Protecting your property

[Longrange454]

Where can i find laws on protecting life and property? I live out in the country. I'm not concerned about CCL as i don't have one.

[bmyers]

Research forcible felony in Illinois and that will give you a good place to start.

[Craigcelia]

Here are the nuts and bolts of the law.

 

https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt%2E+7&ActID=1876&ChapterID=53&SeqStart=8300000&SeqEnd=9900000

 

(720 ILCS 5/7-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-1)
Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.
( In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)

 

(720 ILCS 5/7-2) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-2)

Sec. 7-2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:

(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent,

riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or

(2) He reasonably believes that such force is

necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

( In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.

(Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)

(720 ILCS 5/7-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-3)

Sec. 7-3. Use of force in defense of other property.

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

( In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.

(Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)

[mrmagloo]

Thanks for posting that. As it relates to the OP and based on the wording of your post, it's important to note that trespassing is not a forcible felony. Meaning, just because some knucklehead is waking around your property, even messing with your stuff, you cannot open fire. You have to be in direct fear for your life or that of others, and the evidence must support you.

[Bitter Clinger]

What if someone has lit a Molotov and is about to throw it at your house?

[mrmagloo]

What if someone has lit a Molotov and is about to throw it at your house?

 

What if someone set up a cannon on the other side of the fence, and was aiming to shoot you through the air to crush him with the Molotov cocktail in hand?

[Jeffrey]

What if someone has lit a Molotov and is about to throw it at your house?

I thought it was your birthday

[Bubbacs]

For the love of all that’s good and common, no what if what for and future predictions.........please

[lockman]

What if someone has lit a Molotov and is about to throw it at your house?

 

Why the question? THAT WOULD THEN BE A FORCEABLE FELONY.

 

That would also show the criminal had premeditation and intent.

[chicagoresident]

What if someone has lit a Molotov and is about to throw it at your house?

 

Every situation is different. You can only only use the reasonable person tested against the statute to have a chance.

 

With all the civil rights unrest I think to the case of Ossian Sweet in 1925. Prominent black doctor was being harassed in a white neighborhood. Eventually crowds grew to mobs but there were also innocent onlookers wanting to see how it would go down. He assembled a posse to defend his house. The mob started throwing rocks breaking a window, a person in the posse shot back but killed an innocent bystander. Very publicized case. Him and his posse were all acquitted, but they had Clarence Darrow as their defense lawyer.

 

Does that mean you are going to get off for shooting and missing a rock thrower and killing an innocent bystander? Maybe, how good is your lawyer, kinda jury or judge, and what is the perception the prosecution will attempt to portray?

[mauserme]

 

 

What if someone has lit a Molotov and is about to throw it at your house?

Every situation is different. You can only only use the reasonable person tested against the statute to have a chance.

With all the civil rights unrest I think to the case of Ossian Sweet in 1925. Prominent black doctor was being harassed in a white neighborhood. Eventually crowds grew to mobs but there were also innocent onlookers wanting to see how it would go down. He assembled a posse to defend his house. The mob started throwing rocks breaking a window, a person in the posse shot back but killed an innocent bystander. Very publicized case. Him and his posse were all acquitted, but they had Clarence Darrow as their defense lawyer.

Does that mean you are going to get off for shooting and missing a rock thrower and killing an innocent bystander? Maybe, how good is your lawyer, kinda jury or judge, and what is the perception the prosecution will attempt to portray?

The question asked, however, is about taking defensive action against a threat. Missing that target is not really the topic.

[chicagoresident]

The question asked, however, is about taking defensive action against a threat. Missing that target is not really the topic.

 

With Molotov cocktail I assumed mob action, since that seems to be the topic de jour. Just pointing out that in life or death situations when using what a court concludes as justifiable application of deadly force against a mob hitting a bystander isnt always an automatic guilty verdict. My cited situation would be the worst case outcome of a real world scenario with a positive court decision for the defendant.

 

I sometimes forget we only talk in hypotheticals around here, not real world applications of force with actual court decisions. Ya know, cuz we have a common law legal system. Carry on, Ill keep quiet.

[Odinson]

 

The question asked, however, is about taking defensive action against a threat. Missing that target is not really the topic.

With Molotov cocktail I assumed mob action, since that seems to be the topic de jour. Just pointing out that in life or death situations when using what a court concludes as justifiable application of deadly force against a mob hitting a bystander isnt always an automatic guilty verdict. My cited situation would be the worst case outcome of a real world scenario with a positive court decision for the defendant.

 

I sometimes forget we only talk in hypotheticals around here, not real world applications of force with actual court decisions. Ya know, cuz we have a common law legal system. Carry on, Ill keep quiet.

 

No need for anyone to keep quiet. I like the hypothetical situation analyses as I am not in actual life threatening situations every day and like to work through what I hope my reaction will be. At a total loss on a life and property situation (real life) that I posted in the Carjacking thread. Ten year old carjacking you at gunpoint - now what?

 

https://www.fox5ny.com/news/armed-kids-as-young-as-10-carjack-more-than-a-dozen-people-on-south-side-police-say

[Bitter Clinger]

For those that gave serious answers, thanks.

I figured it was a forceable felony since that's what the law seems to say, but I wanted other opinions.

 

Since these lefty Marxist rioters seem to like burning down things, I figured it would be a fair question.

The McCloskey's in St. Louis might have been wondering the same thing.

[Euler]

What if someone has lit a Molotov and is about to throw it at your house?

That is the defense of dwelling statue (720 ILCS 5/7-2), which was quoted above. Arson is a forcible felony. If the only way to prevent the arson is with lethal force, the statue allows lethal force.

 

I don't think anyone has ever tested it.

 

Note that "prevent the arson" does not include shooting the arsonist after he has already thrown the cocktail and set your house on fire.

[JTHunter]

Euler - what if you shoot the arsonist when he is throwing the cocktail but before it hits your house/property?

OR, if you shoot to injure and prevent their escape? Any ideas?

[Euler]

Euler - what if you shoot the arsonist when he is throwing the cocktail but before it hits your house/property?

OR, if you shoot to injure and prevent their escape? Any ideas?

If you shoot him while he's winding up, it's still preventive.

If you shoot him to stop him from running away, it's the same as shooting any criminal from running away after the crime has already been committed. It's attempted murder or murder, depending on whether he dies or not.

[Longrange454]

 

Here are the nuts and bolts of the law.

 

https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt%2E+7&ActID=1876&ChapterID=53&SeqStart=8300000&SeqEnd=9900000

 

(720 ILCS 5/7-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-1)

Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.

( In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.

(Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)

 

(720 ILCS 5/7-2) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-2)

Sec. 7-2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:

(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent,

riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or

(2) He reasonably believes that such force is

necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

( In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.

(Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)

(720 ILCS 5/7-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-3)

Sec. 7-3. Use of force in defense of other property.

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

( In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.

(Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)

 

Thanks. With the G. Floyd incident, and the Mc Closkey incident in St. Louis. It got me to thinking about what if something did happen.

[chicagoresident]

 

Euler - what if you shoot the arsonist when he is throwing the cocktail but before it hits your house/property?OR, if you shoot to injure and prevent their escape? Any ideas?

If you shoot him while he's winding up, it's still preventive.If you shoot him to stop him from running away, it's the same as shooting any criminal from running away after the crime has already been committed. It's attempted murder or murder, depending on whether he dies or not.

Again, it depends

Presumably for this reason, the penal codes of some states grant the authority to apprehend a fleeing felon through the use of deadly force if the arrest is for a "forcible" felony, and at least one state has defined forcible felony to include, among others, arson and burglary.

People V Couch was over stealing a stereo and did not go the defendants way, but the Michigan Supreme Court did acknowledge that even a private citizen has a right in some circumstances to use deadly force to apprehend someone fleeing from a forceable felony. In my not a lawyer reasonable person defense, is the aggressor backing down or are they seeking cover or a better vantage point to commit that or other forceable felonies? If they committed one forceable felony what makes a reasonable person believe they arent on their way to commit another? Even if you get it wrong there is still the imperfect self defense argument which can lessen the charge.

 

Sorry, I said Id keep quiet, but we all like to think ourselves reasonable people here, lots of case law to show what other reasonable people believe, why not debate from that platform instead of establishing these mythical hard and fast shoot dont shoot rules?

[GTX63]

 

 

Here are the nuts and bolts of the law.

 

https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt%2E+7&ActID=1876&ChapterID=53&SeqStart=8300000&SeqEnd=9900000

 

(720 ILCS 5/7-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-1)

Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.

( In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.

(Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)

 

(720 ILCS 5/7-2) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-2)

Sec. 7-2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:

(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent,

riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or

(2) He reasonably believes that such force is

necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

( In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.

(Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)

(720 ILCS 5/7-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-3)

Sec. 7-3. Use of force in defense of other property.

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

( In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.

(Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)

 

Thanks. With the G. Floyd incident, and the Mc Closkey incident in St. Louis. It got me to thinking about what if something did happen.

 

 

Just a few thoughts-

 

The odds of a mob rioting in the country will be pretty rare.

Small town neighbors and local LEO are much more inclined to put down any nonsense right away, rather than shaking in their kitchen or sitting in a squad car down the street.

If bands of anarchists have reached the point of spreading out and burning and looting grannie's old farmstead and marching down rural blacktop roads, then the rule of law and our judicial system have been rendered null and void at that point and you will be playing the game with a new set of rules.

[lockman]

 

 

 

 

 

Here are the nuts and bolts of the law.

 

https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt%2E+7&ActID=1876&ChapterID=53&SeqStart=8300000&SeqEnd=9900000

 

(720 ILCS 5/7-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-1)

Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.

( In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.

(Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)

 

(720 ILCS 5/7-2) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-2)

Sec. 7-2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:

(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent,

 

riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or

(2) He reasonably believes that such force is

 

necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

( In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.

(Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)

 

 

 

 

(720 ILCS 5/7-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-3)

Sec. 7-3. Use of force in defense of other property.

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

( In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.

(Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)

 

 

 

Thanks. With the G. Floyd incident, and the Mc Closkey incident in St. Louis. It got me to thinking about what if something did happen.

 

 

 

 

Just a few thoughts-

 

The odds of a mob rioting in the country will be pretty rare.

Small town neighbors and local LEO are much more inclined to put down any nonsense right away, rather than shaking in their kitchen or sitting in a squad car down the street.

If bands of anarchists have reached the point of spreading out and burning and looting grannie's old farmstead and marching down rural blacktop roads, then the rule of law and our judicial system have been rendered null and void at that point and you will be playing the game with a new set of rules.

 

Translation: Kill them all, let God sort them out.

 

 

^ this ***

[ragsbo]

A wise old man once said " All God's critters gotta eat!" Wonder what he meant by that?!?!?!?!?!?

[Mr. Fife]

A wise old man once said " All God's critters gotta eat!" Wonder what he meant by that?!?!?!?!?!?

There plenty of room on this Earth for all of God's critters. Right there on the plate next to the mashed potatoes.

[Euler]

... the Michigan Supreme Court did acknowledge that even a private citizen has a right in some circumstances to use deadly force to apprehend someone fleeing from a forceable felony. ...

I am unaware of any state that statutorily allows private individuals to use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon. There may be one or two, but Illinois certainly isn't one of them.

 

As the case you cited points out, the permission (BTW, not a right) of a private individual to use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon (contrary to the standard established by TN v Garner) is a common law rule in some states that applies only in cases where the statutory penalty for the felony committed is death and derives from an era when the death penalty for lots of felonies (e.g., horse theft) was common. Illinois is not a death penalty state.

 

Also the days of shooting horse thieves are long gone. Lament the passage of time if you like, but don't shoot fleeing felons if you want to stay out of prison.

[Rmac702]

Don't shoot a fleeing felon that just shot some people in a public area, so he/she can possibly shoot others at a different location?

[chicagoresident]

Don't shoot a fleeing felon that just shot some people in a public area, so he/she can possibly shoot others at a different location?

 

Take the Southerland Springs church shooting. Stephen Willeford chased down the suspect and kept pursuing him when he was fleeing in a vehicle trading fire. Again, there are no rules, only what a reasonable person would believe about the situation and how the court proceedings go.

[Quiet Observer]

The murderer fired first at Willeford, who then returned fire. How Willeford would have reacted, if the killer had dropped his weapon when first challenged, we do not know.

Additional shots were exchanged in the church yard. There is no report of a running gun battle going down the highway.

This was not a situation of burglar fleeing a home.

 

“Just as Willeford reached the front yard of Fred and Kathleen Curnow, whose house faces the church entrance, a man wearing black body armor and a helmet with a visor emerged from the church. Willeford scrambled behind the front tire of Fred’s Dodge Ram. The gunman raised his pistol and fired three times. One bullet hit the truck. One hit the Dodge Challenger parked behind him. One hit the house.

 

Willeford propped his AR-15 on the pickup’s hood and peered through the sight. He could see a holographic red dot on the man’s chest. He fired twice. He wasn’t sure he’d hit him, though he was later told that the man had contusions on his chest and abdomen consistent with getting shot while wearing body armor. Regardless, the gunman stopped shooting and ran for a white Ford Explorer that was idling outside the chapel, roughly twenty yards from where Willeford had positioned himself”.

https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/stephen-willeford-sutherland-springs-mass-murder/

[chicagoresident]

Williford fired one more shot at the fleeing explorer, and then chased after the truck, but thats really not my point.

 

I dont like the hard and fast adage about fleeing assailants. Fleeing assailant is a prosecution term. To the defense its an assailant repositioning to lie in wait, seeking cover to return fire, moving on to what a reasonable person believes to immediately commit more forcible felonies, etc.

 

A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.

What a prosecution may claim is a fleeing assailant is IMO is potentially deadlier than an assailant facing you. If a person commits a spree killing a reasonable person would believe theyre moving on to up their numbers (which in past cases has been random homeowners in the countryside like the recent Nova Scotia mass shooting). If an assailant has already killed a family member when youre defending your property the defense would have a strong argument against the prosecutions claim of fleeing or surrendering. If you know the person showing up on your property has just committed a previous forceable felony elsewhere there may be overwhelming probable cause theyre going to commit one against you.

 

Intention and what a reasonable person believes, not do this, dont do that. Is the intention retribution, or is it defense of life. Danger and defense never follow predictable paths and are always imperfect. Unless taking the life is egregious retribution worst case is an imperfect self defense argument which downgrades the charges. Self defense logic should follow sound arguments used in common law, not a decision tree from a message board.

[JTHunter]

GTX63 said:

Just a few thoughts-

 

The odds of a mob rioting in the country will be pretty rare.

Small town neighbors and local LEO are much more inclined to put down any nonsense right away, rather than shaking in their kitchen or sitting in a squad car down the street.

If bands of anarchists have reached the point of spreading out and burning and looting grannie's old farmstead and marching down rural blacktop roads, then the rule of law and our judicial system have been rendered null and void at that point and you will be playing the game with a new set of rules.

 

Translation: Kill them all, let God sort them out.

 

^ this ***

Agreed.

When the "rules" have broken down, possibly irretrievably, the people themselves must be their own "first line of defense". Otherwise, they won't survive.

[SiliconSorcerer]

This is one of the reasons I always carry a knife, they are cheap and replaceable.