search
top

Interesting Case in Illinois

Bunch of youths out looking for unlocked cars to break into. Youth approach property of homeowner. Homeowner goes outside with a .25 ACP pistol and fires three “warning” shots, one of which struck one of the youths killing him. Homeowner is facing manslaughter charges.

It’s worth noting Illinois law has no duty to retreat requirement, but that’s not at issue in this case. The homeowner’s attorney is concerned about the Martin case being in people’s minds. But I hadn’t heard about this case until someone sent it to me. Where’s the media? Why isn’t this kid’s death such a national tragedy?

Either way, his attorney should be worried, because this looks like manslaughter based on the facts that are already known.

7 Responses to “Interesting Case in Illinois”

  1. Thirdpower says:

    Another ‘good boy’ whose family went and tried to instigate afterwards.

    We’ll see what happens.

  2. Laughingdog says:

    I have no idea what the criteria for self-defense is in Illinois. But I doubt it’s looser than here in VA, so involuntary manslaughter seems like a slam dunk.

    “Where’s the media? Why isn’t this kid’s death such a national tragedy?”
    I’m assuming that’s a rhetorical question, because looking at Guillermo’s photo makes it pretty obvious why this hasn’t been turned into a national tragedy. It doesn’t support the narrative.

  3. Sigivald says:

    And this is what I think of every time someone says “why not fire a warning shot?” – because warning shots are stupid and reckless, generally speaking*.

    (* Sure, if you’re faced with an enraged mob and have a squad of men facing off against them, a warning volley might save lives by keeping you from having to kill the lot of them.

    In any normal civilian use? Can’t see it being a good idea.)

  4. Lumpy says:

    (720 ILCS 5/Art. 7 heading)
    ARTICLE 7. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE; EXONERATION

    (720 ILCS 5/7 1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7 1)
    Sec. 7 1. Use of force in defense of person.
    (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 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.
    (b – In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of “aggressor” set forth in Section 7 4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
    (Source: P.A. 93 832, eff. 7 28 04.)

    (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.

    ( b – In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of “aggressor” set forth in Section 7 4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
    (Source: P.A. 93 832, eff. 7 28 04.)

    (720 ILCS 5/7 3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7 3)
    Sec. 7 3. Use of force in defense of other property.
    (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 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.
    (b – In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of “aggressor” set forth in Section 7 4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
    (Source: P.A. 93 832, eff. 7 28 04.)
    We may not have CCW yet , but Our castle law is remarkably good.

  5. Jake says:

    You know, I was going to comment on how this could fall under one of those sections Lumpy listed above, but I’m not sure, but then I realized something. The only information we have is coming from the same MSM that brought us all the Zimmerman/Martin lies, and they don’t deserve even the barest presumption of honesty I would have allowed them previously.

    I’ve been having that realization a lot lately. I never laboured under the illusion that they were competent or knowledgeable, and I was aware they were perfectly willing to extrapolate beyond what the known facts would account for, but I rarely considered the possibility that they were outright deliberately lying before, and usually only with some evidence to that effect. When I did see it, I always assumed it was an isolated case. But the lies with the Zimmerman case have been so blatant, widespread, and deliberately malicious that it has mad me truly understand that the media is not to be trusted at all.

    I don’t think they realize the damage they’ve done this time around.

    • Alpheus says:

      Indeed. It is for this reason I’m hoping for an aquittal of Zimmerman at this point. I think we were all on the fence with regards to Zimmerman, but as we saw the facts unfold, and how the original “facts” were downright fabrications…it astounded me.

      Why put so much effort against Zimmerman (and it’s a little odd how all the distortions put Zimmerman in an unfavorable light, but lifted up Martin, no?) if Zimmerman was as guilty as sin?

  6. Sage Thrasher says:

    Well THIS might have something to do with the lack of vigils for the dead man: “A friend who was with Pineda that night told the Tribune that the group had been looking for unlocked cars to burglarize. But the friend said they had stopped by the time of the shooting and were just walking by.” Saying you weren’t burglarizing cars because you’d already filled your pockets isn’t the greatest sympathy builder.

    In most places it isn’t legal to use deadly force to defend property, so it’s not looking good for the shooter, though you have to wonder what verbal exchanges preceded the shooting.

top