[bttbbob]

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.

 

[brownie]

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.

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.

 

[bttbbob]

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.

 

[brownie]

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.

One more time,

The 3 prongs were elucidated in court.

One wouldn't have to be asked what means he had, what motive he had or what opportunity he had as separate questions, but all 3 tenets are in fact related and answered in the one sentence above. Means motive and opportuntiy was extensively covered during that trial.

The notion that one doesn't have to say anything in their defense but "he was trying to kill me" without expounding on the means. motive and opportunity in that attempt in a court doesn't fly. The court and jury is going to want particular circumstances surrounding that statement answered. One thinks they walk into a Fla court and just exclaim he was trying to kill me and they are free to go is horse crap.

Who, what, when, where, why and how to the simple statement "he was beating my head into the ground" all summed up in a nice bow and explained at length with particulars of each during the trial.

One is free to play their game in a court of law and simply state why they fired on that person [ used deadly force ] like a simple statement of "he was trying to kill me" will be further explored until all 3 tenets are elucidated to the court or jury or both. That's where you're found to be reasonable in your actions.

I'm quite sure you understand I'm not about to leave it to 12 jurors to decide my fate based on what they deem reasonable. The 3 prongs of deadly force use WILL have to be fully explained to the jury for those laypeople to make a reasonable decision on my actions of deadly force use. Leaving NO doubt I met the standard of deadly force use whether that juror agrees with the others consensus on reasonable actions taken or not.

In the Zimmerman trial, the defense team covered the 3 tenets extensively establishing means, motive and opportunity to cause grave bodily harm or death to Zimmerman. Though they may not have explained those tenets to the jury in exactly those terms, they got the jury to understand the 3 tenets were met.