Just read that the modified Castle Doctrine was approved in PA.A triumph in my opinion but will we in New Jersey see the options to defend ourselves,loved-ones and property without having to flee ever come about?

but will we in New Jersey see the options to defend ourselves,loved-ones and property without having to flee ever come about?

 

Don't hold your breath.

Don't hold your breath.

I spear fish.... It's a force of habit.

I spear fish.... It's a force of habit.

Does a bear deficate in a toilet?

 

But really, the chances of us getting a modified Castle Doctrine are very slim because they hate us.

Does a bear deficate in a toilet?

 

But really, the chances of us getting a modified Castle Doctrine are very slim because they hate us.

Be honest,,, was it something we said...Our aftershave...breath stinks...Whaaat?????

we already have a modified version of the castle doctrine... the crimanals do not have a duty to retreat

we already have a modified version of the castle doctrine... the crimanals do not have a duty to retreat

That would actually be funny if it wasn't so true.

No duty to retreat in your home. We need that expanded to our property and persons.

No duty to retreat in your home. We need that expanded to our property and persons.

Really. I was under the impression that you were required by NJ law to prove a reasonable attempt to retreat before using deadly force. That is not the case?

Really. I was under the impression that you were required by NJ law to prove a reasonable attempt to retreat before using deadly force. That is not the case?

 

Inside the home there is no duty to retreat. You may stand your ground. You may estimate the need to use deadly force when faced with perceived deadly threat.

 

Outside the home, you are required to retreat. Even on your own property. Once you cross the threshold, the law changes in your favor UNLESS you caused someone to chase you into your home.

 

We have had these discussions any number of times here. One of the first things people learn when they get here, is that NJ does indeed have a Castle Doctrine. It was also one of the first castle doctrines. It is relatively weak but if you follow the rules as stated in the statutes you will be immune from CRIMINAL prosecution. You are still subject to civil liability.

 

If someone breaks down the door and you must take immediate action, that is justifiable. If someone is in the home, not an immediate threat and you demand they disarm or withdraw and they do not, deadly force is justifiable. I am not a lawyer. Take this for what it's worth. Read the statute below.

 

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.

Inside the home there is no duty to retreat. You may stand your ground. You may estimate the need to use deadly force when faced with perceived deadly threat.

 

Outside the home, you are required to retreat. Even on your own property. Once you cross the threshold, the law changes in your favor UNLESS you caused someone to chase you into your home.

 

We have had these discussions any number of times here. One of the first things people learn when they get here, is that NJ does indeed have a Castle Doctrine. It was also one of the first castle doctrines. It is relatively weak but if you follow the rules as stated in the statutes you will be immune from CRIMINAL prosecution. You are still subject to civil liability.

 

If someone breaks down the door and you must take immediate action, that is justifiable. If someone is in the home, not an immediate threat and you demand they disarm or withdraw and they do not, deadly force is justifiable. I am not a lawyer. Take this for what it's worth. Read the statute below.

 

(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

 

Law conflicts with itself. A persecuter could easily have you brought up on charges because you didn't retreat within your own house.

Examle: You hear a noise downstairs in the middle of the night, you grab your gun go to investigate, after a search you find a drug addled BG who lunges for you. You shoot to defend yourself. The persecuter claims you could have stayed in your room in perfect safety, and the BG only lunged at you in response to being threatened with a gun.

Even if sanity wins out and the case gets dismissed or you are found innocent guess who is out a huge wad of cash paying lawyer fees. And then lets not even mention the civil suit that is bound to follow.

Law conflicts with itself. A persecuter could easily have you brought up on charges because you didn't retreat within your own house.

Examle: You hear a noise downstairs in the middle of the night, you grab your gun go to investigate, after a search you find a drug addled BG who lunges for you. You shoot to defend yourself. The persecuter claims you could have stayed in your room in perfect safety, and the BG only lunged at you in response to being threatened with a gun.

Even if sanity wins out and the case gets dismissed or you are found innocent guess who is out a huge wad of cash paying lawyer fees. And then lets not even mention the civil suit that is bound to follow.

 

While I don't disagree that overzealous prosecutors may bring this to court, they would have to prove that the I KNEW that I could retreat to safety. If I am retreating because I saw the BG, he could have seen me, therefore, I did not KNOW that retreat would keep me safe. Also, I have the rights to inspect noises in my house and to carry my gun while doing it, so he cannot say that I should have stayed in my bedroom. Could have been that PITA cat that my wife loves so much or something much more sinister...

Inside the home there is no duty to retreat. You may stand your ground. You may estimate the need to use deadly force when faced with perceived deadly threat.

 

Outside the home, you are required to retreat. Even on your own property. Once you cross the threshold, the law changes in your favor UNLESS you caused someone to chase you into your home.

 

We have had these discussions any number of times here. One of the first things people learn when they get here, is that NJ does indeed have a Castle Doctrine. It was also one of the first castle doctrines. It is relatively weak but if you follow the rules as stated in the statutes you will be immune from CRIMINAL prosecution. You are still subject to civil liability.

 

If someone breaks down the door and you must take immediate action, that is justifiable. If someone is in the home, not an immediate threat and you demand they disarm or withdraw and they do not, deadly force is justifiable. I am not a lawyer. Take this for what it's worth. Read the statute below.

You appear frustrated,please forgive me my ignorance. I am however encouraged by the story of the Bridgewater man prosecutors refused to indite after one of the burglars he accosted and held in a choke hold in the street later died.The reason given was not only did the man have a justifiable right to follow the burglars to retrieve his property but after threatened, the right to defend him self even if he was a block away from his home.Again a possible civil suit is likely.

Law conflicts with itself.

 

No, actually, it does not.

 

Read it again. I'll truncate it to make it easier.

 

(b) The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating except that... The actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling.

 

They are mutually exclusive. There is no "retreat within your dwelling".

You appear frustrated,please forgive me my ignorance. I am however encouraged by the story of the Bridgewater man prosecutors refused to indite after one of the burglars he accosted and held in a choke hold in the street later died.The reason given was not only did the man have a justifiable right to follow the burglars to retrieve his property but after threatened, the right to defend him self even if he was a block away from his home.Again a possible civil suit is likely.

 

These cases are nice but they are the result of prosecutorial benevolence. I'd prefer to take the decision away from prosecutors who can and often do have other agendas, such as maintaining a high conviction rate. A Castle doctrine that includes your property, not just the house, would be nice.

These cases are nice but they are the result of prosecutorial benevolence. I'd prefer to take the decision away from prosecutors who can and often do have other agendas, such as maintaining a high conviction rate. A Castle doctrine that includes your property, not just the house, would be nice.

Agreed. but I'm also encouraged by what I see as a gathering groundswell nationwide of gains in personal freedoms and rights.Without getting too political as I have no particular affiliation to any doctrine,2 steps forward/1 step back is better than no forward movement at all.

No, actually, it does not.

 

Read it again. I'll truncate it to make it easier.

 

 

 

They are mutually exclusive. There is no "retreat within your dwelling".

 

 

You might want to read that again.

 

 

((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:

 

((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

 

 

(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.

(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.

 

 

 

Section 2 says you must retreat WITHIN your house if can do so with complete safety, you do not have to retreat FROM your house.

 

Like I said if you are in a different section of the house than a BG, the case can be made that you can retreat within your house in complete safety, making use of deadly force not justified.

 

The exclusion that you are stating (3)(3), only comes into play if you can not retreat with complete safety as required by section (2)

You might want to read that again.

 

 

 

 

 

Section 2 says you must retreat WITHIN your house if can do so with complete safety, you do not have to retreat FROM your house.

 

Like I said if you are in a different section of the house than a BG, the case can be made that you can retreat within your house in complete safety, making use of deadly force not justified.

 

The exclusion that you are stating (3)(3), only comes into play if you can not retreat with complete safety as required by section (2)

Now that is more along the lines of what I was made to understand, Obviously every law is up for interpretation but as I've read and understood it, a home owner in NJ is required to show a reasonable attempt to retreat in his own dwelling from harm before using deadly force and only after determining that reciprocal harm is imminent.

Nothing in that statement says you must retreat within your dwelling.

 

You're parsing FROM. If you are in your dwelling, no retreat is required. End of story.

Nothing in that statement says you must retreat within your dwelling.

 

You're parsing FROM. If you are in your dwelling, no retreat is required. End of story.

 

I guess you didn't read 2b.

 

 

(2)(b) The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating

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

 

Could this be any clearer? If you are required to retreat by 2b and not required to retreat FROM your house, what's left? Retreat WITHIN your

house.

 

 

Could this be any clearer? If you are required to retreat by 2b and not required to retreat FROM your house, what's left? Retreat WITHIN your

house.

 

You are required to retreat EXCEPT THAT, YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO RETREAT FROM YOUR DWELLING.

 

That "Except that" clause erases everything in the first part if the second part is met, i.e. the previous statement doesn't matter IF YOU ARE WITHING YOUR DWELLING.

 

Nothing in any statutes or case law suggests you must retreat within your dwelling. If you can find a cite somewhere, I'd love to read it.

You are required to retreat EXCEPT THAT, YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO RETREAT FROM YOUR DWELLING.

 

That "Except that" clause erases everything in the first part if the second part is met, i.e. the previous statement doesn't matter IF YOU ARE WITHING YOUR DWELLING.

 

Nothing in any statutes or case law suggests you must retreat within your dwelling. If you can find a cite somewhere, I'd love to read it.

 

Read 2(b)

 

I guess the issue is I consider leaving one room and going to another retreating (ie retreat from your living room to another room), you consider retreating to be running to a neighbors house.

We already had "castle doctrine" in PA before this. I haven't seen the final bill, but this was more of an expansion of castle doctrine and a neutered "stand your ground" with civil immunity.

Read 2(b)

 

I guess the issue is I consider leaving one room and going to another retreating (ie retreat from your living room to another room), you consider retreating to be running to a neighbors house.

 

One last time then:

 

(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.

 

One room to the next is "withdrawing". It says it right there. You may use force without withdrawing. Not you may use force if you can't withdraw or that you may use force if you have already retreated as far as you can. This statement indicates that indeed you may be able to withdraw or retreat but you are not required to do so under the law.

One last time then:

 

 

 

One room to the next is "withdrawing". It says it right there. You may use force without withdrawing. Not you may use force if you can't withdraw or that you may use force if you have already retreated as far as you can. This statement indicates that indeed you may be able to withdraw or retreat but you are not required to do so under the law.

 

Actually that's exactly what it says.

 

The section you quote as the end all Paragraph 3 section 3 ONLY comes into affect AFTER you meet the requirements of PARAGRAPH 1 AND PARAGRAPH 2

 

And found in paragraph 2, is that pesky line about retreat if you can. If you can retreat and don't then that "nor is it justifiable if:" phrase kicks in and you are screwed.

 

 

 

Read from the top down

 

 

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) NA

 

(b) NA

 

(i) NA

 

(ii) NA

 

(iii) NA.

 

(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

SEE PARAGRAPH 2 REQUIRES RETREAT IN YOUR HOUSE IF YOU CAN

 

(ii) NA

 

(3) Except as required by paragraphs (1) and (2)(SEE HOW PARAGRAPH 3 DOESN'T COUNT IF YOU BREAK THE REQUIREMENTS OF PARAGRAPH2)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)

(b)

THEN WE GET WAY DOWN HERE WHERE IF YOU HAVE MET ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS YOU ARE COVERED, BUT SINCE YOU DIDN'T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF PARAGRAPH 2 THIS MAY AS WELL NOT EVEN BE HERE

(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.

By your logic, #3 is superfluous. You could NEVER possibly get there, yet there it is in the text. "Without retreating...without withdrawing"

 

How could you ever need that language if you were unable to retreat or unable to withdraw because you've already retreated and withdrawn as far as possible?

 

Do you think they just put #3 in there for their own giggles, or do you think, perhaps, you're interpreting it wrong?

 

Which is more likely?

Malsua is correct. 2b says you need to retreat. 2i says you need to retreat unless you are in your dwelling. Therefore, you do not need to retreat in your house. You need to retreat outside your house if you can safely.

 

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.

 

 

the use of force or deadly force upon or toward an intruder who is unlawfully in a dwelling is justifiable

the sad part is the fact that we need to debate about whether it's legal or not, justifiable or not. It should be clear cut: you break in someone's house, you will die and the person who kills you is not liable for anything. You don't want to die? then don't break into people's houses.

the sad part is the fact that we need to debate about whether it's legal or not, justifiable or not. It should be clear cut: you break in someone's house, you will die and the person who kills you is not liable for anything. You don't want to die? then don't break into people's houses.

 

 

this

 

+1