Another complication of stand-your-ground law in Florida occurs in situations where a person shoots an intruder in the back. In particular, if an intruder was about to leave your property, the law may or may not be on your side, depending on the specific events surrounding the burglary. In a situation where an intruder leaves your property, it can be argued that they did not pose an immediate threat and that there was no need to shoot them. There are situations where an intruder could leave your property that are always dangerous. For example, they might go back to their car to get equipment that will hurt you. However, if you shoot an intruder in the back while leaving the premises, it may mean that you are not protected by Florida laws. Is it ever appropriate to shoot someone in the back? Stigma stems from a general code of honor (it is considered cowardly) or an ethical principle of engagement. A well-known exception: if the fugitive poses a serious threat. This is one of the most painful focal points during the filming of Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wisconsin. In a video taken by bystanders, a Kenosha police officer can be seen grabbing Blake`s shirt and shooting him seven times in the back. “For state or constitutional reasons, where someone is shot is not legally relevant,” says Seth W. Stoughton, a law professor at the University of South Carolina at Columbia.

But it is factually relevant. If someone is shot in the back, it is a red flag. Florida laws allow residents to use shooting as a form of self-defense when their safety is in imminent danger. However, there are cases where you may not be protected by the law. If you have recently been involved in a burglary where you shot the intruder, it is imperative to seek advice from a trusted defense lawyer. In summary, it`s rarely a good idea to open fire on a fugitive criminal unless you still feel that life is threatened. Instead, what you should do is call the police to report the incident and give them as much information as possible about the criminal and what they did. And in a roundabout way, we raised another point, which is not bragging about wanting to kill someone on social media because it can be used against you. “You have to learn how to use the tool of non-lethal force effectively, because otherwise the only way for these officers is to just shoot people,” says Larkin, who calls guns “the remote control” to protect himself. In most states, in order to use lethal force to stop a threat, you must reasonably believe that your life is in imminent danger.

Because of this, there are probably very few chosen circumstances in which you would be allowed to shoot a person in the back when they fled the crime scene, and your ego is not one of them. No matter how much they hurt your feelings or ego by stealing from you once the threat is over, there is no immediate danger of death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping, or sexual abuse. Since there is no longer an immediate threat, lethal force to defend your ego is not recommended, no matter how you feel about that person. When Kalfani Tura learned to be a police officer in Georgia nearly 20 years ago, the question of whether a police officer could shoot a suspect in the back often sparked heated conversations at the police academy, he said, both inside and out. “For me, if someone breaks away or runs away, that`s it,” says Larkin, who has taught his self-defense techniques in a number of civilian, military and law enforcement settings. “I`m not chasing, I don`t keep shooting them in the back because I don`t have to.” In a 1985 civil case, the Supreme Court ruled that a Tennessee police officer violated the Constitution when he shot a 15-year-old boy in the back while trying to avoid arrest for stealing $10 from a wallet during a burglary. Decision 6-3 in Garner v. Tennessee said a police officer must have “probable grounds” to believe that a fugitive suspect posed “a significant threat of death or serious injury” before deciding to use lethal force.