Jump to content


Photo

Justifiable Use of Force - IL Statute


  • Please log in to reply
166 replies to this topic

#61 Rail

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 179 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 08

Posted 15 August 2012 - 03:07 AM

Illinois is arguably better on use-of-force laws than a lot of pro-gun states, Florida and Texas included. Remember Hale DeMar? They tried to throw the book at him for daring to own a handgun in Wilmette or one of those other north shore communities, but his right to shoot a fleeing suspect in his home wasn't even questioned! You couldn't do that in Florida even with their stand-your-ground laws without having a grand jury consider indictment.

#62 C0untZer0

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,883 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 15 August 2012 - 06:54 AM

Illinois law is better.

For one thing, it doesn't contain silly phrases like "Stand Your Ground" or "Castle Doctrine" Those phrases have no legal meaning in and of themselves, add nothing postive to the actual laws, and serve as a target for anti-gun politicians.

I don't think anyone knows what "Castle Doctrine" means anymore - certainly not the legislators. Maybe the worst case of this is South Carolina. In 2006 South Carolina enacted a law called 'Protection of Persons and Property Act'. Twice in the wording of the bill they mention "castle doctrine". The SC legislature specifically wrote the words "Castle Doctrine" into their laws and then added provisions that had nothing to do with being in or protecting your home, vehicle or place of business.

I personally believe that the core idea of "Castle Doctrine" is that the presumption that the resident was in fear of grave bodily harm, by virtue that the perpatrator was breaking into or unlawfully entering their residence. In a confrontation in the street - there has to be a determination if the use of deadly force was justifed. The person has to show that they were in fear for their life or grave bodily harm etc etc... But in a home invasion, the resident doesn't have to show any of that. it's presumed. After something like the SC legislation is passed, it's hard to keep preaching that because they've applied the words "Castle Doctrine" to be any place where you have a right to be. I guess I can state my position with the caveat that SC was wrong to use Castle Doctrine in the context they did. Someone else could argue that once SC used those words and passed their law - they officially defined Castle Doctrine by codifying it. There should be a difference between justifiable homicide/lawfull use of deadly force and "castle doctrine". But the lines have been blurred by lawmakers inserting the word "castle" into the laws codifiying lawful use of deadly force/ justifiable homocide, no duty to retreat laws and the like. To me, the key element of a "Castle Doctine" is the presumption that you have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm if someone is forcibly or unlawfully attempting to enter your ______ ( residence, home, business, vehicle, tent, igloo, etc...) or has forcibly or unlawfully entered your residence and you are justified in using lethal force. I'm not saying I don't like SC's law - I'm just saying it muddies the "Castle Doctrine" waters.

I'm glad that Illinois never put any "stand your ground" or "Castle Doctrine" verbiage in their justifiable homocide statute. It's a decent law and it isn't easily targeted with inflamatory hyperbole.

There now is a decent amount of case law surrounding Illinois justifiable homocide so that a specific law addressing the specific crime of breaking & entering, tresspassing, or unlawfull entry - isn't needed.

IMO, people who clamor for "castle doctrine" or "stand your ground" laws don't understand how effective Illinois law currently is. And politicians who propose such laws are posturing and more concerned with pandering to a certain element than they are concerned about good law.

Edited by C0untZer0, 15 August 2012 - 06:59 AM.

‘Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive...those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.‘
- C. S. Lewis

#63 junglebob

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,026 posts
  • Joined: 03-December 04

Posted 15 August 2012 - 07:53 AM


I had a criminal attorney in a seminar talk about "justifiable use of force" to defend property. His experience was that even though it is in the statutes, the defendant will not prevail. Illinois is Illinois. It's hard enough to get an acquittal when used to defend life.

Has this thread confused to issues. The "justifiable use of force" is not limited to geography. What you can poccess to accomplish this defense it limited by law to location.



Now, don't take this wrong, I don't doubt at all that the attorney said that. And perhaps he even believes it. But can he or anyone cite a case where the defendant was clearly justified in use of force by the statute, and was convicted of homicide or worse in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

It's very possible that it has happened and if so, I hope that someone can post a link or even just a case name. But I wonder if the state's reputation is not preceding it here and everyone expects the worst with no proof to back it up. We've all heard of cases, some even recently (I believe that one of the victims of attack even spoke at IGOLD) where a civilian used a firearm to thwart an attack and once the media noise was over, that person was released and no charges filed.

Anybody got a case??

Tim


Not a case of someone being prosecuted, but involving self defense. A few years ago a elderly woman in East St. Louis had someone break into her home. A relative gave her a gun and a couple weeks later one night someone tried to break in again when she was home. She fired through the door, and went back to bed. Her daughter arrived in the morning to find the perp dead in front of her door. She was not charged. Seeing that the perp hadn't entered her home I could see that she could have been in trouble. I guess the states attorney didn't want to bring charges against a grandmother.
Disarming the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them. George Mason

Remember the 1991 Luby Cafeteria Massacre of the Unarmed (Kileen, Texas before Texas Concealed Carry) Do we need 23 people to die in a similar incident before we're allowed effective self defense?

Three school masacres have been stopped by civilians with firearms. Two with handguns and the third by a guy with a shotgun. (Pearl, Ms; Appalacian School of Law; Edinboro,Pa)

#64 Patriots & Tyrants

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,118 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 11

Posted 15 August 2012 - 09:43 AM

Heck there was a store clerk in Waukeegan two or three years ago, he ran out of the store after the criminal had left the store.
He shot and killed the criminal while he was peddling away on a bike. No charges filed against the store clerk.

http://wauktalk.com/...c.php?f=10&t=63

A 20-year-old man who used a gun to rob a small Waukegan store Monday night was shot and killed moments later by a store clerk who chased him into the street, police said in a news release today.

Police are also searching for a second suspect, who they say did not enter the store but aided the robber and escaped despite being struck by a car while fleeing.

Brandon Starks, 20, of the 2000 block of Hervey Avenue in North Chicago, died of multiple gunshot wounds to the chest, Lake County Coroner Richard Keller said today.

In the Waukegan police department news release, Cmdr. Wayne Walles said Starks entered People's Market, at 901 8th St., at 7 p.m., brandishing a gun and demanding money from the store clerk. After the clerk turned over the money, Starks fled.

According to the release, the clerk grabbed a pistol from under the counter, ran out the door and saw Starks trying to flee northbound on Lincoln on a bicycle. The clerk fired several shots and struck the suspect twice in the upper torso and once in the leg.

#65 KingWalleye

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 568 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 11

Posted 21 March 2013 - 04:14 PM

excellent point! I guess the same would apply to a campground that I pay a yearly fee to also.


Me too. When I am in and around my site I am armed or a pistol is nearby and at the ready.

#66 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,001 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 22 March 2013 - 04:36 PM



There are still entirely plausible situations in which a citizen might use deadly force to prevent treason though.

For example, an engineer working for a military contractor has his laptop case snatched as he walks to his car and he shoots the thief as the thief runs away. My understanding is that this would not normally be permitted outside the home in Illinois. However, in this case the engineer could argue that the shooting was necessary to prevent the snatcher from disseminating the sensitive information contained on the laptop to America's enemies, i.e., an act of treason.


Understanding from what or whom?

You are authorized to use deadly force to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. Robbery is defined as the theft from a person using force or the threat of force. Robbery is a forcible felony.:
(720 ILCS 5/18-1)(from Ch. 38, par. 18-1)
Sec. 18-1. Robbery; aggravated robbery.
(a) Robbery. A person commits robbery when he or she knowingly takes property, except a motor vehicle covered by Section 18-3 or 18-4, from the person or presence of another by the use of force or by threatening the imminent use of force

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.

I always try to provide a link or citation when I make one of posts concerning information that I comment on.


From reading the law you just quoted. It is the opening post in this thread so I didn't think citation was necessary. I suppose I should have cited the definition of robbery though.

The hypothetical situation I described involved the perpetrator merely snatching the bag and running. There was no force or threat of force. Based on the definition you just posted and the quote from the textbook below, this is not robbery and therefore not a forcible felony.

From Illinois Criminal Law: A Survey of Crimes and Defenses:
"Therefore, a simple snatching or sudden taking of property from an unsuspecting person will generally yield insufficient force to constitute robbery."
http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

The purpose of my post was to describe a realistic situation in which the prevention of treason could be a justification for deadly force where it would not normally be justified. Something like a legal mind game.

Regardless of whether it is theft or robbery, are you suggesting that shooting a purse-snatcher in the back as he flees across a parking lot would be generally kosher in this state? I thought not which is why I used it in my example.


I believe the definitions in the statute defines forcible felonies, including treason!
"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA, CCRKBA & SAF

#67 usmcss

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPip
  • 118 posts
  • Joined: 01-October 05

Posted 13 July 2013 - 05:02 AM

I have read this entire thread. The statue reads that force may be used in defense of another and deadly force can be used in defense of another if it is feared that death or great serious bodily harm may occur.

Here is the scenario and question before the CCW Law was in effect: You are in your own house and see that someone is breaking into a neighbors house. You call police and then arm yourself with a handgun and approach the suspect.

Are you legal at this point? Or are you to wait and let the police handle it?

Now lets add that when you confront this person they have a screwdriver on them, and come at you. You draw your weapon in fear for your life and fire killing the BG. Are you justified?

Same scenario above but CCW is now Law?

My thought before CCW was always that you had to let the police handle this situation. And for me to take the law into my own hands, it would be wrong?

My thought also has always been that I would do it anyway and worry about the consequences later. I could never just stand by and let someone break into a neighbors home.

Now when CCW comes into effect, am I to assume that if I am walking one night and see someone breaking into a neighbors house that I can confront the individual and apply such force as necessary under the law or would I have to call police first?

My worry is that if any of these situations happened and I had to use deadly force, the argument would be that I put myself in that situation and therefor am in the wrong.

The Statue states in the defense of a dwelling. But no where do I see reference stating specifically to defense of another persons dwelling.

Would like to hear any thoughts on this. And Thank You to all who made the CCW Law happen!!!



#68 Livewire18

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,390 posts
  • Joined: 16-April 13

Posted 13 July 2013 - 08:02 AM

I have wondered this also. My neighbor is a sheriff, gang suppression, and swat and always asks me to watch his house. I would hope the law would be on my side if I protected his house but don't know.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 4 Beta


Forget Silver and Gold, I am investing in Brass and Lead!

ONE STATE - ONE LAW!

"The only thing they can’t take from you is your ability and willingness to use the guns you have to defend yourself against all enemies, foreign and domestic so make sure YOU ARE TRAINED."
Quoted from Front Sight's blog - April 18th, 2013

#69 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,302 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 13 July 2013 - 08:10 AM

I have wondered this also. My neighbor is a sheriff, gang suppression, and swat and always asks me to watch his house. I would hope the law would be on my side if I protected his house but don't know.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

residential burglary is a forcible felony and as such you would be justifed. You can ask the sheriff to deputize in his absence to help cover yourself legally.
The 2nd amendment was intended not only for protecting against tyranny but also enforcing and protecting the rule of law and the sovereignty of the states and the country as a whole which includes repelling invasions. If the citizens were not disarmed in New Orleans after Katrina than the lawlessnes would have been either reduced or eliminated.

#70 Livewire18

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,390 posts
  • Joined: 16-April 13

Posted 13 July 2013 - 08:13 AM

God point. But he is a cook county sherrifs officer and I am in will county. Does that make a difference.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 4 Beta


Forget Silver and Gold, I am investing in Brass and Lead!

ONE STATE - ONE LAW!

"The only thing they can’t take from you is your ability and willingness to use the guns you have to defend yourself against all enemies, foreign and domestic so make sure YOU ARE TRAINED."
Quoted from Front Sight's blog - April 18th, 2013

#71 Smallbore

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 702 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 07

Posted 13 July 2013 - 07:16 PM

We are not governored by the statute, but by court rulings.
Remember the trouble Zimmerman is in for protecting his life? Florida is more gun friendly than Illinois. Using deadly force in Illinois to protect property will cost you. Is it worth it?

#72 usmcss

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPip
  • 118 posts
  • Joined: 01-October 05

Posted 13 July 2013 - 07:29 PM

You make a very good point smallbore. Property, no way! Someone's life, all the way!!!

#73 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,496 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 13 July 2013 - 07:43 PM

I have read this entire thread. The statue reads that force may be used in defense of another and deadly force can be used in defense of another if it is feared that death or great serious bodily harm may occur.

Here is the scenario and question before the CCW Law was in effect: You are in your own house and see that someone is breaking into a neighbors house. You call police and then arm yourself with a handgun and approach the suspect.

Are you legal at this point? Or are you to wait and let the police handle it?

Now lets add that when you confront this person they have a screwdriver on them, and come at you. You draw your weapon in fear for your life and fire killing the BG. Are you justified?

Same scenario above but CCW is now Law?

My thought before CCW was always that you had to let the police handle this situation. And for me to take the law into my own hands, it would be wrong?

My thought also has always been that I would do it anyway and worry about the consequences later. I could never just stand by and let someone break into a neighbors home.

Now when CCW comes into effect, am I to assume that if I am walking one night and see someone breaking into a neighbors house that I can confront the individual and apply such force as necessary under the law or would I have to call police first?

My worry is that if any of these situations happened and I had to use deadly force, the argument would be that I put myself in that situation and therefor am in the wrong.

The Statue states in the defense of a dwelling. But no where do I see reference stating specifically to defense of another persons dwelling.

Would like to hear any thoughts on this. And Thank You to all who made the CCW Law happen!!!


IANAL.

1) The CCW law has no bearing on our use of force statute. One would be no more or less justified having been issued a license to carry.

2) To use force to protect ANOTHER'S property, (or dwelling) you must satisfy the qualifier in the statute. Do you have a legal duty to protect this property? This would be, in my estimation, the hurdle to clear to get a justifiable use of force ruling. However, could you prove that the individual entering another's home intended to harm the resident, then you would be justified in using force.

3) In the context of the confrontation you described, notwithstanding the circumstance, being attacked by anyone for any reason who presents a deadly weapon or is committing a forcible felony against you is a justifiable use of force, per the statute.

The problem is and always will be selling this in a court room. Our statute is a GOOD one from a self defense standpoint. But that doesn't mean that anyone will necessarily believe that a use of force was needed to stop someone from committing a forcible felony.

So my direct answer to the question is-probably a bad idea unless you can prove the intent to harm another person.
You're not done explaining your position until no one can figure out what you're trying to explain.

#74 usmcss

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPip
  • 118 posts
  • Joined: 01-October 05

Posted 14 July 2013 - 08:45 AM

Thank you for the professional reply Tkro!

#75 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,269 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 19 July 2013 - 08:21 PM

What exactly is necessary for the civil immunity to kick in? Do you have to go to court and win on self-defense or is the determination made by the SA or the cops or any of the three?

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#76 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,496 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 19 July 2013 - 11:01 PM

What exactly is necessary for the civil immunity to kick in? Do you have to go to court and win on self-defense or is the determination made by the SA or the cops or any of the three?


That's a really good question. Since IANAL, I could only speculate. But one would think that the SA would have to be able to make a determination on the matter, or else every one that didn't get charged would be at risk (I would hazard a guess that the majority JUOF incidents are never charged).

This would be great if one our resident lawyer types could get us a definitive answer on this manner.
You're not done explaining your position until no one can figure out what you're trying to explain.

#77 aka

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 450 posts
  • Joined: 29-August 13

Posted 31 August 2013 - 02:20 PM

What do you guys think of this ?

http://www.guns.com/...ar-thief-video/
Thank you

--------------------------------
IL CCW License Instructor
NRA Range Safety Officer
NRA Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Member
Glock Armorer
UT CCW Instructor

www.aka123.com

#78 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Members
  • 7,094 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 31 August 2013 - 02:36 PM

I wouldnt have taken a shot. There was no self defense involved.

Illinois Concealed Carry Firearms Instructor
Utah Concealed Carry Firearms Instructor
NRA Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Range Safety Officer
Have all boated who fish? Have all boated who fish?


#79 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,302 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 31 August 2013 - 03:01 PM

What do you guys think of this ?

http://www.guns.com/...ar-thief-video/

I would think that if the criminal was stealing a gun instead of the SUV than it would be easier to justify since a reasonable person would believe that the gun thief would use it in the commision of forcible felonies.
The 2nd amendment was intended not only for protecting against tyranny but also enforcing and protecting the rule of law and the sovereignty of the states and the country as a whole which includes repelling invasions. If the citizens were not disarmed in New Orleans after Katrina than the lawlessnes would have been either reduced or eliminated.

#80 bmyers

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,317 posts
  • Joined: 31-May 12

Posted 31 August 2013 - 03:30 PM

I don't have any property that is worth killing someone else over.

I have a wife and daughter that is worth killing anyone over.

You can have my wallet, my car, my tv, but the minute I think you are going to hurt one of them, you just lost all grace.

Deciding the intent of another can be difficult, if my family is there and you are appearing hostile, I will always error on the side that you are intent on hurting them and not stealing our stuff.

I was asked what I would do if someone tried to carjack me? By myself, you can have my truck, it is insured and can be replaced. If my wife and/or daughter is with me, I will do everything possible to protect them and giving you the vehicle is no longer an option and stopping the threat has become the priority.

I pray that I don't ever have to use lethal force against another person, but if such a situation happens I pray that I have the wisdom and fortitude to do what it takes to protect my love ones.

#81 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 704 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 31 August 2013 - 04:25 PM

(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.

Edited by InterestedBystander, 31 August 2013 - 04:35 PM.

NRA Life Member
ISRA Member

#82 Glock23

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 980 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 13

Posted 01 September 2013 - 10:09 AM

I don't have any property that is worth killing someone else over.

I agree with this, but with one caveat... If you are willing to break into a home when you know people are in that home, you are willing to do them harm and should be willing to accept harm in return.

#83 mullet man

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 299 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 13

Posted 01 September 2013 - 11:56 AM

I don't have any property that is worth killing someone else over.

I have a wife and daughter that is worth killing anyone over.

You can have my wallet, my car, my tv, but the minute I think you are going to hurt one of them, you just lost all grace.

Deciding the intent of another can be difficult, if my family is there and you are appearing hostile, I will always error on the side that you are intent on hurting them and not stealing our stuff.

I was asked what I would do if someone tried to carjack me? By myself, you can have my truck, it is insured and can be replaced. If my wife and/or daughter is with me, I will do everything possible to protect them and giving you the vehicle is no longer an option and stopping the threat has become the priority.

I pray that I don't ever have to use lethal force against another person, but if such a situation happens I pray that I have the wisdom and fortitude to do what it takes to protect my love ones.


Sounds logical to me.

Edited by mullet man, 01 September 2013 - 11:57 AM.


#84 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,744 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 01 September 2013 - 01:15 PM

ok so your alone. guy wants to carjack you with his g-lock in your face. you start to get out and what. . . let it go, hoping that before he gets into the car he doesn't pop you just because? and if they are willing to stick a gun in your cafe what about the next person down the line, an elderly person who doesn't hear so go or move so fast. do we owe them any obligation not to have them put in that situation?

not every situation that allows for the use of deadly force, requires it be employed, but you could call this the peter parker syndrome
While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.

#85 Elmer Fudd

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,937 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 13

Posted 01 September 2013 - 01:29 PM

If the perp points a gun in your face and you can't tell what he is going to do....errr on the side of giving him lead....Once you are facing deadly force without a path to escape that is a certainty if you don't engage you run an unacceptable risk.

NRA Ring of Freedom Member, ISRA, NYSRPA, SAF, GOA, NFATCHA
NRA Cert.RSO, CRSO - Instr. Pistol, PPITH, PPOTH, Rifle, RTBAV, Metallic Reloading

NRA Club Lead. & Develop. Cert., Range Development & Operations, Utah CCW Instr.  Simunition Certified


#86 SFC Stu

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,434 posts
  • Joined: 12-April 05

Posted 01 September 2013 - 01:53 PM

If the perp points a gun in your face and you can't tell what he is going to do....errr on the side of giving him lead....Once you are facing deadly force without a path to escape that is a certainty if you don't engage you run an unacceptable risk.


I agree. If you can put lead in him before he pulls the trigger! Situational awareness will help prevent someone from doing this.

#87 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 704 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 04 September 2013 - 03:47 PM

A post I found interesting over at Arfcom (and also seen it elsewhere on the 'net)

Street robberies and you - The Basics

Lately in GD we have had two different board members find themselves looking down the barrel of a gun along with the GF of another ARFCOMMER in street robberies. Also Blitz308 got shot all to pieces last year.

While many say it is better to be lucky than good, no one is lucky every time. In this post I am going to attempt to provide some insight into street encounters. Other may have different viewpoints. I am not here to argue. I will say some of the comments I have seen posted in the threads about this sort of matter make me realize that while some ARFCOMMERS are clearly street veterans others are not. This is really for those who are not.

Background

First, my info. I worked in the street of one of America's most violent, dangerous cities for 15 years. I usually worked in the worst part of that city. I spent 15 years in patrol. I liked patrol. It was wild. Most of the time I worked in areas covered in ghetto. By that I mean large housing projects combined with run down slum housing. I have worked all shifts. Later I became an investigator including a robbery investigator. I have spent countless hours in interrogation rooms talking to hold up men. I know them. I am still an investigator but have quit playing the Robbery game because my family was starting to forget what I looked like.

The Enemy

Some may object to me calling hold up men "the enemy". You can call them whatever you like. I can assure you however they are as deadly an enemy as you will find anywhere but the battlefield. Even many soldiers probably lack the viciousness and utter disregard for life most hold up men possess.

No one wakes up in the morning one day and decides to become an armed robber. It is a gradual process that requires some experience and desensitizing. Before a man will pick up a gun and threaten to kill people who have done him no harm in order to get their usually meager possessions he has to get comfortable with some things.

He has to get used to seeing others as objects for him to exploit. He has to accept he may be killed while robbing. He has to accept the felony conviction for Robbery will haunt him all his life. He has to accept he may need to kill a completely innocent person to get away with his crime.

This is a process that starts with stealing candy at the corner store as a child. It progresses through bigger property crimes that may also involve violence. But one day G gets tired of selling his stolen property for nothing and decides it would be better to steal cash. Cut out all that tiresome sales stuff.


Keep in mind many petty thieves, auto burglars, residential and commercial burglars, paper thieves, and hustlers will get to that point and decide not to become armed robbers. Most will. It is a special group of outliers who decide threatening to kill people for a few dollars is the way to go.

Once a man starts armed robbing he has crossed a line most won't. Don't forget that when you are looking these ******** in the eye. Their decision to kill you is already made. Your life means nothing to him. Only his does. His sole motivation for not killing you is he doesn't want a murder case. He has already accepted he may pick one up though.

We hunt hold up men around the clock once they are identified. We send teams of fire breathing fence jumper/door kickers to find them. We will bring their mother to the office and convince her she is going to jail if we don't have Junior in our office in an hour. We have her call her son crying hysterically for him to turn himself in before she is arrested and held without bond as a material witness and her home seized for harboring him. Most of the time they won't. **** their own momma.

We will hit all Juniors friends and family's houses. We make it so no one will harbor him. He is so hot no one will let him in their house or even talk on the phone with him. We put money on him so he knows he is right to be betrayed and set up. We do this because of one thing.

That thing is they WILL kill someone if they keep robbing. That is why the city is willing to pay all the overtime. They don't want the murders. Think about that when you see Junior coming. The more robberies he does the closer he is to killing someone. Maybe you.

The guys who hit you on the street are gang members. They are Gangster Disciples, Vice Lords, Crips, Sureonos, many others. They do not see themselves as part of society. The street is all they know. They don't expect to live long or stay out of prison. They take a delight in your fear and suffering. They are warped individuals for the most part. They can be extremely dangerous.

One time we were locking up a hold up man and having a conversation about how they target their victims. I was saying they pick easy ones, another guy was saying they preferred easy ones but would take anybody.

I pointed out a uniform Officer there was an NFL size guy to that hold up man. Frankly the dude was a monster. I asked hold up man if he would rob him. He said "If I needed the money".





You

Chances are good you are a law abiding person except for maybe a little light weed smoking and maybe driving a little drunk every once in a while. Most of your life you have been taught to be nice and don't point guns at people. You are the exact opposite of your enemy who was taught just the opposite. Remember a lot of street life is like prison life. Who's the man is everything. Violence is the currency of the street.

You do not possess total disregard for the lives of others and do not want to kill anyone. You are concerned about the ramifications of shooting someone. Your family, your possessions and finances on the line. Your enemy has none of these concerns.

The laws that keep you from carrying your gun in bars or where ever mean nothing to your enemy. Your reluctance to shoot someone works to is advantage. His greater experience in street violence and the element of surprise is on his side.

Everyone should call their local FBI office and get a copy of Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted. When it first came out it was ground breaking because it demonstrated to academics and other elites what street police knew all along. What did it show in interviews with cop killers? Nice guys finish dead. That's right. Most of those offenders commented that the Officer they killed set himself up to be killed because of reluctance to use force early in the encounter.

You can probably find it on line now. A lot of the victim Officers were a lot like a lot of other people, normal people. They were the opposite of their enemy.

Am I advocating becoming the enemy? No. I am saying the person who is robbing you has certain traits, attitudes, and background. That is all.

Dynamics of Encounters

Hold up men target victims on the street in an impulsive, opportunistic manner. They see someone and make a quick judgment call on whether to rob them. The time between when you are targeted and they are on you isn't long. Therefore, situational awareness is everything.

If you see G coming you are in good shape. If you don't you will be the victim who says "He came out of nowhere". No he didn't. There are many tricks to watching out but simply watching your back is the main thing. Watch your back. If you do it enough it becomes second nature and you won't even realize you are doing it.

Watching out is great but unfortunately many self defense courses stop there. You have parked you car in a well lit area, are aware of your surroundings, and looky here, here comes three guys across the parking lot and they start to kind of fan out.

When you lock eyes with G the very first thing you need to do it indicate you have a weapon. It doesn't matter if you do or not. If you are a woman put your gun hand in your purse and keep it there. If you are a man fan your shirt or coat tail with your gun hand. Make it clear to dude you are mentally prepared to draw and making sure your gun is clear. This will many times result in an about face by dude. It is the single best robbery avoidance tactic IMHO.

Not long ago I was walking down the sidewalk in my town to go get my car. I was holding a folding chair in my gun hand. A car slow rolled past me with 4 heads in it. The guys in the back seat turned around as they went by looking at me. They went a little farther and U turned in the street.

Here they come back. As they started to slow down I looked at them with as contemptuous a look as I could muster and switched the chair to my left hand and flicked my shirt tail with my right hand. They just drove on mad dogging me.

In another case I was at a Christmas party and walked a girl to her car about 3 am. As we said our good-byes two guys were walking across the parking lot. One went behind a dumpster. I though he was peeing. He came out from behind the dumpster with a bottle.

As they got closer I stepped clear of that girl and unzipped my jacket at those two guys. When I did the guy threw down the bottle and they walked by cussing at me. If someone challenges you after you indicate you are armed say "I don't have a gun". Then they will know you do.

Here is an opposite story. A girl my brother knows was walking her dog when a guy approached her. She was polite. Mistake. He talked to her about the dog and said she had pretty hair and reached out and touched her hair. She did not slap his hand down or aggressively object. Mistake. He asked her if her dog bit and she said "No". At that time he slapped the **** out of her, drug her into a wooded area, and raped her.

The answer in the street is always "No". Can I ask you something? No. Do you have a cigarette? No. Can you tell me what time it is? No. The answer is always "No". Don't be nice. Stop the encounter as soon as it starts.

When to draw

Despite warnings I often see on the Net I have yet to encounter an instance in which a hold up man called the police to report his intended victim threatened to shoot him. Thugs do not want to come into contact with the police. They may already be wanted or realize chances are good they have been identified in a recent robbery. Or what ever. They are not going to call the police if you draw on them.



Supposed two guys are approaching you in a parking lot and do the classic fan out maneuver. You indicate you have a weapon by clearing your gun hand and fanning your jacket at them. They are not discouraged. DRAW!

I am not saying you should pull your gun out, assume a Weaver stance, and scream "That's close enough motherfuckers!" What I am saying is draw your gun and hold it beside your leg as you start to move to cover. I am very fond of telephone poles. Anything will do though. They will see this. They will remember they have to be somewhere else. They will not call the police.

Then you can just put your gun back in the holster and go back to whatever you were doing like nothing happened. Why? Because nothing did happen. A happening is when shots are fired.

Do not hesitate to draw. If you are somewhere you are supposed to be and someone appears who is not supposed to be there like a closed business show him the end of your gun. Could it be Mother Teresa looking for her lost cat behind your closed business? No it is some motherfucker up to no good. He won't call the police to report he was prowling a location when a guy ran him off.

When to shoot

The time to shoot is immediately upon seeing his weapon. You are not a police man who has to try to arrest the guy. No need to scream at him. No exposure while you yell for him to drop the gun.

In deer hunting the experienced hunter takes the first good shot. May not be the perfect shot but it never is. Novices pass up a doable shot waiting for a better shot and then the deer is gone. Take the first good shot you are offered. Hopefully your alertness and hostile cues will prevent you ever having to fire. But once you see his weapon, shoot.

If a guy is coming at you with a gun in his hand shoot him. Shoot him right then. If you don't shoot first you may not shoot at all. I have known more than one person who was shot and received life changing injuries and also shot their attacker. Their only regret was not shooting sooner. Like Bill Jordan said "Nothing disturbs your enemy's aim like a slug delivered to the belt buckle area".

Guns and weapons

The handgun is the best weapon you can carry easily. I understand it is not always possible to have one due to laws, restrictions, whatever. I am not telling anyone to disregard laws about carrying weapons. Each person has to decide for themselves what they are comfortable with. I will say there is no substitute for a pistol when you need one.


Also if you can not be trusted with a pistol after a few drinks you can't be trusted with a pistol period. Booze is liquid bad judgment no doubt but it shouldn't make you into a damn moron. If you are a moron sober I don't know what to tell you.

Types of guns and ammo are always debated and probably always will be. I have seen people shot with all common calibers. My conclusion is if you hit someone between the collar bone and the tip of their ribs three times with anything, they are handled. Bigger is better but something is better than nothing. Get your front sight on his shirt and stay on him as long as he is standing with whatever gun you have.

Just have a gun with sure fire ammo. Draw early and fire immediately upon seeing his weapon. That course of action is about all you can do to up your odds of ending things favorably. Guns like the Ruger LC9, SIG 239, Glock 26/27 are examples of guns small enough to carry but with enough power and capacity to be useful. Do not be afraid to use a French Lebelle if that is the only gun you have. A gun is a gun. I like a Glock 19.

Training

We all want the best training. It can be expensive if you are having to pay for it and it can be hard to find the time to do it. There is a whole lot of BS out there. What can you do? First, pistol handling is not rocket surgery. If you will learn the basics and practice on your own you can be fine. Smooth draw, quick pairs, reload. If you know those things well you can be OK.

I know a young man who shot down two hold up men in 2010 at very close range while he and his GF were walking home from the store. He in Wyatt Earp like fashion ignored the fire coming from the gunman and killed him and wounded his accomplice. He nor his GF were injured. He like many was willing to give them the money until he picked up on nonverbal cues that because of his GF they were not quite satisfied with the money. He had a Glock 27.

He had only the most basic of training in gun handling but did do some draws and some dry fire a couple times a week and live fired maybe once a month. That basic skill combined with knowing what to do was enough. He shot at the first possible moment despite having let the guys get the drop on them. When the gunman turned his head because a car drove by that was the opening. A split second is a long time sometimes.

Work on some one hand shooting at close range. That is a skill not as popular as it once was and you want to use two hands when you can. Often you can find yourself doing something with your off hand though so be able to shoot with one hand out to 5 yards or so.




After

If it comes to pass you are forced to shoot someone do not feel bad. When the police come just tell them a guy threatened you with deadly force and you were forced to fire. I know there are bad police out there in some parts of the country who don't support self defense. I can't help you with that.

Do not talk to them until you have your attorney present. Now most young guys don't have an attorney on retainer and you may have no idea who to call. That is OK. You will figure it out but in the mean time don't talk about what happened other than to say you were forced to fire. You don't have to be an asshole just remember wait for your attorney.

Hopefully you will not give a statement for a couple days. Remember if you are put in jail that doesn't mean you are charged. Most places can hold you 48 or 72 hours on a felony before charging you or letting you go. Breath deep and get an attorney.

Expect to never get your gun back. You may get it back one day but maybe not. Do not buy expensive guns for the street. Buy yourself a nice sporting gun if you want a nice gun. Keep your street guns basic. The factory Model 10 Smith and the GI 45 have done a lot of work over the years and aren't fancy.

Worlds

We all live in different worlds. My world is filled with felons and gang members. Violence is common place. No one would be surprised if one of their friends called and said they shot a hold up man at a place of business or parking lot. In the past when I made calls the fact that the guy who is beating his GF is also on parole for 2nd degree murder flavored my world.

You may live in a smaller, less violent place where shootings seldom occur and it would be a rare to shoot a hold up man. I envy you and will be moving to a place like your town as soon as I can.

But be advised no matter where you are a hold man is going to be about the same. Whether he is a home boy or a guy who just exited the interstate into your town and needs some quick money. He is going to have a vicious streak and no regard for your life. Treat him like he treats you.

Giving them the money, doing what they say, all that may work but there is no guarantee. If you have never read Jeff Cooper's book The Principles of Personal Defense I suggest you order a copy immediately. It is a short book but summarizes a lot of important things.

Last year we had a trial here regarding an armed robbery that occurred. Three or four guys took a young couple from a parking garage near a college out by some railroad tracks where they raped, shot, and beat them. Their lives will never be the same.

The lesser thugs all turned on the trigger man at trial. The trigger man's statement in the paper was after all that had happened he felt like he was a victim. Think about that. That is the mindset you are up against.
NRA Life Member
ISRA Member

#88 usmcss

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPip
  • 118 posts
  • Joined: 01-October 05

Posted 07 September 2013 - 06:20 AM

Thanks for posting interestedbystander!!!

#89 Carry Trainer

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

Posted 13 September 2013 - 06:35 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.

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

952-935-2414 tgrant@NACFI.us


#90 pdpsc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,074 posts
  • Joined: 07-February 13

Posted 13 September 2013 - 07:45 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.
Firearms Instructor - Metro Training Group Facebook
FFL Dealer/Gunsmith - Metro Armory Facebook
ISP Certified Firearm Concealed Carry License Instructor #1
Armorer - Glock, Smith & Wesson (M&P Pistol & M&P15 Rifle) & Springfield Armory (XD/XDm & M1911)
NRA Endowment-Life Member
ISRA Life Member




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users