Homeowner uses gun to defend home in NJ

[satellite66]

I am going to follow this one. I hope this guy is not made to be the criminal. Sadly NJ does not have the Castle Doctrine.

Homeowner uses gun to defend home in NJ

[pinecone70]

It's kind of too bad he didn't hit any of them.

[USMC-03]

1. He needs to practice...
2. At lease so far he hasn't been made to do the perp walk, especially in front of his kids...

[Mouton]

When I was a kid, my dad and I would hurt not far from what is now sub division city outside Manville, NJ. My dad was a cop at that time. NJ was the last state to do away with the fleeing felon law which allowed police to use deadly force to bring down a fleeing felon. Unfortunately that statute was removed so this guy is lucky he did not kill or wound any of these bastards. Meanwhile, my dad doing his civic duty managed to get one in before the law was changed. He was commended by the Grand Jury that looked into the case. My how times have changed in the Peoples Republic.

[kingchip]

That's too bad for him. A state with better possession laws could have made for a better shot. At least in Texas he would have been chastised for not giving the cops a good blood trail.

[alhefner]

I agree that the guy certainly needs to go to the range and learn proper gun control (hit what you aim at!).

I looked at a few of the comments on the story. Seems most of the residents there are scared more of a law abiding citizen with the ability to defend himself than they are of armed crooks bent on destruction.

[Hardballer]

Originally Posted by kingchip

That's too bad for him. A state with better possession laws could have made for a better shot. At least in Texas he would have been chastised for not giving the cops a good blood trail.

Yeah, Better possession laws. Laws contrary to the constitution, right?? Laws that stand because no one ever stood up to say no. Those laws, right? The "Shall not be infringed" part of the constitution must be a misprint.


in⋅fringe
  /ɪnˈfrɪndʒ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [in-frinj] Show IPA verb, -fringed, -fring⋅ing.
Use infringe in a Sentence
–verb (used with object)
1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
–verb (used without object)
2. to encroach or trespass (usually fol. by on or upon): Don't infringe on his privacy.
Origin:
1525–35; < L infringere to break, weaken, equiv. to in- in- 2 + -fringere, comb. form of frangere to break

Related forms:
in⋅fring⋅er, noun

Synonyms:
1. break, disobey. 2. poach. See trespass.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.

Main Entry: in·fringe
Pronunciation: in-'frinj
Function: verb
Inflected Forms: in·fringed; in·fring·ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- in + frangere to break
transitive verb : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another infringed —U.S. Constitution amendment II>; especially : to violate a holder's rights under (a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade name) intransitive verb : ENCROACH —in·fring·er noun
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Originally Posted by alhefner

I agree that the guy certainly needs to go to the range and learn proper gun control (hit what you aim at!).

I looked at a few of the comments on the story. Seems most of the residents there are scared more of a law abiding citizen with the ability to defend himself than they are of armed crooks bent on destruction.

Sheep everywhere.

[kingchip]

Yea, maybe I should have just said"less interference". It should not even be an issue.

[Haligan]

Originally Posted by alhefner

I agree that the guy certainly needs to go to the range and learn proper gun control (hit what you aim at!).

I looked at a few of the comments on the story. Seems most of the residents there are scared more of a law abiding citizen with the ability to defend himself than they are of armed crooks bent on destruction.

This is a big problem in the state. Even if this homeowner had successfully "taken" 3 criminals off the streets, sheeple in this state would have a problem with that.

[millwright]

I'd bet he's toast.......
1. He didn't attempt to flee....
2. He had a handgun in a home with a small child......
3. He fired after the "threat" was over, (perps fleeing).....
4. His fire down a public street constituted "careless discharge of a firearm"......

So he's gonna:
1. Lose his guns......
2. Have a record preventing him from ever legally buying a firearm - ever.....
3. Spend his kid's college fund on legal expenses..
4. And the perps know he will be unarmed for their next visit......

Ain't gun laws wonderful ? >MW

[Terry_P]

When the article said the police were investigating my thought was "who".

[walien]

I don't see how him trying to shoot people in the back as they ran away is protecting his home. If he encountered them in the house I could see it or if they were coming towards him I could see it. Maybe I've seen too many John Wayne movies, but I don't see how shooting someone in the back is honorable or needed. Were he to have had a round ricochet and hit a civilian it would have been one of those things held up for increased gun control by the anti-gun people.

[PharmrJohn]

Originally Posted by walien

I don't see how him trying to shoot people in the back as they ran away is protecting his home. If he encountered them in the house I could see it or if they were coming towards him I could see it. Maybe I've seen too many John Wayne movies, but I don't see how shooting someone in the back is honorable or needed. Were he to have had a round ricochet and hit a civilian it would have been one of those things held up for increased gun control by the anti-gun people.

Because it isn't. I agree with you. While a wrong has been committed, the threat, like Elvis, has left the building. He made a MAJOR mistake by discharging his firearm in such a circumstance. I would bet that they are going to hang him out to dry. .....and they will have cause. And this strikes at the heart of gun control. This dude didn't control himself or his gun. He makes a case for mandatory training and classes that teach common sense. In this case, restraint is the better part of valor.

[Trouble 45-70]

Originally Posted by walien

I don't see how him trying to shoot people in the back as they ran away is protecting his home. If he encountered them in the house I could see it or if they were coming towards him I could see it. Maybe I've seen too many John Wayne movies, but I don't see how shooting someone in the back is honorable or needed. Were he to have had a round ricochet and hit a civilian it would have been one of those things held up for increased gun control by the anti-gun people.

Pity you and so many others, especialy our misleaders feel that way. Those guys will be back. Maybe not to this guys house but someones. They will eventualy hurt or kill someone. To shoot home invaders should be the duty of every citizen in this country. I listen to the news from Memphis and their are home invasions several times a week there and usualy at least one person murdered in a week by home invaders. Our misleaders and progressive liberal Judges have abdicated their responsibility to protect their citizens. They only protect the criminal class, which I am begining to suspect is the class to which they belong. Our complaints fall on deaf ears. If we arn't allowed to take our streats back, at least let us maintain the sanctity of our homes. Eminent Domain does not give our misleaders the right to protect home invaders so they can help themselves to what is ours. If thes guys are still in sight, we should be alowed to blaze away.

[Haligan]

Originally Posted by Trouble 45-70

Pity you and so many others, especialy our misleaders feel that way. Those guys will be back. Maybe not to this guys house but someones. They will eventualy hurt or kill someone. To shoot home invaders should be the duty of every citizen in this country. I listen to the news from Memphis and their are home invasions several times a week there and usualy at least one person murdered in a week by home invaders. Our misleaders and progressive liberal Judges have abdicated their responsibility to protect their citizens. They only protect the criminal class, which I am begining to suspect is the class to which they belong. Our complaints fall on deaf ears. If we arn't allowed to take our streats back, at least let us maintain the sanctity of our homes. Eminent Domain does not give our misleaders the right to protect home invaders so they can help themselves to what is ours. If thes guys are still in sight, we should be alowed to blaze away.

Trouble, you see this exactly the same way I do. In my above post I referenced this "mindset" and low and behold, here it is.

[armedandsafe]

Perhaps you did not watch the "John Wayne" movies closely enough. Watch the scenes where the bandits or the Indians or the RedCoats are being driven off and you will see the good guys continue to fire. "Run away and live to (steal, maim, kill) another day" is the mantra of criminals.

Criminals need to be taught that we Americans will not guarantee three hots and a cot when WE catch them.

Pops

[dge479]

Wow! he may be in big trouble, here in the comunist bloc of NJ this was a big no no as said above.
Hope it goes ok for him.

[dbrodin]

Originally Posted by dge479

Wow! he may be in big trouble, here in the comunist bloc of NJ this was a big no no as said above.
Hope it goes ok for him.

I agree. Even a LEO would have a rough time ahead of him for shooting at someone that was running away and wasn't a "eminent threat". They will hit him with something for sure. Could be anything from illegal discharge of a firearm to attempted murder. Depends on the DA and how much he wants to make an example out of him. This guy would be much better off if he had shot at them in the house. Maybe then he might have actually hit them!