I appreciate that a lot of people hold similar views, but that is not the law. Unless and until the law is changed, following though on your beliefs will result with you in a cell.
Thanks - I inquired also about great bodily harm because in recent conversations with my gun instructor, he suggested that MN law requires imminent threat of death or great bodily harm in order to use a firearm in defense upon another person. Interesting that I see that clause in the FL law (SYG state), but does it exist in NY? I don't see it in the portion you quoted. MN is not a SYG state, but my instructor suggested that great bodily harm was part of the statute. Edit: I see "serious physical injury" in the jury instructions. Is that part of the actual law or a matter of court proceedings? Forgive any misuse of legal lingo. I'm a jazz trumpet player .
It sounds like your instructor is correctly instructing you on the law. Some states such as Florida have combined SYG law with their use of force law. A pure SYG law merely eliminates the common law duty to retreat. NY is not a SYG state, it is a retreat state. Jury instructions are generally promulgated by a state's supreme court. Not everything can be included in statutes and as case law evolves, definitions can change. That definition is what a jury would be told was the law prior to their deliberation. Your mention of imminent threat is critical. That is what prevents you from shooting me when I threaten to kill you with no apparent ability to carry out the threat. Your use of legal terms, grasp of concepts and ability to analyze legal situations are better than some here that claim to be attorneys.
You're speaking about whether a homicide was justified. I'm speaking about an arrest, not a conviction. If you stab somebody to death during a fight, odds are that you're going to get arrested. They may drop the charges later. You may be found not guilty. It all depends on the circumstances. An arrest isn't a determination of guilt.
Thanks again. In our convo, my gun instructor added that factors would play in order to meet the threshold for potential of great bodily harm (e.g. size/weight of the threat in comparison with the person defending themselves). I imagine there are many circumstantial factors that also come into play (break in/aggressive action/etc.). I'm fortunate to have a neighbor who is a firearms and live shooter trainer. He's been very generous in teaching me to shoot and providing access to a club where we can do so legally.
There are always going to be exceptions which is why you have to use terms such as "normally." 5 gang members coming after you is obviously going to create a much greater reasonable fear than one Michael Jackson impersonator taking a swing at you.
But in court an attorney will come with a 5 inch stack of death certificates of someone dying from a punch. (Fell and hit head, perfect shot to temple, etc.) So it could certainly be argued by previous cases that a punch can indeed be deadly.No?
Punching someone in the face and their loved one unprovoked is not aggregated battery? Now I do agree with the idea that once You have neutralized the threat you need to back down. However if I were on a jury I would give a lot of leniency to the person attacked and the adrenaline used to protect themselves. ***of course we do not know the full story and whether the puncher backed away when a knife/gun was presented or not***
this is accurate. In majority Of use of force situations if you discharge a firearm resulting in injury or death you are likely to be cuffed and spend the night in jail. You may have charges reduced or dropped altogether but plan on back seat ride and a 24-48 tour of local inmate housing.
After seeing more of the story, my opinion is that this will never even go to trial. First, the accused is black (not clear to me what the race of the deceased is), so you won’t have the clamor for a trial from low-information politicians like AOC. The decision-making here is going to be decidedly more dispassionate than the Penny case. Second, backed by witnesses, the knife didn’t come out until the deceased assaulted the girlfriend by trying to forcefully pulling out one of her earrings, drawing blood. Third, the language the judge used when granting release without bond suggests (to me) that the judge thinks this won’t result in a conviction at the end of the day.
Since when? Seems like that in Florida one can shoot someone if they even think they're about to be punched in the face.
One issue that comes up when guns are involved is that the person who is armed can say the other person was reaching for their gun. I think I recall that Zimmerman made that argument. It's one of my concerns about everybody carrying because it can turn a situation that is likely non lethal to lethal so quickly.
Nope, aggravated battery is using a deadly weapon or intentionally causing great bodily harm. Also, a simple battery on a pregnant woman where the assused knew or should have know the woman was pregnant is an agg batt. 784.045 Aggravated battery.— (1)(a) A person commits aggravated battery who, in committing battery: 1. Intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement; or 2. Uses a deadly weapon. (b) A person commits aggravated battery if the person who was the victim of the battery was pregnant at the time of the offense and the offender knew or should have known that the victim was pregnant. That is why why the prosecutor will, if the case goes to trial, try find jurors that are willing to apply the law as instructed even if they don't like those laws. Generally they will look for the more educated members of the jury pool. I get it that these cases don't have a great deal of jury appeal, but with NY being a "duty to retreat " state, coupled with their laws, these factual situations likely are violations of the law. If there is a conviction, the fact that the victim was the initiator of the altercation should definitely be taken into consideration as a sentence mitigator. Per Florida's Standard Jury Instructions, this is the very last thing a jury is told before they begin deliberations.: "In closing, let me remind you that it is important that you follow the law spelled out in these instructions in deciding your verdict. There are no other laws that apply to this case. Even if you do not like the laws that must be applied, you must use them. For more than two centuries we have lived by the constitution and the law. No juror has the right to violate rules we all share."
There is going to be a reasonableness standard applied. While it is certainly possible a single, bare handed punch could cause great bodily harm, that is the not the reasonably anticipated consequence. Adopting your position would allow a person to always use deadly force no matter how little force is threatened because some serious consequence is always at least a possibility, no matter how remote.
