Home break ins are surging, 2A Rights and what you can or can't do during a break in

[Roon]

Can't type what I hope I would be able to do, no one knows till they know, I got a plan hopefully never happens

 

 

[Hunter115522]

1 hour ago, tcook8296 said:

It sounds good and looks good until the perps family gets a lawyer and sues you for shooting the guy. Insane to even have a discussion like this and I would bet money this is only the beginning of home invasions.

There is no good coming out of our open borders. This 3rd world $hit is only an hour away.

I just did some security work today down in Sea Girt that had a home invasion and a rash of car thefts/burglaries.

 

You're correct. Unfortunately even if found not guilty, or even if the state brings no charges, the family of the dead perp could absolutely go after you civilly. Similar to the OJ Simpson fiasco. He was found not guilty criminally however the family sued and won millions in civil court. The entire system is upside down. 

[mazzgolf]

2 hours ago, vdep217 said:

I knew this homeowner as a customer of mine.  He was never charged.

https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/general/21506/update-on-lakewood-burglar-shot-dead-by-homeowner.html

Interesting tidbit from that story:

===

New Jersey law states that an individual who discovers an unwanted person in their home has the right to presume they are in “imminent danger” and to take the steps to protect themselves, Nappen said.

“If they are in your home, there is a presumption of imminent danger,” Nappen said. The law puts a heavy burden on the prosecutor to prove that the intruder posed no threat to the homeowner who lawfully defends himself, he said.

[Bucndoe]

3 hours ago, Hunter115522 said:

One guy gets it.. 

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you have the right to stop answering at any time."

[Silkcitymedic]

Jurry nullification if you can get sensible jurrors.

[hostak126]

On 12/12/2023 at 6:54 PM, Kayak Ken said:

Politely ask the officers responding if you are free to leave, they will tell you no. Then ask for a lawyer before making any statements at all.  If they force you in for questioning and you need medical assistance don't shy away from asking for it. All officers will seek medical attention for tinnitus, I would suggest you do the same. 

Best thing to do is complain about chest pains and have a hospital look you over, Once they give you something to ease your "pain" or ailment, all questioning will cease as you are on a medication that may/will alter your mindset.

[hostak126]

On 12/12/2023 at 7:22 PM, JimmyScags said:

Just spitballing, but this got me thinking. The Court has already said that the Second Amendment protects the right to armed self-defense with modern firearms in Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Bruen. I wonder if we can make a constitutional challenge to the justifiable use of force standard NJ uses, if it doesn’t comport with the founding era’s historical standards? I’m assuming it doesn’t but haven’t looked in depth at those statutes. — Very interesting!

I think we need to make a challenge to the stand your ground and castle doctrine laws of the state by using the opinions you've stated above. Stand your ground is a big one we don't really have and the castle doctrine is very limited to begin with. The attached file is NJ Use of Force, the provided link is PA use of force. This is for comparison purposes only

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.005.005.000..HTM

Stand your ground in NJ - you have a duty to retreat when you are outside of your home before deadly force can be justified. In the event you are not home and there's a break in, you are not allowed to go in after the burglar to protect your belongings and affects. If you are inside your dwelling already and the break-in takes place, that's another story.

 

Use_of_Force_Training_Doc.pdf

[hostak126]

11 hours ago, BowhunterNJ said:

Look at my scenario a few posts ago.  What do you do in that situation?  If someone broke into my house, I'm not assuming good things, I'm assuming bad things, the worst of things.  So if someone is in my house and shouldn't be, especially if they forced their way in, I believe they have bad intentions and have a weapon, so I'm going to feel the need to defend my loved ones and myself with the utmost force.  The main problem is after the fact that if nothing "mechanical or higher" is found on the intruder, then you are on the one in trouble.  Or if the intruder turns to enter a room where an innocent, unarmed, and defenseless loved one is, they now have their back to you and you have seconds to decide whether to shoot or let them just freely enter that loved one's room and then who knows what will happen but I don't believe it will be a good thing and I'm going to protect my loved one.

Here is NJ Rev Stat § 2C:3-6 (2022)

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.

 

2C:3-5. Use of force for the protection of other persons

a. 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 to protect a third person when:

(1) The actor would be justified under section 2C:3-4 in using such force to protect himself against the injury he believes to be threatened to the person whom he seeks to protect; and

(2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he seeks to protect would be justified in using such protective force; and

(3) The actor reasonably believes that his intervention is necessary for the protection of such other person.

b. Notwithstanding subsection a. of this section:

(1) When the actor would be obliged under section 2C:3-4 b. (2)(b) to retreat or take other action he is not obliged to do so before using force for the protection of another person, unless he knows that he can thereby secure the complete safety of such other person, and

(2) When the person whom the actor seeks to protect would be obliged under section 2C:3-4 b. (2)(b) to retreat or take similar action if he knew that he could obtain complete safety by so doing, the actor is obliged to try to cause him to do so before using force in his protection if the actor knows that he can obtain complete safety in that way; and

(3) Neither the actor nor the person whom he seeks to protect is obliged to retreat when in the other's dwelling to any greater extent than in his own.

L.1978, c. 95, s. 2C:3-5, eff. Sept. 1, 1979.

 

If it were me, I'd arm myself and use the corners of the house or a doorway for cover and make it known the actor(s) are not welcome and police have been called. In the event I'm being "charged" by the actor(s) I believe use of force is authorized.

In the event the actor(s) make their way to another room where a loved one is, said person is in imminent, danger use of force is authorized.