i generally keep my mossberg within reach.. If i have company over I generally have my safe shut and locked and carry my glock iwb.... Even with people I know and trust (g/f excluded) i do not generally leave open access to my firearms.. carrying a gun in your own home may seem excessive and ridiculous to some.. but i own firearms because I enjoy them AND to defend myself if need be.. and having there been a home invasion less than 15 minutes from where i live, i am of the opinion that you can never be TOO secure..

[Drew 4]

I leave my XD loaded and chambered in my quick access safe 24/7. I dont see any issue with having a loaded firearm in the house as long as it is properly secured. An unloaded firearm is about as useful as a brick