There's a couple problems with it, and a couple reasons to be in favor of it. Which way the balance goes, I don't know.
As Florida law now stands, you are legally authorized to stand your ground when threatened in a place you have a legal right to be, but cannot use force against someone unless you are in immediate danger. Force must be at least loosely proportionate -- no shooting people for spitting on your shoe. The laws against aggravated assault, terroristic threatening, etc, all have exemptions for self-defense but require that the danger be immediate to qualify for the exemption. The reason people keep getting into trouble is the court doctrine in Florida that if you were in immediate danger, you wouldn't have time for a warning shot.
As I understand this new law, it would relax the definitions, making drawing a deadly weapon in self-defense lawful against threats, not just immediate danger.
It wouldn't necessarily have saved Ms Alexander from prison though, despite her conviction being the reason the law was passed. She didn't stand her ground, she advanced into danger and escalated the force levels after escaping from it. If her specific case is an example of what the law allows for, then Florida really has taken a step towards the legalized murder standard that it was falsely denounced for over the Zimmerman/Martin incident.
The thing is, some of the time those criminals claiming self-defense are right. Self-defense is proportionate to the threat -- you can't shoot someone because he spat on your shoe. While a criminal caught in the act of the crime can't normally claim self-defense, there are situations where one might be able to.
For example, you accidentally or on purpose shove someone on the street, they shove you back. Proportionate. But what if they drew a gun and opened fire instead? If you shoved them on purpose that's assault, but their response isn't proportionate. Despite being in the wrong, you still have a right to self-defense against their escalation -- when they escalated the force levels, they became the aggressor.
The real hazard with the new law, as I see it, is people feeling threatened and responding to that threat (real or imagined) with disproportionate force, then opening fire if the other guy doesn't instantly back down. I imagine there will be a spike of road rage incidents in Florida where both sides claim self defense.
Yes. It's covered by Florida's aggravated assault statute.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.011.html
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ute&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.021.html