WHEN THE TARGET IS A CHILD: The Charles Leto Case, Self-Defense, and the Legal Trap of Shooting a Minor

WHEN THE TARGET IS A CHILD: The Charles Leto Case, Self-Defense, and the Legal Trap of Shooting a Minor By Jeffrey Straub | Sponsored by 2A Self-Defense Law Let’s say this plainly: when an adult shoots a minor, especially fatally, it doesn’t matter what the law says in theory. You’re already behind the eight ball. Because in the courtroom of public opinion, you’re guilty from the second they say the words: “he shot a child.” That’s exactly what’s happening in Chicago right now. Charles Leto, 55, is facing first-degree murder charges after shooting 15-year-old Marjay Dotson and wounding Jeremy Herred in Douglass Park. He claims it was self-defense. Police say he was fixing his bicycle when approached by a group of teens. He stayed at the scene. He reportedly told officers he was attacked and defended himself. But none of that matters right now. Because the headlines already wrote the story. And as usual, the media has no clue what they’re talking about. This case is a perfect example of why self-defense law isn’t just about statutes and jury instructions. It’s about perception, narrative, and timing, and if you’re not ready for that, you’re the next headline. The Law the Media Doesn’t Quote Here’s the statute the reporters never cite: 720 ILCS 5/7-1. That’s Illinois’ self-defense law. It says a person is justified in using force, even deadly force, if they reasonably believe such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another. But let’s not pretend this is a clean legal equation. Prosecutors don’t see checklists. They see optics. Jurors don’t memorize code numbers. They feel stories. And a 55-year-old man shooting a teenager in the back is a story the prosecution will ride until the wheels fall off. Shooting a Minor: Why Everything Changes Self-defense law doesn’t change just because the attacker is young. But how people interpret the same facts absolutely does. A man defending himself against a 35-year-old felon with gang tattoos will get a very different gut reaction than one who shoots a kid with a backpack. The second the public hears “15-year-old” and “shot in the back,” they don’t care if he had brass knuckles, friends with him, or was yelling threats. They see a child. They see a tragedy. And if you’re the one holding the gun, you become the villain unless your defense is airtight. That’s why Leto’s case is so critical to analyze. Because whether he’s guilty or not, every concealed carrier in America should be watching this like it’s their own trial. What We Know So Far (And What We Don’t) According to reports: Leto was kneeling beside an upside-down bike A group of teens approached Two were shot — Marjay Dotson fatally in the back, Jeremy Herred in the neck Leto stayed at the scene and claimed self-defense There’s security video, but no audio Police recovered the gun and verified Leto’s concealed carry license What’s unclear: How many teens approached Were there verbal threats or aggressive movements Was Leto surrounded or blocked in What does the footage actually show in terms of body language, space, and timing Was the shot in the back the result of a moving target or a fleeing one This last one is crucial and misunderstood constantly. Action vs. Reaction: Why the Shot in the Back Isn’t Open-and-Shut Let’s kill the myth right now. Being shot in the back doesn’t automatically mean you were fleeing when the shooter made the decision. The human reaction time is about half a second. In that window, a person can spin, turn, or move dramatically. If Dotson was closing distance aggressively and Leto perceived a threat, he may have pulled the trigger just as Dotson began to turn. The bullet hits him in the back. It looks bad. But that’s not how the timing of real violence works. Most prosecutors know this. Many ignore it. Because “shot in the back” is gold for emotion-based prosecution. It gives jurors something visceral. And it gives the media a free headline. But if the defense can explain this timeline clearly, it becomes a critical counterweight to the outrage. Proportionality and the Multiple Assailants Doctrine Under Illinois law, and supported by case law nationally, the key question isn’t just whether a person was threatened. It’s whether the force used was proportional to the threat. This is where things get sticky. Two unarmed teens versus a grown man with a gun doesn’t sound proportional. But that logic assumes every threat is one-on-one. It’s not. If those teens approached as part of a larger group, even if only two closed distance, Leto’s perception of danger changes. When a group moves in, you don’t need them all swinging fists to justify a deadly threat. The law allows you to defend against a group dynamic, not just individual attackers. This is what’s called the multiple assailants doctrine. Texas lays it out cleanest. When attacked by a group, you can use force against any member of that group, even if one person didn’t personally strike you. Illinois follows the same logic, even if it’s not spelled out as directly. And if those teens moved in from different directions while Leto was down fixing a bike, then the perceived inability to escape adds even more legal weight to his claim. This is what most of the media refuses to explain. They want you to believe it’s as simple as “two kids versus one adult.” It’s not. It’s about positioning, numbers, ability to retreat, and timing. And none of that fits neatly in a 90-second news segment. What the Surveillance Video Can and Can’t Prove Reports say the incident was caught on camera. But let’s not get too excited yet. Video without audio is a double-edged sword. Yes, it can show movement and positioning. But it can’t capture verbal threats, tone, or fear. It can’t record what was said — what the jury may desperately need to understand why Leto fired. Add in possible bad angles, dropped frames, poor lighting, or a cropped field of view, and now you’ve got a Rorschach test where each side sees what it wants. The defense will need to do more than just play the tape. They’ll need to narrate it. Break it down frame by frame. Show movement, timing, spacing. Overlay real-world timing data to show when the threat was perceived and when Leto acted. If they don’t, the prosecution will. And believe me, the prosecution will narrate it with one goal — to make it look like an execution. Why First-Degree The charge matters. First-degree murder in Illinois requires intent to kill or knowledge that the act had a strong probability of causing death. That’s a high bar. So why didn’t they charge manslaughter Because a child died. That’s the politics of prosecution. This isn’t a statement about Leto’s guilt. It’s a statement about narrative pressure. When the public sees “unarmed teen shot in the back,” they want someone punished. Prosecutors know this. And many of them would rather overcharge and lose than undercharge and face protest. You don’t have to like it. Just understand it. Final Word: Self-Defense Isn’t a Statute. It’s a Battlefield. We’re not neutral here. We believe in the right to defend your life. But that belief doesn’t mean the law is on your side automatically. The law is a battlefield, and if you don’t understand the terrain, you lose. If Leto was surrounded, if retreat wasn’t possible, if the group moved aggressively, and if he fired in a moment of perceived danger, he may very well be legally justified. But he still has to survive the legal system, the public narrative, and the media filter. That’s why you train. Not just with your firearm, but with your knowledge. Because when you draw that weapon, you’re not just surviving an attack. You’re entering a war zone of perception, law, politics, and fear. So get it right. We’ll be watching this case as it develops. And we’ll be breaking it down the way it deserves to be — without the fluff, without the fake neutrality, and without pretending that self-defense is simple. Jeffrey Straub is the founder of 2A Self-Defense Law and a longtime educator on the real-world complexities of use-of-force law. A graduate of Autodidact University, he specializes in helping concealed carriers understand how to avoid prison while defending themselves lawfully. Because we take the fear out of getting it wrong.