NJ women gets beat up in a home invasion caught on tape

InfinitusEquitas said:

Fantastic news that they caught the bastard. I suspect that will be one of many times his pants will be falling down.

With regards to home defence, (in NJ at least) the law is such that had she possessed a gun, and shot him without first;

1. Warning him that he is trespassing.
2. Attempting to retreat, for example to another locked room. (Bathroom, closet, etc,.)

She would be the one going to prison.

New Jersey Self Defense Law



Countless cases do show that even if you are acquitted in criminal court, you are still open to civil lawsuits.

Click to expand...

that's why you shoot to kill him. Dead robbers can't testify against you.

Razako said:

that's why you shoot to kill him. Dead robbers can't testify against you.

Click to expand...

That's true but the parents, siblings, or spouse or kids would still be able to pursue the matter in civil court.

With regards to testimony, the evidence of the crime scene would show what happened regardless whether the perpetrator lives or not. Number of shots fired, and angle of entry by themselves tell the most.

Anything except a single or multiple shots, to the front, fired from a single position would look odd... ie if the perpetrator end up with one shot to the torso, and then from a different angle shots to the head and the heart.

About shooting to kill... you're not really allowed to shoot with the intent to kill, as it would be a disproportionate amount of force. Nor are you allowed to shoot someone in the defence of property.

InfinitusEquitas said:

That's true but the parents, siblings, or spouse or kids would still be able to pursue the matter in civil court.

With regards to testimony, the evidence of the crime scene would show what happened regardless whether the perpetrator lives or not. Number of shots fired, and angle of entry by themselves tell the most.

Anything except a single or multiple shots, to the front, fired from a single position would look odd... ie if the perpetrator end up with one shot to the torso, and then from a different angle shots to the head and the heart.

About shooting to kill... you're not really allowed to shoot with the intent to kill, as it would be a disproportionate amount of force. Nor are you allowed to shoot someone in the defence of property.

Click to expand...

Obviously if the guy is running away or has his back turned you can't just shoot him, but if he's facing you and presents a threat then usually you'd be justified in 'shooting to end the threat'. That usually involves multiple shots to the front of the invader and a dead invader.

As for the 'shoot to kill' part, I thought that's what people are supposed to do when using lethal force. I've heard that you'd get in more trouble sometimes if you shot the robber in the leg or something. It would show that your life was never truly in danger because if your life was TRULY in danger then you'd aim for center of mass.

Hmm... Doesn't seem right or fair, yet to the Brotherhood of LE it's quite different...

Family Furious After Calumet City Police Shoot, Kill Boy With Autism « CBS Chicago

Witness Says Cop Was Drunk When He Shot Unarmed Woman - Douglas - DNAinfo.com Chicago

~ LB

Unfortunately the so called thin blue line, has and always will be more of an iron curtain.

What bugs me is, with all the money being spent on law enforcement, why aren't cameras already on every single freaking cop? To record every single incident from start to finish?

So there can be absolutely zero doubt as to the word of the cop, but also to protect the civilian?

Police departments have had dashcams for decades now, and yet even many traffic stops, basically the most consistently dangerous situations for cops, are still not recorded.

We're headed in a good direction though, and I can't wait for things like google glass, wearable computers that can both record and transmit, and that ordinary people can wear to become so commonplace that cops know they are on the record 100% of the time while they are on duty.

Almost without exception the only cases that we do hear about, and that lead to some form of repercussions, or compensation, turn up only because they are recoded. Which of course leaves one to wonder just how many incidents have been swept under the iron curtain.

[/rant]

I have my doubts whether or not the public will ever see any Police video. I would think that that is at the discretion of LE. With the millions of taxpayer $ spent paying off victims of police brutality and indiscretion it would be in their best interests not to make such evidence available in court. Good chance a large part is swept under the "Iron curtain".

Strange trade-off, Give all your data and activities to a Corporate Entity or risk lack of public oversight... :thinking: In interests of National Security though all bets are off anyway.

~ LB

You already give up all your data and activities...

We might as well use it to our advantage where possible, and derive a benefit from that loss of privacy.

Tons of things do get swept under the curtain... but that would be the whole point of having cameras that transmit live... what you record would no longer be at the mercy of a cop... and it's far harder to sweep away something when there is clear undisputed evidence to the contrary.

Just takes a little getting used to I guess. I must admit, recent uprisings and protests have been pretty dramatic and there is a definite paradigm shift going on. It does change governments and politics.

Whether you agree with the politics or not, the recent senate vote in Texas was major. Even with limited Television coverage social media blew up behind it, generating enough awareness to reverse an illegal vote :beer:

~ LB

I really angered a sheriff once simply my informing him I was observing him. The bad ones will fear accountability, the good ones will not

That's great, "observing" Although I think it can be called Interfering with a police officer and many a camera has been destroyed and confiscated.

~ LB

You guys may enjoy visiting this website...

PINAC | Photography is Not a Crime

Officials of any kind absolutely hate being observed.

Interfering with a police officer in the discharge of their duties, loitering, unlawful assembly, impeding traffic (foot traffic on a sidewalk can also count sometimes), public nuisance, etc,. Unfortunately there are a ton of laws/statutes that are extremely vague and provide cops with an easy excuse to make an arrest. Only defence to this is to have a record.

@LB - The idea that the only privacy that remains to you, are your own thoughts, is quite scary, and does take a while to get used to. I'm not sure I'm entirely used to it myself yet.

Holy $%!& awesome site. Thank you Infinitus.

Our private thoughts? Depends how much we share

NSA leaker Ed Snowden?s life on Ars Technica | Ars Technica

~ LB

Ah, but therein lies the problem. You share an incredible amount of information publicly, and even more so when you consider that your emails, chats, and phone calls are also up for grabs.

InfinitusEquitas said:

You guys may enjoy visiting this website...

PINAC | Photography is Not a Crime

Officials of any kind absolutely hate being observed.

Interfering with a police officer in the discharge of their duties, loitering, unlawful assembly, impeding traffic (foot traffic on a sidewalk can also count sometimes), public nuisance, etc,. Unfortunately there are a ton of laws/statutes that are extremely vague and provide cops with an easy excuse to make an arrest. Only defence to this is to have a record.

@LB - The idea that the only privacy that remains to you, are your own thoughts, is quite scary, and does take a while to get used to. I'm not sure I'm entirely used to it myself yet.

Click to expand...

lol well one other thing that pisses me off is that no one knows how to use a freaking cell phone video camera,,, if you hold the freaking cell phone vertically you will get the shitty vertical video that is 95% black bars and the rest is a crappy video,, why cant people get that already??? if i was a cop id grap the camera out of peoples hands and be like,, if your gonna film me hold the camera right, and hand it back to them.

firelaser said:

lol well one other thing that pisses me off is that no one knows how to use a freaking cell phone video camera,,, if you hold the freaking cell phone vertically you will get the shitty vertical video that is 95% black bars and the rest is a crappy video,, why cant people get that already??? if i was a cop id grap the camera out of peoples hands and be like,, if your gonna film me hold the camera right, and hand it back to them.

Click to expand...

Which would make you an honest cop... which is great

With regards to holding the camera vertically vs horizontally, I think this is something that should be addressed by the manufacturers, or OS, as a setting.

To the camera it really doesn't doesn't matter whether it is being held horizontally or vertically... would be nice to just change the default to always record as if held horizontally, without regard to the actual orientation of the camera/cell phone.

It's just human nature to use one hand when possible, and obviously holding he camera one handed vertically is easier.

:scared:


~ LB