Recently a buddy and I have been having this conversation around the language in NJ's self defense law. Since nobody is allowed to carry a gun here, a little oddity stands out to my friend's analysis of the law. Look at the bold part...does that mean if an officer of the law is illeglly using force on someone, that person could use deadly force back on the officer?

It seems 'out of whack'...anyone else have any thoughts on this language?

 

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

Recently a buddy and I have been having this conversation around the language in NJ's self defense law. Since nobody is allowed to carry a gun here, a little oddity stands out to my friend's analysis of the law. Look at the bold part...does that mean if an officer of the law is illeglly using force on someone, that person could use deadly force back on the officer?

It seems 'out of whack'...anyone else have any thoughts on this language?

 

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

 

 

I am no legal expert but it just sounds like a provision to cancel out the first part " 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," on the off chance that a cop goes berserk and is doing something well outside the boundaries of the law..

 

you and your wife are in your living room... a cop responds to a disturbance... you calmly explain that you two were just watching TV and you have no idea where the noise came from.. neither one of you is injured in any way.. there are no witnesses.. and the cop goes absolutely nuts and just starts beating you with his gun yelling to you that you have to comply... during this your wife gets a gun orders him to stop but he continues to go on a rampage.. she shoots him.. it appears that this disclaimer is to protect an individual in a completely unrealistic situation that is likely to never occur...

 

you cannot use force to stop a cop from arresting you.. EVEN IF HE IS WRONG...

unless..

he is beating you to death and the level of force he is using is grossly unreasonable given the degree of the crime..

then someone may use force to stop him..

 

that is how it reads to me.. but again I am not a lawyer or LEO.. so it is just a guess based on how it reads..

Recently a buddy and I have been having this conversation around the language in NJ's self defense law. Since nobody is allowed to carry a gun here, a little oddity stands out to my friend's analysis of the law. Look at the bold part...does that mean if an officer of the law is illeglly using force on someone, that person could use deadly force back on the officer?

It seems 'out of whack'...anyone else have any thoughts on this language?

 

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

So during your trial, it's determined the arrest was unlawful, I guess you were within your rights to use force, if the peace officer used force. (?????) Heaven help you if it's determined the arrest was lawful!

Sorry, I was replying at the time the previous was posted!

+1 to Vlad. This is a provision for extremely far out there situations if a cop goes nuts and starts going crazy violently harming people around him. The provision basically protects civilians that are defending their lives in a situation like this if it were to occur.

 

Another situation if a cop goes nuts because he doesn't like you, arrests you for whatever reason he/she comes up with, then begins pummeling you to death for no reason at all.

 

Without this SHTF clause, anyone defending themselves in these far out situations would legally be committing a felony.