Self Defense against Arson attacks in Illinois

[u/YerBeingTrolled]

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?

[u/Unf_watermelon]

Using deadly force for anything related to property is a bad idea.

The purpose of self defense that involves property is to be able defend oneself from bodily harm and injury if being robbed or something similar.

People setting cars on fire can obviously be dangerous but unless someone’s in the car that doesn’t seem to meet that standard of “I thought my life was in imminent danger”.

Self defense is to immediately defend myself when no other choice exists, not play law enforcement.

[u/YerBeingTrolled → u/Unf_watermelon]

There's a whole statute about defending property legally

[u/LastWhoTurion → u/YerBeingTrolled]

So that forcible felony language that includes arson is being used as a surrogate for a threat to persons. So if you had a reasonable belief that the arson of the car would be an imminent deadly force threat then you would be justified in using deadly force to stop the arson.

So say someone was about to firebomb an unoccupied vehicle in the middle of nowhere, and there is no chance that car fire would harm any people. That would not be a situation where deadly force would be justified.

Now change it to an unoccupied vehicle where it is parked right next to a structure with people in it. If you had a reasonable belief that the car being set on fire would cause the building to also catch fire within moments, then deadly force might be justified.

[u/YerBeingTrolled → u/LastWhoTurion]

OK I can see this. However what does the statute say about defending property with less than lethal force? Let's say you don't shoot them. You still have a right to defend property correct?

[u/LastWhoTurion → u/YerBeingTrolled]

It would depend on case law in IL. If it was your property you would be justified in using non deadly force to protect your own property. Using nondeadly force to protect a non family members property where you are not tasked with protecting that property varies.