Three ‘duty to retreat’ convictions overturned by ‘stand your ground’ law
In cases from Duval and Santa Rosa counties, an appeals court Tuesday overturned convictions of three men because of conflicting jury instructions about a duty to retreat during violent altercations.
At least two of the men argued that they acted in self-defense under the state’s controversial “stand your ground” law, though all three cases involved similar issues about jury instructions, according to the rulings by the 1st District Court of Appeal.
In one of the cases involving Michael Tramel, for example, a three-judge panel of the court found that “the justifiable-use-of-deadly-force instructions given in this case inconsistently provided that Tramel did not have to retreat before meeting deadly force with deadly force if in fear of death or great bodily harm and did have a duty to try to retreat before using deadly force if in fear of death or great bodily harm.”
In a perfect would, Appeals courts would all be this expedient. Three duty to retreat cases were overturned in favor of the stand your ground law, which always makes for a good day for all who support our Second Amendment. These men were victims, and the law finally recognized that.
Two men acted in self defense. They saved their own lives, then were immediately punished for their actions by a court of law. Some situations require the stand-your-ground technique; running from danger is not always a feasible option. The difference between life and death should not come down to how fast you ran the 40-yard dash in high school. Open and concealed carriers must combat mortal danger with deadly force. No questions asked.
The law is clear; individuals have the right to defend themselves when they feel that their life is in jeopardy. If you can get away safely from a dangerous situation, great. But on the off chance that you are unable to flee, stand your ground and defend yourself.