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

[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]

Originally Posted by cbrrmike

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]

Originally Posted by cbrrmike

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

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]

Originally Posted by cbrrmike

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]

Originally Posted by Shownomercy

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Shownomercy

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?