Duty to retreat if you arrive at a burglary in progress?

[Belmopan Gringo 5]

I think that in that situation, you were compelled to break the law under duress. I'm not familiar if NJ has exemptions for laws broken in that fashion but other states certainly do.

 

Once again, we agree. The person violating the law by leaving his property while in possession of a weapon did so in order to fulfill his obligation to retreat under NJSA 2C: 3-4. He is therefore entitled to raise the defense of "justification" which states, under NJSA 2C: 3-2, that "Conduct which would otherwise be an offense is justified by reason of necessity..."

 

PeteF, I agree that we live in a f**ked up state, but you don't have to worry about being prosecuted under the circumstances you describe.

[Soju 153]

My viewpoint is lightly different as if I arrive hom and see that I no longer am the homeowner. I now m citing in an official capacity as a police officer. My first call is to the police to tell them that I will be inside and armed along with my description so I don't get shot.

 

 

Here is what gets me. In your situation, being a police officer, you are allowed to, as part of your job I presume, enter and confront a possible criminal with a firearm. It being your home or not. Why should anyone else who is not a police officer not be allowed to? Instead, we have to wait for police to show up, in the mean time, your house could be ransacked, your belongs destroyed or stolen, lots of things. I mean, the reason we call the police is because they have guns and other tools at their disposal. If I already have those things, what difference does it make?

 

This isn't directed at your specifically, just a philosophical type question.

 

You are outside and you have a gun (the coming from range scenario), and BG comes out of house running towards you.

You being the law abiding citizen retreat and in the process leave your property.

 

Cops come along at that moment and arrest BG for burglary. You get arrested for carrying a loaded weapon outside of the firearm exemptions. (Yes I know, no sane cop would arrest you but by the letter of the law he should)

 

You spend 7 years in prison. BG is out in 6 months.

 

What an F%%^d up state we live in.

 

Messed up indeed. A scary thought that could in fact happen, and if I heard a story on the news of something similar to this happening, well, it wouldn't surprise me. Sad. Very sad.

 

PeteF, I agree that we live in a f**ked up state, but you don't have to worry about being prosecuted under the circumstances you describe.

 

I disagree. You DO have to worry about being arrested and prosecuted. You SHOULDN'T have to, but to say that it couldn't, or wouldn't happen, is in fact ignorant. I can think of plenty of examples of law abiding citizens getting arrested, prosecuted, and convicted of petty things much less than that under the wrong circumstances. This is the reality we live in. At the same time, there are plenty of examples of people not getting arrested for things potentially worse.

[hd2000fxdl 422]

Here is what gets me. In your situation, being a police officer, you are allowed to, as part of your job I presume, enter and confront a possible criminal with a firearm. It being your home or not. Why should anyone else who is not a police officer not be allowed to? Instead, we have to wait for police to show up, in the mean time, your house could be ransacked, your belongs destroyed or stolen, lots of things. I mean, the reason we call the police is because they have guns and other tools at their disposal. If I already have those things, what difference does it make?

 

This isn't directed at your specifically, just a philosophical type question.

 

 

 

 

Not completely sure about the legal side of things but my feeling are if I came home and I saw someone was in my home and none of my family was inside and I was armed I would move away from the house, call the cops and let them respond, hopefully in time. The reason for this, is there is nothing in my home that can't be replaced and why put myself in harms way. I know legally how I sohuld transport, but in this situation I don't know if I would chance not being able to defend myself, decision would be based on the whole situation at hand.

 

Now if family was inside, I would still call the cops and give them a description of myself and let them know I am armed.

 

If I didn't realize someone was in there and I found out after I was in the home, well all I can hope for is I realize it before they do being I doubt in a situation that they see me before I see them is going to turn out to well.

[Soju 153]

Not completely sure about the legal side of things but my feeling are if I came home and I saw someone was in my home and none of my family was inside and I was armed I would move away from the house, call the cops and let them respond, hopefully in time. The reason for this, is there is nothing in my home that can't be replaced and why put myself in harms way.

 

I certainly understand this view point, and it has validity. I however, am not so sure I would agree. For the most part, I worked hard to earn what I have. Why should I allow some potential thug to take that away from me if I have the means to prevent it? Sure, things can be replaced, and my insurance would likely cover it, but there are things that can't be. Family heirlooms, photos, stuff like that. I am not saying I would charge in there like Rambo. Heck, I am not sure I would even go in at all, and might do exactly what you guys are saying. But my point is, should that be a legal requirement? Should I be prevented from trying to protect my things? I don't think I should. I should have the choice.

[BlueLineFish 615]

 

 

Here is what gets me. In your situation, being a police officer, you are allowed to, as part of your job I presume, enter and confront a possible criminal with a firearm. It being your home or not. Why should anyone else who is not a police officer not be allowed to? Instead, we have to wait for police to show up, in the mean time, your house could be ransacked, your belongs destroyed or stolen, lots of things. I mean, the reason we call the police is because they have guns and other tools at their disposal. If I already have those things, what difference does it make?

 

This isn't directed at your specifically, just a philosophical type question.

 

 

Listen...I get what you are saying. I think personally everybody hold be allowed to protect what is yours. At the same time confronting a suspect that is armed possibly is not something I can recommend. If you get the upper hand then ok but more often than not people overestimate their skills. That is a very stressful situation that unless you have been in will know how you respond. Not a great time to find out. Like I said I don't recommend confronting anybody over belongings.police respond to an in progress call because we want to catch bad guys. Some people think we don't care but we do. Family inside is a completely different animal and it is instinctual to want to protect your family. Never fault a person for that.

[Soju 153]

Listen...I get what you are saying. I think personally everybody hold be allowed to protect what is yours. At the same time confronting a suspect that is armed possibly is not something I can recommend. If you get the upper hand then ok but more often than not people overestimate their skills. That is a very stressful situation that unless you have been in will know how you respond. Not a great time to find out. Like I said I don't recommend confronting anybody over belongings.police respond to an in progress call because we want to catch bad guys. Some people think we don't care but we do. Family inside is a completely different animal and it is instinctual to want to protect your family. Never fault a person for that.

 

Sure, I actually don't disagree. The only thing I disagree with is making it illegal to NOT retreat or something along those lines. If you want to risk your own life for your stuff, why should you be told you can't? People, contrary to what it would seem to lawmakers, are capable of making their own decisions. Let me make my own decision. I don't need anyone telling me to act a certain way "for my safety" at the expense of my liberty.

[Duppie 73]

Not completely sure about the legal side of things but my feeling are if I came home and I saw someone was in my home and none of my family was inside and I was armed I would move away from the house, call the cops and let them respond, hopefully in time. The reason for this, is there is nothing in my home that can't be replaced and why put myself in harms way. I know legally how I sohuld transport, but in this situation I don't know if I would chance not being able to defend myself, decision would be based on the whole situation at hand.

 

Now if family was inside, I would still call the cops and give them a description of myself and let them know I am armed.

 

If I didn't realize someone was in there and I found out after I was in the home, well all I can hope for is I realize it before they do being I doubt in a situation that they see me before I see them is going to turn out to well.

I agree,there's nothing that I can think of that would be worth the possible physical harm,legal issues and lingering doubt or guilt in my house other than my family members if I should encounter such a scenario. Belongings can be replaced.

[BlueLineFish 615]

Part of the problem is the litigious nature of this country. Nobody wants to take responsibility for themselves so our lawmakers think they need to protect us. I agree that if you want to risk your life feel free. Just make sure you are prepared to pay the ultimate price. Not a lot of people actually are.

[Soju 153]

Part of the problem is the litigious nature of this country. Nobody wants to take responsibility for themselves so our lawmakers think they need to protect us. I agree that if you want to risk your life feel free. Just make sure you are prepared to pay the ultimate price. Not a lot of people actually are.

 

You are absolutely right again, and that is exactly the reason I disagree. They need to STOP legislating things like this. The one thing I disagree with, is you say "nobody wants to take responsibility", and you are close, but it isn't because nobody 'wants' to, it is that we have been legislated out of the option. And that is my gripe. And it becomes substantiated with opinions like yours and others. Don't misinterpret that. I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying that just because something is a good idea, doesn't mean that it has to be law, or the only option. You legislate bad things, and not good things. When you start to legislate good acts, you in turn, make other things that aren't bad, illegal my nature of not including everything.

[BlueLineFish 615]

I agree to much is legislated.

[hd2000fxdl 422]

I certainly understand this view point, and it has validity. I however, am not so sure I would agree. For the most part, I worked hard to earn what I have. Why should I allow some potential thug to take that away from me if I have the means to prevent it? Sure, things can be replaced, and my insurance would likely cover it, but there are things that can't be. Family heirlooms, photos, stuff like that. I am not saying I would charge in there like Rambo. Heck, I am not sure I would even go in at all, and might do exactly what you guys are saying. But my point is, should that be a legal requirement? Should I be prevented from trying to protect my things? I don't think I should. I should have the choice.

 

The only thing you really have to think about is regardless if I am armed or not there could be 1 or more people in the house, I don't know if I am walking into a situation that I out gun them, or they out gun me so possessions are replaceable, I understand things that can't be replaced but you also can't enjoy them if you're not around anymore either, also like I said, if family was in the house, all bets are off.

[BlueLineFish 615]

Think about this. Do you think just one cop shows up on a burglary call. Nope. Too many variables. Weapons? Multiple perps? Cops don't want even numbers so why should you

[Soju 153]

I don't want people stealing my stuff either. But things don't always work out that way. If you want to be restricted, that is fine. I don't much care about things you wish to either deny yourself, or allow others to deny you. But I don't want you, lawmakers, legislators, the government, or anybody else restricting me from doing lawful acts for "my safety".

 

The only one who is going to look out for you is yourself.

[Belmopan Gringo 5]

I don't want people stealing my stuff either. But things don't always work out that way. If you want to be restricted, that is fine. I don't much care about things you wish to either deny yourself, or allow others to deny you. But I don't want you, lawmakers, legislators, the government, or anybody else restricting me from doing lawful acts for "my safety".

 

The only one who is going to look out for you is yourself.

 

If you're speaking philosophically, I don't disagree with you- government has insinuated itself into every aspect of our lives, and its not for the better.

 

If you are speaking legally, however, the law (in New Jersey, at least) makes a strong distinction between using deadly force when it is necessary for the protection of humans versus the protection of property. If you can demonstrate that you used deadly force because it was immediately necessary for the protection of yourself and/or others, it will ultimately be deemed to be aceptable.Conversely, if the use of deadly force can be safely avoided, it's use will be deemed improper. Its the grey areas in between that cause problems for the law, and the law basically gives you "the rub of the green" if the encounter is in your house.

 

I can't say that I disagree with that approach. Speaking hypothetically, If you, your family, a friend or even a stranger is in imminent risk of death or serious bodily injury, you will do whatever needs to be done to protect yourself or them, and the law will give you a pass. If, however, you want to burst into a building (including your own house), with guns blazing, because some teenager might be stealing a stereo, your behavior would be unacceptable since it puts not only you, but potentially other innocent persons at risk.

[Soju 153]

Yes, philosophically. Yes, I understand the legal distinctions. I'm saying it shouldn't be that way, and it is unfortunate that it is.

[Downtownv 1,781]

In classes on Home defense that I took the instructions were "Unless your life in in eminent danger do not shoot!"

Stealing your TV doesn't put your life in danger. If you go looking around your house when you hear a noise in the middle of the night....YOU are guilty of "Hunting" your life was not in eminent danger until you approached the intruder.

Solution: Call the cops they get paid to hunt. Take a protected defensive stand and protect your loved ones. Call 911 and leave the phone line "Open" shout a warning that you are armed. and that the police are on the way to exit NOW, let the 911 recording get a record of all that!

If you want to go out on patrol go to Kandahar, they always need people like you.

[vladtepes 1,060]

In classes on Home defense that I took the instructions were "Unless your life in in eminent danger do not shoot!"

Stealing your TV doesn't put your life in danger. If you go looking around your house when you hear a noise in the middle of the night....YOU are guilty of "Hunting" your life was not in eminent danger until you approached the intruder.

Solution: Call the cops they get paid to hunt. Take a protected defensive stand and protect your loved ones. Call 911 and leave the phone line "Open" shout a warning that you are armed. and that the police are on the way to exit NOW, let the 911 recording get a record of all that!

If you want to go out on patrol go to Kandahar, they always need people like you.

 

there is no way in hell I am going to rely on the police to be my on call security.. if I hear a bump in the night in my house.. it could be my cat.. I am supposed to dial 911 and have them investigate while I board myself up in the bedroom?

 

last time I checked my home was still MY HOME.. and in my home I am afforded the right to defend myself.. I can carry a gun in my home.. that is legal.. I can walk around my home that is legal.. and if I encounter an intruder and am fearful for my life.. I can shoot them.. that is legal.. none of those events should lead to prosecution..

 

while you may not shoot someone to stop them from taking your TV.. the law does not dictate that you have to stand there and hold the door for them either..

[Jon 264]

there is no way in hell I am going to rely on the police to be my on call security.. if I hear a bump in the night in my house.. it could be my cat.. I am supposed to dial 911 and have them investigate while I board myself up in the bedroom?

 

Lulz... you have no idea how often this happens...

[vladtepes 1,060]

Lulz... you have no idea how often this happens...

 

tax dollars hard at work.. lol

 

the reality of the situation is simple IMO..

in NJ you can defend yourself in the home.. the stipulation being you can not intentionally put yourself in harms way..

if you hear a bump in the night and go check and encounter a criminal who threatens you with deadly force.. you are imo good to shoot?

if you come home and your door is kicked in.. there is a good indication that your home has been broken into.. and putting yourself into harms way by entering and then shooting someone will be less likely to fly..

[Downtownv 1,781]

The message was, you better think before you shoot because you're gonna be treated like the criminal, by the cops (The first thing they're gonna do is Disarm you and cuff you) All the see is a person with a gun and don't know who you are, and the Judge and the jury and the insurance companies, who see you as using excessive force.

I joined the USCCA for the number #1 reason: Liability insurance and legal support. No, your home owners policy doesn't cover your a** at all!

The legal system is stacked against you!

Stealing your laptop vs raping your daughter are very differently viewed in courts where a homeowner shoots an intruder.

I always say that I hope that my bullets will only hit paper targets.....

I am not looking to dispute anyone's feelings here, just passing on what I learned and I'm glad I did.

[Kaiser7 33]

Personally, I don't understand how any state can have these laws. I Louisiana you're authorized to shoot people for being on your property, or for attempted carjacking. Honestly, I'd side with that before the laws we have. First off, ours are so damn confusing, that you're likely to make a mistake, and get yourself killed trying to follow the law. As far as I'm concerned, a person revokes their rights not to have their "Thoughts behind them" (on a wall) if they decide to victimize someone. Granted, I'm HUGELY pro-victims, seeing as how I'm the victim of Child molestation, Burglary (my brother), Abuse (brother again), and all the other stuff he stole from me over the years. Not to mention the attempted carjacking when I was driving to Rowan Camden.

 

I mean, there's no reason someone should be AFRAID of defending all that they've worked for, or their family (of course) simply because the law seems to think of self-defense as vigilantism. I respect police, however, I know that during an assault that was occuring in the next town over, they took 40 minutes to arrive. The station is 2 blocks away from the scene. My friend's dad was being harassed by their alcoholic neighbor, who ended up going after my friend's dad with a bat. I respect police, but they can't always be there when you need them.

 

After all, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

[Downtownv 1,781]

Kaiser

"My friend's dad was being harassed by their alcoholic neighbor, who ended up going after my friend's dad with a bat. I respect police, but they can't always be there when you need them."

 

Eminent danger of one's life!

JUSTIFIED!

[bulpup 98]

I joined the USCCA for the number #1 reason: Liability insurance and legal support. No, your home owners policy doesn't cover your a** at all!

 

Explain this insurance. I never considered the USCCA, but if they can insure that sounds very interesting.

[Kaiser7 33]

Kaiser

"My friend's dad was being harassed by their alcoholic neighbor, who ended up going after my friend's dad with a bat. I respect police, but they can't always be there when you need them."

 

Eminent danger of one's life!

JUSTIFIED!

 

And again, the Laurel Springs police station, about 3-4 blocks away at most, took 40 minutes to arrive, at which point the situation had managed to be diffused. I don't remember HOW it was diffused, but I do know my friend's dad has a .357, and I think the threat of that alone could be enough...

 

As for Laurel Springs police... They'll bust kids for skateboarding without helmets, or when I got in my fight (8th grade) they tried to get me to do work for the town without a trial. Pretty sure that's illegal...

[Downtownv 1,781]

USCCA (United States Concealed Carry Association) is one company that offers Gun owners a legal team that specializes in defending gun owners.

They have different levels of membership (Insurance coverage)

God forbid you find yourself in that position, your homeowners will pay nothing to defend you nor a lawsuit by the intruder. (Happens all the time)

There is another group that offers similar protection, I just don't know their name....

[Soju 153]

First off, ours are so damn confusing, that you're likely to make a mistake, and get yourself killed trying to follow the law.

 

I mean, there's no reason someone should be AFRAID of defending all that they've worked for, or their family (of course) simply because the law seems to think of self-defense as vigilantism.

 

Thank you!

 

 

Stealing your laptop vs raping your daughter are very differently viewed in courts where a homeowner shoots an intruder.

 

And stealing your laptop and running away and stealing your laptop and then assaulting you are very different events. So when you come in on the "stealing your laptop" phase of the incident, how do you know there isn't a threat? Do you just put faith in this criminal who is already trying to deprive you of your property to not hurt you?

[Downtownv 1,781]

Ahhhhh, somewhere is that very fine line.........I like "the open line" to 911 for a recording, that would hold up in court.

That he came at me, not me going after him armed.

[rdsmith3 19]

 

And stealing your laptop and running away and stealing your laptop and then assaulting you are very different events. So when you come in on the "stealing your laptop" phase of the incident, how do you know there isn't a threat? Do you just put faith in this criminal who is already trying to deprive you of your property to not hurt you?

 

That is really the question, isn't it? The law may apply some standard of what would a rational, prudent man do, but the criminal may be irrational because he is on drugs. Also, if the criminal becomes aware that you have witnessed him stealing, you are now a witness who can identify him in a lineup, and send him to jail. He may think that it is better to take his chances and eliminate the witness.

 

I would not shoot someone merely to defend my property, but it is hard to imagine a scenario in which it is so clear that I am not in danger, and the criminal only wants my 50" TV.

[mipafox 438]

If you were to arrive home and notice that a burglar is clearly in progress (as in there there are signs of forced entry and an apparent activity within the house), and you call the police, the first thing the dispatcher is likely to instruct you to do is to be safe and to stay away from the structure. The last thing they want you to do is to storm inside with your gun drawn, or to start a shootout outside.

 

The last thing I care about is what a dispatcher wants or instructs me to do. But I don't think I'd want to go into my house under most circumstances if it was obvious that there was a burglary in progress.

[vladtepes 1,060]

Ahhhhh, somewhere is that very fine line.........I like "the open line" to 911 for a recording, that would hold up in court.

That he came at me, not me going after him armed.

 

what you say under pressure on a recorded line might end up hurting you more than helping you..

 

if you do the job correctly it will be your word VS nobodies word... that is a hell of a lot better than every word I mutter under pressure being recorded.. IMO of course..