Quote:
|
Originally Posted by raveneye
If you're talking about the case I posted, see the yellow highlight. Because it was the manager's place of business, he was within his rights to move anywhere within that property, and use force to counter the threat of force.
The relevance to the new law, is that principle now expands to apply everywhere, not just within one's home or place of business.
So what the manager did (assuming that he did so because he reasonably thought his assailant was going for a gun) presumably can now be done legally by anybody anywhere in Florida.
|
I see your point, and you are right to point this out. This points out the hazard of the law. If we are correct in our assessment, it would now be okay for this to be done by, say, a customer, who pursues a guy out of a bar and kills him in the parking lot after an altercation.
To introduce such a hazard would be understandable if it were correcting a demonstrable failure in the law, but as I cited before, until that failure is demonstrated (and I have yet to see the cases brought forward to do so), it is irresponsible to do so. Introducing a problem to correct a hypothetical one is not generally a basis for good legislation.