Self defense: How far can a man with a gun go?

[jpak]

http://couriernews.suntimes.com/6410370-417/self-defense-how-far-can-a-man-with-a-gun-go.html

ELGIN — When newspapers reported that a 57-year-old Elgin man had been charged with involuntary manslaughter after shooting an 18-year-old man he believed had been trying to break into his parked car Monday, online commenters rushed to weigh in — mostly in defense of the man who did the shooting.

<snip>

Spokesmen for the state’s attorney’s offices in both Cook and Kane counties declined to comment on how much self-defense force is legal, as did officials of the Elgin Police Department. But local criminal-defense attorneys caution that an Illinois resident’s legal right to counterattack a criminal is very limited, especially outside the victim’s home.

“The rule of thumb is that you can only use force likely to cause bodily harm if you believe that a person is about to commit a forcible felony on you,” said John Paul Carroll of Naperville. Carroll has seen such incidents from both sides of the street, since he was a homicide detective with the Chicago Police Department before he became an attorney specializing in criminal defense. His recent clients have included Elgin’s “backpack killer,” Joshua Dunbar.

The key, Carroll said, is that the violence used against a criminal must be for the purpose of keeping yourself from being hurt, not to get revenge or to save property, especially if the incident occurs outdoors. Inside one’s home, Illinois law is more lenient, allowing deadly force if the offenders entered the home violently or if they appear to be about to commit a felony.

<more>

[krispos42]

1. A good question

I believe some states let you you lethal force to prevent a felon from escaping, and since stealing a car is a felony...

?


Maybe that's it.

:shrug:

[Hoopla Phil]

2. Texas law on protecting property:

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.


Criminals need to understand that a persons "stuff" is not worth dying for.

[jpak]

4. Legalized Murder Texas Style

yup

[Hoopla Phil]

5. Why do you conflate self defense and legal protection of property with murder?

Murder has a specific definition, self defense and legal protection of property does not meet that definition.

Like I said earlier, criminals need to learn that a persons "stuff" is not worth their lives.

[Riftaxe]

6. Choosing a life of felonious criminal behavior

does have some risks attached to it, or that's what I assume you mean.

[east texas lib]

10. You'd fit in well in Austin...

But you might get shot with a six-shooter water pistol dildo. If you live through that, everything else will kinda start to make sense.;)

[gejohnston]

28. oxymoron police, legalized murder is one

murder is unlawful homicide, a legal concept not a moral one. Therefore, if it is legal it is not murder.

[SteveM]

31. Legalized murder Gandhi style?

If you review the writings of the Mahatma, you will discover that it is one's duty to protect his/her home, property, family and religion. The "highest order" of protection is to do so without harm to the attacker. But if you have not come to this high order, then you should use deadly force. To do nothing, Gandhi contended, was cowardice.

[Logical]

18. I think shooting someone for burglary is a joke. I hate this Texas law. n-t

[oneshooter]

21. I would guess that you would allow a person to enter your

home, while you are there. And because he only wanted "things", because that is what he told you, you would allow him to remove whatever he wanted?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Logical]

23. I am talking about seeing a burglar leave my neighbors house with a TV....

and shooting him in the back and that being justified.

No sane person could think that was a valid shoot.

[ileus]

3. Hopefully he can beat this one...

[Ragnarok]

7. They use to hang horse thieves...

Not sure why we don't do the same to the modern variant thereof. Illinois has some pretty backwards SD laws to begin with, so this doesn't really surprise me. This wouldn't even be an issue of note in many States.

[gejohnston]

9. In all fairness

back then leaving someone transportation-less out of the middle of nowhere was viewed as de facto murder. With the increase of technology and population, that would not fly. Today's example would be ripping off tools for livelihood or oxygen tanks.

[Ragnarok]

12. Very good point...

...but remember that hanging a horse thief was not dependent upon leaving someone in the wilderness alone to die. It was also viewed as a primary instrument in deriving an income as well as the most valuable (cost-wise) item a person could own. Cattle thieves (rustlers) were hung as well.

[DissedByBush]

25. So the equivalent is hanging car theives n/t

[Howzit]

8. If cops chasing a car thief results in the cops crashing into a third party, leading to death,

the car thief is charged with felony murder. This, even though the car thief did not directly cause death. I question this law and why cops get to act with greater abandon than us. To me there should be a balance between potential loss of life that justifies the level of force used.

Some states allow deadly force to be used to protect property and some don't. Losing your TV doesn't threaten your life, but having all of your property stolen at once or repeatedly over time can ultimately threaten you livelihood and ability to support your family.

One way to discourage crime is to make the cost of doing business too high to be attractive. Either way, criminals must know that their chosen occupation carries more risk than constructive work.

[Kennah]

29. Felony murder isn't limited to car chases

In most states, it's the commission of any felony, or a list of serious felonies, that if an innocent dies the one committing the felony gets charged with felony murder.

It's not that cops get to act with greater abandon than you or I, it's that cops are empowered to use necessary force. Private citizens are empowered to use reasonable force.

[Hoyt]

11. Gunners' wet dream -- unarmed teenagers stealing stick of gun from car in county where gun culture

applauds shooting unarmed people in head over a stick of gum.

[east texas lib]

13. Sounds more like your wet dream...

Since you post ridiculous fantasies such as this one frequently. Is this really all you have?

[Hoyt]

16. This is not a fantasy, it happened. Gunner shot unarmed teenager over a minor property crime.

[oneshooter]

17. Cite to proof please. Or shut up. n/t

[Hoyt]

19. Read the OP and links. You always want proof when some guy kills an unarmed, non-threatening kid

with his mistaken belief in the 2A.

[oneshooter]

22. "18-year-old man " A full grown man by law, NOT a kid. n/t

[Hoyt]

26. Unarmed, leaving scene, not a threat to gunner -- and you think shooting him in the head is OK.

[oneshooter]

32. Never said that. You insist he is a "kid", I simply pointed out

that at age 18 he is considered, by law, as an adult. And fully responsible for his actions.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[drpepper67]

14. So you're pro-crime?

[Hoyt]

15. So you are pro-bulletinthehead over a minor property crime?

[drpepper67]

20. Here's a novel idea. Don't steal stuff and you won't get shot.

What exactly is your dollar limit on your possessions that you would consider petty?

[ileus]

24. You're so unfair to the underprivileged...

[Hoyt]

27. Nothing like that. Hope they convict him, or more unarmed kids will get shot by gunners.

[Kennah]

30. John Paul Carroll should talk to Dennis Tueller and Gary Fadden

"If someone pulls a knife on you, it's okay to come back at them with a gun ... but if they're 18 feet away from you with that knife and you shoot them, you might be in trouble."

Even when "experts" weigh in on these matters, their analysis is often much too overly simplistic.

At 18 feet and moving away.

Or at 18 feet and closing after having just shouted "Fuck you and your high powered rifle! I'm gonna kill you motherfuckers!"

Makes a difference.