How do you like this one?

Texdoc

It's about time...I mean, fair is fair...lol
LAW: It is illegal to wear a bulletproof vest while committing a murder.
COUNTRY: USA / STATE: New Jersey
CITATION: 2C:39-13 Unlawful use of body vests.
ACTUAL: A person is guilty of a crime if he uses or wears a body vest while engaged in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit murder, manslaughter, robbery, sexual assault, burglary, kidnapping, criminal escape or assault under N.J.S.2C:12-1b. Use or wearing a body vest while engaged in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit a crime of the first degree is a crime of the second degree. Otherwise it is a crime of the third degree.


"If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. That's ridiculous. If I have a gun, what do I have to be paranoid about?"
Clint Smith

2gun

in nyc its illegal for a civilian to have a bulletproof vest

happiness is a warm gun, preferably preban

Red223

So much for protecting yourself there. No guns, no vest.

tr fox

texdoc: maybe I'm way off base here but I kind of like that wording of the law. It doesn't say you can't wear or own a vest, it just states the different situations in which you are violating the law if you do wear a vest. Here in Olathe, KS I have long thought that something as mild as a metal, extendible baton should be allowed to be concealed carried by lawful citizens but it is totally illegal. I would welcome a law that only said it was a crime to carry a concealed extendible baton in the unlawful commission of crimes as your post described. In that way the law would only impact the criminal and their criminal actions, not the lawful citizens.

When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.

3gunner

Sounds to me like another one of those lame almost good for nothing laws. If a violent criminal decides to committ a violent act,
(ie. murder, rape, armed robbery, etc.) would that law actually affect his decision not to wear body armor? Would he/she be the least bit worried about a lesser offense after committing a murder. Are the sentencing guidelines stiff enough to add anything to the sentence of the violent act, or would it be like getting a speeding ticket while leaving your crime scene. It may stack a few days onto a convicted criminals sentence but I don't think the new law provides any true benefit to society. I guess they are just stacking on as much as possible, maybe it can't hurt.

ralph the wonder llama

There's a similar law here in Oregon, only it's illegal to wear body armor while committing any felony or violent misdemeanor. It's also illegal for felons to possess it. Both crimes are felonies.

Rocklobster

Here in Georgia the law is that you can wear a vest, but you can't have anything else on. I'm wearing mine right now.

Texdoc

So lobster.. what are you using to protect your chest then?



"If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. That's ridiculous. If I have a gun, what do I have to be paranoid about?"
Clint Smith

dcon12

Why would you want to run around nekkid wearing only a bullet proof vest?

"Right is Right, even is everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it"

ralph the wonder llama

Well, I suppose if you had a particularly aggressive wife or girlfriend, and... uh, nevermind.

mpolans

I don't see anything wrong the New Jersey law. Many, if not most states have similar laws. The idea is to have higher penalties for crooks who wear body armor while committing crimes. I'd go so far as to say that any crook wearing body armor plans on putting up a fight and is thus MUCH more dangerous to society. Now it might not deter the wearing the body armor by crooks smart enough to use it, but it sure keeps them locked up longer...thus keeping another crook off the street longer...and what's wrong with that???[?]

3gunner

Nothing at all wrong with that so long as the criminal is actually convicted of the offense and receives a sentence for that offense. Most of the time, the lesser included offense will just be dismissed during a plea bargain. End result-- the new law was just a waste of time and paper. Instead of tacking on a new law, the violent criminals should be paying their debt as they are sentenced and not returned to society prematurely through early release, probation, parole, etc.

gunphreak

Good call, 3gunner!!!

Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39

Remember how many seats were lost after AWB passage? Vae victis!
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

Luke 22:36.

longhunter

quote:Originally posted by 3gunner
Nothing at all wrong with that so long as the criminal is actually convicted of the offense and receives a sentence for that offense. Most of the time, the lesser included offense will just be dismissed during a plea bargain. End result-- the new law was just a waste of time and paper. Instead of tacking on a new law, the violent criminals should be paying their debt as they are sentenced and not returned to society prematurely through early release, probation, parole, etc.


Right on!....

mpolans

Lesser included offenses are usually dropped not as part of plea bargain, but because they're not worth pursuing. This is because, IIRC, most sentences for crimes run concurrently instead of consecutively. So, to waste time and money trying to bust someone for a crime punishable by 3 years when you've already got them for a crime punishable by 10 years just raises your taxes. The bullet proof vest while committing a crime law is not a lesser included offense, thus, (again, IIRC) it would not run concurrently, but rather consecutively.
End result: Under the Vest law, the criminal spends more time in jail.

FYI, did you know there is absolutely NO parole in the federal criminal judicial system?
If the state criminal justice systems were run like the feds, there'd be a LOT less crooks on the street. Everyone should check out the Federal Sentencing Guidelines sometime...it's pretty interesting.



quote:Originally posted by 3gunner
Nothing at all wrong with that so long as the criminal is actually convicted of the offense and receives a sentence for that offense. Most of the time, the lesser included offense will just be dismissed during a plea bargain. End result-- the new law was just a waste of time and paper. Instead of tacking on a new law, the violent criminals should be paying their debt as they are sentenced and not returned to society prematurely through early release, probation, parole, etc.

3gunner

mpolans,

If what you say is true; no Federal Parole, then explain this:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pandp.htm

At yearend 2002, over 4.7 million adult men and women were under Federal, State, or local probation or parole jurisdiction; approximately 3,995,200 on probation and 753,100 on parole.

I'm sure there are differences in criminal procedures from State to State. All the States I know dimiss lesser included offenses every single day as part of a plea bargain. Charges being dismissed for a plea bargain has nothing to do with an unworthy offense. The prosecutors are simply offering an enticement for a guilty plea so they can avoid lengthy trials. If the majority of criminally charged people walked into court and pleaded not guilty, the court system would come to a halt. Just can't handle it.

mpolans

First, parole was eliminated on the Federal side in the late 1980's. There is NO PAROLE in the Federal criminal justice system. The Federal side still has probation as a sentencing option for lower offenses.

However, you're right, I did err on the plea-bargaining bit. In the federal system, the sentences usually do run concurrently, so the crook isn't fearing the combined extra long sentence. Rather, under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the crook can be sentenced based not just on what he has been *convicted of*, but also what he has been merely *accused of*!!! This was a big shocker to me, and seems to violate the whole "innocent until proven guilty" bit. The deal the prosecutor would be cutting would be to not include the other crimes the crook was accused (but not convicted) of in determining his sentence.

quote:Originally posted by 3gunner
mpolans,

If what you say is true; no Federal Parole, then explain this:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pandp.htm

At yearend 2002, over 4.7 million adult men and women were under Federal, State, or local probation or parole jurisdiction; approximately 3,995,200 on probation and 753,100 on parole.

I'm sure there are differences in criminal procedures from State to State. All the States I know dimiss lesser included offenses every single day as part of a plea bargain. Charges being dismissed for a plea bargain has nothing to do with an unworthy offense. The prosecutors are simply offering an enticement for a guilty plea so they can avoid lengthy trials. If the majority of criminally charged people walked into court and pleaded not guilty, the court system would come to a halt. Just can't handle it.

Warbirds

I would like to suggest to those of you who see nothing wrong with this law that:

1. You have never been shot while wearing body armor!

It's not like hollywood where you can just get up and fight back for another few hours, It's thier to keep your body organs from turning into nothingness, it is not all powerfull. This law is B.S. I would like to suggest to the people who wrote it, getting shot while in a vest, I doubt they would be able to continue commiting the act they were involved in... This is government making laws because they cannont control the criminals with the laws they have already made. It is complete B.S. Maybe if you passed a law that made criminals not want to commit crime, then you wouldn't need to worry about what armor they were wearing at the time, cause they'd already be dead! Take two to the chest from any weapons starting with a .4 or better, and then email me, letting me know how great your body armor was.

R/

Dave


How different the world would be if we could consult the veteran instead of the politician. - Henry Miller

3gunner

Nope...never been shot with body armor. How about that dude in the North Hollywood shoot out? He was. A few times. I saw him flinch one time. But he remained on his feet and on the trigger.






"Have a gun that works every time. All skill is in vein when an Angel pisses in the flintlock of your musket."

Warbirds

3Gunner- In my thread I believe I mentioned getting hit with anything that started with a .4 for the caliber. You're right the North Hollywood shootout was a disaster for the L.A.P.D. They were using 9mm firearms (for the most part) and 12 gauges with 00 Buck from 50 feet away. And we all know now that L.A. swat carries Kimbers'. It is a well known fact to resolve this situation they went to the local gun store, and borrowed some real guns! It wasn't a 9mm bullet that stopped those criminals. I have never been shot, wearing body armor or otherwise. But I have shot a vest that was taped to a watermelon, I shot it with a .357 magnum 158 grain hydroshock. It destroyed the watermelon, this although not too scientific, kind of lead me to the belief that it's just better all together not to be getting shot. The jacket I shot was U.S. Army issued piece with trauma plate.

R/

Dave


How different the world would be if we could consult the veteran instead of the politician. - Henry Miller