Miami Prosecutors decline to prosecute teen who shot fleeing thief

Status
Not open for further replies.
The key there seems to be the fact that the defender thought the thief was reaching for a weapon to harm him. The kid didn't shoot him to stop him from stealing, he shot him because he had an immediate and credible fear for his life.

Ironically, the "weapon" turned out to be a sophisticated thievery tool designed to start machines like the waverunner, and the thief was a deaf-mute which just makes the whole thing weirder.

Now the challenge will be if a hearing will prove that FL's civil immunity law applies to this case. Ironically, because they WEREN'T charged at all, they are not immune from civil trial, which they would be if they'd been charged and found not guilty due to self-defense.

And the lawyers fees mount all 'round...
 
Misleading Thread Title

It does not appear from the reports that anyone shot a "fleeing thief."

But then the man “put his hand in the front compartment again as if he was trying to get something” and a made a sharp right turn to face Jack and Yasmin Davis, the memo said.
Click to expand...

The shooter said he reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or serious injury. That's self defense, not the shooting of a fleeing thief.

I do not see how "stand your ground" enters into it. Would the shooter otherwise have difficulty in presenting evidence that he reasonably believed that both he and his mother could not have safely retreated? Of course, that part of it is what passes for journalism these days.

According to the article, the state believed that it could not prove criminal wrong-doing beyond a reasonable doubt. Below that threshold sits the preponderance of the evidence standard, which is all that the plaintiff's family will have to demonstrate to get a civil case to trial, and to win it, should it happen to go that far.
 
I think the "SYG" aspect is entirely mentioned here because they'll want to try for the benefits of civil immunity under that law, and because of the irony of the fact that they might not get it because they weren't even charged.
 
Ironically, because they WEREN'T charged at all, they are not immune from civil trial, which they would be if they'd been charged and found not guilty due to self-defense.
Click to expand...
I don't think so, Sam. Different standards apply.

Had they been charged, they could have elected to ask for a hearing to prevent prosecution; they would have had to convince the court that a preponderance of the evidence supported justification. Had that happened, it would have sufficed to stop both criminal and civil proceedings.

But the state's failure to prove criminal guilt beyond a reasonable doubt would apply only to a criminal verdict. A defendant in a civil suit still has to convince a judge, or failing that, a jury, that a preponderance of the evidence supported justification of his actions. It's simply the reverse side of the coin of the plaintiff's burden.
 
Ahh. I was reading this...
Because Jack and his mother, Yasmin Davis, will not be charged, they will never appear before a criminal court judge. That sets up the possibility that a civil judge could one day hold a “Stand Your Ground” immunity hearing — the Muñoz family is currently suing the Davises for wrongful death.
Click to expand...
And taking that to mean that they had to go through another step to determine whether they got civil immunity or not.
 
And taking that to mean that they had to go through another step to determine whether they got civil immunity or not.
Click to expand...

They will have to present sufficient facts to convince the court that a preponderance of the evidence supports justification. If they succeed, civil proceedings will be stopped; otherwise no.

They would have had that option had charges been filed, and a favorable judgment would have provided both criminal and civil immunity. An unfavorable judgment would have left the door open to both criminal prosecution and civil proceedings, with different burdens of proof for each.

As a matter of background, the state argued in a prior case that if some evidence supported criminal charges, criminal immunity did not apply. The FL Supreme Court disagreed, saying that a judge could decide the preponderance of the evidence question without the case having gone to trial in criminal court.
 
Posted by Johnny Dollar: The State.of Florida made the.right decision,IMO.
Click to expand...
Nothing has been made public that would indicate otherwise, to me anyway.

Stealing in the night, another.persons property on that persons property is.a dangerous "occupation".
Click to expand...
However, the decision to not prosecute had absolutely nothing to do with whether the decedent had been stealing, or that it occurred on the actor's property. Neither of those factors would justify the use of deadly force in Florida.

Also, according to the Miami Herald, the incident did not occur at night.

According to reports, two citizens stated that the decedent turned and faced them while not responding to warnings and reached for an unknown object. The mother and son said that they reasonably believed that the man had been reaching for a weapon. The state decided that they could not prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.

What is ridiculous is young Jack.Davis and his family had to.wait 25 months for this decision to finally come down.
Click to expand...
You may think it "ridiculous", but it is not all that unusual.

A lot of sleepless nights,.I'm sure.
Click to expand...
You bet. And there will be many more, and that would have been the case even without the threat of a protracted civil suit.
 
...sleepless nights for a possible civil trial.beat the heck out of criminal charges
Click to expand...
Well, the shooter will no doubt always have some doubts. Having shot someone, even an enemy soldier trying to kill you, is nothing to take lightly.

And, of course, the state can always file charges at any time, should the civil proceedings bring to light anything new.
 
Miami has some very strong "citizen rights" to use deadly force. It actually started back in the 70's when Jimmy carter invited castro to send all his malcontents here and they landed in Florida. castro emptied his prisons and insane asylums at our expense. many counties in Fla implemented very relaxed laws regarding weapons possession and use because of that. It's a place where citizens with a reasonable belief they are in danger can defend their lives.
 
many counties in Fla implemented very relaxed laws regarding weapons possession and use because of that. It's a place where citizens with a reasonable belief they are in danger can defend their lives.
Click to expand...
The use of force laws and the concealed carry law in FL are state-wide.

While Florida was among the first in recent years to provide for "shall issue" carry permits, many other states have followed suit.

Florida has eliminated the duty to retreat, but they are by no means alone in that regard..

The other provisions of Florida's use of force laws are not materially different from the norm.
 
Sam1911 said:
The key there seems to be the fact that the defender thought the thief was reaching for a weapon to harm him. The kid didn't shoot him to stop him from stealing, he shot him because he had an immediate and credible fear for his life.

Ironically, the "weapon" turned out to be a sophisticated thievery tool designed to start machines like the waverunner, and the thief was a deaf-mute which just makes the whole thing weirder.

Now the challenge will be if a hearing will prove that FL's civil immunity law applies to this case. Ironically, because they WEREN'T charged at all, they are not immune from civil trial, which they would be if they'd been charged and found not guilty due to self-defense.

And the lawyers fees mount all 'round...
Click to expand...
The statutory immunity, in both criminal and civil cases are handled exactly the same way. As directed by the Florida Supreme Court, if the defendant chooses to seek the statutory immunity, the judge must hold a pre-trial hearing where the defendant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that he/she is entitled to it.

Generally by showing that he or she reasonably believed that such force wss necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top