can someone sum up up these laws for me

[xTruthSeekerx]

THE LAW ON THE USE OF FORCE IN SELF DEFESE/STATE OF ILLINOIS

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.)


(720 ILCS 5/7 2) (from Ch. 38, par. 7 2)
Sec. 7 2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.
(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 prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or
(2) He reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

(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.)

(720 ILCS 5/7 3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7 3)
Sec. 7 3. Use of force in defense of other property.
(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 prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. 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 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.)

(720 ILCS 5/7 4) (from Ch. 38, par. 7 4)
Sec. 7 4. Use of force by aggressor.
The justification described in the preceding Sections of this Article is not available to a person who:
(a) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(b) Initially provokes the use of force against himself, with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; or
(c) Otherwise initially provokes the use of force against himself, unless:
(1) Such force is so great that he reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and that he has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(2) In good faith, he withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

[aerborne]

if someone attacks you, or breaks into your house (or is attacking someone else) you're justified in self defense (even shooting), but you can't shoot them 5 times in the back as they're running for their life, or go over to them to "finish the job" if you incapacitated them.

It's attempting  drawing the line between self defense and murder at when the aggressor is no longer a reasonable threat.

[xTruthSeekerx]

so if i put a no tresspass sign
violatiors will be shot is that okay?

[hyperqube]

wouldn't you be more concerned with whether God thinks its okay to kill someone for stepping onto land?

[xTruthSeekerx]

if someone is endangering my families life i am firing no questions asked

[stymo1]

so if i put a no tresspass sign
violatiors will be shot is that okay?

.....to the extent that you reasonably believe that such conduct is necessary to defend yourself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force.

[xTruthSeekerx]

so sign is a no no?

[sssomechange308]

A sign does not work for a thing besides keeping authorities off property, It will do nothing to stop shady people. Also a sign does not allow discharge of firearms in urban or suburban areas unless there is actual forced entry. Therefore you can only shoot while inside the house which is kind of a crappy trade off.

[fatguyinspandex]

.....to the extent that you reasonably believe that such conduct is necessary to defend yourself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force.

http://www.narlo.org/sign.html

If you post this sign and  they still come on the property you posted warning that all persons who violate will be considered an intruder attempting to trespass, extort, injure, threaten, harass, intimidate, or otherwise jeopardise the life or property of the owner.

therefore you said you will consider them as "intruders" who are there to hurt you. so i would think shoot away. but i am no lawyer.


the site i gave said that you should send letters to your public officals.

"We strongly suggest that when you install your No Trespassing signs, you send a NO TRESPASSING SIGN POSTING NOTICE letter, or similar letter as modified by you, Certified - Return Receipt Requested, to: The county sheriff, each county commissioner, the director of the planning department, if any, the Governor and Attorney General of the State, or other government officials of your choosing."


but as i said im no lawyer so you might want to consult one in your area.

[aerborne]

so if i put a no tresspass sign
violatiors will be shot is that okay?

Nope. because there's a requirement of "reasonal belief" that they pose a threat. Mormons knocking on your door to talk about jesus wouldn't be reasonably construed as a threat. Naturally you probably wouldn't shoot them, but the sign is going to be irrelevant should you indeed shoot someone, it's going to be a matter of if you could reasonably construe them as a threat, and the sign is irrelevant. So don't shoot solicitors or little girls selling girl scout cookies.

[xTruthSeekerx]

hahaha i know

[DireWolf]

Before making any decisions as to the extent of your reactions in response to another's illegal actions you might wish to review any case law applicable and the judgements thereof, as they relate to your state and given circumstances.

[xTruthSeekerx]

yeah the republic of illinois isnt fun