Florida Law
I'm reminded of the old saying that "a camel is a horse designed by a committee." Well, the committee has been working on the Florida statute that deals with self defense.
There seems to be a maze of perspectives when it comes to laws that deal with the interaction between a victim and an aggressor. The law should always place the burden on the outlaw. Burdening the victim with a 'duty to retreat' is dangerous for several reasons. Trying to retreat can place a victim in even greater danger. If the victim cannot safely retreat or flee, as is often the case, and they (the victim) are successful in defending themselves from an outlaw, then the victim should not be burdened with having to prove a negative. The committee didn't go so far as to require a victim to retreat, but what they did could prove equally as bad.
The change in the wording of 776.032,
A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force,
to now read:
A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action by the person, personal representative, or heirs of the person, against whom force was used for the use of such force,
which is supposedly designed to allow innocent third parties the opportunity for some relief at the expense of the victim. Who is naïve enough to believe that victims will be secure from all plunderer's who are not a "personal representative" or "heir"?
Also addressed in the change were new rules for regulating "neighborhood watch" volunteers.
There is nothing wrong with holding people accountable for their actions, but the burden needs to be diligently applied to the outlaw—in a clear manner.
-fl