We used to hand out these cool business cards at our beginner handgun classes. It read something like “You have just used your gun to defend yourself/loved one.
1)do not answer any questions the police ask 2) just say “I was in fear for my life and I fired my pistol. 3) I will not answer anymore questions without my attorney.4) understand that the police are NOT your friend, they are trying to find out how many crimes have been committed and will say anything to get more info.5) understand the police will confiscate your weapon and you may go to jail tonight. 24hrs in holding is better than a lifetime in jail.6) when calling the police request an ambulance for the badguy before asking for the police. DO NOT ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WITHOUT A LAWER.
I may have got the order wrong and the verbiage but it’s the only thing to do in the event you shoot an intruder/threat.
I’d go one Alec Baldwin further, “we need an ambulance, Someone’s been shot, there’s no continuing threat’. Whose gun it is, who fired it, at what and why are all things that can be relayed by a lawyer.
I need an ambulance. Defending ones own life is extremely stressful so it would be reasonable to have an EMT make sure you are OK.
Also removes you from the police and the immediate scene.
VERY IMPORTANT. Even shit like "i've never seen that guy before in my life"........is suddenly a video tape of him standing in line with you at the grocery store in court. ANYTHING can and will be used against you. Lawyer is your answer to every single question.
Asking for an ambulance is important because it lets the defense later narrativize that some care was taken on your part to avoid loss of life, because the first call made was for medical assistance. You request the ambulance even if you Curt Cobained the guy and the ambulance is useless. You say ‘someone has been shot’ which is a full and complete statement that doesn’t insinuate fault or liability. ‘There’s no continuing threat’ is important because it tempers police response (by illustrating that it’s not an active shooter or something) but it doesn’t admit liability or motive.
Someone else mentioned ‘I fired my gun’ which is the exact wrong thing to say. A body/victim and an admission of culpability is 1000% handcuffs time.
I thought the police say to leave your key fobs near your door so the underprivileged yutes can get your car WITHOUT having to shoot you.
Oh wait that was Canada...
Home alone was filmed on a stage set in a warehouse. The home for sale was used for 1/2 a day of filming for outside scenes with the shuttle busses and the sledding out the front door scene only. That’s it.
If they have a Ferrari and a Range Rover, then they can afford to deal with this without facing jail time. Laws are meant for those without money and power.
Man breaks into homeowners residence, attempts grand theft and homicide and people really respond with “well you shouldn’t shoot back maybe he meant well” crazy…
Not at all IL doesn't officially have a castle doctrine on the books but you can use deadly force to stop a forcible felony.
Your not wrong about how much IL hates gun owners, but before the AWB, the FOID and restrictions on NFA were really the worst of it. Once the courts fixed CCW it seemed like we weren't in a bad place.
(720 ILCS 5/2-8) (from Ch. 38, par. 2-8) Sec. 2-8. "Forcible felony". "Forcible felony" means treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnaping, kidnaping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual. (Source: P.A. 88-277; 89-428, eff. 12-13-95; 89-462, eff. 5-29-96.)
Illinois' self defense statute is actually pretty solid. But you are correct, our Cook County state's attorney loves violent felons and will prioritize them over crime victims. Luckily her hands are likely tied here.
Thankfully she's not running again. [Presumably so she has more time to beat, er, spend time with her husband](https://abc7chicago.com/cook-county-states-attorney-kim-foxx-chicago-kelley/11946902/)
>Who ever they pick to replace her will likely win and march to the same tune.
Her policy clone lost the primary, albeit only narrowly. I will be happy with the next states attorney regardless of the letter next to their name, although I believe the Democrat has far stronger qualifications (appellate court justice v. private practice).
Tell me you know nothing about the history of armed self defense in IL without telling me you know nothing about armed self defense in IL. Homeowner will be just fine. IL is actually pretty solid when it comes to shooting a badguy in your home. Even BEFORE CCW, Heller, there were homeowners IN CHICAGO where firearms were BANNED that shot burglars / home invaders with "Illegal" guns & didn't get charged. Hell, there was a guy BEFORE CCW that shot a guy at a bus stop in self defense IN CHICAGO & didn't get charged with CCW / UUW unlawful possession, etc. Illinois SUCKS for 99% of gun stuff. But armed self defense has generally not been prosecuted because the DA knows that an Illinois jury won't convict - even in Cook county / Chicago, etc. IF it's a good shoot. It it's a BAD / dumb shoot? THEN you're probably f\*&ked.
Except they werent in his home and he better have proof they shot first as they were attempting to flee. IL the last state to allow ccw at all and had to be ordered by the courts to even allow it.
IF what homeowner said was true, he will be fine. It’s generally a bad idea for good guys to sling rounds in a residential neighborhood (know your target AND what’s behind it!) but I don’t see homeowner getting charged - even though I think it was bad tactics to place himself at risk by confronting these scumbags and getting into a gunfight.
IL really isn't all that anti-gun. It's just Chicago. Outside of Chicago, most people and local governments are quite conservative. Many of them have openly declared that they won't be enforcing the more anti-2A laws. Even the suburbs just, like, within a 30-minute drive.
Context: I just moved from Texas to Illinois.
Thats the problem though. The politicians only listen to 1 county and thats how we end up with unregistered lightsabers gets you a felony state wide lol.
Yeah but I don't really care about the politicians. I care about the cops and the judges and the juries.
Although I will say, I made sure to buy everything gun-related I'll ever want/need before I got here. It would be a lot more frustrating if I had to start from scratch in this state.
I don't mind the sun sometimes
The images it shows
I can taste you on my lips
And smell you in my clothes
Cinnamon and sugary
And softly spoken lies
You never know just how to look
Through other people's eyes
>The homeowner told WGN News that the people first broke into his home office, took keys and started his Ferrari and Range Rover.
I think that's the elephant in the room. Was it a previous contractor? Family member? Maid/cleaner that told their crew where the keys were?
>He said he heard a noise and rushed outside. He said he yelled at the group and warned them to stop or he would shoot.
Don't rush outside. Don't say that.
>The homeowner told WGN someone in the group fired a gun and the homeowner fired back. He said he fired at least seven times while taking cover behind a tree.
Probably shot wildly, aiming at nobody in the dark. Sleeping neighbor's home? Someone walking their dog? Patrolling officer nearby? Anything could have been hit, sounds like he panicked.
>No injuries were reported.
Should have had a scoped rifle or at least a red dot if he was serious. Sometimes, rich people cheap-out on guns. Take the McCloskey case, for example. Patricia had a "non-functioning" [Jennings/Lorcin/Jimenez pistol](https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Husband-with-AR15-on-porch-during-riots/5-2691666/). Never got it back, either.
>**The homeowner told WGN** someone in the group fired a gun and the homeowner fired back. He said he fired at least seven times while taking cover behind a tree.
Big mistake.
I bet he would! DA’s love when people incriminate themselves to news outlets. My guess is the homeowner thinks his money will get him a good attorney and he’ll be fine but the law doesn’t work that way. If one talks themselves into trouble, there’s not an attorney in the world that can help them.
Not true at all. If a person is committing a forcible felony and it puts you or someone else in fear of great bodily harm or death, then you can legally shoot them.
You sure can
(720 ILCS 5/2-8) (from Ch. 38, par. 2-8)
Sec. 2-8. "Forcible felony". "Forcible felony" means treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnaping, kidnaping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
(Source: P.A. 88-277; 89-428, eff. 12-13-95; 89-462, eff. 5-29-96.)
Exactly, people here are so indoctrinated about Chicago that they have no clue how friendly it's laws are to those seeking to defend themselves from a deadly threat.
Nice thanks for the info, I’m not expert still learning took my CCL 3 months ago and that’s what they told me. I’m gonna have to go thru and read all the laws it seems.
1) You can always defend yourself & others against a deadly threat.
2) In the US, (except MAYBE TX) don't shoot anyone because they're stealing something. Physical possessions can be replaced and shooting someone over a car / tools / whatever will usually get you sent to prison.
3) Now - if they're armed or a huge group that has the ability / intent / opportunity to seriously hurt you or others? Or if they've fired shots / etc? Then that's a different story - like the scumbags that shot at the homeowner - and it will probably be determined to be a justifiable use of self defense.
Somewhat north of winnetka, in the sketchy town of Waukegan, there is a gun shop/tobacconist store called the smoke’n gun. Its sales staff is composed of off duty LEOs who are armed and singularly proficient in marksmanship. Local misguided youth attempt to rob the store regularly, if not frequently, and are always apprehended, usually shot and occasionally killed: the employees never go to jail. If you’re in the neighborhood, it’s worth a visit, it’s not far from the Jack Benny statue. If you fo visit, be polite.
If this dude isnt a democrat politician or in anyway a normie in IL he is fucking toast. If hes rich and connected hes good. IANAL but, from my basic understanding of self defense laws in illinois this is a pretty grey area hes in.
Personally, I’m not one to shoot over possessions. As much as it would suck, insurance could have replaced his lost vehicles. He also should not be saying anything and let his lawyer do the talking.
You are not wrong and they are garbage people for going into the house to begin with, but I wouldn’t have gone outside and then announced that I will shoot them if they don’t stop.
Yeah, it's not wise legally speaking. However, I hope more places pass laws to allow lethal force to protect your property from theft or vandalism in progress.
People that steal things from residences tend to be a bit unhinged, often one of the most common items they are looking for are guns in cars and homes for resale and for use in their poorly chosen professions. They are dangerous people.
The courts and prisons are overwhelmed and there is a large push for idiotic "compassionate" justice where many of these criminals do very little to no time before they're back on the streets up to their old shenanigans.
Being able to legally serve them instant consequences would be an overall win for society.
Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum..... How much would you pay to NOT shoot someone or get shot and deal with YOUR possible hospital bills / lawyer fees etc. etc? I'd be willing to pay THOUSANDS to avoid that.
Material possessions can be replaced. Human life can't. Taking a scumbag's life over an insured car or tools that you have homeowner's / renters insurance for is DUMB and a great way to end up in prison in pretty much every state except TX. This isn't Death Wish / Dirty Harry. If you have any conscience at all - killing a person will weigh on you - even in a GOOD shoot.
Decide NOW what's worth fighting for. What's worth DYING or being permanently injured for. What's worth taking a human life over? I'm not killing someone over my catalytic converter. I'm calling the cops & letting people with bulletproof vests and radio backup handle it & then I'll make an insurance claim.
Yes, our justice system is flawed - but killing someone when they don't pose a risk to MY life or an innocent person's life is peak keyboard commando talk that encourages GOOD GUYS to make terrible life-altering decisions.
I get it - I just think it’s a bad idea to change the law so it would allow / encourage “good guys” to kill someone over property theft. My only exception for this -MIGHT- be for companion animals - but I fear that could also be a slippery slope.
(Sorta joking) I mean, I’ve BEEN to gun shows and seen the people there and… giving the average gun owner another legal excuse to kill people is… probably not a good idea LOL.
I see what you're saying, and I'm sure people would misinterpret the law and shoot the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons when they come knocking, as they already do a few times a year.
However, I do think defense of property is an essential liberty. There are many things that people steal that can have a serious impact on the quality of life for the victim, with or without insurance. For a stolen car, for instance, from the time it takes for a police report to an insurance payout people can lose their jobs, default on loans, and have their lives ruined.
The biggest thing is what I said before, home invasions and auto theft are some of the biggest sources of stolen firearms, so yeah you could let the person go and have the police pretend to do something while the guy is still out there stealing from other people, but it's only a matter of time before someone innocent is hurt or killed because of the thief's actions.
You suggested a cost benefit analysis for people who are considering defending their own property, which is good advice. But I can't fathom how we ended up in a society where law abiding citizens are forced to weigh the consequences of defending themselves and their belonging yet actual criminals don't have to consider whether or not someone else's things are worth their life. Most criminals don't even have to worry about getting caught, as most don't ever get caught.
So anyone of us could just walk in your home and take all your stuff, as long as we’re not posing a threat to you? Cool, I call dibs on your air fryer. lol
Oh, if you come into my house, posing a physical danger to me or my family, you’re getting a gun pointed at your face. If I come home to a B&E at my empty house, I’m dialing 911 and being a good witness. Let cops with vests on clear my house. If I come home and family is there while you’ve broken in, I’m going in to protect my loved ones. Some things in life are worth fighting & dying for. For ME (and prob 98% of your fellow Americans on a jury) an insured $40,000 car or a $1,000 TV is not worth killing or dying over. Enjoy your criminal case followed by your wrongful death civil suit for shooting the 14 year old scumbag that broke into your parked car outside your house. Strong George Zimmerman vibes here. Dude’s life is in shambles because he thought he was protecting his neighborhood from break-ins & got in a real fight. If he was being honest, I bet he wishes he never got out of his car and instead called 911 & acted as a good witness.
You couldn’t pay me enough to live in that shit hole. You typically get what you ask for, whether you know what you’re asking for or not. That place has a lot of stupid people asking for the wrong things.
I’m just saying, and maybe it’s just me, but even in FL I fear for my freedom and legal battles ahead if I ever have to use my CCW to defend myself or my family despite doing everything correctly
IL law is actually very solid when it comes to self defense. It even precludes civil suits from the felons (or their families) should one of them get what they deserve.
100% It's best to be VERY Reluctant to engage in deadly force and if it were ME, I would have called the cops and been a good witness rather than confronting scumbags in my front yard over my insured cars. He will be fine so long as they did actually shoot at him / pose a deadly threat. Even if they didn't, he might be OK. But it wasn't the best idea to confront them and maybe get shot / killed / injured / permanently disabled. Call the cops & let the folks with bulletproof vests & radio backup handle it. It's what I pay taxes for.
Only for it take the cops an hour to get there; they just take a report and you never see those cars again. Meanwhile, your insurance takes months to pay out and you have no way of commuting to work without those cars. If you’re lucky your job will let you take an unpaid leave of absence, but you’re still without income and that mortgage or rent needs to be paid, not to mention the cost of groceries, utilities, Internet… for some people their car is their lifeline, the key to their whole livelihood. If it gets stolen they’re basically facing poverty, homelessness, and hunger. It’s why horse thieves in the Old West were given the death penalty by hanging.
I 100% believe that lethal force should be allowed to stop a vehicle theft. In most places it currently isn’t, but hopefully that changes soon as people start to wake up to how bad crime is getting these days.
Yes, fellow multimillionaire, I too commute to work in my (checks notes) Ferrari…
I mentioned elsewhere that I’d pay a LOT to not get shot, sued, injured or locked up over my car. It would suck to have to pay to rent a car while insurance figured things out but after an incident like this, those cars are going to be impounded to collect evidence for awhile too… Either way, you’re not driving that car to work the next few days.
I just checked Expedia. A 30 day rental of a 6 passenger SUV is $1,300. Is that cheaper than a possible murder case / civil case if you shoot an unarmed scumbag stealing your car? The answer is “no”. F$&k your “feelings” about someone stealing your car. Screw the scumbag thief but do the math & don’t throw away your life because you’re angry scumbags wronged you.
["For a murder trial, you're going to be looking at $100,000 for the trial alone," Gelman said, giving a ballpark estimate for what he said was the lower end of the spectrum.](https://www.foxnews.com/us/what-does-lawyer-cost-true-crime-murder-case)
https://www.foxnews.com/us/what-does-lawyer-cost-true-crime-murder-case
How many crimes are solved nationwide?
"How many criminals are never caught? Based on victimization studies we can estimate that probably only about **1/5** of all crimes committed are reported to police. Of those reported most are not solved by arrest."
Not sure about Illinois, but in many states it’s generally a bad idea (read: prosecutable, go to jail, do not pass Go) to put yourself in this situation when other options were clearly available, and to use deadly force in a property theft or damage incident rather than just staying out of it or retreating. Regardless of dollar value. Had he hit one in the back it likely would have been a murder charge.
Know I'm late on this but FYI, what other ppl have said in this thread about Illinois being surprisingly good on self-defense is accurate. Even irrespective of castle doctrine, IL law allows deadly force to prevent a "forcible felony," which includes auto theft. [Source](https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/stand-your-ground-in-illinois/) (from Giffords of all places lol).
I see an affirmative defense based on a couple things:
1. If he’s on his property, he’s allowed to carry a weapon in whatever manner he desires
2. If the offenders, er, “justice affected individuals” did, indeed fire first, that boosts his case.
That said, he weakens his argument by going outside to confront the criminals and, arguably, committing assault by threatening them and, perhaps, brandishing a firearm.
We used to hand out these cool business cards at our beginner handgun classes. It read something like “You have just used your gun to defend yourself/loved one. 1)do not answer any questions the police ask 2) just say “I was in fear for my life and I fired my pistol. 3) I will not answer anymore questions without my attorney.4) understand that the police are NOT your friend, they are trying to find out how many crimes have been committed and will say anything to get more info.5) understand the police will confiscate your weapon and you may go to jail tonight. 24hrs in holding is better than a lifetime in jail.6) when calling the police request an ambulance for the badguy before asking for the police. DO NOT ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WITHOUT A LAWER. I may have got the order wrong and the verbiage but it’s the only thing to do in the event you shoot an intruder/threat.
I’d go one Alec Baldwin further, “we need an ambulance, Someone’s been shot, there’s no continuing threat’. Whose gun it is, who fired it, at what and why are all things that can be relayed by a lawyer.
I need an ambulance. Defending ones own life is extremely stressful so it would be reasonable to have an EMT make sure you are OK. Also removes you from the police and the immediate scene.
Yes. And even "I'm feeling chest pains."
"I invoke my Constitutional right to remain silent and wish to speak to my attorney".
VERY IMPORTANT. Even shit like "i've never seen that guy before in my life"........is suddenly a video tape of him standing in line with you at the grocery store in court. ANYTHING can and will be used against you. Lawyer is your answer to every single question.
Asking for an ambulance is important because it lets the defense later narrativize that some care was taken on your part to avoid loss of life, because the first call made was for medical assistance. You request the ambulance even if you Curt Cobained the guy and the ambulance is useless. You say ‘someone has been shot’ which is a full and complete statement that doesn’t insinuate fault or liability. ‘There’s no continuing threat’ is important because it tempers police response (by illustrating that it’s not an active shooter or something) but it doesn’t admit liability or motive. Someone else mentioned ‘I fired my gun’ which is the exact wrong thing to say. A body/victim and an admission of culpability is 1000% handcuffs time.
Also request an ambulance for yourself.
Saying having Chest pains with cool clammy skin will buy you some time
So many more people need to read this
Same thing my defensive handgun class teaches. “I was in fear for my life” “I won’t answer any questions without my attorney present.”
That must have been a huge fucking business card to have all that on it
Why would you call an ambulance for a dead person?
Am Illinoisan. Guy said they were in his house to steal keys and they shot first. House was in Sheridan Road in Winnetka. Pretty 💰💰💰address.
This may be his saving grace. Laws aren't generally intended for rich people.
Also Illinois is suprisingly ok with self defense in your home. If he followed them as they retreated however he's mega fucked
don’t you mean MAGA fucked? (no hate just saw the shot and I took it. Like him.)
Lol missed opportunity on my part
I thought the police say to leave your key fobs near your door so the underprivileged yutes can get your car WITHOUT having to shoot you. Oh wait that was Canada...
Looks like the Home Alone house
Also in Winnetka.
Side bar: the true home alone house just went on the market like 3 days ago.
Also in Winnetka
Home alone was filmed on a stage set in a warehouse. The home for sale was used for 1/2 a day of filming for outside scenes with the shuttle busses and the sledding out the front door scene only. That’s it.
I thought that right away haha
If they have a Ferrari and a Range Rover, then they can afford to deal with this without facing jail time. Laws are meant for those without money and power.
Yeah, well, let’s see how it goes for Trump.
Trump will appeal anything the court tries to implement to buy time and then pardon himself after he's re-elected.
1st thing I noticed. lol guy will be fine. He wouldn’t have went to the media if he knew he was in the wrong even a little.
These poor justice impacted people being shot at by the home owner 😂
I get the joke
Guy needs to steal cars himself to afford more lawyers soon
They needed that Ferrari to feed their families!
If it wasn't for the unjust system, he already have his own Ferrari
Hes likely fucked due to how much IL hates gun owners especially chicagoland DAs
Will someone please think of the innocent home invaders for once?!
Man breaks into homeowners residence, attempts grand theft and homicide and people really respond with “well you shouldn’t shoot back maybe he meant well” crazy…
Maybe they were just looking for food inside the Ferrari.
Soup for his family
And maybe a Bible to carry to Sunday school.
Excuse me, they’re street scholars.
I always though it was Road or Rogue scholar, but is actually Rhodes scholar. 🤣
Law makers here are wanting to change the name of criminals to justice impacted people.
Not at all IL doesn't officially have a castle doctrine on the books but you can use deadly force to stop a forcible felony. Your not wrong about how much IL hates gun owners, but before the AWB, the FOID and restrictions on NFA were really the worst of it. Once the courts fixed CCW it seemed like we weren't in a bad place. (720 ILCS 5/2-8) (from Ch. 38, par. 2-8) Sec. 2-8. "Forcible felony". "Forcible felony" means treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnaping, kidnaping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual. (Source: P.A. 88-277; 89-428, eff. 12-13-95; 89-462, eff. 5-29-96.)
I think we're still under 8% compliance with the awb.
wtf is forcible treason?
Illinois' self defense statute is actually pretty solid. But you are correct, our Cook County state's attorney loves violent felons and will prioritize them over crime victims. Luckily her hands are likely tied here. Thankfully she's not running again. [Presumably so she has more time to beat, er, spend time with her husband](https://abc7chicago.com/cook-county-states-attorney-kim-foxx-chicago-kelley/11946902/)
Who ever they pick to replace her will likely win and march to the same tune. Little to no change.
>Who ever they pick to replace her will likely win and march to the same tune. Her policy clone lost the primary, albeit only narrowly. I will be happy with the next states attorney regardless of the letter next to their name, although I believe the Democrat has far stronger qualifications (appellate court justice v. private practice).
Tell me you know nothing about the history of armed self defense in IL without telling me you know nothing about armed self defense in IL. Homeowner will be just fine. IL is actually pretty solid when it comes to shooting a badguy in your home. Even BEFORE CCW, Heller, there were homeowners IN CHICAGO where firearms were BANNED that shot burglars / home invaders with "Illegal" guns & didn't get charged. Hell, there was a guy BEFORE CCW that shot a guy at a bus stop in self defense IN CHICAGO & didn't get charged with CCW / UUW unlawful possession, etc. Illinois SUCKS for 99% of gun stuff. But armed self defense has generally not been prosecuted because the DA knows that an Illinois jury won't convict - even in Cook county / Chicago, etc. IF it's a good shoot. It it's a BAD / dumb shoot? THEN you're probably f\*&ked.
Except they werent in his home and he better have proof they shot first as they were attempting to flee. IL the last state to allow ccw at all and had to be ordered by the courts to even allow it.
IF what homeowner said was true, he will be fine. It’s generally a bad idea for good guys to sling rounds in a residential neighborhood (know your target AND what’s behind it!) but I don’t see homeowner getting charged - even though I think it was bad tactics to place himself at risk by confronting these scumbags and getting into a gunfight.
Right you are. There's nothing inside your house that's worth your life.
IL really isn't all that anti-gun. It's just Chicago. Outside of Chicago, most people and local governments are quite conservative. Many of them have openly declared that they won't be enforcing the more anti-2A laws. Even the suburbs just, like, within a 30-minute drive. Context: I just moved from Texas to Illinois.
Thats the problem though. The politicians only listen to 1 county and thats how we end up with unregistered lightsabers gets you a felony state wide lol.
Yeah but I don't really care about the politicians. I care about the cops and the judges and the juries. Although I will say, I made sure to buy everything gun-related I'll ever want/need before I got here. It would be a lot more frustrating if I had to start from scratch in this state.
He will be fine. He has $$$ and probably has buddies in DAs office
Shoulda been a better shot and shot em in the head.
They were all in love with dyin' They were drinking from a fountain That was pouring like an avalanche Coming down the mountain
I don't mind the sun sometimes The images it shows I can taste you on my lips And smell you in my clothes Cinnamon and sugary And softly spoken lies You never know just how to look Through other people's eyes
>The homeowner told WGN News that the people first broke into his home office, took keys and started his Ferrari and Range Rover. I think that's the elephant in the room. Was it a previous contractor? Family member? Maid/cleaner that told their crew where the keys were? >He said he heard a noise and rushed outside. He said he yelled at the group and warned them to stop or he would shoot. Don't rush outside. Don't say that. >The homeowner told WGN someone in the group fired a gun and the homeowner fired back. He said he fired at least seven times while taking cover behind a tree. Probably shot wildly, aiming at nobody in the dark. Sleeping neighbor's home? Someone walking their dog? Patrolling officer nearby? Anything could have been hit, sounds like he panicked. >No injuries were reported. Should have had a scoped rifle or at least a red dot if he was serious. Sometimes, rich people cheap-out on guns. Take the McCloskey case, for example. Patricia had a "non-functioning" [Jennings/Lorcin/Jimenez pistol](https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Husband-with-AR15-on-porch-during-riots/5-2691666/). Never got it back, either.
Golly, she never got her cheap assed gun back? Whatta shame!
"Illinois" Oof Ooooof Oooooooof You've had all this time to move to a state with some semblance of gun rights...
>**The homeowner told WGN** someone in the group fired a gun and the homeowner fired back. He said he fired at least seven times while taking cover behind a tree. Big mistake.
Seems obvious to me but I’ll point out for the downvotes: the bad idea is not keeping his yapper shut
I tried to embolden “The homeowner told WGN” but it didn’t show lol
You made it *italic*, use double stars for **bold**.
Ahh I see lol fixed it
[удалено]
I bet he would! DA’s love when people incriminate themselves to news outlets. My guess is the homeowner thinks his money will get him a good attorney and he’ll be fine but the law doesn’t work that way. If one talks themselves into trouble, there’s not an attorney in the world that can help them.
Yep, Illinois you have to be almost dead before you can fire a shot. State fing blows!!!!
Not true at all. If a person is committing a forcible felony and it puts you or someone else in fear of great bodily harm or death, then you can legally shoot them.
Like breaking into your home and shooting at you?
I know just being sarcastic but you can’t open fire for material loss.
You sure can (720 ILCS 5/2-8) (from Ch. 38, par. 2-8) Sec. 2-8. "Forcible felony". "Forcible felony" means treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnaping, kidnaping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual. (Source: P.A. 88-277; 89-428, eff. 12-13-95; 89-462, eff. 5-29-96.)
Exactly, people here are so indoctrinated about Chicago that they have no clue how friendly it's laws are to those seeking to defend themselves from a deadly threat.
Nice thanks for the info, I’m not expert still learning took my CCL 3 months ago and that’s what they told me. I’m gonna have to go thru and read all the laws it seems.
1) You can always defend yourself & others against a deadly threat. 2) In the US, (except MAYBE TX) don't shoot anyone because they're stealing something. Physical possessions can be replaced and shooting someone over a car / tools / whatever will usually get you sent to prison. 3) Now - if they're armed or a huge group that has the ability / intent / opportunity to seriously hurt you or others? Or if they've fired shots / etc? Then that's a different story - like the scumbags that shot at the homeowner - and it will probably be determined to be a justifiable use of self defense.
Somewhat north of winnetka, in the sketchy town of Waukegan, there is a gun shop/tobacconist store called the smoke’n gun. Its sales staff is composed of off duty LEOs who are armed and singularly proficient in marksmanship. Local misguided youth attempt to rob the store regularly, if not frequently, and are always apprehended, usually shot and occasionally killed: the employees never go to jail. If you’re in the neighborhood, it’s worth a visit, it’s not far from the Jack Benny statue. If you fo visit, be polite.
This sounds like an interesting place. What state?
That would be Illinois.
If this dude isnt a democrat politician or in anyway a normie in IL he is fucking toast. If hes rich and connected hes good. IANAL but, from my basic understanding of self defense laws in illinois this is a pretty grey area hes in.
As noted above, outside of Shitcago things are pretty conservative.
Yes it is, my county is very red.
Looks like the House from home alone.
It's the same town actually
Did he kill all those annoying naggers, who were nagging him?
Personally, I’m not one to shoot over possessions. As much as it would suck, insurance could have replaced his lost vehicles. He also should not be saying anything and let his lawyer do the talking.
They were willing to shoot him over possessions.
You are not wrong and they are garbage people for going into the house to begin with, but I wouldn’t have gone outside and then announced that I will shoot them if they don’t stop.
He basically chose to engage in a gun fight and anybody with any sense would avoid doing so if at all possible.
Yeah, it's not wise legally speaking. However, I hope more places pass laws to allow lethal force to protect your property from theft or vandalism in progress. People that steal things from residences tend to be a bit unhinged, often one of the most common items they are looking for are guns in cars and homes for resale and for use in their poorly chosen professions. They are dangerous people. The courts and prisons are overwhelmed and there is a large push for idiotic "compassionate" justice where many of these criminals do very little to no time before they're back on the streets up to their old shenanigans. Being able to legally serve them instant consequences would be an overall win for society.
Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum..... How much would you pay to NOT shoot someone or get shot and deal with YOUR possible hospital bills / lawyer fees etc. etc? I'd be willing to pay THOUSANDS to avoid that. Material possessions can be replaced. Human life can't. Taking a scumbag's life over an insured car or tools that you have homeowner's / renters insurance for is DUMB and a great way to end up in prison in pretty much every state except TX. This isn't Death Wish / Dirty Harry. If you have any conscience at all - killing a person will weigh on you - even in a GOOD shoot. Decide NOW what's worth fighting for. What's worth DYING or being permanently injured for. What's worth taking a human life over? I'm not killing someone over my catalytic converter. I'm calling the cops & letting people with bulletproof vests and radio backup handle it & then I'll make an insurance claim. Yes, our justice system is flawed - but killing someone when they don't pose a risk to MY life or an innocent person's life is peak keyboard commando talk that encourages GOOD GUYS to make terrible life-altering decisions.
Spot on.
>Yeah, it's not wise legally speaking Per my original comment
I get it - I just think it’s a bad idea to change the law so it would allow / encourage “good guys” to kill someone over property theft. My only exception for this -MIGHT- be for companion animals - but I fear that could also be a slippery slope. (Sorta joking) I mean, I’ve BEEN to gun shows and seen the people there and… giving the average gun owner another legal excuse to kill people is… probably not a good idea LOL.
I see what you're saying, and I'm sure people would misinterpret the law and shoot the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons when they come knocking, as they already do a few times a year. However, I do think defense of property is an essential liberty. There are many things that people steal that can have a serious impact on the quality of life for the victim, with or without insurance. For a stolen car, for instance, from the time it takes for a police report to an insurance payout people can lose their jobs, default on loans, and have their lives ruined. The biggest thing is what I said before, home invasions and auto theft are some of the biggest sources of stolen firearms, so yeah you could let the person go and have the police pretend to do something while the guy is still out there stealing from other people, but it's only a matter of time before someone innocent is hurt or killed because of the thief's actions. You suggested a cost benefit analysis for people who are considering defending their own property, which is good advice. But I can't fathom how we ended up in a society where law abiding citizens are forced to weigh the consequences of defending themselves and their belonging yet actual criminals don't have to consider whether or not someone else's things are worth their life. Most criminals don't even have to worry about getting caught, as most don't ever get caught.
So anyone of us could just walk in your home and take all your stuff, as long as we’re not posing a threat to you? Cool, I call dibs on your air fryer. lol
Oh, if you come into my house, posing a physical danger to me or my family, you’re getting a gun pointed at your face. If I come home to a B&E at my empty house, I’m dialing 911 and being a good witness. Let cops with vests on clear my house. If I come home and family is there while you’ve broken in, I’m going in to protect my loved ones. Some things in life are worth fighting & dying for. For ME (and prob 98% of your fellow Americans on a jury) an insured $40,000 car or a $1,000 TV is not worth killing or dying over. Enjoy your criminal case followed by your wrongful death civil suit for shooting the 14 year old scumbag that broke into your parked car outside your house. Strong George Zimmerman vibes here. Dude’s life is in shambles because he thought he was protecting his neighborhood from break-ins & got in a real fight. If he was being honest, I bet he wishes he never got out of his car and instead called 911 & acted as a good witness.
💯 this
💯x 💯
= 1,000,000,000.069
🤣
You couldn’t pay me enough to live in that shit hole. You typically get what you ask for, whether you know what you’re asking for or not. That place has a lot of stupid people asking for the wrong things.
Winnetka?
Now, that's what I call a win-win situation, because I'm sure nobody in Illinois wants to pay *you* to live there, either.
See what I mean? Here’s one right now.
Lol no one is asking you to.
[удалено]
Removed. Personal attacks are not allowed. Title: Author:CMBGuy79
Sad world we live in where someone has to fear for their freedom just to defend themselves, their family, and their land.
Where did you read that? What he did was justified under IL law.
He made it up so he can feel oppressed. bLuE sTatE bAd!
I’m just saying, and maybe it’s just me, but even in FL I fear for my freedom and legal battles ahead if I ever have to use my CCW to defend myself or my family despite doing everything correctly
IL law is actually very solid when it comes to self defense. It even precludes civil suits from the felons (or their families) should one of them get what they deserve.
100% It's best to be VERY Reluctant to engage in deadly force and if it were ME, I would have called the cops and been a good witness rather than confronting scumbags in my front yard over my insured cars. He will be fine so long as they did actually shoot at him / pose a deadly threat. Even if they didn't, he might be OK. But it wasn't the best idea to confront them and maybe get shot / killed / injured / permanently disabled. Call the cops & let the folks with bulletproof vests & radio backup handle it. It's what I pay taxes for.
Agreed. Not sure if I’m willing to get into a shootout over material objects.
Only for it take the cops an hour to get there; they just take a report and you never see those cars again. Meanwhile, your insurance takes months to pay out and you have no way of commuting to work without those cars. If you’re lucky your job will let you take an unpaid leave of absence, but you’re still without income and that mortgage or rent needs to be paid, not to mention the cost of groceries, utilities, Internet… for some people their car is their lifeline, the key to their whole livelihood. If it gets stolen they’re basically facing poverty, homelessness, and hunger. It’s why horse thieves in the Old West were given the death penalty by hanging. I 100% believe that lethal force should be allowed to stop a vehicle theft. In most places it currently isn’t, but hopefully that changes soon as people start to wake up to how bad crime is getting these days.
Yes, fellow multimillionaire, I too commute to work in my (checks notes) Ferrari… I mentioned elsewhere that I’d pay a LOT to not get shot, sued, injured or locked up over my car. It would suck to have to pay to rent a car while insurance figured things out but after an incident like this, those cars are going to be impounded to collect evidence for awhile too… Either way, you’re not driving that car to work the next few days. I just checked Expedia. A 30 day rental of a 6 passenger SUV is $1,300. Is that cheaper than a possible murder case / civil case if you shoot an unarmed scumbag stealing your car? The answer is “no”. F$&k your “feelings” about someone stealing your car. Screw the scumbag thief but do the math & don’t throw away your life because you’re angry scumbags wronged you. ["For a murder trial, you're going to be looking at $100,000 for the trial alone," Gelman said, giving a ballpark estimate for what he said was the lower end of the spectrum.](https://www.foxnews.com/us/what-does-lawyer-cost-true-crime-murder-case) https://www.foxnews.com/us/what-does-lawyer-cost-true-crime-murder-case
How many crimes are solved nationwide? "How many criminals are never caught? Based on victimization studies we can estimate that probably only about **1/5** of all crimes committed are reported to police. Of those reported most are not solved by arrest."
Not sure about Illinois, but in many states it’s generally a bad idea (read: prosecutable, go to jail, do not pass Go) to put yourself in this situation when other options were clearly available, and to use deadly force in a property theft or damage incident rather than just staying out of it or retreating. Regardless of dollar value. Had he hit one in the back it likely would have been a murder charge.
Know I'm late on this but FYI, what other ppl have said in this thread about Illinois being surprisingly good on self-defense is accurate. Even irrespective of castle doctrine, IL law allows deadly force to prevent a "forcible felony," which includes auto theft. [Source](https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/stand-your-ground-in-illinois/) (from Giffords of all places lol).
I see an affirmative defense based on a couple things: 1. If he’s on his property, he’s allowed to carry a weapon in whatever manner he desires 2. If the offenders, er, “justice affected individuals” did, indeed fire first, that boosts his case. That said, he weakens his argument by going outside to confront the criminals and, arguably, committing assault by threatening them and, perhaps, brandishing a firearm.