Illinois Self Defense Laws: All You Need to Know

Self Defense Laws Explained

Self defense, or the privilege to use deadly force, is actually a legal term that lawyers and judges use when trying to explain why a person did something. When people are dangerous and threaten to kill you and do so even when you are retreating and in your own home, you have the legal right to far more action if and when you feel your life is truly in danger.
The general idea of self-defense is really about your right to self preservation. It’s something that’s been around since man inhabited the earth and sharks were the biggest threats. Soon after men learned to make fire to protect themselves from the elements, danger to life wasn’t just external. The concept grew to where humans used it to justify their behavior toward each other.
In Illinois we have something called the Castle Doctrine. This means that if you are in your home and someone breaks in and threatens you, you can even kill them if need be. The general interpretation of the law previously was that you had to try and retreat from your home before using deadly force. That has been changed in recent years where now you never have too.
Still, it’s a tough line to walk when determining what is self-defense and what is murder . While there are no specific laws that apply to every situation that will make that line clear, there are self-defense laws that discuss some general situations. For example, when you are threatened and retreat, and the person who threatens you pursues you, you now have the right of self-preservation. It’s an improvement over having to physically get pushed in to your own home or retreat even further.
It is important to recognize that you do not have the privilege of self-defense if you are the initial aggressor. When it comes to Illinois law, simply being the person who finds themselves in the situation in the first place does not make you the aggressor.
A good example of this would be if you pull a knife in a bar fight. Clearly you are the initial aggressor if you pull out a weapon. However, if you pull out a knife and Johnny pulls out a switchblade with a longer blade, you have the privilege of self-defense. Likewise, assume that you pull out the knife and then Johnny whips out a gun. You have the right to defend yourself since he has introduced much more deadly force into the equation.
The Castle Doctrine basically lets you kill if necessary without having to retreat. But again, there is nothing that stops a police officer from arresting you or a judge from charging you with a crime. Keep that in mind.

Introduction to Illinois Self Defense Statutes

In Illinois, self defense is governed by a few specific statutes that dictate when and how an individual may legally protect themselves from harm. These laws clarify the conditions under which an individual is protected from criminal charges when using physical force, whether in the home or in public.
The Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 is the primary source of self defense law in Illinois, Section 7-1 through 7-7. Under Section 7-1, "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 protect himself against the imminent use of unlawful force by the other on the present occasion." This means that the person must be able to reasonably believe that force is necessary to protect themselves and that this force should only be used if there is an imminent evil. To put it more simply, the threat of violence or harm must be immediate, and justifiable without any available options to retreat for safety.
Section 7-2 covers the use of deadly force. "Lethal force may be justified in the following situations: (a) The use of deadly force is justified when the actor reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent any of the following: (1) death or great bodily harm to himself or another individual; or (2) the commission of a felony in the dwelling of the person against whom the force is used; (b) In the above situations the use of deadly force is presumed to be necessary to prevent the harm described therein to the above mentioned individuals unless the person against whom the force is used is a police officer acting in the performance of his official duties and the office has identified himself in accordance with subsection (b) of Section 7 — 5 of this Article and the circumstances are not such that the officer is using or threatening to use deadly force against an individual." This statute clarifies when it is permissible to use deadly force, and when police officers have authority to use deadly force against a perceived threat.
Section 7-3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 provides a duty to retreat, "A person is justified in the use of force when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to avoid or prevent an imminent threat of unlawful force by another." This means that the person must be able to believe that force is necessary but should only be used as a last-case scenario of self defense and if the person is unable to escape the situation for safety. This can manifest as retreating, leaving the altercation altogether, lack of equal force, and other non-physical solutions to the issue at hand.
Section 7-4 defines the use of lethal force, "The use of deadly force is not justified by this Article 7 unless: (a) The offender has committed or attempted to commit a forcible felony, and the force used is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the second party, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony; or (b) The conduct of a the second party, presents a threat to life or of great bodily harm, and the force used is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the first party." This reiterates that the use of deadly force is only allowed if in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

Applying the Castle Doctrine in Illinois

At the same time that people often don’t understand even the broadest terms in the law, there are a lot of labels used by the media and the legal world that are used as if everyone knows what they mean and then they are not really explained anywhere. One of those, in the realm of self-defense laws, is the term "castle doctrine." It’s tied to a legal concept called "castle law," sometimes called "your home is your castle." In Illinois, the Illinois Compiled Statues 720 ILCS 5/7-1 states that in no event shall it be necessary for a person to retreat into his or her dwelling in order to claim immunity from criminal prosecution. Or at least that’s how people who work in the law have commonly interpreted it to mean. In 2014 the Illinois Supreme Court clarified that the castle doctrine only provides protection to home invasion in a person’s residence, not in their garage, business or garage. So what is the castle doctrine you may ask? Primarily in the U.S., the castle doctrine differs from the standpoint of a car being a domicile. If an outsider comes into your house and threatens you or your family, you are allowed to defend yourself and kill them if necessary, even if a retreat would be possible. If you kill them on your property, you’ll be protected against criminal charges. If it happens on the street, in your car, or in a bar, castle protections do not apply. In some states, the castle doctrine has been extended to outside of the home, meaning that you have no duty to retreat in any situation threatened with great bodily harm, or death. Florida and North Carolina have such laws. In Illinois, there are currently no such threats. So much to know, right?

Stand Your Ground Law in Illinois

A common myth is that Illinois doesn’t have a Stand Your Ground law. When self defense involves deadly force, most people think of the so-called "Castle Doctrine" of Illinois law. This provides that you can presumptively use deadly force in your own home with no duty to retreat.
But is that all there is? Not by a long shot. A Stand Your Ground law means that you have no duty to retreat even when you are not at home. In Illinois, there is a general duty to retreat, which I’ve written about here.
There is an exception to that rule in the form of the Make My Day law (720 ILCS 5/7-5). The law states in part:
A person shall have no duty to retreat from his or her abode or any other legally occupied place or vehicle before using force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another when: (1) the person using the force is not committing a crime; (2) the person using the force has a reasonable belief that he or she or another person is being threatened with unlawful force and that the force used is necessary to defend himself, herself, or another person against that threat.
The big distinction is that this provides for your right to not retreat from anywhere and still use force, as compared to the "castle doctrine" law which is only relevant to your home. The issue is rarely raised in cases, but it is a good thing to know.
You can see that other states have "stand your ground" laws that apply when someone is in a public place, like a restaurant, store, park, etc. Illinois does not have that. With self defense in public, you have to show as a defense that there was no opportunity to retreat from danger (720 ILCS 5/7-4).
So while our Castle Doctrine law provides a great deal of protection to homeowners and their families, there is no true stand your ground law in Illinois.

Defining the Legal Boundaries of Self Defense

When evaluating a self defense claim, the police, prosecutors, and judges will look at what the law allows for a self defense claim. The law, 720 ILCS 5/7-1, generally allows any person to use the amount of force he or she believes is necessary to protect themselves against the unlawful force used by another, as long as that force is reasonable. However, that’s not all of the law, because if you’re using force, whatever the intended purpose, chances are that force may be deemed to be unlawful if its use is unreasonable. For instance, you can’t shoot someone just because they punched you, you can’t kick someone when they are knocked out on the ground. The law specifies that: The use of force that is likely to result in death or great bodily harm is justified only if the force is directed against an intruder who: The law is even more specific when it comes to the use of deadly force:
(a) The use of force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified only when the * * * person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another.
(b) The use of force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm is not justified, unless the force is directed against an attacker who is committing a forcible felony. So what does that mean? An example of legal use of force in Illinois would be: A man is walking down the street and sees a woman being raped in a corner. He sees that there are 4 men around her and they are armed with knives. It’s dark and no one else is around. The man goes over and yanks the attacker off of the woman, at which point the attacker turns around and lunges at him with the knife. The man then uses force to push the attacker down, causing a knife wound to his leg. He then calls the police and identifies himself as a citizen who is intervening in a assaults. He tells the police exactly what happened. In this case, there is a reasonable belief on the part of the man that he was going to stop the woman from being raped, and if he didn’t use force he would likely have been injured himself. There is a possibility that he will face charges from the responsible people, but at trial he will have a strong self defense claim against any charges. An example of illegal use of force in Illinois would be: A man is walking down the street and sees a woman being raped in a corner. He sees that there are 4 men around her and they are armed with knives. It’s dark and no one else is around. The man walks up to the attackers with a baseball bat, and starts fighting the attackers off. It works for the first attacker, but the others see the commotion and pull their own weapons. The man runs and struggles with one of the attackers, and ultimately knocks that attacker over. At this point, the other attackers pull guns and begin firing at the man. The woman is now free, and she grabs the baseball bat. The year is 2013, and the woman and the man are inside a McDonald’s. The attacker with the gun shoots the man, reloading the gun. The woman picks up the bat and throws it at the gunman, hitting him in the arm and causing him to drop the gun. At this point, the police show up. The woman says nothing, and the gunman doesn’t say anything. The police arrest everyone. In this case, the man had no reason to use force, as he himself said that there was nothing going on. He sees a potential attack and dives into action, not knowing whether it was simply an argument between two people or actually something that might be worth interfering with. As soon as the man uses his baseball bat he is engaged in an unlawful act, as his conviction for reckless conduct and battery shows. The man now has a felony record for the rest of his life because he saw something he thought was suspicious and pushed his luck to try to "do something." Because he broke the law, he is now the one going to jail, and the woman who actually saved his life is left with a felon as a partner.

Defending Third Parties: Legal Protections

Use of force to defend others has many similarities to use of force in self-defense. The law allows an individual to use force to defend another person from unlawful physical force. However, the same restrictions as in self-defense apply, such that a person cannot use force to defend another if he knows that the other is able to avoid the danger by retreating, although this is not required under the "Stand Your Ground" law discussed above. Further, the force used must be proportionate to the threat faced. Even if the victim is legally justified in harming someone, a third person may still be justified in using force to defend the victim against the aggressor.
In People v. Goode, the defendant got involved in a fight between the victim and his girlfriend. Three men were beating the victim when the defendant pulled out a gun and fired 3 shots at them down an alley. A bullet grazed one of the men, who was standing with his back facing the defendant. The court held that although the defendant did not know the victim, the victim still had the right to defend himself against the unlawful use of force. He had no duty to retreat, and the defendant was acting as a good Samaritan by defending the victim.
A person does not need to know the person to whom he is giving aid , and likewise the person receiving aid does not need to know the actor. A threat of serious harm to a person other than the actor is sufficient for the actor to use force.
In People v. Leonard, the defendant fled the scene when the police responded to a report of gunshots in a housing project. Officers found a gun and ammunition in the defendant’s apartment. Officers arrested the defendant when he returned to the apartment the next day. The defendant claimed the gun belonged to his roommate, Anthony White, who had left it in the apartment by mistake. The defendant testified that earlier in the day, a group of young men had been beating Anthony White outside the building while he was talking to some females. According to defendant, the group was kicking, punching, and choking Anthony White, and that the group had pulled a gun on him. The defendant took the gun to Anthony White’s apartment in an attempt to protect his roommate. Even if there is an honest and reasonable belief to a threat, the actor must have a subjective belief that his response of deadly force is necessary.
The Goode and Leonard cases make clear that there is a general duty to retreat from the potential confrontation except where you happen to be at your residence, you are using proportionate force and there is no present ability of the aggressor to inflict harm on the victim (that is when deadly force can be used).

Legal Implications of Wrongful Assessments

A key aspect to self defense laws in Illinois is that you can actually be liable even if you institute self defense incorrectly. For instance, if it is 2 a.m. in the morning and you mistakenly believe that someone is breaking into your house, but really it is your neighbor who has lost their keys (it’s happened!), and you attack them under the mistaken belief that they are an intruder, you can be criminally charged. Basically, deception, mistake or otherwise, that conclusion doesn’t give you the unlawful use of force exception.
So what does this mean for you? If you hit someone under a mistaken belief and accidentally hurt them because you thought they were attacking you, you very well could face charges. Even if you broke their arm at 2 a.m., but it was just your neighbor and not an intruder, you might have been charged with battery. There is a key case on this, the People v. Martinez, 235 Ill. App 3d 727, or 174 Ill Dec 60, where a victim thought their ex-wife was a home burglar, they attacked, and unfortunately, they had to spend a year in prison.
The statute at issue in the case is 720 ILCS 5/7-4, which is the fallback to the justification for self defense. If you are not justified, and had a reasonable belief that you were, then you can still claim it was a mistake, but you are not going to walk away scot-free.
I think in many situations, people would think that they’d be scot-free. I mean, how would the police or the attorney know whether you thought someone was in your backyard and you were attacking an attacker, or merely attacked your neighbor who you confused with an attacker? I think that these cases would be hard pressed to bring action against a person who had mistakenly attacked their neighbor under the false impression that they were a burglar. In fact, I think a good defense attorney could argue just about anything — I’d suggest re-examining your beliefs before you take action.

A Series of Self Defense Examples in Illinois

Several notable cases demonstrate the application of self defense law in Illinois.
People v. Novak, 163 Ill. 2d 93 (1994)
In this homicide case, the court held that the question of self defense – like that of an affirmative defense – was to be determined by the court. While the defendant had called for an ambulance after the fight and then received treatment for his injuries, by later testifying that he did not receive medical treatment for assault and battery, made it sufficient the conviction. The court stated that because the jury knew that "[defendant’s] injuries were comparable to those suffered by the decedent but were treated by a physician only at [the defendant’s] home," the conviction could not be reversed for lack of evidence that the accused suffered serious bodily injury.
People v. Wright, 2015 IL App (4th) 121445
The defendant was charged with aggravated battery of a police office; he was later acquitted by a jury. But the defendant sued the police officers and the city after being arrested. He argued that he was justified in using force against the officers as they were using unreasonable and excessive force against him. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the officers. On appeal, the appellate court found that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding self defense, including whether the officers used unreasonable and excessive force and whether the officers had a reasonable belief that their use of force was necessary. Summary judgment was reversed and the defendant was entitled to proceed to trial.
People v. Rome, 301 Ill. App. 3d 721 (1998)
In this second-degree murder case, the defendant argued that self-defense was supported by his testimony that the complainant kicked the defendant in the testicles, causing him to swing blindly at the complainant, striking him in the head with a rock. Although the defendant struck the complainant first, by using a deadly weapon, the court held that the defendant was justified in using force to repel the alleged imminent force that he was confronted with after the complainant had assaulted him. The court noted that the defendant’s actions were reasonably necessary to save his own life and constituted self-defense.
People v. Clark, 216 Ill. 2d 574 (2005)
On appeal of his first-degree murder conviction, defendant argued that he was acting in self-defense when he shot the victim, requiring, at most, a second-degree murder conviction. This appeal was based on defendant’s claim of self-defense, and the state’s response, which was that the circuit court committed clear and plain error in failing to rule sua sponte on the constitutionality of a jury instruction on retreat. The state argued that it would have been a plain error if the jurors had not been properly instructed on the law and were not misled to believe that "the duty of retreat" was relevant to the issue of provocation. Source: People v. Clark, 216 Ill. 2d 574 (2005).

Legal Representation and Self Defense

In cases concerning The Castle Doctrine, the Stand Your Ground Law, or other self-defense justifications to acts that would otherwise be criminal, having an experienced attorney you can trust is key. While most offenses in Illinois are Class A misdemeanors or felonies, there is no statute and virtually no case law on many of these types of cases. So having an attorney who knows the system and has successfully tried similar matters isn’t just important, it’s essential. Our attorneys have tried several self-defense matters and received favorable conclusions. These include: We’ve also advised clients in several self-defense issues including: In Illinois however , courts are not obligated to provide jury instructions or engage in a jury instruction in connection with certain issues like self-defense or mental state. Courts also do not have to discuss the applicable law with the jury when the jury will not have to apply the law to the facts. So, don’t expect a judge to provide detailed legal analysis on your self-defense case or to summarize those details in the jury instructions. Similar to evidentiary rules concerning the admissibility of evidence demonstrating self-defense, the defense strategies involved may not be obvious. We take a large interest in each case we handle and each client we represent. That means we will sit with you to gather the details, analyze the legality of evidence, jury instructions, voir dire, and potential agreements.