Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


BowhunterNJ last won the day on March 11

BowhunterNJ had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5,025 Excellent


About BowhunterNJ

  • Rank
  • Birthday 10/24/1977

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • County, State
    Burlington County, New Jersey
  • City
  • Interests
    fishing, hunting, hiking, photography

Recent Profile Visitors

13,840 profile views
  1. Ticks. @Rusty has ticks in his closet.
  2. Rusty approved technique of spraying down before heading in the woods...
  3. I'll also add if you have something like a baseball bat in your home or in your vehicle, don't ever say to a police officer that it's for self defense. It can be interpreted as Possession of Weapons for Unlawful Purpose or Unlawful Possession of a Weapon. If a situation arises that you need to use it for self defense, then well it just happened to be there and it was only there because you're a baseball fan.
  4. This. The way I understand it, you cannot "pursue" confrontation at all, even to protect your property or the potential of threat to you and your family. You have to wait until you are in imminent danger (which is subject to your perception of course but you'll have to defend that perception). Even in your home, the burden will be on you to prove you had no "reasonable means of escape" and that you felt your life or family's life was in danger if you wind up "assaulting" or killing a suspect that enters your home. The minute you step outside with a firearm or shoot outside your home, or even engage someone outside your home with a firearm, you're in a different realm of issues that are definitively not in your favor here in NJ. Forget pursuing or chasing someone after they've fled, you're in a world of trouble here in NJ if you do that. The "requirement" here is that you contact law enforcement and let them handle it. The "big picture" can be argued two ways. 1) Is anything in your car worth your life? Probably not, so contact LE and let them handle the BS. Insurance will cover anything stolen 2) Principles. One should have the right to defend themselves AND their property. You shouldn't have to sit back and let someone rob your belongings in hopes that LE gets there in time to do something about it. I can see both having merit, but #1 is probably the wiser course of action, especially in this state. It's not worth someone losing their life over a theft, and it's not worth you going to jail over. With that said, and as others have mentioned, it's worth talking to a lawyer to discuss as we are all (at least I am) speaking from our understanding of the law which may not be 100% accurate. A lawyer will (should) know definitively and we'd all like to hear their professional opinion. @Livesintrees the details of "kicking in" a front door. Are you saying attempting to kick it in (i.e. actively kicking it) or has successfully kicked it in and has entered? Pretty sure you'd have to wait until the door was actually kicked in to "confront". You still can't shoot through the door to kill the guy kicking the door, no?
  5. Nice John, some good eating right there!
  6. Very nice! Definitely great to be so close to trout streams!
  7. Good stuff, very nice of you Ken!
  8. You always have that first "pass" by claiming ignorance. After that if you get caught, it's defiant trespass. Many do exactly this to hunt properties for as long as they can until they get caught.
  9. Also sounds a lot like every sector of our gov. It's not about doing what's best for the people, it's all about money and power and votes and keeping their seat in office.
  10. Playing Devil's advocate here, unfortunately that picture doesn't show it in his possession. He is still just "touching" it which is not breaking a law (although trespassing is). Theft wise, it all comes down to the times between that picture and the one without it on the tree. If it were literally 2 minutes later, OK, that's a stronger case of the pictured guy taking it. If it was 2 hours later or even 15 minutes later, then there is "reasonable doubt" that someone else could have come, thrown a hat over the camera, taken the feeder down and out of the camera's view, and then removed the hat from the camera and went on their way. Now let me be clear, the chances of there being someone else is VERY small and HIGHLY unlikely, however if there is ANY possibility, then there is no case based on the evidence provided thus far. The only thing you'd have the pictured guy on is trespassing (which is still worth pursuing) and police do have an opportunity to question him and try to get him to slip up regarding the theft. I guess that comes down to priorities, which to you (and many of us if it were us) makes this a a high priority, but to them it is likely much lower. Doesn't make it right, just makes it a matter of resources/priorities, but in the end it *should* be investigated.
  • Create New...