Posted by Sevenfaces: 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.
What the law says cannot in any way have any bearing at all on whether a particular shooting was "legit."
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.
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.