Nope. Thanks for exposing a big part of the problem tho.
Do your own homework.
I do.
All right. Since you're to lazy to cut and paste, here you go. First It's a Illinois law which has nothing to do with the conversation of an act commited in the state of Florida under a totally different law. You just have to throw it in because the name Obama is involved.
Puleeeze spare me. I'm not stupid!
I've
boldened a few of the parts which are some of the main parts of the law, yet have nothing to do with the Trayvon Martin case.
You've really got nothing here other than a law Obama signed onto years ago as a freshman Senator.
B2386 Enrolled
LRB093 20660 RLC 46519 b
1
AN ACT concerning criminal law.
2
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, 3
represented in the General Assembly:
4
Section 5. The Criminal Code of 1961 is amended by changing 5
Sections 7-1, 7-2, and 7-3 as follows:
6
(720 ILCS 5/7-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-1) 7
Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person. 8
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against 9
another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that 10
such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against 11
such
other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is 12
justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to 13
cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes 14
that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great 15
bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a 16
forcible felony.17
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force 18
justified under this Section give rise to any claim or 19
liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within 20
the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this 21
Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such 22
a person, against the person or estate of the person using such 23
justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or 24
wanton misconduct. 25
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)
26
(720 ILCS 5/7-2) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-2) 27
Sec. 7-2. Use of force in defense of dwelling. 28
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against 29
another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that 30
such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's 31
unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is
SB2386 Enrolled - 2 - LRB093 20660 RLC 46519 b
1
justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to 2
cause death or great bodily harm only if: 3
(1) (a)
The entry is made or attempted in a violent, 4
riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes 5
that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or 6
offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the 7
dwelling, or 8
(2) (b) He reasonably believes that such force is 9
necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the 10
dwelling. 11
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force 12
justified under this Section give rise to any claim or 13
liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within 14
the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this 15
Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such 16
a person, against the person or estate of the person using such 17
justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or 18
wanton misconduct. 19
(Source: Laws 1967, p. 696.)
20
(720 ILCS 5/7-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-3) 21
Sec. 7-3. Use of force in defense of other property. 22
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against 23
another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that 24
such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's 25
trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with 26
either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal 27
property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of 28
another who is a member of his immediate family or household or 29
of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. 30
However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended 31
or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he 32
reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the 33
commission of a forcible felony.34
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force 35
justified under this Section give rise to any claim or
SB2386 Enrolled - 3 - LRB093 20660 RLC 46519 b
1
liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within 2
the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this 3
Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such 4
a person, against the person or estate of the person using such 5
justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or 6
wanton misconduct. 7
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)
WTF does this have to do with somebody walking home to his legal residence at the time and be shot to death by a vigilante. Absolutely nothing.
Maybe you need to spend a little time reading before you post such gibberish.
What this is, is basically called the "Castle Doctrine" and I agree with it 100%. If someone come into your house with ill intentions, you shoot the bastard. and if he falls down in your yard you drag his corpse back into your house. That was the friggin law in Florida long before the NRA made it legal to shoot anyone that pissed you off.
Arguing with some of you guys is almost like having a tooth pulled.