Criteria necessary to use deadly force in SD

849 Views 43 Replies 15 Participants Last post by brownie, 5 mo ago

brownie

Discussion Starter · 5 mo ago

No matter what scenario one examples from the real world in a link here, or reads a scenario made for members to discuss options, there's some hard and fast rules for deadly force use.

1. They have to exhibit a means to cause death
2. They have to clearly have a motive to do great bodily harm or death upon your person
3. They have to have the opportunity to cause grave harm of death to you.

All the above with the lawful caveat the threat of grave bodily harm or death is IMMINENT.

In this recent thread https://www.floridaconcealedcarry.c...-lesson-in-conceal-carry.142089/#post-1990161

the lady who fired on the purse snatcher would NOT be able to articulate the above 3 criteria for deadly force use nor was she in IMMINENT danger of grave bodily harm.

One can play the semantics game all they like with what about this or that trying to find a way she was lawful in her discharging that firearm toward the thug, but she violated the law of deadly force use, plain and simple.

Save

Reactions: 5

1 - 6 of 44 Posts

bttbbob

· #34 · 5 mo ago

BeerHunter said:
As brownie states, as long as the three prongs of use of deadly force are present, one is within the law. The actual Florida Statute is 776.012(2) as shown red text below:

776.012(2) dictates the use of deadly force in Florida. They do not consider the three prongs of the use of deadly force.
They have one requirement.
2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use 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. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

Now that said. Those tenants will be used in court if it ever goes there. But it is not written into the law in use of deadly force in this state.

See less See more

Save

Reactions: 2

bttbbob

· #37 · 5 mo ago

BeerHunter said:
Understood and I didn't say the "three tenants" are written into law, which is also why I quoted the actual Florida statute. . .because I am not a lawyer.

Bingo. There is a confusion on this thread that civilians are under the same requirements as LEO when it comes to deadly force. They are not. Military, FLETC and Feds have 3 tenets.
i): “…a person has the present and apparent ability, opportunity, and intent to immediately cause death or serious bodily injury to the peace officer or another person.

Civilians are not under that requirement.
They are under the reasonable man tenets.
Would a reasonable person believe that the use of deadly force was required at the time to end the death or great bodily harm of themselves or others.

Save

Reactions: 2

bttbbob

· #38 · 5 mo ago (Edited)

brownie said:
And being judged by those tenets in a court of law, I'll work within those tenets for deadly force use. Why? Because it doesn't matter how Fla spells it out, that's how you'll be judged in every court I'm aware of in the US

Can’t be. If it’s not in the law. A good attorney would shut down that argument the minute you bring it up.
It is not in any jury instruction for any illegal use of deadly force trial I have ever seen.
A lot of states, it is the law. It is written and is in the jury instructions.

Save

Reactions: 2

bttbbob

· #39 · 5 mo ago

In the old days we called it the Triad of Threat Assessment. Either AOI, Ability, Opportunity and intent or AOJ, Ability, Opportunity and Jeopardy.

Save

Reactions: 1

bttbbob

· #41 · 5 mo ago

brownie said:
You stated "Those tenants will be used in court if it ever goes there" and why I stated I'll continue to be able to articulate means, motive, opportunity with that defense being imminent.

If I'm on terra firma with the 3 prongs of deadly force use anywhere in the country, it doesn't matter what state I'm in or what their law actually states or doesn't state in writing..

Acting as a LEO yes. I agree. Not required in Florida for civilians.
Should you be able to articulate why deadly force was necessary? Absolutely. And I AGREE if you can articulate the triad of threat assessment you will be on solid ground.
And of course it will come up in court. But will be shut down by any half intelligent attorney for civilians. It will be pointed out that those are LEO and military requirements not Joe Blows.

Save

Reactions: 2

bttbbob

· #43 · 5 mo ago

brownie said:
Right, and how would an atty prove his clients reasonable actions in a SD deadly force shooting by a citizen?

By articulating means , motive opportunity and that the deadly or gave bodily harm threat was imminent. One will be hard pressed to present a defense with the simple sentence it was simply reasonable without articulating the 3 tenets and imminency.

Being able to articulate those, develops a reasonable response of why deadly force use was applied. Juries gonna have to hear those articulated to determine if those actions were reasonable.

Let me refer you to an instance or two or three. The triad of threat assessment never came up in the Zimmerman trial.
Because any human knows when your head is being beaten into the ground it is justified. It never came up in the Kyle Rittenhouse murder trail in Wisconsin. Why? Someone physically assaulting you or engaging you with a gun in their hand is assumed to be treating your life.
Daishun Doctor murder trial. Again never came up. The perp had a gun in his hand.

Save

1 - 6 of 44 Posts

Top Contributors this Month