WHAT'S YOUR VERDICT?

Do you have the God given right to STAND YOUR GROUND and Meet Force With Force in Self-Defense in when you are attacked by your drunk 61 year old brother who's an alcoholic dope-head, had recently threatened twice to "Blow Your Brains Out" and once threatened to sexually assault you?

Here are your Jury Instructions, now you decide this case.

3.6(g) JUSTIFIABLE [USE] [OR] [THREATENED USE] OF NON-DEADLY FORCE

It is a defense to the crime[s] of AGGRAVATED BATTERY WITH A DEADLY WEAPON, if the actions of (WHITE-SHIRT defendant) constituted the justifiable [use] [or] [threatened] of non-deadly force. “Non-deadly” force means force not likely to cause death or great bodily harm. “Great bodily harm” means great as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor, or moderate harm.

(WHITE-SHIRT Defendant) does not have the burden of proving that [he] [she] was justified in [using] [or] [threatening to use] non-deadly force. Instead, for you to find the defendant guilty, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant was not justified in [using] [or] [threatening to use] non-deadly force.

The law on the justifiable [use] [or] [threatened use] of non-deadly force in Florida is as follows:

In defense of person. §§ 776.012(1), 776.013(1), Fla. Stats. 

The DRUNK-ATTACKER victim had told the WHITE-SHIRT defendant that he was going to make him "SUCK IT" while pointing at his penis, just 6 months earlier and WHITE-SHIRT defendant believed if DRUNK-ATTACKER victim were to knock him out, the DRUNK-ATTACKER victim would rape and kill him, pursuant to § 776.08, Fla. Stat. See Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).

(WHITE-SHIRT Defendant) was justified in using non-deadly force against (victim) and had no duty to retreat if he reasonably believed that such conduct was necessary to defend himself against [(DRUNK-ATTACKER victim’s) imminent use of unlawful force.

[or]

the imminent commission of (forcible felony rape) against himself.

In deciding whether (WHITE-SHIRT defendant) was justified in the[use of non-deadly force, you must consider the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of non-deadly force, the appearance of imminent danger must have been so real that the defendant actually believed the use of non-deadly force was necessary. Moreover, a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed the use of non-deadly force was necessary.

Aggressor. § 776.041(2), Fla. Stat. Give if applicable.

Gibbs v. State, 789 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

However, the use of non-deadly force is not justified if you find that (WHITE-SHIRT defendant) used [force] [or] [the threat of force] to initially provoke the [use] [or] [threatened use] of force against [himself] [herself], unless:

the [force] [or] [threatened force] asserted toward (defendant) was so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using non-deadly force on (victim).

[or]

in good faith, (defendant) withdrew from physical contact with (victim) and indicated clearly to (victim) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the [use] [or] [threatened use] of non-deadly force, but (victim) continued or resumed the [use] [or] [threatened use] of force.

Prior threats.

If you find that (defendant), who because of threats or prior difficulties with (victim), had reasonable grounds to believe that [he] [she] was in danger of imminent use of unlawful force at the hands of (victim), you may consider this fact in determining whether the actions of (defendant) were those of a reasonable person.

If you find that at the time of the alleged (name[s] of relevant crime[s]), (defendant) knew that (victim) had committed an act [or acts] of violence, you may consider that fact in determining whether (defendant) reasonably believed it was necessary for [him] [her] to [use] [or] [threaten to use] non-deadly force.

If you find that (victim) had a reputation of being a violent and dangerous person and that [his] [her] reputation was known to (defendant), you may consider this fact in determining whether the actions of (defendant) were those of a reasonable person in dealing with an individual of that reputation.

If you find that (victim) had a reputation of being a violent and dangerous person, you may consider this fact in determining whether [he] [she] was the initial aggressor.

In considering the issue of [self-defense] [defense of another] [defense of property], you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of (defendant) and (victim).