[RadTek]

In some ways I think it hurts the offender more if they have to shell out a portion of their earnings rather than having their insurer pay out a lump sum.

That’s what you’re paying for when you pay your premiums. To take the hit when you’re negligent. Or even stupid. Or dumb.

That said, while we gladly cover negligence as a result of stupid or dumb, there’s usually an exclusion for a blatantly intentional act. In fact, it’s basic insurance 101 you learn getting licensed. Depending on policy language, it’s unlikely an insurer would pay in this case. IMHO any exposure is all on that crazy dingbat.

 

[Shark1007]

Makes sense. I know Don West, he’s a very good lawyer.

 

[Rio Hondo]

If I am on the ground, and you are trying to kick me in the head, you'd better believe that I am going to fear for my life and respond appropriately!

That's the real question. Florida law does not define specific situations where deadly force is justified. Rather, you have to be able to articulate why you feared for your life, and the judge/jury will then have to decide if your fear was reasonable.

We all know who the guy on the pavement is and I don't want this thread to go off track on the trial.

The question I want to pose is, under Florida law does this attempt to kick the head of a person on the ground reach the level of great bodily harm justifying the use of deadly force?

View attachment 73123

The premise of your question does not take into account what happened prior to the time of this kick. At this point in the evening, the shooter has unlawfully acquired a weapon, unlawfully transported said weapon over state line, unlawfully presented himself as a volunteer Peace Officer, unlawfully brandished his weapon, and last but certainly not least...at the time of this kick, the shooter unlawfully discharged his weapon shooting an unarmed man at point blank range. Lessons whe are taught not to do in weapons training.

As for the misplaced premise of your question, fear is relative Sir. I would want something more than my fear to justify the taking of another soul. I was raised in Brooklyn, NY. When someone kicks you in the face, you open up a big can of [email protected]$$. The fear,(misplaced premise), felt here is that the shooter did not have the none lethal hand skills to defend himself. Thus, the shooter should have taken his beating, insured the kicker limped home, while on his retreat back over state lines to the shooter's home where he should have been in the first place.
Pro-tip: People who find themselves fearful for their life in a fist fight should not go looking for trouble.

The shooter only has weapons release authority in a gun fight. If Florida law doesn't support clarity of use of firearms, it should.

 

[racer88]

The premise of your question does not take into account what happened prior to the time of this kick. At this point in the evening, the shooter has unlawfully acquired a weapon, unlawfully transported said weapon over state line, unlawfully presented himself as a volunteer Peace Officer, unlawfully brandished his weapon, and last but certainly not least...at the time of this kick, the shooter unlawfully discharged his weapon shooting an unarmed man at point blank range. Lessons whe are taught not to do in weapons training.

As for the misplaced premise of your question, fear is relative Sir. I would want something more than my fear to justify the taking of another soul. I was raised in Brooklyn, NY. When someone kicks you in the face, you open up a big can of [email protected]$$. The fear,(misplaced premise), felt here is that the shooter did not have the none lethal hand skills to defend himself. Thus, the shooter should have taken his beating, insured the kicker limped home, while on his retreat back over state lines to the shooter's home where he should have been in the first place.
Pro-tip: People who find themselves fearful for their life in a fist fight should not go looking for trouble.

The shooter only has weapons release authority in a gun fight. If Florida law doesn't support clarity of use of firearms, it should.

Wow... so much provably wrong stuff in this FIRST post. LOL!

 

[Derrick1971]

The premise of your question does not take into account what happened prior to the time of this kick. At this point in the evening, the shooter has unlawfully acquired a weapon, unlawfully transported said weapon over state line, unlawfully presented himself as a volunteer Peace Officer, unlawfully brandished his weapon, and last but certainly not least...at the time of this kick, the shooter unlawfully discharged his weapon shooting an unarmed man at point blank range. Lessons whe are taught not to do in weapons training.

As for the misplaced premise of your question, fear is relative Sir. I would want something more than my fear to justify the taking of another soul. I was raised in Brooklyn, NY. When someone kicks you in the face, you open up a big can of [email protected]$$. The fear,(misplaced premise), felt here is that the shooter did not have the none lethal hand skills to defend himself. Thus, the shooter should have taken his beating, insured the kicker limped home, while on his retreat back over state lines to the shooter's home where he should have been in the first place.
Pro-tip: People who find themselves fearful for their life in a fist fight should not go looking for trouble.

The shooter only has weapons release authority in a gun fight. If Florida law doesn't support clarity of use of firearms, it should.

Get your basic facts straight then come back.

 

[Old Gnome]

@Rio Hondo - first of all, welcome. You've made your first post.

Secondly, though @racer88 and @Derrick1971 might seem to be behaving a bit rudely to some, they do have a couple of very good points.

Third, please take a moment and introduce yourself -- https://www.floridaconcealedcarry.com/forums/introduce-yourself.17/ is the right place to start for that intro. Please read the first thread on the page. See also the forum rules on this page.

Don't hesitate to ask questions. Folks around here generally don't bite until at least the third date.

 

[OHEng]

The shooter only has weapons release authority in a gun fight. If Florida law doesn't support clarity of use of firearms, it should.

Florida law is pretty clear on use of deadly force. From your posts it seems that you are not familiar with them at all or you wouldn't be making statements like "weapons release authority in a gun fight." Weapons release authority is something the military worries about, not Floridians. Welcome to the forum but please do take some time and familiarize yourself with the state laws before making pronouncements that are nonsensical.

I would want something more than my fear to justify the taking of another soul.

More than fear of your life being lost or fear of living the rest of your days in a vegetative state because some punk decided to use your skull for a pinata? Exactly what more would you need?

 

[BeerHunter]

The premise of your question does not take into account what happened prior to the time of this kick. At this point in the evening, the shooter has unlawfully acquired a weapon, unlawfully transported said weapon over state line, unlawfully presented himself as a volunteer Peace Officer, unlawfully brandished his weapon, and last but certainly not least...at the time of this kick, the shooter unlawfully discharged his weapon shooting an unarmed man at point blank range. Lessons whe are taught not to do in weapons training.

As for the misplaced premise of your question, fear is relative Sir. I would want something more than my fear to justify the taking of another soul. I was raised in Brooklyn, NY. When someone kicks you in the face, you open up a big can of [email protected]$$. The fear,(misplaced premise), felt here is that the shooter did not have the none lethal hand skills to defend himself. Thus, the shooter should have taken his beating, insured the kicker limped home, while on his retreat back over state lines to the shooter's home where he should have been in the first place.
Pro-tip: People who find themselves fearful for their life in a fist fight should not go looking for trouble.

The shooter only has weapons release authority in a gun fight. If Florida law doesn't support clarity of use of firearms, it should.

Welcome to FCC from Palm Beach County, Rio Hondo! 🍻

Well, as others have pointed out, most of your first post has widely missed the mark, showing that you're not really very familiar with Chapter 776 of Florida Statutes on Justified Use of Force (see below).

You've made your first post to FCC without first making the customary introduction. So please now take the time to educate yourself on how FCC works (see last paragraph below) and then post you're own proper Introduction Thread to FCC letting forum members get to know you a little, of course without getting too personal. You can do that by going to the Introduce Yourself section of The Front Office and start your very own introduction thread. Then you'll find that lots of other FCC members will know to chime in to properly welcome you to the forum, and will be more responsive in answering your questions!

In case you weren't aware, you can stay current on pertinent Florida Statutes regarding use of force and firearms law by going right to the source using these links for Chapter 776 - Justifiable Use of Force and Chapter 790 - Weapons and Firearms. I'd also like to suggest you obtain your own copy of FLORIDA FIREARMS Law, Use & Ownership by Jon Gutmacher!

If you're a veteran, take a look at our Military Service Thread where you'll find many of us there, too!

Also, I highly recommend you read this thread to understand how to navigate FCC to get the most out of your experience. One particular item that's caught many veteran FCC members off guard is the "Recommended Reading" at the bottom of each page, which MAY contain quite old threads of inactive conversations lacking up-to-date information or context. So beware of the date of the last post (just to the right of the post number) in any thread you come across so you don't mistakenly think every post is recent and start responding to very old posts/threads that been dormant for quite some time, sometimes for many years.

Again, welcome to FCC and good luck!

 

[OHEng]

That’s what you’re paying for when you pay your premiums. To take the hit when you’re negligent. Or even stupid. Or dumb.

That said, while we gladly cover negligence as a result of stupid or dumb, there’s usually an exclusion for a blatantly intentional act. In fact, it’s basic insurance 101 you learn getting licensed. Depending on policy language, it’s unlikely an insurer would pay in this case. IMHO any exposure is all on that crazy dingbat.

Yes, RadTek, you do pay for that with premiums. My point was not to judge insurance companies, but only to say that, from the perspective of the individual, I think they would feel more pain from having to shell out part of a paycheck every couple weeks than to face a judgement where their insurer paid. I think the issue was one of attorneys being more willing to go after a person or entity with deep pockets than to pursue a claim against Joe Sixpack who has little by way of assets.

 

[Shark1007]

That lady‘s behavior would never be covered by an insurance policy. That was an intentional act if I’ve ever seen one. Insurance covers you when you screw up, make mistakes, do things by accident, or negligently, not on purpose, not committing a crime.

 

[Denverd0n]

If Florida law doesn't support clarity of use of firearms, it should.

In fact, it does. Better than a whole lot of other states, actually.

I hate to pile on a new member, but there is just so much completely wrong in this first posting of yours that it is kind of hard to take any of it seriously. You really should learn at least a tiny bit about what Florida law actually says, before you criticize it.