Duty to Retreat / Self Defense Case

[user987654321]

In most states, a person generally does not have a duty to retreat and is said to have the right to stand their ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is (1) not engaged in a criminal activity and (2) is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

What exactly does "...in a place where he or she has a right to be..." mean? Are there any strange cases where someone have used this as an excuse to poke holes in a self defense claim?

An example seems warranted!

You find yourself are in a park after hours or say you are fishing from a certain (public) dock. Sign clearly says park closed after a certain time but people can still find their way into the park or sign by the dock also clearly says no fishing at the said dock per local ordinance. If there was some sort of incident or fracas where someone is attacked at the park or by the dock, does it mean a victim of a crime cannot defend him or herself or stand their ground because they are deemed to be "... in a place where they technically or legally should not have been.."?

Obviously you cant break into someones house to rob the place and claim self defense when confronted by the owner but there are instances where you can find yourself in a place that you technically shouldnt have been. Does this mean you cannot stand your ground or defend yourself in such situations?

 

[Just Blue]

In most states, a person generally does not have a duty to retreat and is said to have the right to stand their ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is (1) not engaged in a criminal activity and (2) is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

What exactly does "...in a place where he or she has a right to be..." mean? Are there any strange cases where someone have used this as an excuse to poke holes in a self defense claim?

An example seems warranted!

You find yourself are in a park after hours or say you are fishing from a certain (public) dock. Sign clearly says park closed after a certain time but people can still find their way into the park or sign by the dock also clearly says no fishing at the said dock per local ordinance. If there was some sort of incident or fracas where someone is attacked at the park or by the dock, does it mean a victim of a crime cannot defend him or herself or stand their ground because they are deemed to be "... in a place where they technically or legally should not have been.."?

Obviously you cant break into someones house to rob the place and claim self defense when confronted by the owner but there are instances where you can find yourself in a place that you technically shouldnt have been. Does this mean you cannot stand your ground or defend yourself in such situations?

What state?

Please note: This is a site where people, with real legal issues, come for general guidance. This is not a discussion site.

 

[quincy]

In most states, a person generally does not have a duty to retreat and is said to have the right to stand their ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is (1) not engaged in a criminal activity and (2) is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

What exactly does "...in a place where he or she has a right to be..." mean? Are there any strange cases where someone have used this as an excuse to poke holes in a self defense claim?

An example seems warranted!

You find yourself are in a park after hours or say you are fishing from a certain (public) dock. Sign clearly says park closed after a certain time but people can still find their way into the park or sign by the dock also clearly says no fishing at the said dock per local ordinance. If there was some sort of incident or fracas where someone is attacked at the park or by the dock, does it mean a victim of a crime cannot defend him or herself or stand their ground because they are deemed to be "... in a place where they technically or legally should not have been.."?

Obviously you cant break into someones house to rob the place and claim self defense when confronted by the owner but there are instances where you can find yourself in a place that you technically shouldnt have been. Does this mean you cannot stand your ground or defend yourself in such situations?

Were you in a place where you should not have been and did you try to defend yourself from someone who was in a place where they were entitled to be?

Here is a link to a short article from the National Conference on State Legislatures (NCSL) on state laws relating to “Self-Defense and ‘Stand Your Ground’:”

https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/self-defense-and-stand-your-ground

Those who are in a place where they are not legally supposed to be (and, yes, that would include being in parks past closing time), have a duty to retreat rather than a right to stand your ground.

 

[user987654321]

What state?

Please note: This is a site where people, with real legal issues, come for general guidance. This is not a discussion site.

State=FL

 

[user987654321]

Were you in a place where you should not have been and did you try to defend yourself from someone who was in a place where they were entitled to be?

Here is a link to a short article from the National Conference on State Legislatures (NCSL) on state laws relating to “Self-Defense and ‘Stand Your Ground’:”

https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/self-defense-and-stand-your-ground

Those who are in a place where they are not legally supposed to be (and, yes, that would include being in parks past closing time), have a duty to retreat rather than a right to stand your ground.

In this case, both the attacker and the person claiming self defense would technically have been in a place they were not supposed to be. This does not involve some sort of park employee, law enforcement or in the case of the dock, someone who had a right to be at/on the dock for any reason. The attack and defense involves two individuals (or group of individuals) who happen to find themselves at the park or the dock and neither technically should have been there at the time.

 

[doucar]

both have a duty to retreat.

 

[Zigner]

@user987654321 - why does this matter to you?

 

[zddoodah]

What exactly does "...in a place where he or she has a right to be..." mean?

I have no idea. You're apparently quoting something, but you didn't provide a link to that thing or even cite it. It's not even a complete sentence.

Are there any strange cases where someone have used this as an excuse to poke holes in a self defense claim?

Strange cases in what jurisdiction? Every state's laws are different, as is federal law, and no one is going to do case research for you.

because they are deemed to be "... in a place where they technically or legally should not have been.."?

Again, what are you quoting here?

If there was some sort of incident or fracas where someone is attacked at the park or by the dock, does it mean a victim of a crime cannot defend him or herself or stand their ground

"Some sort of incident" is hopelessly vague. Facts matter, and self-defense might be the single most fact-dependent issue in all of criminal law.

 

[quincy]

In this case, both the attacker and the person claiming self defense would technically have been in a place they were not supposed to be. This does not involve some sort of park employee, law enforcement or in the case of the dock, someone who had a right to be at/on the dock for any reason. The attack and defense involves two individuals (or group of individuals) who happen to find themselves at the park or the dock and neither technically should have been there at the time.

Anyone can claim they were acting in self defense. This defense is complicated by the fact that neither of the combatants were in a place where they legally should have been.

Whoever is charged in such a situation would be wise to hire a good criminal defense attorney.

 

[user987654321]

Anyone can claim they were acting in self defense. This defense is complicated by the fact that neither of the combatants were in a place where they legally should have been.

Whoever is charged in such a situation would be wise to hire a good criminal defense attorney.

You seem to understand the issue. You generally have an absolute right to defend yourself using whatever force necessary if by your calculation great bodily harm or death is imminent. The statute in FL says you can use deadly force to stop a "forcible felony" whether you or someone else is the target of such forcible felony. There is however a duty to retreat, it seems, if you are in a place that you technically should not have been. That is assuming you have or had a chance to and I am not sure there is an exact way to make that calculation when in the midst of an altercation.

 

[quincy]

You seem to understand the issue. You generally have an absolute right to defend yourself using whatever force necessary if by your calculation great bodily harm or death is imminent. The statute in FL says you can use deadly force to stop a "forcible felony" whether you or someone else is the target of such forcible felony. There is however a duty to retreat, it seems, if you are in a place that you technically should not have been. That is assuming you have or had a chance to and I am not sure there is an exact way to make that calculation when in the midst of an altercation.

Well, what I understand is that it is best not to be in a place where you legally are not supposed to be and, if you somehow find yourself in such a place, you would be smart to quickly find yourself right back out.

 

[adjusterjack]

You seem to understand the issue. You generally have an absolute right to defend yourself using whatever force necessary if by your calculation great bodily harm or death is imminent. The statute in FL says you can use deadly force to stop a "forcible felony" whether you or someone else is the target of such forcible felony. There is however a duty to retreat, it seems, if you are in a place that you technically should not have been. That is assuming you have or had a chance to and I am not sure there is an exact way to make that calculation when in the midst of an altercation.

Is this something that involved you for which you, or somebody else is being prosecuted?

If yes, be specific with the details.

If no, then there are just too many variables in hypothetical situations to be worthy of a discussion here.

If you want that kind of a discussion, go register at xxxxxx where lots of people love to discuss hypothetical situations.

 

[Taxing Matters]

I'll make the obvious point: even if you have the right to stand your ground and use force against the person threatening you, it is still the better thing to just get away from the attacker without hurting anyone. That poses less risk to you, and less cost to you, and also poses less risk to people around you.

 

[user987654321]

I'll make the obvious point: even if you have the right to stand your ground and use force against the person threatening you, it is still the better thing to just get away from the attacker without hurting anyone. That poses less risk to you, and less cost to you, and also poses less risk to people around you.

Not necessarily. You have a right not to be bothered. If someone makes it a habit to harass, threaten or attack you, it is not smart to encourage or embolden the perp to continue to engage in that course of action. Someone charges at you to do you harm, they deserve being met with lethal force. No jury will say this is an unreasonable act in just about any jurisdiction.

 

[cbg]

What this all boils down to is, the OP has no real interest in the legal answer to his question. He's just looking for someone to agree that he has the protected right to lethal force and then call it self-defense, regardless of the situation.