A Brief Inquiry into the Nature of a Self-Defense Case, Part II

A Self-Defense case occurs when the party that would otherwise be a victim, possibly dead and most certainly hurt is now the defendant due to the actions of Self-defense.

The man that signed the complaint is the scumbag attacker that wanted to rob, rape, injure, or kill the defendant. Had the scumbag attacker succeeded in his plans, he would have been the defendant assuming he was ever caught.

In these cases, the defendant is the good girl and the complainant is the bad guy. The State Attorney’s Office will do it’s best to show the defendant as the bad girl.

Since I am not a criminal defense attorney, I prefer to refer to the defendant as the “victim” or “surviving victim”. I use these terms interchangeably as they may best fit into this inquiry.

Because it is the responsibility of the victim to provide the court with evidence on each element of Self-Defense, it is imperative that her attorney provide this evidence in its proper light and be prepared to write proper jury instructions. This is very time consuming.

Assuming deadly force was employed by the victim, her attorney must be able to show that a reasonable person, in the same circumstances, would have believed that there was an immediate threat of death or imminent bodily injury. Here it is important to remind everyone that use of a firearm does not require discharge. One can “use” their gun to persuade the scumbag attacker to retreat and find a softer target without every firing a shot.

Our courts have recently reminded us that the victim did not have to experience fear, but only that a reasonable person would have believed that there was an immediate threat of death or imminent bodily injury. In fact, the victim could have just cleaned and lubricated her gun, left a self-defense class, and completed a half hours worth of dry-fire training. Scumbag attacker makes his move; the victim in turn is at the top of her game and reacts appropriately. Fear may never have entered her mind, but that is a non-issue.

Florida law does provide for immunity from prosecution when self-defense is employed. Sadly, many of our courts don’t understand what this means. It is the responsibility of the state to prove its case “beyond a reasonable doubt”. However, the standard used in a hearing to determine whether self-defense immunity attaches is only “by a preponderance of the evidence”. If you are interested in the difference between the two, look it up, that is beyond the scope of this inquiry.

So we now know that the evidentiary hearing to determine whether or not self-defense was employed can trigger immunity, which in turn will end a criminal or civil case. Important stuff, yes? This is why it is so important that before the victim was attacked, she had a heightened sense of situational awareness. She knew who was around her, what was around her. After the shooting she was able to give law enforcement some important information about who may have witnessed the failed attack; and she can tell her attorney that a Fed-Ex truck was across the street, and the local hardware store was closing. She knows where her empty cartridges landed, and can help establish that when law enforcement hit the scene, it is probably that they unknowingly disrupted the crime scene.

Scumbag attacker’s gun is gone, but so is the blue Ford pickup that sped away soon after scumbag attacker yelled something. Since we know that scumbag attacker fired a shot, the police must have tested for residue. Our victim will be able to show that she didn’t accelerate the condition by inserting her two-cents into an argument between a couple in the parking lot, and therefore lending question as to whether or not she may have acted as an aggressor herself.

Our team of good guys will be able to reconstruct the crime scene to show that due to the distance between the rapidly approaching, and armed attacker, if the victim had waited another ½ second to engage, she would have been severely injured or dead. Due to the disparity of the scumbag attacker and the surviving victim, she used an appropriate amount of force and did not employ excessive force. Her expert witnesses will testify that her actions were appropriate, and why she was trained in this manner.

While our victim was armed, she was not armed because she knew that this confrontation was going to happen. She would not have avoided going to this part of town if she couldn’t find her gun. She is able to provide testimony that her behavior prior to the attack was identical to her behavior the week prior if this was a routine errand. If her gun is usually carried without a round in the chamber, there was no difference this day.

If the court determines she acted in Self-Defense, immunity will attach and this nightmare ends. If not, she must determine if she will appeal or move onto trial.