Legal Memorandum
To: Senior Attorney
From: Jordan Muhsin
Re: Jeffrey Bing Matter
Date: June 17th, 2024
Question Presented
Can Jeffrey Bing’s use of deadly force against John Geller to protect himself from bodily harm or death, be considered “reasonably justified” as self-defense under Illinois law 720 ILCS 5/7-1 (2024); when Mr. Geller (taller, heavier, more athletic and notably enraged) initiated the attack, verbalized an intent to kill, then brandished a hunting knife; while he rejected verbal and visual warnings to stop, and slashed Mr. Newton who tried to intervene, before finally ambushed Mr. Bing armed with the blade?
Short Answer
Probably. Multiple warnings were given. One shot was fired. No subsequent shots were issued. Under Illinois law, Mr. Bing seems to have responded with reasonable conduct to a legitimate fear of an imminent bodily injury, or death. Mr. Geller was violently enraged; armed with a hunting knife; and more athletic than Mr. Bing. Under these circumstances, Mr. Bing’s single use of deadly force appears to be reasonable under Illinois Law.
Statement of Facts
In August, Jeffrey Bing was on a camping trip with longtime friend John Geller. Senior Attorney, Senior Attorney Memorandum Re: Jeffrey Bing Matter (August 24th, 2024). John Geller overheard Mr. Bing had been having relations with a former girlfriend—becoming enraged. See id. Mr. Geller pushed Mr. Bing to the ground and began to beat Mr. Bing with his fists. A third person, Mr. Newton attempted to intervene, and stop the conflict. Id.
Mr. Geller then escalated the conflict using a hunting knife—slashing Mr. Newton’s arm. Senior Attorney, Senior Attorney Memorandum Re: Jeffrey Bing Matter (August 24th, 2024). Mr. Newton attested that he had never seen Mr. Geller in this condition. Id. Mr. Geller then allegedly verbalized a specific intent to kill Mr. Bing, then charged at Mr. Bing with the hunting knife. Id. Mr. Bing pleaded with Mr. Geller to withdraw before firing. Id.
Mr. Bing gave repeated warnings for Mr. Geller to stop his attack; even revealed a gun to deter from further injury. Senior Attorney, Senior Attorney Memorandum Re: Jeffrey Bing Matter (August 24th, 2024). In doing this, Mr. Geller was aware that Mr. Bing had a gun for self-defense yet remined undeterred by this warning; and continued to advance his attack. Id. Mr. Bing had a decision to make; and waited to make that decision until Mr. Geller was five to ten feet away, before he reluctantly fired a single shot. Id.
Mr. Bing appears to regret killing Mr. Geller, but claims there were no other alternatives; he feared for his life. Senior Attorney, Senior Attorney Memorandum Re: Jeffrey Bing Matter (August 24th, 2024). Mr. Bing’s backpack did not reveal to police any form of premeditation. Id. Mr. Bing now seeks to claim self-defense; thus dismissing the charge of first-degree murder for his use of intentional force produced under duress. Jeffrey Bing Indictment, People v. Bing (Ill. Cir. Ct. 2024).
Discussion
Mr. Bing’s actions appear likely “reasonable,” thus qualify as self-defense under Illinois statute. To prosecute Mr. Bing for first-degree murder, the Court must find beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted “without lawful justification.” 720 ILCS 5/7-1 (2024). Mr. Bing claimed to have a “reasonable” fear for his life; through repeated attempts to de-escalate the situation. Thus, his defense appears to be supported by his personal restraint; as only a single shot was fired. The Illinois statute states that a claim of self-defense relies on the “reasonable belief” that the force being used is both (1) necessary; and (2) reasonable. Id. Under § 5/7-1, a force intended to kill or harm is justified, if it prevents severe injury or death; and a reasonable belief that “such conduct is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.” Id. This memorandum addresses whether Mr. Bing acted “reasonably” to prevent great bodily harm, and if it constitutes as self-defense under Illinois law.
In August, The Cook County Grand Jury indicted Jeffrey Bing on charges of first-degree murder. Jeffrey Bing Indictment, People v. Bing (Ill. Cir. Ct. 2024). Jeffery Bing knowingly shot and killed John Geller with a gun; he was, thus aware that such shooting would create the strong possibility of “death or great bodily injury.” People v S.M. (2024). Mr. Bing’s intentional killing of Mr. Geller was not recognized to be lawfully justified. Id. Any individual who “intentionally and knowingly” kills someone without “lawful justification” is guilty of first-degree murder. Jeffrey Bing Indictment, People v. Bing (Ill. Cir. Ct. 2024). Thus, Mr. Bing’s shooting and killing of Mr. Geller is a violation of Illinois statute. 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(2). Mr. Bing knew that “death or great bodily harm” would occur to John Geller when he acted with force. Jeffrey Bing Indictment, People v. Bing (Ill. Cir. Ct. 2024). Therefore, Mr. Bing’s actions breached “the peace and dignity of the same People of the State of Illinois.” id.
Here, Mr. Bing’s use of deadly force will likely qualify as self-defense, specifically because he first attempted to de-escalate the attack; thus, after repeated attempts resorted to firing a single bullet to end the conflict. In People v. S.M. the Court held that the respondent’s “initial use of force was justified.” People v. S.M. (2024). In People v. S.M. the Court asserted that, “a claim of self-defense will not necessarily be negated by the fact that (1) several shots were fired; or that (2) the last shot was fired after the attack was over.” People v. S.M. (2024). In S.M., the Court added that “under these circumstances, we cannot say that the respondent’s belief that he was in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm was unreasonable.” Id.
The decedent’s opposing counsel may argue that in People v. S.M. there were four attackers; rather than a single attacker. Additionally, the attackers in S.M. were unfamiliar to the respondent; whereas Mr. Bing personally knew Mr. Geller. Under this theory the decedent’s opposing counsel may argue that it is unreasonable to hold a fear for life in the presence of a long-time friend. In People v. S.M. the respondent fired a warning shot; whereas Mr. Bing did not grant Mr. Geller this privilege. Mr. Geller probably believed Mr. Bing wouldn’t shoot him. Further, Mr. Bing was likely acting retaliation to his previous attack, as he did not attempt to flee before firing.
While partial consideration of this opposing argument may be viable, Mr. Bing appears to have acted reasonably by using deadly force to deter Geller’s actions under the circumstances. Senior Attorney Memorandum Re: Jeffrey Bing Matter (August 24th, 2024). In People v. S.M., the Court took into consideration the respondent’s repeated efforts to flee before firing. People v. S.M. (2024). Similarly, here Mr. Bing was prevented from retreating as he was circled by Mr. Geller—who was armed with a hunting knife, no less than ten feet away. Senior Attorney, Senior Attorney Memorandum Re: Jeffrey Bing Matter (August 24th, 2024). Mr. Bing seems to have waited until the last possible moment before firing a single shot. Id. Jeffrey Bing’ did not fire further shots once stopping Mr. Geller, only issuing enough force reasonable to preclude serious injury or death. In People v. S.M. the Court cited Illinois caselaw; that “one who is deliberately assaulted . . . has the right, under the law, to deliberately kill his assailant,” People v. S.M. (2024). Moreover, the Court stated that “the claim of self-defense will be negated only when the State establishes that the interval between the initial shot and the subsequent shots was sufficient.” People v. S.M. (2024). Mr. Bing fired no subsequent shots, therefore bears greater claim to self-defense under this circumstance. Senior Attorney, Senior Attorney Memorandum Re: Jeffrey Bing Matter (August 24th, 2024). In S.M. the Court cited that “a reasonable person [would] realize that no further shooting was necessary.” People v. S.M. (2024).
Additionally, in People v. S.M., the Court considered the athleticism of the attackers as a contributory factor to the respondent’s use of defensive force. Correlative to Mr. Bing’s case, Mr. Geller was physically stronger, and had verbalized his specific intention to kill; thus presupposed an increased likelihood that the circumstances would inflict serious injury or death. 720 ILCS 5/7-1 (2024). Furthermore, Mr. Geller’s slashing of Mr. Newton played an essential role in producing a “reasonable” presence of danger, that Mr. Bing reacted to. Id. In People v. S.M., the respondent fled and firing a warning shot—after being lapidated by his attackers. People v. S.M. (2024). Similarly, here Mr. Bing attempted to continue to de-escalate the conflict; audibly deterring Mr. Geller and visually exposing his firearm. Id. Mr. Bing’s reasonable use of force ensured he preserve his original form. In People v. S.M. the respondent’s reasonable defense was to deter an imminent and immediate danger of “death of great bodily harm.” See id.
Like in People v. S.M., the Court held that the evidence presented by the respondent had “failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent did not act in self-defense.” People v. S.M. (2024). Similarly, here Mr. Bing’s intentional use of force is unlikely to be found unjustified beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Bing gave Mr. Geller repeated warnings, maintained a safe distance, gave visual warning using his firearm to deter further violence; resolved the attack by firing a single shot. Senior Attorney, Senior Attorney Memorandum Re: Jeffrey Bing Matter (August 24th, 2024). Mr. Bing, thus appears to have only applied enough force “to the extent that he reasonably believe[d] that such conduct [was] necessary to defend himself,” before withdrawing himself from further engagement. Id. In People v. S.M., the Court held that the respondent’s intent to kill the decedent could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. S.M. (2024). Similarly here, Mr. Bing’s actions appear reasonable; having intentionally killed Mr. Geller due to his confrontation with imminent death. The Court, under these circumstances, is unlikely to find Mr. Bing’s case should bear a different verdict as a result.
Conclusion
In conclusion, as Jeffrey Bing issued multiple warnings to John Geller, who continued his attack, and advanced until a single shot was fired to prevent an imminent threat of death; his case will likely prevail as self-defense under Illinois law. Moreover, Mr. Geller’s previous attack, use of hunting knife, and verbalized intention to kill; supporting Mr. Bing’s “reasonable” response to an evident and significant threat to his life. Thus, Mr. Bing’s actions are likely classified as “reasonable,” and merited as “self-defense” under Illinois statute 720 ILCS 5/7-1 (2024).