Originally Posted by TheKlawMan
Please explain how this is not so. Force was definiteley being used against a person who had or was unlawfully and forcibly entering John's home.
I never said it was not so. It is so ... that is what the law says. It was YOU who initially proposed this as if it was a radical concept that only a few people in Florida believe to be the case.
Personally, I think this is the way the law should be. If a criminal sets out to rob a bank and anyone
is killed as a result -- a bank teller, and innocent bystander, even the robber's partner -- it is legally construed that it is the robber who is guilty of murder even if it was not he that was the immediate cause of death. Why? Because, absent his commission of a felony, the victim would not have been killed.
How is this different from your example? The guy who broke into the house committed a criminal act -- breaking and entering. The guy IN the house has a right to defend his castle. The law does not require him (nor, IMHO, should it require him) to be an expert marksman in order to be allowed to defend his castle. The responsibility and the liability should not lie with the guy defending the castle, but with the guy invading the castle.