Pulling the trigger without identifying the target; even had they identified, it probably would not qualify as self defense under law…
I am not well versed in Illinois law, but it does have a “castle doctrine”:
In Illinois, the criteria for using force under the Castle Doctrine are outlined in the Illinois Compiled Statutes, specifically 720 ILCS 5/7-1 and 720 ILCS 5/7-2.
These statutes detail when force is legally justified in defense of a dwelling. Force is permitted when an individual reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent or stop an unlawful entry or attack on their home. The term “reasonably believes” requires that the perceived threat be justifiable to an average person in similar circumstances.
Deadly force has stricter criteria. It is allowed only if one reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent imminent death, great bodily harm, or to stop a forcible felony like burglary, robbery, or assault. The law distinguishes between minor trespasses and significant threats to life or safety.
Indiana’s stand-your-ground law provides that a person (1) is justified in using deadly force against someone (including a law enforcement officer) and (2) has no duty to retreat if the person has a reasonable belief that force is required in order to prevent any of the following:
Serious bodily injury to the defendant or a third person;
The commission of a forcible felony (one that involves the threat of force or involves risk of bodily injury);
The unlawful entry of the defendant’s home or curtilage (the area around their home) or their (occupied) vehicle;
Trespass or unlawful interference with property in the lawful possession of the defendant, a member of their immediate family, or a person whose property the defendant is authorized to protect (i.e., an employer protecting their employees); or
The hijacking (or threat of hijacking) of an airplane on the ground in Indiana or Indiana airspace.
So the homeowner has to show that they reasonably believed deadly force was needed to stop this woman and her husband from entering their home. That’s it. That’s all they need to prove to use this defense.
I for one do not for a moment think that it was justified, but in a town named Whitestown, who can say what the police and prosecutors will conclude?
who can say what the police and prosecutors will conclude?
Prosecutorial discretion is the real issue in most of these cases. If it were brought before a jury it could easily be argued that they tried literally nothing else before killing this person, so how could they reasonably believe anything? But it may never get to a jury because the DA might be a racist dirtbag who just decides to never press any charges.
Pulling the trigger without identifying the target; even had they identified, it probably would not qualify as self defense under law…
I am not well versed in Illinois law, but it does have a “castle doctrine”:
(emphasis added)
https://legalclarity.org/illinois-castle-doctrine-laws-criteria-and-legal-implications/
Illinois law does not apply in Indiana where this incident took place. Indiana has a pretty robust stand your ground law.
Indiana’s stand-your-ground law provides that a person (1) is justified in using deadly force against someone (including a law enforcement officer) and (2) has no duty to retreat if the person has a reasonable belief that force is required in order to prevent any of the following:
Serious bodily injury to the defendant or a third person;
The commission of a forcible felony (one that involves the threat of force or involves risk of bodily injury);
The unlawful entry of the defendant’s home or curtilage (the area around their home) or their (occupied) vehicle;
Trespass or unlawful interference with property in the lawful possession of the defendant, a member of their immediate family, or a person whose property the defendant is authorized to protect (i.e., an employer protecting their employees); or
The hijacking (or threat of hijacking) of an airplane on the ground in Indiana or Indiana airspace.
So the homeowner has to show that they reasonably believed deadly force was needed to stop this woman and her husband from entering their home. That’s it. That’s all they need to prove to use this defense.
I for one do not for a moment think that it was justified, but in a town named Whitestown, who can say what the police and prosecutors will conclude?
Prosecutorial discretion is the real issue in most of these cases. If it were brought before a jury it could easily be argued that they tried literally nothing else before killing this person, so how could they reasonably believe anything? But it may never get to a jury because the DA might be a racist dirtbag who just decides to never press any charges.