« My article critiquing the McDonald dissents is online | Main | Heresy! »
Florida self-defense case
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
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.
"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.
"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.
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.
Is it even legal to fire a "warning shot?" I thought you would be arrested for negligent discharge of a firearm for that?