Jump to content


Photo

Interesting hypothetical


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 vito

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,982 posts
  • Joined: 30-October 04

Posted 20 August 2019 - 07:28 PM

Under Illinois law, the use of force is legal to use to prevent a crime or stop a crime, but deadly force requires the user to reasonably be in fear for his life or serious bodily harm. Thinking about the recent case that is in the news, of a Lake County senior citizen and concealed carrier shooting a 14 year old fatally, it occurred to me how it might be advantageous when investigating a "bump in the night" or other alarming sound outside of your home, it would be a good idea to arm yourself with less than deadly force as well as a firearm. Lets say I hear noises in my driveway, open my garage and see several thugs attempting to steal or break into one of my cars. I am carrying an ax handle for protection. I yell at the thugs to leave and show them that I am armed with the ax handle. But rather than leave, they turn and charge me. In a split second I realize that as a 76 year old with bad shoulders and a lack of fancy fighting skills, my ax handle is going to be totally inadequate and that at that moment my life is truly at risk. I draw my gun and as they are still getting closer I fire and hit one or more of the thugs. Shooting a car thief is not a justified shooting, but hefting an ax handle, which is unlikely to result in deadly force against a criminal, seems within the law in my attempt to defend my property. But when the situation changes to one where I am in reasonably fear for my life, then drawing and using my gun seems well within the limits set by the law. But had I left my home with ONLY my gun, it could be argued that I was intent on using potentially deadly force merely to protect an insured piece of property, i.e., my car. Is my thinking flawed? And of course I would state the truth in saying that I had no intention of getting a gun into play until I felt my life threatened. Up until that moment, I was relying upon my own physical capability augmented with a piece of wood as my only weapon. 


Retired U.S. Army and Veteran of the Vietnam conflict

NRA Life Member

Fully retired!

 


#2 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,520 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 20 August 2019 - 07:46 PM

Jeez, how many of these scenarios do we have to debate to death?

There is no law that prevents you from carrying on YOUR own property. There is no law against investigating 'bumps in the night' on YOUR own property. If you see an intruder in your home, who appears to have a weapon and charges you, there is a reasonable presumption you are in fear of harm and you are justified in defending yourself or family. If instead, he runs for the exit, you can NOT shoot after him.

If you walk outside and find a perp doing wrong, and appears to have a weapon, and charges you, there is a reasonable presumption you are in fear of harm and you are justified in defending yourself. If instead, he runs away, you can NOT shoot after them, even if they are carrying away your property.

#3 davel501

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • Pip
  • 89 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 18

Posted 20 August 2019 - 07:47 PM

Morally I agree with you. Nobody needs to be shot over property. I think the guy from Antioch, the other end of town from me actually, was about to be a murder victim and correctly read and reacted to the situation. We are friendlier out here so it's not surprising that he went out there. Probably figured they had the wrong house. Once they came at him he was stuck. Police response times out here are 20+ minutes because it is a low crime area. The sheriff has everyone down by Volo or over by Waukegan and Winthrop harbor.

On the legality check this out: http://illinoiscarry...showtopic=14659

#4 ScopeEye

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,261 posts
  • Joined: 05-January 14

Posted 20 August 2019 - 07:50 PM

Humm......

How about a  semi-auto shot gun with bean bag rounds



#5 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,831 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 20 August 2019 - 08:59 PM

An ax handle is also a lethal weapon if you brain someone with it. A non-lethal weapon would be something like a stun gun or pepper spray.

An attacker does not have to be armed to be a lethal threat, especially if you think he can take your lethal weapon away from you.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#6 Dog1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 111 posts
  • Joined: 17-October 14

Posted 20 August 2019 - 09:31 PM

This topic seems to be reoccurring but the Illinois use of force statutes is quite specific in that the use of force “intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm” may be used in certain conditions to defend dwellings and or property. Morality is another question up to each individual.

#7 soundguy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,296 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 05

Posted 20 August 2019 - 11:56 PM

Once they charge they are a threat to your life.

It's OK to shoot them now.

Dalai Lama said so.

 

... that ax handle is also a deadly weapon.


Edited by soundguy, 20 August 2019 - 11:57 PM.

Life is a cooperative venture... That's what makes it work.

#8 Plinkermostly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 812 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 13

Posted 21 August 2019 - 06:17 AM

Your actions threatened them -- they'll sue.



#9 GTX63

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,882 posts
  • Joined: 19-June 13

Posted 21 August 2019 - 06:47 AM

Under the scenario on the op, it is likely at night. I go to bed early and sleep hard, so if my wife wakes me up I am not going to fumble for a secondary weapon.

Gun and go.

Carrying a gun and an axe complicates it for me. My property, my carry.

If I end up shooting someone, I'd have to believe my judgement was good.



#10 RS1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 192 posts
  • Joined: 15-January 19

Posted 21 August 2019 - 08:12 AM

Don't try to game the law. Going out an threatening someone with an axe handle and then shooting them when they decide they can take you on isn't a good look. It's certainly worse than going out with a holstered firearm to investigate and then shooting someone who attacks you.

Best bet is to carry at all times. If you never carry but then strap on a gun when you go out to investigate, that tells a potential juror that maybe you know it's not a good idea to be going outside and/or you're looking for a fight. If you bring an axe handle too that tells them maybe you're going out with the intent of baiting someone into a fight.

But if you always carry, you're just going out to investigate a bump.


It's like if you start a fist fight and they pull a knife. If you then pull a gun and shoot them, it's not justifiable self defense.

Don't start fights and don't go looking for trouble. Or do anything that can be viewed as such.

#11 Dog1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 111 posts
  • Joined: 17-October 14

Posted 21 August 2019 - 08:32 AM

It's like if you start a fist fight and they pull a knife. If you then pull a gun and shoot them, it's not justifiable self defense.

May wish to review statute, under scenario above it is not clear cut.

#12 vito

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,982 posts
  • Joined: 30-October 04

Posted 21 August 2019 - 10:04 AM

Don't try to game the law. Going out an threatening someone with an axe handle and then shooting them when they decide they can take you on isn't a good look. It's certainly worse than going out with a holstered firearm to investigate and then shooting someone who attacks you.

Best bet is to carry at all times. If you never carry but then strap on a gun when you go out to investigate, that tells a potential juror that maybe you know it's not a good idea to be going outside and/or you're looking for a fight. If you bring an axe handle too that tells them maybe you're going out with the intent of baiting someone into a fight.

But if you always carry, you're just going out to investigate a bump.


It's like if you start a fist fight and they pull a knife. If you then pull a gun and shoot them, it's not justifiable self defense.

Don't start fights and don't go looking for trouble. Or do anything that can be viewed as such.

Makes sense. 


Retired U.S. Army and Veteran of the Vietnam conflict

NRA Life Member

Fully retired!

 


#13 RS1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 192 posts
  • Joined: 15-January 19

Posted 21 August 2019 - 10:48 AM

It's like if you start a fist fight and they pull a knife. If you then pull a gun and shoot them, it's not justifiable self defense.
May wish to review statute, under scenario above it is not clear cut.


Would hate to rely on "not clear cut" in my defense, especially in light of case law and what every self defense/CCW trainer I've had has taught me. Never be the instigator.

I mean if you draw on a mugger, are they justified in shooting you? Certainly they feared for their life. Likewise, if you start a fight (assault) you can't justifiably end it with a shooting. Maybe it's not "clear cut" but it'll be expensive the very least.


It's the old cliche. The second to last thing you should want to happen in this world is to shoot somebody.





Totally unrelated the above, but in the theme of the OP, if it were legal to carry a taser, would you in addition to a firearm?

#14 Dog1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 111 posts
  • Joined: 17-October 14

Posted 21 August 2019 - 11:05 AM

 

It's like if you start a fist fight and they pull a knife. If you then pull a gun and shoot them, it's not justifiable self defense.
May wish to review statute, under scenario above it is not clear cut.


Would hate to rely on "not clear cut" in my defense, especially in light of case law and what every self defense/CCW trainer I've had has taught me. Never be the instigator.

I mean if you draw on a mugger, are they justified in shooting you? Certainly they feared for their life. Likewise, if you start a fight (assault) you can't justifiably end it with a shooting. Maybe it's not "clear cut" but it'll be expensive the very least.


It's the old cliche. The second to last thing you should want to happen in this world is to shoot somebody.





Totally unrelated the above, but in the theme of the OP, if it were legal to carry a taser, would you in addition to a firearm?

 

Not disagreeing that you should not be the instigator. However, I think it is also important to understand what the statutes actually says. 



#15 gangrel

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,139 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 11

Posted 21 August 2019 - 12:07 PM

Under Illinois law, the use of force is legal to use to prevent a crime or stop a crime, but deadly force requires the user to reasonably be in fear for his life or serious bodily harm. Thinking about the recent case that is in the news, of a Lake County senior citizen and concealed carrier shooting a 14 year old fatally, it occurred to me how it might be advantageous when investigating a "bump in the night" or other alarming sound outside of your home, it would be a good idea to arm yourself with less than deadly force as well as a firearm. Lets say I hear noises in my driveway, open my garage and see several thugs attempting to steal or break into one of my cars. I am carrying an ax handle for protection. I yell at the thugs to leave and show them that I am armed with the ax handle. But rather than leave, they turn and charge me. In a split second I realize that as a 76 year old with bad shoulders and a lack of fancy fighting skills, my ax handle is going to be totally inadequate and that at that moment my life is truly at risk. I draw my gun and as they are still getting closer I fire and hit one or more of the thugs. Shooting a car thief is not a justified shooting, but hefting an ax handle, which is unlikely to result in deadly force against a criminal, seems within the law in my attempt to defend my property. But when the situation changes to one where I am in reasonably fear for my life, then drawing and using my gun seems well within the limits set by the law. But had I left my home with ONLY my gun, it could be argued that I was intent on using potentially deadly force merely to protect an insured piece of property, i.e., my car. Is my thinking flawed? And of course I would state the truth in saying that I had no intention of getting a gun into play until I felt my life threatened. Up until that moment, I was relying upon my own physical capability augmented with a piece of wood as my only weapon. 

1) if you reasonably believe the use of such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or another person OR to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
2) The attacker came st him with an object in his hand. A LARGE BOWIE KNIFE was found at the scene by investigators. His life WAS in danger. Period. Full stop.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


NRA Life Member

NRA Certified Range Safety Officer

NRA Certified Instructor - Basic Pistol, PPIH, PPOH, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearm Safety
ISP Approved Firearm Concealed Carry Instructor

Utah CCW Instructor


#16 Smallbore

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,704 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 07

Posted 21 August 2019 - 12:46 PM

It's like if you start a fist fight and they pull a knife. If you then pull a gun and shoot them, it's not justifiable self defense.
May wish to review statute, under scenario above it is not clear cut.


Would hate to rely on "not clear cut" in my defense, especially in light of case law and what every self defense/CCW trainer I've had has taught me. Never be the instigator.
I mean if you draw on a mugger, are they justified in shooting you? Certainly they feared for their life. Likewise, if you start a fight (assault) you can't justifiably end it with a shooting. Maybe it's not "clear cut" but it'll be expensive the very least.
It's the old cliche. The second to last thing you should want to happen in this world is to shoot somebody.
Totally unrelated the above, but in the theme of the OP, if it were legal to carry a taser, would you in addition to a firearm?
Not disagreeing that you should not be the instigator. However, I think it is also important to understand what the statutes actually says.

What the statute says doesn't mean squat. It is what the courts says it means.
This forum exist because the courts say the 2A does not say what it actually does say.

The courts seem to place great emphasis the word "necessary".

#17 soundguy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,296 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 05

Posted 21 August 2019 - 01:12 PM

 

Under Illinois law, the use of force is legal to use to prevent a crime or stop a crime, but deadly force requires the user to reasonably be in fear for his life or serious bodily harm. Thinking about the recent case that is in the news, of a Lake County senior citizen and concealed carrier shooting a 14 year old fatally, it occurred to me how it might be advantageous when investigating a "bump in the night" or other alarming sound outside of your home, it would be a good idea to arm yourself with less than deadly force as well as a firearm. Lets say I hear noises in my driveway, open my garage and see several thugs attempting to steal or break into one of my cars. I am carrying an ax handle for protection. I yell at the thugs to leave and show them that I am armed with the ax handle. But rather than leave, they turn and charge me. In a split second I realize that as a 76 year old with bad shoulders and a lack of fancy fighting skills, my ax handle is going to be totally inadequate and that at that moment my life is truly at risk. I draw my gun and as they are still getting closer I fire and hit one or more of the thugs. Shooting a car thief is not a justified shooting, but hefting an ax handle, which is unlikely to result in deadly force against a criminal, seems within the law in my attempt to defend my property. But when the situation changes to one where I am in reasonably fear for my life, then drawing and using my gun seems well within the limits set by the law. But had I left my home with ONLY my gun, it could be argued that I was intent on using potentially deadly force merely to protect an insured piece of property, i.e., my car. Is my thinking flawed? And of course I would state the truth in saying that I had no intention of getting a gun into play until I felt my life threatened. Up until that moment, I was relying upon my own physical capability augmented with a piece of wood as my only weapon. 

1) if you reasonably believe the use of such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or another person OR to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
2) The attacker came st him with an object in his hand. A LARGE BOWIE KNIFE was found at the scene by investigators. His life WAS in danger. Period. Full stop.

 

His life was in danger when the young men advanced towards him.

They didn't need to find the knife.

Icing on the cake.


Life is a cooperative venture... That's what makes it work.

#18 GTX63

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,882 posts
  • Joined: 19-June 13

Posted 22 August 2019 - 06:47 AM

And in another thread here, a homeowner shot a man early morning in his backyard. CCL holder and on his property.

No charges have been filed but they locked him up while the investigation continues. Just saying.



#19 Gator4838

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Joined: 05-April 19

Posted 22 August 2019 - 08:00 AM

I remind myself frequently to not go outside,especially armed,in a theft type situation.meaning,auto theft,yard,garage,etc.to protect the lives of myself and family only,call 911,and not to take on the role of le.having said that,I can only hope I make the right decision in a real life scenario.we should learn from these real life cases.

#20 quackersmacker

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,975 posts
  • Joined: 21-September 12

Posted 22 August 2019 - 04:30 PM

Don't try to game the law. Going out an threatening someone with an axe handle and then shooting them when they decide they can take you on isn't a good look. It's certainly worse than going out with a holstered firearm to investigate and then shooting someone who attacks you.

Best bet is to carry at all times. If you never carry but then strap on a gun when you go out to investigate, that tells a potential juror that maybe you know it's not a good idea to be going outside and/or you're looking for a fight. If you bring an axe handle too that tells them maybe you're going out with the intent of baiting someone into a fight.

But if you always carry, you're just going out to investigate a bump.


It's like if you start a fist fight and they pull a knife. If you then pull a gun and shoot them, it's not justifiable self defense.

Don't start fights and don't go looking for trouble. Or do anything that can be viewed as such.

How is a jury ever going to know how often you carry?  Also, I don't think it's necessary to establish a pattern of always carrying in order to justify grabbing a gun to investigate something suspicious.


Life Member --- NRA Endowment Level
Life Member --- Second Amendment Foundation
Life Member --- Tennessee Gun Owners
Member        --- Single Action Shooting Society    [Lt John Dunbar]
Member        --- Oak Ridge Sportsmen's Association

 
Fellow Members:  Please consider making at least an annual $25 contribution to this fine organization, which has proven its worth -----and you will then become a member of the Supporting Members Team.   In this case, it's definitely about putting your money where your mouth is!   And, getting results.  Who knows what the future holds.....these may just be some of the best dollars you'll ever spend.


#21 howie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 519 posts
  • Joined: 24-March 11

Posted 22 August 2019 - 06:08 PM

Life over property.  Property can be replaced.  Regarding the IL statute, it's old and probably not in line with case law.  Statutes are one thing, what a jury may consider "reasonable" is something totally different IMHO.


NRA Endowment Member
ISRA Member
GOA Member

NRA Basic Pistol/Rifle/PPITH Instructor
ISP Approved CCW Instructor

www.boondocktactical.com

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people!"

"I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers. I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny."- Patrick Henry


#22 JTHunter

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,508 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 13

Posted 22 August 2019 - 08:56 PM

Humm......

How about a  semi-auto shot gun with bean bag rounds

 

At close range (distance unknown), even beanbags and rubber bullets can bruise and damage internal organs enough to cause death.


“We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.” - - Abraham Lincoln

“Small minds adhere to the letter of the law; great minds dispense Justice.” - - S. C. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

Life member NAHC, Endowment member NRA

#23 markthesignguy

    S39-(D)D.Harmon(F-) R77-(D)K.Willis(F-)

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,939 posts
  • Joined: 11-July 08

Posted 22 August 2019 - 10:22 PM

There is the court of public opinion

 

and then there is the court of LAW.

 

I don't CARE HOW MANY reporters get their panties in a twist (Dahleen) - you just ain't that important.


Sign, sign, everywhere a sign......
NRA Life Member
ISRA Life Member
 


#24 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,936 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 23 August 2019 - 06:01 PM

 

Humm......

How about a  semi-auto shot gun with bean bag rounds

 

At close range (distance unknown), even beanbags and rubber bullets can bruise and damage internal organs enough to cause death.

 

I remember reading somewhere that a bean bag round caused someone to die but not before suffering needlessly.  Death by bean bag shotgun rounds is inhumane.


The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui

#25 Neumann

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 743 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 13

Posted 25 August 2019 - 10:48 AM

According to John Lott, deadly force is used in fewer than 1% of all encounters where the victim uses a firearm, and shots are fired only 10% of the time. The purpose of a weapon is to stop a deadly attack. If that can be done without firing a shot, all the better. Apparently, most perpetrators run at the hint of a firearm. Those who don't wait for the police or take their chances.

 

If you have to use, or threaten to use deadly force, it's a good idea to be the first to call the police.


Edited by Neumann, 25 August 2019 - 10:51 AM.


#26 Sol-Invictus

  • Members
  • 13 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 18

Posted 03 September 2019 - 10:58 AM

According to John Lott, deadly force is used in fewer than 1% of all encounters where the victim uses a firearm, and shots are fired only 10% of the time. The purpose of a weapon is to stop a deadly attack. If that can be done without firing a shot, all the better. Apparently, most perpetrators run at the hint of a firearm. Those who don't wait for the police or take their chances.
 
If you have to use, or threaten to use deadly force, it's a good idea to be the first to call the police.

This recently affirmed in the Michigan brandishing case. Although just in that state, but the legal reasoning appears irrefutable.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users