tazzygirl
Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
…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
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
So if you claim your use of lethal force in self defense was justified, you will at least need to put forth evidence that the requirements of 776.012 were satisfied.
The Florida’s Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground law at Section 776.013 helps by providing, among other things:
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:…
(Now, section 776.013 )
Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(This wasnt a case of home protection.)
So you can establish that your use of lethal force was justified, thus satisfying 776.012, if —
You can show that —
The person you used force against was, “…in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will…”; and
You, “…knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred….”
None of the exceptions in 776.013(2) apply.
And if you can do that, you don’t have to specifically establish that you believed, “…that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself….”
But note that you don’t get the presumption automatically. You need to show that the conditions that create the presumption exist. That might be easier than showing a fear of imminent death or great bodily harm, but you still must do some work to establish your claim of justification.
And in the law, any available presumption is rebuttable. That means that even though one may be entitled to the benefit of a presumption as to a certain fact, the other side may try to prove that fact is not actually true. So, for example, even if you might have been entitled to a presumption that you were reasonably in fear for your life, the prosecutor could put on evidence and try to show that under the particular circumstances, a reasonable person could not have been reasonably in fear for his life.
He doesnt qualify for immunity.
Based on these seminal Florida court decisions, if a defendant is charged with a crime (or, it would appear, sued) based on a use of force, and if the defendant claims justification as his defense, instead of raising self defense as an affirmative defense at trial —
The defendant would raise his defense in a motion to dismiss based on the immunity provided under 776.032; and
The court would hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion; and
The defendant at that hearing has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that each element required for legal justification has been satisfied.
Should the court deny the motion, it appears from certain language in Peterson that he would still be able to raise self defense as an affirmative defense at trial.
It’s not sufficient that one merely claims to have used force to defend himself or another. He will need to show that the elements constituting justification were satisfied. And every Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground law has conditions, in general similar to those under the Florida statute, that a defendant will need to show have been satisfied in order to be protected under those laws.
In one way Florida is unique. Under the most recent Florida case law, to establish a claim of self defense, the defendant will need to prove by a preponderance of the evidence to a judge the elements of self defense at an evidentiary hearing, rather than to a jury at a trial.
Now, that was all interesting. However, what happens now that Z is no longer claiming "Stand your ground" defense?
Here is what I find....
A stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first.
Now, why would O'Mara drop that as a defense and does it change the case if he is claiming self defense only in Florida?
_____________________________
Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.
|
RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread