As I explained in Part One, once the threat of physical harm has been removed, the claim of Self- Defense may no longer apply. In the example I used, the Attacker has been disarmed, and is fleeing the scene.
You would be legally justified in pursuing and physically restraining the suspect, holding him until the Police arrive and make a formal arrest.
However, the force you use to detain the suspect must be reasonable, and does not include inflicting physical harm if no resistance is offered, and there is no longer a threat to you or anyone else. For example, pinning the individual against the ground is probably perfectly legal, but pounding the head repeatedly against the ground may leave you open to Prosecution for using excessive force.
Yet , Stand-Your Ground Laws are being used to destroy the concept of Justifiable Self- Defense, allowing individuals who instigate a Physical Confrontation (An Attacker) to Claim Self- Defense when the Victim has no choice but to confront the aggression. What is even worse is excusing the ATTACKERS BEHAVIOR BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED THEIR LIFE WAS IN DANGER, EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE VICTIM DID ANYTHING THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED THREATENING BY ANY REASONABLE STANDARD.
This is incredible. For the first time, we have a system of justice that protects the Attacker, against VICTIMS WHO MAY BE GUILTY OF NOTHING.
Look for PT 3.