Guns and self defense
 

Im watching this prison doc and I see this guy locked up for manslaughter, killed someone he claimed was self defense. I start asking myself, what is the purpose of firearms? Self defense strictly in the home ? This guy got 15 years for voluntary manslaughter, so if you're OCing and your life is in danger what are you supposed to do

use common sense, make the right split second decisions. there are no recalls on rounds sent downrange.
RR

Build a safe room get in it and call 9 1 1. Also helps to get the rep of the crankiest SOB in the county. Put no Trespassing signs at the end of your driveway. stick a shot gun barrel under the nose of every door to door sales person who can't read and also those do gooder church people. Word will get out.

:D Al

To kill a person under a claim of self defense you must be able to show you had a reasonable belief that you were in eminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. Just as an example, if the person had a club or a knife and they were 50 yards away from you and you shot them, you would have a problem, they have to be close enough (opportunity) that it would be reasonable to believe you had to shoot right now or die yourself. Killing in self defense is still commiting a homicide, you are going to have to show it was a justifiable homicide. Nothing to be taken lightly, there are no do overs when you kill someone.

Shooting outside of your home is always a messy proposition. In some states, even INSIDE your home you can still land in jail. Whats even messier is the monetary side of things. Many times, people that have defended themselves against intruders have been sued by the family of the intruder and lost due to ignorance of the jury. The legal system of this country is in serious need of an upgrade to put it mildly. You know it's bad when you have to shoot an ARMED intruder in your home and the family of that intruder gets paid for it! And lord help you if that intruder actually survives! There have been many cases where the person that PROVED to a criminal court they were shooting in self defense that has had to PAY for hospital bills and damages to the intruder!

Amen to that!!! There should be one law throughout the country and that is if anyone breaks into your home they are fair game for anything you do and there is no civil alternative for the perpetrator or his relatives to turn to like happens many times now in some areas. Just don't shoot the guy in the back and IMHO you should be in the clear if he's inside your home!

PA recently passed a Castle doctrin self defense law that elininates the duty to retreat but inside and outside your home. In the past in PA the law required you to retreat if outside your home if confronted by someone threatning your life, no more. In addition, the law also says regarding civil suits against someone who defended themselves with lethal force for the killing or wounding an assailant that if the assailant or someone suing on his behalf if deceased, is unsuccessful in their law suit they must pay the costs of the lawsuit to the person who defended themselves including lawyers, expert wittnesses ect. It doesn't prevent you from being sued for using lethal force, but if you win the suit, it will not destroy you financially like it did in the past.

Surprisingly, Illinois has a similar Castle Doctrine law. As far as the civil suit side, I'm not sure but I do believe there is good protection there as well. I'll do a bit of research and post results. I do know that you are open to liability suits if it is a case OUTSIDE of your home and you used your LEGAL concealed carry weapon. Just not sure about the protection for inside a home. For this state being so "anti gun" it is VERY surprising to see that it has a good Castle Doctrine without all that "you must retreat" BS.

All I can say is avoid it if at all possible.

If not, make sure that there is only one person's side of the story (yours), when you show up in court !!!

" I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6 "

Amen Sheriden. I live in Fl. and we have "Stand Your Ground" which basically says anywhere you have the reasonable expectation of Safety you don't have to retreat.
My view has always been that if you put me in a position to defend myself or family I will deal with the legal ramifications afterwards.

Oldtimr, I did that little research for here in Illinois. They have 3 defense clauses that strictly prohibit any liable claim to be brought against anyone that has PROVEN self defense. Here they are.

Illinois Consolidated Statutes (I.L.C.S.)

Chapter 720. Criminal Offenses

5. Criminal Code

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.

(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.

Illinois Consolidated Statutes (I.L.C.S.)

Chapter 720. Criminal Offenses

5. Criminal Code

Sec. 7-2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.

(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 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:

(1) 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

(2) He reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

(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.

State: Illinois



Illinois Consolidated Statutes (I.L.C.S.)

Chapter 720. Criminal Offenses

5. Criminal Code

Sec. 7-3. Use of force in defense of other property.

(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 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.

(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.

I knew the one about the dwelling but I am happily surprised at the other 2 statutes. Again, for this state being so ANTI it's actually a shock to see the protections afforded to honest people defending themselves against criminals. I'm sure the statute for "property" protection was brought about for the Armed security guards in case they had to discharge their weapons.

So you can use deadly force if someone is going to commit a violent felony against you besides murder ?

Outside of the dwelling and personal property statutes then the bodily harm statute kicks in, such as rape or any physically violent felonious act. In the dwelling statute, to give you a simple scenario, man kicks in your door (violent entry), shoot man multiple times, end violent entry, your in no trouble more or less. He kicked in your door which constitutes "violent" entry. Now, If you were stupid enough (if you live in Chicago) to be in your house with the door unlocked (non violent entry), you will have to prove a violent FELONIOUS act against yourself or family. The waters can get a little muddy there but an honest person who's had no previous record of violence or anything "seedy" would probably be just dandy.

A simple rule to follow Freightliner is this, Outside of your home, no matter what state you are in, DON'T PULL YOUR WEAPON UNLESS YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE IS IN IMMINENT DANGER PERIOD!!!! But if you DO have to pull it, make sure it's the last thing they will ever see. Anyone that says "never shoot to kill, shoot to wound" is an idiot. Center mass and UNLOAD! That's not being a bloodthirsty butthead, it's being factual and straightforward. One of the first things my old man taught me about firearms is these 2 facts, A firearm is made for 2 things, killing and practicing killing. Yes I know, what about competition shooting and such, same thing, it is a TOOL made for the ending of life. Whether it be for hunting, self defense, or war it all boils down to a tool for killing. Man pulls a weapon on me, he better make sure I'm dead because I would most certainly keep trying to do the same!

Super, it is amazing that any state that has the anti gun politicians that Illinois does has such good protection against civil action against anyone who legally uses force to protect themselves or others. Keep hoping that info stays under the radar. Of course it doesn't help the people of Chicago if they can't buy a gun.

All that stuff has been turned over here in Illinois Oldtimr. Several years back the Mayor TRIED to enact what was basically a gun ban but it got overturned pretty quickly. Getting a gun here , and in Chicago, is pretty much the same as everywhere else except for the FOID card BS and I believe there are those that are FINALLY getting the stupid gene taken out and going after THAT unconstitutional crap as well. With shootings on the rise in Chicago the ANTI's are having a field day and doing their usual "snake charming" trying to blame the gun as well as the new concealed carry laws even though not 1 single shooting death has been from a LEGALLY owned firearm or from a person with a CC permit. Except from the Police which about half of them I wouldn't let fire a weapon on the firing range let alone carry one on the job! I find it hilarious that about the stupidest police officer in Chicago is the CHIEF. That man makes a box of rocks look like Einstein!

That is good. The antis will always be scheming, the rest of us have to be vigilent 24/7 and we have to know our rights, something that too few know.

If there's ANY question in your mind if you should shoot in self defense, it's not time to respond with deadly force yet! 1st thing to do is avoid getting in the situation in the 1st place, using common sense & situational awareness to get out before it escalates to that point. If you're forced to defend yourself, you'll know it and won't have ANY other options or time to do anything else. Only if there's NO other options should you draw and use the deadly force, whatever form it may be in, then it's justified.

The best advice I can give, in a general sort of way, is to have multiple options. Which is basic survival training from the guys at the pointy end of the spear. The stuff I learned in the military works well. If you run out of options, you are likely to die.

We had just moved into a new to us house, we had many strangers popping in to do repairs, estimates and such. Door bell rings and I open the door to two XXL guys in suits. Can we come in? "No, call to make an appointment, now isn't a good time". They hit the door in a rush, I go flaying backwards onto a set of marble steps, they do a dance on my body on there way by. I've been hit before and am hard to keep down. The wife calls from upstairs and asks what is happening, they run up the stairs, I go for my pistol. She sees them and screams, I have no idea exactly what is happening. They come back down the stairs and find themselves on the last couple of steps looking down the barrel of my pistol. The one says to the other, "don't worry he won't shoot". I put one into the wall right between their heads. They were close enough, both had powder burns on the sides of there faces. I said get out, the next time I see you it is shoot on sight. I didn't call the Cops, the Police aren't your friends. These guys are practiced criminals and are likely better liars than I am. In fact most Police and criminals are practiced liars and by the time the situation is documented it is unlikely to remotely resemble the truth. And then the lawyers get involved and the truth morphs yet again.

I put up motion sensors, put up an additional gate/fence between the house and the street and got a man eating dog. If you weren't a kid or female, he was going to eat you. He was heavily insured. He was a good Dog in a detached sort of way, he wasn't real friendly. He flunked out of Dope Dog school for over aggressiveness and had days before he was due to be put down when I gave him second lease on life. Once he caught on that kids and women were not to be bitten and everybody else was fair game, he lived a long and productive life. And chewed the excrement out of more than a few people stupid enough to ignore the signage. Me and that Dog had a lot in common.

Sorry Chuck, had that been me, there would have been a call to the police to report a break in and 2 dead intruders. I live by the adage, if you see my weapon, it's the last thing you will ever see. No warning shots, no "halt or I'll shoot", nothing like that. If I have pulled my weapon it's because I have already done any and all I could do otherwise. The second I saw them heading for my wife they would have each received a bullet to the base of the scull.

Just remember, you NEVER say you're going to shoot to kill!!!! You say you shot to stop the threat! "They said they were going to kill you, and you believed them, and shot to stop the threat, now I'm tired officer and need to rest & calm down." That's ALL you say without an attorney present. Unfortunately, the best way to stop them from being able to perform further acts of aggression quickly usually results in their death.

If I had it to do over again I'd likely do it your way. I spent the next year living in survival mode, never driving the same path twice, varying my routine and trying to be as unpredictable as possible.

Living in constant fear sucks.

Bear, I don't even say that much to the police without an attorney present. My first words to a police officer are "You will have to wait till my attorney is here so he can cover my ass before you screw it up"

Anyone that says "shoot to wound" is a fool that's never been under fire. Period. You aren't taught to shoot center mass to wound. It's the largest target with vital organs!

Absolutly right Super, if you are justified to shoot, you are justified to shoot at the point on the body that has the largest percentage of being hit and contains organs that are most likely to immediately stop the threat. Real life isn't the movies, when you are fighting for your life you do not have time to try to hit an extremity that just as likely as not will not stop the assailant if he is a goal oriented person. You also never fire warning shots when you are dealing with a life and death situation and if it isn't life and death, you have no business shooting in the first place.

Yeah that's what I was getting at is a lot of people, coming off an massive adrenaline dump like that usually says too much, being all wound up like that. I was advised to not say any more than absolutely necessary. That's the extent of what was recommended for me to say and no more. Basically you thought your life was in mortal danger and believed they were going to kill you. The less you say, the less it can be twisted around, but on the other hand, if you seem totally uncooperative, they might be more apt to think you have something to hide, and hold you. I could be wrong, if I am, I stand corrected, but a trial lawyer is the 1 that told me that.

Warning shots, in the air, ground, or beside them has no place in MY defensive plans, the same as trying to "just shoot them in the leg or something". If I have to shoot, I'm shooting to stop the threat as quick as possible.

I can prove this to you. How about the very 1st time you ever got in a serious fight at school? Remember that? If you talked at all, you likely rattled on being still very excited. And if you totally clammed up, they thought you was either automatically in the wrong, or had something to hide.

Honestly Bear, when it comes down to talking to police, I say absolutely NOTHING until I have an attorney present and accounted for. I could care less what they think. If they think I have something to hide, more power to them. There are way to many corrupt and flat out ignorant police officers for me to trust 99% of them to say a word without representation. It all comes down to covering your own ass. And I am, quite simply, going to "trust" my 600 dollar an hour Harvard Law graduate over a 40k a year beat cop to know what I should or shouldn't say in any given situation.

Actually Super, I worry more about the DA than the police officers. The police are in the same position if they use deadly force. The DA is the one who has to maintain a high profile for the next election and most of them have never been in a life and death situation. I also agree keep quiet until you have representation.

LOL Not in Chicago they aren't. Those "police officers" (and boy do I use that term loosely) get away with shooting old men (96) with tazers and killing them when they had 4 strapping young police officers to subdue the "dangerous" perp. Or shooting and killing a 14 year old kid with a knife (30 feet away) instead of using a tazer or some other non lethal. They get away with flat out murder there. That's just 2 of 100's of instances I can show. They have all these Barny's out there that are terrified and have absolutely NO business being on the job.

But in general I do see your point about the DA which is why I always say "I'll wait on my attorney thank you very much!" That way something that Barny put in the report can't come back and bite me in the butt!

That kind of stuff makes me think of Louisville Ky LMPD officers! They've gotten by with murder when shooting somebody attempting to flee but stuck fast in the mud, and shooting a person cuffed behind his back sitting in the back of a cruiser!

Pretty much what I've been saying for years and decades. The standard (policy) should read use necessary force and not deadly force when the officer feels threatened (or so he says). I'm not asking the Cops to go out there and die. I'm suggesting they use minimum force, if practical.

Permanently damaging or even killing someone because you got a little sweaty chasing them, is in my opinion, not smart. You unnecessarily screw with (screw up) enough people and there is bound to be a backlash sooner or later.

I remain convinced that life is life and every life is just as important as any other. Sure Cops feel they should get special dispensation.

That person you unnecessarily screwed up or killed is likely to have relatives and friends you've just turned into enemies. You make enough enemies and the law of averages says you are bound to trigger some nut case sooner or later. I call it growing weeds. The better tactic may be to carefully weed, disturbing the surrounding plants as little as possible. Instead of slash and burn, trying to prove who has the bigger Huevos.

Some people just don't intimate worth a darn. And if they are reasonably proficient with a rifle, can put one in your ear at a hundred yards. The Police may be cultivating the worst sort of weeds and cultivating just what they say they are trying to eliminate (or incarcerate).

Jusy my $.02 cents, but Massad Ayoob, if you're familiar with him, suggests a procedure if you're involved in a self-defense shooting. He suggests saying several things when police arrive.

Given the respect a lot of people have for him, and that he is police officer, I think it might be worth a look. His idea is to establish that you were defending yourself against an attack and to point out any evidence--shell casings, witnesses, surveillance cams. Then, you say that you want to speak to a lawyer before you go any further.

Father,

Good post !

Webby - Put a sticky on that !!! Please

Thanks, Sheridan.

What sticks out for me in that video is seeing it from the policeman's perspective. The cop's going to see the victim of a shooting, and you want them to begin establishing that it was justifiable homicide.

I had not thought of it till I saw this, but saying "That man attacked me, and I defended myself," rather than "I shot him" is already planting the truth of your innocence in their minds.

Father,

Plus, I'm you of those guyz who has respect for Massad Ayoob !!!

I've seen a lot of his instruction on self defense situations...................

I'm late to this topic but it's an interesting one. There's been some good advice given and some that should be adjusted some. My experience and training has been in CA as a cop for almost 25 years so things may be a little different in your individual states, both in the laws and in how cops are trained. I spent over 16 years in Patrol and 8 years in a DA's Office on the prosecution end of things so have seen quite a bit of how both police and attorneys look at these types of cases.

In general, Oldtimr was right in that you shouldn't shoot in self defense unless you or another person is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. His example of a guy with a knife 50 yards away is a good one. Yes, the guy with the knife can obviously be dangerous but he's going to have to run over to you or at least be within reasonable knife throwing range before he's an imminent threat. The imminent threat is basically a scenario or situation in which you have no choice other than shoot or get killed or seriously injured.

Super Hunt has a lot of stuff right like shooting for center mass (biggest part of the body and easiest to hit). When you're in a shooting situation, you are going to be in a fight or flight state of mind or just freeze and shut down. Training at the range helps you prepare for thinking through such a situation. In the fight or flight situations, you have a good chance of having tunnel vision and losing some of your fine motor skills. Training to shoot center of mass helps you to work through both of these possible phenomenons.

I disagree with Super Hunt about stating you were shooting to kill. Police are trained to say they were shooting to stop the threat. You aim at the same place (center mass) and obviously shoot until the threat is stopped (more than one shot might be needed to stop the bad guy) but your goal was to defend yourself and stop the threat to where you're safe from further attack.

If you tell the police that you were shooting to kill, they are obviously going to write that in their report. The DA is going to look at that statement and so is the defense attorney and any civil attorneys if there's a civil suit. Police are trained not to say they were shooting to kill so some attorney doesn't try to ask you silly questions about being a judge and executioner, etc. in front of a jury, criminal or civil. Hey, there's something like 600,000 cops in this country and if they learn to say shoot to stop the threat (instead of shoot to kill), don't you think it might be wise to use their same verbiage which was developed out of police shootings and lawsuits? You're going to shoot at the same aiming point and you're not going to stop until the bad guy stops attacking you BUT you stop shooting once the bad guy isn't attacking you any more because your need for self defense stopped when his attack stopped and you were safe.

I like what Massad Ayoob has to say and agree with just about all of it. I disagree slightly with him as to the first person to call 911 being listed as the victim in a police report. Yes, they will be listed as the Reporting Party in the CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch) report but the police officer is going to investigate when he arrives and he/she will determine who to list as victim and as suspect in their report AFTER they have investigated.

You or the suspect may call 911 but it might also be a witness or some bystander who doesn't know anything about what happened or just saw the last 5 seconds of the situation before calling. Regardless of who calls, the police are not going to get all the relevant details over the phone and are going to need more information to figure it out.

Massad makes a good point in holstering your weapon once it's safe and keeping your hands up and away from the weapon (makes the officer's comfort factor go up). He also makes an excellent point in telling the arriving officers who the bad guy is, who shot, etc. He rightly points out that you need to know what evidence there is to collect it. It also helps to know what happened so you can figure out how wide to make the crime scene that you're taping off so evidence isn't destroyed. If the cops know the bad guy fired a gun at you, they're gonna be looking for it and the detectives will want to swab the bad guy's hands for gunshot residue, etc.

There's always a balancing act of how much information to say and what not to say, whether you're a citizen who shot someone or a cop. You do want to get the public safety information out right away, like there's an escaped suspect with a gun, the bad guy threw a gun over by that playground, etc. for obvious reasons. And of course that you were attacked and had to defend yourself from the bad guy.

I can't speak for the cops in each of your states and there's always a few bad apples in any business BUT most cops really do want to catch the bad guy and they really don't want some scumbag criminal make them look stupid or get away with a crime (makes it kind of personal). Even just a minimal statement can point us in the right direction and make sure the scumbag criminal doesn't "point" the investigation in the wrong direction (at you). YMMV in your state of course. :D

LOL HOWDY Cal, long time no see! I didn't say that "I shot to kill" would be what I would say to the police. Hell I say little to nothing before an attorney is present and accounted for. I was saying that anyone that says you shoot to wound not to kill is a damn fool. Police HAVE to cover their asses because there are just too many factors already against them in the first place. A civilian defending themselves are already starting on a better playing field than an officer. With all the supposed training an officer has received in firearms they are looked upon as "experts" by John Q. Public who thinks movie shootouts are real and the cop should have been able to shoot the gun out of the perps hand or some other such nonsense. When in reality, the MANY police officers I have worked with couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from the INSIDE before I worked on them. The problem in Chicago is the fact that the police are pulling and firing weapons that should NEVER have been pulled in many situations.

I know how LA police operate somewhat and there are many of them that should be receiving combat pay! But you hear of very few incidents involving police officers there where they are shooting kids with knives 30 feet away or unarmed people or 96 year old men that are confused and scared with a Tazer when you have 4 strapping young police officers there to take the little knife away. So you take a little cut to the hand taking it away from the poor old codger. Big frigging deal. I do believe disarming perps in hand to hand is still taught in academy? It's just ridiculous the things done by Chicago PO's and they get away with it scott free!

Well, I don't personally know any cop (me especially) that would attempt to wrestle a knife away from a kid or any other suspect. Once they get within 30 feet of you (this is legit training all over the country), they can run up and stab you before you can draw a gun and shoot to stop that threat (probably take more than 1 shot if they're determined in their attack, i.e. some nut job).

Ideally, you put something large between you and that kid or bad guy with a knife, like a car or other large object to make it harder for them to get to you. That is the perfect time to have your gun trained on them and send in the police dog (that's the dog's job). There's just something about a dog running to attack a person that scares the you know what out of bad guys.

I agree that you don't hear of too many incidents where LA cops just shoot somebody down when there were other alternatives. It's pretty much like that throughout CA. That's due to a LOT of ongoing standardized training, more lawyers per capita and police departments aggressively weeding out bad apples before they get off probation.

In the academy, they teach you to use restraint tactics for controlling a person and handcuffing them. They don't teach you disarming methods for disarming criminals of weapons, be it a knife, club or gun. If the bad guy is armed, you are taught to escalate the force level up to a superior level of force to overcome the bad guys force (i.e. you put a bad guy with a knife at gun point and use a police dog if the bad guy doesn't cooperate).

I haven't mentioned pepper spray or tasers in this situation of a bad guy with a knife because both are limited to around 20 feet or so (within that 30 feet protective bubble you want with a knife suspect). There are also bean bag or rubber ball rounds from a less-lethal shotgun which could be used on a suspect with a knife although those are usually locked in a police car trunk and might not be out of the trunk in time. All of the methods in this paragraph are considered "less lethal" in that they are designed to stop a suspect without killing them. They are no longer called "non-lethal" because sometimes they do kill a suspect although not intentionally.

I've put out a lot of information for anybody carrying CCW to consider. This is generalized information based on my experience as a cop and DA Investigator in my state--California.

Again, YMMV in your own state due to different state laws, different DA's Offices and even different police training. If you know a local cop and/or District Attorney, it would be a wise idea to talk to them directly and get this kind of information from the same people who will be reviewing any shooting you likely get into. It also wouldn't hurt to talk with a local defense attorney that you respect and trust (some are good and some are more on the shyster end of things). I hope nobody ever has to shoot a bad guy to defend themselves but in case you might ever have to, please do some research in YOUR state and make sure you have solid information and not just what some guys at the range "think" or some CCW Instructor teaches (some are very knowledgeable and some are not). It's your life you're betting in both the shooting and the legal aftermath. You will want to make sure you're as prepared as you can be and have the right information. Stay safe everybody.

Thanks, Calhunter. Good posts.

And stay safe.