But collecting them is next to impossible as I explained in my post. But the southern judges according to ex prosecuters won't allow that to get to court if you were acting to save your life. For the same reason as the homestead law never going away, this is still the South, and thet is just the way it is.
Civil Suits in Florida
- Thread starter MannytheGreek
- Start date
- Status
Sevenfaces
Member
I'm a bit confused, isn't showing the judge what the statute says enough for them to dismiss any civil suite against you? it says right there if you are in a legit SD shooting you're immune to criminal and civil action. If you're not charged with, nor convicted of unlawful use of force, surely the use of force must have been lawful. if it is lawful, then you cannot be held accountable on any legal ground.
brboyer
Member
I'm pretty sure the Judge knows what the statute says...
In this situation your have to prove that your actions, when viewed by a reasonable person, would tend to comply with the legal requirements of self defense.
Without testimony/evidence, how would he be able to come to that conclusion?
double bogey
Member
Would a grand jury no bill be good enough? Any homicide goes to the grand jury in Texas, as I'm sure most states do. Also if the deceased persons estate or family can't pay if they lose, could you go after the lawyer thats working on contingency? That would be one way to shut down the ambulance chaser types. Just a thought, I'm sure lawyers can't be held responsible. I live in a dream world where everyone is not sue happy. lol.
What the law says cannot in any way have any bearing at all on whether a particular shooting was "legit."
The state's failure to convict a person in criminal court does not mean that the court has found that the persons act had been lawful.
It simply means that the triers of fact determined that there was reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. A failure to file criminal charges can be based on the same conclusion or on other factors.
The threshold in a civil case is much lower--the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was culpable.
A person may be found not guilty in criminal court and still be found liable in civil court.
The Florida Supreme Court has said that if a person proves to the court by a preponderance of the evidence that a shooting was justified, criminal proceedings will not continue. And the way the law is written, if that happens, the plaintiff is responsible for costs incurred in a civil suit.
A defendant may always ask the court to dismiss a civil suit. One would presume that, if the defendant can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his action was justified under the law, the civil action will end at that point.
What the black law does not say is who is responsible for the defendant's legal and other costs if the defendant does not have the opportunity to claim immunity from criminal prosecution and if the civil action does not proceed.
Perhaps a Florida attorney can enlighten us.
Cop Bob
Member
In a word...... NO
Lack of prosecution in a Criminal Matter has little or no bearing on Civil Actions.. Justified or not... Righteous people doing the right thing for the right reasons get sued all the time.. In fact, some people get sued who weren't even there, and had no connection other than they owned the property, built the devise used, (to wit: Gun Manufacturers, Mechanics, auto makers etc. etal..
Do the plaintiffs prevail? Not always, in fact rarely... it depends upon circumstances and evidence... and the rules of evidence in Civil Proceedings are much looser than in Criminal Proceedings in most jurisdictions..
Each Case is different...
Last edited:
HOME DEPOT GEORGE
Member
This gentleman would be the one to ask, from what I understand he wrote a book on Florida gun laws http://www.floridafirearmslaw.com/Jon-H-Gutmacher-Esq-Attorney-Profile.html
"A state does not take civil actions in criminal cases in which the state is not harmed."
States can and do bring civil actions, as opposed to criminal actions, in many cases.
It is often when they are loooking to have something enjoined.
They can also bring administrative actions.
States can and do bring civil actions, as opposed to criminal actions, in many cases.
It is often when they are loooking to have something enjoined.
They can also bring administrative actions.
That is, to have someone made to do something or to stop doing something.
Also, in the case of contractual disputes in which the state is a party to the contract.
And if someone has, usually by non-criminal negligence, damaged state property
All have to do with potential harm to the state.
The law in question, however has to do with what can and cannot proceed if the evidence indicate that a deadly force action already taken was lawful.
If evidence indicates that it was not, to the state, it will be treated as a crime. A private party may also allege that he has a basis for a civil suit. The law in question also has to do also with civil liability to a person who was harmed by the necessary and lawful application of deadly force against that person.
brboyer
Member
Yes it does.....
Ah...OK..never mind....now that I've reread the statute dozens of times......the critical phrase is "if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1)." - the criminal case.
Sometimes my eyes see things that are not really there.....
No, not in a schizophrenic, hallucinogenic, or paranormal vision type of seeing things.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
