[Cboldt]

-- I was not aware that there is anything in self defense law that specifies which of your available weapons you may use to defend yourself, and which you may not use. In other words, I don't think you're obligated to calculate just how *little* force you must apply to succeed. Can you find me a reference? --

Florida Chapter 776.

That's the statutory language for justified use of force. I notice your hypothetical is premised on fear of death. Reasonably (the jury decides) holding a fear of death is a prerequisite for resort to deadly force. The firing of a firearm in the direction of "the person to be arrested" (read that as "stopped") is always deadly force, see 776.06.

In situations that do NOT involve a reasonable fear of death or serious injury, self defense force MUST be measured. If you are ambitious, look up the jury instructions for additional detail.

[Nervous Tick]

>> In situations that do NOT involve a reasonable fear of death or serious injury

Thanks for the cite. However, if you go back and carefully read my post, in my example I qualified that the hypothetical “victim” did indeed fear for his life.

Back to the case at hand — as I recall there is either case law or it’s written into the law, don’t remember which, that actually RECEIVING significant injuries goes a long way towards justifying FEAR of receiving serious injuries. Right? And that describes Z. Right?

[Nervous Tick]

>> I notice your hypothetical is premised on fear of death.
Sorry, missed that.

[Nervous Tick]

That link is really convenient for studying the applicable laws — thanks.

I note that they don’t really define “great bodily harm”, or what is reasonable “fear of great bodily harm”, except that if someone breaks into your dwelling you are safe in presuming you’re about to receive great bodily harm.

I suppose juries decide that (or appeals courts with case law as a guide).