Nothing more.

Yes. And gun trumps ALL. And, of course, you need to figure in the racial component.
Here in sunny Florida, I think the best assumption to make is that anyone with a gun can and most likely will kill you with impunity, if they take exception to your manner, race, any irritation at all. Seems safest to stay home or avoid people with guns, because evidently they are itching to use them.

I don't think for a second it is a Florida thing, it is a gun thing. ALEC has just been more successful here.
Oh, and Rick Scott won by a sliver, we all didn't vote for him, and we all are not Floriduh!ians.

ALEC NRA invention. There purpose is to solidify the hold they have on the gun nut vote. They cater to the fear of the bad guy that gunners have.
I think discussing their merits is in a way supporting the gun lobby. I think a valid discussion of SYG is that they allow shooters to get away with murder.
Dunn went to get a pizza he didn't call for an ambulance. He thought he would be protected by the system because of SYG. He had no concern about the life of his victim nor did he feel he was in any jeopardy.
Like Zimmerman, Dunn felt SYG was a license to kill.

Both would probably fail the SYG guidelines.

SYG is part of FL self defense law. Under that statute there is no requirement to retreat and the BELIEF that you may be at risk of grave harm is all the justification needed to defend yourself with deadly force. Zimmerman and Dunn both used self defense as justification for their actions and neither was convicted for killing.

Dodge SUVs will sleep well knowing they are defended by law in the Dunn case.

Shit, I promised I'd not get in a pissing match over this, yet here I am responding to a wanna' be lawyer.

Zimmerman had a witness that he was in a fistfight.

Neither of the examples you provide would be deemed reasonable.


edit: post 10 goes over this

He was convicted of shooting at a retreating auto and the people in it.

The end result may be the same, but had he stopped shooting after he killed someone he'd join Zimmerman on the celebrity circuit.

Zimmerman was in a fist fight because Travon stood his ground first. If Travon had a legal firearm and killed Zimmerman he could have used the same defense Zimmerman did, that he was in fear of grave harm. ( but he was black, so that doesn't apply)

How do you prove that someone actually BELIEVES they are in danger.

Else they wouldn't be retrying him for 1st degree murder. To be successful, he would have had to be acquitted on that charge, which he was not. I understand the issue was proving premeditation, not SYG. He was found guilty of attempted murder, which isn't consistent with the jury applying SYG.

can use force under two conditions:

76.041?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.

Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself unless:
Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger or death.....
In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact.....

left alive directs the narrative. I have several issues with the law for example:

If you're found not guilty in criminal court you can't be sued in civil court

Check out this one. You can be the aggressor and kill someone if such force is so great
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.

And what the heck is this about? Who are they to write a law that takes away all your rights in jail? No visitation or canteen privileges?
(a)?The losing party, if convicted of and incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime, shall, as determined by the court, lose any privileges provided by the correctional facility, including, but not limited to:
1.?Canteen purchases;
2.?Telephone access;
3.?Outdoor exercise;
4.?Use of the library; and
5.?Visitation.

Here is a copy of the law.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

with the caveat that I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on the internet...

No, you may have cause for concern but there is no overt threat at this point

With the given information, no. It could be a person living in the same building and you would be guilty of assault.

This question is unclear. If I understand, a gun- being the maximum force- would be even less justified than fists- the lesser force.


Possibly, if the first verbalized a threat. Unlikely however as ankle holsters are about the most ungainly form of carry and there is no quick draw possibility.

A case could be made but getting a jury to buy it is a different matter.

Of course he could testify and likely easily overcome a claim of self defense as there was no actual threat.


If one person is the survivor, obviously they are the one one who can benefit

There is incentive to act first but the law limits that. Without an imminent, immediate threat of harm self defense cannot be justified. This is true in if is lethal force, or 'mere' fists and is the case is the state has SYG laws or not.
SYG laws (are supposed to) remove the challenge that the person claiming self defense could have fled. They do not (shouldn't) allow force against an imagined threat or an undo escalation of force against an present threat.

Would a reasonable person in the same circumstances fear imminent death or great bodily harm.

That's one silly canard that I wish folks would get straight. You could be psychotic and genuinely afraid that the mailbox on the corner of the street is going to transform into a killer ninja robot and chop off your head. Your fear (however real it is to you) does not make it reasonable to shoot the mailbox.

in the neighborhood I just moved from, I had belief there was threat to my well being. A couple of the local dealers thought (not incorrectly) that I was one who often reported their activities to the police. I had every reason to believe they wished me illI My property had more than the local average of petty vandalism and some veiled threats were made when we passed on the sidewalk.

At any of these interactions I had means, motive and opportunity to take pro-active self defense. I did not do so for both moral and legal reasons. Morally I only kill when I have a very damned good reason to do so. Legally, there was not an immediate threat. A few bad ass words and dirty looks cause me no harm.

Now words with the display of a weapon may have turned out differently; or maybe not...