37 replies to this topic

[vezpa]

I want to know why we here in Illinois haven't fought hard to install a Castle Doctrine well before trying to pass CCW?  I mean real Castle Doctrine, not Illinois watered down BS version. (Don't try to claim Illinois law is just as good because it isn't)

I would think getting Castle Doctrine in before guns becomes an integral part would be much easier than waiting to get it in after(here in Illinois only).  I mean Castle Doctrine on its own seems pretty straightforward. People are all about self preservation or at least they are in other states. I know force with force usually means armed but it doesn't necessarily have to.

Why have we not fought hard to get this in before CCW to make things that much easier?

Edited by vezpa, 13 March 2012 - 12:52 PM.

[JackTripper]

Please explain how what we have now is "BS"

[ming]

JackTripper, on 13 March 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

Please explain how what we have now is "BS"

Ditto.  I always thought our version of a Castle Doctrine law was not too shabby.

[papa]

Vezpa , please point out the differences that a " real castle doctrine " would bring us over what we have now.

[Federal Farmer]

I recall that the difference is that ours is an Affirmative Defense.  I think 'Castle Doctrine' is stronger than that.  Waiting for one of the lawyers to chime in...

[es503IL]

Have you actually read "Our" laws? I assume not, from your post. Also this very topic comes up about every other month it seems. The reason that we don't have a "Castle Doctrine", is we don't need one because of how "Our" use of force laws are written. Simply put, if I am in a situtation where I am confronted by a individual committing a forcible felony, I can use force to prevent harm to myself or a third party. There is no duty to retreat. If the individual has entered my home in a tumultuous (i.e. violent/aggressive, such as breaking a window or kicking in the door etc) manner, once again I can use force.

(720 ILCS 5/2-8) (from Ch. 38, par. 2-8)
Sec. 2-8. "Forcible felony". "Forcible felony" means treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnapping, kidnapping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

(720 ILCS 5/7-1) Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.
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.

(720 ILCS 5/7-2) Sec. 7-2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.
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:
(a) 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
(B ) He reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

(720 ILCS 5/7-3) Sec. 7-3. Use of force in defense of other property.
A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(720 ILCS 5/7-8) Sec. 7-8. Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
(a) Force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm, within the meaning of Sections 7-5 and 7-6 includes:
(1) The firing of a firearm in the direction of the person to be arrested, even though no intent exists to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and
(2) The firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which the person to be arrested is riding.
(B ) A peace officer's discharge of a firearm using ammunition designed to disable or control an individual without creating the likelihood of death or great bodily harm shall not be considered force likely to cause death or great bodily harm within the meaning of Sections 7-5 and 7-6.

Edited by es503IL, 13 March 2012 - 02:24 PM.

[C0untZer0]

Even politicians who pass so called "Castle Doctrine" laws don't know what it is.

I don't think anyone knows what "Castle Doctrine" means anymore - certainly not the legislators.

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 _____ and you are justified in using lethal force.


Many states have laws that preclude or prevent civil lawsuits from being filed after a justifieable shooting. These provisions are often lumped in with "Castle Doctrine", although IMO the idea is really seperate from the core castle doctrine concept.

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"

Quote

Section 16-11-440. (A) A person is presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to himself or another person when using deadly force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury to another person if the person:

(1) against whom the deadly force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if he removes or is attempting to remove another person against his will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(2) who uses deadly force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring or has occurred.

© A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another place where he has a right to be, including, but not limited to, his place of business, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or another person or to prevent the commission of a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.

It's gone so far behind the "castle"

[Beezil]

count and es503....or anyone else for that mater....

does anyone know if chicago or cook have any laws or ordinances that impose any concern or limitations to what the state laws allows?

[C0untZer0]

Yes I would like to see civil lawsuits outright precluded from justifiable homocide.  Is that Castle Doctrine?  Some say it is, I personally don't see how it has anything to do with the core legal principles found in the origins of Castle Dctrine - but OK whatever - it's semantics.

Yes I would like to see the law tweaked so that someone forcibly entering a persons home automatically gives that person the presumption of reasonable belief the intruder will  cause death or great bodily harm.  Which basically equates to - forcible entry = justifiable homocide.

Actually the way it plays out in Illinois courts is that almost always - like 99.99% of the time, the situation where a person who shoots an intruder is riled justifiable homocide.  So I don't think that chnging the wording is going to makre a difference in practical terms, but there is a difference in nuance.

As far as using Castle Doctrin before CCW...


Even if we all agreed on what Castle DOctrine is - it's not going to act as some sort of a stepping stone to CCW or a crow bar to squeeze in CCW after we get "Castle Doctrine".


Also, when I got lost on the South Side last month when taking my kids to the Museum of Science and Industry, I really couldn't give a damn about Castle Doctrine, but I sure as hell wanted my firearm with me.

[Federal Farmer]

Beezil, on 13 March 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

count and es503....or anyone else for that mater....

does anyone know if chicago or cook have any laws or ordinances that impose any concern or limitations to what the state laws allows?

Not since the Hale De Mar law was passed.  If the shooting is deemed self-defense and occurs in your dwelling, abode, fixed place of business, etc. you are immune from municiple ordinance violations.

[Bud]

I am always amazed by some of the incredible posts that show up here.

Illinois has one of thebest  self-defense laws in the whole country including relief from any type of civil liability for a justifiable shooting.

Why in the world would you want to change what we already have? Have you actually read the law? What do you want added?

and by the way, the law that we already have far exceeds "castle doctrine" and actually approaches the "make my day" level of self defense.

Maybe you should jump on Wiki, search "castle doctrine" and see what you're talking about and also read about the States that already have it, Illinois is third down on the list.

Edited by BudMan5, 13 March 2012 - 03:06 PM.

[C0untZer0]

Where is there relief from civil suits?

[es503IL]

C0untZer0, on 13 March 2012 - 02:38 PM, said:

Yes I would like to see civil lawsuits outright precluded from justifiable homocide.  Is that Castle Doctrine?  Some say it is, I personally don't see how it has anything to do with the core legal principles found in the origins of Castle Dctrine - but OK whatever - it's semantics.

Yes I would like to see the law tweaked so that someone forcibly entering a persons home automatically gives that person the presumption of reasonable belief the intruder will  cause death or great bodily harm.  Which basically equates to - forcible entry = justifiable homocide.

Actually the way it plays out in Illinois courts is that almost always - like 99.99% of the time, the situation where a person who shoots an intruder is riled justifiable homocide.  So I don't think that chnging the wording is going to makre a difference in practical terms, but there is a difference in nuance.

As far as using Castle Doctrin before CCW...


Even if we all agreed on what Castle DOctrine is - it's not going to act as some sort of a stepping stone to CCW or a crow bar to squeeze in CCW after we get "Castle Doctrine".


Also, when I got lost on the South Side last month when taking my kids to the Museum of Science and Industry, I really couldn't give a damn about Castle Doctrine, but I sure as hell wanted my firearm with me.

(720 ILCS 5/7-2) Sec. 7-2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.
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:
(a) 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
(B ) He reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.
Home Invasion IS a felony. The intruder has written the check and cashed it at that point. http://www.ilga.gov/...072000050K12-11

As for Civil Immunity, WE ALREADY HAVE IT.
(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.)
http://www.ilga.gov/...&SeqEnd=9700000

[es503IL]

Is there any way we can get this information made into a sticky?

[Federal Farmer]

es503IL, on 13 March 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

Is there any way we can get this information made into a sticky?

http://illinoiscarry...showtopic=19429

[es503IL]

Ok, nevermind... I forgot that was there...

[C0untZer0]

Ahhhh, I see.

I didn't think of the breaking & entering being a felony part of it...

NICE...

That sticky won't stop the Castle Doctrine zombie threads though because when you do a search on "castle" that sticky doesn't show up in the first page...

Edited by C0untZer0, 13 March 2012 - 03:08 PM.

[es503IL]

There is a difference between Home Invasion and Burglary (B&E). In Home Invasion the intruder knows (or should know) that someone is present, or remains in the building until someone returns.

In burglary, no one is home.

Both are felonies (Burglary is a Class 2 I believe), while Home Invasion is a Class X.

If you keep your doors and windows locked, then to gain entry, an intruder usually needs to use force to make entry… At this point, see laws referring to “forcible entry”…
.

[Bud]

C0untZer0, on 13 March 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

Ahhhh, I see.

I didn't think of the breaking & entering being a felony part of it...

NICE...

That sticky won't stop the Castle Doctrine zombie threads though because when you do a search on "castle" that sticky doesn't show up in the first page...

You're right, it doesn't, but

If you learn exactly what "castle doctrine " means (it actually means 'your castle is your home and you have no obligation to retreat from an intruder) and then read the Illinois law, you will understand that Illinois already has it. You also have the right to defend yourself outside the home with the exact same protections.

I don't mind an occassional rant, I do it myself but if someone decides to rant they should have at least one foot firmly planted in reality.

Edited by BudMan5, 13 March 2012 - 03:21 PM.

[C0untZer0]

Hale DeMar story again:

http://reason.com/ar...un-b/singlepage

[vezpa]

I will admit that much of it is semantics for me.


When the same exact rights I have inside my home extend to my vehicle(which I spend 50% of my day)or any other place I am legally allowed to be.


When I see the words "no duty to retreat and meet force with force" , I will be content. I also want the name "Castle Doctrine" applied so Illinois "technically" when searching for staes with Castle Doctrine Illinois pops up with the other free states.

Until I see those exact words spelled out exactly like that, Illinois law isn't good enough for me.

Edited by vezpa, 13 March 2012 - 03:59 PM.

[Bud]

vezpa, on 13 March 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:

When the same exact rights I have inside my home extend to my vehicle(which I spend 50% of my day)or any other place I am legally allowed to be.

When I see the words "no duty to retreat and meet force with force" , I will be content.

Until I see those exact words spelled out exactly like that, Illinois law isn't good enough for me.

Really? REALLY????????

They already extend to your vehicle and even when you're walking down the street or sitting on a park bench or walking into a convenience store.

Maybe you should take your fight and move to California where residents have a duty to retreat, even in their own homes, when approached by a non violent intruder.

I bet you could do some real good there.

But here? Where the self defense right has already been won? not so much. You really should spend some time reading the Statues as written and already enacted into law.


Seriously, there are people here reading what you are writing and scratching their heads in disbelief.

[vezpa]

BudMan5, on 13 March 2012 - 04:03 PM, said:

vezpa, on 13 March 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:

When the same exact rights I have inside my home extend to my vehicle(which I spend 50% of my day)or any other place I am legally allowed to be.

When I see the words "no duty to retreat and meet force with force" , I will be content.

Until I see those exact words spelled out exactly like that, Illinois law isn't good enough for me.

Really? REALLY????????

They already extend to your vehicle and even when you're walking down the street or sitting on a park bench or walking into a convenience store.

Maybe you should take your fight and move to California where residents have a duty to retreat, even in their own homes, when approached by a non violent intruder.

I bet you could do some real good there.

But here? Where the self defense right has already been won? not so much. You really should spend some time reading the Statues as written and already enacted into law.

Seriously, there are people here reading what you are writing and scratching their heads in disbelief.

Bud

I think you need to take some meds and relax a little.  You have been a bit over the top lately attacking people and forcing your ideas on them like your word is law.  I merely posed a question (which has gotten some decent discussion and enlightened me) about why we don't have a "Castle Doctrine" and you are losing it.

Edited by vezpa, 13 March 2012 - 04:14 PM.

[C0untZer0]

What's bad about some of these castle doctrine laws is they've codified the misuse of the core "castle" principle.

The SC law that I posted makes White Castle your castle if you are there and you believe force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to yourself or another, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

[Bud]

[quote name='vezpa' date='13 March 2012 - 05:13 PM' timestamp='1331676823' post='316369']
[quote name='BudMan5' date='13 March 2012 - 04:03 PM' timestamp='1331676191' post='316366']
Bud

I think you need to take some meds and relax a little.  You have been a bit over the top lately attacking people and forcing your ideas on them like your word is law.  I merely posed a question (which has gotten some decent discussion and enlightened me) about why we don't have a "Castle Doctrine" and you are losing it.
[/quote]


you're absolutely right. I have a very low tolerance for ridiculous threads that are totally devoid of any sense of reality.

I'll try to keep a lid on in the future.

I wasn't forcing my ideas on anybody. I was trying to point out that the thread had absolutely no factual basis.

Here's a quote of the one that did me in; "I will admit that much of it is semantics for me."

There is a sticky exactly expl\aining the law in Illinois. Reading it would have informed you that we are in really good shape. The law was changed because of the efforts of sopme of the people enrolled here as members. They fought the good fight and won, hugely.

I think all of the efforts here would be better served if we all stuck to the realities of the fight that is ongoing, RTC. And after that is passed (later this year, BTW) then the fight to get rid of the FOID and then the fightr to get constitutional carry and on and on. I would like to see NFA weapons approved in Illinois too.

But this fight is already over, we won.

But you're right, I do have a very low tolerance.

[ishmo]

vezpa, on 13 March 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:

I will admit that much of it is semantics for me.


When the same exact rights I have inside my home extend to my vehicle(which I spend 50% of my day)or any other place I am legally allowed to be.


When I see the words"no duty to retreat and meet force with force" , I will be content. I also want the name "Castle Doctrine" applied so Illinois "technically" when searching for staes with Castle Doctrine Illinois pops up with the other free states.

Until I see those exact words spelled out exactly like that, Illinois law isn't good enough for me.

It sounds to me like you're advocating something like amending Illinois law to something like the Florida Stand Your Ground Law or the Florida Castle Doctrine.  That's all well and good but the only question I have is why would your #1 priority be a "no duty to retreat and meet force with force" statute ahead of a rtc law.  Since it's already illegal to carry outside of your home in Chicago or off your own property in most other cases in Illinois it just seems to me that you're putting the cart before the horse.

Jmho here but a Castle Law isn't much use if you're dead because there's no RTC law in effect.

[GarandFan]

Illinois use of deadly force statutes are really pretty good.  There is nothing magical about the words "castle doctrine."  They merely describe a concept and that concept is embodied currently in Illinois law.

Right to carry (and statewide preemption, of course) is the issue upon which to focus.

[es503IL]

vezpa, on 13 March 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:

I will admit that much of it is semantics for me.


When the same exact rights I have inside my home extend to my vehicle(which I spend 50% of my day)or any other place I am legally allowed to be.


When I see the words "no duty to retreat and meet force with force" , I will be content. I also want the name "Castle Doctrine" applied so Illinois "technically" when searching for staes with Castle Doctrine Illinois pops up with the other free states.

Until I see those exact words spelled out exactly like that, Illinois law isn't good enough for me.

You do realize that we already have that right? The law states that if you are confronted with, or come across, a forcible felony in progress (that is likely to cause great bodily harm or death), you can use deadly force in defense of yourself or a third party. That’s it. No duty to retreat. No duty to try and do something else first. The criteria is 1) Forcible Felony with likelihood of great bodily harm/death. If that is met, its lawful to use deadly force to stop/prevent the felony.

You are arguing semantics that are akin to going in to buy a new car and being upset that the warranty does not say "Power Train Warranty", when the warranty says they will cover the engine, transmission, driveshaft, differentials, and final drive components. Both warranties cover the same things.

Illinois self defense law, is the same way. Its one of the few things that does not need to get fixed in regards to self defense in this State. It does everything that "Castle Doctrine" and "stand Your Ground" does. There a saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Once we get RTC passed, do you really want Chicago getting their paws on Use of Force because "We" tried to change it? Next thing you know, we will have self defense, but with a duty to "retreat to the town walls" before attempting to defend yourself. Nothing good can come of trying to fix something that is not broken.

Edited by es503IL, 13 March 2012 - 07:13 PM.

[vezpa]

A castle Doctrine in many other states allows a person to carry a firearm for defense in their vehicle, (usually loaded but encased or in a secure holster) because the vehicle is considered an extension of their home.  This has nothing to do whatsoever with their CCW law and a person does not have to possess a CCW permit to exercise this right.  I have friends in Florida who carry this way because they are too lazy to get their permits.

Another reason I get pissy is because I read so many articles states adopting Castle Doctrine and constantly keep hearing Illinois excluded from those states.  I wish they would just call it a damn Castle Doctrine because this terminology is the only thing many outside our state understand, which is why I'm all for semantics.  In my USA sales travels I'm constantly joked at as the one who is from a state with a "FOID" card and who's state doesn't have carry or who's state doesn't have a true Castle Doctrine and the best one, The Home of Obama.  This is why terminology means something to me.


Sorry to go off on a tangent, I'm done now and will never mention C.D. again.

[Tvandermyde]

vezpa, on 13 March 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

A castle Doctrine in many other states allows a person to carry a firearm for defense in their vehicle, (usually loaded but encased or in a secure holster) because the vehicle is considered an extension of their home.  This has nothing to do whatsoever with their CCW law and a person does not have to possess a CCW permit to exercise this right.  I have friends in Florida who carry this way because they are too lazy to get their permits.

Another reason I get pissy is because I read so many articles states adopting Castle Doctrine and constantly keep hearing Illinois excluded from those states.  I wish they would just call it a damn Castle Doctrine because this terminology is the only thing many outside our state understand, which is why I'm all for semantics.  In my USA sales travels I'm constantly joked at as the one who is from a state with a "FOID" card and who's state doesn't have carry or who's state doesn't have a true Castle Doctrine and the best one, The Home of Obama.  This is why terminology means something to me.


Sorry to go off on a tangent, I'm done now and will never mention C.D. again.

Vezpa -- your confused. Castle doctrine gets it's name from the premis that a man's home is his castle. And in some states you have a DUTY to RETREAT before using deadly force EVEN in your own home. Illinois is NOT such a state.

The anti-gunners term of stand your ground law, apllies the no retreat premis to public places and other places you have a right to be. Again, Illinolis has no such requirement.

carrying a firearm loaded and ready for self defense is not part of the caslte/no retreat doctrine. it's part of right to carry. Or as in Florida, it does not require a permit and can be described as either a transportation law, or extendign the right we have to a loaded firearm in your home, fixed place of business or land to one's vehicle.

Something very different than castle/no retreat. Becuase even if you were car jacked, you could still defend yourself without having to first try and retreat.

We have one of the best self defense statutes, including a ban on lawsuits by home invaders and attackers. Having been part of writing those, I am proud that while other states try to pass something to protect people in the use of force, to stop them from being placed in legal jepardy because the met force with force, Illinois is ahead of them.

If you want to complain that we don't have RTC or are defenseless in our cars while we travel, so be it. But don't use the terms interchangably because they're not.