Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

sugarintheboots t1_j4q3h8f wrote

I’m so glad they didn’t charge the homeowner with anything. I know NJ has duty to retreat.

56

Few_Butterscotch954 t1_j4qcn34 wrote

NJ's "Duty to retreat" law applies outside of one's home. Even though "castle doctrine" does not exist in NJ there is no still no requirement to retreat within one's home when faced with an imminent threat. "Duty to retreat" is a requirement outside of one's home and means that an individual must attempt to avoid, diffuse, or escape before using "force" within a potential "self-defense" scenario.

11

dhskiskdferh OP t1_j4qxwaw wrote

While there isn’t a duty to retreat, you are not authorized to use deadly force unless your life is in danger. Also you are to give warnings to the intruder and demand they leave before firing.

It seems like the homeowner did not do that. Personally, I don’t think a jury is going to scrutinize the extent to which you tried to reason with an intruder as much as the law seems to instruct though

9

garbagiodagr8 t1_j4rulu0 wrote

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Warnings for breaking into my home where my children sleep? Im good.

7

vey323 t1_j4s0tp0 wrote

There is no statutory requirement in NJ to warn an intruder or give them means of escape.

1

dhskiskdferh OP t1_j4s6x88 wrote

There is for the former but not the latter

1

vey323 t1_j4s7nyw wrote

No, there is not.

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2016/title-2c/section-2c-3-4/

The only part of the statute that mentions anything akin to a warning is the section that deals with establishing what a "reasonable belief" is. As I just responded to someone else regarding this, I'll just copy pasta:

(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.

The emphasis on OR is mine, because you don't need both conditions to be fulfilled to have a reasonable belief - it's one or the other. If someone breaks into your home, and you tell them to leave, and they refuse, then that provides the reasonable belief that they intend to cause serious injury or death to you or others.

1

dhskiskdferh OP t1_j4s7sg9 wrote

You’re proving everyone else’s point thank you

1

Few_Butterscotch954 t1_j4r7rbd wrote

Correct, a reasonable fear of one's life and a verbal warning is required inside of one's own home.

2

flyinfalkin t1_j4r937q wrote

Didn't realize the verbal warning piece, but in all honestly, if someone is in my home, with two small children, I'm going to fear for their and my life. I would also say that giving verbal warning gives the intruder a chance to act first before I do and I find that odd.

4

dhskiskdferh OP t1_j4rxnvz wrote

I think most agree, and therefore a jury would agree. Also probably why he was not charged

1

vey323 t1_j4s0q85 wrote

The use of deadly force in NJ requires reasonable belief and an imminent need that such force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to yourself or others; outside the home you have a duty to retreat if you can safely do so, but inside the home there is no such duty. There is NO requirement to give warning to an intruder - if they are in your home or attempting to enter, "a person may stand in the threshold of their home and prevent an assailant from entering by any means. A home owner my use force – including deadly force – upon an intruder if the home owner believes that force is immediately necessary to protect themselves or others in the home".

This is direct from the statute and the NJ Attorney General's Use of Force Policy

1

Few_Butterscotch954 t1_j4s3wtr wrote

just a second, i found this https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2016/title-2c/section-2c-3-4/

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

2

vey323 t1_j4s611c wrote

That section denotes what is required for "reasonable belief" for use of deadly force, not that you are required to give a warning.

>(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.

The emphasis on OR is mine, because you don't need both conditions to be fulfilled to have a reasonable belief - it's one or the other. If someone breaks into your home, and you tell them to leave, and they refuse, then that provides the reasonable belief that they intend to cause serious injury or death to you or others.

1

flyinfalkin t1_j4s23k7 wrote

Thank you for finding this. I thought I had read something like this before.

1

dhskiskdferh OP t1_j4s75l2 wrote

What part? You are mixing your commentary with the guidance

1

sugarintheboots t1_j4qd050 wrote

Good to know. I had been told differently by police.

7

MasterXanthan t1_j4ryzpp wrote

While the police enforce the law, they don't seem to have a good grasp on the law. Lawyers have a much better understanding of the law.

3

MasterXanthan t1_j4rytru wrote

Duty to retreat doesn't sound that good. What if escaping is the wrong choice that ends up getting the victim killed vs. the victim fighting back if the victim is able to fight back?

1

playdohplaydate t1_j4qc5fc wrote

Someone must really want his car if they’d try twice

16

AdministrativeBall58 t1_j4qq79d wrote

Haha. How did you get “old Bridge” under your name? I want to put my town there too

5

playdohplaydate t1_j4qru8m wrote

I did it about 10 years ago and have no idea how to change it LOL

6

Bro-Science t1_j4qzsgu wrote

on the right side, "show my flair" then edit it to whatever you want

5

BluePirate t1_j4pxofl wrote

So many break-ins in my area (Morris county).

13

AdministrativeBall58 t1_j4qq2xo wrote

Good for the resident! Car thefts have been on the incline here and something needs to be done.

9

Acer018 t1_j4pvf2z wrote

Why in the world does the mayor of Roseland have anything to do with this article? I couldn't bring up the article but this seems to be a police matter only and an attention grabbing politician didn't need to interject himself or into this story.

5

flexcabana21 t1_j4sqhy7 wrote

He's also the Chef of the Essex County Sheriff's department, He is responsible for overseeing the entire day-to-day operations of the Essex County Sheriff's Office.

2

Castor_and_Pollux123 t1_j4qtigw wrote

> Why in the world does the mayor of Roseland have anything to do with this article?

You have to read the article to get the reference..

1

x3knet t1_j4r7iy7 wrote

/u/Acer018's comment is still valid though. Why is a mayor talking about the homeowner not being charged and that the shell casing hasn't been found yet, and not the.. idk.. Captain of the Roseland PD perhaps?

2

Punky921 t1_j4qr7yu wrote

On the one hand, a car thief is a pretty shitty person. On the other hand, I don't love the idea of amateur, stressed shooters putting rounds out into the neighborhood. Bullets don't distinguish between thieves and sleeping neighbors, and Jersey is the densest state in the country.

1

wchendrixson t1_j4s9yjm wrote

Speak up on how you feel about that when there's a criminal inside your home. There are far worse risks we live with, without even considering them, than "stray bullets fired in legitimate self-defense."

1

ghrz75 t1_j4rl7t3 wrote

Use of force is very specific in NJ

1

gordonv t1_j4sbxhg wrote

And with such a situation, due process should follow with 12 of the home owner's peers deliborating on this specific incident with guidance from a judge in a court of law.

1

Slavic_Dusa t1_j4rmftt wrote

>New Jersey's criminal justice code says the use of deadly force inside your own property is only justifiable if you or your family believe the intruder will harm you.

So prosecute to the fullest extent of the law for attempting murder.

−15

BackInNJAgain t1_j4rtbii wrote

What?!? If someone breaks into your house while you're there you don't know their intentions. It's not like someone breaks in and says "hey, I'm not here to kill you, just stealing your car." Someone breaks in my house at night they're going to get hurt (if they even make it past my dog).

6

Slavic_Dusa t1_j4ru141 wrote

Law is very clear, and from the information police provided and that was published in the article, no one was in any danger.

They were there for the car not to physically harm anyone.

−12

MasterXanthan t1_j4s04r2 wrote

The law needs to change then. People shouldn't have to sit back and watch someone steal from them in their own homes.

2

Slavic_Dusa t1_j4s1dpa wrote

Law is fine. People can't kill as they please. That is what makes our society civilized.

−3

MasterXanthan t1_j4s1yt1 wrote

Civilized people also don't break into people's houses and steal cars.

3

Slavic_Dusa t1_j4s3fhj wrote

True, but that doesn't mean they should be executed for stealing. Penalties for car theft are defined by law in detail. None of them is a death penalty.

0

MasterXanthan t1_j4s45iz wrote

And what if they catch you witnessing them stealing and they pull a gun on you? If someone breaks into your house, you don't know what that person is capable of. Just because someone is committing a non-violent crime doesn't mean they aren't willing to switch over to violence. If someone already worked up the courage to break into someone's house, there's a good chance they're willing to resort to harming innocent people.

0

Slavic_Dusa t1_j4s4r7h wrote

But that did not happen, did it? Thiefs were in a mud room looking for the keys. Not in a bedroom with the shotguns in their hands.

Stop fantasizing. Life is not a movie. Personal responsibility is a thing.

1

MasterXanthan t1_j4s5t02 wrote

Yeah cause stealing is a big part of personal responsibility. If someone breaks into someone's house, whatever happens to the criminal is on them. Also are you trying to tell me that homeowners have never been killed by home invaders before?

2

Slavic_Dusa t1_j4s6g81 wrote

Law is clear what the punishment is for a car theft, and it is not the death penalty.

Law is also clear when you can, and when you can't use deadly force while someone is braking into your property.

If you violate the law, you should face the consequences, especially if you attempt to kill someone.

2

MasterXanthan t1_j4s7i10 wrote

But what's not clear is what someone's intentions are when they break into your house. You aren't going to know if that home intruder is armed or not. Any home invader is a potential threat. But it's clear we're going to have to agree to disagree because nothing is being accomplished in this argument.

3

Slavic_Dusa t1_j4s7rww wrote

Law is clear, read it, or at the very least read the whole article again.

2

MasterXanthan t1_j4s8bqm wrote

I know what happened in the article. But not every home invasion is the same. My point is a person should be allowed to defend themselves and their property and I think the law should be changed so that it is legal to defend your own property as well.

3

Slavic_Dusa t1_j4s8zxe wrote

Of course, a person should also be responsible for the actions they take.

This law has been on the books for a long time, and thieves are not going around killing people. They are going around stealing shit.

Law works.

2

Dbssist t1_j4othcq wrote

‘Would-be‘ car thief? Sounds like a pre-crime. Always knew Minority Report was a goddamn documentary.

−45

NatAttack50932 t1_j4owxne wrote

They broke into the house trying to steal the key fob lmao

Definition of fuck around find out

56

tr7UzW t1_j4pu1cj wrote

The monster entered their home in the middle of the night. He is not a would be.

23

Saywhat50 t1_j4pth7d wrote

Cry more for the thief, glad the homeowner stood his ground

22

iusethisforvoiceshit t1_j4qi0ag wrote

Please move to Florida and leave us alone.

−18

Saywhat50 t1_j4qio9q wrote

lol, my car got stolen from my driveway, the whole reason I got a gun. My life is here and I'll damn well protect my family and property. But I guess you'll kneel down and unzip the thief's pants ?

10

Ilovemytowm t1_j4r5d4t wrote

Embarrassing reading those ignorant comments. I'm a liberal who believes that thieves rapists murders whoever the f*** they are who has the audacity to enter your home .. gets what's coming to them. As a woman if I woke up to someone in my home I swear to God I would drop dead from fear. I don't have a gun but I think about this.

Also stealing someone's car who needs that car to go to work there's plenty of people who live in places without mass transit.... F*** those scumbags.

Looking forward to being spammed with move to Florida by this idiot.

7

MasterXanthan t1_j4rzbm2 wrote

So if someone breaks into your home you're just gonna be ok with it?

1

flexcabana21 t1_j4spomr wrote

Hopefully they P.M. you with their address, and I'd join in testing this theory out.

1

Dozzi92 t1_j4pzh59 wrote

I know you're joking and I appreciate that you didn't use /s.

4

Dbssist t1_j4q0yb1 wrote

Yeah, I think calling a sci-fi film a documentary makes it pretty obvious.

Although the downvotes seem to suggest folks have had sarcasmsectomies.

7