Prior bad acts are not admissible in court unless used to refute something the other party testified to, such as, "I've never hurt anyone before my life."  So he would NOT be able to use that in his defense whether or not he had prior knowledge of the man's criminal past.  There is no "unless he somehow already knew ...".

You should take a law class or something.

Incorrect. There are ways in which an individuals criminal history can be used against them in a trial. However the dead guy is not on trial so what you bring up is irrelevant.

This involves the question of whether the shooter knew the decedent's criminal history. If one had prior knowledge of an individuals acts of violence they could use it to their defense. If say the shooter had seen the dead guy threaten people with a knife before the shooter could articulate he knew the guy to carry a knife and threaten people with it.

Maybe you should take the law class.

Incorrect. There are ways in which an individuals criminal history can be used against them in a trial. However the dead guy is not on trial so what you bring up is irrelevant.

This involves the question of whether the shooter knew the decedent's criminal history. If one had prior knowledge of an individuals acts of violence they could use it to their defense. If say the shooter had seen the dead guy threaten people with a knife before the shooter could articulate he knew the guy to carry a knife and threaten people with it.

Maybe you should take the law class.

Nope.  When used in cases of self defense, the only 2 ways you can get the prior bad acts admitted are:

(1) to show that the defendant acted reasonably in using deadly force against the victim, or
(2) Evidence of the prior "bad acts" or prior criminal conduct may be admissible where there is a dispute as to whom initiated the aggression.

There's video that clearly shows who the aggressor was, and unless the two have had prior contact/fights, #1 above won't apply, because evidence of a prior "bad act" may not be used to show a person has a habit of committing crimes. Just "having knowledge" of bad acts isn't enough.

Knowing someone carried a knife other times won't be relevant if he wasn't threatening to use the knife on you when you fired.

Nope.  When used in cases of self defense, the only 2 ways you can get the prior bad acts admitted are:

(1) to show that the defendant acted reasonably in using deadly force against the victim, or
(2) Evidence of the prior "bad acts" or prior criminal conduct may be admissible where there is a dispute as to whom initiated the aggression.

There's video that clearly shows who the aggressor was, and unless the two have had prior contact/fights, #1 above won't apply, because evidence of a prior "bad act" may not be used to show a person has a habit of committing crimes. Just "having knowledge" of bad acts isn't enough.

Knowing someone carried a knife other times won't be relevant if he wasn't threatening to use the knife on you when you fired.

Well it depends on the circumstances of how the person knows of the other's history. First hand knowledge would be treated different than say "word on the street is".

My point was that most likely the shooter will not be able to use the decedent's history for his own defense. I threw in the caveat to allow for the chance that there was knowledge of prior history that could end up being admissible.

The people who parked in the handicap stall are assholes who get no sympathy from me.  Look at all the open stalls that were in front of the store but she said she had the right to park whereever she wanted.  NO YOU DON'T STUPID.  As for the guy that got shot, he only shoved the other guy because he felt he could easily beat his ass.  I doubt he would have shoved someone like a Brock Lesnar.

+1 😉

Reading SSH, many are saying that if the guy didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have provoked anyone.  We don't know that.  But if the shover guy was smaller, would he have not done any shoving?  As in if Brock Lesnar was the guy scolding him for parking in a handicap stall.  I look at that as a factor as well.  "I'm bigger and stronger so I can shove someone who appears weaker, no way I would have shoved someone bigger than me."

That's similar to saying that Japan wouldn't have attacked Hawaii if the US hadn't occupied the island (which I doubt).

My understanding is that the fact the aggressor didn't brandish a weapon (knife or whatever) still makes the shooting legal under Florida law. Would other States require there to be a weapon produced before deadly force was justified?

What ever happened to the guy who shot the Ewa Beach soldier through the front door?

That's similar to saying that Japan wouldn't have attacked Hawaii if the US hadn't occupied the island (which I doubt).

My understanding is that the fact the aggressor didn't brandish a weapon (knife or whatever) still makes the shooting legal under Florida law. Would other States require there to be a weapon produced before deadly force was justified?

What ever happened to the guy who shot the Ewa Beach soldier through the front door?

I don't think the stand your ground law automatically justifies whatever level of force you use, rather it simply removes the requirement to attempt a reasonable retreat.

The shooter is still going to have to justify why he felt he needed to use deadly force. He just doesn't have to justify why he didn't back away

He doesn’t have to justify anything if he doesn’t get charged, which from what I have read, appears to be the case at this point in time.

He doesn’t have to justify anything if he doesn’t get charged, which from what I have read, appears to be the case at this point in time.

That's true now. However, that was not the case until recently. 

A year ago, Florida passed an amendment to their SYG law to shift the pre-trial burden of proof from the defendant to the prosecution.  This was ruled unconstitutional by the Florida state court last year. The FL court of appeals this year reversed that ruling.

When the defense is successfully raised in pre-trial hearings, defendants are granted immunity from prosecution. But, the Florida Supreme Court had said before that defendants had the burden of proof in pre-trial hearings to show they should be shielded from prosecution.

Now, the amended law says the Prosecution has the burden of disproving the defendants claim of self defense.

The NRA was reportedly backing this amendment.

He doesn’t have to justify anything if he doesn’t get charged, which from what I have read, appears to be the case at this point in time.

I think it depends on the circumstances. Prosecutor's probably won't pursue a case where it is hard to show the use of force was not justified. Some cases they get are likely clear justified uses of force, but then you get ones like this one which could be much easier to attack whether the defendant had reasonable fear to justify the force.

I think it depends on the circumstances. Prosecutor's probably won't pursue a case where it is hard to show the use of force was not justified. Some cases they get are likely clear justified uses of force, but then you get ones like this one which could be much easier to attack whether the defendant had reasonable fear to justify the force.

Thats what RSN said and what the police said no charges

That's similar to saying that Japan wouldn't have attacked Hawaii if the US hadn't occupied the island (which I doubt).

My understanding is that the fact the aggressor didn't brandish a weapon (knife or whatever) still makes the shooting legal under Florida law. Would other States require there to be a weapon produced before deadly force was justified?

What ever happened to the guy who shot the Ewa Beach soldier through the front door?

Are there any self defense laws or use of deadly force laws that state a weapon is necessary to justify use of deadly force? 

I'm serious.  If there is one, I'd really like to know.  I don't believe so and I sincerely hope not.

Are there any self defense laws or use of deadly force laws that state a weapon is necessary to justify use of deadly force? 

I'm serious.  If there is one, I'd really like to know.  I don't believe so and I sincerely hope not.

Hawaii
     §703-304  Use of force in self-protection.  (1)  Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 703-308, the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion.
Only mention of weapon here is in
COMMENTARY ON §703-304,   Subsection (1)
"The actor may make his defensive move without waiting for his assailant to load his gun or to summon reinforcements." 

Hawaii
     §703-304  Use of force in self-protection.  (1)  Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 703-308, the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion.
Only mention of weapon here is in
COMMENTARY ON §703-304,   Subsection (1)
"The actor may make his defensive move without waiting for his assailant to load his gun or to summon reinforcements."

“Summon reinforcements”?

Sounds like a WWW deal. 

Remember that "use of force" is different from "deadly force".

And our deadly force law has the word "believes" in it.

Remember that "use of force" is different from "deadly force".

And our deadly force law has the word "believes" in it.

Use of Deadly Force is included in this statute.
You'll have to actually read it. 

Use of Deadly Force is included in this statute.
You'll have to actually read it. 

Included, but has different requirements before being used.

So can't protect property with deadly force, but can use force.

So it's harsh language considered a use of force? Can i fear for my life (and subsequent deadly force) based on a stern look, threats, and/or being shoved? I guess that depends on what State you live in.

i'd hesitate to just call it a shove.  That was basically a sucker punch, as far as shoving goes.  The shooting in self defense was justified in my opinion, although the shooter potentially has consequences he must now deal with. 

I'm not sure what other options he would have had other than draw and shoot if he wanted to protect himself and not become a victim....  Brandishing a pistol without using it is a bad idea.  If he got up, he possibly would have gotten jumped and beaten.  The other individual's reaction to the argument over the handicap stall was already WAY out of line.  And the fact that he just attacked you and put you on your back, 20 years younger, bigger, and aggressive justifies deadly force if that's all you have available to protect yourself with.   On the other hand, if it was a 90 year old grandma with dementia that tried to push him and she ended up on her ass, no he wouldn't have the right to pull his gun and plug her.

So it's harsh language considered a use of force? Can i fear for my life (and subsequent deadly force) based on a stern look, threats, and/or being shoved? I guess that depends on what State you live in.

shooting someone in self defense is always a last resort, as it takes the consequences for that action out of your hands.  whether or not its justifiable is subjective and is up to the interpretation of the law by the court, jury, cops, prosecutor,  etc. 

My guess is that if it was merely words, shooter be sitting in a prison cell.  If the shove was a weak-ass one handed patty cake push (instead of hard enough so he went flying to the ground), shooter be sitting in a prison cell.

So it's harsh language considered a use of force? Can i fear for my life (and subsequent deadly force) based on a stern look, threats, and/or being shoved? I guess that depends on what State you live in.

Our law states "believe", but don't get trigger happy.  It's hard to prove that you believed you were in fear of your life or serious injury if a girl who is 5'0 100lbs was giving you stink eye. 

Now someone kicks your door in and yells "i'm buck, and I'm here to f*ck" to your wife/daughter who is home alone may be a different story.  It's what you tell the police after you lawyer up.

So Buck probably had a stern look on his face when making that statement, it is a threat (here to f*ck/rape), but didn't make physical contact yet, but did physically kick the door in.

So in the end, there are lots of "what if's".  But it comes down to even if the law is on your side, it will cost you financially and time to prove your innocents.  So don't be trigger happy and go out looking for trouble.  Back/walk away, use de-escalation, lose the ego, etc...

Included, but has different requirements before being used.

So can't protect property with deadly force, but can use force.

There are instances where deadly force is justified in defense of property.