Yup, just read it again, NJ does indeed have it's own version of the castle doctrine, which among other things, provides the victim with absolute immunity from civil suits, so the story posted above is completely false hearsay.

If you let him take your computer you risk the loss of personal and professional data, and Identity theft possibility, and if you shoot him well you are guilt until proven innocent.

This is INCREDIBLY foolish. You don't shoot someone for trying to steal your personal property, THAT'S how you get found guilty. You shoot somebody because they pose a threat to you. If you see someone in your house with your computer in their hands, and you confront them with your firearm and they run away, you let them run away. Don't shoot unless they pose a threat to the safety of you or your family.

You don't shoot someone for trying to steal your personal property,

 

unless of course you live somewhere like Florida.. or Texas..

 

Joe Horn for example.. LOL he used deadly force to stop a criminal who robbed his NEIGHBORS house.. lol now that is a safe neighborhood..

Yup, just read it again, NJ does indeed have it's own version of the castle doctrine, which among other things, provides the victim with absolute immunity from civil suits, so the story posted above is completely false hearsay.

 

could you post a link to the law when you get a chance?

someone once told me a story about catching a 20 foot shark in a fresh water stream..

 

do you know where I am going with this?

 

 

Happens all the time, and in our own state. You gotta watch some shark week!

 

Shark link, Matawan Creek

Here is a link to the NJ statue governing the use of force.

 

http://www.nj-statute-info.com/getStatute.php?statute_id=1489

 

Here are some of the key parts:

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Now you can read it different ways, but it seems to me, that if someone breaks into your house, and is stealing your computer, even if you don't think he is going to hurt you, and you tell him to surrender, and he doesn't, and you then shoot him, you are justified in doing so. It is your house, so you have the first part covered. It was sudden and unexpected, so that is covered. You were compelled to act instantly, you are still good. Then in says that either you believed the intruder would inflict injury OR, you demanded that he either a) disarm b)surrender or c) withdraw. You demanded that he b) surrendered. He didn't, you shot him. Am I reading that wrong?

Here is a link to the NJ statue governing the use of force.

 

http://www.nj-statute-info.com/getStatute.php?statute_id=1489

 

Here are some of the key parts:

 

Now you can read it different ways, but it seems to me, that if someone breaks into your house, and is stealing your computer, even if you don't think he is going to hurt you, and you tell him to surrender, and he doesn't, and you then shoot him, you are justified in doing so. It is your house, so you have the first part covered. It was sudden and unexpected, so that is covered. You were compelled to act instantly, you are still good. Then in says that either you believed the intruder would inflict injury OR, you demanded that he either a) disarm b)surrender or c) withdraw. You demanded that he b) surrendered. He didn't, you shot him. Am I reading that wrong?

 

The actor demanded that the intruder disarm, surrender or withdraw, and the intruder refused to do so.

 

You are reading that the YOU (just for emphasis, not yelling) get to choose which of the 3 (disarm, surrender or withdraw) the intruder must do before you are justified to use force. The intruder may argue that he was withdrawing (albeit with your computer) and therefore you did not have justification to shoot him.

 

Scenario: You confront an intruder in your house stealing your computer. You tell him to drop the computer. You tell him that you are armed. Intruder panics and attempts to run out the door with your computer. You shoot him as he is withdrawing. It can be argued that you are not justified. You have to think he is going to hurt you in order to use force.

Well, it doesn't say disarm, surrender, and withdraw. It says or. He didn't surrender when that is what you demand he do. It also doesn't say " believed that the intruder would inflict personal injury" AND those things. It says OR those things. So at the very least, that wouldn't be the argument. The argument would have to be whether or not the 'or' where it talks about disarming, surrendering or withdrawing is implied that if the intruder doesn't do one of those things you are justified, or that if he does do one of those things you are not justified. Depending on your interpretation the meaning changes GREATLY.

 

IMO, it is your house, he is the bad guy, you should be given the benefit of the doubt until you step outside your bounds, not the other way around. You shoot him as he is stealing your stuff is different from shooting him, then walking up and executing him while he is down.

 

 

You shoot him as he is withdrawing. It can be argued that you are not justified. You have to think he is going to hurt you in order to use force.

 

No, you don't. It certainly can be argued that you are not justified, but NOT because you didn't think he was going to hurt you. It says that, OR if he doesn't disarm, withdraw, or surrender when you demand he do so. So you have an argument, but you got the wrong one. The argument is that he was withdrawing and you shot him anyways.

Here is a link to the NJ statue governing the use of force.

 

http://www.nj-statute-info.com/getStatute.php?statute_id=1489

 

Here are some of the key parts:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now you can read it different ways, but it seems to me, that if someone breaks into your house, and is stealing your computer, even if you don't think he is going to hurt you, and you tell him to surrender, and he doesn't, and you then shoot him, you are justified in doing so. It is your house, so you have the first part covered. It was sudden and unexpected, so that is covered. You were compelled to act instantly, you are still good. Then in says that either you believed the intruder would inflict injury OR, you demanded that he either a) disarm b)surrender or c) withdraw. You demanded that he b) surrendered. He didn't, you shot him. Am I reading that wrong?

 

You are reading it wrong... This is the part that is crucial:

 

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

 

Unless you can articulate that you felt there was a treat to yourself or another of Serious Bodily Injury, you are not Justified to Use Deadly force...The SAME STANDARD I might add, as the AG Guidelines require of LEO's, with the caveat that we MAY in fact shoot fleeing actors under very (and i mean VERY VERY)Limited circumstances. Once the Threat ceases, so does the Jutification to use Deadly Force....which is why that Pharmacist is goign to Jail for Murder. He was 100% Justified in shooting the kid initially, but he was 1000% WRONG when he got a second gun, went back and executed the kid.

so, if someone comes into your house, and you are upstairs and he is coming up the stairs and pulls out what looks like a knife (or say a handgun), you demand surrender and he says no then you have the right ti use deadly force.

 

but what if he pulls out what you think is the knife and there is nothing there then you are at fault.

 

 

given the first scenario then you should shoot him when he pulls the knife or gun and then shoot to kill or shoot to wound.

 

If the above is correct then it is completely possible for the criminal to sue you if he is injured during the robbery, such as in what i heard.

 

 

And quote

i was at the range and heard the story of another guy at the range tell us how his neighbor was sued for shooting two intruders, the one died, the other one didn't, instead he fell out window of the house, cut his Achilles tendon, and ended up suing the homeowner for everything he had, because now he was a cripple.

 

Now that was the jist, but the indepth story was that the first one (the one that died) produced a handgun, and the homeowner has reasonable though to think both were armed, the fact he blew the second guy away a mere five or 6 feet from the window as he hit the second guy from the side. As such the homeowner was using excessive deadly force against an unarmed robber who claimed he agreed to surrender, but was shot anywyas.

You are reading it wrong... This is the part that is crucial:

 

 

 

Well that certainly makes sense then. However the part I had bolded seemingly defines what "reasonable belief" means, which would imply that if the stipulations it described were met, then the criteria of protecting against death or serious bodily harm was fulfilled. Now whether or not they actual are is another story, as I would be inclined to agree with you to an extent.

 

With that said, I wouldn't be against a law that does not restrict ones use of force against a criminal who breaks into your home. I would be fine with the only criteria to be let off the hook being

 

1. It is your place of residence (house, apartment, condo)

2. The person illegally broke into your home.

 

 

Tough luck for the criminal who just was trying to steal your stereo. Maybe people would be more hesitant on breaking into other peoples homes.

Well that certainly makes sense then. However the part I had bolded seemingly defines what "reasonable belief" means, which would imply that if the stipulations it described were met, then the criteria of protecting against death or serious bodily harm was fulfilled. Now whether or not they actual are is another story, as I would be inclined to agree with you to an extent.

 

With that said, I wouldn't be against a law that does not restrict ones use of force against a criminal who breaks into your home. I would be fine with the only criteria to be let off the hook being

 

1. It is your place of residence (house, apartment, condo)

2. The person illegally broke into your home.

 

 

Tough luck for the criminal who just was trying to steal your stereo. Maybe people would be more hesitant on breaking into other peoples homes.

I dont Disagree with you..although PESONALLY, I'm not comfortable using Deadly Force against someone for nothing more than a Theft (Barring extenuating circumstances, such as NBC material, or .Mil Weapons). but hey if YOU feel you could sleep at night after killing some poor schmuck for a simple theft, more power to you..I couldnt.

so, if someone comes into your house, and you are upstairs and he is coming up the stairs and pulls out what looks like a knife (or say a handgun), you demand surrender and he says no then you have the right ti use deadly force.

 

but what if he pulls out what you think is the knife and there is nothing there then you are at fault.

 

 

given the first scenario then you should shoot him when he pulls the knife or gun and then shoot to kill or shoot to wound.

 

If the above is correct then it is completely possible for the criminal to sue you if he is injured during the robbery, such as in what i heard.

 

 

And quote

 

 

Now that was the jist, but the indepth story was that the first one (the one that died) produced a handgun, and the homeowner has reasonable though to think both were armed, the fact he blew the second guy away a mere five or 6 feet from the window as he hit the second guy from the side. As such the homeowner was using excessive deadly force against an unarmed robber who claimed he agreed to surrender, but was shot anywyas.

 

No you are not. Familiarize yourself with the term "Totality of the Circumstances" Your justification is based upon what YOU perceived AT THAT TIME UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. As long as you are Able to Articulate WHY you considered the actor a threat, then you are Ok. THAT is one of the overwhelming reasons why we say not to make any statements about the incident without an attorney present. You WILL be under unimaginable stress, you WILL not be thinking clearly and you CAN harm yourself unknowingly if you make a statement. It happens more than people realize both in Police and Non-Police situations..people do stupid things under stress. There is a video out there of a Police Involved Shooting, where from one angle it LOOKS like the guy is pointing a handgun at Police. Posture, Stance and motions are clear about that...He was engaged, and was killed. In FACT he was holding a Cell-phone not a Gun...which from another camera angle IS clear. However At the time of the shooting it was REASONABLE to believe that he was armed, and was intent on engaging the police, so the shoot was ruled Justified..and rightly so. There have been times when people, including kids have been shot because they pointed an airsoft, or BB gun at someone. Under stress, and with adrenaline flowing that .177 bore is going to look like a .45 when it's pointed at you.

 

Let me stress, I am NOT Advocating having NO interaction with the Police, what I am saying is tell the guys something along the lines of "I was in fear for my safety and/or that of my family. I Know you have a job to do and i dont want to make things harder for you but I am not comfortable discussing the situation or answering any questions other than my personal information without Counsel present, I would also like some medical attention please."