Stand Your Ground: The Case of Little v. Florida
In summary, section 776.032(1) provides for immunity from criminal prosecution for persons using force as permitted in section 776.012, section 776.013, or section 776.031. Because Little was a felon in illegal possession of a firearm, his use of force did not fall within the protections of section 776.013, and therefore, he could not obtain immunity under that statute. See Darling v. State, 81 So.3d 574, 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012), review denied, 107 So.3d 403 (Fla.2012); Dorsey v. State, 74 So.3d 521, 527 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). However, Little sought immunity based on the use of force as permitted in section 776.012(1). His status as a felon in illegal possession of a firearm did not preclude that claim of immunity. And, as set forth above, Little established by a preponderance of the evidence that his use of force was justified to prevent his imminent death or great bodily harm as provided for in section 776.012(1). Accordingly, Little was entitled to immunity under section 776.032(1). - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1627886.html#sthash.No35SmwM.dpuf
Everyone has a right to self-defense: that's not the issue. In this case, Little was in no way the bad guy: that's not the issue, either. The issue is this: should a felon in illegal possession of a firearm be immune from prosecution because of Stand Your Ground legislation, and if yes, why?