Here is a letter that Michelle Malkin received from a reader to help clarify the new Florid Conceal Carry Law:
Here's the background: for _decades_, case law in Florida was well defined on
the topic of self defense:
(1) A person had a duty to retreat from a fight if
they were able to safely do so; and (
2) the duty to retreat did not apply in
your own home (or business, or automobile) if the attacker didn't also have a
right to be there; and
(3) anyone who broke in to an occupied dwelling was
assumed to be there to harm the occupants, giving the occupants the right to
shoot the intruder on the spot. No other evidence of evil intent was
necessary. The second of these is known as "the Castle Doctrine", i.e. a
man's home is his castle, and he has no duty to retreat from it. An
unfortunate example of this case law in action was a year or two ago in Ocala
(north central Florida), a paramedic responding to a heart attack call broke
a window next to the front door of the home in order to gain entry to help
the victim. Unfortunately, the window belonged to the duplex next door, and
not to the home of the victim. The elderly occupant next door shot the
intruder, not realizing he was a paramedic. It was ruled justifiable under
the Castle Doctrine. Tragic, but not murder.
In south Florida, on the other hand, lawyers and judges began applying rules
more like those in New York than the established Florida case law, in
particular with regard to the Castle Doctrine (I assume that the lawyers and
judges in question moved here from New York and vicinity, bringing their
idiotic philosophy of crime prevention with them). The assumption of evil
intent disappeared. The duty to retreat was extended to the home and
business.
After a few people were convicted for shootings that SHOULD have been
perfectly legal under decades of established case law, the legislature
started to take notice, and decided to put things back how they were before
the Yankee Lawyers got involved. They actually went a bit further than just
putting it back how it was, because even that was mystifying to some people.
For example, under the old standard, if some one walked up to your car and
started smashing it with a baseball bat, there was not much you could do
about it within the law. You had a duty to retreat from a fight, and as with
most states, you could not use deadly force to protect property. Most
prosecutors wouldn't have bothered to prosecute you if you did beat the snot
out of the "attacker" (as long as you didn't get too carried away), but the
damnyankee lawyers in south Florida don't work that way.
So now, under the new law, things are pretty much how they were before, but a
bit less in favor of the criminal. The new law pretty much says:
1) Anyone who breaks into a occupied dwelling or automobile, or kidnaps
someone from such, is assumed to intend great bodily harm and using deadly
force against them is automatically justified (there are a lot of details,
such as the occupants must have a legal right to be there and the intruder
must not). In other words, it simply re-instated the old "Castle Doctrine"
from case law.
2) A person who is _anywhere_ they have a right to be, if attacked, may defend
themselves with appropriate force. The defender may use deadly force only if
they believe it necessary in order to prevent death or "great bodily harm".
This is a return to the old case law, although broadened a bit to apply
anywhere you have a right to be, not just in your "castle". Again, there are
lots of details, e.g. shooting a police officer is almost always a bad idea,
even in your home.
What this law does NOT do, contrary to the statements of many anti-gun
organizations and individuals, is make it legal to shoot someone for a minor
offense. The requirement that deadly force is authorized in response only to
(the threat of) deadly force is still in effect. For example, see Florida
Statutes 782.11, which says that "Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful
act" is manslaughter. Something that amazed me when this was moving through
the legislature, was a south Florida _prosecutor_ claiming that this law
would make it legal to shoot someone in the back after they committed a minor
offense, a claim that is an outright lie. I wonder if he will stick to that
claim when someone does exactly that in his jurisdiction? And will the
defense attorney be allowed to enter the prosecutor's public statement into
evidence?
Sorry I got so wordy, but I'd really like to see the reporting on this issue
be a lot more accurate than it has been.