92 replies to this topic

[moparcardave]

Glad I don't have to follow Illinois Statue's any more.  Texas gives me a bit more protection.  Sure I have my CHL but Texas has had a law for years thats said if you were traveling you could have a handgun in the car, the question was "traveling."  This allows basically everyone to have a loaded handgun in the car.  ( most of the Texans I know have one or two guns in their trucks, it's their truck gun and just part of rural life here)  The legislature recently clarified the issue and gun sales here skyrocketed. It' states now anyone (not a felon) can have a loaded handgun in their car, it just has to be concealed, not  necessisarly in the glovebox.  Under your seat, in your door, under your Bible on the seat etc.   It's a much better way to live and I hear almost daily here of some bad guy going down and a good guy surviving.

[abolt243]

Smallbore, on 09 March 2012 - 04:02 PM, said:

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

[NakPPI]

When I worked at the public defender I saw quite the opposite. I saw the state dismiss a UUW when a cab driver shot someone who was trying to rob him in Chicago. The CPD was NOT pleased. A prosecutor's job is to do justice, not convict.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

[TomKoz]

TyXD983, on 09 March 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

I talked to the owner and he said.he'd have to check with his insurance company. I can see where this is going.  

Sent from my HERO200 using Xparent Red Tapatalk

If he denies you the opportunity to carry to protect yourself I would suggest asking him to put that denial in writing in the form of a letter.  If he thinks it through he may change his mind and allow it.

[TyXD983]

TomKoz, on 09 March 2012 - 04:45 PM, said:

TyXD983, on 09 March 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

I talked to the owner and he said.he'd have to check with his insurance company. I can see where this is going.  

Sent from my HERO200 using Xparent Red Tapatalk

If he denies you the opportunity to carry to protect yourself I would suggest asking him to put that denial in writing in the form of a letter.  If he thinks it through he may change his mind and allow it.

Good point.

Sent from my HERO200 using Xparent Red Tapatalk

[Bud]

Illinois, contrary to popular opinion, has a very good self-defense statue and it is far better then what many other States have.


We just need a concealed carry statue

[bob]

NakPPI, on 09 March 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:

When I worked at the public defender I saw quite the opposite. I saw the state dismiss a UUW when a cab driver shot someone who was trying to rob him in Chicago. The CPD was NOT pleased. A prosecutor's job is to do justice, not convict.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

That kind of thing seemed to happen on a regular basis back when I lived in Chicago in the late 70s. Most of the time though, the shooter never even got charged at all if it was clear self defense. These days, it may well be different with the emphesis on numbers from virtually all police departments.

[abolt243]

BudMan5, on 09 March 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

Illinois, contrary to popular opinion, has a very good self-defense statue and it is far better then what many other States have.


We just need a concealed carry statue

Can we use those statues as targets??

[Bud]

bob, on 09 March 2012 - 05:09 PM, said:

That kind of thing seemed to happen on a regular basis back when I lived in Chicago in the late 70s. Most of the time though, the shooter never even got charged at all if it was clear self defense. These days, it may well be different with the emphesis on numbers from virtually all police departments.

........................I am always stunned by the things you write.

Care to cite any figures or acrtual stats or is this just more of your inane comments?

Possibly this is more of your insight on modern day law enforcement based on your personal experience, education and knowledge?

[TyXD983]

TomKoz, on 09 March 2012 - 04:45 PM, said:

TyXD983, on 09 March 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

I talked to the owner and he said.he'd have to check with his insurance company. I can see where this is going.  

Sent from my HERO200 using Xparent Red Tapatalk

If he denies you the opportunity to carry to protect yourself I would suggest asking him to put that denial in writing in the form of a letter.  If he thinks it through he may change his mind and allow it.

As far as the insurance thing goes, I thought I read somewhere in this thread or another that a BG/his family can't sue if injured or killed during the commission of a felony.  Especially if one of those signs is posted o might add.

Sent from my HERO200 using Xparent Red Tapatalk

Edited by TyXD983, 09 March 2012 - 06:05 PM.

[Federal Farmer]

I've been trying to figure out when IL became no duty to retreat.  Anyone have any ideas.  The media and such are trying to paint this as originating in 2005 in FL, but I'm confident we've had this much longer than that, just not called "Stand Your Ground".

[Bud]

Federal Farmer, on 22 March 2012 - 10:20 PM, said:

I've been trying to figure out when IL became no duty to retreat.  Anyone have any ideas.  The media and such are trying to paint this as originating in 2005 in FL, but I'm confident we've had this much longer than that, just not called "Stand Your Ground".

Public Act 93-832, effective on July 28, 2004

[abolt243]

BudMan5, on 23 March 2012 - 06:00 AM, said:

Federal Farmer, on 22 March 2012 - 10:20 PM, said:

I've been trying to figure out when IL became no duty to retreat.  Anyone have any ideas.  The media and such are trying to paint this as originating in 2005 in FL, but I'm confident we've had this much longer than that, just not called "Stand Your Ground".

Public Act 93-832, effective on July 28, 2004

That's when the current justifiable use of force statute became effective, but I don't think there was ever a specified "duty to retreat" clause in our laws.  States with that duty have it spelled out specifically in thier laws.  If it's not mentioned, then we didn't have it.


Went back and looked up that  93-832.  Actually, all it did was put in the clause that eliminates the liability to civil action by the aggressor or his her family/agent, etc.   It has nothing to do with the acutal use of force.

Tim

Edited by abolt243, 23 March 2012 - 06:51 AM.
Added PA info

[Federal Farmer]

I think that means we'd have to analyze case-law...

[abolt243]

Federal Farmer, on 23 March 2012 - 06:55 AM, said:

I think that means we'd have to analyze case-law...

Looking at the statute and doing a very little searching, I'm thinking that the use of force statute was actually part of the original Criminal Code of 1961.  I doubt there was "duty to retreat"  before then, and the "new" code simply spelled that out.

Just a guess on my part.

Tim

[lockman]

Federal Farmer, on 23 March 2012 - 06:55 AM, said:

I think that means we'd have to analyze case-law...

Many of the little technical tweeks or 1 line changes are legislative changes to correct bad case law derived from a perfectly understandable statute wording.

Like a statute requireing a gun not be immediately accessible, but a judge says that means in the trunk. In most states that means not loaded and within reach and it also probably meant the same thing here prior to the late 60's and after slippery slope of "regulation".

[Rail]

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.

[C0untZer0]

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.

[junglebob]

abolt243, on 09 March 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

Smallbore, on 09 March 2012 - 04:02 PM, said:

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.

[Patriots & Tyrants]

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.

[dumpnpump]

Here is what Lord Madigan has in store for us.

This should be given some strong consideration !!~~~~~~~CF

Never too Old to Learn!!



cid:X.MA1.1363484400@aol.com

I know some of you own GUNS but this is something to think about...

If you don't have a gun, here's a more humane way to wreck someone's evil plans for you. Did you know this? I didn't. I never really thought of it before. I guess I can get rid of the baseball bat.

Wasp Spray - A friend who is a receptionist in a church in a high risk area was concerned about someone coming into the office on Monday to rob them when they were counting the collection. She asked the local police department about using pepper spray and they recommended to her that she get a can of wasp spray instead.

The wasp spray, they told her, can shoot up to twenty feet away and is a lot more accurate, while with the pepper spray, they have to get too close to you and could overpower you. The wasp spray temporarily blinds an attacker until they get to the hospital for an antidote. She keeps a can on her desk in the office and it doesn't attract attention from people like a can of pepper spray would. She also keeps one nearby at home for home protection. Thought this was interesting and might be of use.

On the heels of a break in and beating that left an elderly woman in Toledo dead, self defense experts have a tip that could save your life.

Val Glinka teaches self-defense to students at Sylvania Southview High School .. For decades, he's suggested putting a can of wasp and hornet spray near your door or bed.

Glinka says, "This is better than anything I can teach them."

Glinka considers it inexpensive, easy to find, and more effective than mace or pepper spray. The cans typically shoot 20 to 30 feet; so if someone tries to break into your home, Glinka says "spray the culprit in the eyes". It's a tip he's given to students for decades..

It's also one he wants everyone to hear If you're looking for protection, Glinka says look to the spray. "That's going to give you a chance to call the police; maybe get out." Maybe even save a life.

Please share this with all the people who are precious to your life

Did you also know that wasp spray will kill a snake? And a mouse! It will! Good to know, huh? It will also kill a wasp!!!

[Bud]

nice post, ever consider changing the font? And I also object to your little prayer in your signature line, I find it personally offensive to both me and to my religion..

Wasp spray is considered an active poison. Legally, it would be the same as using deadly force and it is actually against a federal law. This is an urban legend making the rounds for a number of years which you merely cut and pasted into a post,. While doing that, it would have been easy to find out the actual truth online and maybe not wasted all the bandwidth.

[C0untZer0]

The wasp spray argument has some problems, I've seen it proposed before - like Bud says it's made the rounds.

http://www.snopes.co...t/waspspray.asp

The problems with wasp spray are the same with pepper spray and CS - it's really not effecive at intermediate to long range, it is not nearly as effective as a firearm, it can take 15 to 30 seconds before it has an effect - especially against people who have a high pain tolerance or are under the influence of drugs, and you might end up eating your own wasp spray - one way or the other.

[borgranta]

kurt555gs, on 02 August 2011 - 03:40 PM, said:

Why is "Treason" listed among the crimes in the forceable felony statute? Can you imagine explaining to a court that you shot some one because you feared he/she was committing "Treason"?

An act of Terrorism on American soil could be construed as "Treason" in my opinion

[Handgunner230]

borgranta, on 20 March 2013 - 01:24 PM, said:

kurt555gs, on 02 August 2011 - 03:40 PM, said:

Why is "Treason" listed among the crimes in the forceable felony statute? Can you imagine explaining to a court that you shot some one because you feared he/she was committing "Treason"?

An act of Terrorism on American soil could be construed as "Treason" in my opinion

I think a direct act of terrorism would be covered under other parts of the forcible felony definition.

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.

[Bud]

Handgunner230, on 21 March 2013 - 02:51 PM, said:

borgranta, on 20 March 2013 - 01:24 PM, said:

kurt555gs, on 02 August 2011 - 03:40 PM, said:

Why is "Treason" listed among the crimes in the forceable felony statute? Can you imagine explaining to a court that you shot some one because you feared he/she was committing "Treason"?

An act of Terrorism on American soil could be construed as "Treason" in my opinion

I think a direct act of terrorism would be covered under other parts of the forcible felony definition.

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.

There is a great deal of misunderstanding about Illinois laws and this one is the most misunderstood in this forum. For instance, it is true you can't be sued by the perp or his relatives if you shoot and wound/kill him/her and it is adjudicated as a good shooting. But, if you fire and miss him and hit an innocent bystander or damage someone's property you're going to pay for it and in the case of hitting an innocent, you will pay big time.

And even then, if you are fully justified and exonerated, if everything you did was exactly right, I guarantee you it will still cost you a lot of money to get through the system and even then, you will have to live the rest of your life reliving that moment over and over again.

I often state on Illinois carry that getting shot is not like on TV or in the movies and actually shooting someone is also not like on TV or in the movies. There are direct consequences of having to fire and most of those consequences are not good even if you did the exact right thing.

[KingWalleye]

Getzapped, on 02 August 2011 - 11:50 AM, said:

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.

[Handgunner230]

Bud, on 21 March 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:

Handgunner230, on 21 March 2013 - 02:51 PM, said:

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.

[lockman]

Handgunner230, on 21 March 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:

Bud, on 21 March 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:

Handgunner230, on 21 March 2013 - 02:51 PM, said:

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!

[Bud]

Handgunner230, on 21 March 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:

Bud, on 21 March 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:

Handgunner230, on 21 March 2013 - 02:51 PM, said:

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.

baWahahahahaha! Oh, wait, you're serious?

I am a retired cop and for eight of those years I was a dog handler. I have arrested , charged and convicted an awful lot of purse snatchers for robbery and a number of them went through Cook County Hospital on the way to the slam because Hans, my 90 lb Schutzhund trained GSD attempted to swallow them  whole. Lecture me all you want on your hypothesis based on your reading  but having spent a third of my now elderly life chaining people up for robbery I think I out trump you.