Can you hold someone at gun point until cops arrive?

[O-gre 7]

Scumbag breaks into my car and I'm alerted be security cameras to their act. Can I grab my shotgun and hold them there?

[Candide 0]

In NJ? No.

 

Really not worth killing someone over a car or it's contents anyway.

[BullzeyeNJ 104]

In NJ? No.

 

Really not worth killing someone over a car or it's contents anyway.

 

I would think you could but that's a guess on my part.

[O-gre 7]

Didn't say kill! Police hold people at gun point all the time.

[pjd832 146]

Didn't say kill! Police hold people at gun point all the time.

 

 

 

Police also cc off duty all the time too.....police and "the rest of us" have different rules lol

[Holeshot 3]

Can I grab my shotgun and hold them there?

 

Sure can, you can do whatever you want.

 

Police hold people at gun point all the time.

 

And if you choose to hold the perps with your shotgun in your above posted scenerio, I'll bet ya you will become one of those people that police hold at gunpoint.

[GRIZ 3,369]

Didn't say kill! Police hold people at gun point all the time.

 

On TV, yes. Police hold people at gunpoint when there is reason to believe they are armed or have used or threatened deadly force. They only do this until the actor is searched and cuffed. No reason to feel threatened, no reason for anyone to hold anyone at gunpoint. If they decide to run you can't shoot them.

[Dan 177]

IMO, IANAL

 

In NJ, no. #1 Outside your home, you cannot use deadly force to protect property unless it meets very narrow exemptions as outlined below. #2 If you are outside of your home, even on your property you more or less have a duty to retreat/avoid confrontation if threatened with harm. #3 Even if you were justified in using deadly force to defend yourself, you would never "hold the bad guy at gunpoint for the cops". You may; however, demand that person lie still until the police arrive because you have clear justification that if they got up from that position, they would indeed attempt to attack you with deadly force or try to cause you serious bodily harm.

 

2C:3-6. Use of force in defense of premises or personal property

Use of Force in Defense of Premises or Personal Property. a. Use of force in defense of premises. Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 2C:3-9, the use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor is in possession or control of premises or is licensed or privileged to be thereon and he reasonably believes such force necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by such other person in or upon such premises.

 

b. Limitations on justifiable use of force in defense of premises.

 

(1) Request to desist. The use of force is justifiable under this section only if the actor first requests the person against whom such force is used to desist from his interference with the property, unless the actor reasonably believes that:

 

(a) Such request would be useless;

 

(b) It would be dangerous to himself or another person to make the request; or

 

© Substantial harm will be done to the physical condition of the property which is sought to be protected before the request can effectively be made.

 

(2) Exclusion of trespasser. The use of force is not justifiable under this section if the actor knows that the exclusion of the trespasser will expose him to substantial danger of serious bodily harm.

 

(3) Use of deadly force. The use of deadly force is not justifiable under subsection a. of this section unless the actor reasonably believes that:

 

(a) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or

 

(b) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to commit or consummate arson, burglary, robbery or other criminal theft or property destruction; except that

 

© Deadly force does not become justifiable under subparagraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection unless the actor reasonably believes that:

 

(i) The person against whom it is employed has employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the actor; or

 

(ii) The use of force other than deadly force to terminate or prevent the commission or the consummation of the crime would expose the actor or another in his presence to substantial danger of bodily harm. An actor within a dwelling shall be presumed to have a reasonable belief in the existence of the danger. The State must rebut this presumption by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

c. Use of force in defense of personal property. Subject to the provisions of subsection d. of this section and of section 2C:3-9, the use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by such other person to commit theft, criminal mischief or other criminal interference with personal property in his possession or in the possession of another for whose protection he acts.

 

d. Limitations on justifiable use of force in defense of personal property.

 

(1) Request to desist and exclusion of trespasser. The limitations of subsection b. (1) and (2) of this section apply to subsection c. of this section.

 

(2) Use of deadly force. The use of deadly force in defense of personal property is not justified unless justified under another provision of this chapter.

[Holeshot 3]

"132 and Bush, I've got him at gunpoint... Okay, gunpoint, 132 and Bush, covers code three."

[tony357 386]

I am going to say about 15 years ago, a marina north of me kept having outdrives stolen off their boats in the yard, the owners son decided to hide out in one of the boats with a shotgun and ended up catching the perp and holding him at gun point until the cops arrived. both of them were arrested..

i do not know what ever came of the sons owners arrest..he may have been released..

[mcbethr 42]

"132 and Bush, I've got him at gunpoint... Okay, gunpoint, 132 and Bush, covers code three."

 

+1

[Tactical Turtle 11]

Police use constructive authority. Pointing a gun at someone by itself is not deadly force it's constructive authority. The action of pulling the trigger and blowing his pinky off is deadly force though. Now a loaded weapon on your property... legal.. detaining someone for theft or property damage grey area I think. Sure someone will chime in and say other wise. Your vest bet is getting good description calling your local pd and use ur phone to take pics or video. Imo.

[mcbethr 42]

IMHO, the only way I would ever point a gun at somebody is if I was going to use it. A gun is not there to de-escalate a situation or settle an argument. It's there to stop the threat before the threat can hurt you or your family.

 

My car is insured. I would not come running out of the house to scare a bad guy away from my car. It's a car. I can get another car. I would make sure my family is safe and call the police. If the scumbag comes into my house, I have 45 reasons why he doesn't need to be there. Personally, I'd rather him be out by the car.

[Underdog 1,593]

I wouldn't suggest it given the system in place in NJ and the actual progressive dumbed-down brilliance that might be on your jury, and that's not to mention the inevitable legal expenses and the honorable judges.

 

When you have a firearm out, you are escalating the situation and you better well have the resolve to use it. In this scenario, unless it was parked in your garage attached to your house and the thug had a weapon, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on in NJ.

 

Pepper spray might be a good alternative, but personally, unless your prized cocker spaniel is in the car, you should avoid any chance of getting harmed yourself. I wonder if you would have the legality of overpowering and retaining the schumerbag (mano a mano) and say the pepper spray. Would it be legal to use wire ties, etc. to secure the thug and make a citizen's arrest and retain for safe keeping until the cops arrive?

 

Lastly, you would have know idea if this person had or could readily acquire a weapon and whether or not this person was working alone.

 

+1 MacBethr

[Vzguy 13]

I could of sworn I heard Nappen on a gun4hire radio show, say that is was not illegal to point a gun at someone on your property to hold him for cops, it's when you shoot them it becomes the problem in NJ.

[TK421 2]

NEW JERSEY STATE CONSTITUTION 1947

ARTICLE I

RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES

 

1. All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just not with a gun...

[TheDon 3]

NEW JERSEY STATE CONSTITUTION 1947

ARTICLE I

RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES

 

1. All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just not with a gun...

LOL. I am so stealing this.

[Dan 177]

You can use force to protect property, you just have to play by the rules. You can't use deadly force unless its within the exemptions laid out in the statutes as I posted above.

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

If you're holding someone at gunpoint, doesn't that imply a willingness to shoot him if he chooses leave? So that can't possibly be allowed in NJ, because either your life is being threatened, and you are justified in using lethal force; or it's not and you can't. If the person you're holding decides to just get up and walk away, what are you going to do, shoot him? (Not trying to be funny, just trying to think this through logically.)

[Soju 153]

IMHO, the only way I would ever point a gun at somebody is if I was going to use it. A gun is not there to de-escalate a situation or settle an argument. It's there to stop the threat before the threat can hurt you or your family.

 

 

Blasphemy! Firearms are very often and commonly used to deescalate situations! Hopefully, that happens before you need to use deadly force, but it doesn't always work that way. That is why we use firearms....

 

So you are telling me, if someone broke into your home, and had a knife, that even if as soon as he sees the gun, he drops the knife and puts his hands up, you are still going to shoot him?

 

If you answer yes, I think you may need to recheck your moral compass. If you answer no, then you have just used it to deescalate a situation. Now that happens to be the same as stopping a threat, so maybe your post was confusing and/or poorly worded/thought out.

[O-gre 7]

Funny how most of don't know the real answer.

[Vzguy 13]

Gun4hire Radio Episode 38 2/19/12 from 53:45 to 58:18 Nappen explains the use of deadly and non-deadly force for N.J.

 

EDIT

 

 

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/criminal/charges/justif005.pdf

 

Good Read!

[Qel Hoth 33]

If you're holding someone at gunpoint, doesn't that imply a willingness to shoot him if he chooses leave? So that can't possibly be allowed in NJ, because either your life is being threatened, and you are justified in using lethal force; or it's not and you can't. If the person you're holding decides to just get up and walk away, what are you going to do, shoot him? (Not trying to be funny, just trying to think this through logically.)

 

Assuming you are in your home, you actually could articulate a reason to shoot, though I don't think I would shoot someone just trying to run away.

 

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.

 

As always, IANAL.

[Handyman 5,682]

I reasonably belive that anyone criminal enough to break into my house is criminal enough to inflict injury upon me. At least, that is the one side of the story the jury will hear. They won't hear the other side unless they use a ouija board.

[mcbethr 42]

Now that happens to be the same as stopping a threat, so maybe your post was confusing and/or poorly worded/thought out.

 

Perhaps it was... I did write it quickly at work.

 

First off, we can say anything we want from behind the safety of a keyboard, and in a real situation, who knows what we would do? I would like to think that I would give a warning. Even a loud "The police are on their way. Get out of my house." But if you have the time to do that, are they really a threat? Maybe you could do that from the upstairs, but am I going to do that when I come face to face down a hallway?

 

What I'm trying to get at with the first point is that if the situation is bad enough to point, it is bad enough to shoot. I also have a feeling that that anybody who is pointing (and LEOs are the exception) a gun does not necessarily intend to use it. They are pointing and not shooting because they are scared to death of using it.

 

Read "On Combat" and "On Killing" by Dave Grossman. These books basically state that most people simply do not have the faculty to kill other human beings. Grossman writes that the Army discovered in World War II that only 20% of all soldiers actually fired their rifles at the enemy in combat. What were the other 80% of the soldiers doing? They were either avoiding combat by helping with the wounded or shooting, but not actually aiming at the enemy. Even the fear of death won't get some people to shoot. This is why the Army stopped having soldiers shoot at bulls-eyes and started to have them shoot at man-shaped silhouettes. This is operant conditioning. You see a threat, you verify the threat, you shoot. You make it ingrained in their brain so that it removes the emotional fear of killing.

 

That being said criminal drops the knife, and they are no longer a threat. You don't shoot. Of course, they could be 7'4" and 400 pounds. Are they still a threat?

 

But if you are threatened, you don't hesitate. You don't point and threaten. You shoot until the target is no longer a threat.

 

Someone who is breaking into my car is not a threat. I wouldn't go outside of my home and hold a gun on them. I would stay in my home and call the police. The only reason a non-LEO has to point a gun at someone is to shoot. If they weren't a threat, you shouldn't be pointing a gun at them in the first place.

[2 trip_nick 0]

You see a guy breaking into your car. You're in no danger. You call the cops and take his picture with your cell phone. He sees you and starts coming at you with a knife. You now draw your gun legally, I think. The question is can you hold him as a threat to the public? Which really means would you or could you shoot him in the back if he turns to run?

[BD104X 1]

I own guns to protect me & my family, and I'm not one to watch from a window while someone breaks into my car, garage, window, etc. I'm not using a gun to protect my stuff, I'm going out there to protect my stuff and I'm using a gun to protect me. If he bolts, police get a description. If he lays down, police get a suspect. If he advances, police get a body and only my version of events.

[Candide 0]

I own guns to protect me & my family, and I'm not one to watch from a window while someone breaks into my car, garage, window, etc. I'm not using a gun to protect my stuff, I'm going out there to protect my stuff and I'm using a gun to protect me. If he bolts, police get a description. If he lays down, police get a suspect. If he advances, police get a body and only my version of events.

 

Try explaining that to a jury. Makes sense to me but we are all pretty much on the same team here.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

citizens arrest? I guess if your on your property you would be OK, but remember you have a duty to retreat to your dwelling and If he decides to run you cant really leave your property with a gun..

[MrSurfboard 1]

Deadly force for defense of property is NOT authorized in NJ. Add to the fact that you would be out of your house with your weapon, I would say you would probably be charged with something depending on what county you live in. Pointing a firearm at someone is considered aggravated assault in NJ. A police officer can do it, but you can't, especially under the circumstances you describe.