Half the states have SYG, quite a few others have judicial interpretations that are effectively SYG, and even in strict Duty To Retreat states you do not have to "make an attempt" to flee - rather, pulling from CT's relevant law since that's where I was formally educated on DTR policies (emphasis added): One is permitted to use deadly force if "the actor reasonably believes that such other person is (1) using or about to use deadly physical force, or (2) inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm", with the stipulation that "a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if he or she knows that he or she can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety (1) by retreating". (Source)
As the retired State's Attorney teaching the classroom section of the course said, "complete safety" is an exceptionally strong legal concept that you'd have to really screw up to violate...you can't be completely sure you can run away, or that they can't kick down the door, or or or. You almost have to construct a completely absurd situation to prosecute a failure to retreat, e.g. you're a foot away from a bunker and someone 40 feet away is running at you with an axe. A quick search turns up a mere handful of cases prosecuted for failure to retreat, and most of them are people shooting at fleeing robbers which isn't legal in the first place, outside Texas.
Florida's actual law reads much the same as CTs: "A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony." (Source)
Now, Florida did put some absolutely batshit crazy fuckery in when they passed SYG, but it has nothing to do with the "reasonable belief" standard, rather it's this little gem:
(1) A person who uses or threatens to use force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in such conduct and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use or threatened use of such force by the person, personal representative, or heirs of the person against whom the force was used or threatened, unless the person against whom force was used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
---------------
(4) In a criminal prosecution, once a prima facie claim of self-defense immunity from criminal prosecution has been raised by the defendant at a pretrial immunity hearing, the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence is on the party seeking to overcome the immunity from criminal prosecution provided in subsection (1).
(
Source)
Long story short, in Florida, if you shoot someone, as long as they're dead so they can't give their side, and it's not an egregiously provable murder (that whole clear and convincing evidence bit), you just have to say "self-defense!" and it's literal magic words of immunity, like the whole "if you're a cop you gotta tell me" myth but for real. It's incredibly screwed up and backwards and absolutely needs to be gone, but in reality (IMO) SYG/DTR itself is neither here nor there.
= new reply since forum marked as read
