Jump to content

I WAS TOLD THAT IT IS ILLEGAL TO SHOOT A CAR THIEF


Recommended Posts

Is everyone overlooking the justified use of force statue in defense of property that CCL instructors are required to teach. It includes use of force to stop a forcible felony.

 

 

 

(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.

 

Trying to prosecute this guy would create a media circus and end up in an embarrassing loss for the prosecution, and a lot of political and social strife. The left has already tried to persecute some high profile self defense cases and got the opposite of the political results they were seeking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sec. 7-3. 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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to shoot anyone.

 

As it was posited by Mike Bius of Illinois Gun Pros at our CCL class when discussing shooting someone over material things... "If your child fell into a shark infested tank of water would you dive in to save them? (Of course, you would.) Now, you drop your $20,000 dollar Rolex into the same shark-infested tank. Do you jump in to get it?"

 

The point was well taken. Unless my life is in danger, I'm long gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to shoot anyone.

 

As it was posited by Mike Bius of Illinois Gun Pros at our CCL class when discussing shooting someone over material things... "If your child fell into a shark infested tank of water would you dive in to save them? (Of course, you would.) Now, you drop your $20,000 dollar Rolex into the same shark-infested tank. Do you jump in to get it?"

 

The point was well taken. Unless my life is in danger, I'm long gone.

Its a good analogy, except sharks eat kids and not watches, plus the Rolex is water proof so...lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to shoot anyone.

 

As it was posited by Mike Bius of Illinois Gun Pros at our CCL class when discussing shooting someone over material things... "If your child fell into a shark infested tank of water would you dive in to save them? (Of course, you would.) Now, you drop your $20,000 dollar Rolex into the same shark-infested tank. Do you jump in to get it?"

 

The point was well taken. Unless my life is in danger, I'm long gone.

Some disturbed individual is walking along picking up objects and throwing them into the shark tank. First inanimate objects, then other animals. Then he starts toward a child, but your child is safe next to you. As of now, your life is not in danger, guess those other parents should have been more vigilant?

 

Carjacking isn't just about property. Armed robbery isn't just about property.

 

The carjacker that is taking your car drives around you so you don't shoot them, and kills someone walking across the parking lot a few feet away. Oh well it wasn't you?

 

Active shooter in the mall right in front of you. You can stand and fight, or flee out the fire escape.

 

People are free to make their own choices, but to demean other choices isn't productive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some disturbed individual is walking along picking up objects and throwing them into the shark tank. First inanimate objects, then other animals. Then he starts toward a child, but your child is safe next to you. As of now, your life is not in danger, guess those other parents should have been more vigilant?

 

Carjacking isn't just about property. Armed robbery isn't just about property.

 

The carjacker that is taking your car drives around you so you don't shoot them, and kills someone walking across the parking lot a few feet away. Oh well it wasn't you?

 

Active shooter in the mall right in front of you. You can stand and fight, or flee out the fire escape.

 

People are free to make their own choices, but to demean other choices isn't productive.

Is the danger of death to others imminent? If yes, a private individual can use lethal force. If no, only a cop can use lethal force, and then only if the threat is inevitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm for changing the rules not breaking the rules. I don't agree with the moral standard that property should not be defended with deadly force. In many other countries and cultures its is justifiable.

 

You can replace property.

You can not replace a life.

 

Should you ever have to shoot someone it will change your life, and not for the better.

If you don’t understand this, you should be prohibited from owning guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm for changing the rules not breaking the rules. I don't agree with the moral standard that property should not be defended with deadly force. In many other countries and cultures its is justifiable.

You can replace property.

You can not replace a life.

 

Should you ever have to shoot someone it will change your life, and not for the better.

If you don’t understand this, you should be prohibited from owning guns.

 

I know two people that had to shoot someone in self defense. Their lives changed very little. Neither was arrested and both have lived very normal lives since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Should you ever have to shoot someone it will change your life, and not for the better.

If you don’t understand this, you should be prohibited from owning guns." You should not own any guns if you are not willing to use them to defend yourself. Just call the Police.

You still can’t shoot someone to protect your property. That’s not gonna change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"Should you ever have to shoot someone it will change your life, and not for the better.

If you don’t understand this, you should be prohibited from owning guns." You should not own any guns if you are not willing to use them to defend yourself. Just call the Police.

You still can’t shoot someone to protect your property. That’s not gonna change.

Then how do you explain the justified use of force in defense of property? Not saying I would or that it would be wise in the long run but the law is the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Should you ever have to shoot someone it will change your life, and not for the better.

If you dont understand this, you should be prohibited from owning guns." You should not own any guns if you are not willing to use them to defend yourself. Just call the Police.

Gun culture needs to be a lot more Si vis pacem, para bellum then Molon labe.

 

You've made several posts asking for the legal threshold of taking a life. If you have a strong moral compass these shouldn't be questions you need to ask, they should answer themselves.

 

People that have demons after shooting someone have moral doubts, my fatherinlaw shot several people and sleeps well at night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many people here are Liberals like Robert De Niro who hurl insults at you if they disagree with you. They try to stifle free speech like a dictator instead of discussing the topic. They use words like "idiot" "troll" etc.

Why not show some class and agree to disagree?

 

 

How about you showing some class by not jumping on this one questionable incident as an example

You started this same subject some time back

And was told then the same thing your being told now

and you still dont like it

 

But it is still the law in Illinois

Your life or someone elses life has to be in danger

in order to shoot them

 

And unless your a uninsured motorist in the state of Illinois which is also against the law

You life nor your ability to earn a living is dependent on you stopping a person from stealing your car/truck as long as you have said insurance on it

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

And this comment below

(" I don't agree with the moral standard that property should not be defended with deadly force. In many other countries and cultures its is justifiable".)

 

What other countries

the ones wear women are treated like property and are stoned to death for showing there face in public

is it one where if you dont worship the right God your called a Infidel and then murdered ?

 

cause I dont know of any civilized country where its legal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't want to shoot anyone.

 

As it was posited by Mike Bius of Illinois Gun Pros at our CCL class when discussing shooting someone over material things... "If your child fell into a shark infested tank of water would you dive in to save them? (Of course, you would.) Now, you drop your $20,000 dollar Rolex into the same shark-infested tank. Do you jump in to get it?"

 

The point was well taken. Unless my life is in danger, I'm long gone.

Some disturbed individual is walking along picking up objects and throwing them into the shark tank. First inanimate objects, then other animals. Then he starts toward a child, but your child is safe next to you. As of now, your life is not in danger, guess those other parents should have been more vigilant? I never said I wouldn't protect a child. Terrible argument. Very much like the Liberals melodrama - If it only saves one child -

 

Carjacking isn't just about property. Armed robbery isn't just about property. I'm sorry. but it is - unless you feel your life is in danger

 

The carjacker that is taking your car drives around you so you don't shoot them, and kills someone walking across the parking lot a few feet away. Oh well it wasn't you? My only responsibility is to keep me and mine safe. That is the cold, hard truth. Harsh? Nope. Real life.

 

Active shooter in the mall right in front of you. You can stand and fight, or flee out the fire escape. Again, my first responsibility is to get me and mine to safety. What if I do engage and I am shot and can't continue the fight. What happens to my granddaughters who are with me? Do they die because I didn't do my job and get them to safety first and foremost? Circumstances dictate everything.

 

People are free to make their own choices, but to demean other choices isn't productive. I was in no way demeaning. I expressed my personal opinion on the matter. It's what we do here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Responding to Molly:

 

I suppose it depends on the circumstances? Id suppose that if you or someone else is involved in the process of a forcible felony you may stop it with lethal or other necessary force? At some point you are no longer in danger. Things might get murky.

 

Give me a better understanding and I would change my mind. Ive been held at gunpoint in a robbery, a situation where I could comply nor did I have an option to defend myself with lethal force. I instantly developed a strategy of distraction which worked. This was in Old Town near Cabrini Green in 1977.

 

You may use deadly force to protect yourself or another person if you believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. You may not use deadly force to protect property unless you are doing so to prevent a forcible felony.

 

I also recall a Chicago incident where a man pulled a gun on another man as he returned to his van after buying his daily lotto tickets at a gas station. Bad man demanded the keys to the van. Good man cookies by throwing them on the ground and goes to his glove box, pulls his gun and kills bad man. No repercussions at all... even in Chicago during the gun ban.

 

So...

It depends?

Dont take bad chances?

Property can be replaced?

A life cannot... including you own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then how do you explain the justified use of force in defense of property? Not saying I would or that it would be wise in the long run but the law is the law.

Because you're still not defending property, your defending life or bodily harm. It's setting a legal precedent that someone that's willing to, for instance, forcibly enter your home is trying to kill or cause bodily harm.

 

Even looking historically at laws that allowed for lethal defense of property or capital punishment for certain theft argued that by doing so it would cause death or harm to the victim. Stealing someones cow out on the frontier could of starved a family. Stealing a horse and leaving someone stranded in the middle of nowhere could of resulted in their death. With our extensive welfare system nobody dies of lack of transportation or starvation.

 

Castle doctrine and stand your ground argue that it's safer to do so then turn tail and run. Duty to retreat in many circumstances can put you in greater harm.

 

Neither of these are black and white, they are just common law legal precedent. If you stand your ground in a duty to retreat state you can still successfully argue you did so in defense of life. But in a stand your ground state you can just cite standing your ground without having to prepare a more detailed defense of threat to life.

 

Common law precedents are very much guided by natural law. While common law isn't always perfect there's no kill someone in cold blood loophole. This is why most in this thread are repeating the same thing, defense of life. Thou shall not murder was around way before the old testament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 “Forcible felony” means treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnapping, kidnapping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

 

While I don`t agree with shooting someone for a thing, it is legal in Illinois under Defense of Property statutes. I believe stealing a car would fall into either the robbery or burglary categories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! After seeing most of the replies in this thread, I now understand why our rights are being eroded away everyday. OP IMO you were told wrong. It's legally and morally the right thing to do. If you can't commit to the use of force for someone committing a Forcible Felony you should not be carrying a firearm in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! After seeing most of the replies in this thread, I now understand why our rights are being eroded away everyday. OP IMO you were told wrong. It's legally and morally the right thing to do. If you can't commit to the use of force for someone committing a Forcible Felony you should not be carrying a firearm in the first place.

Might be going a bit too far there. Every situation is different and calls for it's own assessment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...