Jump to content


Photo

Justifiable Use of Force - IL Statute


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
172 replies to this topic

#91 Bud

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,572 posts
  • Joined: 06-August 09

Posted 13 September 2013 - 08:03 PM

What appears to be more perplexing than what is a forcible felony is that there are no definitions of harm, serious harm and great bodily harm. Other state have them.

Also, I would be careful as it relates to defense of dwelling v. defense of property. If you are relying on (and going to teach that one only requires preventing a felony and the other a forcible felony) you are assuming you know what the prosecutor will charge. The prosecutor will likely make the decision as to which (or both) standards you have to meet.

Anyone who says "bang, bang bang", to save a TV has not thought the scenario through very well. There is a clear difference between legal and smart. Teach smart. If you try to save the insured TV with a gun, it will be the most expensive TV you ever bought.


How can "forcible felony" be perplexing when it is quite clearly defined in the law?

There is no definition for great bodily harm in the statutes, but if you know how to properly teach use of force in Illinois, it's quite easy to explain. Before you start teaching concealed carry in Illinois, you'd be wise to learn it.

The only thing you are correct on is that you don't teach people to use deadly force over material things that can be replaced. Other than that, your post is just wrong. You would think that all of your high speed ISP trainers would be able to instruct you on Illinois law.


Right on the money there. pdpsc and a great deal kinder than I would have been.

When taking property involves taking it away from me by force or threat of force, then I will react to the threat and honor it.
Bud
 
 
Winter is coming
and the White Walkers are already attacking the cities



ITWT Club Member 001

ONE STATE- ONE LAW

#92 Carry Trainer

  • Members
  • 39 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 13

Posted 25 September 2013 - 04:40 PM

Pdpsc,

Need a little help here. Under Illinois law, is a broken bone a serious injury or great bodily injury?

Training our clients to survive an attack physically, morally, legally and financially

952-935-2414 tgrant@NACFI.us


#93 cjvandyke

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 195 posts
  • Joined: 30-August 13

Posted 25 September 2013 - 04:54 PM

Pdpsc,

Need a little help here. Under Illinois law, is a broken bone a serious injury or great bodily injury?

from what i have been taught/learned, it the injury requires an emergency room visit, it would be considered great bodily harm/serious injury

www.tactical-defense.us
facebook.com/tactdefen
twitter.com/tactdefen
NRA Life Member
NRA Cerfified Instructor / CRSO
Pistol - Rifle - Shotgun
Personal Protection - Home Firearm Safety
Illinois Firearms Instructor
Utah Firearms Instructor


#94 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,849 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 25 September 2013 - 06:58 PM

Pdpsc,

Need a little help here. Under Illinois law, is a broken bone a serious injury or great bodily injury?


It doesn't matter where the line is for injury or great bodily harm. You can use force to PREVENT it.

#95 usmcss

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 147 posts
  • Joined: 01-October 05

Posted 26 September 2013 - 09:14 AM

(From the firstdefender training videos)
https://www.youtube....POGkeTde5OqGTT3

convenience store
Would you shoot someone in the back?
https://www.youtube....5OqGTT3&index=2

knife attack
Would you shoot someone who did not have an obvious weapon
https://www.youtube....5OqGTT3&index=4

eta: and the "you" is not directed at anyone specific, just for general conversation on when to use force.

Great videos, thanks for sharing!!!

#96 FarmHand357

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 619 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 11

Posted 26 September 2013 - 10:05 PM

Thanks, I didn't know about this channel and have now subscribed...
Punish the crime, not the freedom

#97 semper1911

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 264 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 13

Posted 29 September 2013 - 08:55 PM

Just a reminder here. You can only use the force that is necassary. Always remember that after the fact your situation which you have a split second to decide will be combed through for week's!! Example, if someone has a knife and comes at you, and you draw on him/her, they drop the knife, then you cannot use the pistol. You can only use the force that is REASONABLE to stop the threat!!

#98 DaBren

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 105 posts
  • Joined: 05-January 13

Posted 31 January 2014 - 11:32 PM

While everyone is hung up on what this or that means let me just throw this out there. If something happens and you have to use force likely to cause death or great bodily harm know this; You better be able to articulate how you, or another, was in danger of death or great bodily harm.
I have spoken, even argued with, several people about this subject and no one has been able to convince me how an unarmed intruder is a threat likely to cause death or great bodily harm. If you can't convince me what do you think your chances are with a judge, jury, or defense attorney. And before you say they, or their family members, can not sue, that is true as long as your conduct was not wanton or negligent. And before anyone jumps on me, it is not that I agree with this, but it is the hand we were dealt by the IL lawmakers. Everyone comes up with what if he/she grabs a lamp. I have to stop them there and explain they have just changed the equation but we still have to look at it the same way. How is this person putting you in fear of your life or great bodily harm. After a while of going back and forth they usually begin to tell me actions that this unarmed person may do that could be conceived as a threat of death or great bodily harm to their, or a loved one's, person. Just think about this for a minute, just the act of an unarmed intruder coming into the house is not what threatens death or great bodily harm. Actions after they enter the home can.
Police officers are taught use of force and understand very well the different levels and how things escalate and even skip levels. The first people you talk to are going to be these police officers. What they are told may make the difference on the States Attorney's decision on what to do with the the homeowner at this point.
So when thinking of all the different scenarios keep in mind, what actions actually put me in fear of death or great bodily harm. Someone walking toward you with outstretched hands, are they going to choke you or give you a hug. Is there a difference in how the person advances towards you, you bet there is. Can you see the person(s) hands or do they have a hand in a jacket pocket? Is the person(s) larger and more fit than you? Maybe there are three of them and only one of you, game changer? Is the person a tweeker and high as a kite, do you know what to look for from a distance to ascertain this? The littlest clues can make the difference between being able to articulate why you were in fear of death or great bodily harm or facing a harsh reality of trying to to the right thing for you and your family and facing charges yourself.
It is easy to say someone is in danger of death or great bodily harm when the offender has a firearm but not so easy when the offender is unarmed. Now lets throw in the baseball bat or tire iron. How close to you are they. Is someone armed with a baseball bat 30 feet away from you a threat of death or great bodily harm? If you are an older person or a person with disabilities, very well may be.
All the above is why this statute gives people problem in explanation. Because it has different criteria based on the persons involved and due to the dynamic situations portrayed can have different justification for different people under the same circumstances.

#99 DaBren

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 105 posts
  • Joined: 05-January 13

Posted 01 February 2014 - 12:04 AM

Pdpsc,

Need a little help here. Under Illinois law, is a broken bone a serious injury or great bodily injury?


In the IL Compiled Statutes, Great Bodily Harm is usually also accompanied by permanent disability or disfigurement. It is basically up to the judge/jury to decide on what is or is not great bodily harm. Broken bones will usually constitute that around my neck of the woods but it may be different somewhere else. I also found this: "When defendants have been found guilty of aggravated battery and appealed, the appellate courts have provided a general guideline as to what amounts to great bodily harm:
“Great bodily harm” is more serious or grave than lacerations, bruises, or abrasions that characterize “bodily harm.” See People v. Costello, 95 Ill. App. 3d 680 (1981). "

Here is a link to that case of People V Costello http://www.leagle.com/decision/198177595IllApp3d680_1667.xml/PEOPLE%20v.%20COSTELLO

#100 Marie

    Lizzie's Bennet's alter ego

  • Members
  • 4,164 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 01 February 2014 - 12:15 AM

While everyone is hung up on what this or that means let me just throw this out there. If something happens and you have to use force likely to cause death or great bodily harm know this; You better be able to articulate how you, or another, was in danger of death or great bodily harm.
I have spoken, even argued with, several people about this subject and no one has been able to convince me how an unarmed intruder is a threat likely to cause death or great bodily harm.


That's easy enough, as you're a man.

I'm a 5'5" woman. A 6' man could do me a great deal of harm, just from disparity of strength, with his hands.

This alone is reason enough why women should be armed.

What about the recent rape of a young woman in the Rogers Park neighborhood? Some news reports said the man told the victim he had a gun, and others don't mention it.

http://abclocal.go.c...news&id=9412830

Great Lakes: Unsalted and Shark Free!


#101 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,849 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 01 February 2014 - 12:38 AM

While everyone is hung up on what this or that means let me just throw this out there. If something happens and you have to use force likely to cause death or great bodily harm know this; You better be able to articulate how you, or another, was in danger of death or great bodily harm.
I have spoken, even argued with, several people about this subject and no one has been able to convince me how an unarmed intruder is a threat likely to cause death or great bodily harm.


That's easy enough, as you're a man.

I'm a 5'5" woman. A 6' man could do me a great deal of harm, just from disparity of strength, with his hands.

This alone is reason enough why women should be armed.

What about the recent rape of a young woman in the Rogers Park neighborhood? Some news reports said the man told the victim he had a gun, and others don't mention it.

http://abclocal.go.c...news&id=9412830

The important thing to note here, Marie, is that our poster specified an "unarmed intruder," that is to say that a BG has entered your residence. Our poster left out the part where you are justified in use of force to prevent entry, given the manner of entry specified in the statute, and the use of force is justified in the commision of a felony once entry is made (note that once entry is made, the bar for use of force is lowered from forcible felony to just a plain old felony, which happens to cover almost any illegal activity from that point on).

I don't believe you'd have to do much explaining to do since most of the criteria for the justified use of force had been met in this scenario.

#102 DaBren

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 105 posts
  • Joined: 05-January 13

Posted 01 February 2014 - 01:36 AM

While everyone is hung up on what this or that means let me just throw this out there. If something happens and you have to use force likely to cause death or great bodily harm know this; You better be able to articulate how you, or another, was in danger of death or great bodily harm.
I have spoken, even argued with, several people about this subject and no one has been able to convince me how an unarmed intruder is a threat likely to cause death or great bodily harm.


That's easy enough, as you're a man.

I'm a 5'5" woman. A 6' man could do me a great deal of harm, just from disparity of strength, with his hands.

This alone is reason enough why women should be armed.

What about the recent rape of a young woman in the Rogers Park neighborhood? Some news reports said the man told the victim he had a gun, and others don't mention it.

http://abclocal.go.c...news&id=9412830


You are missing my point. Just the fact of an unarmed intruder is not enough for justification. You have to be able to say why you are in fear. You are starting by saying he is bigger than me and I say "Go on". Was this person standing there trying to figure out how to get back out....was he advancing towards you...... so many things to consider in a few brief seconds.

Like I said in the rest of my post, which you did not quote, it actually has different meanings for different people. If you are able to tell why you are justified if the real time comes you will know you are in the right.

#103 DaBren

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 105 posts
  • Joined: 05-January 13

Posted 01 February 2014 - 02:53 AM

The important thing to note here, Marie, is that our poster specified an "unarmed intruder," that is to say that a BG has entered your residence. Our poster left out the part where you are justified in use of force to prevent entry, given the manner of entry specified in the statute, and the use of force is justified in the commision of a felony once entry is made (note that once entry is made, the bar for use of force is lowered from forcible felony to just a plain old felony, which happens to cover almost any illegal activity from that point on).

I don't believe you'd have to do much explaining to do since most of the criteria for the justified use of force had been met in this scenario.


Here is my question..... Someone breaking into a residence by statute is criminal trespass and possibly/probably criminal damage to property. To get residential burglary you have to be able to prove there is intent to commit therein a theft. So until a person enters your residence and actually steals something where is the forcible felony? Better to err on the side of caution and be vigilant of the remainder of the statute with which I honestly believe the jury will more readily see as self defense.

#104 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,849 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 01 February 2014 - 08:43 AM

The important thing to note here, Marie, is that our poster specified an "unarmed intruder," that is to say that a BG has entered your residence. Our poster left out the part where you are justified in use of force to prevent entry, given the manner of entry specified in the statute, and the use of force is justified in the commision of a felony once entry is made (note that once entry is made, the bar for use of force is lowered from forcible felony to just a plain old felony, which happens to cover almost any illegal activity from that point on).

I don't believe you'd have to do much explaining to do since most of the criteria for the justified use of force had been met in this scenario.


Here is my question..... Someone breaking into a residence by statute is criminal trespass and possibly/probably criminal damage to property. To get residential burglary you have to be able to prove there is intent to commit therein a theft. So until a person enters your residence and actually steals something where is the forcible felony? Better to err on the side of caution and be vigilant of the remainder of the statute with which I honestly believe the jury will more readily see as self defense.


(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.

( b - 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.)

Please read this carefully. One is justified in the use of force if 1) Entry is made OR 2) entry is attempted in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner AND he reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another in the dwelling, OR 3) he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commision of a felony in the dwelling.

The first and only criteria needed to be met to use force in a home invasion is "entry is made".

You are justified in the use of force to PREVENT entry if the attempt is made in the manner specified in the statute, and you reasonably believe such force is necessary to stop an assault against yourself or another. (Think someone yelling 'I'm gonna get you!' while kicking the door.)

You are justified in the use of force if you reasonably believe it's necessary to PREVENT the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

Notice a couple of things. If entry is made, you've nothing to prove except that the "aggressor" did not belong there.

The words "reasonable" and "prevent" are consistent throughout. So my question is, what reasonable person would believe that the "aggressor" had intentions other than those specified by the statute, and what means of prevention are even available once the threshold for justifiable use of force has been met, practically speaking?

#105 DaBren

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 105 posts
  • Joined: 05-January 13

Posted 01 February 2014 - 11:19 AM

The first and only criteria needed to be met to use force in a home invasion is "entry is made".

You are justified in the use of force to PREVENT entry if the attempt is made in the manner specified in the statute, and you reasonably believe such force is necessary to stop an assault against yourself or another. (Think someone yelling 'I'm gonna get you!' while kicking the door.)

You are justified in the use of force if you reasonably believe it's necessary to PREVENT the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

Notice a couple of things. If entry is made, you've nothing to prove except that the "aggressor" did not belong there.

The words "reasonable" and "prevent" are consistent throughout. So my question is, what reasonable person would believe that the "aggressor" had intentions other than those specified by the statute, and what means of prevention are even available once the threshold for justifiable use of force has been met, practically speaking?


Home Invasion is way different than someone entering your home to steal change to get their next fix. With Home Invasion you have a bunch of other criteria which needs met. I would argue within the home invasion statute you are justified because you should be able to describe how the perpetrator is threatening you and was armed without proving the person knew someone was home and intended to do them harm. Again getting back to if you can describe how you are fearful beyond just their mere presence one should be good to go. Home Invasion statute 720 ILCS 5/19-6 you have to also be able to tell the person is not a law enforcement officer on official duties which means you have to identify the perpitrator.

Another question getting back to a person entering, if they raise an unsecured window or break a glass and reach in to unlock a door, do you think that meets the requirements set forth in 720 ILCS 5/7-2(1) as being "a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner" and better yet do you think a group of 12 peers would find that reasonable?

I would argue with someone breaking into your home the first option would be a citizens arrest and hold the person until police arrive (could this be at gunpoint, sure) within that you have the same authority as a peace officer in as far as use of force which may be deadly. Within the statute for police officers use of force in making an arrest, one has to believe someone is in imminent danger but the force must be just enough to stop the threat. IE a police officer can not shoot someone who is slapping another just to stop the threat of being slapped. In the context of making a citizens arrest one may be fearful but I would argue you would have to explain in detail what your fear was and their mere presence is not enough to justify deadly force. Further more when you are within one statute's requirements are you within all of them. If you can articulate why you are fearful of great bodily harm, which in itself is vague and at the court's discretion, or death then one would surpass the requirements of all the statutes mentioned so far.

Furthermore, one would be better off just like a police officer, if they can show an forward transition in use of force. If someone is breaking into my house and I can articulate I shouted at them to "Go away" or maybe "Stop or I will shoot" (verbal) and they disregarded the warning and continued into my home does that not give a "reasonable" person more affirmation that the homeowner is in danger beyond just the presence of the intruder? Would this also be more of a responsible gun owner in identifying the threat to verify it is not a family member or police officer on official duty? The home owner should be at an advantage and know where cover is to confront the intruder. Confronting the intruder does not put the home owner into an "Aggressor" role but if confronted does it not affirm the "Aggressor" is the intruder if they continue despite your verbal command.

Lets reverse this and look at it from a different view. Say I an a police officer and during the course of my duty I respond to a rural residence for a 911 hang up. Upon arriving at the residence in the middle of the night, I a uniformed police officer driving a marked patrol car, knock on several doors and attempt to see in different windows (within my duties right). Finally the person believed to be the home owner finally answers the door with a firearm in their hand pointed at me the officer. Would I be justified in shooting the individual, by statute sure. Does being within justification by statute make it right?

#106 Bud

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,572 posts
  • Joined: 06-August 09

Posted 01 February 2014 - 11:45 AM

trolling through life

Can that be considered a forcible felony?
Bud
 
 
Winter is coming
and the White Walkers are already attacking the cities



ITWT Club Member 001

ONE STATE- ONE LAW

#107 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,849 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 01 February 2014 - 11:55 AM

Violent, riotous, or tumultuous are descriptors of an ATTEMPT. "Entry is made" is separated by "or", therefore it is a standalone qualifier for the justifiable use of force. There is no other action attached to this phrase in the statute. Someone in your home who is not authorized, invited, etc., has met the legal requirements for having a justifiable use of force initiated against himself. He does not need to initiate another forcible felony or felony for the defense of dwelling statute to apply.

#108 Marie

    Lizzie's Bennet's alter ego

  • Members
  • 4,164 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 01 February 2014 - 01:00 PM

I think we've got an example of "unarmed intruder" (although there were two the homeowner encountered) straight from the Trib. It's about the homeowner who shot and killed one of two burglars in his home yesterday morning.

http://www.chicagotr...0,3394153.story

There are some interesting details. 18yo daughter hears something in the apartment behind them. Wakes up her father. She locks the door between the two residences. Her father unlocks and opens the door, doesn't see anything, so gets both his crutches and goes to bedroom to get his handgun. Two intruders rush towards the father, who then shoots. The intruders do not appear to be armed. One collapses at the scene and dies. Two are seen running away - so it appears there were three burglars.

Guy was charged with misdemeanor of possessing firearm with expired FOID card.

Edited by Marie, 01 February 2014 - 01:01 PM.

Great Lakes: Unsalted and Shark Free!


#109 POAT54

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,548 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 01 February 2014 - 01:14 PM

Probably missing the point here, but DaBren something I do understand. I also believe it is why everything I have read says after use of force say nothing until you have talked
to your lawyer. Because what you need to do is;

to articulate


“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
― Benjamin Franklin

 

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


#110 PPQ

  • Members
  • 41 posts
  • Joined: 11-March 13

Posted 01 February 2014 - 02:13 PM

The statute defines when you can use "use of force".....
and when you can use "use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm"...

They are very different - I think of one as subdue an simple intruder who crawled through a window, and the other is shoot or beat the heck out of a violent or armed intruder who forced his/her way in.

Either way you'll have some 'splainin' to do.

My 2 cents,

#111 WtJen

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,296 posts
  • Joined: 14-June 13

Posted 01 February 2014 - 03:57 PM

I have zero interest in subduing someone who breaks into my house whether they do it quietly or whether they do so in a violent manner. My only interest is acquiring a good sight picture from a position of cover and concealment. What happens next depends on the actions of the intruder. If I felt that it was safe to call out a warning "I have a gun", I might do that. If I come onto an armed intruder, he gets nothing but 00 buck center mass.


Don't go breaking into my house and expect to get served tea and biscuits.

Edited by WtJen, 01 February 2014 - 04:02 PM.

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.--Ayn Rand

#112 Bud

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,572 posts
  • Joined: 06-August 09

Posted 01 February 2014 - 06:47 PM

I have zero interest in subduing someone who breaks into my house whether they do it quietly or whether they do so in a violent manner. My only interest is acquiring a good sight picture from a position of cover and concealment. What happens next depends on the actions of the intruder. If I felt that it was safe to call out a warning "I have a gun", I might do that. If I come onto an armed intruder, he gets nothing but 00 buck center mass.


Don't go breaking into my house and expect to get served tea and biscuits.


suggestion?

The Internet is forever.

Let's say (and may God forbid) that the scenario you just described happens someday and you react just like that.

It may be totally lawful but you just presented a State's Attorney a gift of proof of aforethought(premeditation) concerning motive.

Respectfully, go back and do a serious edit of your post

Edited by Bud, 01 February 2014 - 06:48 PM.

Bud
 
 
Winter is coming
and the White Walkers are already attacking the cities



ITWT Club Member 001

ONE STATE- ONE LAW

#113 WtJen

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,296 posts
  • Joined: 14-June 13

Posted 01 February 2014 - 07:11 PM

In the situation I have described, the armed intruder has created a situation in which you must deal with someone with both the capability but also the intent to use deadly force against you. It is not only lawful to use lethal force to end this threat it is also desireable to be the one to initiate it from a tactical point of view. If you hesitate in a encounter with an armed individual who has broke into your house, you will likely be the one the coroners slab.

If he is unarmed, as I explained above, you have more options. But his being armed limits your options severely.

Edited by WtJen, 01 February 2014 - 07:15 PM.

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.--Ayn Rand

#114 TomKoz

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,314 posts
  • Joined: 04-February 10

Posted 01 February 2014 - 11:36 PM

Everything you have ever typed on the Internet, texted or said on your phone, CAN and WILL be used against you.
Stay Alert ... Stay Alive !!

#115 TyGuy

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,828 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 09

Posted 01 February 2014 - 11:41 PM

Well I'm screwed.


Tapa-what? Tapatalk.
ILSP Approved CCW Instructor
NRA Endowment Member
ISRA Member
GOA Member

Buy my stuff!

My favorite post ----- Walmart Thread ----- Ammo Alert Thread ---- Daily Deals Thread

#116 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,122 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 01 February 2014 - 11:44 PM

That kilt talk will come back to bite you.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
 
 

#117 Sigma

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,011 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 09

Posted 01 February 2014 - 11:52 PM

Well we can forget about this statute now that Pastor Phlegher is mobilizing to get rid of it
Exodus 22:2-3
If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.

Gun control is not about guns, it's about control. Once they have all the guns, they'll also have complete control.-Abolt

Guns kill people just like beds get girls pregnant.

#118 DaBren

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 105 posts
  • Joined: 05-January 13

Posted 02 February 2014 - 09:51 PM

Probably missing the point here, but DaBren something I do understand. I also believe it is why everything I have read says after use of force say nothing until you have talked
to your lawyer. Because what you need to do is;

to articulate


Yes, not knocking talking to an attorney first, as it could be a very good recommendation. Just think for a minute about this. If you understand just exactly what to articulate, even to your attorney, then you will be better off than just letting an attorney answer for you. With the attorney not being there, he/she is limited by what you can describe to him/her. Not all attorneys are not going to go about getting this information the same way. He/she will be asking questions but will they be able to ask all the right questions of you, the client. Another consideration is actually making contact with an attorney during the wee hours of the night in some rural location.

Another thing is practice. We go out and shoot to keep in practice, thinking of different situations an then describing the details is also practice, mental practice.

Edited by DaBren, 02 February 2014 - 09:56 PM.


#119 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,861 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 03 February 2014 - 12:04 PM

@DaBren
I agree. If all it took was a men being bigger than women than all men would be dead just for being bigger than women.
If however a man threatened a woman with violence than it becomes easier to articulate why the guy had to die.
The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui

#120 sirflyguy

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,744 posts
  • Joined: 28-September 09

Posted 04 February 2014 - 06:35 AM

I hope everyone reads the piece in the ISRA newspaper that came out a week or so ago. It has an excellent article about the law regarding use of force in defense of dwelling and property, and how federal cases will trump IL statutes, especially with Eric Holder in charge.

United States Concealed Carry Association Certified Firearms Instructor

Defensive Firearms Coach (DFC) 

Fundamentals of Home Defense Handgun

Fundamentals of Concealed Carry
NRA-Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA-Certified Personal Protection In the Home Instructor
NRA-Certified Personal Protection Outside the Home Instructor 
NRA-Certified Chief Range Safety Officer

IL FCCA Approved Instructor
http://www.mlftraining.com
https://www.facebook...ps/mlftraining/