If someone was to intrude into your house.......?

Show all answers

Post your answer

Carl_the_Truth	"Nicelady" ? Yeah, right. But you're wrong. It's NOT "involuntary manslaughter", as it was intentional... It's a homicide. Some states you can be charged with 2nd degree murder. Don't believe the morons with stupid comments on this web site. Go to the library and look in your states penal code. It will explain what manslaughter, murder,ect is. The book won't lie. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

citronge	You need to get access to your Legal Rights. Click the link below and watch an online presentation about this excellent benefit. Hope this helps. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Chris_Knows	I've got a knife on my nightstand...Not for insecurity, but I just keep my stuff there so I don't forget it for the next day...And there's a gun in the room next to mine. I'd say that it depends on how you plead... Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

pdudenhefer	yes its volountary manslaughter-best thing to do is to put something-without yout prints-in his hand, then make sure you kill him not wound him Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Shaman	I think it goes by a case by case scenario and there is no definite answer, but worse case scenario would be involuntary manslaughter. Some people just put a weapon in the dead intruder's hand to ensure that they aren't charged. Not a lawyer tho, just based on my reading and some case law I read. The abstractness is in the intruder being inside of an home. For some people that's open season, for law enforcement they say it's overkill unless the intruder made some overt threatening gesture. Personally I think bottom line is whether it's election year for the DA. Wait til after the election and shoot. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

smilingmick	If you feel threatened with bodily injury in anyway by that intruder then shot first ask questions later.... if they are not threatening to hurt you or go after you then call police as soon as you can and get a real good description. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

cutiepie81289	our law is really screwed up!! The community we live in here in pa states you can only shoot them if they are hurting you, ya right like I'm going to wait for them to hurt me. No I will shoot because they shouldn't be in my home invading it and I am not about to take chances on them doing something awful to me or my children so I shoot to kill then ask questions later. In NJ you can just say they started going at you and you had no choice but to protect yourself. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

queen	I THINK YES HE WOULD BE CHARGED BECAUSE TECHNICALLY THE MAN DIDNT HURT U YRT OR THREATEN 2 HURT U SO IT WOULDNT BE SELF DEFENSE U WOULD PROBABLY BE CHARGED Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

handyman5218	if you pull the trigger it is not involuntary murder it is voluntary manslaughter. to use dealy force you have to be in fear of your life. if you have a gun and the perp does not how can you be in fear of your life? if you want something to fear read this: We keep marching forward toward the perfect definition of Fac- ism. Think about - better yet, read about, 1933 - 38 in Germany and the consolidation....of ALL the power.. Lovely thought eeh... Do we want to further allow the disintegration of the B of Rights ??? to protect who......?? against whom?? A mythical foundation (The lies of September 2001) means all the rest of the structure is built on said lies. Synthetic Terriers are dangereous...... since deception is their art. I just called my senator's office and in 2 minutes had my voice noted. It is easy. Or you can do email way. Phone #'s are listed on the bottom.. Something bad is about to happen. Only you can stop it, and the clock is ticking. We hate to sound apocalyptic. We loathe the politics of fear (even if it works!). So we're not looking to scare you. But you need to know that the end is near for "archaic" ideas like . . . * the right to security in your home and papers * the right to be free from unreasonable searches * the safety net of judicial warrant requirements * the right to a trial by a jury of your peers in a system of due process * reasonable bail and recourse for false arrest * protection from cruel and unusual punishment Those were great ideals for "dead white men," but apparently your children won't need them anymore. Because, you know, the politicians need to protect you and your children from terrorism. But the politicians need to get a grip, and a sense of proportion. You don't turn the country upside down for light and transient causes. You're more likely to die in your car, or be struck by lightening, than be harmed by terrorism. We don't fret about such risks, so why are destroying American freedom in the name of an even smaller risk? A bill is about to pass the House. It permits unlimited spying on your internet usage and telecommunications, the Fourth Amendment be damned. For brevity, I'll call it the "Spying on Americans Act," or SPA for short. The SPA is likely to pass the Senate too, but there we have a chance to stop it. Under SPA . . . * The President can spy on you without a warrant * You'll never learn that his spys have done so, until they use the information against you (legally or not) * Your phone and internet providers can't refuse to provide information about you * Or tell you they've done so after the fact The result will be more warrantless searches than in all of U.S. history. And if that history is any guide, it's only a matter of time before this power is used for reasons other than "national security." The House may vote any minute. The Senate will likely vote Tuesday. THIS IS URGENT. I'll tell you what to do in a moment, but first, there's more bad news. Congress also has a plan for non-citizen residents and ANYONE on foreign soil. Senator Bill Frist wants to be your President, so he's pandering to the "my country right or wrong" crowd. He wants to leave the Senate with a bang. He thinks he can do this by combining the Tribunal/Torture bill with the Spying on Americans Act. And the news on the Tribunal/Torture bill just got worse. There was a "lesser evil" version of this bill from Senators Warner and McCain, but Warner and McCain just rolled over. The new bill will . . . * Allow the President to detain people indefinitely without charges, * Deny detainees access to courts to challenge their detention or their treatment. * Create special military tribunals with reduced standards of due process * Deny detainees the protection of the Geneva Convention's Common Article 3 * Allow the President to define torture But you may not hear it reported this way in the media, because the politicians are playing clever games with words. Take note: The protections of Common Article 3 aren't defined in the legislation, so Congress can claim they've left these protections in place. But it isn't true, because now only the President decides what those protections actually are, and no accused person can even claim the protection of Common Article 3 before the special tribunals this legislation creates. Nice trick. The protections are still there, but the President decides what they are, and no on e can use them. Do you want this President to have this power? Do you want future presidents to have it? Do you want to risk that these powers won't be applied to citizens as well, as soon as the politicians have the slightest excuse for doing so? So here's what the Senate will face Tuesday . . . * A bill permitting spying on Americans without a warrant. * Another bill creating special tribunals and permitting torture. * A proposal to combine these bills. None of these bills will be read, and none of us will have a chance to review them before the vote happens. But they are likely to pass, because the Republicans control both chambers and their President is in big trouble. He's broken existing laws in a number of ways, and now he needs new legislation to cover his butt after the fact. This shouldn't be possible in our system, but a court decision on the President's illegal spying op ened the door for Congress to do this. We have no checks. We have no balances. The courts have failed to do their duty and the Republican Congress is a rubber stamp for a lawless Republican President. Are we exaggerating? Are we being partisan? We aren't telling you the half of it. This President has violated so many laws in so many ways it would take a book to catalog them. And we aren't being partisan because plenty of Republicans in Congress agree with us, they just need public encouragement to develop a little backbone. This is your role. These bills will pass in the House, but we need to have as many votes against them as we can muster. This will help us in the Senate. Senate rules make it possible for us to stop these bills in that chamber. YOU need to make a BIG NOISE. And know this . . . You won't be alone. We're working with more than a dozen national organizations to make this BIG NOISE. We n eed to pull out all the stops. Please, PLEASE, pay close attention to these instructions. DO ALL FOUR OF THE FOLLOWING THINGS AS SOON AS YOU CAN!!! 1) Go to the DownsizeDC.org campaign opposing warrantless spying: "No Warrant? No Search." Send a message to your Senators and your Representative. Tell them to resist in every way they can the combination of this bill with the Tribunals bill. Urge them to do everything in their power to block, stop, and/or filibusters this bill. And if it still comes up for a vote, tell them to vote NO, and that you'll be watching. The message to Congress for this campaign has been reconfigured to make this easy for you. 2) Go to the DownsizeDC.org campaign opposing the new tribunals: "No Torture! No â€œStar Chamber Courts!" Send a message to your Senators and your Representative. T ell them torture is un-American, useless, and counter-productive. Urge them to keep the warrantless spying bill separate. Implore them to do everything they can to block, stop, and/or filibuster this bill. And if it still comes up for a vote, tell them to vote NO, and that you'll be watching. The message to Congress for this campaign has been reconfigured to make this easy for you. 3) We have a targeted list of Senators. If your Senator is on the list, it's urgent that you call and leave a message ASAP. Remember, this vote is scheduled for Tuesday. Tell them you're a constituent. Keep it short, simple, and polite. Make notes before you call. Make the points already made in #1 and #2 above. Here's the list . . . Idaho - Larry Craig 202-224-2752 Rhode Island - Lincoln Chaffee 202-224-2921 South Dakota - Tim Johnson 202-224-5842 Louisiana - Mary Landrieu 202-224-5824 Michigan - Carl Levin &nb sp; 202-224-6221 Arkansas - Blanche Lincoln 202-224-4843 New Jersey - Robert Menendez 202-224-4744 Alaska - Lisa Murkowski 202-224-6665 Florida - Bill Nelson 202-224-5274 Nebraska - Ben Nelson 202-224-6551 Nevada - Harry Reid 202-224-3542 Maine - Olympia Snowe 202-224-5344 New Hampshire - John Sununu 202-224-2841 Remember, this is urgent. We're about to lose precious rights. We need extraordinary effort. So I want to ask you to do one more thing . . . 4) Tell everyone you know to do the same thing. Pass this message to friends, family, neighbors, co-workers, and customers. Maybe they'll think you're un-patriotic for opposing torture and for mistrusting politicians with such great powers. SO WHAT! And if you received this message from a friend, and it's not Wednesday, September 27, 2006 yet, there's still time. Act fast and then pass this message to everyone you know. Keep in mind, you're not alone. And we can still win by blocking this in the Senate. The Senate is eager to get back home and campaign. Most observers believe they'll pack up and head home Saturday. Delay the vote and we may stop the danger. DC Downsizers, rise up and take a stand for the 4th and 8th Amendments. Do your part. We're counting on YOU. Jim Babka President DownsizeDC.org, Inc. D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation CONTRIBUTE to the Electronic Lobbyist project http://www.DownsizeDC.org is sponsored by DownsizeDC.org, Inc. -- a non-profit educational organization promoting the ideas of individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and small government. You are encouraged to forward this message to friends and business associates, and permission is hereby granted to reproduce any items herein as long as attribution is provided for articles and the subscription instructions above are included. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

MotherBear1975	As long as the person does not drag himself out of the house... and survive... How does anyone know whether they threatened you or not? His simple unlawful presence is a threat. Absolutely shoot the b*stard. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Snake	Them entering your property uninvited is tresspassing. You are able to kill them. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Twist	well im not in NJ so im not going to be able to give you a good answer here cause i dont knwo the laws there but i DO know (and i thought this was interesting) here in Arizona, you can shoot and kill a person who enters your house with no quetions asked and if you post a sign on your property saying tresspassers will be shot then you are legally permitted to do so if they set foot on your property. i think its neat (-: legal or not if someone enters my house there gonna die, ill ask questions later, i wouldnt want to risk my g/f being raped or us being murdered becuase im being "considerate" of a burgeler, you do not know there intent ,the only safe route is to assume they are armed and dangerous if there sneaking into a persons home. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

}}i{{fallrain	Here's my theory on this topic. I am a single mother of a small child and if you break into my apt (i live in New Orleans) you better believe Im going pull the trigger. So my point is, if you are stupid enough to go into a single mothers apt (or anybody elses) to rob/rape/scare whatever it may be. youare taking the risk that you might get shot stabbed whatever. you shouldnt have broken into my house I have no pity on people that want to break the law and that "might" hurt someone that isnt breaking the law. I believe years ago there was a burgular that sued a homeowner bc he like fell throughthe attic or something. it was something crazy. So I dont know the law, but you damn well believe your not going to terrorize my home. Well thanks for letting me vent Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Pundit Bandit	Not sure about NJ. I live in Michigan. If they are in your home, they are a threat to you and your family. You can take whatever measures you feel are warranted to protect yourself and family within your home. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

cabby	protecting youre house and family shoot him and dont worry about the consequinces,maybe he was armed and wanted for burglary and murder...you never know but ill tell you this he aint breaking into youre house for cookies and milk he is there to rape or rob somebody these people need to be stopped and they arent scared and would probably shoot you. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

$0.02	if somebody breaks into my house that gives me a lisence to kill them. bottom line. I don't care if I am threatened or not. You break into my house and you have made a grave mistake. Im the wrong nigka to fug with. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

industrialconfusion	In Michigan it is now legal to shoot the person, as it should be. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

curiously strong	not sure about new jersey law but in georgia a law was just passed that if you felt threatened whether in your home or on your property you could shoot that person and shoot to kill if necessary. this law was changed because there was several instances where the criminal sued the victims for shooting them while they were in their house and claimed they weren't going to hurt them...the problem with that is he's a criminal, he lies and the other is what moron is going to wait until the criminal is close enough to be considered a threat and then shoot them. i say if someone is burglarizing your home they are there uninvited and endangering yourself and your family that in and of itself is a threat. criminals are not known to be honest otherwise they wouldn't break into your home. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Top 99%	the reason you are not getting a straight answer is because law is not black and white. To legally use deadly force, you must establish that you REASONABLY feared imminent death or serious physical harm to yourself or your family. In the siutation you described, must juries probably would not convict, but it will depend on a number of factors - e.g. do you live in a dangerous place, were you alone and vulnerable, was it nightime, was there any reason to think the person was not a burglar etc.. etc. Here is the law in NJ: c. 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. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Big Jimi	If they are in your house and you shoot them they are paid for,but you can't shoot them out the window or through the door. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

vindezeal	The intruder threatend you by breaking into YOUR home. He got what he deserved Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Charlie Bravo	I don't know NJ law...but generally if you feel threatened and shot someone (if that person willfully intruded into your house to burglarize, vandalize, or to harm you or your family)..you have a right to self defense, and most judges would automatically throw out any lawsuits from the victims or their families. Most prosecutors wouldn't charge you with anything....seeing that you were protecting yourself from an intruder. safe bet is to call the police THEN arm yourself.... hope this helps.... Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No