[brownie]

I believe that even if there’s no doubt that I’m “in the crosshairs,” (if there were time) I’d be yelling “help” at the top of my lungs before and even as I shot someone.

A tactic that can only work in your favor

 

[OHEng]

Just saying, in my world, I'll make every effort to avoid having to shoot someone. Given any time to notice a potential threat, I'll take steps that will demonstrate I hesitated to shoot them until they left me no choice. And my decision will sit better with a jury of my peers for articulating the actions I took to avoid defending myself with a firearm. Along with demonstrating my mindset, that of a defender not anxious to pop someone but left no choice. It's prudent and will keep me well within the confines of deadly forces use even with some liberal/s on the jury who are anti gun.

Having had to use a firearm to defend myself more than once, I'm fully unprepared to do so once again until the 3 prongs are met in spades and I can prove/articulate the threat was imminent. What I don't want the jury to deliberate is whether I could have done something to prevent having to shoot them [ like verbal warnings to stay away, move off, etc ].

Brownie, I think we're actually more in agreement here than out of it. Everything you've said makes good sense and I like to believe at least that if I had the presence of mind, I'd take similar steps to try and demonstrate I was backed into a self-defense corner, so to speak, before having to shoot. I also know that even the best laid plans don't always work out the way we hope they will, and it may be that we get dealt a crappy hand and we've no choice but to deal with it in whatever way we have to in order to stay above ground. I guess my tendency is to look at things in that way, as if all the "nice to have" things in a scenario just don't materialize and I'm left with the basics of live or die and not much else.

I really do like these scenario things, because I believe running several of these through one's noggin is helping mental preparation for a bad situation just as practicing reloads is physical preparation. So, thanks for bringing these things up. Even the ones I feel too inadequate, inexperienced, or inept to engage in the discussion, I learn something from.

 

[Wsr]

I have a willingness to create grave bodily harm or death, but there's no motive to do so. Motive is part and parcel to the 3 prongs of deadly force use in this country.

I don’t need to know your motive for trying to kill me to legally defend myself
Maybe you’re applying a different meaning to motive

 

[brownie]

I don’t need to know your motive for trying to kill me to legally defend myself
Maybe you’re applying a different meaning to motive

You would likely respond relative why you shot him, his motive was obvious, he was trying to kill you.

Here's why the 3 tenets of the law work and you need all 3 for lawful deadly force use.

Scenario,

Man across the street yells to you that he's going to kill you and holds up a large butcher knife.

He has the means, motive established, but the distance doesn't fall within the realm of imminent opportunity. Thus, one of the 3 tenets not met, deadly force use at the threat being made would be unlawful.

One should be able to articulate clearly the 3 tenets being met, and then the more imminent it was, the better.

 

[Wsr]

You would likely respond relative why you shot him, his motive was obvious, he was trying to kill you.

Here's why the 3 tenets of the law work and you need all 3 for lawful deadly force use.

Scenario,

Man across the street yells to you that he's going to kill you and holds up a large butcher knife.

He has the means, motive established, but the distance doesn't fall within the realm of imminent opportunity. Thus, one of the 3 tenets not met, deadly force use at the threat being made would be unlawful.

One should be able to articulate clearly the 3 tenets being met, and then the more imminent it was, the better.

I see where you’re going, motive isn’t the right word though like I said willingness is more appropriate or maybe desire “I’m going to kill you” isn’t a motive

 

[brownie]

I see where you’re going, motive isn’t the right word though like I said willingness is more appropriate or maybe desire “I’m going to kill you” isn’t a motive

You're right, it then becomes your motive [ to stay alive ] for using deadly force as long as the other two prongs of deadly force use are present.

 

[krimgeo]

Just wondering out loud if the criteria gets trickier when force is used to defend “another” per Florida statute.

 

[brownie]

Just wondering out loud if the criteria gets trickier when force is used to defend “another” per Florida statute.

Trickier maybe, but lawful deadly force use is always fraught with far too many variables to determine protecting others [ as long as the 3 prongs of deadly force use are present and it's an imminent threat it should result in an acceptable outcome [ other than having to afford an atty ]

 

[BeerHunter]

Just wondering out loud if the criteria gets trickier when force is used to defend “another” per Florida statute.

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 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use 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. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(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.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27; s. 3, ch. 2014-195.

 

[deadeyedick]

Brownie, I think using the word INTENT would more accurately describe what you're trying to convey than MOTIVE. Did it appear that the BG intended to stab you? If so, his motivation for doing so is largely irrelevant. Just my $.02

 

[brownie]

Brownie, I think using the word INTENT would more accurately describe what you're trying to convey than MOTIVE. Did it appear that the BG intended to stab you? If so, his motivation for doing so is largely irrelevant. Just my $.02

That was what the Comm. of Ma. called it, motive. For all intents and purposes they have the same meaning. Here's an article that you might find interesting

Is There a Difference Between Intent and Motive? - David A Webster

Although motive and intent are often used interchangeably, they are distinct concepts in criminal law. Motive deals with an individual’s underlying reasons for committing a crime, whereas intent is concerned with their willingness to carry out specific actions related to the offense. Definition...

thewebsterlawoffice.com

 

[Derrick1971]

That was what the Comm. of Ma. called it, motive. For all intents and purposes they have the same meaning. Here's an article that you might find interesting

Is There a Difference Between Intent and Motive? - David A Webster

Although motive and intent are often used interchangeably, they are distinct concepts in criminal law. Motive deals with an individual’s underlying reasons for committing a crime, whereas intent is concerned with their willingness to carry out specific actions related to the offense. Definition...

thewebsterlawoffice.com

Maybe the word "motivation" or "motivated" would be more fitting.

 

[mike1956]

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.

The concept of Ability, Opportunity and Jeopardy is laid out nicely here:

Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy - Second Call Defense

by Drew Beatty

secondcalldefense.org

"Use of deadly force is determined to be justifiable or not in the eyes of the courts and/or a jury. Of the many factors that come into play regarding use of force, the determination whether the use of force was justified or not, depends on the defendant demonstrating that three criteria were present in the incident: Ability, Opportunity and Jeopardy, or AOJ."

 

[bttbbob]

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.

 

[BeerHunter]

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.

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, but know that A-O-J is how SD law is [supposed] to be applied in prosecutorial decisions and/or court/jury decisions deeming one's action to use deadly force as "justified" [in Florida].

 

[brownie]

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.

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

 

[bttbbob]

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.

 

[bttbbob]

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.

 

[bttbbob]

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

 

[brownie]

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 jurry instructions.

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..