One of the common talking points of the PSH crowd when it comes to promoting the ideas of Castle Doctrine and Self Defense laws is that people will simply shoot their neighbors and use the excuse of being "in fear of their life" and simply walk free.

John Gutmacher points to why this isn't the case

The question was squarely answered as applied to an "unreasonable" belief in the recent case of Hill v. State, 33 Fla.L.Weekly D. 1038 (Fla. 3DCA 2008), where the appellate court held that there is no "imperfect self defense" in Florida. In order to lawfully use self-defense -- your belief must be "reasonable" in fact -- as judged by the "reasonable man" standard. (ie: Could a reasonable person in the same situation so believe).

In this case, a mistaken but unreasonable belief that two men were about to kill the defendant -- did not justify the defendant taking their lives. Hence, the conviction for murder stood. The moral -- use common sense, not paranoia.

Castle Doctrines and laws that do not require you to retreat do not grant you a license to kill at will. The Brady Campaign would have you believe that all you have to do is tell a cop that you killed the busload of middle school children because you felt they were threatening your life and that you can just go home like nothing happened. Not that it's a surprise, but that is patently false.

You must be able to prove that you were in imminent danger and that your use of deadly force was reasonable. If not, you're going to be charged with murder and go to jail.