NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/misc/legal/20157

Text File | 1992-11-19 | 3.5 KB | 70 lines

Newsgroups: misc.legal
Path: sparky!uunet!walter!porthos!dancer!whs70
From: [e-mail] (sohl,william h)
Subject: Re: 4 Q's: Deadly Self-Defense Against Rape
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 14:18:57 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET System Software)
Lines: 58

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Gray) writes:
>[e-mail] (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>>I have seen the claim made (and I don't know if it is true or not)
>>that in New Jersey, you are required to leave your residence rather
>>than use deadly force against an attacker.  Only when you have no
>>possible escape can deadly force be used.  Can in anyone in Nazi
>>Jersey confirm this by checking your state's criminal code?
>
>I saw one reference to such a claim, but the extenuating circumstances
>were significant: the attacker had warned the intended victim that
>he intended to return and kil him.  The victim had not (if memory serves)
>notified the local cop shop, but had instead armed him/herself and
>basically laid wait for the attacker to return.  When the attacker
>did return, the "victim" did nto avail him/herself of comparatively
>easy escape routes and (from memory again) killed the attacker.
>
>The court/jury was persuaded that the "victim" had shown malice in
>not taking reasonable steps to prevent the assault, e.g., not calling
>cops, not being elsewhere despite opportunity to do so, etc.  As a
>result, "victim" was convicted on (I think) manslaughter.
>
>I do not recall that the sense of the decision was that you have to
>escape if possible; there is generally no duty to retreat from one's
>own dwelling.  But in this case, where the attacker had announced his
>intention to return, allegation was that it amounted to a rendevous
>at the OK corral.
>
>I personally find this disturbing anyway; it gives a would-be attacker
>a fairly safe way to harrass you to the point that cops will not show
>up, and still leave you exposed to prosecution if you defend yourself.
>I don't like being forced to retreat from my home on someone else's
>whim.

In the case mentioned, it would seem that all the "victim" needed
to do was tell the police about the threat.  The reality is that
the police would not place the residence under surveilance, or if
they did, it would be for a limited time.  The "victim" would, I
think, still be able to arm himself and then if the person that
made the threats eventually did show up and be killed, there'd
be no ability for the state to claim the victim hadn't reported
the threat.

I'd say that as an intended victim, there's no limit to how long
a person might consider any threat to be valid, BUT there is a very
short span of interest on the part of law enforcement after any
threat has been verbalized but not carried out.

Just my .02.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note - If email replying to me with an automatic addressing process
bounces, manually address the resend using one of the addresses below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  [e-mail]