One of the most interesting conversations I’ve had in a concealed carry classroom involved a Cook County state prosecutor.
He wasn’t there to observe a class. He was there as a student working through the same Illinois concealed carry curriculum as everyone else.
During the class, I asked a question I often use to spark discussion:
“Do we shoot to kill?”
Without hesitation, the prosecutor raised his hand and answered out loud:
“Yes.”
His tone wasn’t aggressive. It was confident—almost matter-of-fact.
So I asked him why.
What followed was one of the most revealing moments I’ve seen in a classroom.
He explained, with a somewhat confused tone, that he believed concealed carry classes exist specifically to teach people how to kill someone legally. From his perspective as a prosecutor, that’s what he had always assumed was happening inside these classes.
That assumption was not unique to him.
But it was also completely wrong.
From my experience providing advanced firearms training to armed citizens and law enforcement—and from discussions with legal professionals—this moment highlights something important:
Prosecutors often begin their evaluation of self-defense cases with assumptions about why people carry firearms.
Understanding those assumptions helps explain how self-defense claims are evaluated under Illinois self defense law.
Understanding the Legal Question
Under Illinois law, deadly force may be justified when a person reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent:
- imminent death
- great bodily harm
- or the commission of a forcible felony
Those standards revolve around two core legal concepts:
Reasonableness
and
Totality of the circumstances
In a self defense shooting in Illinois, prosecutors are not simply asking whether the defender felt afraid.
Instead, they evaluate whether the defender’s belief that deadly force was necessary would appear reasonable to an objective observer reviewing the facts after the incident.
That review may involve:
- witness statements
- surveillance video
- forensic evidence
- 911 recordings
- statements from the involved parties
Prosecutors ultimately ask whether the available evidence supports a lawful claim of self-defense.
A Classroom Conversation That Revealed a Misconception
The conversation with the Cook County prosecutor stayed with me because it exposed a disconnect between how many people view concealed carry training and what actually happens in responsible defensive training environments.
When he said “yes” to the idea of shooting to kill, he was not advocating violence.
He simply believed that concealed carry classes teach people to use firearms specifically to kill another person if necessary.
That’s not how responsible defensive training works.
So I explained something that every serious concealed carrier eventually learns:
We do not shoot to kill.
We shoot to stop an imminent deadly threat.
That distinction matters.
It matters morally.
It matters tactically.
And it matters legally.
When prosecutors evaluate self-defense claims, they are often looking for signs that a person acted out of necessity, not intent to kill.
This difference may sound subtle, but it can become extremely important during legal review.
How Illinois Law Typically Interprets This Situation
Illinois deadly force law does not authorize people to kill others simply because they feel threatened.
Instead, the law allows deadly force when it is necessary to stop an imminent threat capable of causing death or great bodily harm.
That means the purpose of defensive gun use is to stop the threat, not to achieve a particular outcome.
In fact, in many defensive encounters, once the threat stops—whether because the attacker flees, collapses, or disengages—the legal justification for continued force disappears.
From a prosecutor’s perspective, the key question is not whether the attacker survived.
The key question is:
Was deadly force reasonably necessary at that moment?
This is where the totality of circumstances becomes important.
Investigators and prosecutors will examine factors such as:
- the attacker’s behavior
- distance between individuals
- presence of a weapon
- verbal threats
- attempts to disengage or escape
- witness testimony
- environmental conditions
Every detail contributes to how the event is interpreted.
Real-World Defensive Considerations
When a defensive shooting occurs, the situation rarely looks as clean as people imagine.
Lighting may be poor. Events may unfold in seconds. Witnesses may disagree about what they saw.
In many cases, investigators must reconstruct the event using:
- surveillance footage
- ballistic evidence
- digital data
- forensic analysis
- multiple witness interviews
Prosecutors then review that evidence to determine whether the defender’s actions were justified under Illinois law.
From my experience working with concealed carriers, one of the most valuable mindset shifts is realizing that your decisions will likely be analyzed long after the event ends.
The investigation may last weeks or months.
And every detail matters.
Common Misconceptions
Misconception: Self-defense means shooting to kill.
Responsible defensive training teaches people to stop imminent threats, not to kill.
Misconception: Prosecutors automatically assume self-defense.
Self-defense is a legal claim that must be supported by evidence.
Misconception: If you felt afraid, the law automatically justifies deadly force.
Fear alone is not enough.
Prosecutors evaluate whether the belief in imminent danger was reasonable under the circumstances.
What Responsible Concealed Carriers Should Understand
Responsible concealed carriers should understand that prosecutors evaluate defensive shootings through a very specific lens.
They are asking questions like:
Was the threat truly imminent?
Was deadly force proportional to the threat?
Was the defender’s belief reasonable?
Did the defender act responsibly before and during the encounter?
These questions reinforce why defensive training must focus on judgment and decision-making, not just shooting ability.
When I work with concealed carriers, I emphasize that the goal is not simply to survive a violent encounter.
The goal is to make decisions that are defensible under the law.
How This Is Taught in Defensive Training
At JM Training we emphasize that carrying a firearm is about responsibility, not aggression.
Students learn to focus on:
- threat identification
- situational awareness
- avoidance and de-escalation
- proportional use of force
- decision-making under stress
One thing I often tell students is this:
The firearm is a last-resort tool used only when an imminent threat leaves no safer alternative.
That mindset aligns not only with responsible gun ownership, but also with how prosecutors evaluate self-defense claims.
Conclusion
The conversation with the Cook County prosecutor in that concealed carry class revealed something important.
Even people inside the criminal justice system may misunderstand what responsible defensive training actually teaches.
Concealed carry classes are not designed to teach people how to kill.
They are designed to help responsible citizens understand when force may be legally justified—and when it is not.
When prosecutors evaluate a self defense shooting in Illinois, they examine the reasonableness of the defender’s actions under the totality of circumstances.
For responsible armed citizens, that reality reinforces a simple but important principle:
Deadly force is a last resort used only to stop an imminent threat.
Understanding that principle is central to both responsible gun ownership and lawful self-defense.
This article is for educational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Individuals should consult qualified legal counsel regarding specific legal questions.