stainless1911
Banned
A recent thread was closed, and wisely so due to the nature of the post and the person posting it, but I have a question based on part of the self defense acct itself.
Lets look at the law first.
780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.
Sec. 2.
(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly
force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to
retreat if either of the following applies:
(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the
imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.
(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the
imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.
(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force
other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere
he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the
use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use
of force by another individual.
***************************************************************
Now, what was claimed in the discussion, was that an individual in commission of a crime is not covered by the statute, which is clearly stated in section (1). Basic stuff.
In the example given however, the person would clearly be in violation of a simple traffic violation, a civil infraction.
The question is therefore, does a civil infraction rise to the standard implied by the statute cited above? What are your arguments for or against?
Let's stay on topic here, it's a serious question that could affect any one of us in the real world. It is conceivable that the kind folks on the other side of the courtroom from you might try to throw something like this in the ring at your trial.
Lets look at the law first.
780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.
Sec. 2.
(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly
force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to
retreat if either of the following applies:
(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the
imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.
(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the
imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.
(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force
other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere
he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the
use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use
of force by another individual.
***************************************************************
Now, what was claimed in the discussion, was that an individual in commission of a crime is not covered by the statute, which is clearly stated in section (1). Basic stuff.
In the example given however, the person would clearly be in violation of a simple traffic violation, a civil infraction.
The question is therefore, does a civil infraction rise to the standard implied by the statute cited above? What are your arguments for or against?
Let's stay on topic here, it's a serious question that could affect any one of us in the real world. It is conceivable that the kind folks on the other side of the courtroom from you might try to throw something like this in the ring at your trial.