A USAF Airman answers the Okaloosa Sheriff's deputy knocks on the door. The Airman has a pistol in his hand and did raise the pistol. Does having a pistol in the hand justify the use of deadly force? What is the standard?
The body cam (graphic) footage was presented by the sheriff's office: https://www.youtube.com/live/x3D9im0csDM?feature=shared&t=455
Does having a pistol in the hand justify the use of deadly force? What is the standard?
Use of force by the law enforcement officer in Florida is governed by the following statute (emphasis added):
776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.
A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force:
(1) Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest;
(2) When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped; or
(3) When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given, and:
(a) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or
(b) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person.
The fact that the Airman has a pistol in hand alone might not justify a reasonable belief on the part of the deputy that it is necessary to defend himself, but a raised pistol is probably sufficient to justify a reasonable belief that the deputy needs to defend himself to avoid bodily harm. Once the pistol is raised, the deputy is a pull of the trigger away from being shot.
Also, the Airman was probably not justified under Florida law in raising his pistol towards a uniformed law enforcement officer, which is probably at least a threatened use of force. This is because Florida law says (emphasis added):
776.051 Use or threatened use of force in resisting arrest or making an arrest or in the execution of a legal duty; prohibition.—
(1) A person is not justified in the use or threatened use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer, or to resist a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the execution of a legal duty, if the law enforcement officer was acting in good faith and he or she is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer.
(2) A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, is not justified in the use of force if the arrest or execution of a legal duty is unlawful and known by him or her to be unlawful.
The Florida standard jury instructions for self-defense using deadly force are 3.6(f) (the ones for an officer making an arrest are 3.6(h) but I don't think they apply here because the officer wasn't making an arrest). Unfortunately this link has them as Word documents rather than webpages but it does contain them https://www.floridabar.org/rules/florida-standard-jury-instructions/criminal-jury-instructions-home/criminal-jury-instructions/sji-criminal-chapter-3/ The nice thing about jury instructions is that they're written to incorporate both statute and case law.
For this section of the law, Florida doesn't make any distinction about whether the user of deadly force is a police officer or not, only whether the person the force was used against was a police officer. I'll quote the relevant sections with edits to just remove the alternative language that isn't relevant for this situation
It is a defense to the crime of murder if the actions of (defendant) constituted the justifiable use of deadly force. “Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm. “Great bodily harm” means great as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor, or moderate harm.
The document helpfully notes in the comments
The discharge of a firearm, whether accidental or not, has been deemed to be the use of deadly force as a matter of law. Hosnedl v. State, 126 So. 3d 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).
(Defendant) does not have the burden of proving that he was justified in using 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 deadly force.
(Defendant) was justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believed that such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself
In deciding whether (defendant) was justified in the use of 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 deadly force, the appearance of imminent danger must have been so real that the defendant actually believed the use of deadly force was necessary. Moreover, to justify the use of deadly force, a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed the use of deadly force was necessary.
