General Categories > Carry Issues

Florida’s Self-Defense Laws

(1/1)

Dan W:
http://volokh.com/2012/03/27/floridas-self-defense-laws/#more-57774


--- Quote ---Florida’s Self-Defense Laws

David Kopel • March 27, 2012 11:59 pm

Media coverage of Florida’s self-defense laws in recent weeks has often been very inaccurate. While some persons, particularly from the gun prohibition lobbies, have claimed that the Martin/Zimmerman case shows the danger of Florida’s “Stand your ground” law, that law is legally irrelevant to case. So let’s take a look at what the Florida laws actually say.

    Fla. Stat. § 776.012. Use of force in defense of person

    A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

    (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

So the general rule is that deadly force may be used only to “imminent death or great bodily harm,” or “the imminent commission of a forcible felony.” A person may only use deadly force if he “reasonably believes” that the aforesaid factual conditions exist. These standards are the norm throughout the United States.

Eventually, a grand jury will issue a report based on its investigation. In the meantime, there are two competing narratives. In one narrative, Zimmerman followed Martin, attacked him, and then murdered him. Let’s call this the “M narrative.” In Zimmerman’s account, he followed Martin,  caught up with him, and then left; while he was leaving, Martin attacked him, knocked him to the ground, and began slamming his head into the  pavement. Let’s call this the “Z narrative.”

I am not making any judgment about which narrative is more plausible. The grand jury will do that. For now, it should be noted that neither the M narrative or the Z narrative has anything to do with a duty to retreat. The retreat issue would only be relevant if Martin were the aggressor, and Z had the opportunity to escape from Martin in complete safety. Then, and only then, would different state standards about retreat be relevant. Simply put, everyone who has claimed that Florida’s retreat rule affect the legal disposition of the controversy is either misinformed or mendacious.

The core Florida law on deadly force in self-defense leads to clear results. If M is true, then Zimmerman’s firing of the gun was a criminal homicide. If Z is true, the act was lawful self-defense. The results would be the same in every other state.
--- End quote ---

Read the rest of the story at the link

http://volokh.com/2012/03/27/floridas-self-defense-laws/#more-57774

SemperFiGuy:
The People Who are Using the Trayvon Martin Case to Further Their Agenda..........


>Care Absolutely Nothing About the Actual Facts of the Case.

>However, They Care Everything About Manipulating It for Their Own Illegitimate and Shameless Purposes.

After All, Why Let a Perfectly Good Crisis Go to Waste???

Even if the Crisis Has to be Manufactured and Manipulated.

sfg

Navigation

[0] Message Index