Another Chicago Resident defies gun ban, shoots intruder

[Mike H]

All I can say is "its about the good citizens of Chicago took their town back". Looks like they are starting to make an effort.

 

[Bapak2ja]

+3 for the home owner. Stopped the BG. Defended home/hearth. Demonstrated the wisdom of an armed citizenry ready to aid the LEOs.

I expect the BG will file a civil suit against the shooter for violation of civil rights. It will require a huge legal defense fund to protect the homeowner.

Next step in Indiana should be a law declaring that anyone injured in the commission of any crime (misdemeanor or greater) is barred from suing for damages. Too many idiot lawyers willing to do anything to make a buck, willing to take a case like this for the press exposure and potential payoff. We need to protect those who shoot in self defense.

 

[OWGEM]

Are there any statistics on how many self defense shooting result in a lawsuit against the defender?

 

[melensdad]

I expect the BG will file a civil suit against the shooter for violation of civil rights. It will require a huge legal defense fund to protect the homeowner.

Next step in Indiana should be a law declaring that anyone injured in the commission of any crime (misdemeanor or greater) is barred from suing for damages. . .

Are there any statistics on how many self defense shooting result in a lawsuit against the defender?

I'd have no clue.

But the ability to sue a defender varies by state. In many states, especially those with a 'castle doctrine' type law, the criminal and/or his surviving family are FORBIDDEN BY LAW from suing the defender in any justified shoot. If the States Attorney/etc proclaims the shoot a justified shoot then the homeowner/defender is protected by law from lawsuits.

FWIW, Indiana has a law protecting homeowners/defenders in justified shoots. You can thank Gov. Mitch Daniels for signing this into law.

SECTION 1. IC 35-41-3-2 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006]: Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; only and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, or curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, or curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the
force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is not justified in using deadly force; unless and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and
(B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.​

 

[OWGEM]

Thanks melensdad, that is pretty clear, even for me.

 

[Bapak2ja]

I'd have no clue.

But the ability to sue a defender varies by state. In many states, especially those with a 'castle doctrine' type law, the criminal and/or his surviving family are FORBIDDEN BY LAW from suing the defender in any justified shoot. If the States Attorney/etc proclaims the shoot a justified shoot then the homeowner/defender is protected by law from lawsuits.

FWIW, Indiana has a law protecting homeowners/defenders in justified shoots. You can thank Gov. Mitch Daniels for signing this into law.

SECTION 1. IC 35-41-3-2 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006]: Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; only and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, or curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, or curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the
force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is not justified in using deadly force; unless and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and
(B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.​

Thanks for the research and the information! I am beginning to like Mitch Daniels!

 

[LawDog76]

SECTION 1. IC 35-41-3-2 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006]: Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; only and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

Not trying to be a buzz kill or challenge the law but I take this as in meaning CRIMINAL charges, not a civil suit. HOWEVER if a person was dragged into a civil court and the case is stemming from a justified shooting, I would think any Judge with half a brain would toss the civil suit out.

If a Civil Suit is covered by this law, it was be nice if the law was revised to actually include the words "Civil Suit" or read " No person in this state shall stand trial of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary." so it could not be challenged by a " Johnnie Cochran"

 

[rich8483]

allow me this oportunity to ask...

who cleans up the mess. does your homeowners insurence pay for the cleanup or what? b/c you know after a shooting there is a puddle of blood and in some instances, maybe not this one, extra holes in the house.

 

[T-rav]

After getting shot, the BG got his traffic tickets, too.

For some reason, that really tickles me

I found that funny as well, I chuckled.

Good for the homeowner. You want crime to drop in Chicago let the people help LEO's defend it.

 

[ultraspec]

Dont you love a happy ending? Im suprised he waited until the intruder actually shot at him before he shot him.

 

[ultraspec]

I found that funny as well, I chuckled.

Good for the homeowner. You want crime to drop in Chicago let the people help LEO's defend it.

They (LEOS) need all the help they can get, Chicago P.D. is about 3000 officers short staffed

 

[2cool9031]

Too Bad....The homeowner should have shot him Dead!

 

[thompal]

Marshall's criminal background includes a felony drug conviction in 2009 and a 2007 conviction for felony aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, court records show. He also is a gang member with a lengthy arrest record, police said.

This stands out more than anything else in the article to me. He has a FELONY CONVICTION in 2009 (one year ago), and another FELONY CONVICTION in 2007 (THREE years ago). He also has a "lengthy arrest record" and is a gang member. WHY WAS THIS GUY NOT IN PRISON?????

Multiple felonies, and a habitual offender too?

Armed self defense by citizens means never having to say "What, YOU again?"

 

[96firephoenix]

more gun control woulda kept this from happening.






he wouldn't be "expected to survive" if the guy used a better grip on teh gun

 

[JohnP82]

Good for the homeowner! Hope nothing else happens to him

 

[ultraspec]

Too Bad....The homeowner should have shot him Dead!

Umm he did shoot him dead. The guy is DOA

 

[Squirt239]

The sad thing is, the family of the crook will probably sue the homeowner for the medical bills. That's the screwed up world we live in

 

[Customgod227]

allow me this oportunity to ask...

who cleans up the mess. does your homeowners insurence pay for the cleanup or what? b/c you know after a shooting there is a puddle of blood and in some instances, maybe not this one, extra holes in the house.

Also interested in an answer to this question.

 

[308jake]

Shame the guys going to be ok...

 

[Joe Williams]

allow me this oportunity to ask...

who cleans up the mess. does your homeowners insurence pay for the cleanup or what? b/c you know after a shooting there is a puddle of blood and in some instances, maybe not this one, extra holes in the house.

If you have to shoot an intruder, you are responsible for cleanup. As for whether or not insurance will cover it, that will depend on your policy.