The Florida Legal System and Justifiable Use of Force Law
Jury Instruction for Statute 776.012(2) Addressed.
Please go to the FGSD Article Intro page to read the main objective for this weekly article, my disclaimer, and to review the Four Rules for Safe Gun Handling, and introduction to this article.
My hope is that you will find this article to be thought provoking enough to incentivize you to further your ability to know the law and to effectively run your gun in self-defense. To receive the full article in your email please consider becoming a paid subscriber at $6 per month or $60 per year on my Substack website FloirdaGunSelfDefense.net.
Note to the reader: About 3800 words published without a proofreader. I attempted twice to produce you error free content but I’m sure there are improvements which I missed. I apologize for any errors below.
Today’s Lawful2Shoot? Focus: Today’s focus is on what the state will use to determine if your claim of self-defense after using deadly force was lawful or not i.e. the legal system process. The overwhelming majority of conceal carry individuals I talk to on this subject believe if they just learn state statute chapter 776 “Justifiable Use of Force” and abide by it that they’ll be all set should they find themselves under the legal scrutiny by the legal system.
The text of statute 776.012 (2). (I’ve removed the redundant sections).
” A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that……. such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. (This person) does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person……. is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.”
To believe that the plain legal text is clear, concise, and not ambiguous, and could be followed and complied with by anyone carrying a gun lawfully, could not be further from the truth. The legal definition of the many of the words used in this statute are far more complicated than Webster’s Dictionary definition one of the ‘key words’ in the statute.
Lawmakers are usually former lawyers, prosecutors, judges, and are seldom defense attorneys. They construct the written law using legal terms and phrases and complicated sentence structure (legalese) so that the common person can’t determine the exact meaning. Their intended result is for law abiding taxpaying people to make mistakes which in turn requires legal counsel, which in turn funds their legal system.
The wording is designed in such a way that lawyers are able to apply the ambiguously written law to your actions from several various legal perspectives, which the lawmakers understood would occur, and which they intended by design. And most importantly, they stacked the legal deck against law abiding second amendment people by constructing, designing, and basing this particular section of the law for the criminal element of society i.e. this law is designed for unlawful people.
The lawful Good Guys are always judged as if they are within the criminal element of society because that is how the law is purposely written. Consider the following questions based on the statute we’re considering today.
One, how many ways can you interpret and or define the word “justified”?
Two, the word, “threatening”, means exactly what? Does this word have more than one meaning and if so, how many applications could the definitions be used in?
Three, how many ways can “deadly force” be defined---how many physical actions can be legally defined as deadly? And when does a non-deadly action become deadly.
Four, ‘great bodily harm’ means what? How many situations can the definition of this phrase be applied to?
Five, this one I covered last week in my article addressing Reasonable Belief. So how does reasonable belief become determined and how many ways could it be distorted by an aggressive prosecutor, judge or activist jury? In a post modernistic society who determines what the definition of reasonable is?
Six, what is the meaning of the word “Imminent”? Does one definition fit everyone’s situations.
Seven, ‘not having a duty to retreat and a right to stand his or her ground as long as you’re lawful and in a rightful place’, means what exactly? A “duty to retreat” is what? And is one definition the same for everyone?
After you have considered those seven questions, consider this, each county jurisdiction over the years has interpreted this state statute and applied that interpretation in every individual criminal case they have presided over in a variety of ways. This process produces what is called case law or appellate court case law and should you ever enter the legal system after using deadly force, your self-defense case will be compared and analyzed within case laws similar to your case.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Florida Gun & Self-Defense to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.