what is the law concerning lethal force in ones home?

[david8613 69]

the guys at my job starting discussing about what the law is in new jersey concerning the use of lethal force with a weapon? one said "you have to be attacked and injured before you can shoot an intruder that broke into your home", another said "no if they broke into your home you have the right to shoot an intruder" can someone clear this up? thanks in advance...

[Jon 264]

As I understand it there is no clear answer for NJ. Best bet is to barricade you and your family in a locked room and call 9-1-1. If anyone but the cops come through that door stop the threat.

[vjf915 456]

I guess I forgot for a second that its illegal to protect yourself and your family in this state

[fliks 20]

If anyone but the cops come through that door stop the threat.

the key phrase here. you can't say "I shot to kill him" or anything like that. you shoot to "stop the threat" and whether that takes 5 rounds or 25 and if he's limping or dead on the ground, that's your call what "stop the threat" is.

so you don't have to wait to be injured, but you also can't shoot as soon as someone breaks in. that's just my understanding.

[Krdshrk 3,877]

One of the things that a FL CCW class will tell you (according to a friend who lives in FL and has a CCW) is that you must say loudly and audibly that you are afraid for your life.

[67gtonut 847]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

 

You are going to get plenty of answers..... and I dont know the correct one either....

 

but in my opinion..... inside your home..... if you are in fear of your life, and cannot reasonably flee..... you should be fine to use deadly force.....

[fliks 20]

I thought you had to say something like "Go away!!! I have a gun!!! if you come in, I will shoot!!!" (note: not "I will kill you" or "I'll blow your head off")

[jgofnj 5]

I would think they would also have to have to be armed. When a cop shots someone, the first thing people says is "was he armed?" "Did he have a gun?". If he did, there is some justification for the cops, if he didn't, it's almost always unjustified.

 

If someone breaks in my home and he has a gun, he will be shot on the spot because I will assume he is intending to use that gun on me or my family, and I can't risk giving him the chance to take the first shot. I got to assume his intentions is to kill me and I need to stop it before it happens. In this case, I think using deadly force would be justified. But if an intruder is not armed, I would "threaten" to shot the guy and wait for the police to come (if he hasn't run away yet). The sad thing is, if you do end up shooting someone, you are guaranteed to get sued even if the guy is dead (family will come after you).

[Malsua 1,422]

If someone is in your home and you or other actors in your home are threatened, you will be legally immune to criminal charges if you shoot to stop the threat.

 

You don't have to warn them. Once the threat has stopped, you may not legally continue to use force. If you shoot the guy in the little toe, he goes down and begs for mercy, there is no threat. Any use of force after the threat has stopped will result in criminal charges.

 

If a guy bursts through the door with a gun in his hand, you can decide to open fire until the threat has ended. It is your choice to estimate the threat. It must be a reasonable estimate.

 

An extra "Safety round" into a perp on the ground will result in your incarceration. Shoot to stop the threat. Drill it into your head.

 

In your home, retreat is not required.

[Regulator72 80]

Chet from ShootNJ talked about this at Monday's meeting.. My take on it, was that you CANNOT shoot someone in your home unless you are in fear for your life, and like Krdshrk mentioned, you need annouce your intentions as well as prove that you took all steps necessary to prevent the shooting in the first place, i.e. barricade your self if you room, etc... You can't simply shoot someone thats stealing you TV, or whatever, but again, if you are in fear of you or your families lives, then you need to do what you need to do. Chet as well as vjf915 said, shoot to kill, your gonna still be in the same trouble whether you wound him or kill him, and the 2nd option only leaves one witness. Also, don't use a pistol or gun that's not replacable, becuase you most likely aint gonna get it back

 

oh and, figure 20k just to get thru the courts to prove you are innocent..

[Jon 264]

Chet from ShootNJ talked about this at Monday's meeting.. My take on it, was that you CANNOT shoot someone in your home unless you are in fear for your life, and like Krdshrk mentioned, you need annouce your intentions as well as prove that you took all steps necessary to prevent the shooting in the first place, i.e. barricade your self if you room, etc... You can't simply shoot someone thats stealing you TV, or whatever, but again, if you are in fear of you or your families lives, then you need to do what you need to do. Chet as well as vjf915 said, shoot to kill, your gonna still be in the same trouble whether you wound him or kill him, and the 2nd option only leaves one witness. Also, don't use a pistol or gun that's not replacable, becuase you most likely aint gonna get it back

 

Also, as Chet mentioned, you can expect to pay 20-50k dollars when it's all said and done on legal fees to clear your name.

[Shane45 807]

If somebody breaks into your house and YOU feel that YOU or YOUR FAMILY are threatened, you can stop the thread. Shoot to kill, because then there is only one witness.....and you can exaggerate details any which way you like.

 

 

THIS IS BAD ADVICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Thankfully I am in good company on this opinion. Eminant danger for self or loved ones is correct. I take major issue with the "exaggerate details any which way you like" statement. If you were in a postion of eminant danger, you need not exagerate ANYTHING! You run the risk of turning a clean shoot into a bad one because you WILL be questioned. At the time of questioning if you get fast and loose with the facts there is the VERY strang possability that deception in your statements will be detected. You will turn from justified to a person of interest REAL QUICK! Then let 1 shred of forensic evidence not jive with your statements and you now have a mounting preponderance of evidence against you.

 

2 others that feel this way, Massad Ayoob - Expert witness for shootings and the Lead Forensic Scientist for New Jersey State Police.

[jgofnj 5]

Lets say a intruder enters your home and is not armed. And using your loaded shotgun, and you "threaten" to blow the guys brains out, but never actually fire the gun. Would the police arrest your for anything or take away your gun?

[Jon 264]

Lets say a intruder enters your home and is not armed. And using your loaded shotgun, and you "threaten" to blow the guys brains out, but never actually fire the gun. Would the police arrest your for anything or take away your gun?

 

Possibly. Remember that you live in NJ.

[Shane45 807]

On the topic of announcement to the BG, personally I disagree with this practice. If I believe there to be a grave threat in my house, why in gods name would I want to give away my position? My announcement that Im armed may result in a hail of gunfire in my direction!

[FFDP82 4]

Remember, internet legal advice is worth exactly how much you paid for it.

[67gtonut 847]

Remember, internet legal advice is worth exactly how much you paid for it.

 

 

LOL..... Glad someone finally posted that.....

 

 

..... and I will add to it saying..... Do what you need to do to save you and your families life. Reality is..... you are NOT going to be saying to your self as you grab for your HD weapon..... "geez.... what is my legal obligation in this situation?" .....

 

 

 

[Krdshrk 3,877]

On the topic of announcement to the BG, personally I disagree with this practice. If I believe there to be a grave threat in my house, why in gods name would I want to give away my position? My announcement that Im armed may result in a hail of gunfire in my direction!

 

I hear what you're saying. The person who told me that information said that it mainly applies for when he's concealed carry'ing. He said he only had to say that once to someone once (a bunch of big college age guys trespassing on property), and he told them that so they would leave.

[jgofnj 5]

I don't think anyone is claiming they are providing legal advice. This is just a discussion board. Anyone who takes anything from this board as sound legal advice is demented.

[Jon 264]

I don't think anyone is claiming they are providing legal advice. This is just a discussion board. Anyone who takes anything from the internet as sound legal advice is demented.

 

Fixed.

[Malsua 1,422]

I hear what you're saying. The person who told me that information said that it mainly applies for when he's concealed carry'ing. He said he only had to say that once to someone once (a bunch of big college age guys trespassing on property), and he told them that so they would leave.

 

 

The underlined are below. It's either or. Either you thought personal injury was going to occur OR you told them to disarm, surrender or withdraw and they refused.

 

 

------------------------

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

[Krdshrk 3,877]

It can't be both? He told them to withdraw, and they would not, and they were many guys to his 1, so he thought personal injury would occur.

[fliks 20]

it could be both, but it only has to be one

[vjf915 456]

I guess I forgot for a second that its illegal to protect yourself and your family in this state

[Shane45 807]

Done!

[fliks 20]

+1 Shane, I've stated my opinion about your posts in public & private - so I won't be redundant.

I'd never say anything like that on a public forum. I would refrain from shooting unless my life or the life of loved ones was in imminent danger or if the intruder refused to leave after being commended to do so. and then, there's always Mr. Baseball Bat - so not always a need to shoot.

[vjf915 456]

Shane you are TOTALLY right.....and it wasnt wise to say that openly like that. If you could do me a favor and edit both your posts to remove my quotes. Stupid move on my part.

 

Honestly, I think its bs that we cant talk about this in public though. There is absolutely no reason why ANYBODY should be prosecuted for defending themselves from someone IN their house. There is no reason why we should not live in a society where the sole responsibility of a crime lands on the criminals shoulders.....but I keep forgetting that I shouldnt expect anything out of NJ.

[fliks 20]

the criminals have more rights than the victims in this state. perhaps one day, it'll change if we stick together and push for change. but for now, it's the sad truth.

[Caine 147]

but I keep forgetting that I shouldnt expect anything out of NJ.

No offense, but your comment would've been dumb is any state.

[vjf915 456]

I dont see how protecting my family is dumb. I admit that my exaggeration comment was dumb, but past that I strongly disagree.