Jump to content
Katie Park

Newspaper reporter looking to interview a subject for a story...

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, capt14k said:

Weak isn't the word for it. You have a duty to retreat from your own home unless your life or life of loved ones is in eminent danger and there is no path to retreat.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

it's rare...but you're wrong on this one. if you feel your or your loved ones lives are in danger, you can estimate the necessary force.

EDIT

2C:3-6. Use of force in defense of premises or personal property
Use of Force in Defense of Premises or Personal Property. a. Use of force in defense of premises. 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 when the actor is in possession or control of premises or is licensed or privileged to be thereon and he reasonably believes such force necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by such other person in or upon such premises.

b. Limitations on justifiable use of force in defense of premises.

(1) Request to desist. The use of force is justifiable under this section only if the actor first requests the person against whom such force is used to desist from his interference with the property, unless the actor reasonably believes that:

(a) Such request would be useless;

(b) It would be dangerous to himself or another person to make the request; or

(c) Substantial harm will be done to the physical condition of the property which is sought to be protected before the request can effectively be made.

(2) Exclusion of trespasser. The use of force is not justifiable under this section if the actor knows that the exclusion of the trespasser will expose him to substantial danger of serious bodily harm.

(3) Use of deadly force. The use of deadly force is not justifiable under subsection a. of this section unless the actor reasonably believes that:

(a) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or

(b) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to commit or consummate arson, burglary, robbery or other criminal theft or property destruction; except that

(c) Deadly force does not become justifiable under subparagraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection unless the actor reasonably believes that:

(i) The person against whom it is employed has employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the actor; or

(ii) The use of force other than deadly force to terminate or prevent the commission or the consummation of the crime would expose the actor or another in his presence to substantial danger of bodily harm. An actor within a dwelling shall be presumed to have a reasonable belief in the existence of the danger. The State must rebut this presumption by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

c. Use of force in defense of personal property. Subject to the provisions of subsection d. of this section and of section 2C:3-9, the use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by such other person to commit theft, criminal mischief or other criminal interference with personal property in his possession or in the possession of another for whose protection he acts.

d. Limitations on justifiable use of force in defense of personal property.

(1) Request to desist and exclusion of trespasser. The limitations of subsection b. (1) and (2) of this section apply to subsection c. of this section.

(2) Use of deadly force. The use of deadly force in defense of personal property is not justified unless justified under another provision of this chapter.

L.1978, c.95; amended by L. 1987, c. 120, s. 2.
2nd EDIT

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; and

(ii)A public officer justified in using force in the performance of his duties or a person justified in using force in his assistance or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape is not obliged to desist from efforts to perform such duty, effect such arrest or prevent such escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom such action is directed.

(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.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry,

We got off on a tangent here. The purpose of this thread was to help give guidance and try to tell of our struggles in NJ to a newspaper reporter looking to interview a subject for a story.

After all, we don't want to confuse her with our thread drifting to unrelated debate now, do we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JohnnyB said:

Sorry,

We got off on a tangent here. The purpose of this thread was to help give guidance and try to tell of our struggles in NJ to a newspaper reporter looking to interview a subject for a story.

After all, we don't want to confuse her with our thread drifting to unrelated debate now, do we?

"The purpose of this thread was to help give guidance and try to tell of our struggles in NJ "

"we don't want to confuse her with our thread drifting to unrelated [firearms] debate"

I think this is, in fact, part of our struggle, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, JohnnyB said:

Sorry,

We got off on a tangent here. The purpose of this thread was to help give guidance and try to tell of our struggles in NJ to a newspaper reporter looking to interview a subject for a story.

After all, we don't want to confuse her with our thread drifting to unrelated debate now, do we?

ALL threads on this(and every other forum on the interweb) go off on tangents eventually. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GunsnFreedom said:

"The purpose of this thread was to help give guidance and try to tell of our struggles in NJ "

"we don't want to confuse her with our thread drifting to unrelated [firearms] debate"

I think this is, in fact, part of our struggle, no?

The sad fact that in our homes is the ONLY place we are allowed to protect ourselves under NJ law is related. Debating that particular issue in this thread muddies the waters and shows division in our ranks.

I was only politely suggesting we stay on topic!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JohnnyB said:

The sad fact that in our homes is the ONLY place we are allowed to protect ourselves under NJ law is related. Debating that particular issue in this thread muddies the waters and shows division in our ranks.

I was only politely suggesting we stay on topic!

statutes above. no muddy water.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

statutes above. no muddy water.

Understood, but in the end, the last thing we want is to digress to the point that a 1A move should occur. We represent a class of people that live in the USA, yet do NOT enjoy the very rights guaranteed by our Constitution!

The very fact that this state can deny us our rights to self defense is a travesty! We can't even arm ourselves with a slingshot here! A freaking toy you can buy as a child at K-Mart in the rest of the country! How has this gone so far? Now we have a new Governor who is going to make it even tougher for us to protect ourselves! We are are living in a nightmare here!

Ms. Park, Please take note! You wanted a story, you have one! WE, THE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS of New Jersey are the true victims here!  Unfortunately, It's a story your editors won't let you tell because the TRUTH is not a part of their agenda!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JohnnyB said:

Understood, but in the end, the last thing we want is to digress to the point that a 1A move should occur. We represent a class of people that live in the USA, yet do NOT enjoy the very rights guaranteed by our Constitution!

The very fact that this state can deny us our rights to self defense is a travesty! We can't even arm ourselves with a slingshot here! A freaking toy you can buy as a child at K-Mart in the rest of the country! How has this gone so far? Now we have a new Governor who is going to make it even tougher for us to protect ourselves! We are are living in a nightmare here!

Ms. Park, Please take note! You wanted a story, you have one! WE, THE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS of New Jersey are the true victims here!  Unfortunately, It's a story your editors won't let you tell because the TRUTH is not a part of their agenda!

Is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, capt14k said:


If I lived in a free state and had a FFL03 I would have saved thousands on FFL transfer fees. I could have C&R Rifles and handguns shipped direct to my home. Also as a federally licensed FFL03 I could buy any C&R Firearm from any person in any state. I believe a NJ licensed FFL03 can travel to other states and buy C&R firearms and bring them back to NJ, but they can't have them shipped. I say I believe because there is no clarification in the law. This same rule applies to antique longguns. If one travels to PA and buys a 1895 Chilean Mauser it is not a firearm, and can be bought without a FFL. Then you can legally bring it back to NJ. However you can not have an antique longgun shipped to your home in NJ, it must be transferred through a FFL01. Even more ridiculous is an antique pistol, including a flintlock or matchlock, is treated the same as a new Glock in NJ. You must have a PTP and if caught "carrying" one the penalties are the same. Federally and in all other states, except I believe Hawaii, Antique Longguns and Handguns made prior to 1898 are not even considered firearms.


...

Please note Ms. Parker, that bolded part is not a hypothetical, never enforced law. In fact there an older gentleman charged with a crime for having an antique pistol in the glove compartment of his car. He was 72 years old and the pistol in this case was 300 years old.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, WP22 said:

Please note Ms. Parker, that bolded part is not a hypothetical, never enforced law. In fact there an older gentleman charged with a crime for having an antique pistol in the glove compartment of his car. He was 72 years old and the pistol in this case was 300 years old.

 

May as well link the story:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/02/18/flintlock-from-1700s-could-land-elderly-nj-man-in-prison.html

 

I recommend you all link to as many of these as possible. Simply referring to them isn’t as convincing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
statutes above. no muddy water.

 

In post #114 I posted I was incorrect about the duty to retreat home. I also posted the part of the law about having to ask the armed intruder to leave first. It's still a very weak castle doctrine law.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, capt14k said:

 

In post #114 I posted I was incorrect about the duty to retreat home. I also posted the part of the law about having to ask the armed intruder to leave first. It's still a very weak castle doctrine.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Dont feel bad, this is scitsophrenic; kinda like all of NJ's gun laws

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/5/2018 at 5:50 PM, Krdshrk said:

@Smokin .50 is a great resource - maybe try him.

@remixer is a firearms retailer in Monmouth County - Also a great source.

Don't forget Garden State Shooting Center - a lot of the owners/staff are part of the forums.

I'm not in Monmouth/Ocean county so I can't help you there... but I did just purchase a firearm post 2/14.

I do not speak to the press... It never ever gets printed correctly.

That being said... I would love to read the article once its published.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/5/2018 at 5:56 PM, capt14k said:

Being I am the Milsurp and Political Advisor for Monmouth Arms I would be happy to answer any questions. The shooting did not impact me one way or another for buying firearms. I am heading out the door to look at a Rifle and Pistol as I am typing this. Not sure why the shooting would impact anyone other than Panic Buying or someone who doesn't already own firearms wanting to arm themselves for protection against a psychotic killer.  

 

 

Edit I'm only kidding about the advisor part. It's a running joke. I have no connection to Monmouth Arms other than he is a great and responsible FFL. However he doesn't talk to the press after they way the stories were written regarding range suicides.

 

You are without question NOT the political advisor to Monmouth Arms :)

I will allow you the title of Milsurp advisor as long as only me and you know about it :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are without question NOT the political advisor to Monmouth Arms [emoji4]

I will allow you the title of Milsurp advisor as long as only me and you know about it [emoji4]

 

 

Yes I am "not" the "political advisor" [emoji6][emoji6]

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest problem America has is the focus on the tools rather then the reasons / motives behind shootings.

1. Gang Violence, Mostly using stolen and already banned firearms which stricter gun control on law abiding citizens will not solve. Maybe enforcing existing laws and giving serious jail time for crimes would help.

2. Non-Reported Mental Issues,  If its not reported then no system would be able to stop this person from obtaining a firearm

If this country addressed the mental state of people maybe the problem would be solvable. Yet they continue to focus on the tool not the background of the perp.

Its very difficult to have a reasonable debate when one side solely focuses on the gun while putting the real issue "The mental health of our youth (and some adults)" as a secondary conversation.  Some people want to ignore the fact that these mass shooting perpetrators passed the FBI background checks.  The problem in that case is the government failed us... States are not reporting correctly to the Nics system, The US Military did not report a domestic violence to the Nics system.  Stricter Nics checks  cannot deny a person for something that is not reported to the Nics system.

It always seems after a shooting that there were clear signs of an issue.. Parkland shooter is one example.. If just one person in that long chain of government intervention did their job the existing Nics system would have prevented him from obtaining a legal firearm. FBI, Broward County Sheriff Department and Family services all failed to report a person who was a clear threat, The fact kids said they knew it was cruz should scream of an issue.   Nadel Hassan is another who clearly was deranged and radicalized but once again the government missed it. 

It would also be fantastic if the Debate on gun violence included some facts. Ie Automatic Weapons, Military style, 30 Rounds in a second and the entire label of Assault Rifle which does not exist.

Ok its early.. i need some Covfefe.

 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, capt14k said:

I also posted the part of the law about having to ask the armed intruder to leave first. It's still a very weak castle doctrine law.

My non-lawyerly understanding is that you only have to ask nicely if you don't believe anyone is in immediate danger:

"believed that the intruder would inflict personal injury upon the actor or others ; OR (b)The actor demanded that the intruder disarm"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, capt14k said:

 

In post #114 I posted I was incorrect about the duty to retreat home. I also posted the part of the law about having to ask the armed intruder to leave first. It's still a very weak castle doctrine law.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

sorry, i missed that.

 the having to ask them to leave? that's not the case. you need to tell them to desist. essentially that translates to "get the bleep outta here!". or...."stop!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sorry, i missed that.
 the having to ask them to leave? that's not the case. you need to tell them to desist. essentially that translates to "get the bleep outta here!". or...."stop!"
That was sarcasm. Though I'm sure some NJ Democrats would rather us ask politely.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/5/2018 at 7:23 PM, Katie Park said:

Thomas Costello is a photographer for the APP. His name is with the video caption. The video is posted at the top of the page, as it's done with every other story and opinion piece on the APP website, but Tom had nothing to do with this written content.

This letter to the editor is opinion, submitted by a reader, Luke Stango. What Mr. Stango submitted to the APP was subsequently published. 

FYI Tom & I go way back to his Rutgers Targum days.  I photographed his wedding.

I'm working on getting a range for us to explore together.

Dave aka "Rosey"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Zeke said:

How can you be objective without going through the permitting process?

 

Speaking as a former member of the Press (freelance Photographer):
A reporter can be sent to a Nathan's Hog Dog Eating Contest on the 4th of July.  He/she doesn't need to eat 100 hot dogs to be qualified to report on the story.  Same for gunz.  Nuthing special about 'em once you remove (MY) YOUR predetermined bias TOWARDS them :) .  Reporters are tasked with writing about stuff they themselves know nuthin' about all the time.  Katie's mere presence here indicates to me that she's willing to get informed prior to writing the story.  Although it would be nice for her to "go thru the process" like we all wish she would, she doesn't have to eat 100 hot dogs to write fairly.  What the Editors do with her fair rendition is left remaining to be seen. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Smokin .50 said:

Speaking as a former member of the Press (freelance Photographer):
A reporter can be sent to a Nathan's Hog Dog Eating Contest on the 4th of July.  He/she doesn't need to eat 100 hot dogs to be qualified to report on the story.  Same for gunz.  Nuthing special about 'em once you remove (MY) YOUR predetermined bias TOWARDS them :) .  Reporters are tasked with writing about stuff they themselves know nuthin' about all the time.  Katie's mere presence here indicates to me that she's willing to get informed prior to writing the story.  Although it would be nice for her to "go thru the process" like we all wish she would, she doesn't have to eat 100 hot dogs to write fairly.  What the Editors do with her fair rendition is left remaining to be seen. 

I think just about every reporter that covered a hotdog eating contest has eaten at least one hotdog.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Smokin .50 said:

Speaking as a former member of the Press (freelance Photographer):
A reporter can be sent to a Nathan's Hog Dog Eating Contest on the 4th of July.  He/she doesn't need to eat 100 hot dogs to be qualified to report on the story.  Same for gunz.  Nuthing special about 'em once you remove (MY) YOUR predetermined bias TOWARDS them :) .  Reporters are tasked with writing about stuff they themselves know nuthin' about all the time.  Katie's mere presence here indicates to me that she's willing to get informed prior to writing the story.  Although it would be nice for her to "go thru the process" like we all wish she would, she doesn't have to eat 100 hot dogs to write fairly.  What the Editors do with her fair rendition is left remaining to be seen. 

While you dont have to eat 100 hotdogs you have to understand how difficult it is to eat 100 of them.

If a reporter has the idea eating 100 hotdogs is simple then the story they write about it would not be legit.

 

Would a vegan be the right person to cover a hot dog eating contest?

BTW i have no issues with @Katie Park.. I appreciate her coming here,  I hope she has an open mind and is willing to learn a few things.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, remixer said:

While you dont have to eat 100 hotdogs you have to understand how difficult it is to eat 100 of them.

If a reporter has the idea eating 100 hotdogs is simple then the story they write about it would not be legit.

 

A war reporter does not have to be a combatant to report the war, but they have to be there to see and experience what happens.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Scorpio64 said:

A war reporter does not have to be a combatant to report the war, but they have to be there to see and experience what happens.

^^^THIS^^^ is a better analogy than my Nathan's story.  Couldn't agree more.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, remixer said:

While you dont have to eat 100 hotdogs you have to understand how difficult it is to eat 100 of them.

If a reporter has the idea eating 100 hotdogs is simple then the story they write about it would not be legit.

 

Would a vegan be the right person to cover a hot dog eating contest?

BTW i have no issues with @Katie Park.. I appreciate her coming here,  I hope she has an open mind and is willing to learn a few things.

 

 

So you think we can get Katie to eat 100 hot dogs?  Could be fun to watch! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BobA said:

So you think we can get Katie to eat 100 hot dogs?  Could be fun to watch! 

We dont need anymore High capacity hot dog eaters.

 

5 minutes ago, Smokin .50 said:

^^^THIS^^^ is a better analogy than my Nathan's story.  Couldn't agree more.

Yes that was pretty Good... I do prefer this one.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, remixer said:

While you dont have to eat 100 hotdogs you have to understand how difficult it is to eat 100 of them.

If a reporter has the idea eating 100 hotdogs is simple then the story they write about it would not be legit.

 

Would a vegan be the right person to cover a hot dog eating contest?

BTW i have no issues with @Katie Park.. I appreciate her coming here,  I hope she has an open mind and is willing to learn a few things.

 

 

Understanding isn't taught in Journalism School anymore.  If it were, we wouldn't be in the fricken mess we're in right now!

Would a vegan be the right person to cover a hot dog eating contest?  That's like asking if sending a red neck racist would be the right person to cover Miss Black America pageant!  (NOT intended to offend or be taken out of context!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • olight.jpg

    Use Promo Code "NJGF10" for 10% Off Regular Items

  • Supporting Vendors

  • Latest Topics

  • Posts

    • More primers on the way..... soon.   https://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/2022/jan/19/ammunition-plant-to-open-near-texarkana/
    • As I mentioned in another thread, we bought a condo in Florida a couple of years ago, and have started spending some time down here.  We have not become residents yet, but still are able to enjoy a taste of life in a free state with Covid sanity and everyday concealed carry. Yesterday I purchased the Zastava Arms ZPAP M70 for which I have been lusting.  Bought it online from Atlantic Firearms and had it shipped to a local dealer.  When I went over to pick it up, he asked me for my DL and Florida CCW permit (if I had one).  I filled out a 4473 and a few minutes later, he said, "You're all set."  Holy crap!  No waiting days for an "instant" background check requiring a return trip to the dealer.  In just minutes I was able to walk out with my new beauty.  While I was there, a fellow walked in and asked to look at a handgun.  He checked it out for a few minutes, then said, "OK, I'll take it."  Same deal for him:  DL, Florida CCW, 4473, and out the door in a few minutes with the gun.  I should note that with the ready availability of guns in Florida, contrary to the hysterical fears of legislators in states like New Jersey, not only do legal gun owners not run around shooting each other, one rarely (like, never) even sees a gun. All that aside, the weather here has been great, the people warm and welcoming.  On days when it's a little cooler, with temperatures in the mid-60's, when we can't sit by the pool or go to the beach, the weather is perfect for golf, pickle ball, running and working out, or just hanging out.  Unfortunately, we have to leave "The Matrix" next week to return to Jersey for six weeks in the middle of winter, for some weddings and other family events.  But we get to look forward to returning in mid-March for another 6-8 weeks.  If any of you are down this way, be sure to say hi!
    • Interested too. Been a USLS member for several years now too.
    • Save your hospitality.  Spammer from Bangladesh.
×
×
  • Create New...