If You Move, You’re Gonna Go to the Morgue!

[TK421 2]

So what do you think?  If she resided in this backward ass gun-free utopia, what would she have been charged with?  Brandishing, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, unlawful restraint?  Then I guess they could start lumping all the add-ons like hollow points, crime with a firearm and terroristic threats.  Further proof this state is broken beyond repair, she'd be in jail and her kids would be wards of the state.

 

 

Homeowner Tells Burglar: ‘If You Move, You’re Gonna Go to the Morgue’

 

Tammy Takach of Steubenville was sleeping Thursday morning when a noise in her home woke her up. She told WPXI-TV she grabbed her gun and went downstairs to find an intruder who’d entered through a window holding an air conditioning unit. He begged her not to call the police.

“He stood up and put his hands up,” Takach told WTOV-TV. “He said, ‘I’m just going to go. I’m sorry,’ and I said, ‘The only place you’re going to go is jail, and if you move, you’re gonna go to the morgue, because I’m going to blow your f-ing head off.”

Takach kept the gun aimed at him the entire time until police arrived.

 

[Anselmo 87]

Why do you assume she'd be in jail if this happened in NJ?  NJ grants us the ability to defend ourselves in our homes.

[PeteF 1,044]

Why do you assume she'd be in jail if this happened in NJ?  NJ grants us the ability to defend ourselves in our homes.

Yourself is the operative phrase. She was protecting her possesions.

Not covered in NJ.

[TK421 2]

Why do you assume she'd be in jail if this happened in NJ?  NJ grants us the ability to defend ourselves in our homes.

 

He said "sorry, I'm just going to go now" and she threatened to blow his head off if he moved before the police got there.  Personally I'm fine with that, play stupid games, win stupid prizes, but I'll bet she'd have a problem if she did this in NJ.

[Anselmo 87]

Yourself is the operative phrase. She was protecting her possesions.

Not covered in NJ.

If this did happen in NJ and she was charged with crimes then I'd agree this state is beyond repair, etc but I just don't see how NJ is condemned for this when NJ wasn't involved. 

 

I think if you have uninvited guests and you take proper precautions to protect yourself you are good.  If you shoot someone to protect your possessions in NJ you are in trouble.  But no one was injured here.

[bulpup 98]

"Holding one at gunpoint," means you are attempting to contain a criminal until the police arrive.

 

If that is a crime in NJ, and I doubt it is, then this is really lala land.

 

But you can grab a kid lifting a pepsi in a store and hold for the police too. Who gives a crap what you tell them while you are holding for the police. If the trigger isn't pulled it is just shouting.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hare Trigger 0]

You are allowed to defend yourself with equal or lesser force. You cannot bring a gun to a knife fight!

[1LtCAP 4,262]

Why do you assume she'd be in jail if this happened in NJ?  NJ grants us the ability to defend ourselves in our homes.

i've talked to many people that seem to think otherwise

[Mikeythumbs 1]

You are allowed to defend yourself with equal or lesser force. You cannot bring a gun to a knife fight!

That is not totally true if you can prove you felt you life was in danger such as if the guy with the knife charges you. Same as if he had a bat if he is within striking distance or you can prove that your life was in danger you can shoot. Now I am not saying you won't be charged or that the crazy Jersey liberals won't try to hang you by your balls but you are within the law

[Hare Trigger 0]

I think it would be like shooting a bear out of season, you would have to show the bite marks to prove your life was in danger.

[bulpup 98]

You are allowed to defend yourself with equal or lesser force. You cannot bring a gun to a knife fight!

This is wrong, btw. Very.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[raz-0 1,259]

You are allowed to defend yourself with equal or lesser force. You cannot bring a gun to a knife fight!

 

 

It isn't roshambo. It's pass fail. Do you feel they are trying to kill you? Yes? Then stop them ffrom killing you by killing them first. No? then do not kill them. You can be beaten to death with bare hands. How realistic that threat is is very situational. 

[bzer1 15]

So what do you think?  If she resided in this backward ass gun-free utopia, what would she have been charged with?  Brandishing, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, unlawful restraint?  Then I guess they could start lumping all the add-ons like hollow points, crime with a firearm and terroristic threats.  Further proof this state is broken beyond repair, she'd be in jail and her kids would be wards of the state.

 

 

Homeowner Tells Burglar: ‘If You Move, You’re Gonna Go to the Morgue’

 

Attacking the fragile self esteem of a socially disadvantaged person? Here it could have netted her 10 years, plus the aggravating circumstance of using a firearm to defend herself would have meant an additional 5 years, no early release. The "criminal" for his part would have been given a citizenship award and an annual stipend, of just over $50K, an EBT card, and free housing. 

[TK421 2]

Attacking the fragile self esteem of a socially disadvantaged person? Here it could have netted her 10 years, plus the aggravating circumstance of using a firearm to defend herself would have meant an additional 5 years, no early release. The "criminal" for his part would have been given a citizenship award and an annual stipend, of just over $50K, an EBT card, and free housing. 

Finally someone gets what I'm saying, only took what 12 posts!  LOL

[Soju 153]

The amount of misinformation in this thread is astounding. Even worse, the people making wrong claims didn't even bother to look up the actual statutes, and just went off of assumptions. NJ sucks, I know. That is why I left. But it helps to know what sucks about it and why. Here is some help.

 

2C:3-4. Use of force in self-protection.

 

2C:3-4. Use of Force in Self-Protection. a. Use of force justifiable for protection of the person. Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 2C:3-9, the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.

 

b. Limitations on justifying necessity for use of force.

 

(1) The use of force is not justifiable under this section:

 

(a) To resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a peace officer in the performance of his duties, although the arrest is unlawful, unless the peace officer employs unlawful force to effect such arrest; or

 

(b) To resist force used by the occupier or possessor of property or by another person on his behalf, where the actor knows that the person using the force is doing so under a claim of right to protect the property, except that this limitation shall not apply if:

 

(i) The actor is a public officer acting in the performance of his duties or a person lawfully assisting him therein or a person making or assisting in a lawful arrest;

 

(ii) The actor has been unlawfully dispossessed of the property and is making a reentry or recaption justified by section 2C:3-6; or

 

(iii) The actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily harm.

 

(2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily harm; nor is it justifiable if:

 

(a) The actor, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or

 

(b) The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:

 

(i) The actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling, unless he was the initial aggressor;

 

(3) Except as required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity of using force when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.

 

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.

[Hare Trigger 0]

I stand corrected!