wheelgunslinger
Member
Thanks for that, Deanimator. I was trying to find a nice way to explain that.
Shooting the bad guys in a situation like this would only make you the assailant and the bad guys the victims. The news media and the anti's would have a field day with that. It would be just what they needed in order to draw attention away from their unwillingness to address the root problems, that are the cause of melees like this, and onto guns.
Deanimator and Jeff White have it right. If I came across such a scene, I would immediately leave and call 911 as I was doing so. I remember reading about an incident that occurred in Northern Ireland some years ago that has a parallel to this one. Two British Army SAS troopers were working undercover in a Catholic neighborhood in Ulster. I don't remember the details, but somehow they were made for what they were and attacked by a mob. Although they were in an automobile and armed with Browning Hi-Powers, the mob was able to drag them from the car and kill them both. So if that can happen to two highly trained SAS troopers what do you think will happen to you acting all alone in a similar situation?
I once walked into a riot one night in downtown Frankfurt, Germany. To be specific, it was in the Hauptbahnhof. I got off my train and into the middle of a melee of riot police and rioters throwing bottles and bricks. Although not the same as this incident, I can tell you it was it was a totally unexpected and confusing situation. I did then as I would do now and got out of Dodge post haste. Getting involved in other folks fights is a very low percentage undertaking
I read through most of the responses and it kind of scares me the amount of misinformation that is being thrown out, like shooting the "leader", or firing warning shots.
I wouldn't even dial 911, but if you do, I HIGHLY recommend that you do so ANONYMOUSLY from a payphone safely removed from the scene of the disturbance. The LAST thing on earth you want to become is an identifiable witness.If I came across such a scene, I would immediately leave and call 911 as I was doing so.
Chicago is bamaOLand where you have no Castle Doctrine and no right to defend yourself.
(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 5/7‑4) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑4)
Sec. 7‑4. Use of force by aggressor.
The justification described in the preceding Sections of this Article is not available to a person who:
(a) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(b) Initially provokes the use of force against himself, with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; or
(c) Otherwise initially provokes the use of force against himself, unless:
(1) Such force is so great that he reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and that he has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(2) In good faith, he withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)
(720 ILCS 5/7‑5) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑5)
Sec. 7‑5. Peace officer's use of force in making arrest. (a) A peace officer, or any person whom he has summoned or directed to assist him, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in the use of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest. However, he is justified in using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or such other person, or when he reasonably believes both that:
(1) Such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape; and
(2) The person to be arrested has committed or attempted a forcible felony which involves the infliction or threatened infliction of great bodily harm or is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay.
(b) A peace officer making an arrest pursuant to an invalid warrant is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the warrant were valid, unless he knows that the warrant is invalid.
(Source: P.A. 84‑1426.)
(720 ILCS 5/7‑6) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑6)
Sec. 7‑6. Private person's use of force in making arrest.
(a) A private person who makes, or assists another private person in making a lawful arrest is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if he were summoned or directed by a peace officer to make such arrest, except that he is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another.
(b) A private person who is summoned or directed by a peace officer to assist in making an arrest which is unlawful, is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the arrest were lawful, unless he knows that the arrest is unlawful.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)
(720 ILCS 5/7‑7) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑7)
Sec. 7‑7. Private person's use of force in resisting arrest. A person is not authorized to use force to resist an arrest which he knows is being made either by a peace officer or by a private person summoned and directed by a peace officer to make the arrest, even if he believes that the arrest is unlawful and the arrest in fact is unlawful.
(Source: P.A. 86‑1475.)
(720 ILCS 5/7‑8) (from Ch. 38, par. 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.
(Source: P.A. 90‑138, eff. 1‑1‑98.)
(720 ILCS 5/7‑9) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑9)
Sec. 7‑9. Use of force to prevent escape.
(a) A peace officer or other person who has an arrested person in his custody is justified in the use of such force to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody as he would be justified in using if he were arresting such person.
(b) A guard or other peace officer is justified in the use of force, including force likely to cause death or great bodily harm, which he reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape from a penal institution of a person whom the officer reasonably believes to be lawfully detained in such institution under sentence for an offense or awaiting trial or commitment for an offense.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)
You are expected to be unarmed and "retreat" when attacked.
I can't believe how many people are advocating warning shots in a situation like this. First, you have limited ammo, on your person, and second, where the heck are those bullets going to go? This situation happened in Chicago. Whose apartment or rear end are you going to shoot up to "warn off" these criminals?I'd get a fair amount of distance, perhaps across the street would be ideal, call 911, but use 2-3 warning shots to diffuse the situation and disperse the crowd.
It's obvious that you're from Wyoming. I don't say that as an insult, just an observation, kind of like an Eskimo noting the guy from Detroit who doesn't know how to build an igloo or identify different kinds of snow.I think it's a shame that people are not willing to get involved to help someone. No matter what the cost.
Deanimator knows the score. Much of Chicago is all but owned by gangs. Several alderman are known to be 'former" gang members. Gangs are used to "solicit" political contributions for democratic party candidates.It's obvious that you're from Wyoming. I don't say that as an insult, just an observation, kind of like an Eskimo noting the guy from Detroit who doesn't know how to build an igloo or identify different kinds of snow.
Unless you've LIVED in Chicago, you simply don't understand why you don't want to get involved in such a situation, and why you're not actually "helping".
You don't want anything to do with ANYONE in that kind of situation in Chicago. It's one thing to be willing to accept a "cost" even a great one, but a smart person looks at the return on investment.
Unless you have a preference for one gang over another, I'm not sure what you're accomplishing by getting involved. The players have changed since I lived there, but hypothetically, are you a Latin Kings guy vs. a Vice Lords man, or vice versa? Because that's the choice you're making, probably in UTTER ignorance.
Call 911? Not on MY cell phone. There are people with gang ties in the Chicago City Council. There are people with gang ties in the Chicago Police Department. There are NO good guys in this equation, at BEST the VERY occasional innocent victim. Mostly it's people involved in very lucrative criminal enterprises that employ deadly force the way the MPAA employs copywrite law. You have NO friends in that environment, just an infinity of opportunities for some sort of knife in the back.
You don't know the players. You don't know the rules. You don't even know what game is being played. Just rest assured that the playing field (of indeterminate size and shape) is heavily sown with anti-personnel mines. Meddle in that mess and you might as well be in 1930s China, trying to "help" one Triad gang against another Triad gang and expecting Chiang Kai Shek to "protect" you.
No thanks.
You can't block your number from 911.Jeff The Law is nice only if you have to bucks to play the game in the courts. Call 911 make sure you cell is set on block your number and get out of dodge.
As for mobs ya'll thugs must be pretty tough down here in Texas we say 1 riot 1 Ranger.