Jump to content

Interesting hypothetical


vito

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=14659

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
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

 

 

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...