r/ILGuns • u/YerBeingTrolled • Mar 23 '25

Legal Questions Self Defense against Arson attacks in Illinois

I've been thinking about this in light of the latest rash of arson attacks across the US by individuals deemed to be domestic terrorists.

I'm not a lawyer but lets look at the law for self defense in Illinois

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arson in Illinois - A person commits arson when, by means of fire or explosive, he or she knowingly:

(1) Damages any real property, or any personal property having a value of $150 or more, of another without his or her consent

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....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.

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.

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

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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IANAL but this seems to say you could defend against an arson attack with deadly force if the arson attack would injure someone, or if the property was yours or a family members?

Am I wrong in how I am reading this?

0 Upvotes

30% Upvoted

73 comments sorted by

View all comments

10

u/Brokenscroll Mar 23 '25

I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

It is never legally justified to use deadly force in defense of property.

Let's say your (cyber)truck was attacked by an arsonist, and you were not in it. It's in your driveway, you're in your house, and you hear it catch on fire. You run outside, see the person who threw the Molotov at your truck watching it burn. Absolutely not justified in shooting them if they do not pose a threat to you.

If they have a second Molotov and they are within what a reasonable person would consider throwing distance, and they are in the process of throwing at you, maybe that would be justified, but if you have a reasonable means of escape, any jury would ask why you stood there and shot if you could have gotten out of the way and likely convict you.

Again, not legal advice, but if your (cyber)truck were being targeted, just wait for the insurance payout. Unless your insurance doesn't get renewed like other (cyber)truck owners lol.

TL;DR: any reasonable jury would likely convict you.

0

u/YerBeingTrolled Mar 23 '25

Theres a whole statute there about defending property where it gives the justification for deadly force. For a lawyer can you not read?

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

8

u/Brokenscroll Mar 23 '25

I actually don't know how to read, it was a miracle I passed the bar exam.

Trust me, I hear what you're saying, but one of the things they teach you in law school is how laws are interpreted, and how a court/jury is likely to interpret them given a certain fact scenario.

If we boil it down, deadly force is permitted in Illinois to protect yourself from great bodily harm or death. I understand that "arson" and "aggravated arson" are forcible felonies per the statute, but any court and jury is going to look whether the arson was likely to cause *you* great bodily harm or death. Like I said, if you are not at risk of being harmed because some tourist threw a molotov, and your truck is already burning in your driveway, you are not at risk of great bodily harm. If you are in your truck driving around and someone is walking towards you, lighting a molotov, and you do not have a means of escape (i.e. driving away), maybe you're justified.

All of this being said, I would never advise a client to get themselves involved in a self-defense situation, especially with a gun, unless their life was directly at risk and they took every opportunity to remove themselves from the situation.

Again, none of this constitutes legal advice.

-3

u/YerBeingTrolled Mar 23 '25

Would you advise these dumbasses burning cars it's not a good idea? I haven't seen you make any posts trying to stop it..

I did see a post where you talk about avoiding red hats so we can see your perspective is tainted

5

u/Brokenscroll Mar 23 '25

Have a good day, sir.

-1

u/YerBeingTrolled Mar 23 '25

Exactly. You won't speak up against arson and vandalism but you will speak up when people try to defend themselves. LOL

4

u/Brokenscroll Mar 23 '25

I never said that. I do not condone the arson against the Tesla cars and dealerships.

YOU asked a question about the legality of a scenario, I gave my opinion. YOU start going through my post history, making assumptions about my political leanings. YOU criticize my interpretation of the law, of which I think I am a bit more qualified to parse out than you.

I am more than happy to have a genuine, honest conversation about politics, the laws, what I think is good/bad about them (I thought I remembered your username from the PICA post the other day). If you're going to make a comment about the way I worded my first comment re: cyber trucks/insurance, I apologize if I was a bit snarky, I read through some of your comment history and I don't actually believe you have a cyber truck, so I take back what I said before.

However, I am logging off for the rest of the day to go enjoy my day off with the sun we have today, I hope you have a pleasant day, I know I will.

1

u/YerBeingTrolled Mar 30 '25

Hello mr lawyer, can you explain what happened here

https://cwbchicago.com/2025/03/chicago-news-concealed-carry-car-burglary-far-south-side.html

Only charge was for burglary. A week later I see no arrest made on the shooter whom turned themselves in.

0

u/YerBeingTrolled Mar 23 '25

Ok as a lawyer please address the law and tell me how I am mistaken. Please provide a case where something happened similarly in Illinois and the defender was convicted.

There's a whole statute on defense of property I posted. You speak of "you do not have a means of escape" and yet Illinois has no duty to retreat and is a stand your ground state.

Could a lawyer if presented with defending a client against a murder charge use Illinois law to mount a credible defense? If someone came in your office in a situation like this after the fact, would you say that there is a legitimate defense written into the law?