If you read why that decision was made, it had nothing to do with not having the duty to retreat, it had to do with incompetence on the part of the states attorney. The state has the burden of proof, and they dropped the ball.
Quote:
|
The state failed to specifically deny by traverse under oath the allegations that defendant believed the deceased was [**3] going for a gun, and this fact is considered admitted by the state. State v. Giesy, 243 So.2d 635 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). As manager of the cafe, defendant was not obligated to retreat from his place of business. See Annot., 41 A.L.R.3d 584 (1972). Self defense is a valid defense.
|
The fact that the defendant wasn't required to retreat is not what got him a not guilty verdict...it's the fact that the state poorly prosecuted the case by not even questioning what the defendant was thinking at the time, or whether that thought process was reasonable in the eyes of the law.