|
This Florida legislation was motivated by a case of self-defense in the home in which the defender got a prison sentence (but was pardoned) even thouth the state Supreme Court eventually reversed the decision and found that no retreat requirement exists within your home. The bill's original purpose was to clarify in statute that there is no requirement to retreat when you are in your own home.
But in response to the gun lobby (NRA mainly), Republicans decided to try to slip in the same language for self defense in public places. They introduced the same wording to eliminate the retreat requirement also in public places.
This is a major change in Florida law. Most Floridians don't support it. It was already tried back when Askew was governor, and he voted it down.
Again, there are two major problems with this legislation: (1) its conditions for the use of deadly force are far too vague and permissive; (2) it makes no distinction whatsoever between initiators of force and non-initiators, in public places.
There are several other more minor probems, such as the fact that as written it is contradictory and poorly phrased and organized, doesn't expressly prohibit pre-arranged conflicts (though these might be covered elsewhere, who knows).
But the major problems should be enough for oppose this legislation. Even cowboy red states such as Montana have explicit retreat requirements at least for initiators of force, whose purpose is to break the cycle of escalation, and disallow self defense claims for people who knowingly and purposely provoke the use of force.
|