Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TheKlawMan
Those of you in love with Florida's Castle Doctrine might ask yourself where it leaves a perfectly innocent bystander or their survinving family if a completely reckless homeowner blasts away with a Saiga 12 in a crowded urban environment but the Castle doctrine if found applicable. One writer opines that the reclless homeowner is immune from criminal or civil action for the death or injury of he innocent bystander.
|
You are still doing your best to confuse "Castle Doctrine" with "no duty to retreat."
I am the homeowner when I am in my home. That's my "castle." When I am shopping with my wife in an urban or suburban mall, I am still the owner of my castle, but I am not IN my castle, so laws pertaining to it don't apply. If I open fire recklessly in a shopping mall, it doesn't matter whether I own a home, rent an apartment, or sleep under a bridge with the trolls. Likewise, if I employ lethal force to defend myself in an urban mall setting and nobody is injured other than my assailant, it likewise matters not al all if I own a home, rent an apartment, or sleep under a bridge with the trolls.
Homeowner status has nothing to do with your right in Florida to defend yourself against an attack if you are in a place where you may legally be. The "stand your ground" provision is in a separate subsection of the self-defense statute.