"Use of Deadly Physical Force"

[bulpup 98]

Again, something my feable mind could not find using a keyword search.

 

Could someone direct me to any actual legal documentation of when it is authorized to use deadly physical force in NJ?

[Redfish62 1]

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills ... 159_I1.PDF

 

http://www.nj-statute-info.com/getStatu ... te_id=1489

 

http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/2c-the ... e/3-4.html

 

http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/2c-the ... e/3-6.html

[GoNRA 12]

I think the only time you can use deadly force in NJ, is when your own life is threatened by means of self defense against a knife or gun.

 

But you must use equal force, if he has a knife, you can only use a knife and not a gun to defend yourself.

 

If he has a gun, you can use a gun to defend yourself.

 

if using fist you must use fist to defend youself.

 

that's what I understand. Supposedly the law is on your side if it's equal force, and if you use more than the means of equal force things might not sway your way in court.

 

Police are allowed to go a step further, like if your using your fist he can use "mechanical". If your using a knife he can put a cap in your ass.

[Malsua 1,422]

I think the only time you can use deadly force in NJ, is when your own life is threatened by means of self defense against a knife or gun.

 

But you must use equal force, if he has a knife, you can only use a knife and not a gun to defend yourself.

 

If he has a gun, you can use a gun to defend yourself.

 

if using fist you must use fist to defend youself.

 

that's what I understand. Supposedly the law is on your side if it's equal force, and if you use more than the means of equal force things might not sway your way in court.

 

Police are allowed to go a step further, like if your using your fist he can use "mechanical". If your using a knife he can put a cap in your a**.

 

I don't recall anywhere in the statues that state force has to be equal. If you are in your home and you estimate that severe harm or death is imminent to you or anyone else legitimately in your domicile, you can use whatever force is necessary to stop the threat. A 6'4" 250lb recently released convict who spent the last 5 years in the can lifting weights outmatches 99.9% of the public and to limit them to using fists because that animal doesn't need a weapon would be criminal.

 

So if he's got Piano wire, you have to go run to the grand piano and pull out a string? How about when he's choking out your wife with the telephone cord?

[67gtonut 847]

Come on guys.....

 

If someone is in your house, and someone is coming down the hallway at you....

 

are you actually going to think..... " well I dont see a weapon, so I better not fire my gun..... I am going to get into hand to hand combat with him, and hope he doesnt over-power me"

 

Bull.....

[bulpup 98]

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/A0500/159_I1.PDF

 

http://www.nj-statute-info.com/getStatu ... te_id=1489

 

http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/2c-the ... e/3-4.html

 

http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/2c-the ... e/3-6.html

 

Wow, what service!

 

The bill in .PDF form, what is it's current disposition? It seems some off the language is already written into law. Is this true or is it still yet to be finalized?

 

One interesting distinction between NJ and NY is that DPF is justified to stop rape. Most I met in NY considered that an important distinction since you do not have to prove the fear death or even serious bodily harm. For instance, a strong attacker could force compliance simply by being stronger, not necessarily by threat of harm.

 

It is odd that there is no mention of that in NJ.

[GoNRA 12]

I think the only time you can use deadly force in NJ, is when your own life is threatened by means of self defense against a knife or gun.

 

But you must use equal force, if he has a knife, you can only use a knife and not a gun to defend yourself.

 

If he has a gun, you can use a gun to defend yourself.

 

if using fist you must use fist to defend youself.

 

that's what I understand. Supposedly the law is on your side if it's equal force, and if you use more than the means of equal force things might not sway your way in court.

 

Police are allowed to go a step further, like if your using your fist he can use "mechanical". If your using a knife he can put a cap in your a**.

 

I don't recall anywhere in the statues that state force has to be equal. If you are in your home and you estimate that severe harm or death is imminent to you or anyone else legitimately in your domicile, you can use whatever force is necessary to stop the threat. A 6'4" 250lb recently released convict who spent the last 5 years in the can lifting weights outmatches 99.9% of the public and to limit them to using fists because that animal doesn't need a weapon would be criminal.

 

So if he's got Piano wire, you have to go run to the grand piano and pull out a string? How about when he's choking our your wife with the telephone cord?

 

I dont think that applies if he is in your home, but that's what I was taught. Of course if he's much bigger than you, the jury will sway your way with the outcome, but im talking general self defense principals, walking down the street and someone confronts you.

[bulpup 98]

I think the only time you can use deadly force in NJ, is when your own life is threatened by means of self defense against a knife or gun.

 

But you must use equal force, if he has a knife, you can only use a knife and not a gun to defend yourself.

 

If he has a gun, you can use a gun to defend yourself.

 

if using fist you must use fist to defend youself.

 

that's what I understand. Supposedly the law is on your side if it's equal force, and if you use more than the means of equal force things might not sway your way in court.

 

Police are allowed to go a step further, like if your using your fist he can use "mechanical". If your using a knife he can put a cap in your a**.

 

luckily we have been provided direct links to the NJ laws so we do not have to speculate.

[Malsua 1,422]

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.

 

Doesn't say squat about equal force. Just that you estimated that deadly force was necessary to stop an intruder from inflicting personal injury.

[GoNRA 12]

I was told if someone is in your house and you shoot someone that's armed with less then a gun, to make sure he's dead and not to shoot him in the back. This way he can't testify against you in court and it doesn't look like he was fleeing the house.

[GoNRA 12]

2C:3-4. Use of Force in Self-Protection. a. Use of force justifiable for protection of the person.

[Chad 3]

So if he's got Piano wire, you have to go run to the grand piano and pull out a string? How about when he's choking out your wife with the telephone cord?

 

:clap:

 

Awesome point and well put.

 

On a side note, the state in which I am moving, you may shoot to kill inside or outside your home, as long as the intruder is on your property and you "feel" that he may hurt you, your family, or even the dog or other livestock.

[Malsua 1,422]

I was told if someone is in your house and you shoot someone that's armed with less then a gun, to make sure he's dead and not to shoot him in the back. This way he can't testify against you in court and it doesn't look like he was fleeing the house.

 

Shoot to stop the threat. Never shoot to kill. Never dump in a few safety rounds. Shoot to stop the threat. Repeat it three times with me. Shoot to stop the threat. Shoot to stop the threat. Shoot to stop the threat.

 

If he dies, he dies. If you put extra rounds in him to make sure he's dead after he's down, you've become the criminal.

 

Besides, you don't want anyone's death on your conscience. It's one thing to shoot someone to stop an attack, it's quite another to murder someone after they're not a threat.

 

What's going to be his excuse to breaking into your home at 11pm anyway? Needed to use the bathroom? Wanted to pick up a sandwich on his way to his 3rd shift job? Go ahead, put this dumb criminal on the stand. Any competent defense attorney will chew him up and spit him out.

[GoNRA 12]

I was told if someone is in your house and you shoot someone that's armed with less then a gun, to make sure he's dead and not to shoot him in the back. This way he can't testify against you in court and it doesn't look like he was fleeing the house.

 

Shoot to stop the threat. Never shoot to kill. Never dump in a few safety rounds. Shoot to stop the threat. Repeat it three times with me. Shoot to stop the threat. Shoot to stop the threat. Shoot to stop the threat.

 

If he dies, he dies. If you put extra rounds in him to make sure he's dead after he's down, you've become the criminal.

 

Besides, you don't want anyone's death on your conscience. It's one thing to shoot someone to stop an attack, it's quite another to murder someone after they're not a threat.

 

What's going to be his excuse to breaking into your home at 11pm anyway? Needed to use the bathroom? Wanted to pick up a sandwich on his way to his 3rd shift job? Go ahead, put this dumb criminal on the stand. Any competent defense attorney will chew him up and spit him out.

 

He was injured on your property by you, he comes to court with a gunshot wound crying in pain in front of the jury. Saying he was just going to take some food from your home cause he is homeless. A plea of "Not Guilty" of Necessity is a defense that usually works out in the end. In the meantime your going to be sued.

[GoNRA 12]

in U.S. criminal law, necessity may be either a possible justification or an exculpation for breaking the law. Except for a few statutory exemptions and in some medical cases [1] there is no corresponding defense in English law.[2] Defendants seeking to rely on this defense argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as a crime because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm and when that conduct is not excused under some other more specific provision of law such as self defense.

[Malsua 1,422]

 

He was injured on your property by you, he comes to court with a gunshot wound crying in pain in front of the jury. Saying he was just going to take some food from your home cause he is homeless. A plea of "Not Guilty" of Necessity is a defense that usually works out in the end. In the meantime your going to be sued.

 

That only flies in England and TV.

[GoNRA 12]

I hope so for your sake.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if you got charged with attempted murder in this state.

 

This is New Jersey, your guilty for being a gun owner and defending your property, let alone your life.

 

Just mentioning a few things i've learned in my Criminal Justice classes. We went over self-defense and issues of someone breaking into your home. I dunno probably went a little far fetched, but dont be surprised if you get sued from hurting someone who breaks into your home.

[Malsua 1,422]

I hope so for your sake.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if you got charged with attempted murder in this state.

 

This is New Jersey, your guilty for being a gun owner and defending your property, let alone your life.

 

The castle doctrines listed above specifically state when you are legally protected. I'll take being sued over being convicted of murder.

 

I'll also note that there's no caliber restrictions on self defense. A .357 loaded with Cor-bons is just about as close as you're going to get to one shot one kill in a handgun caliber. Even .50 and others don't kill quite as well because they just pass on through. I see a definite benefit to having the intruder not being able to testify and if he expires while you were in legitimate fear for your life and took legal steps to stop the threat, so it goes. It's why you don't want to use a 6mm flobert as your go to gun for home defense.

[Drew 4]

I would also just like to add, since this topic is about "deadly force" the definition of deadly force under 2C:3-11:

 

b."Deadly force" means force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing or which he knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm. Purposely firing a firearm in the direction of another person or at a vehicle, building or structure in which another person is believed to be constitutes deadly force unless the firearm is loaded with less-lethal ammunition and fired by a law enforcement officer in the performance of the officer's official duties. A threat to cause death or serious bodily harm, by the production of a weapon or otherwise, so long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute deadly force.

 

This is important, because it states very clearly that even firing a warning shot over an intruders head is considered deadly force.

[GoNRA 12]

[bulpup 98]

I think the only time you can use deadly force in NJ, is when your own life is threatened by means of self defense against a knife or gun.

 

But you must use equal force, if he has a knife, you can only use a knife and not a gun to defend yourself.

 

If he has a gun, you can use a gun to defend yourself.

 

if using fist you must use fist to defend youself.

 

that's what I understand. Supposedly the law is on your side if it's equal force, and if you use more than the means of equal force things might not sway your way in court.

 

Police are allowed to go a step further, like if your using your fist he can use "mechanical". If your using a knife he can put a cap in your a**.

 

I dont think that applies if he is in your home, but that's what I was taught. Of course if he's much bigger than you, the jury will sway your way with the outcome, but im talking general self defense principals, walking down the street and someone confronts you.

 

It sounds like what you are talking about is the use of physical force, not "deadly" physical force. I prefer not to get caught up in discussions like those because I have, in my old age, found those confrontations easy to avoid. Mind you, the word is "confrontation," not assault.

 

The other thing to think about is that the word "justified" is not meant to justify that your choice of weapon is based on your attacker's weapon, but that "DEADLY" physical force is justified. There is a threshold that is far above a physical altercation. Once you are at that point your weapon is whatever is at hand.

 

Having a fight on the street with some DB is not how you want at arrive at DPF. Just leave.

[KpdPipes 388]

"Deadly Force" is deadly force, there are NO DEGREES of Deadly Force. Knife, Gun, baseball bat, hammer, sharp Stick. it;'s all one and the same. if you can articulate that you were in fear for your life and that the BG was using force against you which under the totality of the circumstances YOU BELIEVED it to eb deadly force, then you are GTG. Remember the phrase "Totality of the Circumstances" You WILL see this material again.

[bulpup 98]

"Deadly Force" is deadly force, there are NO DEGREES of Deadly Force. Knife, Gun, baseball bat, hammer, sharp Stick. it;'s all one and the same. if you can articulate that you were in fear for your life and that the BG was using force against you which under the totality of the circumstances YOU BELIEVED it to eb deadly force, then you are GTG. Remember the phrase "Totality of the Circumstances" You WILL see this material again.

 

 

exactly. That threshold is vital for a gun owner because the pull of the trigger is ALWAYS "Deadly Physical Force," and never just physical force. Where that threshold lies is different from state to state. Again, I thank those that provided the actual statutes.

 

The reason I asked this question is primarily for my own knowledge but also because I have made the move from another state. A friend of my wife had asked about getting a firearm and she had great concern over actually shooting someone. The one thing NYC does right is require that you demonstrat the knowledge of when DPF is justified. The difference between NY and NJ on the inclusion of rape is very important for a young woman. She is an attractive woman and lives alone. The last thing you want is to have that woman second guess herself in a rape situation. Imagine the situation; the man might be saying over and over that he isn't going to hurt her and not brandishing any weapon. She might not get killed or hurt but she will be raped. In NY she is justified in using DPF and it doesn't matter that her assailant has no weapon at all and has not stated an intent to do harm.

 

In NJ I believe the laws take this into acount but yet it is not clearly stated.

 

Of courseknowing the law helps me to, but helping others is a good goal for any gun owner.

[NJgunowner86 0]

Gonna chime in with one little tidbit here.

 

Many of the states that allow lethal force to defend your home, also grant immunity to civil suit if the shooting is found justified. NJ law does not make someone who uses lethal force in self defense immune to civil suit.

 

Even if you shot someone in self defense in the home, and the shooting is found to be justified, can fully expect the guy's momma to show up in court and sue you for half a million bucks because he was a good boy who was gonna turn his life around and go back to college, right after he got done burglarizing your house and raping your wife, that is. Heck, at the end of all that in NJ, you will probably be wishing you just let the guy kill you and steal all your stuff

[GoNRA 12]

Gonna chime in with one little tidbit here.

 

Many of the states that allow lethal force to defend your home, also grant immunity to civil suit if the shooting is found justified. NJ law does not make someone who uses lethal force in self defense immune to civil suit.

 

Even if you shot someone in self defense in the home, and the shooting is found to be justified, can fully expect the guy's momma to show up in court and sue you for half a million bucks because he was a good boy who was gonna turn his life around and go back to college, right after he got done burglarizing your house and raping your wife, that is. Heck, at the end of all that in NJ, you will probably be wishing you just let the guy kill you and steal all your stuff

 

+1

[BCeagle 12]

Gonna chime in with one little tidbit here.

 

Many of the states that allow lethal force to defend your home, also grant immunity to civil suit if the shooting is found justified. NJ law does not make someone who uses lethal force in self defense immune to civil suit.

 

Even if you shot someone in self defense in the home, and the shooting is found to be justified, can fully expect the guy's momma to show up in court and sue you for half a million bucks because he was a good boy who was gonna turn his life around and go back to college, right after he got done burglarizing your house and raping your wife, that is. Heck, at the end of all that in NJ, you will probably be wishing you just let the guy kill you and steal all your stuff

 

The real funny part is that is why you are better off killing him with one or 2 shots(obviously dont shoot him again if he is incapacitated) In law school we learned that if you hit someone in a car it is better for you to have killed him then maimed him for life. Imagine the medical bills of a 25yo who has his spinal cord severed and needs assitance the rest of his life compared to the earning potential of an unemployed high school drop out with a record. I am not advocating this but stating a fact. Plus, the perp is the person that would definitely sue, the family may or may not, he might not even have a family. Also you dont have some gang banger coming in telling a sob story about his last hold up. (Moving out of Hudson and Essex might also help.)

 

"Totality of the Circumstances" is the key, if your alarm goes off and you have someone nuts enough to still go up to your upstairs bedroom and doesnt run whn you point a gun. You better fear for your life or your family's.

[GoNRA 12]

Gonna chime in with one little tidbit here.

 

Many of the states that allow lethal force to defend your home, also grant immunity to civil suit if the shooting is found justified. NJ law does not make someone who uses lethal force in self defense immune to civil suit.

 

Even if you shot someone in self defense in the home, and the shooting is found to be justified, can fully expect the guy's momma to show up in court and sue you for half a million bucks because he was a good boy who was gonna turn his life around and go back to college, right after he got done burglarizing your house and raping your wife, that is. Heck, at the end of all that in NJ, you will probably be wishing you just let the guy kill you and steal all your stuff

 

The real funny part is that is why you are better off killing him with one or 2 shots(obviously dont shoot him again if he is incapacitated) In law school we learned that if you hit someone in a car it is better for you to have killed him then maimed him for life. Imagine the medical bills of a 25yo who has his spinal cord severed and needs assitance the rest of his life compared to the earning potential of an unemployed high school drop out with a record. I am not advocating this but stating a fact. Plus, the perp is the person that would definitely sue, the family may or may not, he might not even have a family. Also you dont have some gang banger coming in telling a sob story about his last hold up. (Moving out of Hudson and Essex might also help.)

 

"Totality of the Circumstances" is the key, if your alarm goes off and you have someone nuts enough to still go up to your upstairs bedroom and doesnt run whn you point a gun. You better fear for your life or your family's.

 

+ another 1

[GoNRA 12]

This is a General Legal Definition, not based on New Jersey.

 

http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/use-of-deadly-force/

 

Deadly force is generally defined as physical force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury. In order for deadly force to be justified there must be an immediate, otherwise unavoidable threat of death or grave bodily harm to yourself or other innocents. Deadly force is that force which could reasonably be expected to cause death or grave bodily harm.

 

The use of force is generally illegal unless it fits within the strict requirements of one of the four legal justifications. They are: self-defense, defense of a third person, crime prevention, and law enforcement. Each of these areas has specific requirements that must be met to avoid criminal liability. You may only use the amount of force that is reasonable and necessary in the situation.. This is judged by what a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances. In a self-defense situation, it is only when the aggressor uses or attempts to use deadly force that you have the right to respond with deadly force. Laws vary by state, so local law should be consulted for the applicable requirements in your area.

[joecs1 11]

I would also just like to add, since this topic is about "deadly force" the definition of deadly force under 2C:3-11:

 

b."Deadly force" means force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing or which he knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm. Purposely firing a firearm in the direction of another person or at a vehicle, building or structure in which another person is believed to be constitutes deadly force unless the firearm is loaded with less-lethal ammunition and fired by a law enforcement officer in the performance of the officer's official duties. A threat to cause death or serious bodily harm, by the production of a weapon or otherwise, so long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute deadly force.

 

This is important, because it states very clearly that even firing a warning shot over an intruders head is considered deadly force.

 

Warning shots are not legal in NJ!

[KpdPipes 388]

Gonna chime in with one little tidbit here.

 

Many of the states that allow lethal force to defend your home, also grant immunity to civil suit if the shooting is found justified. NJ law does not make someone who uses lethal force in self defense immune to civil suit.

 

Even if you shot someone in self defense in the home, and the shooting is found to be justified, can fully expect the guy's momma to show up in court and sue you for half a million bucks because he was a good boy who was gonna turn his life around and go back to college, right after he got done burglarizing your house and raping your wife, that is. Heck, at the end of all that in NJ, you will probably be wishing you just let the guy kill you and steal all your stuff

 

 

Many, many years ago, one of my co-workers stopped a carload of Shittums in a stolen vehicle, My Moronic Friend, decided he was going to reach into the car and shut off the engine..instead of ordering the 'tumm driver to do so. Driver rols up the window, trapping Tony's arm ,nd drives off with him hanging on the door. As the 'tumm tries to crush him against parked cars, my coworker fires 3 rounds. 2 miss, and the 3rd one went through the Scumbag's Biceps. Now I dont think anyone here would say that wasnt a good shoot correct? Bad guy was ACTIVELY trying to squish the cop, and yes i know he screwed up by putting hiself in that position..argument for another day. 45 days later we got a Notice of Intent to Sue, with a return address of Bed X XXX County Correctional Facility Medical Wing. Luckily the judge at the county threw it out once he read the case file..but it could have gone either way. I Know of cases where bad guy breaks into a home, and the homeowner's dog bitse the crap out of him..and the HOMEOWNER GETS SUED AND LOST. There is NO garuntee no matter how good a shoot of not geting sued.