Use of Force in Defense of Premises or Personal Property Aftermath

[Mr.G 8]

After "Use of Force in Defense of Premises or Personal Property" has been initiated -

1) Will authorities take away your weapon right there-and-there?

2) Will authorities take your other firearms even if it’s not used for the said defense?

 

I understand if prosecuted or charged the weapon is considered evidence so it’s automatically taken. But will you be able to retain it till charges are filed. And until proven guilty will you be able to keep you other firearms?

[Malsua 1,422]

The weapon will be taken at the scene. You probably won't get it back for a long time but there are exceptions where you may get it back quickly or they may keep it essentially forever.

 

In general, your other firearms won't be confiscated unless it's a DV or other event where many questions remain.

 

If they aren't fairly sure it was a clean shoot, expect all firearms to be taken.

[vladtepes 1,060]

when in doubt only use your firearms to protect yourself from eminent physical harm or death..

[Mr.G 8]

when in doubt only use your firearms to protect yourself from eminent physical harm or death..

 

Yes definitely. I would avoid using a weapon at all cost. Don't want the legal, emotional, and financial burden of the aftermath. Only if I see a weapon or oncoming charge even after a clear warning shall I use it. Or bodily injury already has been inflicted to me or family. Won’t even use it if attacker is armed but running away or his backed turned away from me.

 

Just hypothetical in the event there is no other way but to discharge it.

 

I guess I should not be using my babied toys for home defense. Guess I better get a Glock so I wont mind having it taken away... - ducking for cover - LOL

[vladtepes 1,060]

I guess I should not be using my babied toys for home defense. Guess I better get a Glock so I wont mind having it taken away... - ducking for cover - LOL

 

At least you can rely on a Glock to keep you around long enough to have it taken away..

[EO1986 1]

Is the use of lethal force in defense of "premises or personal property" even legally acceptable in NJ? I would expect NJ to string you up if you use lethal force to respond to anything less than an imminent, lethal threat to yourself or someone else.

 

Either way, I wouldn't plan on using grandpa's 1911 as a home defense gun in case it gets taken by the police in the investigation. As much as its nice to own beautiful old guns, I wouldnt use any gun as a home defense weapon that is irreplaceable or has sentimental value.

[Mr.G 8]

Yes, good point in not using irreplaceable weapons.

 

I brought the question up b/c of this Bill.

 

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

http://www.newjersey-legal-guide.com/New-Jersey-Self-Defense.html

 

Is the use of lethal force in defense of "premises or personal property" even legally acceptable in NJ? I would expect NJ to string you up if you use lethal force to respond to anything less than an imminent, lethal threat to yourself or someone else.

 

Either way, I wouldn't plan on using grandpa's 1911 as a home defense gun in case it gets taken by the police in the investigation. As much as its nice to own beautiful old guns, I wouldnt use any gun as a home defense weapon that is irreplaceable or has sentimental value.

[PeteF 1,044]

Yes, good point in not using irreplaceable weapons.

 

No such thing.

 

All tools are replaceable, people aren't.

Use what you got at the time, stop the threat THEN worry if you are going to lose a gun.

 

Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

[vjf915 456]

when in doubt only use your firearms to protect yourself from eminent physical harm or death..

/thread

[GRIZ 3,369]

Is the use of lethal force in defense of "premises or personal property" even legally acceptable in NJ? I would expect NJ to string you up if you use lethal force to respond to anything less than an imminent, lethal threat to yourself or someone else.

 

Use of deadly force top defend premises and property only is not acceptable anywhere I know of. Lethal force can only be used to protect yourself or someone else from serious bodily harm or death.

[Malsua 1,422]

Is the use of lethal force in defense of "premises or personal property" even legally acceptable in NJ? I would expect NJ to string you up if you use lethal force to respond to anything less than an imminent, lethal threat to yourself or someone else.

 

Use of deadly force top defend premises and property only is not acceptable anywhere I know of. Lethal force can only be used to protect yourself or someone else from serious bodily harm or death.

 

Except that...

 

The superior court found in State V Martinez that

 

It is clear that whether or not defendant was required to retreat in this situation was dependent, in part, upon whether the jury believed that defendant was in or at his dwelling house when he employed deadly force in self-protection. In failing to instruct the jury that a dwelling house includes "a porch or similar appurtenance" or that a defendant may "meet the assailant at the threshold of the home and prevent him from entering by any means," the trial court may have led the jury to believe that defendant had a duty to retreat and, therefore, his use of deadly force was not justifiable when, in fact, the jury could properly have concluded that no such duty to retreat existed.

 

The key word here is Assailant. Even if the person stealing your stuff from inside your home isn't an assailant yet, once you demand they disarm or withdraw and they do not, they become an assailant.

 

I assume this has not been tested by the courts, but the Martinez case is established precedent and the wording is clear that you may prevent someone from entering your home. All of this is inside the home of course.

[Jeff 13]

I recall seeing in the Connecticut laws on using deadly physical force that you could, for example, shoot someone who was trying to burn your house down. This was a while ago, so my memory may not be perfect. But this does seem reasonable.

[GRIZ 3,369]

The key word here is Assailant. Even if the person stealing your stuff from inside your home isn't an assailant yet, once you demand they disarm or withdraw and they do not, they become an assailant.

 

I agree with this but the question asked was "to protect premises or property". If the BG is not an assailant and not trying to enter your home, your options for use of force are more limited. There are many people sitting in jail throughout the country who shot at someone trying to steal their car, bike, etc. without being an assailant.

 

recall seeing in the Connecticut laws on using deadly physical force that you could, for example, shoot someone who was trying to burn your house down.

 

This would have legal in NJ some time back also. It was also legal to shoot fleeing felons in NJ at one time.

[bulpup 98]

I recall seeing in the Connecticut laws on using deadly physical force that you could, for example, shoot someone who was trying to burn your house down. This was a while ago, so my memory may not be perfect. But this does seem reasonable.

 

New York City law authorizes deadly force to prevent arson and rape as well.