Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread

[Bricker]

@Larry_Mudd

I apologize if I’m asking you to repeat yourself, but I’ve searched with no luck. Can you elaborate on the case law behind this assertion?

“Reasonable fear of death or a wee boo boo”? Really?

I’ve seen contradictory statements about Florida’s definition of serious bodily injury from other sources including a Florida defense attorney, to the effect that it means disfigurement, loss of limb, or organ failure.

Frankly, the stand your ground legislation only begins to make sense to me with this higher standard for serious injury; I can’t credit that it is intended to justify the use of lethal force to avoid such trivial injuries.

From an earlier thread:

@Bricker

The Florida Court of Appeals in Owens v. State, 289 So. 2d 472 (1974), quoted with approval Anderson v. State, 291 N.E.2d 579 (1973), wherein “great bodily harm” was found in a case in which the victim was struck five blows with a fist.

FSA § 776.012 says that a person may use deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent great bodily harm.

The Owens Court also quoted another decision with approval, concerning how serious injuries have to be to qualify:

“The statutory term `great bodily harm’ is not susceptible to precise legal definition. * * * Defendant asserts that great bodily harm is synonymous with permanent injury. True, it can be argued that all permanent injury constitutes great bodily harm. It does not follow, however, that all great bodily harm consists of permanent injury. Indeed, many serious bodily injuries leave no lasting effect on the health, strength, and comfort of the injured person.”