This will spur some "passionate" discussion. Keep it clean.

[79CamaroDiva]

What are your opinions on this? I have my own set opinion, but I'm curious what other people think. If you're house was being robbed, would you want your neighbor to be able to protect it?

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=5278638&page=1

[SupermanX24]

I'm all for it. If it weren't for him, those idiots woulda probably robbed his house next, and probably he'd be the one to be dead.

[Fast92RS]

I'm all for it. If it weren't for him, those idiots woulda probably robbed his house next, and probably he'd be the one to be dead.

I agree.

[LTb1ow]

To bad NJ can't be easy on gun laws :( But I think he did the right thing. Much better than sitting back and watching and doing nothing...

[WildBillyT]

Tough call. There is some morality playing into it. But I know if it was my place I would have wanted his ass killed.

[wretched73]

Wow, thats a pretty crazy story.

O and did anyone else notice the 2 burglars were illegal? :lol:

[Mike]

my neighbors dont know the layout of my house, dont know who could be home at what time or where they would be if home.......so no i dont want neighbors sticking their noses in......if they see that someone is breaking in, and arent in danger themselves, i want them to stay in their own house, get lisence plate numbers and call 911

[LTb1ow]

What are the laws in NJ to this? Like if someone was breaking and entering your house and you "defended" yourself?

[WayFast84]

My neighbors got robbed a few years ago, My sister heard someone break in and she told my mom but my mom didn't believe my sister.. My neighbors are great people and I know for a fact that 2 out of 6 houses around me have guns in the house(LEO/hunters) So that being said, i would want them to call 911 then get their gun, and just confront them and get them to surrender. If that doesn't work, SHOOT BOTH KNEES OUT :)

[sweetbmxrider]

i agree. if my house was on fire, i would want my neighbor to try and put it out. the 911 operator has no authority over the man so he had the right to confront them, flat out shoot them in the back is kinda weak, but so is taking what isn't yours. top it off with the illegal status, and you got yourself one happy texan.

[Rich189]

my neighbors dont know the layout of my house, dont know who could be home at what time or where they would be if home.......so no i dont want neighbors sticking their noses in......if they see that someone is breaking in, and arent in danger themselves, i want them to stay in their own house, get lisence plate numbers and call 911


I have to agree with mike here I dont want a trigger happy neighbor shooting a friend by accident nor do i want my neighbor to confront them and get shot over some jewlery etc. But at the same time if they break into my house when im home i completely agree that you should be allowed to shoot no questions asked and shoot to kill at that.

[79T/A]

If this happened in NJ, I have no doubt that he would be found guilty and sent to jail. Period. Guys like Joe Horn are the reason we have gun control laws. I don't know how many other people have heard the 9-1-1 tape, but if you look past its entertainment value, it's absolutely horrifying. The dispatcher pleads with him not to go outside. He's doing everything he can. And "Move or you're dead!" sounded a lot more like, "Hey! You're dead!"

Of course, I wasn't there, so I can't say what definitely happened. However, if it happened the way he alleged, why were both men shot in the back while fleeing? Moreover, this isn't his property in jeopardy, it's his neighbors. I do greatly appreciate his enthusiasm in protecting a neighbor's property, but he did his duty by doing what he did in the first place: He called 9-1-1. He took it upon himself to go outside and face two men, apparently unarmed, and gun them down. While I don't consider myself a huge liberal, I don't see the need for taking a life over property. The one thing you can take from someone and never give back is life. It looks way too much like an overly enthused "good ole boy" with a prejudice towards illegal aliens.

Just my two pennies. Fire away (Figuratively speaking, of course).

[WayFast84]

i agree. if my house was on fire, i would want my neighbor to try and put it out. the 911 operator has no authority over the man so he had the right to confront them, flat out shoot them in the back is kinda weak, but so is taking what isn't yours. top it off with the illegal status, and you got yourself one happy texan.

I think that is pretty dumb, I would never expect a neighbor or family member to rush into my house to put out a fire unless it was a minor kitchen fire. When my car set on fire i made sure my friend(also a neighbor) was far away before I went back in to put it out.

houses,cars and jewelry can be replaced, people cant, thats why i said shoot both knees out. They wont die, and wont be able to run. :lol:

[ShitOnWheels]

I"m torn on this. I remember when this first happened with the 911 tape being released. He was repeatedly told not to go outside. What if the cops showed up as he walked outside with a shotgun? I bet he'd be dead, the crooks get away, and everyone gets pissed at the cops for shooting the "good guy."

If it was his own home, I think this wouldn't be an issue. And if he did go outside to confront the men, and was charged, threatened, or whathaveyou, then he'd be justified. But I don't think they even knew he was there. In this case, I think calling 911 was enough, keeping the cops updated on what he sees/hears, and if they did flee, which direction, what they might have looked like (even approximates would have helped). But at the same time, no one knows if they would have tried to hit his house next, especially if they had any idea he was watching...I dunno, I'm torn. Overall, I'd say he went too far...but should he be sent to prison for it? I dunno.

What I do love, though, is one of the crook's fiance saying "This man took the law into his own hands. He shot two individuals in the back after having been told over and over to stay inside. It was his choice to go outside and his choice to take two lives." So it's ok for her fiance to steal to pay for their wedding, but when he gets caught in the act by someone who happened to have a gun, it's the other person's fault?

[sweetbmxrider]

I think that is pretty dumb, I would never expect a neighbor or family member to rush into my house to put out a fire unless it was a minor kitchen fire. When my car set on fire i made sure my friend(also a neighbor) was far away before I went back in to put it out.

houses,cars and jewelry can be replaced, people cant, thats why i said shoot both knees out. They wont die, and wont be able to run. :lol:

i said it in relation to this situation. if no one is home, i would hope a neighbor would try and do something. i sure would. im not a pussy. im not talking about a huge fire either, like this situation, there wasn't a bunch of robbers taking hostages, just a simple B&E

[Knipps]

I have to agree with mike here I dont want a trigger happy neighbor shooting a friend by accident nor do i want my neighbor to confront them and get shot over some jewlery etc. But at the same time if they break into my house when im home i completely agree that you should be allowed to shoot no questions asked and shoot to kill at that.

You took the words right out of my mouth. I should be able to defend my house but my neighbor's house is pushing the limits.

[Jersyboyy]

I didnt read any one elses post but IF the burglars had guns or tried to attack the old guy then this situation would be completely just. He shot the men in the back as they were running off thats taking the situation into your own hands and its total BS! if they tried to rob HIS house or tried to attack HIM then fine kill them they deserve it you know. They didnt bother him nor did they attack him, the other owner could have called up insurance and the cops and the two guys probally would have gotten caught.

[Mike]

i said it in relation to this situation. if no one is home, i would hope a neighbor would try and do something. i sure would. im not a pussy. im not talking about a huge fire either, like this situation, there wasn't a bunch of robbers taking hostages, just a simple B&E

how do you know no one is home? thats the point, if you are coming into a situation from the side, or late, then you dont know enough factors to properly assess that situation

[rscamaro73]

Texas is Texas.

No 2 bits about it...

But on the same note....if they didn't understand 'ENGLISH'....then who's fault is that ? Not Joe's....he TOLD them to stop. Why should he have to tell them in 'spanish ?

While we weren't there and there's no one but Joe to tell the story now (hmmm, in his favor too :twisted:)....all we can say is that they were 2 illegals doing something against the law.

So they get sent back to Mexico. Then come back and do it again. Then what ? One of them kills some kid and then he gets sent back to Mexico again....

Plenty of chance to become citizens if they wanna come here....but coming over and helping themselves ON TOP OF the 'FREEBIES' they get by having kids here....nope.....

Way ta go Joe !!!

[sweetbmxrider]

how do you know no one is home? thats the point, if you are coming into a situation from the side, or late, then you dont know enough factors to properly assess that situation

i don't think thats the point, but i did assume it. if no cars are at my house, no one is home. i know my neighbors and my friends neighbors well enough to asses a situation and handle it accordingly. everyone is different though

[BigAls87Z28]

In this context, the old man that killed the two men didnt know his neigbors well enough, and that is said by the old guy in the 911 calls.
I belive that the old men knew that neighbors were away, and if you listen to the 911 he yells at the guys robbing the house.
Do I think he should have shot them? No, but if he could somehow detain them, or shoot them in the leg to stop them from going anywere, that would have been a better idea.

I belive 220% in home defense, and in Texas the Castle rule not only applies to your house, but your neighbors house.
In the 20/20 or Dateline thing they had on TV, they had a guy who woke up to a man breaking into his infant sons room. So the man grabbed his pistol, and put 3 rounds in him, killing him.
NJ's laws is more of a hide and self defense, but even still there can be legal ramifcations if you do decide to discharge your wepon. If the person shot is not killed, but perhaps does some damage to him, the person could turn around and sue him. That kind of reverse bs needs to be reversed.
Like in "Liar Liar" where the guy is robbing the house, he falls through a glass sky light, and cuts his leg open on a kitchen knife sitting on the table below, the man sued the owner of the house, and won. While that is a fictional story, Im sure there is some basis for that.
If while performing an illegal act, you are injured, you should not be allowed to or file any counter suit.
Texas's Castle law is a bit extreme while NJ law lacks a lot.

[foff667]

my neighbors dont know the layout of my house, dont know who could be home at what time or where they would be if home.......so no i dont want neighbors sticking their noses in......if they see that someone is breaking in, and arent in danger themselves, i want them to stay in their own house, get lisence plate numbers and call 911

I agree completely. If someone thinks something is going on they should simply call 911 & let the police & the insurance co. do their jobs in this case.

Don't risk shooting someone innocent or injuring yourself, its a great thought to go take the law into your own hands but think about it...stealing vs. killing...big difference. Christ I would've been dead several times over for the candy bars I stole as a kid :lol:

[foff667]

i don't think thats the point, but i did assume it. if no cars are at my house, no one is home. i know my neighbors and my friends neighbors well enough to asses a situation and handle it accordingly. everyone is different though

Theres never been an occasion where you've dropped your car off at a shop and got a ride home? I know I've done that many times.

[Mike]

yeah theres plenty of times, there are people in my house when no cars are here, or cars here when no people are here......thats the point i was trying to make, if you have NO CLUE whats going on inside the house, you shouldnt fire a weapon in that direction,

if the people are running down the street like they aparently were in this case, its even worse, what if 20 feet in front of the FLEEING burgular is a mom with a stroller, or a kid on a bike......

its just not smart

[cdacda13]

A part of me wants to say its Murder in the first degree. The act of shooting them was clearly premeditated, proved by him saying "I'm gonna shoot! I'm gonna shoot!" Self defense cannot be considered because they were shot in the back, so they weren't threatening the guys life.
Link to Texas Castle Law (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00378I.htm)
Now, according Section 2.A.3, anyone can stop someone from committing robbery. Section 2.E can be interpreted to mean that if someone has a right to be where they are, they are allowed to act.

So, according to the Texas law, the man is innocent and the grand jury made the right decision in dropping the charges.
Morally, I believe the mans beliefs are justified, but the execution (no pun intended) of said beliefs are wrong.

[LTb1ow]

Your killing the glamorous shoot first ask later manta here. But I guess if he really wanted to help out, he should have shoot a warning shot in the air or at least tried to incapacitate them before shooting to kill.

[maroman88]

Theres never been an occasion where you've dropped your car off at a shop and got a ride home? I know I've done that many times.

but im sure ur neighbors at least kinda know you. if i saw 2 mexicans leaving my neighbors house with crap in there hands and i knew they were on vacation id do the same ****... texas is the most awesome state...!

[LTb1ow]

And way to bring in the racial bigotry.

[SteveR]

My view is that if you voluntarily choose to commit a crime and put innocent people in danger and have the intent to harm someone, then you just forfeited your human rights and all bets are off for you. If someone catches you and is armed, you die.

[LTb1ow]

+1 For vigilantes.

[sweetbmxrider]

Theres never been an occasion where you've dropped your car off at a shop and got a ride home? I know I've done that many times.

i know what you are saying, but no. never.

+2 for vigilance!

[LTb1ow]

Vigilance? I said vigilantes, like as in Batman. And if I tried to save my neighbors houses from being robbed with a gun I would chased out of the neighborhood by a torch bearing posse. Damn subrunites..

[sweetbmxrider]

vig·i·lance Audio Help /ˈvɪdʒələns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[vij-uh-luhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. state or quality of being vigilant; watchfulness: Vigilance is required in the event of treachery.
2. Pathology. insomnia.
[Origin: 1560–70; alter. (-ance for -ancy) of obs. vigilancy < L vigilantia; see vigilant, -ancy]

—Synonyms 1. alertness, attention, heedfulness, concern, care.

vig·i·lan·te Audio Help /ˌvɪdʒəˈlænti/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[vij-uh-lan-tee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a member of a vigilance committee.
2. any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.
–adjective
3. done violently and summarily, without recourse to lawful procedures: vigilante justice.
[Origin: 1825–35, Americanism; < Sp: vigilant]

—Related forms
vig·i·lan·te·ism, vig·i·lan·tism Audio Help /ˌvɪdʒəˈlæntɪzəm, ˈvɪdʒələnˌtɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[vij-uh-lan-tiz-uhm, vij-uh-luhn-tiz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation, noun

A vigilante would show vigilance in a dire situation. :wink:

[LTb1ow]

Point taken, but being a vigilante is different, than being aware.

[johnjzjz]

if the people who have bleeding hearts were not trying every day of their lives to put an end to the Constitution as it was written - we would all have guns and the bull would be stopped - unless of course your one of them you wont believe it would - jz

[sweetbmxrider]

how so? the vigilante was aware of a robbery next door and took an aggressive course

[LTb1ow]

Or just a lot of bears with guns. :lol:

[LTb1ow]

how so? the vigilante was aware of a robbery next door and took an aggressive course

And I would say, being vigilante would be calling 911, which he did, being a vigilante would be taking action into your own hands, which he also did by shooting them.

[bubba428]

um if a person ever tried to rob my house, I would absolutely want somebody to do something about it, not necessarily shoot the guy...I mean I'm all for guns, I love going shooting and I think every one should be educated on how to properly handle a weapon. but I don't think i'd like the idea of my neighbor killing somebody on my property

[LTb1ow]

Baseball bats are always useful for other things than baseball....

[Mike]

Your killing the glamorous shoot first ask later manta here. But I guess if he really wanted to help out, he should have shoot a warning shot in the air or at least tried to incapacitate them before shooting to kill.

a "warning shot in the air" is the WORST possible thing you can do....

if the people who have bleeding hearts were not trying every day of their lives to put an end to the Constitution as it was written - we would all have guns and the bull would be stopped - unless of course your one of them you wont believe it would - jz

ok now everyone has guns, dont forget "everyone" includes the scumbags

[LTb1ow]

Warning shot in the air is bad? Can you explain? I would figure that would be better than trying to shoot to incapciatte. Most people wouldn't be able to accurately shoot under stress anyway. At least then they would know you have a gun and perhaps run?

[Knipps]

One more thing Anti-Neighbor's house is what if a friend is watching your pets while you're away? The neighbors saw you go in but when they watch you come out and they feel you stole something? Then what happens?

Warning shot in the air is bad? Can you explain? I would figure that would be better than trying to shoot to incapciatte. Most people wouldn't be able to accurately shoot under stress anyway. At least then they would know you have a gun and perhaps run?

That bullets gotta go somewhere. Who knows who you might hit.

[KirkEvil]

He should have shot them both in the knees so they could have been deported in wheel chairs.

[Mike]

exactly, what goes up must come down, only now its gonna be coming down up to a couple miles away, and yes it can still hit and kill someone, or hit and cause property damage.......yes you are still responsible for it and YES the police can figure out where it came from

[LTb1ow]

Then no more running, jumping, and swimming for them.

[LTb1ow]

Would be a challenge to find a single .22 bullet a mile and half away.. but I see your point and understand it.

[Mike]

if it lands in someones skull or someones window, or windshield and causes a wreck, it would be easy to find

[LTb1ow]

Mature thinking strikes again... you make things to serious. But I guess they are. Story awhile back about a clansmen shooting a gun straight up and the bullet coming back down and killing him. So I see your point.

[BigAls87Z28]

A small round like that, coming down would not have enough force to kill you. There is not enough mass in the bullet to do so. going up, yes it is going very fast. Once gravity slows its upward motion, its coming down at 9.8 m/s*2, which with something that light (a bullet) would probably just hurt someone, not kill. A .22 round has about the same mass of a penny, maybe a bit more. Anyone who watched the Mythbusters thing on the penny off the empire state building saw that the penny could not generate enough force to even break skin. Now something like a bullet that is a bit more aerodynamic might at best leave a little bruise, it sure as hell wont kill you.

http://www.demopolislive.com/gallery/images/1/large/1_the_right_to_bear_arms.jpg

I support the 2nd amendment, but things like this need to be taken in a case by case thing. By law, he was in the clear, but morals are a totaly different thing. On one end, there are people who dont think anything of it, on the other end you have people who wish all guns were destroyed because they can only bring harm.
I was brought up to handle firearms with respect, and understand that this is a weapon of death, and that if used incorrectly will harm someone, most likely myself.

[LTb1ow]

Guns are tools, if implemented the right way, can be useful. If used the wrong way, can be deadly. Thats all, they are, removing guns will just lead to other "tools" being used.

[Mike]

the funny thing is that being a private citizen he is in the clear, but had it been a cop that shot those two guys, it would be a different story

[LTb1ow]

Being a cop, I would assume you would be able to apprehend them without depending on shooting them.

[Mike]

just saying, if the exact same scenario happened, but the person doing the shooting was a cop, the outcome would be completely different

[LTb1ow]

Cops are everyones friend in need and scapegoats when not needed.

[12secondv6]

I dunno.... I'm torn.

I don't know my neighbors friends well enough so I could see bad things happening.

And.... my neighbors don't know my buddies.... and I don't want them shot.

I'm torn....

[Ian]

ok now everyone has guns, dont forget "everyone" includes the scumbags

if they want a gun, they just go and get one.. just look at the handgun crimes that were committed in DC during the handgun ban. wait a second, if handguns are banned......how the hell do the scumbags have them? oh yeah. that's right. they don't pay attention to laws in the first place. gun laws only affect law abiding citizens.

[LTb1ow]

+1, If only more people saw that viewpoint..

[Mike]

you do know that there are petty criminals that dont have access to the same underground **** that other criminals do right?

and getting away from criminals, im sure bars would be real fun with all the stupid drunks having handguns in their belts

[LTb1ow]

Yea but I would assume they would make it like the concealed carry permit and place limits on where you can carry concealed. Bars I believe are on the not allowed list.

[Ian]

you do know that there are petty criminals that dont have access to the same underground **** that other criminals do right?

and getting away from criminals, im sure bars would be real fun with all the stupid drunks having handguns in their belts

no, I fully understand. I'm just playing devils advocate :wink:

anyone know how bars are in Texas? I'm sure almost everyone there carries.

[Mike]

ian i am too.......seeing how i can carry lol

[LTb1ow]

Few more months, and hopefully NJ will let me too.

[1QWIKBIRD]

my neighbors dont know the layout of my house, dont know who could be home at what time or where they would be if home.......so no i dont want neighbors sticking their noses in......if they see that someone is breaking in, and arent in danger themselves, i want them to stay in their own house, get lisence plate numbers and call 911

I agree with this. It is all I could ask or hope for. Don't put yourself in harms way for anything material. I've got enough insurance to replace it and then some. I would also be curious what kind of liability the owner of the property has been potentially exposed to? This kind of behavior is one step removed from the wild west. The fact that it was the neighbor is almost irrelevant, what if it was a guy walking down the street who saw the same set events unfolding? Does he have the right to go all guns blazing? What if the guy's a bad shot, misses and puts one into the adjacent house and kills the other neighbor. Does he go down for manslaughter even though his intentions were good? Na, let the cops do their job.....there's enough crazy behavior out there, no need to add to it.

I am all for defending your own at all costs and asking questions afterward, and I have no problem looking out for neighors, but I don't want my neighors shooting up the place on my behalf.

Chris

[Mike]

a big factor here is also the fact that the house is empty. there is a difference between burgulary and robbery

[johnjzjz]

http://www.felonspy.com/search.html?agree=0

well pop this into your street and see how you feel with out a gun to defend yourself and your family - but their are some that think they are rehabilitated YEA RIGHT - jz

[Mike]

yeah they dont do anything but watch tv, sleep all day and stay up and act stupid all night, there is no rehabilitation going on

[Dilley]

i believe this guy was 100% right he did what his gut told him i would do the same look at the old west if it wasn't for groups of citizens that took the law into their own hands to protect themselves their families and community the rein of Billy the kid, Jesse James and all the other famous outlaws would have been ten times worse than it was. so i support this brave man in his choice

[79CamaroDiva]

A lot of people saying he wasn't right are assuming that friends could be mistaken for someone robbing the house. If the people were CLEARLY robbing the house, windows broken, scrambling around, making out with a tv or stereo or sacks of jewelry, whatever, does your viewpoint change?

[jims69camaro]

What are the laws in NJ to this? Like if someone was breaking and entering your house and you "defended" yourself?

it all depends on the circumstances. the DA may decide not to press charges based on the factors involved, such as: were you defending gun v. gun; were you defending others in the house that could not defend themselves, like a child; how much of a threat to life were the burglars, or were they just there for the goodies?

if someone enters my home with a gun, i figure it's fair game time. if they come in without a gun, you had better believe they will leave a limb behind when they leave - or maybe they'd just throw it in the ambulance and see if the doctors can sew it back on. unfortunately, NJ does not recognize that my home is my castle and i will defend it. i seriously hope no one ever breaks into my house because i don't want to find out later that they will be pressing charges against me.

edit: maybe later i will investigate the laws surrounding this type of break in here in our state.

[WildBillyT]

http://www.felonspy.com/search.html?agree=0

well pop this into your street and see how you feel with out a gun to defend yourself and your family - but their are some that think they are rehabilitated YEA RIGHT - jz

John,

I hate to break it to you but that site is not accurate at all. Not even remotely. I did a search for my parents' neighborhood and it came up with a whole bunch of people that do not live there. The neighborhood is small enough that we know everybody who is there and who moves in and out. And we know the one felon, who got convicted of money laundering and they are not listed.

I punched in my work (I work near a sex offender) and he is not listed either.


That site strikes me as propaganda for vigilante-ism.

[cdacda13]

New Jersey's Castle Law
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.

[79T/A]

What if the cops showed up as he walked outside with a shotgun? I bet he'd be dead, the crooks get away, and everyone gets pissed at the cops for shooting the "good guy."


Thank you! I forgot to mention that. Very important fact that was overlooked by many others.

I also believe in the Constitutional right to bear arms, but just like free speech, it has its limitations. Like freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to stand up in a crowded theater and yell 'fire' if there isn't one.

Right now, in the State of New Jersey, it is difficult, if not impossible, to get a carry permit for a handgun unless you are a police or corrections officer, in which case your badge and i.d. are your carry permit. I'm actually glad for this as firearms come with a great deal of responsibility. First off, we are one of the most densely populated states in the country (If not THE most). There are too many areas where, if a round is let go, it has too much potential to hit someone. Walls don't always stop bullets; they'll keep going and end up somewhere.

We also have to examine the fact that just because someone doesn't have a criminal history doesn't mean that they have the maturity or mental capacity to handle the responsibility of carrying a firearm. The average Joe isn't necessarily equipped to evaluate when they should or shouldn't shoot. In some cases, an individual may have a clean record but harbor beliefs that might make them more likely to shoot someone based on stereotypes or flat out prejudice. Merely owning a gun doesn't give someone the perspective needed to evaluate the situation to, say, differentiate between a burglar or someone reading the meter for the electric company.

If citizens in this state are to be allowed to carry concealed handguns, I think that in addition to the police background check, they should also receive a psychological evaluation and be mandated to attend and complete an intense class on shoot/don't shoot situations. If they can complete all of that, so be it. Sure, there will be some who can fake their way through a psych evaluation, but I'd rather lean towards the side of caution.

As for bars in Texas, well, my uncle is a resident. Folks walk up to the bar and lean their shotguns up against it while ordering a beer and it's legal. Yikes.

And for those of you who think that shooting scummers in the leg is a good idea, it's not the easiest target to hit. If you're going to point a gun at someone, don't shoot to wound. Don't shoot to kill. Shoot to STOP.

As for protecting the home: I agree one thousand percent. Someone I don't know comes into MY house, where MY family lives, I'm doing whatever I have to to protect my family. If it comes down to deadly force INSIDE my home, then so be it. Deadly force should only be used when there is definitely a threat of serious injury or death to you or someone else.

I'm actually enjoying this discussion. Next!

[LTb1ow]

Well you assume that cops are all some sort of perfect beings, free of prejudice etc, which I beg to differ. And I agree, the common guy with a gun will find it very hard to actually hit someone that they want to "stop".

[Mike]

Well you assume that cops are all some sort of perfect beings, free of prejudice etc, which I beg to differ.

did someone say that?

[firebirdcrazy]

Does anyone remember the Tennesee verses Garner case? You law Enforcement guys should know this since its taught in every academy. Now why the hell did this moron get away with this? Had it been a PD he would probably be still in jail. It just makes no sense. I am game to protecting yourself and your neighbor but that was extreme. If the circumstances were that that the neighbor was in the house and was being assaulted then they are game. But noone was around and they were fleeing I would have given chase but not shoot them.

[79T/A]

Does anyone remember the Tennesee verses Garner case? You law Enforcement guys should know this since its taught in every academy. Now why the hell did this moron get away with this? Had it been a PD he would probably be still in jail.

Very good catch, sir. Tennessee vs. Garner was the first thing that came to mind when I heard about this. And there's no probably about it. Had a cop shot these guys the same way in the same circumstances, they would DEFINITELY be in jail. No doubt in my mind.

[LTb1ow]

I think the circumstances play a big role in this, they were undoubtedly robbing the house, they were illegals (sorry but you can't say that didn't play into it) and its Texass. But shooting someone in the back is never cool man.

[sweetbmxrider]

texass....nice

[Mike]

no
no
no

this is the 3rd time i said this. they were BURGULARIZING the house, not robbing it, you can only rob a person

[Tsar]

no
no
no

this is the 3rd time i said this. they were BURGULARIZING the house, not robbing it, you can only rob a person
To further confuse the masses why don't you throw "larceny" in there. Sit back and enjoy the confusion...

[1972LT1]

It should be plain and simple.....If you break into my house, I should be able to shoot your a$$. You didn't have my permission to be there, I shouldn't have to ask you what your intentions were. You don't belong there, you don't have my permission to be there, I don't think that machete in your belt is there as a toothpick. And after I ventilate your a$$ your family shouldn't be able to sue me for loss of provider. I'm starting to like Texas more and more.

[firehawk1120]

Seeing as I'm sick of criminals getting more rights then a law abiding person I love this law. I'm also a gun owner who hates NJ laws. If you shoot some in NJ and they fall outside your house your F'd, they have to be inside your home and be considered a dangerous risk at least that is my understanding. I'll tell ya what someone comes in my house and I shoot them and they fall outside I'm dragging their ass back in and calling the cops.

In my opinion if you break the law you forfeit all your rights and if in doing so a neighbor catches your pathetic ass they should shoot you. I'm sick of all these liberal asses wanting criminals to be given slaps on the wrists just so they can go victimize someone else. No more 3 chances, no appeals, if found guilty they should walk you down a hall and fry you ( more serious crimes of course) I like the laws in what is it india, if you steal they cut off a hand, you rape they cut off your penis, etc. we need to do that here.

[1972LT1]

Seeing as I'm sick of criminals getting more rights then a law abiding person I love this law. I'm also a gun owner who hates NJ laws. If you shoot some in NJ and they fall outside your house your F'd, they have to be inside your home and be considered a dangerous risk at least that is my understanding. I'll tell ya what someone comes in my house and I shoot them and they fall outside I'm dragging their ass back in and calling the cops.

In my opinion if you break the law you forfeit all your rights and if in doing so a neighbor catches your pathetic ass they should shoot you. I'm sick of all these liberal asses wanting criminals to be given slaps on the wrists just so they can go victimize someone else. No more 3 chances, no appeals, if found guilty they should walk you down a hall and fry you ( more serious crimes of course) I like the laws in what is it india, if you steal they cut off a hand, you rape they cut off your penis, etc. we need to do that here.

Soloman's law....an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth

[BigAls87Z28]

Lets not get carried away here fellas. If we want to get tech, if you shot and killed someonei in defense, you could be sent right down the same death row as someone who shot and killed someone in an armed robbery.

I agree with the Castle law, and I think that NJ needs to loosen them up a bit. If someone is coming into my house, I would rather detain them and have the police come and cary his or her sorry ass and have the courts tear into him.
Now if they come into my house with intent to harm, death.
If they are going to rob my house, and is nothing but a two-bit crack head, then Im gunna detain them till someone can remove said crack head.

[Knipps]

Lets not get carried away here fellas. If we want to get tech, if you shot and killed someonei in defense, you could be sent right down the same death row as someone who shot and killed someone in an armed robbery.

I agree with the Castle law, and I think that NJ needs to loosen them up a bit. If someone is coming into my house, I would rather detain them and have the police come and cary his or her sorry ass and have the courts tear into him.
Now if they come into my house with intent to harm, death.
If they are going to rob my house, and is nothing but a two-bit crack head, then Im gunna detain them till someone can remove said crack head.

How do you plan on doing so?
And when he's back out in 6 months?

[ins0mnia24]

2 illegal immigrants from Colombia breaking the law and shouldn't have been here anyways..
The Majado's got what they had coming to them it wouldn't have been the last time for them I am sure..

They should run that article in every news paper South of the Border...

[BigAls87Z28]

How do you plan on doing so?
And when he's back out in 6 months?

Something tells me...they aint gunna be coming back...

[WildBillyT]

Seeing as I'm sick of criminals getting more rights then a law abiding person I love this law. I'm also a gun owner who hates NJ laws. If you shoot some in NJ and they fall outside your house your F'd, they have to be inside your home and be considered a dangerous risk at least that is my understanding. I'll tell ya what someone comes in my house and I shoot them and they fall outside I'm dragging their ass back in and calling the cops.

In my opinion if you break the law you forfeit all your rights and if in doing so a neighbor catches your pathetic ass they should shoot you. I'm sick of all these liberal asses wanting criminals to be given slaps on the wrists just so they can go victimize someone else. No more 3 chances, no appeals, if found guilty they should walk you down a hall and fry you ( more serious crimes of course) I like the laws in what is it india, if you steal they cut off a hand, you rape they cut off your penis, etc. we need to do that here.

If we were 100% error free in our convictions then that would be perfect. Too bad we aren't.

[SteveR]

if they come in without a gun, you had better believe they will leave a limb behind when they leave

Its actually better to kill them. If you attack a burglar and let him walk away, he can sue you for assault, even if you were defending yourself in your own home.