I believe that it's a moot point because this statute doesn't take effect until October 1st. But the new FLA law (potentially) alters the situation regarding justified self-defense. It basically says you no longer have to "retreat" if you can before defending yourself. And it's not limited to home invasion. It aims to redress the worries that PSUskinsfan 21 spoke about. Here the sections that seem most relevant to Sean's case:
(3)A person who is not engaged in an unlawful
activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or
she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right
to stand his or her ground and meet force with force,
including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is
necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to
himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of
a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or
attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied
vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit
an unlawful act involving force or violence.
One question is whether he had the right to be there. Another is whether he was justified in concluding that he was under sufficient threat to warrant a deadly response. But if he can show that he had a right to be there, and legitemately felt threatened, I think this statute would authorize him to pull his gun. Or it would if it were in effect. (As I said, I take it it's a moot point, though it does show you the FLA attitude about self-defense, which may well play in Sean's favor.)
Here's a link to the full statute:
SB 436
Here again is the WPost article on the law:
Fla. Gun Law to Expand Leeway for Self-Defense