Shooting them while they were attacking would have been fine. Shooting them after they had ceased the attack and/or began to retreat would be murder.
The line between lawful self defense and murder is hair thin and the bluer the state the thinner it is.
The keys to the difference are imminence and whether your attacker/potential attacker is armed followed by “disparity of force”.
If you’re five ten and 200lbs, thirty years old and you’re being attacked by two skinny teenagers you’d have hard time convincing “reasonable people” that there was such a disparity of force or to justify the use of deadly force because there isn’t necessarily an imminent threat of grave bodily harm or death.
Those two skinny teenagers attacking a small, frail, 70 year old woman however meet both criteria.
Now if those same two attackers are armed say with pocket knives a reasonable person can be persuaded that the threat justified your use of deadly force.
In many states though the bar is even higher and you are required to use no more force/deadlier force than your attackers so unless one or both of them has a gun you would still not have a justifiable use of DF.
Those kids live in one of the most dangerous cities in the US where shootings are pretty common. They probably also know that Illinois has a very high standard for the lawful use of deadly force and that as soon as they ceased the attack their chances of being shot were near zero.
Nonsense. Career criminals know the laws better than their victims do. That’s also the reason they aren’t afraid of an armed citizen who they know isn’t going to shoot them and become a criminal under those same laws.
Up until 2 years ago I used to travel to Chicago once a month for work. I did so every month for 3 years. Never one time did I have any issue. I rarely saw any ghetto blacks. That’s why I was saying it was odd. I went back and saw that this took place on the Magnificent Mile - an upscale area. To me…this means Chicago PD has lost control.
Quite frankly, I cannot say I would NOT have shot them after ceasing the attack. I have never been in that situation so have no idea how my brain would function. If I move into the fight versus flight mode, I do know from past experience the fight mode could be trouble for me.
This is where training becomes crucial so that adrenaline does not overtake rational thought. I thought the man who was attacked showed remarkable restraint. I honestly cannot say (without training) I’d be able to show the same.
Unfortunately “adrenaline rush” is not a consideration for justification.
This is why LTC/CnC instructors like me do everything we can to encourage our students to get much more training than the bare minimum requirements to pass the LTC/CnC test.
To safely carry you really need a much deeper understanding of the law and reality/evidence based training to fully understand when and under what circumstances you are justified in the use of deadly force and exactly what constitutes the use of same.
Most people don’t even realize that simply displaying a firearm constitutes the use of DF if it is done to threaten, deter, or intimidate another person.
Not always. One case the burglar was charged with two counts of attempted homicide after the robbery and still sued the homeowner he tried to rob who dared to return fire.
Gang violence tends to stay out of the better parts of town, robbery however spreads out both into the upscale parts of the city and into the burbs since they are target rich environments.
In a situation like that, you must have presence of mind. When you’re flooded with adrenaline, it can be an iffy encounter. You must be able to weight the situation and ( hard to believe ) be able to move slowly & quickly at the same time. Think about it.
I have thought about it. My conclusion is that for some, it takes a lot of training and continuous training to allow rational thought and presence of mind to prevail over adrenaline.