I believe you are mistaken. I do not see this as a test of the new law at all, because Devries was inside his own home. Floida's old law already allowed people to defend their homes with no duty to retreat. You are incorrect in saying the old law would have compelled him to retreat. Retreat OUT of your own house? Very few states would require that, and Florida wasn't one of them.DunedinDragon said:The reason I see this as an interesting test of the new law is because the shooter is unstable. As with most new laws, it takes a while to work out all the kinks the lawmakers didn't think of when they wrote it, and see how it gets interpreted in unusual and different circumstances. And I would submit this is about as different and unusual as it gets.
The new law centers on whether it's reasonable for the person to believe he was in grave danger. In this case, the shooter appears to be clinically paranoid, but the issue is NOT whether HE was reasonable, but rather if his actions would be considered reasonable by most people being placed into that situation. Under the old law he would have been compelled to at least TRY to escape or avoid the problem. The fact that he confronted the problem without retreat will truly test the reasonableness of shooting in this type of situation, solely on it's own merits, and not flavored by the guys obvious mental problems.
I believe you are mistaken. I do not see this as a test of the new law at all, because Devries was inside his own home.
No. Really?Seems the story is a changin quite a bit.
What it looks like, as usual, is we don't have enough information...More specifically, I can think of plenty of reasons why this would be a good shoot. I can also think of plenty of reasons why it would not. The propriety of it will depend upon exactly what the shooter and the victims specifically say happened, and the physical evidence. We have access to none of that at this time.
Also, I'll be very curious as to an examination of the shooter's mental condition at the time of the shoot.