Duty to retreat laws

[OH58D]

The thread is about a duty to retreat... Or is it? Perhaps the key here is what is the point do you confront others about their bad behavior. Sometimes in life you see bad behavior, then just move on with your life and put some distance between yourself and the offender. Getting into an argument or possible fight just isn't worth the hassle sometimes.

Then there are times when you are being confronted, and you really have nowhere to go. Once I was pumping gas into my truck at a Shell Station on Central Avenue in Albuquerque. The was this Black fellow yelling profanities at me, ever creeping closer. The closer he got, the more vile he became. My .357 Smith & Wesson was in the console between the front seats, so I put the lock on the pump to keep filling up and I went to the open driver's door and retrieved my handgun, then continued handling the gas pump nozzle. My thought was if the Black fellow got too close, I'd just douse him with 89 octane gas, then see what happens. I was in a tight space and I was not going to move away from my truck if he lunged. If he had I would have shot him. He saw the gun, spun around and walked off, still spouting profanities.

In New Mexico, your vehicle is an extension of your home for keeping and using a gun for defense. Staying close to the truck gave me stronger legal standing if the situation would have gone south.

[Grand58742]

How do the changes in the FL law make it harder to charge him. It would seem that SYG wouldn't be a safe harbor for him here since, while he was attacked, he didn't appear to be under attack at the time of the shooting? Cases like this can erode the public confidence in SYG laws, and I don't want to go back to where you have to do a full French retreat and get a not signed in triplicate before I can shoot someone jumping on my head.

From a lawyer acquaintance of mine in FL that works with PDs, please ignore the anti-NRA slant, he's not a big pro-2A guy.

Been watching the coverage of this, and something not discussed is the burden of proof on a SYG defense.

The law was changed last year, with the backing of the NRA but over objections of prosecutors and many in law enforcement. Now, if a defendant claims it, the burden is on the state to show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not entitled to the defense.

The concern of the opponents was exactly what happened here. Even if this was wrong, the state would have had an almost impossible time overcoming the defense. As long as its debatable, it's tough for a charge to even be made in the first place.

Here, though the shooter is arguing with the girlfriend, the first physical act of aggression is by the boyfriend shoving the guy. Given that it is at least debatable, the facts do not clearly and convincingly show the defense does not apply.

Further:

That's just it. The defense doesn't have to prove it. The state must affirmatively disprove it.

The Sheriff was likely covering his bases by not charging him, but I'd imagine (as others have opined) the DA could push it.

[Honu]

saw that video
so a idiot sees another idiot park so the one idiot goes up to the other idiot
that idiot runs in gets the other idiot who comes out and idiot shoves idiot and idiot shoots idiot and one idiot is dead

they need to take all the idiots and shoot them all eventually we will have less idiocy


yeah not sure this was a good shoot and sure lawyers will be doing some civil follow up ? not sure about FL law though but this is not over I reckon

[26 Inf]

I'd imagine the survivors have personal injury lawyers in a holding pattern above their residence.

[PatrioticDisorder]

saw that video
so a idiot sees another idiot park so the one idiot goes up to the other idiot
that idiot runs in gets the other idiot who comes out and idiot shoves idiot and idiot shoots idiot and one idiot is dead

they need to take all the idiots and shoot them all eventually we will have less idiocy


yeah not sure this was a good shoot and sure lawyers will be doing some civil follow up ? not sure about FL law though but this is not over I reckon

If stand your ground is invoked, the shooter will be immune from civil liability.

[Honu]

If stand your ground is invoked, the shooter will be immune from civil liability.

thanks


edit with the link AK posted below
was curious as I know most places they are two separate things just usually you wait for the criminal side to be done which often can help with how much and how you go after the civil side

[Averageman]

This is the type of SYG that feeds the anti's.
The guy was a jackass. He could have done a half dozen things to avoid shooting that guy.
He was living out a fantasy and all it cost was a life.

[AKDoug]

If stand your ground is invoked, the shooter will be immune from civil liability.

I'm not so sure.. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/pol...928-story.html

[PatrioticDisorder]

I'm not so sure.. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/pol...928-story.html

Florida State Supreme Court absolutely sucks, they are a state equivalent to the 9th circus, which is odd considering FL generally leans heavily right with the legislature on the state level. The picture of one of the Justices, Hirsch, tells me all I need to know, it’s clear from a quick glance that he’s completely emasculated. Thank you for letting me know about this, I was unaware of yet another shitty ruling from these fools.

[Moose-Knuckle]

This is yet another perfect example (the FL shooting case) of why you do your best to mind your own business when out in public.

If you are that pissed that some oxygen thief parked illegally in a handicap spot (yes that grinds my gears too) then call the proper authorities and report it. They won't do anything but at least you won't get assaulted by said oxygen thief and catch a murder rap cause you went all Paul Kersey.

As for the CT guy, he would probably not be billed here in TX if it even went that far.