Home Defense STHF Lawyer

[Old School 611]

For those that answered the question, I appreciate the answers. Again, the lawyer calling 911 comment was NOT an idea I came up with. From the research I've done, if someone invades your home, AND you had time to call 911, you have time to either retreat, or possibly not have to shoot. Since you did not IMMEDIATELY fear for your life (by reaching for a phone instead of a gun) then it might be construed as NOT a credible fear (depending how long you stay on the phone.) If you have a reasonable fear for your life, you have one job to do, and one job only, and that is to stop the threat. The lawyer part is due to the fact that you ALREADY shot someone, thus, you calling the cops vs a lawyer calling the cops makes no difference, regardless of how you PERSONALLY feel about it, law is law, and you have every right to call an attorney before 911. Remember, we are NOT talking about BEFORE you shoot the guy. We are talking about a case (most cases) where you SHOOT FIRST and THEN make the phone call. The two phone calls are VERY VERY different.

 

That is the premise of calling your lawyer first. It is not MY idea, it is something that is written in MANY books and articles on the matter, so no need to justJUMP down MY throat about it.

[NFRs2000NYC 7]

Apologies, iphone autocorrect.

[GRIZ 3,369]

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

 

This is one point in 2C:3-4 all need to be aware of FWIW.

[Old School 611]

Don't know why you seem to have a chip on your shoulder, but don't do me any favors.

 

I hold out an olive branch and you PI$$ on my leg. Nice, real nice!

 

Chip? No chip. Just don't feed me $hit and tell me it's ice cream.

 

You have had enough responces to validate my position.

 

I supported you when you said you were IDF, having known some IDF that you would think unlikely,

but there was always an underlying substance to those I knew and you lack it.

 

No animosity or hard feelings.

 

I'm done.

[vladtepes 1,060]

for all of you living in fear of state prosecution in regards to a justified self defense shooting in the home.. where is your cause for concern? can you list some of the cases in which a NJ resident shot someone in a clean shoot but was still drug through the legal ringer over said shoot? all we are doing in this thread is adding fuel to the fire that is "NJ firearms boogie man"... while I AM a realist.. while I understand I live in a pretty anti gun climate... I am unaware of a vast number of cases in which a clean NJ shoot turned into this never ending legal hell.. in which you are held without rights... beaten nearly to death.. and forced to confess to every crime ever committed.. while I do not doubt that while in NJ EVERYTHING with guns has to be handled with caution.. I do not believe that after shooting someone in self defense in your home.. the NJ storm troopers are going to show up at your door.. pistol whip you.. confiscate all your firearms.. and lock you in the stocks for the next decade while awaiting trial.. unless there are several concrete examples of this happening.. I vote we put to rest all this nightmarish portrayal.. as all it does is add to the anti-gun sentiment.. AND adds to the thought process that there is something wrong or potentially illegal with defending yourself in your home..

 

if an intruder is in your home.. and you have reason to believe that you are in grave danger.. you should defend yourself with every ounce of fight you have in you.. coupled with every tool at your disposal.. period...

[mipafox 438]

Shoot bad guy, do not hesitate in calling 911.

 

If you shoot a bad guy and call 911, you have admitted your guilt to murder in most states under most conditions. You are guilty of murder, and the burden has shifted to you to prove a defense.

 

If I shot a bad guy in my house, I wouldn't try to go bury the body somewhere. (Incidentally, in PA, the burden has now shifted back to prosecution to prove we weren't in fear for our lives, but that doesn't change my position.) But if I did it somewhere in which I was unlikely to be discovered, I would not waive my 5th Amendment rights and confess to a crime.

 

In a house, whether you call 911 or your lawyer first, is a decision that is indeed open for discussion. Once you've educated yourself, that open discussion is with your lawyer. If you've got a dead guy in your living room, it wouldn't be unreasonable to call your lawyer before proceeding. If he's injured, and you did it, probably helpful to your a** to request official aid for the guy. And those two reasonable (IMO) thoughts do not prescribe nor preclude any specific immediate response to a shooting in your home.

 

I am not a lawyer, don't even dabble in it.

[Wastegate 9]

Back to the original topic.

 

There is a group specifically for this type of incident.

 

Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network, Inc.

Some quick bullet points from the site

• nationwide network of attorneys and legal experts which the member can draw upon in the event of a self-defense shooting.
  
• A fee deposit paid to the member's attorney by the Network if the member has been involved in a self-defense incident. The fee deposit gets the legal defense immediately underway, with representation during questioning, and arranging for an independent investigation of the incident. If the incident results in felony charges the fee deposit is $10,000; if the member faces misdemeanor charges, a $5,000 fee deposit is sent to his or her attorney.
  
• Network members are also eligible for additional grants of financial assistance from the Network's legal defense fund if they face unmeritorious prosecution or civil action after a self-defense incident occurring during their period of membership
  

 

The monthly newsletter and DVDs are also very educational.

[GRIZ 3,369]

If you shoot a bad guy and call 911, you have admitted your guilt to murder in most states under most conditions. You are guilty of murder, and the burden has shifted to you to prove a defense.

 

You have to admit shooting the bad guy in order to claim self defense.

 

if an intruder is in your home.. and you have reason to believe that you are in grave danger.. you should defend yourself with every ounce of fight you have in you.. coupled with every tool at your disposal.. period...

 

I agree with Vlad on this. The BG is in your house and most likely has a criminal record. This kind of shifts the burden to him to prove what he was doing there.

[tanghan 1]

how about NRA?

http://www.nraila.org/issues/faq/?s=105

 

 

Back to the original topic.

 

There is a group specifically for this type of incident.

 

Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network, Inc.

Some quick bullet points from the site

• nationwide network of attorneys and legal experts which the member can draw upon in the event of a self-defense shooting.
  
• A fee deposit paid to the member's attorney by the Network if the member has been involved in a self-defense incident. The fee deposit gets the legal defense immediately underway, with representation during questioning, and arranging for an independent investigation of the incident. If the incident results in felony charges the fee deposit is $10,000; if the member faces misdemeanor charges, a $5,000 fee deposit is sent to his or her attorney.
  
• Network members are also eligible for additional grants of financial assistance from the Network's legal defense fund if they face unmeritorious prosecution or civil action after a self-defense incident occurring during their period of membership
  

 

The monthly newsletter and DVDs are also very educational.

[Zed's_Dead 16]

I am an attorney, no matter how justified the shooting was, I STFU and call the best criminal attorney I know in Jersey City. I would only tell the cops that I know how crazy NJ laws are and I would prefer a lawyer speak for me so there are no "misunderstanidings"

 

I'm a lawyer as well and I'd do the same exact thing. Call the best guy I know in my neck of woods and keep my mouth shut.

 

I also agree with whoever said they don't want a dedicated "gun lawyer". In this type of situation, you want the best possible criminal lawyer you can afford.

[mipafox 438]

If you shoot a bad guy and call 911, you have admitted your guilt to murder in most states under most conditions. You are guilty of murder, and the burden has shifted to you to prove a defense.

 

You have to admit shooting the bad guy in order to claim self defense.

 

if an intruder is in your home.. and you have reason to believe that you are in grave danger.. you should defend yourself with every ounce of fight you have in you.. coupled with every tool at your disposal.. period...

 

I agree with Vlad on this. The BG is in your house and most likely has a criminal record. This kind of shifts the burden to him to prove what he was doing there.

 

I've never heard of a law in any state that stated once you admit guilt of murder, or guilt of murder is established by the prosecution, that a criminal record shifted the burden of proof to the prosecution for a defense against your criminal act.

[AntZ 1]

Do we have best criminal lawyer list somewhere?

[M4BGRINGO 139]

If a BG breaks into my house I will ask my wife to shoot him/her. Out of all of our guns only two are in her name. The police can take her two and leave mine alone...........

[Maksim 1,504]

or get the guy who just defended casey anthony. WTF... talk about getting away with murder.

[Anselmo 87]

for all of you living in fear of state prosecution in regards to a justified self defense shooting in the home.. where is your cause for concern? can you list some of the cases in which a NJ resident shot someone in a clean shoot but was still drug through the legal ringer over said shoot? all we are doing in this thread is adding fuel to the fire that is "NJ firearms boogie man"... while I AM a realist.. while I understand I live in a pretty anti gun climate... I am unaware of a vast number of cases in which a clean NJ shoot turned into this never ending legal hell.. in which you are held without rights... beaten nearly to death.. and forced to confess to every crime ever committed.. while I do not doubt that while in NJ EVERYTHING with guns has to be handled with caution.. I do not believe that after shooting someone in self defense in your home.. the NJ storm troopers are going to show up at your door.. pistol whip you.. confiscate all your firearms.. and lock you in the stocks for the next decade while awaiting trial.. unless there are several concrete examples of this happening.. I vote we put to rest all this nightmarish portrayal.. as all it does is add to the anti-gun sentiment.. AND adds to the thought process that there is something wrong or potentially illegal with defending yourself in your home..

 

if an intruder is in your home.. and you have reason to believe that you are in grave danger.. you should defend yourself with every ounce of fight you have in you.. coupled with every tool at your disposal.. period...

 

^^ This post should be a sticky.

 

There is no requirement to retreat in your home. Killing and murder do not mean the same thing.

 

Actually, NJ law goes beyond "reason to believe that you are in grave danger" and allows use of force force in self-protection unless you can "retreat with complete safety".

[mipafox 438]

^^ This post should be a sticky.

 

There is no requirement to retreat in your home. Killing and murder do not mean the same thing.

 

Actually, NJ law goes beyond "reason to believe that you are in grave danger" and allows use of force force in self-protection unless you can "retreat with complete safety".

 

You got it backwards. It must be both. Reason to believe you are in grave danger is not enough, you must also be unable to retreat safely. Both of which fall as burdens a murderer must prove in his or her defense. By "murderer" I mean "homeowner that killed an intruder while defending his family."

 

It aint just NJ, it's most states. That's commonly understood language nationwide.

[Anselmo 87]

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.

[vjf915 456]

You got it backwards. It must be both. Reason to believe you are in grave danger is not enough, you must also be unable to retreat safely. Both of which fall as burdens a murderer must prove in his or her defense. By "murderer" I mean "homeowner that killed an intruder while defending his family."

 

It aint just NJ, it's most states. That's commonly understood language nationwide.

Except there is no requirement to retreat from your home in NJ. I don't know about other states, but I can't imagine there is a requirement to retreat from your home in other states either, especially when other states have a stronger Castle Doctrine, or even Stand Your Ground. Why should I be required to retreat from danger, when the criminal could just as likely shoot me in the back when I turn to run? I'm in my home, they shouldn't be. They're not leaving without a couple holes in them, unless they turn to run first.

[Babaganoosh 192]

As I read it, the retreat pertains to retreating to your house. If you are in the yard, you retreat to your house and shoot if and when they come in.

 

If you are already in your house and they enter you can shoot if you "reasonably" believe they will do you harm.

 

I don't think the meaning of it is to keep retreating from room to room until you can't retreat any further.

 

This might be the only time that the word "reasonably" works in our favor when it comes to gun laws. If anyone comes in my house, especially if the door is locked, I think it is reasonable that they may harm me.

[vjf915 456]

As I read it, the retreat pertains to retreating to your house. If you are in the yard, you retreat to your house and shoot if and when they come in.

 

If you are already in your house and they enter you can shoot if you "reasonably" believe they will do you harm.

 

I don't think the meaning of it is to keep retreating from room to room until you can't retreat any further.

This is all exactly what I was referring to. There is no duty to retreat while already in your home.

[mipafox 438]

^^ This post should be a sticky.

 

There is no requirement to retreat in your home. Killing and murder do not mean the same thing.

 

Actually, NJ law goes beyond "reason to believe that you are in grave danger" and allows use of force force in self-protection unless you can "retreat with complete safety".

 

Why should I be required to retreat from danger, when the criminal could just as likely shoot me in the back when I turn to run? I'm in my home, they shouldn't be.

 

Wow, you guys have it good in NJ. A little hint, since many of you are planning to move to America. Most of America has the same law, but your interpretation only works in NJ. So use caution and figure out what you are doing once you leave NJ.

 

This is all exactly what I was referring to. There is no duty to retreat while already in your home.

 

There is a duty to retreat in your home in PA. Unless the person has no reason to be there. And that is NEW, that's part of the very little bit that the vaunted HB40 aka "Castle Doctrine" got us. There is still a duty to retreat in your home from somebody who would expect to have a reason for entry. Even if I own the home and I am in fear of my life or the life of my family. I have a duty to retreat in my home from somebody who would expect they can walk in. You guys apparently have it far better in NJ.

 

And you guys think you don't have a duty to retreat in your home in NJ, LOL. No, better yet, some of you think that this part of your law means that lack of an escape route actually ENHANCES the number of circumstances under which you can use deadly force, rather than restricting them. LOL. You guys got it good in NJ. All I am saying is, when you leave NJ due to the terrible laws, and see the same laws in other states, the same laws don't actually mean that in other states. I'm sure you got it all figured out in NJ, you've made that clear. Just be cautious when you come to America.

[Gun Guy in NJ 10]

Do we have best criminal lawyer list somewhere?

+1 on this. I have never been involved with the crimial justice system and would not know where to look. Maybe phone book. Do they have in the lawyer section a good, better, best list?

 

I guess it might look strange for someone that never commited a crime to have a crimial lawyer on speed dial.

[vladtepes 1,060]

^^ This post should be a sticky.

 

There is no requirement to retreat in your home. Killing and murder do not mean the same thing.

 

Actually, NJ law goes beyond "reason to believe that you are in grave danger" and allows use of force force in self-protection unless you can "retreat with complete safety".

 

 

while I do not have all the answers.. until I start to see some concrete cases in which "joe smith home owner" was swinging from the gallows for a justified shoot... I will continue to be of the opinion that the thought of excessive legal prosecution for shooting someone in your home is exactly that.. a thought..

[vjf915 456]

There is still a duty to retreat in your home from somebody who would expect to have a reason for entry. Even if I own the home and I am in fear of my life or the life of my family. I have a duty to retreat in my home from somebody who would expect they can walk in.

Okay, so the maid that you gave the key to, or the babysitter coming over to watch your children.....they get inside your house, and turn on you.....THEN you have to run. Otherwise, you have no duty to retreat. A person breaking into your house, meaning to do you harm, has no expectations of being able to walk in.

 

This is of course....assuming what you said is accurate.

[mipafox 438]

while I do not have all the answers.. until I start to see some concrete cases in which "joe smith home owner" was swinging from the gallows for a justified shoot... I will continue to be of the opinion that the thought of excessive legal prosecution for shooting someone in your home is exactly that.. a thought..

 

I'll shoot intruders in any state. I'm with you, brother.

 

If you are waiting for case law to try and figure something out, I suggest you do what I did and hire several different lawyers to take classes from on criminal code regarding use of force. I'm sure they will bring up the distinctions of guilt, exceptions, and defenses, and how defenses shift the burden of proof to the accused to prove a defense once their crime is established. Shooting and killing someone is a crime almost anywhere, regardless of circumstances. Perhaps not in NJ, but just about everywhere else.

[PK90 3,573]

Please read the following:

 

Homeowner's Retreat Rule - Bottom of Page 6

 

State v. martinez, 229 n.j. super. 593, 604

[vladtepes 1,060]

Please read the following:

 

Homeowner's Retreat Rule - Bottom of Page 6

 

 

that coincides with everything I find reasonable.. I dont think that anyone WANTS to shoot someone.. obviously if the person stops.. or runs away you should not shoot.. but if I tell someone who is unlawfully in my home to stop.. and they proceed towards me while being faced with a firearm.. I am going to assume that they are prepared to die to do something really bad to me..

 

 

 

State v. martinez, 229 n.j. super. 593, 604

 

 

situation could have been handled entirely differently..

[vjf915 456]

Please read the following:

 

Homeowner's Retreat Rule - Bottom of Page 6

"A person may stand at the threshold of his or her home and prevent an assailant from entering by any means."

 

To me, this essentially means that I can stand in my front doorway, and use deadly force to stop someone from forcefully entering my home? Am I understanding that correctly? It just doesn't seem like that would end well in NJ...

situation could have been handled entirely differently..

This. I'm also wondering why they read him his Miranda rights BEFORE placing him under arrest. They were just questioning him. No need to read him his rights, unless that PD has a certain policy specifying to read them whenever questioning a suspect before taking custody.

[vladtepes 1,060]

"A person may stand at the threshold of his or her home and prevent an assailant from entering by any means."

 

To me, this essentially means that I can stand in my front doorway, and use deadly force to stop someone from forcefully entering my home? Am I understanding that correctly? It just doesn't seem like that would end well in NJ...

 

This. I'm also wondering why they read him his Miranda rights BEFORE placing him under arrest. They were just questioning him. No need to read him his rights, unless that PD has a certain policy specifying to read them whenever questioning a suspect before taking custody.

 

 

also... the section that details that you are allowed to point a gun at someone under the correct situation is interesting.. lol

[BRaptor 68]

"A person may stand at the threshold of his or her home and prevent an assailant from entering by any means."

 

To me, this essentially means that I can stand in my front doorway, and use deadly force to stop someone from forcefully entering my home? Am I understanding that correctly? It just doesn't seem like that would end well in NJ...

 

This statement from the court is rather strange, especially regarding the porch and other appertinances. It would appear that NJ's "castle doctrine" is a bit more in favor of the home-owner than the common law castle doctrine, which generally does not permit lethal force when an intruder is standing "on the threshold," and especially not when an intruder is on your porch.

 

This. I'm also wondering why they read him his Miranda rights BEFORE placing him under arrest. They were just questioning him. No need to read him his rights, unless that PD has a certain policy specifying to read them whenever questioning a suspect before taking custody.

 

This goes directly back to the fundamental concerns of the Miranda Court. One of the biggest concerns of the Miranda Court was one's 5A right to not be compelled to be a witness against themselves along with the inherently compelling/coercive nature of being questioned by police. It's not an arrest thing, necessarily, it's a coercive situation thing.

 

The officers were correct to Mirandize the defendant once they realized they were going to question him about a crime the he may have committed, because their questoning, at the station, has been found time and time again to be an inherently coercive situation where one may feel compelled to answer the police questions. Thus, a defendant needs to knowingly and intelligently waive his 5A right to remain silent before the evidence can be used in court. The Mirandizing was probably necessary to keep the confession from being suppressed.