Self Defense in the Home

[Underdog 1,593]

Is it true that if you have been unfortunate enough to experience a self-defense situation in your home, that not only will the police confiscate the weapon that you have  used for self defense, but that they will more often than not take ALL of the firearms in the home, whether yours or not, even if they are not involved.  Is that normally the case?  Are there qualifiers?  Would law enforcement generally take this route, or would there have to be other indicators that it certainly wasn't a "good shoot".

[GRIZ 3,369]

There is no blanket answer to this. It all depends on the totality of the situation on a case by case basis. If you use a firearm to defend yourself you should expect to have the firearm you used seized by the police at least until you are cleared. Cops take other cops guns if they are used in a shooting. At the other extreme all your firearms will be seized and you will held without bail. Or it might be something in between.

[mge_1 2]

def need to be case to case basis.  maybe a good question to ask my neighbor state trooper to be in the safe side hehe.

[mattio41 0]

Maybe we need to get the F'n "Castle Doctrine" in this state.....

[Howard 538]

Silent Patriot, sounds like you have recently been talking with a lawyer

[illy 1]

Maybe we need to get the F'n "Castle Doctrine" in this state.....

 

N.J.S.A. 2C:3-4 Use of force in self-protection.

 

(3) 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.

     (3)     An actor employing protective force may estimate the necessity of using force when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, withdrawing or doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.

[NYMetsFan86 9]

this area feels like the grayest of gray areas.....I don't wish that situation on anyone

[mag1 0]

Has anyone here  ever had to protect their home/family in New Jersey with a firearm from an intruder?

And what happened?

 

I only hear stories, but never from the individual who actually defended his/her home. 

I ask my Leo friends all the time but they have no experience with this.

[Genewarper111 18]

To the OP, to paraphrase the NRA three rules for safe gun handling:

 

ALWAYS get advice on legal matters from a lawyer licensed to practice in your state

 

ALWAYS view Internet forum posts, no matter how well constructed, as well meaning, likely misleading and often un- or at best partly-informed

 

ALWAYS understand that the nuances of a particular circumstance can be the biggest factor

 

G

[woodentoe 14]

 

 

Maybe we need to get the F'n "Castle Doctrine" in this state.....

 

 

N.J.S.A. 2C:3-4 Use of force in self-protection.

 

(3) 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.

(3) An actor employing protective force may estimate the necessity of using force when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, withdrawing or doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.

But..but...but. This is New Jersey! You have to retreat from your home and barricade yourself in a closet. ;-)

 

Thank you for posting the statute.

[Underdog 1,593]

But..but...but. This is New Jersey! You have to retreat from your home and barricade yourself in a closet. ;-

 

Thank you for posting the statute.

 

So, as usual, because it is NJ, there is no answer.  You are subject to the state's whims.

[Arbelest 29]

Definitely a case by case basis and how that PD feels like responding to the situations could be the one gun taken away or all of them plus ammo.  As far as the legal part, I would rather be tried by 12 then carried by 6.  Hopefully there will be one person with common sense to understand what I did.

[brocglock23 4]

I can agree with the case by case basis and I'll play devil's advocate.... What if a few crackheads broke into your house, you shot one of them but the others got away. Police confiscate all your guns but the next night the remaining ones come back and do you and your family harm. Would the police (state, county, municipal) be responsible or liable for taking away your main source of protection?? Thoughts and hopefully not an argument

 

Edit: let's even say your only gun... how would that be handled?

[ryan_j 0]

I don't mind them seizing that one gun. As long as they don't seize all. I would go out and celebrate life by buying a new gun anyway. 

[GRIZ 3,369]

Ed

I can agree with the case by case basis and I'll play devil's advocate.... What if a few crackheads broke into your house, you shot one of them but the others got away. Police confiscate all your guns but the next night the remaining ones come back and do you and your family harm. Would the police (state, county, municipal) be responsible or liable for taking away your main source of protection?? Thoughts and hopefully not an argument

Edit: let's even say your only gun... how would that be handled?

The police have a duty to investigate a shooting. That duty would include taking your firearm whether its your only one or one of a hundred. If they did not take your gun they would be remiss in their duties.

[ryan_j 0]

I can agree with the case by case basis and I'll play devil's advocate.... What if a few crackheads broke into your house, you shot one of them but the others got away. Police confiscate all your guns but the next night the remaining ones come back and do you and your family harm. Would the police (state, county, municipal) be responsible or liable for taking away your main source of protection?? Thoughts and hopefully not an argument

 

Edit: let's even say your only gun... how would that be handled?

 

Not saying you should be happy they took your guns, but at that point I would want the police guarding the house for at least a few days or until I either got the gun back or they apprehended the others. 

[mikelets456 78]

Ed

The police have a duty to investigate a shooting. That duty would include taking your firearm whether its your only one or one of a hundred. If they did not take your gun they would be remiss in their duties.

 

Do they need to seize your home and assets as well because a criminal ran into a wall or you closed a door in his face? I guess you should not be able to be able to sleep in your home for months or longer for your safety...right?

 

Yes, the police have a duty to investigate but for how long? Also, to seize your only means of defense? Where does it end? Seriously, you all keep buying into this illusion of "safety and doing their job" while in the meantime you're TREATED LIKE THE CRIMINAL! Why are you okay with this type of treatment.

 

I strongly urge you read the nice post listed below by "HOWARD":

 

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/55938-why-does-nj-treat-me-as-a-criminal/

 

 

My letter of the day to our esteemed lawmakers in the People's Republic of New Jersey:

 

Why is it that the state of New Jersey insists on treating me and others like me as criminals? I have lived in this state for almost 30 years, own real property here, pay taxes here, have never committed any crime; yet the state treats me as a criminal. I want to know why? The state does not require people to get photo ID to vote, as that is deemed a right and rights should not be restricted. Yet when it comes to firearms, I am a criminal unless I can prove otherwise. Why do I have to prove I am not a criminal to get a permit to buy a gun, yet the criminal who illegally has one (if caught) is presumed innocent of breaking that law until proved guilty? Why is it that I can pay my NJ taxes with a personal check, yet you won’t trust me to do the same when I want a firearms permit? Why must I use a money order, you know the form of payment people use when they want to do many illegal things and don’t want things traced? Why is it you will not issue me or anyone like me a permit to legally carry a handgun? Why is it that the only ones that seem to be able to get those are the politically connected or those that seem to know a judge? Why is it that several other states where I do not live, do not pay taxes, do not own real property will issue me such a permit (with a personal check) and welcome me to come there where I have no roots and carry a weapon yet NJ where I have roots will not trust me with the same? Why is it that NJ already with some of the strictest gun laws has so much gun violence, particularly in some of its Democratically controlled regions? Why is it that these crimes are almost always committed with illegally obtained and possessed weapons yet your solution is not to solve that problem but rather further restrict the rights of legal gun owners who never commit crimes? Why won’t you leave us law abiding citizens alone and instead go after the criminals? I would like to know why, and I would like a personalized answer to my questions not a form letter stating your talking points.

 

Thanks, I look forward to your well thought out response

________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Remember, investigation is that of the criminal. This happened in YOUR house and the CRIMINAL is the intruder...so why are you being investigated, why is your mode of self defense being confiscated, why are you being inconvenienced and why are YOU being treated like the CRIMINAL? Finally...why are YOU okay with that?

 

My goodness, you keep giving power over to the State and then complain when they act like Statists!! Really? I'm speechless...

[Underdog 1,593]

Ed

The police have a duty to investigate a shooting. That duty would include taking your firearm whether its your only one or one of a hundred. If they did not take your gun they would be remiss in their duties.

 

If they take your handgun and you legally owned it, you should be handed a pistol permit on the spot (if it was a pistol) to be able to go and immediately buy another one (once your handcuffs are removed).  In this state, you will probably have to pay for a permit and background check just to get the "evidence" back.  If a police officer has been a shooting, I bet he or she is issued another weapon.

[Handyman 5,682]

So if all of your other guns are in a 400lb safe and you refuse to open it?

[Howard 538]

So if all of your other guns are in a 400lb safe and you refuse to open it?

Then they will make you sit there (in cuffs?) as they wait for a warrant.  They will then give you the option to open it, if you don't comply the locksmith, chainsaw or explosives will arrive.

[H.M. Murdock 0]

Who the hell uses a chainsaw to open a safe?

[mikelets456 78]

Who the hell uses a chainsaw to open a safe?

 

 

The government...remember, it's billable hours they get paid. So if it takes them two weeks, 25 chainsaws at $200 per hour, that's some nice cash.

[mike.one 0]

Before you defend yourself in the furthest closet of your home you must:

1. Have a notarized statement from the intruder that he has full intention of doing harm to you and your family

2. Must call 911 with a rotary phone, and be in mid-conversation with a 911 dispatcher

3. Lawyer must be present

4. Scenario must be caught on camera... In HD

5. also know that you most likely will be judged by a group of your peers, by peers, they most likely mean some unemployed or uneducated idiot who watches piers Morgan religiously.

 

In all seriousness.. I hope this never happens, therefore live in a bunker, like they do on tv

[GRIZ 3,369]

Do they need to seize your home and assets as well because a criminal ran into a wall or you closed a door in his face? I guess you should not be able to be able to sleep in your home for months or longer for your safety...right?

 

Yes, the police have a duty to investigate but for how long? Also, to seize your only means of defense? Where does it end? Seriously, you all keep buying into this illusion of "safety and doing their job" while in the meantime you're TREATED LIKE THE CRIMINAL! Why are you okay with this type of treatment.

 

I strongly urge you read the nice post listed below by "HOWARD":

 

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/55938-why-does-nj-treat-me-as-a-criminal/

 

 

My letter of the day to our esteemed lawmakers in the People's Republic of New Jersey:

 

Why is it that the state of New Jersey insists on treating me and others like me as criminals? ........ I would like a personalized answer to my questions not a form letter stating your talking points.

 

Thanks, I look forward to your well thought out response

________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Remember, investigation is that of the criminal. This happened in YOUR house and the CRIMINAL is the intruder...so why are you being investigated, why is your mode of self defense being confiscated, why are you being inconvenienced and why are YOU being treated like the CRIMINAL? Finally...why are YOU okay with that?

 

My goodness, you keep giving power over to the State and then complain when they act like Statists!! Really? I'm speechless...

 

You may still be speechless when you hear my response.

 

Just to be sure you understand what I'm saying let me expand a bit on what I said.  If you are the victim of a home invasion which you fought off using a firearm, you are not not being arrested, and the police are taking the firearm you used I understand that.  If they want the other 99 guns you have in your safe I am not alright with that unless they have a warrant to do so but more on that later.

 

You are like so many so called 2A activists Constitutional scholars which only see the 2A and just want the rest to apply to you.  The Constitution is not just the 2A and bitch as much as you want the Constitutional protections you enjoy apply to the criminals as well.  The same protections that prevent the Obama Thought Police from knocking down your door and charging and finding you guilty of ficticious crimes are enjoyed by everyone.  The Constitution, as much as you might not like it to, applies to evryone in this country. 

 

Over the years, in response to court rulings and demands by people (many like you), a system of Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rules of Evidence, Court Rules, etc has been developed to ensure a defendant's rights are preserved in proceedings.

 

Seizing the firearm you used in defending your home is not about denying you 2A rights but preserving evidence.  Now as much as you argue it doesn't, there is evidence that proves you're innocent not only evidence that proves your guilt.  That firearm is part of the proof you were shooting in self defense.  If the bad guys are not convicted of invading your home and putting you in jepoardy you could be charged (highly unlikely in a home invasion scenario).  Your claim of self defense is based on the actions of the defendants so your gun becomes part of the incident. Keep in mind if you are claiming self defense you must, at some point, admit that you shot at them.  I'm sure in your mind its never talk to the police and if you don't know what to say saying nothing is good advice although in some circumstances it can result in you going to prison for no reason.  That's a topic for a different thread though.

 

You ask if they can seize your home or other assets as evidence.  Well they can if that's what's required to avoid the evidence from being tainted and the defense doesn't stipulate to the lab reports.  They can take your door or cut out parts of the windowsill if that's what it takes.  If your car is stolen and someone uses it to purposely kill someone else it will be seized as evidence.  If it is crucial to the case you may not get your car back until all appeals are exhausted and that may take years.  If its your only way to get to work you need to find an alternative.  Police seize fruits of crime and private property as evidence all the time and are required often to maintain them as until all proceedings are over.

 

Why have many been okay with the police seizing evidence and hanging on to it?  For evidentiary purposes as explained. Have you ever seen a criminal complaint?  It names the State (or the United States of America) as the complainant not the person the crime was commited against.  That's as it should be and very Constitutional.  A crime against you is seen as a crime against all people (that's the state isn't it).  You don't have to spend thousands, in many cases millions of dollars to investigate, apprehend, convict, and punish those that commited the crime. 

 

The police are required to investigate the entire incident.  As I stated your claim of self defense is based on what the bad guys did.  You are not being treated like a criminal if they take your gun as evidence.  It is needed to determine who shot what or who.  You are a part of the people and can't opt out of this. How long they keep the gun is dependent on a lot of things, all of them not under the prosecutor's control.

 

You appear to have no knowledge of criminal investigation, criminal procedure, or rules or evidence.

 

My goodness, you keep giving power over to the State and then complain when they act like Statists!! Really? I'm speechless...

 

Please make me aware of how I gave power over to the State.  I didn't know I was so influential.

 

 

 

 

If they take your handgun and you legally owned it, you should be handed a pistol permit on the spot (if it was a pistol) to be able to go and immediately buy another one (once your handcuffs are removed).  In this state, you will probably have to pay for a permit and background check just to get the "evidence" back.  If a police officer has been a shooting, I bet he or she is issued another weapon.

 

Maybe you'd feel better if the government issued you a gun?   As I explained above they would be seizing the gun to preserve as evidence of the incident not to deprive you of you rights.   Depending on the circumstances even an innocent cop can be on the rubber gun squad for some time.  

 

So if all of your other guns are in a 400lb safe and you refuse to open it?

 

If they wanted my other guns I'd refuse.  To get a warrant you need to explain why what you want to seize is illegal.  If you are not being arrested after the shooting I can't see how they can get one.

[EchoMirage 137]

I can agree with the case by case basis and I'll play devil's advocate.... What if a few crackheads broke into your house, you shot one of them but the others got away. Police confiscate all your guns but the next night the remaining ones come back and do you and your family harm. Would the police (state, county, municipal) be responsible or liable for taking away your main source of protection?? Thoughts and hopefully not an argument

 

Edit: let's even say your only gun... how would that be handled?

 

 

thats exactly how asinine the laws are, and exactly why i specifically have cheaper guns i keep for HD, and not my favorites.

[CageFighter 236]

N.J.S.A. 2C:3-4 Use of force in self-protection.

 

(3) 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:

    

 

so what happens if you decide to answer the front door with your pistol on ur hip just-in-case (kinda the start to a daytime home invasion) and then need to use it?  is that considered SUDDEN & UNEXPECTED?  

[nitrospaz9 10]

I asked a local cop that was my dare officer years ago this question. He said if you have to shoot, make sure when your done they aren't moving otherwise the criminal will try to sue or have me arrested.

[mike.one 0]

I asked a local cop that was my dare officer years ago this question. He said if you have to shoot, make sure when your done they aren't moving otherwise the criminal will try to sue or have me arrested.

That's what they all say...

[Malsua 1,422]

I asked a local cop that was my dare officer years ago this question. He said if you have to shoot, make sure when your done they aren't moving otherwise the criminal will try to sue or have me arrested.

 

That's the most asinine piece of advice I've heard in a while.

 

You shoot to stop the threat.   Period.  You go one step further, it's murder.  Not only will the state probably figure it out and lock you up for it, you'll probably regret it the rest of your life even if they didn't.

 

Yes, they may indeed sue you and cause you financial stress, the alternative is worse.

[Underdog 1,593]

You may still be speechless when you hear my response.

 

Just to be sure you understand what I'm saying let me expand a bit on what I said.  If you are the victim of a home invasion which you fought off using a firearm, you are not not being arrested, and the police are taking the firearm you used I understand that.  If they want the other 99 guns you have in your safe I am not alright with that unless they have a warrant to do so but more on that later.

 

You are like so many so called 2A activists Constitutional scholars which only see the 2A and just want the rest to apply to you.  The Constitution is not just the 2A and **** as much as you want the Constitutional protections you enjoy apply to the criminals as well.  The same protections that prevent the Obama Thought Police from knocking down your door and charging and finding you guilty of ficticious crimes are enjoyed by everyone.  The Constitution, as much as you might not like it to, applies to evryone in this country. 

 

Over the years, in response to court rulings and demands by people (many like you), a system of Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rules of Evidence, Court Rules, etc has been developed to ensure a defendant's rights are preserved in proceedings.

 

Seizing the firearm you used in defending your home is not about denying you 2A rights but preserving evidence.  Now as much as you argue it doesn't, there is evidence that proves you're innocent not only evidence that proves your guilt.  That firearm is part of the proof you were shooting in self defense.  If the bad guys are not convicted of invading your home and putting you in jepoardy you could be charged (highly unlikely in a home invasion scenario).  Your claim of self defense is based on the actions of the defendants so your gun becomes part of the incident. Keep in mind if you are claiming self defense you must, at some point, admit that you shot at them.  I'm sure in your mind its never talk to the police and if you don't know what to say saying nothing is good advice although in some circumstances it can result in you going to prison for no reason.  That's a topic for a different thread though.

 

You ask if they can seize your home or other assets as evidence.  Well they can if that's what's required to avoid the evidence from being tainted and the defense doesn't stipulate to the lab reports.  They can take your door or cut out parts of the windowsill if that's what it takes.  If your car is stolen and someone uses it to purposely kill someone else it will be seized as evidence.  If it is crucial to the case you may not get your car back until all appeals are exhausted and that may take years.  If its your only way to get to work you need to find an alternative.  Police seize fruits of crime and private property as evidence all the time and are required often to maintain them as until all proceedings are over.

 

Why have many been okay with the police seizing evidence and hanging on to it?  For evidentiary purposes as explained. Have you ever seen a criminal complaint?  It names the State (or the United States of America) as the complainant not the person the crime was commited against.  That's as it should be and very Constitutional.  A crime against you is seen as a crime against all people (that's the state isn't it).  You don't have to spend thousands, in many cases millions of dollars to investigate, apprehend, convict, and punish those that commited the crime. 

 

The police are required to investigate the entire incident.  As I stated your claim of self defense is based on what the bad guys did.  You are not being treated like a criminal if they take your gun as evidence.  It is needed to determine who shot what or who.  You are a part of the people and can't opt out of this. How long they keep the gun is dependent on a lot of things, all of them not under the prosecutor's control.

 

You appear to have no knowledge of criminal investigation, criminal procedure, or rules or evidence.

 

My goodness, you keep giving power over to the State and then complain when they act like Statists!! Really? I'm speechless...

 

Please make me aware of how I gave power over to the State.  I didn't know I was so influential.

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe you'd feel better if the government issued you a gun?   As I explained above they would be seizing the gun to preserve as evidence of the incident not to deprive you of you rights.   Depending on the circumstances even an innocent cop can be on the rubber gun squad for some time.  

 

 

If they wanted my other guns I'd refuse.  To get a warrant you need to explain why what you want to seize is illegal.  If you are not being arrested after the shooting I can't see how they can get one.

 

In NJ with having to wait months to get another handgun, you should be provided with a pistol permit on the spot so that you can replace the one that was taken as evidence (if it was a handgun used).  I am not saying for the long arm of the law to pay for one, but if you weren't changed, then you should have that option granted to you given the delays in this state.    A responsible gun owner should already have a backup gun.  However, if a handgun was seized and you requested a permit, it should be granted.  The only problem with that scenario is that in NJ, you would probably be charged with something...  As far as seizing the other guns not involved in the crime, I cannot see any reason why that should be allowed or be an issue, etc.. If your car is taken as evidence, you might not be able to get another one, financially, but you can go and get one.  You can also go and get a long gun immediately, but you would have to go to an out-of-state dealer to do that. 

 

I started this thread because I wanted to know if it was common practice to take all guns in an instant like that.  If you aren't charged, it would seem to reason that the other ones locked away shouldn't even be cataloged.