Chicago concealed carry gun owner kills robber...

[PaintMyHouse]

That is untrue, why he might be charged, and there was likely no real threat at all, it was just a robbery.

... just a robbery. LOL.

Btw, armed robbery.

Yep, so? Oh right, it hardly matters a damn.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

IL law:
(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.
720 ILCS 5/ Criminal Code of 2012.
Criminal pulls a gun on the clerk; it is legal for you to use deadly force to protect him/her and/or stop the felony in progress.

Pointing a gun at someone is not force. it's a threat, to that person, but not a bystander.

Pointing a gun at someone is a clear, present and imminent threat of deadly force.
According to the law, quoted above; this is sufficient for the justifiable use of deadly force in defense of one's self or another.
The law says you are wrong.

The law said we have to look at what happened to decide whether to charge him or not. Either way, he's going to need a good lawyer. He got a break on the criminal charges.

 

[westwall]

Well, he got away with the criminal part. Now time for the civil suit, for wrongful death. Killing a guy with paintball gun, see you in court...


Man with concealed carry license who killed attempted robber won't be charged
Man with concealed carry license who killed attempted robber won't be charged

And, once again, you're dreaming. The family will have a hell of a hard time finding an attorney to take this case. And if they do they will lose. The shooter will end up owning the lawyers because the lawyer will lose the counter malicious prosecution case. You really are a one trick pony aren't you.... You truly have no clue how the real world works.

 

[M14 Shooter]

IL law:
(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.
720 ILCS 5/ Criminal Code of 2012.
Criminal pulls a gun on the clerk; it is legal for you to use deadly force to protect him/her and/or stop the felony in progress.

Pointing a gun at someone is not force. it's a threat, to that person, but not a bystander.

Pointing a gun at someone is a clear, present and imminent threat of deadly force.
According to the law, quoted above; this is sufficient for the justifiable use of deadly force in defense of one's self or another.
The law says you are wrong.

The law said we have to look at what happened to decide whether to charge him or not.

I accept your concession of the point. Back on ignore.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Well, he got away with the criminal part. Now time for the civil suit, for wrongful death. Killing a guy with paintball gun, see you in court...


Man with concealed carry license who killed attempted robber won't be charged
Man with concealed carry license who killed attempted robber won't be charged

And, once again, you're dreaming. The family will have a hell of a hard time finding an attorney to take this case. And if they do they will lose. The shooter will end up owning the lawyers because the lawyer will lose the counter malicious prosecution case. You really are a one trick pony aren't you.... You truly have no clue how the real world works.

Finding a lawyer for this will take thirty seconds. Proving that the threat wasn't real won't be that hard. Now, had he been robbing the guy who shot him, that would have taken some effort.

 

[westwall]

In this context....
Displaying a weapon = threat of deadly force.
This, alone, justifies the use of deadly force in the defense of one self or another.

Paint doesn't agree with this, as I tried to poi

Doesn't really matter what HE agrees with...

IL law:
(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.
720 ILCS 5/ Criminal Code of 2012.

Criminal pulls a gun on the clerk; it is legal for you to use deadly force to protect him/her and/or stop the felony in progress.

Pointing a gun at someone is not force. it's a threat, to that person, but not a bystander.

I guess you either missed, or ignored this part eh. I highlighted it for you....


IL law:
(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.
720 ILCS 5/ Criminal Code of 2012.

Robbers want cash, not bodies. That's why the policy of all major chains is hand it over and don't try to play the hero. But I know, you guys like dead *******...

Some robbers also want to murder the clerks for no reason other than they are assholes. Dutch Bros has a policy of non interference. One of their guys got robbed so he shot the perp. Guess what, he still has a job. Looks like you lose again...


"EUGENE — The barista who fatally shot a would-be robber at a Dutch Bros. coffee kiosk in Eugene on Nov. 24 broke company rules by taking a gun to work, but he’ll be welcomed back if and when he’s ready to return to the job, the company’s top executive says.

Travis Boersma, of Grants Pass, whose drive-through coffee chain includes more than 150 locations in five states, told The Register-Guard that he supports the employee for defending himself during the robbery attempt.

“Under this unique circumstance, the (barista) who went through this horrific event did everything to protect his own life,” Boersma said."




Barista who shot robber still has a job, boss says

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Paint doesn't agree with this, as I tried to poi

Doesn't really matter what HE agrees with...

IL law:
(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.
720 ILCS 5/ Criminal Code of 2012.

Criminal pulls a gun on the clerk; it is legal for you to use deadly force to protect him/her and/or stop the felony in progress.

Pointing a gun at someone is not force. it's a threat, to that person, but not a bystander.

I guess you either missed, or ignored this part eh. I highlighted it for you....


IL law:
(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.
720 ILCS 5/ Criminal Code of 2012.

Robbers want cash, not bodies. That's why the policy of all major chains is hand it over and don't try to play the hero. But I know, you guys like dead *******...

Some robbers also want to murder the clerks for no reason other than they are assholes. Dutch Bros has a policy of non interference. One of their guys got robbed so he shot the perp. Guess what, he still has a job. Looks like you lose again...


"EUGENE — The barista who fatally shot a would-be robber at a Dutch Bros. coffee kiosk in Eugene on Nov. 24 broke company rules by taking a gun to work, but he’ll be welcomed back if and when he’s ready to return to the job, the company’s top executive says.

Travis Boersma, of Grants Pass, whose drive-through coffee chain includes more than 150 locations in five states, told The Register-Guard that he supports the employee for defending himself during the robbery attempt.

“Under this unique circumstance, the (barista) who went through this horrific event did everything to protect his own life,” Boersma said."
Barista who shot robber still has a job, boss says

A rare exception, and a stupid one. Pull anything like that at one of 35,000 7-11s and you are gone, even if you survive. Money is never worth a human life BTW, never.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Some robbers also want to murder the clerks for no reason other than they are assholes

None of that matters -- pulling a gun on someone is a credible threat of deadly force.
At that point you have the right to use deadly force in self defense.
Doesn't matter how many armed robberies do not end up in a death-
Doesn't matter what the thug wants-
You have the right to use deadly force in self-defense.

 

[westwall]

Well, he got away with the criminal part. Now time for the civil suit, for wrongful death. Killing a guy with paintball gun, see you in court...


Man with concealed carry license who killed attempted robber won't be charged
Man with concealed carry license who killed attempted robber won't be charged

And, once again, you're dreaming. The family will have a hell of a hard time finding an attorney to take this case. And if they do they will lose. The shooter will end up owning the lawyers because the lawyer will lose the counter malicious prosecution case. You really are a one trick pony aren't you.... You truly have no clue how the real world works.

Finding a lawyer for this will take thirty seconds. Proving that the threat wasn't real won't be that hard. Now, had he been robbing the guy who shot him, that would have taken some effort.

I see the delusion runs deep with you! Tell me, are you able to wipe your own ass? No lawyer with a lick of sense will touch this case. The perps family has no money. The State has already passed on it (in a notoriously anti self defense region) and he stands to lose his ass in the countersuit.

keep dreamin silly boy... keep dreamin...

 

[westwall]

Some robbers also want to murder the clerks for no reason other than they are assholes

None of that matters -- pulling a gun on someone is a credible threat of deadly force.
At that point you have the right to act in self defense.
Doesn't matter how many armed robberies do not end up in a death-
Doesn't matter what the thug wants-
You have the right to use deadly force in self-defense.

Yes, I know that.

 

[Iron Head]

The article fails to give us the whole story, but what they do offer suggests that the customer was well within his right to kill the gunman.
Had the gunman simply displayed a weapon while ordering the clerk to clean out the register there would have been no need for the customer to intervene.

In this context....
Displaying a weapon = threat of deadly force.
This, alone, justifies the use of deadly force in the defense of one self or another.

Paint doesn't agree with this, as I tried to poi

Doesn't really matter what HE agrees with...

IL law:
(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.
720 ILCS 5/ Criminal Code of 2012.

Criminal pulls a gun on the clerk; it is legal for you to use deadly force to protect him/her and/or stop the felony in progress.

Pointing a gun at someone is not force. it's a threat, to that person, but not a bystander.

Pointing a gun at someone most certainly is "force", you idiot.

 

[westwall]

Doesn't really matter what HE agrees with...

IL law:
(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.
720 ILCS 5/ Criminal Code of 2012.

Criminal pulls a gun on the clerk; it is legal for you to use deadly force to protect him/her and/or stop the felony in progress.

Pointing a gun at someone is not force. it's a threat, to that person, but not a bystander.

I guess you either missed, or ignored this part eh. I highlighted it for you....


IL law:
(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.
720 ILCS 5/ Criminal Code of 2012.

Robbers want cash, not bodies. That's why the policy of all major chains is hand it over and don't try to play the hero. But I know, you guys like dead *******...

Some robbers also want to murder the clerks for no reason other than they are assholes. Dutch Bros has a policy of non interference. One of their guys got robbed so he shot the perp. Guess what, he still has a job. Looks like you lose again...


"EUGENE — The barista who fatally shot a would-be robber at a Dutch Bros. coffee kiosk in Eugene on Nov. 24 broke company rules by taking a gun to work, but he’ll be welcomed back if and when he’s ready to return to the job, the company’s top executive says.

Travis Boersma, of Grants Pass, whose drive-through coffee chain includes more than 150 locations in five states, told The Register-Guard that he supports the employee for defending himself during the robbery attempt.

“Under this unique circumstance, the (barista) who went through this horrific event did everything to protect his own life,” Boersma said."
Barista who shot robber still has a job, boss says

A rare exception, and a stupid one. Pull anything like that at one of 35,000 7-11s and you are gone, even if you survive. Money is never worth a human life BTW, never.

And yet in a NOTORIOUSLY liberal college town the OVERWHELMING support was for the company to do just that. Ooops! You lose again. Face it silly person, even the liberals think you're a loon!


Whoops! I see the little tard has run away yet again....

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Pointing a gun at someone is not force. it's a threat, to that person, but not a bystander.

I guess you either missed, or ignored this part eh. I highlighted it for you....


IL law:
(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.
720 ILCS 5/ Criminal Code of 2012.

Robbers want cash, not bodies. That's why the policy of all major chains is hand it over and don't try to play the hero. But I know, you guys like dead *******...

Some robbers also want to murder the clerks for no reason other than they are assholes. Dutch Bros has a policy of non interference. One of their guys got robbed so he shot the perp. Guess what, he still has a job. Looks like you lose again...


"EUGENE — The barista who fatally shot a would-be robber at a Dutch Bros. coffee kiosk in Eugene on Nov. 24 broke company rules by taking a gun to work, but he’ll be welcomed back if and when he’s ready to return to the job, the company’s top executive says.

Travis Boersma, of Grants Pass, whose drive-through coffee chain includes more than 150 locations in five states, told The Register-Guard that he supports the employee for defending himself during the robbery attempt.

“Under this unique circumstance, the (barista) who went through this horrific event did everything to protect his own life,” Boersma said."
Barista who shot robber still has a job, boss says

A rare exception, and a stupid one. Pull anything like that at one of 35,000 7-11s and you are gone, even if you survive. Money is never worth a human life BTW, never.

And yet in a NOTORIOUSLY liberal college town the OVERWHELMING support was for the company to do just that. Ooops! You lose again. Face it silly person, even the liberals think you're a loon!

If I'm a loon how come that was their policy just like it's the policy of every other major chain? Care to try again?

 

[Dan Daly]

Yes..another shooting for Chicago concealed carry permit holders......one day the criminals will get the point that democrats can no longer disarm the victims of crime...the victims can finally shoot back...

AP News - Police: Concealed carry license holder kills armed gunman

CHICAGO (AP) — Chicago police say a customer with a concealed carry license shot and killed an armed man attempting to rob a neighborhood store.

Police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said a masked man walked into the store and currency exchange about 7 p.m. Saturday on the city's southwest side, displayed a handgun and announced a robbery to an employ

Didn't know that robbery was a capital offense? Interesting.

It isn't if you survive the attempt. Moral of the story, if you don't want to get shot, don't attempt to rob people by threatening them with a gun, real or otherwise. Simple.

Based on your boasts in here, you wouldn't have handled this any differently than the survivor did. Or do you want to tell us that you would have wet your pants and handed over your wet wallet, while on your knees begging for your life of course. Didn't think so. Check and mate, you are dismissed.

 

[Papageorgio]

Well, he got away with the criminal part. Now time for the civil suit, for wrongful death. Killing a guy with paintball gun, see you in court...


Man with concealed carry license who killed attempted robber won't be charged
Man with concealed carry license who killed attempted robber won't be charged

And, once again, you're dreaming. The family will have a hell of a hard time finding an attorney to take this case. And if they do they will lose. The shooter will end up owning the lawyers because the lawyer will lose the counter malicious prosecution case. You really are a one trick pony aren't you.... You truly have no clue how the real world works.

I'm sure some publicity seeking lawyer will take the case, I doubt whether the courts will hear the case.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The article fails to give us the whole story, but what they do offer suggests that the customer was well within his right to kill the gunman.
Had the gunman simply displayed a weapon while ordering the clerk to clean out the register there would have been no need for the customer to intervene.

In this context....
Displaying a weapon = threat of deadly force.
This, alone, justifies the use of deadly force in the defense of one self or another.

Paint doesn't agree with this, as I tried to poi

Doesn't really matter what HE agrees with...

IL law:
(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.
720 ILCS 5/ Criminal Code of 2012.

Criminal pulls a gun on the clerk; it is legal for you to use deadly force to protect him/her and/or stop the felony in progress.

Pointing a gun at someone is not force. it's a threat, to that person, but not a bystander.

Pointing a gun at someone most certainly is "force", you idiot.

If the gun is pointed at you it certainly can be but if it's pointed at something or someone else, that is up for interpretation. That's why they needed time to decide to charge him, or not...

 

[Iron Head]

Well, he got away with the criminal part. Now time for the civil suit, for wrongful death. Killing a guy with paintball gun, see you in court...


Man with concealed carry license who killed attempted robber won't be charged
Man with concealed carry license who killed attempted robber won't be charged

And, once again, you're dreaming. The family will have a hell of a hard time finding an attorney to take this case. And if they do they will lose. The shooter will end up owning the lawyers because the lawyer will lose the counter malicious prosecution case. You really are a one trick pony aren't you.... You truly have no clue how the real world works.

Finding a lawyer for this will take thirty seconds. Proving that the threat wasn't real won't be that hard. Now, had he been robbing the guy who shot him, that would have taken some effort.

Bullshit. Lawyers do not like to work for free. Given that this would be on a contingency fee basis and the descendent' death came in the middle of an armed fucking robbery perpetrated by him, there is no way in hell that there will be a payday.

Besides, the one to go after would be the store since they probably carry liability coverage. The shooter may or may not have assets, though he will be joined as a necessary party. Nonetheless, the insurance carrier will fight this tooth or nail given the absurdity of any such claim. Imagine, a wrongful death suit for the death of a violent felon shit during the course of a violent act started by him! Plaintiffs counsel will be disbarred!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Yes..another shooting for Chicago concealed carry permit holders......one day the criminals will get the point that democrats can no longer disarm the victims of crime...the victims can finally shoot back...

AP News - Police: Concealed carry license holder kills armed gunman

CHICAGO (AP) — Chicago police say a customer with a concealed carry license shot and killed an armed man attempting to rob a neighborhood store.

Police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said a masked man walked into the store and currency exchange about 7 p.m. Saturday on the city's southwest side, displayed a handgun and announced a robbery to an employ

Didn't know that robbery was a capital offense? Interesting.

It isn't if you survive the attempt. Moral of the story, if you don't want to get shot, don't attempt to rob people by threatening them with a gun, real or otherwise. Simple.

Based on your boasts in here, you wouldn't have handled this any differently than the survivor did. Or do you want to tell us that you would have wet your pants and handed over your wet wallet, while on your knees begging for your life of course. Didn't think so. Check and mate, you are dismissed.

Money is never worth a human life. Clear enough?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Bullshit. Lawyers do not like to work for free. Given that this would be on a contingency fee basis and the descendent' death came in the middle of an armed fucking robbery perpetrated by him, there is no way in hell that there will be a payday.

But... but... he shot my BABY!!!!!!!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Well, he got away with the criminal part. Now time for the civil suit, for wrongful death. Killing a guy with paintball gun, see you in court...


Man with concealed carry license who killed attempted robber won't be charged
Man with concealed carry license who killed attempted robber won't be charged

And, once again, you're dreaming. The family will have a hell of a hard time finding an attorney to take this case. And if they do they will lose. The shooter will end up owning the lawyers because the lawyer will lose the counter malicious prosecution case. You really are a one trick pony aren't you.... You truly have no clue how the real world works.

Finding a lawyer for this will take thirty seconds. Proving that the threat wasn't real won't be that hard. Now, had he been robbing the guy who shot him, that would have taken some effort.

Bullshit. Lawyers do not like to work for free. Given that this would be on a contingency fee basis and the descendent' death came in the middle of an armed fucking robbery perpetrated by him, there is no way in hell that there will be a payday.

Besides, the one to go after would be the store since they probably carry liability coverage. The shooter may or may not have assets, though he will be joined as a necessary party. Nonetheless, the insurance carrier will fight this tooth or nail given the absurdity of any such claim. Imagine, a wrongful death suit for the death of a violent felon shit during the course of a violent act started by him! Plaintiffs counsel will be disbarred!

You seem to have missed the fact that in our legal system you can indict a ham sandwich. I believe this was a wrongful death, that is what the jury will be told and it's up to them after that.