Because they are so dumb, not only they have a stupid John Wayne strategy but they are stupid enough that they prepare and serve the evidence for the prosecution.
It seems the dumb asses still have not realized that their interactions in this Facebook Florida Gun Group is evidence obtainable for an investigation and eventual trial.
The part the ticked me off is that there were people who actually gave both warnings but went mostly ignored.
Be very careful and very choosy where you get your legal advice from. I am sure that none of the Idjits above have been in court defending somebody, much less successfully and sure as hell none of them will show up to back your sorry ass in court for following their advice, specially if they are themselves under court proceedings for murder.
I think I’ve met some of these people, or at least people like them, online. Whenever I comment, on a story about a bad shooting, that it might not be a swell idea to shoot shoplifters, trespassers, or car strippers, especially when they’re fleeing, I get similar responses. The “thoughtful” ones spew sophistry about how they worked to get their property, so stealing it is like taking part of their life; therefore a theft is really an assault, etc. But mostly I just get called names. (My old favorite, “libtard,” is gradually being replaced by “snowflake.”)
Partly you bring up a different question here, though.
One question is whether “shoot to kill” is the proper defensive action. The answer obviously is NO — the correct action is “act to stop the threat”
A separate and mostly unrelated question deals with laws that control when deadly force is permitted. In most places the rule is: only to prevent serious injury or threat to life. NH includes arson, which sort of fits that category though not exactly. But mostly, defense of property is no longer considered justification. My feeling is that this is wrong and it should be so considered, as was the case in the past. However, so long as the laws are what they are, a smart person will act accordingly.
The problem is not whether the shootee survived or not. The issue is the shootee or his/her/its surviving family can and has sued the defending homeowner, and won. Several times.
When the Courts consider the attacker as a victim, then there is a serious problem with the courts.
As to shooting someone in self defense, Florida does allow it, but the shooter should expect to be arrested no matter whether the shooting is considered self-defense or not. There is always some prosecutor out there looking to make himself/herself/itself famous AND rewrite the laws via a court case. Doesn’t help that there are judges and juries that will support this backhanded rewriting of the law.
My two cents worth, and I don’t claim a shopping cart as my home. And I understand that even though various laws are on my side, I will still be considered guilty just because I look guilty. Seriously. I failed a lie detector test on my NAME… Almost 2,000 years of institutionalized guilt all condensed into me. Sigh….