gremlin_bros
Member.
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 191
Try explaining a self defense shooting, in your own home, when the attacker, after being shot, runs out of your home and collapses in the neighbor's yard! I guarantee you'll be prosecuted even though it was a clean shoot!!! So advise I was giving was sound... if you shoot them in your home make sure they fall in your home... ask around Biker... check state laws....
We are in agreement. But your logic is a bit backwards.Justin said:YOU are the one making the assertion that it's legal to drag a body back into the house, therefore the responsibility of proving the legality of what you advocate is on your shoulders.
I challenge you to cite one state law anywhere in the United States that says it's legal.
(720 ILCS 5/Art. 7 heading)
ARTICLE 7. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE; EXONERATION
(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.
(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.)
(720 ILCS 5/7‑2) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑2)
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.
(Source: P.A. 93‑832, eff. 7‑28‑04.)
(720 ILCS 5/7‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑3)
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.
(Source: P.A. 93‑832, eff. 7‑28‑04.)
(720 ILCS 5/31‑4) (from Ch. 38, par. 31‑4)
Sec. 31‑4. Obstructing justice.
A person obstructs justice when, with intent to prevent the apprehension or obstruct the prosecution or defense of any person, he knowingly commits any of the following acts:
(a) Destroys, alters, conceals or disguises physical evidence, plants false evidence, furnishes false information; or
(b) Induces a witness having knowledge material to the subject at issue to leave the State or conceal himself; or
(c) Possessing knowledge material to the subject at issue, he leaves the State or conceals himself.
(d) Sentence.
(1) Obstructing justice is a Class 4 felony, except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection (d).
(2) Obstructing justice in furtherance of streetgang related or gang‑related activity, as defined in Section 10 of the Illinois Streetgang Terrorism Omnibus Prevention Act, is a Class 3 felony.
(Source: P.A. 90‑363, eff. 1‑1‑98.)
Camp David said:Just a short note here... before you call 911 make sure dead men are entirely in your home... if not drag them in... no kidding... law is worded such in most states that intruders need to be inside your home... if you shoot and they wander out and die you will be prosecuted differently that had they fallen dead inside your home...
Legal friend of mine told me about this point....
For the non-lawyers, assume you are a juror. You hear of a double shooting in what appears to be a home invasion (masked intruders, weapons, maybe even forced entry). Do you want to hear the home owner's side of the story? Do you want to hear him say he was in fear for himself and his family? Do you want the cops to say the homeowner was fully cooperative and had nothing to hide? Would remaining silent look bad to a juror, as I have heard?
I have studied the self-defense laws of both Florida and North Carolina in great depth, and have received CCW licensure in both states. In either state, there is NO law that says if someone attacks you and you are in actual danger of death or serious bodily harm, you have to be in your home to defend yourself or your family. (If there were, what would be the point in CCW, if you can't defend your family or your own life outside your house?) Nor does justifiable self-defense against a home invader turn into murder or manslaughter because the bad guy runs out of your house after being shot. I challenge you to cite a single statute on which that claim could be based.Just a short note here... before you call 911 make sure dead men are entirely in your home... if not drag them in... no kidding... law is worded such in most states that intruders need to be inside your home... if you shoot and they wander out and die you will be prosecuted differently that had they fallen dead inside your home...
Legal friend of mine told me about this point....
(snip)
Try explaining a self defense shooting, in your own home, when the attacker, after being shot, runs out of your home and collapses in the neighbor's yard! I guarantee you'll be prosecuted even though it was a clean shoot!!! So advise I was giving was sound... if you shoot them in your home make sure they fall in your home... ask around Biker... check state laws....
benEzra said:I have studied the self-defense laws of both Florida and North Carolina in great depth, and have received CCW licensure in both states. In either state, there is NO law that says if someone attacks you and you are in actual danger of death or serious bodily harm, you have to be in your home to defend yourself or your family. (If there were, what would be the point in CCW, if you can't defend your family or your own life outside your house?) Nor does justifiable self-defense against a home invader turn into murder or manslaughter because the bad guy runs out of your house after being shot. I challenge you to cite a single statute on which that claim could be based.
Tampering with evidence, on the other hand, IS a serious crime. And not only is it a crime in and of itself, it would make you look like you committed a murder or two and then dragged them inside to try to set it up to look like self-defense. That would be the #1 quickest way to turn a clear-cut case of what would otherwise have been ruled justifiable self-defense into a charge of premeditated murder. Not a good idea.
ceetee said:After securing any visible weapons, the officers will search the house. Most home invasions like this happen because the people in the house are known to the bad guys as having large amounts of drugs, cash, jewelry, or other valuables. The detectives will be looking for anything to indicate a motive for the home invasion other than "random accident." They'll also just want to make sure that all perps/residents are accounted for, and nobody's going to pop out with a weapon.
O.F.Fascist said:Might this not be another good reason to have locks on the internal doors of a home and use them. So as those rooms from the wandering and prying eyes of a police officer "securing" the area.
Camp David said:Try explaining a self defense shooting, in your own home, when the attacker, after being shot, runs out of your home and collapses in the neighbor's yard! I guarantee you'll be prosecuted even though it was a clean shoot!!! So advise I was giving was sound... if you shoot them in your home make sure they fall in your home... ask around Biker... check state laws....
Just a short note here... before you call 911 make sure dead men are entirely in your home... if not drag them in... no kidding... law is worded such in most states that intruders need to be inside your home... if you shoot and they wander out and die you will be prosecuted differently that had they fallen dead inside your home...
Legal friend of mine told me about this point....
THe error here is applying the laws and attitude of your state to all states. I will concede that this attitude is appropriate in far too many places but not in the whole country. I live in Pennsylvania, a 2d friendly and compliant state and in Bucks county which is also 2d and self defense friendly. Had an incident several years ago where the elderly homeowner caught the BG breaking in to his shed. Confronted him in the backyard with a shotgun, chased him down the street and shot him in the crotch. BG died, DA ruled the shooting self-defense. I'm lad for the homeowner but, IMHO it stopped being self-defense when the homeowner started pursuit.know that I'm painting a pretty bleak picture. Sorry, it just the way things are in the country today. You will be guilty until proven innocent.
Camp David said:Just a short note here... before you call 911 make sure dead men are entirely in your home... if not drag them in... no kidding... law is worded such in most states that intruders need to be inside your home... if you shoot and they wander out and die you will be prosecuted differently that had they fallen dead inside your home...
Legal friend of mine told me about this point....
But won't the police then say: "AHA!!! He was drinking and then used the gun!"An acquaintance was once involved in a similar situation... he got out a bottle, and poured himslef a couple stiff ones. He told the police that he felt the need for a couple drinks to help himself calm down after the incident, and that he also felt that it wasn't proper for him to give a statement while "under the influence"...