Originally posted by Blue You apparently didn't go look at the link you posted and compare it to 776.012 on the State site and see where Dougherty left out the first part of 776.012 and re-wrote part of it. Furthermore, the SYG is the section of 776.013. Either way:
776.012 has this part the Dougherty conveniently skipped.
and section 3 of 776.013 always gets this part skipped by fools like him.
The law is written that you can have a defense under 776.012 (1)
OR 776.013. You don't have to have both. Under 776.012, " a person is justified in the use of deadly force and
does not have a duty to retreat if 1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself....
OR (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013." If I were Dunn's lawyer, I'd skip 776.013 and stick to the first part. Under the rules of interpretation that are commonly applied to statutes, the fact that an attack was expressly mentioned in 776.013, but not in the alternative 776.012 (1) arguably means that "imminent harm" is something other than or less than an actual attack.
Look, I don't think his claim is legitimate, but I do think there is a good chance this law will let him get further with it than he should. If he had a duty to retreat, this is over, because there is no question that he could have just driven away. For purposes of submitting a defense to a jury, courts are often required to assume that the defendant's story is true and let the jury decide his credibility. I think it will be fascinating to see how far the "I saw what I thought was a gun after they threatened me" defense gets.