Duty to retreat

[mhdishere]

In considering the removal of the duty to retreat from FL law I seew the problem with duty to retreat being one of time constraints at the time of the application of lethal force and the tendency of people to "Tuesday morning quarterback". If someone is coming at me with a deadly weapon he has my undivided attention. In the couple seconds (if that long) I have to decide how to respond I'm not likely to be looking for all possible escape routes, I might take a quick look (it IS a fight-or-flight response after all) but seeing none I'd react accordingly. Then after the fact some DA decides that I could have escaped had I run down that (unfamiliar to me) alley, thru the back door of the restaurant and out the other side.

Is this reasonable?

 

[P95Carry]

Then after the fact some DA decides that I could have escaped had I run down that (unfamiliar to me) alley, thru the back door of the restaurant and out the other side.

I can only see the analysis of timing options as being valid - on a case by case basis anyways. If a threat has you ''boxed in'' or the only result of fleeing could be a bullet in the back - I'd think timing not too important. Threat needs dealt with, fast, in order to survive.

As ever the burden of proof will determine what a DA sees as OK or not... and it'd be hoped that there could be witnesses. The worst case situations I see are where an ''incident'' occurs, one on one - with no one else present. It could then be very hard to make a case in order to prove justification at all. That is no different really from anything anywhere.

With all the hype in media about the dangers of the law change in FL - I would expect any and every shooting case to be as before - was it justified? All involved are no more or less answerable than before.