In NJ can you hold an intruder at gunpoint until LE arrive?

[NJDrew1 0]

The thing is that unless you are a LEO if you hold him you may be charged with an illegal arrest or even kidnapping - stupid laws. That is why the best thing is probably empty the magazine into him. As the cops in NY told my dad in the 1970's - feel free to have a gun in your house and shoot anyone BUT before you call us be sure to a) drag him inside of the house if you shot him outside, and B) if he turns out to be unarmed place a kitchen knife in his dead hands before we get there.

I was told that several times thoughout my life by a couple of LEOs.

[bulpup 98]

I believe the proper thing to do is buy a double barrel shotgun, a double barrel shotgun, and take your double barrel shotgun and shoot it out your front door twice. That will keep the intruders away.

 

 

How would they know any different from every other night I do this?

[Old Dog 19]

If I recall correctly, no. Once the threat ceases you cannot use deadly force. He can turn around and just walk away and if you shoot him you will go to jail and he or his family will sue you in civil court. So keeping someone at gun point would be, well, pointless. I would not try a citizen's arrest as that is tricky business and often backfires. Do not listen to anyone who suggests that you shoot him so there is only one side of the story because the evidence will provide the other side of the story and that may be more damning than the story told by a criminal with a long rap sheet.

[Vincenzo 0]

This is why you have two guns. One being a net-gun in case the intruder isn't armed and tries to run. Too bad those stupid things are more expensive than a real gun.

[222 3]

This is why you have two guns. One being a net-gun in case the intruder isn't armed and tries to run. Too bad those stupid things are more expensive than a real gun.

 

All these guns are like 50+ year old technology. Cordite packed in brass, expelling copper-coated lead. pfffft so last millenium.

 

Where is my phaser?!? Shoot the intruder on "stun" setting.

[jdubsss 0]

well that raises an interesting question... can you tase someone in your house in this pos state?

[woodentoe 14]

well that raises an interesting question... can you tase someone in your house in this pos state?

 

Pretty sure you can't own a taser.

[Howard 538]

well that raises an interesting question... can you tase someone in your house in this pos state?

 

Tasers are illegal for private citizens in the People's Republic.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

answering the question. Don't know, don't care. If the perps in my house, he has already made the decision for me.

[Cixelsid 1]

If an intruder has broken into your home, it would be safe to say he's not there to play checkers with you or discuss politics. He's there for nefarious purposes, one of which may be to harm you or your family. This is not the time to play tv cop. Terminate the threat with extreme prejudice.

[Handyman 5,682]

Tasers are illegal for private citizens in the People's Republic.

 

Along with everything else. Can't tase, can't stun, can't slingshot, can't blackjack, can't spray with more than an eyedropper full of pepper.

 

The law leaves no choice but to shoot the intruder unless he falls into your burmese tiger trap.

[Howard 538]

I don't see anything in the law that prevents you from blasting them in the face with a full ABC fire extinguisher, and then smacking them on the head with the extinguisher if they are still blindly coming at you Wasp & Hornet spray works well and typically has a range of over 25'

[bhunted 887]

That would be considered a 'man trap' and highly illegal. That would also be any booby traps that could maim or kill. You've seen in movies, I'm sure like a shotgun propped up and rigged to fire when the door opens, etc....

 

This thread has gone haywire a long time ago... Watch what you say whether you are kidding or not, as it's been proven by Uncle Joe that false info could screw ya good!

 

Mantraps that use deadly force are illegal in the United States, and there have been notable tort law cases where the trespasser has successfully sued the property owner for damages caused by the mantrap. As noted in the important US court case of Katko v. Briney, "the law has always placed a higher value upon human safety than upon mere rights of property."

 

 

.... unless he falls into your burmese tiger trap.

 

 

Sent from John's iPad 2 via Tapatalk HD

Typos courtesy Apple...

[BarkNBite 15]

Amazes me how almost everything here in NJ is illeagle but go across the Delaware and you can own it all and carry it too for your protection with the proper PA license. IMO......there is just something not right here in NJ.....I'm as confused as a baby in a topless bar.

[voyager9 3,434]

So basically..

The homeowner has to announce their intention before any force is used, and

To use force against an intruder there has to be a threat of physical force against another person.

If there is no threat, then use there can be no use of force by the homeowner.

 

So, if I hear a bump in the night, and go downstairs to find an intruder in the living room.. he can completely ignore me and continue to loot the place as long as his actions don't meet some lawyer's definition of a 'threat'.

 

That basically just reinforces my plan all along.. get the wife/kids in a safe and defensible location and shelter in place until PD arrive.

[kman 56]

The answer is you can invite a burglar to stay till the police arrive but you can't force him to stay without risking arrest and prosecution. If you can, take a picture so police can catch him and you can identify him later.

 

In NJ the gun is to defend yourself and others from risk of serious bodily harm, and if the guy is running away he isn't harming anyone and you cannot fire at him. Even if he has your property. Perhaps if he has the antidote to poison you are dying from you could make a self defense argument that you had to stop him to save your life.

 

If he is running toward someone else with intent to harm them, you could invoke a claim of defending them.

 

If this is some sort of serial murderer or rapist or extreme sociopath that is an outrageous menace to society, I would argue you have a moral obligation to stop him regardless of the law by any means you can up to and including firing on him so he does not escape arrest. Otherwise gruesome harm he inflicts on subsequent victims after his escape, that could have been avoided by his apprehension, are on your conscience. Others in this state differ in their notions of morality.

 

In Texas it is legal to fire on a fleeing felon who is going to get away. They dont like allowing criminals to get away with it down there. Up here they have different notions.

 

An ordinary thief is a protected class of people in the court house here. If you harm them without a clear basis for self defense you are likely to be pulverized in a court of law.

 

 

[Duppie 73]

I have been reading this tread with both interest and confusion,at the same time wondering what I would do.

Here's what I hope I would do. Grab the gun and cellphone that is always by the bedside and with my finger poised on the 911 speed dial, attempt to confirm there is an intruder.when confirmed, inform said intruder that I am armed,and have called the police while scurrying back to the bedroom to secure door,keep a running dialog with 911 and wait it out....Nothing I own is worth our life.

If intruder attempts to enter the bedroom? well that is another story entirely, now he's already warned that I am armed and hopefully the cops are on the way so now he's either doubtful,high,stupid,motivated and/or all of the above...A very dangerous combination and clearly a treat to me and my own and will be shot.

Again I hope to have the presence of mind to play it out to the end.

[Rifleman1 32]

I've often wondered what to do if you were to catch an intruder, tell him to "lie face down on the ground" until the police arrive. At this point, you're not completely sure if he's armed or not. The guy listens to you - at least initially. Now what? Keep pointing the gun at him? what happens if he says, "I'm going to get up and run out your door and you'll never see me again." then gets up . Once he gets up it's right back to the beginning of finding an intruder in your home. You don't know what he's going to do.

 

A good scenario is he runs away immediately. Then you don't have to worry about this. But can you detain an intruder in NJ?

 

Yes you can.

[kahout 0]

Along with everything else. Can't tase, can't stun, can't slingshot, can't blackjack, can't spray with more than an eyedropper full of pepper.

 

The law leaves no choice but to shoot the intruder unless he falls into your burmese tiger trap.

For sure!

[kahout 0]

I don't see anything in the law that prevents you from blasting them in the face with a full ABC fire extinguisher, and then smacking them on the head with the extinguisher if they are still blindly coming at you Wasp & Hornet spray works well and typically has a range of over 25'

A dry chemical extinguisher would leave such a mess!

[Old Dog 19]

The answer is you can invite a burglar to stay till the police arrive but you can't force him to stay without risking arrest and prosecution. If you can, take a picture so police can catch him and you can identify him later.

 

In NJ the gun is to defend yourself and others from risk of serious bodily harm, and if the guy is running away he isn't harming anyone and you cannot fire at him. Even if he has your property. Perhaps if he has the antidote to poison you are dying from you could make a self defense argument that you had to stop him to save your life.

 

If he is running toward someone else with intent to harm them, you could invoke a claim of defending them.

 

If this is some sort of serial murderer or rapist or extreme sociopath that is an outrageous menace to society, I would argue you have a moral obligation to stop him regardless of the law by any means you can up to and including firing on him so he does not escape arrest. Otherwise gruesome harm he inflicts on subsequent victims after his escape, that could have been avoided by his apprehension, are on your conscience. Others in this state differ in their notions of morality.

 

In Texas it is legal to fire on a fleeing felon who is going to get away. They dont like allowing criminals to get away with it down there. Up here they have different notions.

 

An ordinary thief is a protected class of people in the court house here. If you harm them without a clear basis for self defense you are likely to be pulverized in a court of law.

 

Finally a reasoned answer. So much tough talk by people who never fired a shot in anger. It has been my experience that there is a large gap between what people say and what they do. Go ahead and shoot someone who is no longer a threat and your life is over too. You family will suffer and you will end up crying in jail. We had Zimmerman down here shoot someone and his life is ruined and he cried himself to sleep in jail every night. I bet if he had it to do all over again he would just call the police and go home.

 

Luckily here in Florida under the Castle Doctrine anyone who forcibly enters your home is presumed to pose a threat and you do not have to prove intent of the intruder. However despite that protection there are lots of conditions. If you leave a window or door open and they enter that way all bets are off. If you shot an intruder who is on your lanai or patio or anyplace that is not the main structure of your home, all bets are off. Even if you shoot the intruder and it looks like you went overboard, you will be sued despite the law that protects you from civil suits in cases of justifiable self defense. There is also a gotcha in that law in that it is not uncommon for the prosecutor to just decide not to prosecute without formally declaring it justifiable self defense. That way they can prosecute later if evidence turns up to the contrary. This in turn leave you open to a civil suit which can be more devastating than a criminal one. Best advice is to just let the guy go and be thankful that your good life gets to stay that way. It may feel good to pump someone with lead but I suffered for years after getting back from Nam and can tell you that afterwards it does not feel so good no matter how justified.

[silverado427 10,680]

answering the question. Don't know, don't care. If the perps in my house, he has already made the decision for me.

+1

[brocglock23 4]

 

If this is some sort of serial murderer or rapist or extreme sociopath that is an outrageous menace to society, I would argue you have a moral obligation to stop him regardless of the law by any means you can up to and including firing on him so he does not escape arrest. Otherwise gruesome harm he inflicts on subsequent victims after his escape, that could have been avoided by his apprehension, are on your conscience. Others in this state differ in their notions of morality.

 

How can you tell it is a serial murder, rapist or extreme sociopath? Was he wearing a sign? Do those people have a certain look? If I was a prosecutor that would be the first thing I would ask.

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

So basically..

The homeowner has to announce their intention before any force is used, and

To use force against an intruder there has to be a threat of physical force against another person.

If there is no threat, then use there can be no use of force by the homeowner.

 

So, if I hear a bump in the night, and go downstairs to find an intruder in the living room.. he can completely ignore me and continue to loot the place as long as his actions don't meet some lawyer's definition of a 'threat'.

 

That basically just reinforces my plan all along.. get the wife/kids in a safe and defensible location and shelter in place until PD arrive.

 

Yes, that's about correct. You may or may not have to announce your intention to use force, depending upon the immediacy of the threat.

 

I believe most on here would agree that it would be better for an intruder to run off because he knows you are armed, even if it means losing a TV or something; than to have to shoot someone, and risk taking a life. It's a tough call, because when it's time to shoot, there must be complete resolve, with no hesitation. I think it's good to ponder some of these scenarios and train accordingly.

[brocglock23 4]

If this is some sort of serial murderer or rapist or extreme sociopath that is an outrageous menace to society, I would argue you have a moral obligation to stop him regardless of the law by any means you can up to and including firing on him so he does not escape arrest. Otherwise gruesome harm he inflicts on subsequent victims after his escape, that could have been avoided by his apprehension, are on your conscience.

How can you tell it is a serial murder, rapist or extreme sociopath? Was he wearing a sign? Do those people have a certain look? If I was a prosecutor that would be the first thing I would ask.

Should have added this before I made the previous post but I believe that anyone who breaks in my house in the middle of the night has bad intentions whether it be a smash and grab or evil thoughts but I would not shoot them unless they approached me or my daughter's room.

[Walt of Destiny 412]

Get a dog.

[JrzyGuy30 0]

Get a dog.

 

that bites.

[kman 56]

How can you tell it is a serial murder, rapist or extreme sociopath? Was he wearing a sign? Do those people have a certain look? If I was a prosecutor that would be the first thing I would ask.

 

It would have to be based on what you saw them do. If you catch someone savagely raping or someone and the rapist runs, I would argue the moral thing to do is disregard any countervailing laws and stop this person from escaping apprehension if you can right then and there by any means including firing at him if you have a clear shot, so he is apprehended and can't get away and do it again. This is not a suspect if you are 100% sure because you saw them doing it with your own eyes and what they did was beyond mere theft of property. This person needs to be stopped even if it requires a shot in the back to do it. Police are allowed the same latitude to fire on a fleeing felon. The law may say let him go because you do not have a government issued badge, but sometimes you have to not follow orders because your own morality supersedes government instructions.

 

 

[brocglock23 4]

It would have to be based on what you saw them do. If you catch someone savagely raping or someone and the rapist runs, I would argue the moral thing to do is disregard any countervailing laws and stop this person from escaping apprehension if you can right then and there by any means including firing at him if you have a clear shot, so he is apprehended and can't get away and do it again. This is not a suspect if you are 100% sure because you saw them doing it with your own eyes and what they did was beyond mere theft of property. This person needs to be stopped even if it requires a shot in the back to do it. Police are allowed the same latitude to fire on a fleeing felon. The law may say let him go because you do not have a government issued badge, but sometimes you have to not follow orders because your own morality supersedes government instructions.

I like your thinking, I really do. I just dont see how it would apply to a random home intruder.

[DLF 1]

 

 

This is by far the best course of action if you can lock yourself in a room with a firearm. Call 911 and if the door to the room you're hiding in gets kicked in then you start blasting. No one here is superman... don't wander around your house without knowing the exact situation. Multiple intruders in different directions could get you dead.

 

Unfortunately, I don't have that option. My daughter and her son live down the hall, so I have to defend the upper floor of the house, no matter what.