The new amended version of the bill is out and I think the next step is voting on it.  But don’t take my word for it as I am not close to an amateur of this stuff. The vote was YEAS 93, NAYS 24 on Thursday, March 20, 2014 5:35 PM. Next week goes to the senate for voting.

So far and reading with Non-Lawyer eyes: Twice in the bill the words “stand his or her ground ” appear.  Three times the wording “place where he or she has a right to be”. So pretty much there is no change to SYG that I can see. I did read a clarification

A person who uses or  threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

I think it better defines the law and gets rid of a grey area that a prosecutor may have used to screw with people such as “Well, he was double parked and that is breaking the law” or some stupid crap like that.

Then “using or threatening to use” is mentioned 11 time in several combinations of defensive, deadly and non-deadly  force. I am guessing the legislators are making clear that threatening somebody with the ability/opportunity/jeopardy to do bad things to you in no longer a crime just because you said so and feel like screwing the life of somebody who refused to be a victim.

Also intact appears to be immunity from Criminal or Civil Action by the person, personal representative, or heirs of the person against whom the force was used or threatened.  The whole thing is new so it seems it is more protection for the Citizen.

Then we have:

A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures  for investigating the use or threatened use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the  person for using or threatening to use force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used or threatened was unlawful.

This was not prohibited before as far as I recall, but I guess the LEOs and DAs needed it in writing.

The wording “imminent commission of a forcible felony” also remain associated with use or threat of use of Deadly Force:
776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

There is more stuff, but you have the link and you can go ahead and examine it. Again I am reading through no-lawyers eyes, but I really don’t see anything bad in the bill….. so we are paging Andrew Branca to tell me where I am wrong 🙂