Um, are you an attorney? In Florida?
I'd bet you my house a "verbal threat" of grievous bodily injury or death could justify use of lethal force, in nearly ANY jurisdiction.
Might want to walk back that internet law degree, sport.
It would have to accompany an actual perception on the part of the user of force that the speaker had the means and intent to carry out the threat in the language.
If I said to you, "I'm going to put your head in a blender and turn it on the highest setting", unless I am carrying a presently operable blender and appear sincere in my threat, you probably shouldn't use deadly force. An extreme example, I know, but it illustrates the point.
Yes, I am an attorney. Not in Florida, but an attorney nonetheless. Not an internet law degree, either.
I did not intend to imply that a verbal threat can *never* be sufficient to cause a “reasonable fear” of grievous bodily injury or death, such that the use of deadly force is justified. Self-defense cases simply don’t lend themselves to bright-line rules like that - the threat/action/etc. must be considered in light of the circumstances, and there could be circumstances where a verbal threat is enough. Here, in these circumstances, where the guy was physically separated from the allegedly threatening person, where he wasn’t even sure what the guy said or whether he was just singing along to music, and where he thought he saw something that may have been a weapon, I just don’t see the “reasonable fear.”