* The Tribune has a very good story about Illinois’ century-old history of “stand your ground” court precedents. The article is also about how those precendents could prompt changes to the new concealed carry. The consensus is that nobody really knows yet what’s going to happen. Anyway, have a look…
Under Florida’s self-defense law, a person who is attacked “where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force.” That includes “deadly force” if the person “reasonably” believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or to prevent an imminent felony crime from being committed.
Illinois’ self-defense statute is more generic, saying that a person who is attacked is justified in using deadly force “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.” Similar language is used to allow self-defense in protecting a home or personal property. […]
A person unlawfully assaulted while somewhere they have a right to be who is put in real or reasonably apparent danger of losing his or her life or suffering severe harm “may stand his ground and repel force with force, even to the taking of the life of his assailant,” Justice Carroll Boggs wrote. […]
Case law has defined four elements to self-defense in Illinois: that unlawful force was threatened, that the person being threatened was not the initial aggressor, that the danger of harm is imminent and that the use of force was necessary.
All four of those conditions must be met for a self-defense strategy to succeed…
In self-defense murder cases, for example, a jury can convict someone of second-degree murder, accepting that the person believed deadly force was justified but finding that the circumstances surrounding the killing showed the action was unreasonable.