|
mnottertail -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/1/2013 8:19:07 AM)
|
Pursuant to section 776.012, Florida Statutes (2004), a "person is justified
in the use of deadly force only if 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." See also Weiand
v. State, 732 So. 2d 1044, 1049 (Fla. 1999). A person under attack has a duty to
"retreat to the wall" before taking a life; the person must have used all reasonable
means in his power, consistent with his own safety, to avoid the danger and to avert the
necessity of taking human life. Soberon v. State, 545 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
When a person is attacked within his or her own home, however, a
different standard applies.
[W]hen a person is in his own home and he or the members
of his family are assaulted or placed in apparent imminent
danger of great personal injury, he has the right to stand his
ground and meet force with force, even to the extent of
taking life if he actually believes, and the circumstances and
surrounding conditions are such that a reasonably cautious
and prudent person would believe, danger of death or great
personal injury to be imminent, at the hands of [the]
assailant.
Harris v. State, 104 So. 2d 739, 743 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958); see also Weiand, 732 So. 2d
at 1049. In some cases, this "castle doctrine" is described as follows: "[W]hen one is
violently assaulted in his own house or immediately surrounding premises, he is not
obliged to retreat."
And there is more.....................so the retreat issue was mooted, however it goes into great detail on steps that Jenkins took to descalate the situation, as well AS well as this bit of problematical stuff:
However, these cases all involve
clear aggression by the victim, evidence that the defendant could not retreat, and
evidence that the defendant took some effort to ward off the attack or end it without
violence.
In others, the State presented evidence that the defendant had a specific
opportunity for escape but instead chose to continue the altercation. (conviction held)
Although Mr. Jenkins came out of the trailer holding a hammer
and with a sheathed knife on his belt, the State's witnesses confirmed that these items
were customary tools of Mr. Jenkins' trade, not weapons procured specifically to fight
Mr. Cerezo.
and so on.........
|
|
|
|
