Author Topic: Week 2, 2nd Day, 7/2/13  (Read 7083 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 2, 2nd Day, 7/2/13
« Reply #60 on: July 02, 2013, 03:35:34 PM »
I thought I recalled that Pleasance taught criminal procedure, leaving Carter for criminal investigation, but another poster said it's the other way round.

I'm almost certain it's the other way around. I mentioned that previously, but realized when you asked me about it that I probably couldn't respond because my knowledge came from GZ's school records, the discussion of which was verboten.

Offline IgnatiusJDonnelly

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 353
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 2, 2nd Day, 7/2/13
« Reply #61 on: July 02, 2013, 03:36:31 PM »
Articulate the distinction then.  Forida Statutes Chapter 776 - Justifiable use of Force

Was there a change in the so called SYG (Florida)law this winter?  Specifically, a person could pursue another and initiate a confrontation out of fear?  The best defense is a good offense theory?
How does and/or did Florida's self defense laws differ from similar laws in say New England?(if they do. Just curious)

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 2, 2nd Day, 7/2/13
« Reply #62 on: July 02, 2013, 03:47:38 PM »
Was there a change in the so called SYG (Florida)law this winter?  Specifically, a person could pursue another and initiate a confrontation out of fear?  The best defense is a good offense theory?
How does and/or did Florida's self defense laws differ from similar laws in say New England?(if they do. Just curious)

No change this winter.  The governor commissioned a panel, solicited input from the public, the panel went on tours, etc. and eventually recommended no change to the laws.

That "best defense is a good offense" theory is a radically false representation of the law.  The use of force must ALWAYS be justified.  The person who threatens or uses force first is a criminal, period.  You can use force against force, and use of deadly force requires a realistic fear of death or serious injury (or rape, to a woman), and the person using self defense does not get to decide if the fear was realistic/reasonable.

The absence of duty to retreat before use of force in self defense was implemented in 2005.  I don't know how many states lack a duty to retreat in public.  Lack of duty to retreat while in your home is pretty common, but not universal.

Offline redstripe

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 2, 2nd Day, 7/2/13
« Reply #63 on: July 02, 2013, 05:05:55 PM »

The absence of duty to retreat before use of force in self defense was implemented in 2005.  I don't know how many states lack a duty to retreat in public.  Lack of duty to retreat while in your home is pretty common, but not universal.

It's also important to point out that even in non-SYG/castle doctrine states, the duty to retreat is not an unqualified one.  The general standard is that there has to have been a viable avenue of retreat, a reasonable person would have been aware of that avenue at the time of the confrontation, and retreating wouldn't have subjected the defendant to an unreasonable risk of serious bodily injury or death.  It's a pretty high standard and in general it seems like self-defense claims are usually more vulnerable to disputes over who was the initial aggressor or whether or not the defendant's use of force was proportional to the threat.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking