Quote from: Devlyn on December 23, 2011, 09:09:05 PM
If you're not in your home and shoot or stab someone, you're going to have a tough time proving self defense. Carving someone up with a knife will land you in prison every time, if you advance close enough for a knife strike, self defense is out the window.
There are so many factors that come into play with this, but in general it's quite the opposite. First, yes, it is best to avoid/run away. But honestly, I feel this is overrated as it's not always feasible. Regardless if one thinks they can avoid confrontation and/or these types of situations, you need to be prepared for the worst, because it's not always going to play out so nicely.
Here in Florida, use of force is permitted if you genuinely believe your life is in danger and/or are in fear of great bodily harm. Plain and simple. Yes, you're going to need to prove it, but Florida law tends to side with the apparent victim unless suspicions are raised otherwise. Furthermore, typically there will be witnesses to verify the incident or at least corroborate the victims statement (unknown to the victim, obviously).
To elaborate on my above comment of "quite the opposite"; if I am being attacked, it will be more believable that I was in fear for my life and genuinely wanted to get out of that situation, if the bad guy
is carved up or shot in vital areas. The law will look at precise non-lethal stab wounds or precise non-lethal gun shot wounds as "time to think"; in that if one has the time to aim for a leg or a specific area of the body to inflict injury but non-lethal in nature, then one cannot possibly truly be in fear for his/her life. It is advised with a firearm to aim for center mass. Why? Because that is the area that contains the most vitals and is most likely to stop the attacker. As well with a knife, if I am pinned, I will slash and slash as much as I can to get away; otherwise if the opportunity to stab a vital area is made available, I will most certainly take it. As well, Florida law states that if the attacker is [legally] killed during the crime by the victim, the family of the attacker cannot sue the victim. Even further, any unfortunate injury [unintentionally] caused to a bystander during the attack, will result in further legal ramifications for the suspect (as well as the victim if it was the victim who caused the injury to the bystander, but nonetheless).
Quote from: Devlyn on December 23, 2011, 09:09:05 PM
Planning your "Rambo" moment is a fun diversion, but avoiding conflict is more important.
It's not about having that "Rambo" moment. It's about being realistic and preparing for the unexpected. I would not want to find myself being the target of an attack, and having had the mentality of "if I avoid it, it won't happen" in my mind my whole life. Attacks happen. They can happen in areas you'd never expect. They can happen by and to people you'd never expect. They can happen at any and all hours of the morning, day and night. Victims are not always chosen with sufficient thought put in by the attacker; there are random, spontaneous attacks. In either case, running away is most definitely the best choice, I agree. But again, it's not always an option and I feel it is vital (literally) to know how to handle yourself in situations where running away is not applicable. I hate to say it, but it sometimes takes being the victim in such attacks to have that "slap in the face" realization. Being prepared is never a bad thing, but certainly being unprepared can cost you your life.
Oh, and by the way, Florida law states that the Castle Doctrine as well applies to
a vehicle, not only
a residence/dwelling ("a" used because the victim does not need to be the legal owner/resident/employee of the residence/dwelling or owner/driver of the vehicle); and with the Castle Doctrine, lethal force is granted without question.