Posted by WardenWolf: In Arizona, you're immune to civil suit. Neither the criminal nor anyone associated with them can collect from any injuries or damages suffered during the commission of a crime. If it's a "good shoot", and they don't press charges, you're free and clear.
Although Arizona has a strong policy that justification can be used in criminal and civil cases, one must remember that it is far easier to "prove" a civil case than a criminal case. If Sam Shooter uses or threatens the use of deadly force, and the county prosecutor decides there is no criminal case or Sam is acquitted, the victim or the victim's family can still sue Sam in a civil case for damages. Pfeil v. Smith, 183 Ariz. 63, 900 P.2d 12 (App. 1995). Plaintiffs in such cases usually lose, especially in Arizona. Nonetheless, if one is required to use deadly force, he/she faces the potential of a civil lawsuit. One’s responsibilities and potential liabilities for carrying a concealed weapon are great, so do not take them lightly.
The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, costs, compensation for lost income and all expenses incurred by a defendant in the defense of any civil action based on conduct otherwise justified pursuant to this chapter if the defendant prevails in the civil action. A.R.S. § 13-420, effective April 24, 2006.
You are mistaken.
So this is what I get out of this discussion...
If you defend yourself legally in Florida and the victim's family wants to sue:
* You WILL be served with a lawsuit.
* You WILL hire a lawyer.
* You WILL prepare a defense.
* You WILL appear in a pretrial hearing.
* You WILL prove by preponderance of evidence that your action was legal and proper.
* This MAY require witnesses, physical evidence, and whatever else it takes.
And IF the court agrees, the court will allow attachment of immunity at that time.
And it seems that you will pay for all that, out of your pocket.
And the plaintiffs will probably pay their attorney out of their pockets.
So, you are still alive but you're broke. The perp is dead. His family grieves. The State is satisfied.
And the lawyers are the winners here.
That's a lot of creative interpretation of what was posted in here, and might result in you getting taken for a ride by an unscrupulous lawyer...
[snip]
This MAY cost you a few hundred dollars or several thousand depending on the situation.
Almost. What's missing is that to have the lawsuit dismissed at the preliminary hearing, you will have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that your action was legal and proper. Doing so could prove costly.Posted by azmjs: a better list [for Florida] would be:
You MAY be sued by the estate of the perpetrator.
You WILL have to attend a preliminary hearing.
You WILL have the lawsuit dismissed at the preliminary hearing.
This MAY cost you a few hundred dollars.
Yes. Read the state supreme court rulings on the subject law.Posted by brickeye: Does Florida even use legislative intent in interpreting its laws?
...as long as a preponderance of the evidence indicates that you had reason to believe that your life was in danger and you acted in self defense.Posted by gym: You are immune from all prosecution as long as your life was in danger and you acted in self defense.
And you can prove that to a JUDGE in a hearing....as long as a preponderance of the evidence indicates that you had reason to believe that your life was in danger and you acted in self defense.
The added words make all the difference in the world.
And you can prove that to a JUDGE in a hearing.
Precisely!At that hearing if you have half a brain you will have an attorney, and they do not come free.
Emphasis added.776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27.
Probably so. Some have interpreted it to mean that if criminal charges are not filed, a civil suit cannot be pursued. In other threads, some have indicated the mistaken belief that the law protects a justified shooter from liability for injuries caused by him to third parties.Posted by brickeyee: I still think many are not reading the entire statute in Florida correctly.
No. The state (alone) pursues criminal charges. The reference to civil action applies to civil action by a person or persons lawfully injured by a defender during the commission of a crime.It appears that the opening section is preventing criminal or civil action BY THE STATE.
And in the first section. The last section simply says that an unsuccessful plaintiff is responsible for the legal costs of the defendant.The protection granted from civil suite by the person shot is in the last section, and calls for the person shot to pay legal bills if they do not preveial in the suite, NOT that they cannot file.
I don't see why the standard would be HIGHER in a civil suit than in a criminal action brought by the state. Preponderance is the standard for determining liability in almost all civil suits, including wrongful death. I see no evidence that a different standard would be applied under the given circumstances.The Florida Supreme Court case mentioned in an earlier post defined the conditions under which a person can be granted immunity from criminal prosecution (must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the shooting was legally justified). I presume that the same thing applies in getting a civil suit thrown out, but I do not know that. It may not have been decided yet.
Civil, criminal it does not matter..charges can be brought or a civil suit can be filed.
In either case the Judge is REQUIRED to hold a preliminary hearing if the defendant claims immunity under 776.032. If the defendant prevails via a preponderance of the evidence that immunity applies, the case cannot proceed.
In the civil case, the judge may order attorneys fees, etc. to the defendant.
Filing suite by an individual is NOT prohibited, just penalized if they cannot prevail at an inital hearing.
Section (1) applies to criminal prosecution by the state and to liability in any civil action undertaken by any person who was lawfully and intentionally shot. A state does not take civil actions in criminal cases in which the state is not harmed.You can make them pay of they fail to prevail, but it is a really bad idea to try and prohibit the filing.
The federal courts would eat their lunch on denying access to the justice system.
The court is also consistent with how I believe the law reads.
Section (1) applies to the state not undertaking criminal or civil action.
Section (3) makes a person who files suit pay if they lose.
Filing suite by an individual is NOT prohibited, just penalized if they cannot prevail at an inital hearing.
Section (1) applies to criminal prosecution by the state and to liability in any civil action undertaken by any person who was lawfully and intentionally shot. A state does not take civil actions in criminal cases in which the state is not harmed.
Anyone can file a civil suit (the common phrase is "you can sue a ham sandwich"), but that does not mean that a court will hear it.
Section (3) states in words that if a person is sued and if a court has ruled that a person is immune from prosecution (as distinguished from having been found not guilty in a criminal trial), the plaintiff is responsible for court costs, attorneys fees, and other compensation. Good luck with that if you are the beneficiary of such a ruling.
One would assume that if the defendant did go to trial and was found not guilty by virtue of reasonable doubt, Section (3) would not apply.
What the code as written does not address is what happens with respect to costs if the charging authority decides to do nothing, and there is no preliminary hearing to address immunity from criminal charges, and a cvil suit is filed.
One would assume that the defendant would claim immunity from civil liability under Section (1) at a preliminary hearing on the civil suit. Whether that has ever been done is unclear. Section (3), however, says nothing about responsibility for costs under that scenario.
Perhaps a Florida attorney can help us on these matters.
