Jump to content


Photo

Castle Doctrine?


This topic has been archived.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

#1 trmentry

  • Members
  • 12 posts
  • Joined: 27-October 07

Posted 27 October 2007 - 07:36 AM

I've been researching Castle Doctrine information and can't really find too much on IL. Or I just suck at Googling the right terms. LOL.

Anyway... does IL have some form of Castle Doctrine? I'm guessing no.

#2 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,727 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 27 October 2007 - 08:25 AM

I've been researching Castle Doctrine information and can't really find too much on IL. Or I just suck at Googling the right terms. LOL.

Anyway... does IL have some form of Castle Doctrine? I'm guessing no.


Please PM me Sir.
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#3 papabear47

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 477 posts
  • Joined: 16-November 06

Posted 27 October 2007 - 09:15 AM

Try www.gunlawguide.com/Illinois.htm

#4 FST_Kent

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,919 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 27 October 2007 - 11:13 AM

There's no duty to retreat in IL. However, it may be the right thing to do in a given situation.

#5 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,151 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 27 October 2007 - 01:53 PM

actually, while it is not called the castle doctrine, what we have is pretty good.
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#6 c-rock

    c-rock

  • Banned
  • 5,522 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 04

Posted 27 October 2007 - 03:11 PM

I always heard inside your house is fair game if the perp is in there. Of course you cant invite him in.

Outside is more touchy, but if they are commiting arson on your property, they are fair game again.
John 3:16

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

#7 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,280 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 27 October 2007 - 03:16 PM

I always heard inside your house is fair game if the perp is in there. Of course you cant invite him in.

Outside is more touchy, but if they are commiting arson on your property, they are fair game again.


'Fair Game' might not be the best way to phrase it...

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.

#8 FST_Kent

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,919 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 27 October 2007 - 05:30 PM

I always heard inside your house is fair game if the perp is in there.


The BG has to be an imminent threat to great bodily harm or death to use lethal force.

#9 Ashdump

    Member

  • Moderator
  • 4,645 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 04

Posted 28 October 2007 - 08:12 AM

The BG has to be an imminent threat to great bodily harm or death to use lethal force.



In my book, just being in my house without permission would cause me to think that. I know he/she is not there for afternoon tea!

#10 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,727 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 28 October 2007 - 09:09 AM

Allow me to add my analysis to this question.

Perhaps the most convenient starting point for information on this and many other subjects is Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia....Castle_Doctrine

Also, see this write-up for what appears to be a pretty good summary:
http://www.cga.ct.go...2007-R-0052.htm


Castle Doctrine laws have been passed in many states in recent years. Please keep in mind that the details that embody castle doctrine vary from state to state. Variably, these statutes allow defensive use of force during an attack by an aggressor, they eliminate a pre-existing duty to retreat or specifically add that there is no duty to retreat, and usually, they immunize a defender from being charged in criminal or civil court for the consequences of defender's actions.

In some states, the "new" Castle Doctrine legislation has simply clarified pre-existing law that essentially meant the same. In other states, these concepts were added anew.

On to Illinois. Illinois has not passed legislation specifically called "Castle Doctrine" at least in the sense that many states have recently. However, existing law in Illinois (found in the IL Criminal Code or ICC, Article 7) pretty much embodies the castle doctrine. I will let you see the codes for yourself, for details: http://www.ilga.gov/.....Code of 1961.

But, according to these codes, Illinoisans:
1) Are justified to use force to protect themselves, others, the defender's dwelling, and other property of the defender.
2) Are justified in using "deadly force" ONLY, but GIVEN a reasonable belief that such force will prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, or will prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
3) Using force justified by the ICC, have an affirmative defense to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of the "aggressor."
4) Have no explicit duty to retreat from a defensive role.

Thus, Illinois effectively (at least according to the verbiage of the ICC) has the equivalent of castle doctrine.

The next real-world question is how much prosecuting attornies can [get away with] twisting and turning these statutes toward an outcome favorable to the aggressor, and unfavorable to the defender...
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872