Jump to content
Avalanche

2A - Wrongfully charged resident found not guilty!

Recommended Posts

This is a friend of a friend.  Business owner and by all indications an upstanding citizen. 

 

Short story, guys gets into an argument with a neighbor about rooster his neighbor keeps in his yard, neighbor enters his property through a fence, starts menacing him.   Guy pulls his pistol and retreats, telling him to leave his property and go home.  He is charged with fourth degree aggravated assault.

 

The good part, the jury only deliberated for 15 minutes finding him not guilty.  The bad part, his defense cost him tens of thousands of dollars.  He should have never have been charged to begin with.   

 

The link:

 

 

http://www.newjerseylawyer.org/contributing-to-our-constitutional-right-to-bear-arms/

 

 

On Thursday March 26, 2015, a Somerset County jury found David Gottlieb not guilty of fourth degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A 2C;12-1b(4). It was alleged by the Prosecution that he pointed a firearm, a Kahr P380 handgun at an individual under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.

 

The trial began on Monday, March 23, before the Honorable Julie Marino and the case went to the jury Thursday. After deliberating for about 15 minutes the jury advised that they had reached a verdict of not guilty.

 

It was alleged that Mr. Gottlieb, after an argument with a neighbor over a rooster, pointed a handgun at him. Mr. Gottlieb testified at trial that he only produced his legally owned handgun in “self defense” after his neighbor repeatedly ignored numerous requests to leave Mr. Gottlieb’s property and came at Gottlieb to attack him. Mr. Gottleib did not fire his weapon. After seeing the weapon, the neighbor immediately returned to his property and the encounter ended.

 

Mr. Gottlieb was facing a mandatory year in State Prison if convicted. Mr. Gottlieb is a life long owner of firearms who has much experience in handling them the correct way, and proudly exercises his “Second Amendment Right to bear arms under the United States Constitution”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

neighbor enters his property through a fence, starts menacing him.

 

He has a right to defend himself on "HIS OWN PROPERTY". He did not even fire at the neighbor who was trespassing and threatening him! How the frig was he charged with a crime???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

neighbor enters his property through a fence, starts menacing him.

 

He has a right to defend himself on "HIS OWN PROPERTY". He did not even fire at the neighbor who was trespassing and threatening him! How the frig was he charged with a crime???

 

Seriously, why was this a-hole not charged with trespassing?  That should have been the only arrest made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well yes the good news the jury made of NJ folk was able to slam dunk this in 15 mins and maybe set a precedent for outside the house castle doctrine?....but didnt see a reference to tens of thousands of dollarspent on the defense or is that an assumption. Would also like to know if they took his weapon(s?) as sop and he get it back without a prob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well yes the good news the jury made of NJ folk was able to slam dunk this in 15 mins and maybe set a precedent for outside the house castle doctrine?....but didnt see a reference to tens of thousands of dollarspent on the defense or is that an assumption. Would also like to know if they took his weapon(s?) as sop and he get it back without a prob.

I was thinking the same thing about legal precedence.

 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking the same thing about legal precedence.

 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

actually the more I think about it probly will have no impact as no shots were fired. If the trespasser was shot I'm sure the outcome would not be as favorable especially if there wasnt another weapon involved. But here in NJ this particular case is great news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.but didnt see a reference to tens of thousands of dollarspent on the defense or is that an assumption.

 

 

He's a friend so yes, it's first hand info.   That article is from his lawers website - I doubt they want to brag about how much they charge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's a friend so yes, it's first hand info.   That article is from his lawers website - I doubt they want to brag about how much they charge. 

sux bigtime. its a crime in of itself that our 2A rights are so broken down to slop for the lawyers to feed off of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that the lawyers chose to depict a NJ illegal pistol (threaded barrel) as an illustration.   Just saying (assuming that I have it right)

constitution_gun-620x412.jpg

 

I think it's a Beretta 92FS that they photoshopped the markings and logos off of. No threaded barrel on this puppy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that the lawyers chose to depict a NJ illegal pistol (threaded barrel) as an illustration. Just saying (assuming that I have it right)

constitution_gun-620x412.jpg

Threaded barrels by themselves are not illegal.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's illegal to brandish a firearm on your own property when being threatened?  He didn't even discharge it.  I'd say that the police were aggressive pursuing 4th degree assault charges.  I look forward to him busting the town budget with a nice lawsuit.  If he had threatened the overzealous neighbor with a louisville slugger would they have done the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's illegal to brandish a firearm on your own property when being threatened?  He didn't even discharge it.  I'd say that the police were aggressive pursuing 4th degree assault charges.  I look forward to him busting the town budget with a nice lawsuit.  If he had threatened the overzealous neighbor with a louisville slugger would they have done the same?

most police don't know the laws/statutes. it's actually pretty much impossible for them to know them all.

 

in pfrnj, you have a duty to retreat, is safely possible unless you're inside your dwelling.

 

i too, think he should go for lawsuit. but not the township. go after the neighbor, for the total cost of his defense, plus the legal fees for going for the cost of his defense. if he sues the township, and wins, then it's just gonna be all of his neighbors that pay that cost, in increased taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

most police don't know the laws/statutes. it's actually pretty much impossible for them to know them all.

 

in pfrnj, you have a duty to retreat, is safely possible unless you're inside your dwelling.

.

I believe even inside your dwelling you still have a duty to retreat. You have to be trapped with no unblocked exit in order to discharge. At least that's how I understand it, would love to be proved wrong though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe even inside your dwelling you still have a duty to retreat. You have to be trapped with no unblocked exit in order to discharge. At least that's how I understand it, would love to be proved wrong though.

Nj has a castle doctrine law. You do not have a duty to retreat in your own home. You can use deadly force if you have a good reason to believe the intruder is there to hurt or kill you or other people in your home under your protection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nj has a castle doctrine law. You do not have a duty to retreat in your own home. You can use deadly force if you have a good reason to believe the intruder is there to hurt or kill you or other people in your home under your protection.

Your statement appears to be in conflict with what these lawyers say...

 

"Deadly Force and Civil Duty to Retreat

 

A deadly force is not justifiable when an opportunity to retreat with complete safety is known by the defender to be at hand. The use of such force is not justifiable if the defender knew that it could have been avoided with complete safety to himself by retreating. Where these conditions are present, the defender has a duty to retreat, and his use of a deadly force under these circumstances cannot be justified as an act of self defense."

 

http://www.njlaws.com/self-defense.htm

 

Believe me, I hope you're right, but some evidence would be great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe even inside your dwelling you still have a duty to retreat. You have to be trapped with no unblocked exit in order to discharge. At least that's how I understand it, would love to be proved wrong though.

NO. inside your dwelling, you have no duty to retreat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking the same thing about legal precedence.

 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

It's just a jury trial. Juries don't establish legal interpretations of law from criminal verdicts that I know of. Usually you need a higher appeals court judge to rule on a law, not a possible crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

L.1978, c.95; amended 1987, c.120, s.1; 1999, c.73.

2C:3-5. Use of force for the protection of other persons
a. 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 to protect a third person when:

(1) The actor would be justified under section 2C:3-4 in using such force to protect himself against the injury he believes to be threatened to the person whom he seeks to protect; and

(2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he seeks to protect would be justified in using such protective force; and

(3) The actor reasonably believes that his intervention is necessary for the protection of such other person.

b. Notwithstanding subsection a. of this section:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...