307 Henry St., Suite 211, Alton, IL 62004    (618) 462-8484    Send a Message
307 Henry St., Suite 211, Alton, IL 62004
(618) 462-8484    Send a Message
Google Reviews - 5 Stars Leading Lawyers Super Lawyers

Gun Crimes

When Does Self-Defense Cross the Line in Edwardsville, Illinois?

Saturday, January 4th, 2025

When it comes to self-defense, Illinois law is designed to protect you when you’re acting to defend yourself, your loved ones, or your home. But knowing exactly where the line is between legal self-defense and excessive force can be confusing—especially here in Madison County, where interpretations can vary. As someone who’s defended clients in Edwardsville for years, I know how critical it is to understand your rights. In this article, I’ll break down when self-defense is justified and how we can help protect you if you’re ever facing charges for protecting yourself.

What Constitutes Legal Self-Defense in Illinois?

In Illinois, self-defense laws give you the right to use force when you reasonably believe it’s necessary to prevent harm to yourself or someone else. This is outlined in 720 ILCS 5/7-1, which states:

(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.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of “aggressor” set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)

A notable case that clarifies the boundaries of self-defense in Illinois is People v. Lynch, 104 Ill. 2d 194 (1984). In this case, the defendant, Lynch, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter after fatally shooting an individual during an altercation. Lynch claimed he acted in self-defense, believing he was in imminent danger.

The Illinois Supreme Court emphasized that for a self-defense claim to be valid, the defendant’s belief in the necessity of using force must be reasonable under the circumstances. The court stated:

“Everything happened in an instant during which the defendant, according to his testimony, fell off a dresser while getting out his gun and firing it.”

This case underscores that while Illinois law permits the use of force in self-defense, the perceived threat must be immediate, and the response must be proportionate to that threat. An unreasonable belief or excessive force can negate a self-defense claim, leading to criminal liability.

Since the Lynch ruling, Illinois courts have continued to reference this standard. For example, People v. Bedoya, 288 Ill. App. 3d 226 (1997), cited Lynch when discussing the admissibility of a victim’s prior violent acts in self-defense cases. More recently, People v. Martinez, 2021 IL App (1st) 182553, upheld the principles of Lynch when examining the relevance of a victim’s past behavior in a self-defense claim.

These cases reinforce the importance of context—whether the use of force was proportional and whether the perceived threat was imminent. While courts continue to interpret self-defense law, the foundation established in Lynch remains intact.

Understanding how these precedents apply in Madison County is critical when building a defense. At Stobbs Law, we stay on top of the latest case law to ensure your rights are protected when you face charges after defending yourself.

Knowing the nuances of such precedents is crucial for anyone asserting self-defense in Illinois. At Stobbs Law, we have extensive experience navigating these complex legal standards to protect our clients’ rights effectively.

When Self-Defense May Cross the Legal Line

While Illinois law allows you to use force to protect yourself, there are clear limits to when self-defense is legally justified. The critical factor is whether the force used was reasonable and proportional to the threat you faced.

Under 720 ILCS 5/7-1, force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm is only justified if you reasonably believe it’s necessary to prevent imminent death, serious injury, or the commission of a forcible felony. But when force exceeds what’s necessary to stop the threat, it can cross the legal line into excessive force.

For example, if an unarmed person enters your home and you respond with deadly force without clear evidence of imminent danger, prosecutors may argue that the response was disproportionate. Similarly, continuing to use force after the threat has been neutralized, such as striking a subdued intruder, could result in criminal charges.

Courts in Madison County, including Edwardsville, closely examine several factors when determining whether self-defense was justified:

  1. Was the threat imminent? The danger must have been immediate and unavoidable.
  2. Was the level of force necessary? The response must match the severity of the threat.
  3. Could the threat have been avoided? Though Illinois law doesn’t impose a general duty to retreat in your own home, the situation matters.

Cases like People v. Lynch have shaped how Illinois courts interpret excessive force, emphasizing that context matters. If you find yourself facing charges for defending your home, having a defense team familiar with Madison County’s legal standards can make all the difference. At Stobbs Law, we know how to present these complex details effectively to protect your rights.

Real-World Examples from Madison County Cases

Understanding how self-defense laws are applied in real situations can provide valuable insight into the legal boundaries of using force. Here are some notable cases from Madison County that illustrate when self-defense was deemed justified and when it crossed the legal line:

Case 1: People v. Hill

In 2008, Nathaniel “P.J.” Hill of Edwardsville was convicted of first-degree murder after claiming self-defense in the beating death of Vincent Rollins. The court found that Hill’s actions exceeded the bounds of lawful self-defense, leading to his conviction.

Case 2: People v. Matthews

In 2021, Willie Matthews Jr. was acquitted of first-degree murder charges in the shooting death of Charles Cooper in Granite City. The jury concluded that Matthews acted in self-defense during the 2019 incident, resulting in a not guilty verdict.

These cases highlight the importance of context and proportionality in self-defense claims. Courts will closely examine factors such as the immediacy of the threat, the level of force used, and whether the response was necessary under the circumstances. At Stobbs Law, we have extensive experience navigating these complex legal standards to protect our clients’ rights effectively.

Legal Consequences of Excessive Force

While Illinois law allows for self-defense under 720 ILCS 5/7-1, using excessive force can lead to serious legal consequences. If the force used goes beyond what is necessary to prevent imminent harm, prosecutors in Madison County may pursue criminal charges—even when self-defense is initially claimed.

Potential Charges for Excessive Force:

  • Aggravated Battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05): If serious bodily harm is caused during an altercation where the threat was minimal or no longer present.
  • Manslaughter or Second-Degree Murder (720 ILCS 5/9-2): If deadly force is used when the threat did not justify it, such as shooting an unarmed individual when other options were available.
  • Reckless Conduct (720 ILCS 5/12-5): If force is used in a way that endangers others beyond the immediate threat.

Key Factors Madison County Prosecutors Evaluate:

  • Proportionality: Was the level of force necessary for the threat?
  • Immediate Threat: Was the danger still present when force was used?
  • Intent: Was the action defensive or retaliatory?

For example, in People v. Hill, the defendant’s use of excessive force during a physical altercation led to a conviction when the threat had already subsided. In contrast, People v. Matthews resulted in an acquittal because the use of deadly force was deemed necessary under the circumstances.

Civil Liability Risks:

Even if criminal charges are avoided, excessive force can lead to civil lawsuits from the injured party or their family, particularly if the force used was deemed avoidable or excessive.

At Stobbs Law, we know how prosecutors in Madison County approach these cases. Our focus is on clearly presenting the facts, emphasizing your right to protect yourself, and ensuring the court understands when the law is on your side. If you’re facing charges after defending yourself, we’re here to protect your rights and fight for the best possible outcome.

Defending Yourself with Stobbs Law

Facing criminal charges after defending yourself can feel overwhelming, especially when the law seems unclear. That’s where we come in. At Stobbs Law, I’ve spent years defending clients throughout Madison County, including Edwardsville, in complex self-defense cases. I know how the courts interpret Illinois self-defense laws and what it takes to build a strong legal defense.

When you hire me, you’re not getting passed off to a junior associate or paralegal—I’m personally involved in every aspect of your case. I’ll dig deep into the facts, examine whether the force you used was proportional to the threat, and challenge any attempts by the prosecution to portray your actions as excessive.

How We Build Your Defense:

  • Establishing Reasonable Fear: We’ll demonstrate that you had a legitimate reason to fear imminent harm, aligning with 720 ILCS 5/7-1.
  • Proportionality of Force: We’ll argue the force used was necessary given the threat you faced.
  • Challenging Misinterpretations: If prosecutors attempt to twist the facts, we’ll present a clear narrative backed by evidence, witness statements, and expert opinions.

Self-defense cases can be won or lost based on the clarity of your side of the story. That’s why my approach is aggressive, detail-focused, and backed by a deep understanding of both the law and Madison County court procedures.

If you’re facing charges after defending yourself, don’t leave your future to chance. Contact Stobbs Law today—I’ll personally review your case and help you take the next steps to protect your rights.

Conclusion

Knowing your rights under Illinois self-defense laws is critical, especially here in Madison County where courts take a close look at whether the force used was reasonable and necessary. We’ve covered how Illinois law, specifically 720 ILCS 5/7-1, protects your right to defend yourself while also outlining the legal limits to avoid excessive force charges.

The key takeaway? Self-defense is your right—but the law requires that it be applied carefully. If you’re ever facing criminal charges after defending yourself, the facts matter. The right legal strategy can make all the difference in protecting your freedom.

At Stobbs Law, I’ve defended countless clients in Edwardsville and throughout Madison County in cases just like yours. I’m committed to making sure your side of the story is heard and your rights are fully protected. If you’re facing charges or just want to better understand how the law applies to you, reach out today. Let’s take the first step toward defending your future together.

How to Properly Transfer a Firearm in Illinois

Wednesday, July 3rd, 2024

Transferring a firearm in an Illinois city like Edwardsville or Alton involves specific legal steps to ensure compliance with state and federal laws.  Here’s a detailed guide based on the regulations and procedures outlined by Illinois state laws.

1. Understand the Legal Requirements

Before transferring a firearm, it’s crucial to understand the legal requirements in Illinois:

  • FOID Card: Both the seller and the buyer must possess a valid Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card.
  • Background Check: A background check must be conducted to ensure the buyer is legally permitted to own a firearm. You can verify FOID cards here.
  • Record Keeping: Both parties must keep a record of the transaction for at least 10 years.

2. Conducting the Transfer

The process varies slightly depending on whether the transfer is between private individuals or involves a Federal Firearms License (FFL) dealer.

Private Transfer

For a private transfer (between two individuals):

  • Verify FOID Cards: Ensure that both parties have valid FOID cards.
  • Initiate Background Check: The seller must contact the Illinois State Police to verify the buyer’s FOID card and complete a background check.
  • Wait Period: There is a mandatory waiting period—72 hours for handguns and 24 hours for long guns.
  • Complete the Transfer: After the waiting period, complete the transfer and document it. Include details such as the date, firearm description, and FOID card numbers of both parties.

Transfer via FFL Dealer

For a transfer involving an FFL dealer:

  • Dealer Responsibilities: The dealer will conduct the background check and ensure compliance with federal and state laws.
  • Documentation: The dealer will handle the necessary documentation and record-keeping.

3. Legal Provisions and Compliance

Illinois law outlines specific provisions for person-to-person transfers:

  • 430 ILCS 65/3(a): This section states that no person may knowingly transfer a firearm, ammunition, stun gun, or taser to another person within Illinois unless the transferee displays a valid FOID card or a valid license to carry a concealed firearm issued by the Department of State Police. Federally licensed firearm dealers must also comply with Section 3.1 for all transfers.
  • 430 ILCS 65/3(a-10): This subsection requires private sellers to contact the Illinois State Police to verify the validity of the buyer’s FOID card before completing the transfer. The State Police will provide an approval number if the FOID card is valid, which is valid for 30 days from the date of issue.

For more details, you can verify FOID cards here.

4. Record Keeping

Both the seller and the buyer must maintain a record of the transaction, including:

  • Names and FOID card numbers of both parties.
  • Date of the transfer.
  • Description of the firearm (make, model, and serial number).

5. Special Considerations

  • Interstate Transfers: If transferring a firearm across state lines, federal law requires the involvement of an FFL dealer.
  • Inherited Firearms: Special rules may apply to firearms acquired through inheritance. It’s advisable to consult with a legal expert in such cases.

 

6. Legal Consequences

Failure to comply with Illinois firearm transfer laws can result in serious legal consequences, including fines and imprisonment. Always ensure that all steps are followed meticulously.

Conclusion

Transferring a firearm in Illinois involves several critical steps to ensure legal compliance. By understanding and following these steps, you can ensure a smooth and lawful transfer. Always consult with legal professionals if you have any doubts or specific circumstances that require special attention.

If you have any further questions or need assistance with specific scenarios, feel free to reach out to legal experts or your local law enforcement agency.

Weinmann v. McClone: When is an Officer Justified to Use Deadly Force?

Monday, June 1st, 2015

This Wednesday, the Seventh Circuit issued an interesting opinion regarding police shootings. On November 12, 2007, Jerome Weinmann celebrated his one year anniversary with his wife by guzzling half a bottle of vodka, holing himself in his garage with a shotgun, and taking four bullets from a responding police officer. When Officer McClone arrived at the scene and entered the garage, he shot Weinmann immediately.

Prior to opening fire, Officer McClone understood four things: that Jerome possessed a shotgun, he may have been suicidal, he had not answered the officer’s knocks on the garage door, and that “pattering” sounds could be heard from inside the garage. Armed with only that information and his service weapon, McClone burst into the garage and shot Jerome four times in the face, thumb, and torso. Miraculously, Mr. Weinmann survived the encounter and filed a civil suit against officer McClone.

While not a criminal case per se, Weinmann v. McClone represents interesting precedent for future cases regarding police force. A recurring theme of this blog has been the appropriateness of police conduct and the lack of restraint thereof. Cynics might consider police officers effectively immune from criminal consequence. Just this month, a Cleveland police officer was acquitted of manslaughter after firing 137 rounds at two unarmed civilians from the hood of their own car.

Perhaps then, civil remedies like the claim filed against Officer McClone might represent a means of curbing police violence, and the language of the opinion seems to illustrate high concern for police violence in spite of a legal climate which has long refused to restrain such behavior.

As a threshold matter, the Seventh Circuit makes the unsurprising finding that “Jerome has a constitutional right not to be shot on sight.” More importantly, the court notes that the primary consideration for determining the legality of police force lies in the “quality of the information known to the officer at the time he fired the weapon.” In this case, the fact that the officer felt threatened by entering into an enclosed space with an assailant does not justify deadly force alone – even when that enclosed space houses and shotgun-wielding drunk.

So what can be deduced from Weinmann? First, the Seventh Circuit has created a line of favorable precedent for victims of police violence. The extent to which that may affect police behavior remains to be seen. Also, the case seems to signify that federal courts are becoming increasingly sensitive to police violence and its pervasiveness. Finally, and perhaps most interestingly, this case seems to debunk, somewhat, the viability of the argument that police fear might justify deadly force. Of course, police may and should use force when necessary to prevent imminent, critical danger to themselves or the public, but a case like this demands a cool head and considerate action – even in the most intense situations.

Sources: Weinmann v. McClone, No. 14-1794 (7th Cir. May 27, 2015).

The Effects of the Fast and Furious Scandal on the Gun Control Debate

Monday, October 22nd, 2012

Recently the fast and furious scandal has made national headlines. Fourteen Federal employees were cited in an internal report by the US Justice Department’s Inspector General. Kenneth Melson, former Director of the US Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, has retired and Jason Weinstein, a deputy in the Justice Department’s criminal division, has resigned amid criticism after the report’s finding came out today. This report has sparked a lot of political discussion, becoming a regular political football.

The question is: how will this scandal affect the debate over gun control and gun legislation in American politics? How does this scandal change the definition of a gun crime? Federal gun crimes, in this case going deliberately unnoticed in the name of a sting operation by the ATF, have a potential to spark serious political debate. Republicans are saying this scandal could have been planned by the Obama administration as a direct threat to citizen’s second amendment rights. Republicans also suggest that democrats will seek harsher gun crimes penalties along with new gun laws. Democrats, however, are using the scandal to open the debate on new restrictions for long guns, which would force gun stores in the southwest to report those who want to purchase more than one of this type of firearm.

Sources
http://www.npr.org/2012/06/21/155513757/why-operation-fast-and-furious-failed
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/09/19/161446695/justice-department-watchdog-blasts-fast-and-furious-operation
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/15/as-predicted-fast-and-furious-scandal-gives-rise-to-gun-regulation-debate/

John Stobbs, Criminal Defense Attorney

My Promise to You

"I'm not afraid to go to trial. I have been successful in fighting the government in trial and I have won acquittals in federal criminal jury trials. I fight hard for all of my clients. I fight hard to get good deals for my clients even if that means going to trial. The prosecutors know who the plea bargain lawyers are and who the attorneys are who fight hard for their clients! The prosectors are always going to give better deals to the attorneys that fight hard for their clients.

When you hire John Stobbs, you hire ME! I do all the work for your case - not a paralegal or an associate."

Request Your Free, Confidential Consultation


(618) 462-8484
Send a Message
Get Directions

Expert Criminal Defense Lawyer Serving


Edwardsville, IL
Alton, IL
Madison County
Southern Federal District of Illinois
Eastern Federal District of Missouri

Let's talk about your case.

Request a confidential appointment to explore how Stobbs Law Offices can assist in your aggressive legal defense.

Contact Us