Jump to content
Llama

"No-Knock" Warrants and HD

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

It's impossible to answer a hypothetical question like that. Watch these videos, and then read his books.

New Jersey does NOT have a "Stand Your Ground Law" so don't assume everything this guy says applies in our state!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypothetical scenario. It's 2AM. You hear your door being bashed in. You grab your firearm, head to your stairwell and aim at the door.

 

There are no lights inside, or outside. The shadow(s) break their way through, you see the clear silhouette of firearms in their hands.

 

You open fire, killing 2. It turns out they had a case of mistaken identity and the warrant was for a completely different home.

 

Is the law on your side?

If you have an Avenue of escape to your back when you pull the trigger your in some trouble. Your duty is to retreat if possible in NJ. No castle doctrine here I'm aware of. Now If you we're defending family inside the home that couldn't escape that changes things. Although chances are they're going to announce themselves.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have an Avenue of escape to your back when you pull the trigger your in some trouble. Your duty is to retreat if possible in NJ. No castle doctrine here I'm aware of. Now If you we're defending family inside the home that couldn't escape that changes things. Although chances are they're going to announce themselves.

IANAL but I don't think that is quite true. See the statute below. By my understanding, if you are in your dwelling you have no duty to retreat.

 

See 2C:3-4b(2)b(i) and 2C:3-4c(3)

 

I am not saying retreat may not be your best option. I for one am not shooting someone over my TV or computer. If I can get my family out safely, that is my primary goal. But, unless you created the deadly force situation by your own actions, it is not mandatory to retreat from your home.

 

http://law.onecle.co...ustice/3-4.html

 

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.

 

L.1978, c.95; amended 1987, c.120, s.1; 1999, c.73.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As HE posted the statute, let me go even further about our castle doctrine.

 

Not only do you not have to retreat, in State v Martinez, they clarified that you may stand at your doorway and resist by any means.   If your deck is attached to your house, even if it's 50'x50' it's part of your dwelling.

 

NJ Superior court in state vs Martinez found that:

Quote

We are satisfied, however, that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury with respect to an exception to the duty to retreat. Defendant contends that, in its instruction to the jury, the trial court should have explained not only that one has no duty to retreat from one's dwelling, but that a "dwelling" encompasses a doorway, threshold, porch or other similar appurtenance.

http://nj.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19890113_0041569.nj.htm/qx

Also:

Quote

It is clear that whether or not defendant was required to retreat in this situation was dependent, in part, upon whether the jury believed that defendant was in or at his dwelling house when he employed deadly force in self-protection. In failing to instruct the jury that a dwelling house includes "a porch or similar appurtenance" or that a defendant may "meet the assailant at the threshold of the home and prevent him from entering by any means," the trial court may have led the jury to believe that defendant had a duty to retreat and, therefore, his use of deadly force was not justifiable when, in fact, the jury could properly have concluded that no such duty to retreat existed.

Consequently, the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that a dwelling house includes a porch or similar appurtenance, or other language to that effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have an Avenue of escape to your back when you pull the trigger your in some trouble. Your duty is to retreat if possible in NJ. No castle doctrine here I'm aware of. Now If you we're defending family inside the home that couldn't escape that changes things. Although chances are they're going to announce themselves.

   (i)     The actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling, unless he was the initial aggressor; and

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(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:

 

There is no such thing as complete safety.  What if you trip and hit your head while retreating?  That's not very safe is it?

 

 

2. Any firearm manufactured under any designation which is substantially identical to any of the firearms listed in

paragraph (1) above;

 

Just like there is no such thing as "substantially identical".  Something is identical or it is not.

 

So we have another completely useless law open to subjective interpretation by whomever.  (LEO, Persecuter, Judge etc)

Way to go NJ Legislators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as complete safety.  What if you trip and hit your head while retreating?  That's not very safe is it?

 

Prove it to a jury. It's the prosecutor's second avenue of approach when he wants to get you. One of the arguments for SYG and CD laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prove it to a jury. It's the prosecutor's second avenue of approach when he wants to get you. One of the arguments for SYG and CD laws.

Like I said. Why would it go to a jury? Should be not even charged except for a subjective decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/17/us/oklahoma-police-chief/index.html

 

And this is what happens when you enter without knocking.

Point of order: it wasn't a No-Knock warrant because, wait for it......

 

 

 

 

the chief didn't have a fucking warrant :facepalm:

 

fc2796c0da3c7b6b3a79404a360965bb.jpg

 

I'm just glad no one else was hurt.

 

If this was a true no-nock warrant service, someone should have been on the PA/loud hailer making a "Police Search Warrant" announcement repeatedly as soon as entry was made.

 

Besides, who does a dynamic entry on the home of a suspected bomber? Surround and call out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me that this is one of those clear-cut instances where it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by...

 

Do what you have to do and if a shot is fired and the intruder is injured or killed DON'T TALK TO THE COPS before you GET AN ATTORNEY.

 

DON'T TALK TO THE COPS. DON'T TALK TO THE COPS. DON'T TALK TO THE COPS. DON'T TALK TO THE COPS. DON'T TALK TO THE COPS. DON'T TALK TO THE COPS. 

 

It cannot help you. It can only hurt you.

 

In this state, better to spend $5000 on ten hours of a lawyer's time, on someone who can tell your "story" than to take a chance with the legal system.

 

Even if you feel 100% justified. Even if the invader was strangling your only son when the bullet met his eye socket. DON'T TALK TO THE COPS without a lawyer.

 

See this video. 

 

http://youtu.be/6wXkI4t7nuc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...