View Single Post
Old March 25, 2012, 12:29 PM   #39
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by KyJim
As I was glancing through the thread, I kept looking for mention of the "initial aggressor" limitation to the right of self-defense and its interplay with the "no duty to retreat" doctrine....
An excellent point, and it kind of got lost. Here's the Florida version, 776.041:
Quote:
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KyJim
...The initial aggressor limitation essentially takes away the right to use self-defense and make the no duty to retreat doctrine moot if the suspect/defendant is the initial aggressor....
I agree.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04781 seconds with 7 queries