Quote:
|
Originally Posted by joshbaumgartner
I'm sure a stupid case has happened, but generally, by all available, they do mean reasonable methods. I.E. if a perp attacks you, certainly you have the right to act in defense. Yes, if he attacks you and hides in a building and you go after him, then that might be seen as not taking a reasonable opportunity to escape. But if you are on the street and are attack, no court is going to require that you first turn your back on him and run for a while and only if he keeps shooting can you return fire. Like I said, there are sure to be some stupid cases where courts messed up, but in general are there really a lot of people being locked up for murder when in reality they were only doing reasonable self-defense? I'm open to the evidence, but I haven't seen a lot of these cases.
|
The way the law WAS, was you were required to attempt retreat, i.e., leave the situation BEFORE doing anything. If you were pursued and attacked further, and escape was not possible, then you can match force.
(P.s. i live in florida and it's been on the news a lot)
The way it is NOW, is simply you are no longer REQUIRED to attempt to leave the scene before defending yourself. You may now immediately defend yourself and your position without first having to attempt to run away.
That's all. It's not that complex.
