Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« My article critiquing the McDonald dissents is online | Main | Heresy! »

Florida self-defense case

Posted by David Hardy · 2 January 2014 05:52 PM

It's discussed at the Volokh Conspiracy. Florida law allows a defendant to move for dismissal on self-defense grounds prior to trial (which is unusual). If he or she establishes justifiable self-defense by a preponderence of the evidence, the case is dismissed. (If not, it goes to trial, where the burden on the prosecution is stiffer -- it must prove it was unjustified beyond a reasonable doubt).

In this case, the trial court denied a motion to dismiss, and the Court of Appeals rules that the motion should have been granted. Defendant left his gun in his car, since he was going into a restaurant that served liquor. There was an argument with two others, and defendant and his friend went outside for a smoke, during which he retrieved his gun.

The two who had argued came after them. The first attacker attacked defendant's friend, fracturing his eye socket, then turned on defendant. The first attacker was joined by another one, who defendant testified reached under his sweat shirt, as if for a weapon. Defendant fired, killing one and wounding the other. Knives were found near where the attackers went down. Defendant was charged with second degree murder. When he moved to dismiss, the trial court ruled that since he'd never actually seen a weapon, and since he should have fired a warning shot, dismissal was not proper.

Court of Appeals ruled, none of that is required.

5 Comments | Leave a comment

boxty | January 2, 2014 6:28 PM | Reply

Is it even legal to fire a "warning shot?" I thought you would be arrested for negligent discharge of a firearm for that?

Ken in NH | January 2, 2014 8:26 PM | Reply

I don't practice law because I watched some lawyers on TV. Perhaps trial court judges shouldn't make rulings based on things they saw on TV either.

Miguel | January 3, 2014 4:55 AM | Reply

"Defendant left his gun in his car, since he was going into a restaurant that served liquor."

Just a quick clarification:
In Florida, you can carry inside a restaurant that serves alcohol provided you do not go to the bar section of the Restaurant.
It seems that the defendant was having a drink with friends at the bar and that might be the reason he left his firearm in his vehicle.

Peter | January 3, 2014 9:07 AM | Reply

"the trial court ruled that since he'd never actually seen a weapon, and since he should have fired a warning shot, dismissal was not proper."
This is the same Florida that sent a woman to prison for 20 years for firing a warning shot.

William Newman | January 3, 2014 4:50 PM | Reply

You have to fire a warning shot to keep your gun from being taken away and used against you. That's what well-regulated means.

Leave a comment