IL: Man is killed trying to grab a CHL's gun during potential road rage

[03Lightningrocks]

Let's just draw an analogy here. You are walking down the isle in a grocery store when someone approaches you utilizing mean words. They then give you a shove and back away. Would you pull out your gun, shoot them and then be able to claim self defense? I am asking with sincerity. I would not employ deadly force over something like this, but could I? I always considered my firearm as a tool to defend myself or loved ones from a threat to mine or their lives. I don't see harsh words or even a shove a threatening to my life. I would not take a beating as that could kill me. But a simple shove or even a punch and then retreat? Do you folks remember the guy in Florida who was arguing with some woman when her boyfriend/husband approached and punched him to the ground? He pulled his gun, killed the guy and tried to claim self defense. I think he is in jail right now.

[jerry_r60]

Let's just draw an analogy here. You are walking down the isle in a grocery store when someone approaches you utilizing mean words. They then give you a shove and back away. Would you pull out your gun, shoot them and then be able to claim self defense? I am asking with sincerity. I would not employ deadly force over something like this, but could I? I always considered my firearm as a tool to defend myself or loved ones from a threat to mine or their lives. I don't see harsh words or even a shove a threatening to my life. I would not take a beating as that could kill me. But a simple shove or even a punch and then retreat? Do you folks remember the guy in Florida who was arguing with some woman when her boyfriend/husband approached and punched him to the ground? He pulled his gun, killed the guy and tried to claim self defense. I think he is in jail right now.

In your walmart scenario I do not think you can pull your gun and shoot. A related analogy to this car situation and your walmart one. You have your scenario of someone uses mean words and pushes you so you pull your gun but don't shoot. You pull it "as a warning" or to be prepared. It's my opinion at that point that you yourself have threatened deadly force and lose any self defense claim. Another way to say pull it as a warning is pull it as a threat.

In the case of the car it's a little different state by state I think. In IL I understand your car is not the same as in your house. I understand here in Texas I understand being in your car is like being in your house.

[howdy]

https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2022 ... streamwood

Stopped at light.

https://www.dailyherald.com/news/202203 ... ge-killing

Charged with murder. 18 yo. No mention of CHL.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ghway.html

Not cooperating with police including identification.


I’m going to hold back on that not guilty and say this is questionable. But you don’t reach into a guys car.

Look at that middle picture. Sure looks like he has a weapon in his hand.

[03Lightningrocks]

Let's just draw an analogy here. You are walking down the isle in a grocery store when someone approaches you utilizing mean words. They then give you a shove and back away. Would you pull out your gun, shoot them and then be able to claim self defense? I am asking with sincerity. I would not employ deadly force over something like this, but could I? I always considered my firearm as a tool to defend myself or loved ones from a threat to mine or their lives. I don't see harsh words or even a shove a threatening to my life. I would not take a beating as that could kill me. But a simple shove or even a punch and then retreat? Do you folks remember the guy in Florida who was arguing with some woman when her boyfriend/husband approached and punched him to the ground? He pulled his gun, killed the guy and tried to claim self defense. I think he is in jail right now.

In your walmart scenario I do not think you can pull your gun and shoot. A related analogy to this car situation and your walmart one. You have your scenario of someone uses mean words and pushes you so you pull your gun but don't shoot. You pull it "as a warning" or to be prepared. It's my opinion at that point that you yourself have threatened deadly force and lose any self defense claim. Another way to say pull it as a warning is pull it as a threat.

In the case of the car it's a little different state by state I think. In IL I understand your car is not the same as in your house. I understand here in Texas I understand being in your car is like being in your house.

Another interesting question would be, who started it? Does it matter? I have had folks start raging on me and I had no idea what I did to set them off. I always just back away from it if they let me. Maybe the guy in the car was messing with him. Break checking him and speeding up so he couldn't get around him. In my store analogy, if I instigated the fellow who pushed me, I lose my right to use deadly force. No?

[jerry_r60]

Let's just draw an analogy here. You are walking down the isle in a grocery store when someone approaches you utilizing mean words. They then give you a shove and back away. Would you pull out your gun, shoot them and then be able to claim self defense? I am asking with sincerity. I would not employ deadly force over something like this, but could I? I always considered my firearm as a tool to defend myself or loved ones from a threat to mine or their lives. I don't see harsh words or even a shove a threatening to my life. I would not take a beating as that could kill me. But a simple shove or even a punch and then retreat? Do you folks remember the guy in Florida who was arguing with some woman when her boyfriend/husband approached and punched him to the ground? He pulled his gun, killed the guy and tried to claim self defense. I think he is in jail right now.

In your walmart scenario I do not think you can pull your gun and shoot. A related analogy to this car situation and your walmart one. You have your scenario of someone uses mean words and pushes you so you pull your gun but don't shoot. You pull it "as a warning" or to be prepared. It's my opinion at that point that you yourself have threatened deadly force and lose any self defense claim. Another way to say pull it as a warning is pull it as a threat.

In the case of the car it's a little different state by state I think. In IL I understand your car is not the same as in your house. I understand here in Texas I understand being in your car is like being in your house.

Another interesting question would be, who started it? Does it matter? I have had folks start raging on me and I had no idea what I did to set them off. I always just back away from it if they let me. Maybe the guy in the car was messing with him. Break checking him and speeding up so he couldn't get around him. In my store analogy, if I instigated the fellow who pushed me, I lose my right to use deadly force. No?

IMHO I don't think just words are a justifiable instigation for any physical contact unless a strong case can be made the words were a serious threat. I think the rule of thumb for figuring out who is the aggressor vs the defender is the first one to use actual force as defined in a state's law in a way not justified by the state's use of force laws is the aggressor. Some states may include threat of force.

[RottenApple]

You have your scenario of someone uses mean words and pushes you so you pull your gun but don't shoot. You pull it "as a warning" or to be prepared. It's my opinion at that point that you yourself have threatened deadly force and lose any self defense claim.

This would not be true in Texas (given the scenario being discussed). TPC 9.04 states:

Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

[jerry_r60]

You have your scenario of someone uses mean words and pushes you so you pull your gun but don't shoot. You pull it "as a warning" or to be prepared. It's my opinion at that point that you yourself have threatened deadly force and lose any self defense claim.

This would not be true in Texas (given the scenario being discussed). TPC 9.04 states:

Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

Good callout...thx for that. I've read this many times but still clearly don't have it memorized. Yesterday i was looking up IL law out of interest in this thread and it is different but not sure about the nuances. They did talk about being an aggressor takes away a defense. They also narrowly define the "castle" in their castle doctrine as the home.

[Blackhorse1]

If you initiate the incident then no, it won't be self defense.

[RoyGBiv]

Look at that middle picture. Sure looks like he has a weapon in his hand.

[03Lightningrocks]

Look at that middle picture. Sure looks like he has a weapon in his hand.

That looks more like an extended index finger from the poke than a weapon. I can't help but think if it was a weapon, we would be reading about him shooting a guy in a car that produced a gun.

[jerry_r60]

Look at that middle picture. Sure looks like he has a weapon in his hand.

Watch the video, you can see his empty hand at the start and never pulls a gun throughout. You can see his finger extend.

[03Lightningrocks]

I am not saying self defense or not but I did noticed when asked about the the dead guy, his friend responded with this.

'I don't know if it surprised me, of if I just – I know if he didn't, he would be here today. Scott made mistakes, he did. He wasn't perfect by any means.'

. To me it is like saying Scott had no problem getting into altercations.

[Jim Beaux]

IMO There is not a lot of clarity as to what happened, but it appears the victim made provocative contact with the shooter. In Texas this is assault/offensive touch.

PENAL CODE

TITLE 5. OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON

CHAPTER 22. ASSAULTIVE OFFENSES

Sec. 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or
(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/SOTW ... /PE.22.htm

[srothstein]

IMO There is not a lot of clarity as to what happened, but it appears the victim made provocative contact with the shooter. In Texas this is assault/offensive touch.

PENAL CODE

TITLE 5. OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON

CHAPTER 22. ASSAULTIVE OFFENSES

Sec. 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or
(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/SOTW ... /PE.22.htm

I agree that he appears to have poked the shooter, which, under Texas law, is a simple assault or possibly and assault bodily injury (if the shooter felt any pain at all, it would be bodily injury). It is also debatable that, under Texas law, the man entered the shooter's occupied vehicle. Our current law, in Chapter 9, does not define "enter" though in other chapters (30 for example), it includes any portion of the body. Both of these under our law would justify using force to defend yourself.

But, under 9.32, neither of these justify deadly force being used. It requires the attacker to be about to use unlawful deadly force or commit a list of crime, none of which is assault or even aggravated assault. From the video, even if the deceased is the initiator of the argument, I do not believe the shooting would be justified in Texas. I find it hard to believe Illinois has easier laws justifying shooting than Texas does.

[Mike S]

IMO There is not a lot of clarity as to what happened, but it appears the victim made provocative contact with the shooter. In Texas this is assault/offensive touch.

PENAL CODE

TITLE 5. OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON

CHAPTER 22. ASSAULTIVE OFFENSES

Sec. 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or
(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/SOTW ... /PE.22.htm

I agree that he appears to have poked the shooter, which, under Texas law, is a simple assault or possibly and assault bodily injury (if the shooter felt any pain at all, it would be bodily injury). It is also debatable that, under Texas law, the man entered the shooter's occupied vehicle. Our current law, in Chapter 9, does not define "enter" though in other chapters (30 for example), it includes any portion of the body. Both of these under our law would justify using force to defend yourself.

But, under 9.32, neither of these justify deadly force being used. It requires the attacker to be about to use unlawful deadly force or commit a list of crime, none of which is assault or even aggravated assault. From the video, even if the deceased is the initiator of the argument, I do not believe the shooting would be justified in Texas. I find it hard to believe Illinois has easier laws justifying shooting than Texas does.

The short video at the link above doesn't give much context to what actually transpired, so it's hard to say if there could have been a reasonable belief by the driver that force or deadly force would have been justified. I'm thinking since the poke (assault) had already occurred & wasn't continuing, then barring any other unknown factors the "immediacy" requirement of the justification may had no longer existed.

As Steve pointed out, there's no legal justification of using deadly force to protect against a simple assault.

But, TPC 9.32 actually does include the same presumption of reasonableness for using deadly force against someone who unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully & with force, the defenders occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business (or to prevent murder, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated kidnapping). You lose this presumption of reasonableness if you provoked the person, or if the defender was committing a crime (other than a Class C traffic violation) at the time the force was used. (( TPC 9.32(B) ))