That's just patently false and you know it. With your justification a verbal Assault should garner the same responses. A physical altercation does not necessarily equate to the fear of as the law states "great bodily harm or imminent death" that man made a snap judgment and did not make any attempt to determine the threat level. He murdered someone in cold blood and is using the poorly worded statute as his shield.
Is he guilty of a crime? Not in Florida, but that doesn't make it any more right than if this happened in a state where he wasn't protected by the law and was convicted. If you are going to carry a firearm and have the right to take someone's life you need to be fully clear of the threat and circumstance that you place yourself in. He initiated the altercation, knowingly or not, by verbally assaulting the occupants of the vehicle. He didn't take the time to assess the threat level and address the situation in a calm manner. The physical Assault after the initial verbal altercation was in no way life threatening. He escalated the situation and then de escalated it with lethal force. The man takes steps back as soon as he sees the gun. That right there ended the threat of any further injury. If after the fact he charged again by all means that could be justified but the fact of the matter is that the threat had been temporarily mitigated by sight if that gun. It was murder plain and simple
/r/Politics is for news and discussion about U.S. politics.
Welcome to r/politics! Please read the wiki before participating.
Our Full Rules
AMA with Christine Hallquist
AMA with Roy G. Saltman
AMA with Bob Doyel
AMA with Shireen Ghorbani
Here are some external resources that might be useful.