Bt Doctur 188 Posted July 10, 2017 In todays Star Ledger a homeowner using a large kitchen knife ( I presume) killed one intruder and wounded a second. Was it a Good Killing? Did the homeowner stab the BG multiple times, was it "excessive force" Did the homeowner shout "I have a deadly knife" first before using it in self defense. This is New Jersey so I`m sure the homeowner is guilty of something here. Cant wait to hear what the local Prosecutor has in mind. All the guy did was take out the trash. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krdshrk 3,872 Posted July 10, 2017 Depends on a lot of things - were the perps armed? Threat to life? Was it a backstabbing from the dark or a confrontation? 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AS350Driver 56 Posted July 10, 2017 I think this is the same story, https://www.njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/87332-moorestown-home-invasion/ 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,417 Posted July 10, 2017 That's what I was thinking. If so the article says that the BGs had baseball bats and that one was stabbed during a scuffle or something Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
High Exposure 5,635 Posted July 10, 2017 First - No killing is ever a good killing. It may be justified, it may be reasonable, it may even be ethically, legally, and morally correct, but it is never, ever good. Second - There is no such thing as "excessive force" it is either justified or it isn't - "excessive force" is a made up buzz word like "Assault Rifle" that the Left and the media like to throw around. You can hit someone with your car, set them on fire, beat them with a frying pan - if deadly force is justified, none of those methods are "excessive". Third - there are many facets to self defense. One of them is the use of deadly force. It isn't always justified but when it is, it's on. Deadly force is just that - force that can cause death. Deadly force is used to stop another's aggressive actions that may result in the death or serious bodily injury of yourself or another, and is justified providing that you didn't create the situation where force is now required (i.e.: you can't walk around Newark at 0 dark thirty with $100 bills falling out of your pockets and then use deadly force on an attacker. That would not be justified.) You are permitted to use such force as necessary until the actor ceases his aggressive and dangerous actions. No where does it say you only get one shot, one stab, one hit. Force is used until the actor stops. There is also no provision that states you have to warn an attacker of your pending action prior to using force or to announce your intent to possess or use a weapon to defend yourself or another. I am sure there is a lot more to this story. I am withholding judgement until more facts are in. That being said, I like it when the good guys win. I hope this turns out to be one of those times. 9 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jackandjill 683 Posted July 10, 2017 Name of the deceased is now known. Bit of research indicates the dead is from the same town. Looks like there is more to the story. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot 358 Posted July 10, 2017 Decdent wasn't exactly a choir boy. Will be interesting to see where this goes https://m.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=686250994770121&id=219714781423747 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
leahcim 673 Posted July 11, 2017 1 hour ago, High Exposure said: Deadly force is used to stop another's aggressive actions that may result in the death or serious bodily injury of yourself or another, and is justified providing that you didn't create the situation where force is now required (i.e.: you can't walk around Newark at 0 dark thirty with $100 bills falling out of your pockets and then use deadly force on an attacker. That would not be justified.) Really? If you are attacked while engaged in a legal (but stupid) activity, and not antagonizing or instigating, you would not be justified in defending yourself? I think I understand the point you are making, but it seems like a slippery slope. What if I am just well dressed and walking through Newark, perp assumes I have $$ and attacks me? Did I create that situation? What if my house looks like I must be loaded (large house, lots of cars, boats, and other toys on display). Perp decides my house is the best target and invades. Did I create that situation? I try to be maintain a low key appearance for just this reason. Not trying to be an ass, just devil's advocate trying to determine where is the line of appearance that makes the victim responsible for creating the situation. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
High Exposure 5,635 Posted July 11, 2017 I guess I should have fleshed my example out a bit, but it's a true statement. You are not justified in using deadly force if you purposefully created the situation that put you in danger of death or serious bodily injury. You can't jump in front of a speeding car then shoot the driver because you were afraid he was going to hit and kill you. If you purposefully go 10 miles out of your way to use an ATM in a notoriously bad part of town, while passing perfectly good ATMs near your current location, hoping to get mugged so you can defend yourself, that will not work so well. Walking down a street in a bad part of town dressed well and wearing expensive jewelry, not smart but there is nothing wrong with it If something happens and you need to defend yourself. Now if you are acting drunk and flashing wads of cash to unsavory folks, an attempt to bait them into robbing you so you can use deadly force to protect yourself, that's a no go. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ray Ray 3,566 Posted July 11, 2017 1 hour ago, High Exposure said: First - No killing is ever a good killing. It may be justified, it may be reasonable, it may me ethically, legally, and even morally correct, but it is never ever good. You lost me right here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted July 11, 2017 3 minutes ago, Ray Ray said: You lost me right here. I'll echo HE. words have meaning. Justified, Justifiable, Lawful, Apopriate, never gonna win this game gentleman until you figure out how's it actually getting played. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ray Ray 3,566 Posted July 11, 2017 1 minute ago, Zeke said: I'll echo HE. words have meaning. Justified, Justifiable, Lawful, Apopriate, never gonna win this game gentleman until you figure out how's it actually getting played. I'm not sure what your talking about, but KILLING the right people is ALWAYS a good thing. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted July 11, 2017 3 minutes ago, Ray Ray said: I'm not sure what your talking about, but KILLING the right people is ALWAYS a good thing. Case ain't closed on this joker yet, unless you were there, it's purely conjecture Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ray Ray 3,566 Posted July 11, 2017 Just now, Zeke said: Case ain't closed on this joker yet, unless you where there, it's purely conjecture What Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted July 11, 2017 Just now, Ray Ray said: What I understand Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,417 Posted July 11, 2017 8 minutes ago, Zeke said: words have meaning. This from the guy who makes up words as he goes along? jus sayen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted July 11, 2017 3 minutes ago, voyager9 said: This from the guy who makes up words as he goes along? jus sayen Aprops bro ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,417 Posted July 11, 2017 5 minutes ago, Zeke said: Aprops bro ? Que? your point was valid, if quixotic. Your use of the words, as examples as to the importance of meaning, less so. By the by, I think discussions as to the difference between justified/excessive are miles apart from calling a killing "good". Morally that's a pretty slippery slope. Even if the life of the intruder means nothing to you, you have to acknowledge that the homeowner's situation is going to be double ungood for a significant amount of time. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted July 11, 2017 2 minutes ago, voyager9 said: Que? your point was valid, if quixotic. Your use of the words, as examples as to the importance of meaning, less so. By the by, I think discussions as to the difference between justified/excessive are miles apart from calling a killing "good". Morally that's a pretty slippery slope. Even if the life of the intruder means nothing to you, you have to acknowledge that the homeowner's situation is going to be double ungood for a significant amount of time. Pax Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jackandjill 683 Posted July 11, 2017 1 hour ago, leahcim said: Really? If you are attacked while engaged in a legal (but stupid) activity, and not antagonizing or instigating, you would not be justified in defending yourself? I think I understand the point you are making, but it seems like a slippery slope. What if I am just well dressed and walking through Newark, perp assumes I have $$ and attacks me? Did I create that situation? What if my house looks like I must be loaded (large house, lots of cars, boats, and other toys on display). Perp decides my house is the best target and invades. Did I create that situation? I try to be maintain a low key appearance for just this reason. Not trying to be an ass, just devil's advocate trying to determine where is the line of appearance that makes the victim responsible for creating the situation. INTENT matters a good portion. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
High Exposure 5,635 Posted July 11, 2017 47 minutes ago, voyager9 said: By the by, I think discussions as to the difference between justified/excessive are miles apart from calling a killing "good". Morally that's a pretty slippery slope. Even if the life of the intruder means nothing to you, you have to acknowledge that the homeowner's situation is going to be double ungood for a significant amount of time. This. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mrs. Peel 7,148 Posted July 11, 2017 1 hour ago, voyager9 said: By the by, I think discussions as to the difference between justified/excessive are miles apart from calling a killing "good". Morally that's a pretty slippery slope. From my own moral code, I believe that taking another person's life could be necessary... but that's a far cry from it being good. Looking at it pragmatically, many normal, non-sociopathic people who kill others as part of their work (soldiers, etc.) are sometimes plagued with the emotional fallout (PTSD, etc.) for years afterwards. That doesn't mean they're weak...I think it just reflects that killing another human is an ugly, horrible and deeply upsetting act, even when it's necessary. It's one thing to philosophize about killing from a keyboard... I would imagine quite another thing to actually do it. 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Handyman 5,682 Posted July 11, 2017 It is unfortunate, but there are some people that the world is better off without. One such variety are people who bust into your house with baseball bats. My solitary concern in shooting both of them coming in the door would have been the expense of cleaning up the mess. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mrs. Peel 7,148 Posted July 11, 2017 Just now, Handyman said: My solitary concern in shooting both of them coming in the door would have been the expense of cleaning up the mess. You would have made a fine serial killer! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
High Exposure 5,635 Posted July 11, 2017 1 hour ago, Handyman said: It is unfortunate, but there are some people that the world is better off without. I agree with this. And in an of itself is a completely true statement. However, while using violence to defend yourself may be legally, morally, and ethically righteous, it still carries a cost on the psyche/soul/conscious/karma or whatever you want to call it. Even if you are physically unharmed, you will be fundamentally changed after the event. Many people win their deadly force encounter but can't live with the aftermath. They self destruct. The good guy might win, but the bad guy will continue to affect them long after the physical confrontation is over. With proper training and mindset prior to the event, a lot of the associated angst can be overcome and dealt with. But it is still present. Deadly force in the defense of oneself or loved ones is not something to ever be taken lightly or for granted and is never something to be looked forward to. Killing an adversary or a threat may be necessary, it may be righteous, the world may be a better place afterwards, but it is never wholly a good thing. 8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Handyman 5,682 Posted July 11, 2017 You would have made a fine serial killer! I think my place doesn't get broken into much because I have a tarp on the floor just inside the door with a sign that says "Robber - Please stand here." I appreciate what y'all are saying, but I think I would feel worse running over someone's cat than shooting an armed intruder. The person has chosen to do evil. They likely have a history of doing evil, and/or will continue doing evil if not stopped. Evil also tends to escalate - you're a thief today, an "assaulter" next month, and a murderer next year. Get the genes out of the pool. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted July 11, 2017 14 hours ago, High Exposure said: I agree with this. And in an of itself is a completely true statement. However, while using violence to defend yourself may be legally, morally, and ethically righteous, it still carries a cost on the psyche/soul/conscious/karma or whatever you want to call it. Even if you are physically unharmed, you will be fundamentally changed after the event. Many people win their deadly force encounter but can't live with the aftermath. They self destruct. The good guy might win, but the bad guy will continue to affect them long after the physical confrontation is over. With proper training and mindset prior to the event, a lot of the associated angst can be overcome and dealt with. But it is still present. Deadly force in the defense of oneself or loved ones is not something to ever be taken lightly or for granted and is never something to be looked forward to. Killing an adversary or a threat may be necessary, it may be righteous, the world may be a better place afterwards, but it is never wholly a good thing. Well said Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ray Ray 3,566 Posted July 12, 2017 The moment another "human" decides me or my family is worth doing harm or worse, they are no longer worth ANYTHING. I'm not talking morality, spirituality, holiness or PTSD. That comes second to my family. That is all. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,417 Posted July 12, 2017 15 minutes ago, Ray Ray said: The moment another "human" decides me or my family is worth doing harm or worse, they are no longer worth ANYTHING. I'm not talking morality, spirituality, holiness or PTSD. That comes second to my family. That is all. I don't think anyone was questioning that. At least I wasn't. But the other stuff comes after the immediate dust has settled and can much longer term. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted July 12, 2017 1 hour ago, Ray Ray said: The moment another "human" decides me or my family is worth doing harm or worse, they are no longer worth ANYTHING. I'm not talking morality, spirituality, holiness or PTSD. That comes second to my family. That is all. It won't be all. But I agree with you. I will deal with it as best I may. I Hope I'll do everything right, I know I won't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites