Question about a local ordinance in my town

[fehhkk]

Hi guys, been a lurker for a while, and decided to ask for opinions on this ordinance (Hoffman Estates, IL):

Sec. 7-5-2. - Discharging firearms.

No person shall fire to discharge, within the Village, any cannon, gun pistol, rifle, or any gun which discharges projectiles either by air, spring device, explosive substance or any other force.

A. The discharging of firearms upon national holidays, and in the celebration of other public and general events by use of blank cartridges by persons so authorized; or

B. The discharging of firearms by any Village officer, or other person in the discharge of his lawful duties when the same is done in such a manner as to not endanger any citizen or property, shall not be deemed a violation of this section.

Does this mean, in a home invasion scenario, firing to an invader, would result in this person getting arrested?

Or am I misinterpreting things?

 

[TexasRifleman]

Does this mean, in a home invasion scenario, firing to an invader, would result in this person getting arrested?

Usually in circumstances like this if the shooting is justified these types of charges are not levied. It's always possible though.

Almost all laws are "breakable" in the right circumstances.

ETA: NavyLCDR below uses the proper term for this; "necessity". His link is worth looking at.

 

[Snowbandit]

In Illinois you would probably get arrested. In a more normal part of the world you would have the common law "choice of evils" defense. That pretty much means the wrong you committed (firing the gun in violation of the ordinance) was justified because the crime you were preventing (home invasion) is so much greater. I don't think I would rely too heavily on that in Illinois however.

 

[rosewood151]

Section "B" seems to be pretty self explanatory. "Or other person in discharge of his lawful duties" Self defense would be a "lawful duty"
I guess, could be wrong.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Yes, you could be arrested for violating that ordinance. However, your violation would be justified by the law of necessity and the charges would be dismissed.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/n044.htm

Also, notice this:
B. The discharging of firearms by any Village officer, or other person in the discharge of his lawful duties when the same is done in such a manner as to not endanger any citizen or property,

It's also against the ordinance for a cop to shoot at anyone who is a citizen, criminal or not, or where the bullet may damage property!

 

[fehhkk]

Thanks! Does this mean that the local ordinance overrides the State law?

(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.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Notice what state law says:

(a) A person is justified

It does NOT say the person is "innocent" or "not guilty". The law says justified. If you shoot and kill an intruder in your home, you have still committed manslaughter. However, the crime you have committed is justified by the circumstances.

I am not sure about Illinois, but state laws also differ in regards to presumption of justification. In some states, the state must prove the shooter was NOT justified. In other states, the shooter must prove that they WERE justified.

 

[snubbies]

Taken into custody

You would more than likely be taken in for investigation of the killig or shooting. It would no doubt be termed a just shooting and no arrest would follow.

 

[fehhkk]

OK, that's understandable. There would quite possibly be a trial. Thankfully, I haven't seen anything like it in the news and hope I never go through this.

 

[MEHavey]

....If you shoot and kill an intruder in your home, you have still committed manslaughter....

Not so. Manslaughter is (1) the unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. (2) The unlawful killing of a human being without any deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the commission of a lawful act without due caution and circumspection.

Lethal force in self defense and/or the defense of others is specifically covered under the law in (I take a leap here) every state.
The issue for the courts (if it gets that far) will be the question of necessity.

Lethal force used by a 98-lb woman against a 250-lb gangbanger who has crashed down her front door of her home wielding a Tech-9 is a no-brainer.
That same force used against a 10-year old w/ a butter knife is quite another.

 

[9mmepiphany]

....

If you shoot and kill an intruder in your home, you have still committed manslaughter....

Not so.

I'm sure he'll come back to clarify, but I would think he meant Homicide

 

[KenW.]

Manslaughter is (1) the unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. (2) The unlawful killing of a human being without any deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the commission of a lawful act without due caution and circumspection.

I'd be shooting to stop a threat, not to kill. It does seem though, that lethal hits stop threats most effectively.

 

[fehhkk]

So after further reading into the IL state statutes, it seems relatively clear that if the intruder made forced/violent entry into your home, with intent to do harm (I imagine armed), and you have a "reasonable belief" to fear for your life, the use of deadly force is justified.

I believe if you are armed, and you tell the intruder to drop his weapon, and he doesn't comply (charges at you, points a gun at you, etc.), you have a reasonable belief that he's going after you, and you can take him out.

I imagine if you shoot him, and the intruder is killed, you will have violated the ordinance (to not discharge a weapon), but since this was in self-defense, you will most likely not get charged.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I'd be shooting to stop a threat, not to kill. It does seem though, that lethal hits stop threats most effectively.

The definition of the law is more targeted to the result than the intent of the shooter...I used to tell trainees that the only difference between charging Murder or Assault with a Deadly Weapon was whether the victim was still breathing

 

[NavyLCDR]

Like I said earlier...

I am not sure about Illinois, but state laws also differ in regards to presumption of justification. In some states, the state must prove the shooter was NOT justified. In other states, the shooter must prove that they WERE justified.

It looks like Illinois might be a state where a person is innocent until proven guilty. There are states where the shooter is presumed guily - all the state has to prove is that the shooter killed the "victim (criminal)", and the shooter must prove their justification, but most states have or are changing that.

 

[MedWheeler]

More and more municipalities are striking these ordinances from their books anyway, as the penalty clause of the state statute banning local gun regulation takes effect on 01 October. That preemption law went into effect in 2009, but did not include an actual means of enforcement. My city stepped up pretty much right away, and more are following. Keep in mind that air guns are not considered "firearms" by state law, and therefore can still be more stringently regulated locally than they are by the state.

 

[RETG]

If people do a check of local city ordinances they will find something similar in many locals. This is basically an ordinance to stop people from target shooting in their backyards, firing off rounds to celebrate NY eve or other events, etc.

It is almost the same wording as posted for the National parks and in their case, it means no target practicing or just plain old shooting; except in self-defense. The park service was at one time, really worried that people might think the parks are like BLM areas, where shooting is allowed in 90 percent of the land.

 

[mgkdrgn]

Does this mean, in a home invasion scenario, firing to an invader, would result in this person getting arrested?

And if it -did-, would you -really- care?

Are you -really- willing to not defend yourself and your family, from someone who has broken into your home, because you -might- get into trouble

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I have read statutes with a prohibition against projectiles (bullets, arrows, shot, etc) crossing property lines or streets and a prohibition against disturbing the peace with loud noises. Does not seem to stop properly set up indoor shooting ranges with backstops and sound proofing.

Some statutes on discharging firearms in the city limits have specific exemptions for self defense, others assume that it would be just common sense to consider a self defense shooting justified.

 

[mortablunt]

Well, whatever you do, don't shoot in an SD scenario and then drag the body inside. That counts as tampering with a crime scene and is a serious felony. Forensics guys can tell if you've moved a body.

 

[fehhkk]

Not that I would really care, it's that I really wanted to know of the consequences of my actions if god forbid me and my wife have to ever face this scenario. Like many of you, I imagine to never have to be put in this situation, but just be mentally prepared for it.

Since we don't have a castle law in illinois, the mere act of trespassing won't justify using lethal force, at least it seems to me. I would have to have me or my wife's life threatened to justify it. I think that requires a little more thinking than just being scared and pulling the trigger.

 

[Sam1911]

The others have counseled you well that your necessity of acting to preserve your life offers a justification for why you broke that law -- just as it offers a potential justification for why you shot/assaulted/maybe killed another human being (which, as you're probably aware, is also against the law).

Since we don't have a castle law in illinois, the mere act of trespassing won't justify using lethal force, at least it seems to me. I would have to have me or my wife's life threatened to justify it. I think that requires a little more thinking than just being scared and pulling the trigger.

That's a tricky concept that many folks who DO live in "castle doctrine" states don't often understand. Trespassing is not a crime that gives you carte blanche to assault or kill someone in any place. The necessity of your actions in preserving your life, the life of a loved one, (or a few other very serious felonies) is still the standard by which those actions may be excused under the law. The mere presence of someone on your property -- and often even in your home -- is not enough to justify shooting and/or killing them.

"Castle Doctrine" and "stand-your-ground" laws often offer certain presumptions in favor of the defender which lower the burden of proof of necessity, but they don't eliminate it.

If you don't have a reasonable belief that you MUST act with violence, immediately, or you or a loved one will be killed or grievously injured, then such action is not justifiable.

Neither being "scared" nor finding someone where they should not be are adequate reasons to act violently against them.

Sounds like you have the right idea.

 

[SimplyChad]

sam I may be wrong but isnt there that one in texas about theft at night?

 

[Sam1911]

Yes. In TX there is a state law that considers theft of property at night -- if there's no other way to stop the theft or recover the property (?) -- to be a qualifying factor that can be used to justify a shooting.

So far as we've found, that's the only location in the US where it is legal to take a life over a piece of property. Kind of startling, and flies in the face of a lot of legal precedent established in the western world over the last few millenia ... but there it is.

That's pretty much the reason you'll often see the phrase, "I don't care how they do it in Texas," repeated so often in the Legal and S&T forums.

 

[SimplyChad]

just wanted to make sure no one was misled
Does anyone have a case in which this was used ?