Problem is, some people and their lawyers, percieve laws differently... The general idea of being able to use deadly force in any situation you feel "threatened" is a bad one, becasue there is not a threshhold established for action.
That's why Florida law does NOT authorize you to use deadly force in any situation you feel "threatened." That locution comes from the Brady Campaign's scaremongering about the law, NOT what the law itself actually says.
I described Florida law as it is, not as the Bradyites wish to portray it.
IE I am 6' and 220 lbs... I get attacked by a woman who is 4'5", 100 pounds and armed with a fork... Can I shoot her? I am a 4' 5 " woman who is hassled by a panhandler, or an aggressive salesman at my door, can I shoot him? I know the statute in law says this, that, and the other... but realistically, how many folks are going to familiarize themselves well enough to be safe?
Depends on what kind of fork...a two-pronged meat fork is a deadly weapon...a salad fork isn't...
In your second and third example--no. Read the law; it does not change the criteria under which use of lethal force in those situations would or would not be justifiable. The new law merely says that if the panhandler pulled a knife or a gun on you, you could not be charged with murder for failing to try to outrun the attacker before defending yourself, AND if you do shoot the attacker and it is ruled justifiable, the attacker and his family cannot sue you for lawfully defending yourself.
Again, the perception the Brady Campaign and others attempted to create, versus what Florida law actually SAYS, are worlds apart.
A forcible felony? Does that apply to the shot-cop situation, as the resident felt someone was going to commit felony robbery?
I'm not sure if simple robbery is on the list of forcible felonies that allow potentially lethal force to be used; I'd have to check. I do know for a fact that armed robbery is.
In the home-defense situation, another factor comes into play, and that is the Castle Doctrine, which is law in nearly every state. The gist of that rule is, if someone is illegally trying to make a forced entry into an occupied dwelling, the homeowner is legally justified in using potentially lethal force to stop the home invasion. There is a legal presumption that if someone is illegally breaking into an occupied home, he is not there for benign purposes.
In this case, the police officer was not in the act of entering the home itself, but he was illegally inside the enclosed porch area (if I remember correctly) and had hurdled several barriers to get there, and blinded the homeowner with a light, apparently without identifying himself (he may not have even seen the homeowner due to the glare, who knows). This case could have gone either way, and had the officer been there legally, or had the officer been shot on the front porch instead of skulking around inside an enclosed area, it probably would have gone against the homeowner in this case. Had the unidentified person tried to force open the door, however, it would have been unquestionably justifiable.
Tactically, the homeowner was in a bad position, because he was illuminated by the prowler and a sitting duck, and had no way of defending both his front and back door simultaneously, and this may have played a role in this thinking. Now, if it were me, and the way our house is laid out, I would have tried to take a position of cover and wait for someone to actually try to enter the house, but not knowing this man's home layout, it's hard to say.
