Training

Punches Are Not Lethal Force

There appears to be a group of men who are either afraid of the law being used against them, or are using the law as a fig leaf to avoid getting in a fight. From multiple comments on the delivery of a punch to someone that is sexually assaulting your wife:

If that haymaker kills or disables the drunk, how well can you take care of your wife from prison. He could have backed up the drunk verbally, then if the drunk throws a punch, now it’s self defense.

The claim is that a punch becomes “Deadly Force” if someone dies. It’s a question that comes up often in discussions about self-defense:

If you throw a punch to defend yourself and the other person unexpectedly dies, does that automatically turn your action into “deadly force”?

The answer is simple: No it does not, at least not in Florida. What matters is the force applied, not the outcome of the force used. If the punch was lawful at the time it was delivered, the fact that the person who was punched later died is immaterial. Florida courts have been clear on this point:
Whether force is considered “deadly” depends on the nature of the force used at the time—not the result. In other words, the legal system doesn’t start from a lethal outcome and then work backward from to label the level of force used. Instead, it asks:

Was the force used likely to cause death or great bodily harm when it was applied?

A single punch, in most situations, is not considered deadly force even if, in a tragic and unforeseen way, it leads to death. One of the key controlling court cases in this matter is Hosnedl v. State 126 So.3d 400 (2013). In this case, the defendant was involved in a physical altercation. He used his hands/fists (no weapon), and the person who was punched unfortunately died. The legal dispute wasn’t just what happened, but how the jury should evaluate the level of force used.

The jury was given the stricter self-defense rules for the use of lethal force since the had person died. The defense argued this was wrong because the force used (punching) was not necessarily deadly force. The defense was overruled by the trial court. The defense then filed an appeal. The appellate court agreed with the defense and made an important clarification:

Whether force is “deadly” depends on the nature of the force used—not the result.

As a result of this case:

  • Fists are not automatically deadly force
  • Even if serious injury (or death) occurs, that doesn’t automatically make the force “deadly”
  • The jury should decide whether the force used was:
    • Likely to cause great bodily harm or death (deadly), or
    • Not likely to do so (non-deadly)

How Florida Law Defines Force

Florida’s self-defense law separates force into two categories:

  • Non-deadly force: Force not likely to cause death or serious bodily harm
  • Deadly force: Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm

This distinction is critical because different legal standards apply to each. You’re generally allowed to use non-deadly force to stop an imminent threat, but deadly force is only justified under much stricter circumstances.

Under Florida law, a person is justified in using force—including deadly force if necessary—to prevent an imminent sexual battery. That means:

  • A punch used to stop a sexual assault will almost always be viewed as justified force
  • The legal question becomes: Was the force reasonably necessary to stop the attack?

So now that we have cleared that hurdle, is it legal to punch someone for groping your wife?

Under Florida law (Fla. Stat. § 794.011):

Sexual battery = oral, anal, or vaginal penetration OR union with the sexual organ of another
“Union” means any contact, not just penetration

Courts interpret “sexual organ” to include buttocks in certain contexts involving lewd touching, especially when tied to sexual intent. See Richards v. State (Florida 4th District Court of Appeal, 1999)  and also Gordon v. State, as well as State v. Hearns.

Now we have established that a person grabbing a woman’s hips and stroking her buttocks without her consent is sexual battery. Since it was done without her consent and using physical force, that makes it a forcible felony. This isn’t even an attempted or imminent battery- the mere touching of her buttocks without consent means that the battery is ongoing and in progress. All of the elements are in place, this is a crime.

Considering these circumstances, if the husband deemed it reasonably necessary, he would be authorized to use deadly force to stop this attack. However, that isn’t what he did, as we showed above, a punch IS NOT DEADLY FORCE under Florida law.

Under Florida Statute § 776.012, a person may use force—including even deadly force—if they reasonably believe it’s necessary to prevent an imminent forcible felony (which includes sexual battery). So the real legal question isn’t “Was a punch allowed?” The actual question is “Was that level of force reasonably necessary to stop what was happening right then?”

Short answer: Yes—using a punch to stop that kind of unwanted groping would very likely be seen as reasonable under Florida law, assuming the force stops once the crime ends.

A court would typically look at:

  • Was this non-consensual sexual contact?
  • Was it happening in the moment (imminent)?
  • Did the woman (or a third party) reasonably perceive it as a sexual assault or escalation risk?

If the answer is yes, then a single punch to break contact or stop the assault is very likely to be viewed as:

  • Non-deadly force
  • Proportionate
  • Reasonably necessary

By Divemedic, ago

Security Layers

No agency has an unlimited budget of manpower and money. Even if they did, there are still going to be limitations. In the case of the WHCD, it was located in a Hilton that still was operating. The people in that hotel still have rights, as does the hotel itself. For that reason, the Secret Service has limits to its power and what it can do to protect those in their care.

When I was in the military, we used a layered system. This is a much more effective use of resources, and is also the same system used by the Secret Service.

Property boundary:

The property line of the facility or event. This is often secured by police directing traffic, employees of the location (i.e. Hilton employees) Generally, they are there to keep casual people out of the way. This filters out many if not most of the people in the area, and allows the next layer to concentrate on those who make it through. In the case of the WHCD, this area would be the grounds of the hotel and the streets immediately surrounding it.

The Controlled area:

This is a layer that is monitored and watched, but people in this area can’t pose a real threat. This area would have been the hotel building itself. Access is minimally controlled, mostly by asking people who enter to prove that they have legitimate business there. For example, show a room key to prove you are a guest of the hotel.

The Restricted Area:

This is an area where people have access to things that you want to protect. This would be the first layer that is protected by the Secret Service. People entering this area need an invitation, they will be searched on entry, and are carefully screened and monitored. The restricted area in this case would have been the ballroom itself, with the magnetometers being the control point allowing entrance to the restricted area. Our shooter made it to one such checkpoint and tried shooting his way through. He didn’t make it past the checkpoint, which is why the checkpoint is there.

The Exclusion Area

Access to this area is extremely limited. No one gets in here unless they are expressly authorized. This area would be the President’s escape route, where the CAT team is located, and other sensitive areas. No one is allowed in here unless they are Secret Service or are escorted by them.

The system is all about defense in depth:

Each inner layer adds more stringent access control. You don’t jump straight into an exclusion area—you pass through multiple controlled boundaries, with authorization becoming progressively stricter.
Access → Clearance → Invitation → Explicit designation

In the case of the shooter at the Hilton, the shooter penetrated the outer layer by simply being a guest at the hotel. That allowed him into the controlled area. However, he wasn’t authorized to go any further. He tried to go deeper, but only made it to the limits of the control point- he never even made it to the stairs that descended to the next layer.

Had he done so, he would have faced more agents who were better armed and had looser rules of engagement.

This is how layered security works. Your own house is the same- someone who knocks on your door to deliver a package is in the controlled area. If you open the door to accept the package and he attempts to push his way in (to the restricted area), but you tackle him just inside the door, that wasn’t a failure of security if he didn’t reach the bedroom where your loved ones are sleeping (the exclusion area).

Sure, this guy penetrated the outer layer. You can’t make the outer layer absolute. Hotels, city streets, and public venues must keep functioning, and there simply isn’t enough money or manpower to search every guest, lock down entire buildings indefinitely, or abuse people’s rights. Even for high-profile events, full “sterilization” of a large hotel is often impractical or politically unacceptable. The outer layer will always be porous by design, more of a filter than a brick wall. You accept risk at the outer edge. You manage risk in the middle. You eliminate risk at the core.

By Divemedic, ago

Poll

Take a look at this:

My thought is this is sexual battery, or at least an attempted one. One of my duties is to protect my wife from this sort of attack. I will use force to do so.

Some in comments to that video have said the husband will go to jail for using excessive force.

  • So do you think the law requires a husband to stand there and allow someone to caress his wife’s ass?
  • If no, what level of force is appropriate?
  • Did this husband’s use of force exceed that?

Others say that the husband deserves to have his head stomped in.

Is this force used by the husband excessive? Discuss.

By Divemedic, ago

Don’t Talk to the Police, the followup

Look how well this works.

It looks like they are about to try again. They even had a brief talk about how to yank open that second door when she opens the inner door.

Don’t open the door. There are no exigent circumstances, they can’t legally enter your home without a warrant. Tell them through the doorbell cam to fuck off and come back with a warrant.

Honestly, there is a certain point when you are willing to find out if the local police have level IV plates.

By Divemedic, ago

Don’t Talk to the Police

First, a bit of background:

Police have two ways they can talk to someone in the public: consensual or seizure. A police consensual encounter is a voluntary, non-detention interaction where an officer approaches a person to ask questions or for identification. The person is free to leave, refuse to answer questions, or decline requests at any time- to include refusal to provide ID. It does not involve commands, force, or blocked movement. 

A seizure is where a person isn’t free to leave. Police can use force to keep you there, they can search you, demand your ID. Noncompliance with this is considered obstruction or resisting and is illegal. The person being questioned still has the ability to refuse to answer questions, or refuse to answer them without a lawyer present. This is why asking police if you are free to leave is so important. This tells you if you are in a consensual encounter or have been seized.

If the police want to talk to you, they can ask or they can seize. In order to seize, they have to have probable cause that you are or have committed a crime, or they have to have a warrant. If you are in your home, a warrant is generally required, if they don’t have exigent circumstances. Those include the belief you are destroying evidence (e.g., flushing drugs down the toilet), or there is something going on that is an emergency (say you are murdering someone in the home). Police cannot make a warrantless, non-consensual seizure inside someone’s home just because they have probable cause. They generally need an arrest warrant (unless exigent circumstances apply). This is important.

Now to the case at hand:

Two years ago, three men were involved in a fight in a bar in Saint Cloud, Florida. One of the men was reportedly armed with a handgun and had left the scene. The other two individuals who were in the fight contacted police: one of them refused to give a statement, and the other (visibly intoxicated) man did give a written statement claiming the third man displayed a handgun. Both of the men who spoke to the police at the bar were rather vague on details about the fight or what started it.

The next step you would expect an investigator to do would be to, well…investigate. You would think that the cops would contact the man, ask him to come in and answer a few questions, or perhaps even send a cop or two over there to ask. After all, he isn’t under arrest, they don’t have a warrant, and the contact at this point is consensual. Or supposed to be.

The cops immediately assembled a tactical team and had a meeting where they discussed the methods and tactics they would use to take him into custody. They surrounded the house by posting two cops at the rear of the home to prevent his escape, the cops out front had a K9, bullet shields, and NFA long guns with suppressors. They called him on the phone and asked him to step outside to answer some questions.

The Raid

What happened next was captured on body camera video, you can see the video below. They held him at gunpoint and ordered him to the ground. Even though his hands were raised, they kicked him to the ground, used the K9 to bite him because he wasn’t going down fast enough, and used quite a bit of force for a consensual encounter.

Any reasonable person would agree that they are not free to leave at this point. This is a seizure. They avoided the requirement for a warrant by luring him outside using a friendly tone and a request to just “Answer a couple of questions.” Since police tricked him to come outside specifically to avoid the warrant requirement, courts tend to scrutinize that. This trick is called constructive entry. This was never intended to be a consensual encounter, as evidenced by their own meeting and plans to take him into custody.

There was no reason to rush over there and arrest him. The incident was over, and there was plenty of time to secure a warrant. There were no exigent circumstances, and therefore no exception to the requirement to get a warrant. This doesn’t look like a casual “knock-and-talk” but more like a planned arrest operation without a warrant, which courts scrutinize closely. Payton v. New York ruled that police cannot do indirectly what they’re forbidden to do directly—i.e., they can’t avoid the warrant requirement by tricking or forcing someone out of their home.

  • House surrounded by armed officers
  • Officers positioned to prevent exit
  • Suspect called and told to come out
  • Show of force (guns, numbers) suggesting no real choice
  • Use of force when subject was compliant and not offering active resistance

In my mind, there is little doubt that this man’s constitutional rights were violated, both in the arrest without warrant, and in the manner the arrest was carried out. There was no reason to use force on a man who had come out voluntarily and was offering no resistance. Not one of those cops mentioned “hey, maybe there is a better, more constitutional way to do this.” This, in my opinion, destroys the “few bad apples” trope.

To make it even worse, it turned out that this man was the victim and the two intoxicated men had attacked him. The prosecutor in the case dismissed all charges, saying that the case was “unsuitable for prosecution.” He has since filed a lawsuit against the city and its police department for violating his civil rights. The cops will almost certainly hide behind qualified immunity claims.

There is a lesson to be learned here.

Don’t talk to the police.

I’ve said this before- don’t talk to the police. Ever. There is no such thing as a friendly chat with cop. I will refer you to an old post of mine on the subject that contains a video titled “Don’t talk to the police.” Don’t talk to the cops, no matter what. They aren’t your friends. They aren’t there to help you. They are there to make a case to arrest someone, and they will get the arrest that requires them to do the least amount of work they can. At best, they are there to find reasons to take you to jail, at worst they are there to use their cool toys on you- whether that be a machine gun, a K9, or just a good old fashioned beating.

Most cops are pussies and cowards. We see that time and again- they will use overwhelming force on those who pose no threat, even going so far as to toss grenades into a baby crib, but will cower outside with their machine guns and body armor while children are being killed by an armed murderer.

A cop calls you on the phone and wants you to come out and answer questions, ask them if they have a warrant. If the answer is no, you tell them you don’t want to answer any questions or speak with them until you have an attorney. Offer to come down to the station with your attorney to answer questions, and tell them your attorney will schedule the meeting. Whatever you do, don’t open the door. You have a doorbell camera for a reason.

Open that door, and this just might happen to you. Ever since my incident in Orange County, Florida in 2001 where a Deputy Sergeant threatened to kill me when I presented him with my concealed weapons permit during a traffic stop, I don’t inform cops of shit.

The cops may not have enough to arrest someone, but you talking will give them what they need. If they DO have enough to arrest you, there is nothing you can say that will talk them out of it. Refuse to talk to them, don’t open the door, and go about the rest of your life.

By Divemedic, ago

Building a Tiered Carry System: Matching the Gun to the Day

We carry a pistol just in case we find ourselves in a gun fight. If we know we will be in a gunfight, the best option is to not be there. Failing that, we should bring the most gun we can, along with a lot of friends who also bring the most gun they can. Still, that’s inconvenient to do 24/7. My friends and I can’t live our lives as if we were a Marine platoon about to be ambushed.

So we carry a pistol. Most people spend a lot of time trying to find the one perfect carry pistol.
Experienced shooters eventually realize something different:

There is no perfect gun—only the best gun for today’s constraints.

What I’ve built is a four-tier carry system that scales with clothing, concealment, and performance needs. It’s not just practical—it’s exactly how I maximize capability without sacrificing consistency.

Smith & Wesson Model 642 Airweight (Pocket Carry)

This is the “always gun.” It has some advantages:
Extremely light (~18 oz loaded)
Minimal grip height → very low printing
Works in gym shorts, light clothing, or no-belt situations. I can drop it in my shorts pocket as I head out the door, and now I am armed for a quick run to the store. In Florida’s heat and humidity, this is far more important than you realize. It’s rounded profile hides well in pockets, it’s highly reliable regardless of grip or draw angle.

The disadvantages are low capacity, and they are nearly impossible to reload. This revolver doesn’t deal with speed strips or speedloaders very well, so this pistol is 5 shots and done. Not only that, but with this extremely short barrel, high pressure loads aren’t possible, meaning the bullets are just not great performers.

This relegates the J frame to a niche role: The gun you carry when carrying anything else is difficult or unlikely. The reality is this is not my most capable gun, but it’s the one that ensures I’m never unarmed, not even for a quick run to the store. It’s my “get off of me” gun that I will push into an attacker’s midsection and pull the trigger 5 quick times, an “oh shit” gun.

Concealable IWB Upgrade: Smith & Wesson M&P Shield Plus (10-round)

This is where you step into a true fighting handgun while staying highly concealable. The advantages here are the Shield has a thin, flat profile, which makes for excellent IWB concealment. The ten round magazine capacity is double that of the 642. The 9mm has better terminal performance than the J frame, the reloads are faster and more easily accomplished, the handgun is more controllable than a snub revolver, and the XS DXT sights on mine are exponentially better than the sights on that pocket pistol.

I carry my 9mm with 124gr +P gold dots. That bullet is a proven performer, and in the +P loading, it is a superior performer. I will admit that I own compact automatic pistols in 9mm, .40S&W, .45ACP, .357Sig, and .380ACP. Bullet design has come a long way, and in a sub-4 inch barrel and limited magazine size, 9mm is equal in performance to any of the others.

That places this pistol in the role of best balance of concealability and capability when I can wear a belt and holster. Still, it’s the pistol I carry least often, as it is only marginally more concealable than my tier 3 gun:

Smith & Wesson M&P Shield Plus Performance Center (Ported + Microdot, 13-round)

The most useful carry gun I have. It’s an optimized defensive system. The advantages here over the stock shield plus are faster follow-up shots and target reacquisition due to the compensated porting and the microdot sight. A thirteen round magazine gives me enough firepower to face multiple attackers without reloading. This is, in my opinion, the best EDC pistol that I own. It’s my primary carry gun when concealment allows slightly more size and weight.

Some time has passed since I bought this pistol in 2021. I bought it with the intention of volunteering for the Guardian program that turned out to be a farce. The only thing that was wrong with it is the Crimson Trace microdot failed and I replaced it with a Holosun about two years ago.

Tier 4: Smith & Wesson M&P 10mm M2.0

  • This is my no-compromise option. Advantages:
  • Full-power 10mm performance
  • Superior penetration and energy
  • Larger grip and sight radius
  • Maximum capability in worst-case scenarios

I carry this one when clothing allows full concealment (jackets, winter wear) and want full power available. That doesn’t happen often here in Florida. Maybe 30 or 40 days out of the year. This is not about convenience, it’s about maximum capability when concealment constraints disappear. Loaded with full power Underwood 180 grain XTP, which gives me 1300 fps and 676 foot pounds. This is great for delivering a lot of energy into a target wearing heavy clothes or behind a barrier like a car door. The only real disadvantage here is the size of the handgun and the risk of overpenetration. When I can carry a large boat anchor of a handgun, this is my go-to.

Summing It Up

What makes this system effective isn’t just the guns—it’s the decision-making framework behind it. I’m doing something most people don’t: Adapting my carry gun to the environment instead of forcing one gun into every situation.

When concealment is hardest → I still carry (642)
When possible → I upgrade capability (Shield)
When conditions allow → I maximize performance (PC Shield / 10mm)

Are any of my readers doing anything like this? Let me know in the comments.

By Divemedic, ago

Serious Question

Three masked men are trying to enter your home. They announce through your Ring Doorbell that they are going to enter your home and kill everyone inside. When you don’t open the front door, they kick in the gate to enter the back yard before slashing your screen to enter your porch and pound on the sliding glass door to your lanai. Watch the video, then ask yourself what you would do in this situation:

In Florida, you can use deadly force in your home if you reasonably believe you or another are facing imminent death or serious bodily harm, or a forcible felony is about to happen, and you are lawfully present in your home. Because the statute provides a presumption of reasonableness when an intruder is unlawfully and forcibly entering your home (or attempting to), the law strongly favors the occupant in that scenario.

So the questions that must be answered are:

  1. Is the person attempting to enter your home?
  2. Are you lawfully in your home? (that is, are you breaking any laws, say by dealing drugs?)
  3. Have they threatened to cause serious harm or death, and would a reasonable person believe them?
  4. Is deadly force reasonably necessary to stop them?
  5. Is the threat imminent?

I would say that the answers to 1, 2, and 3 are a definite yes. Question 4 and 5 are a no. After all, jiggling the doorhandle isn’t enough to say the threat was imminent. After all, they are being stopped by a locked door, so deadly force likely won’t be viewed as necessary. Right up until they entered the curtilage of your home Let me take a moment to explain:

Curtilage refers to the immediate area surrounding and associated with your home — the space that is considered part of the home for purposes of privacy and legal protection. Florida courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have described it as the area that harbors the “intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a person’s home and the privacies of life.”
That typically includes:

  • The front porch, back porch, and deck
  • Driveway and walkways immediately adjoining the home
  • Fenced yard areas directly around the home
  • Attached garage or carport

It does not usually include open fields, detached outbuildings far from the house, or unfenced areas that are visible and accessible to the public. Under both Florida criminal law and the Fourth Amendment, curtilage is defined as:

“The area immediately surrounding and associated with the home, which is considered part of the home itself for many legal purposes.”
— Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013); Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984)

Florida courts have consistently held that curtilage is an extension of the home for purposes of:

  • Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure
  • Self-defense laws (e.g., the “Castle Doctrine” under § 776.013, Fla. Stat.)

Courts look at several factors to decide whether an area is part of the home’s curtilage:

  1. Proximity — how close the area is to the actual dwelling
  2. Enclosure — whether the area is within a fence, wall, or natural boundary that encloses the home
  3. Use — whether the area is used for domestic purposes (e.g., sitting area, grill, kids’ play space, parking)
  4. Visibility and steps taken to protect privacy — whether the resident has taken measures to shield the area from public view (such as fences or hedges)

(See: United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987); State v. Hamilton, 660 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1995).)

Under Florida Statute § 776.013(1), the “dwelling” includes the building and its curtilage. Florida courts treat screened porches, lanais, or enclosed patios attached to the home as part of the dwelling. (See State v. Martinez, 700 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)). This means:

  • The castle doctrine protections — the legal presumption that you are in reasonable fear of imminent harm — extend to the immediate area surrounding your home.
  • If someone unlawfully and forcibly enters your porch, attached garage, or fenced yard, you may be justified in using defensive force, including deadly force, under certain circumstances.

This means you can’t shoot someone for trying to open your door, standing on your porch, or walking up the driveway. Postal workers and Amazon delivery drivers are happy about this. However, if they kick in a fence or forcibly enter through a locked portal, such as slashing a screen, they have crossed over into breaking and entering.

At that moment, under § 776.013(2), Florida law presumes you have a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm, because:

  • The person has unlawfully and forcibly entered your dwelling’s curtilage.
  • You are lawfully present.
  • You are not engaged in criminal activity.

That presumption legally justifies deadly force, unless one of the exceptions in § 776.013(3) applies (for example, if the intruder is a lawful resident, or if you provoked the incident, etc.).

So back to this situation: I don’t breach my perimeter for idiots. I sit safely inside and call the cops. I would be wearing electronic hearing protection and body armor. I would be armed with a long gun that has lots of ammo. Why? Because we carry a handgun if we think we might be in a gunfight. If we think we WILL be in a gunfight, bring a long gun, and bring friends with long guns. My wife would be safely in the closet, also with hearing protection, body armor, and armed.

Once the critters breach my perimeter to enter my rear yard, then enter my second perimeter to enter my back porch, this threat becomes imminent, making both my fear of harm and my use of deadly force reasonable. In a case like this, there would be at least one dead body and perhaps some blood trails for the police to follow when they eventually arrived ten minutes after I called for them.

Florida appellate courts have repeatedly found deadly force justified when:

  • An intruder broke through a fence or gate and approached the home aggressively. (State v. Giles, 579 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991))
  • A homeowner shot someone who forced entry onto a porch or patio. (Martinez, 700 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997))

In such cases, the courts held that fenced yards, porches, and patios are part of the dwelling — the “castle” — so the presumption of reasonable fear applies.

Then my homeowners’ insurance would have to replace the glass in my back door, and pay to clean the gizzards from by rear porch furniture. I might even sue the estates of the decedents for the damages to include mental anguish, if they had any assets I could take.

It’s a great reason to have a fenced yard and a screened in porch with a locked door, even if the lock is flimsy like the ones found on a screen door.

Relevant Cases

State v. Martinez, 700 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) Martinez shot an intruder who broke through a screened porch attached to his home late at night. The state argued the porch was not part of the “dwelling,” so deadly force was not justified. The court held that the attached, screened porch was part of the dwelling’s curtilage. The homeowner was protected under the castle doctrine. The court reasoned that a porch “integrated with the home’s living space” and enclosed by screens “serves the same privacy and security functions as the interior.”

State v. Hamilton, 660 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1995) A man was shot in a fenced backyard after threatening and attempting to enter the home. The issue was whether the fenced yard counted as the home’s “curtilage.” The Florida Supreme Court held that a fenced backyard was part of the dwelling’s curtilage for self-defense and burglary statutes. The fence “manifested an intent to exclude the public and protect the area as part of the home.”

State v. Giles, 579 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) A homeowner shot a man trying to break into the house after entering the yard aggressively and ignoring commands to leave. The court found that deadly force was justified because the intruder’s actions created a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. The “no duty to retreat” principle applied — the homeowner was lawfully in his dwelling.

Weiand v. State, 732 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1999) A woman shot her abusive husband inside their shared home and was prosecuted for murder. The case helped establish Florida’s “no duty to retreat” inside one’s home rule (before Stand Your Ground). The Florida Supreme Court recognized the castle doctrine as firmly established: you are not required to retreat in your home before using deadly force against an aggressor posing imminent danger.

State v. Hill, 95 So. 3d 434 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) A man shot someone outside his home during a violent confrontation. The court examined whether the shooter could claim immunity under § 776.032 (the Stand Your Ground immunity statute). The court reaffirmed that § 776.012(2) justifies deadly force when a person reasonably believes it’s necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm — even outside the home, if the shooter has a right to be there and is not engaged in a crime.

If the intruder crossed into your yard and made explicit death threats, the standard of “reasonable fear” would almost certainly be satisfied — even if the intruder had not yet crossed the threshold.

By Divemedic, ago