If you read the statues that have been posted 100s of times it's quite clear.
One must also consider why these laws were enacted to get the reasoning.
You sure about that? This guy (RWBShooter), who seems to indicate he's a former lawyer, says that the state awards you the right to collect the money, but the money has to come from the plaintiff.
It was posted on a CCW message board. First comment by him is comment #6. There is at least one more by him on the second page.
http://www.floridaconcealedcarry.co...?1099-Immunity-from-criminal-and-civil-action
And if they have no money?
You may be, but that does not stop people filing cases against you and having to answer those suits costing you money and time.
Yet the same law requires the person bringing the suit to pay for the immune defendant's legal fees and costs including lost income.
And if they have no money?
If there's a reason for the Martins to challenge the Florida law by filing a lawsuit they won't have any problem raising money to pay the costs.
They are not going to be able to file a lawsuit on the taxpayer nickel.
If one has been previously granted immunity, they just show up at the initial proceeding show the statement and walk away.
The frivolous party has spent their money for nothing
Maybe have the filing party post an initial expenses bond to covet such.
This issue has come up a few times, and I take a slightly different view of it. I want people to understand what the immunity in Fla. Stat. 776.032 actually provides.
Fla. Stat. 776.032 (quoted in relevant part)
...
(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).
I agree that the statute says "IMMUNE" from civil action, but it's going to apply AFTER the suit is filed. There's no magic immunity filter at the courthouse to block these cases from being filed. You will incur expenses to defend against the suit. Unless your insurer is picking up the tab, you likely will not recover any of these costs despite what the statute says.
Take the seemingly clear-cut example of waking up at 3 AM to the sounds of someone in your home. You walk into your dimly lit living room and realize there's someone there who shouldn't be. You say "freeze." He doesn't, maybe even makes a hostile movement in your direction. You shoot. You turn on the lights to find you've shot a 15 year old who was probably there to lift you're PS3, big screen TV or Wii. He may have been carrying this item in his hands when you shot him. He may have been hopped up on drugs. He may have been armed himself at the time. Whatever. Still, the kid's parents will find a lawyer to take the case.
Two months later someone serves you with papers. You're being sued. What about IMMUNITY, you ask? Guess what? You (probably through an attorney) will file a response in court denying liability and requesting a hearing on the issue of immunity. Most likely, the judge will hold a hearing, will listen to evidence from both sides, and decide whether you're immune and the case can be dismissed without a trial.
Depending on the level of ambiguity in the facts - e.g., the teen's parents claim he was drunk and wandered into the wrong house, the teen survives and says he was sneaking in to visit your daughter, whatever - it's conceivable that it could go all the way to a jury trial and the jury will determine whether you were lawfully exercising your self-defense rights. (If I ever get sued for exercising my right to self-defense, I'm hiring an attorney. It's expensive, but not as costly as screwing something up and losing what should've been a slam dunk case.)
Let's assume the judge decides you're immune. Now you're entitled to recover your costs of defense from - guess who? - the same scumbag who broke into your home. (No, not the lawyer who filed the suit on the scumbag's behalf and not the court.) What are the odds any intruder you shoot at 3 AM is going to have enough $$$ to pay your attorney fees? If he had that kind of coin, he wouldn't be breaking in to steal yours. So the judge will "award" you the costs you paid to defend the suit, and all you'll have to show for it is a nice piece of paper signed by the judge saying the scumbag you shot now owes you money.
Why will an attorney take this case on behalf of an intruder, knowing that immunity will likely bar the suit and that the attorney won't make anything if it does? Because if you've got insurance, there's a chance your insurer will pay out a few grand to keep from paying $5,000 to $15,000 to take it to court. If your insurer doesn't offer a few grand upfront, but decides to take it to the judge for an early ruling on the immunity issue, there's an additional slim chance the judge decides a jury needs to make a finding of facts on the self-defense issues. If that happens, your insurer is likely to increase its offer to the intruder/plaintiff just to avoid paying another $10,000 or so in legal fees.
After the JUDGE presiding over the civil suit (which you've already defended) rules it as justified, you will be awarded costs of defense. But recover from whom? If the guy is a penniless thug, you may shell out several grand and not be able to recover. An award of costs is a piece of paper the judge gives you that says you're owed money. After you get the award, then you've got to collect it.
If the plaintiff(s) had money, they wouldn't have filed in the first place. A good plaintiff's attorney would tell them they'd likely lose (because of the immunity statute) and end up owing you money. So odds are good you'll never have a plaintiff in this type of case against whom you can recover, because the only ones who can afford to sue are the ones who don't have anything to recover against. If they're broke, they've got nothing to lose. (Sadly, those are about the only ones a plaintiff attorney will take as well, because an insurer isn't as likely to settle out for a few grand against a plaintiff who has money and assets to satisfy an award of costs once the insurer wins for you.)
You'll never get sued for a self-defense shooting (where 776.032 applies) by someone who has enough money to reimburse you for your costs after you win. It's that simple. The only exception I can see to that is if there's a genuine issue over whether the use of deadly force was justified.
• The legislature should consider allowing innocent third-party victims to sue someone who uses justifiable force. The law now prohibits such lawsuits.
So a bystander wounded by a "Stand Your Ground" claimant cannot bring a claim to court? Do I need to ask who passed this legislation without reading it first?
So a bystander wounded by a "Stand Your Ground" claimant cannot bring a claim to court? Do I need to ask who passed this legislation without reading it first?
Pussy. Once again, you address none of my points, insult me, and move on.
At least I address your points.
well that's one theory. bloody knuckles on TM and fucked up skull on GZ say different.
What does Chris Dorner have to do with Trayvon Martin aside from them both being black?
What did Trayvon martin have in common w\ the burglary suspects Zimmerman suspected him to be aside from both being black?
You guys really need to work on your english. This is a discussion about evidence. It's not a theory that Zimmerman acted irrationally and referred to Trayvon as if he was somebody else who Zimmerman thought he was.
Trust me... it's not going to be hard for the prosecution to paint a picture for the jury. It's clear from the recorded phone call that Zimmerman was under the mistaken impression that Trayvon was somebody else. This primarily based on the fact he was black like the burglary suspects.
It's right there in the police report that Zimmerman was incorrect... and yet all of his actions were based on his flawed judgment.
He knew he wasn't supposed to get out of the car and go after anybody... he did anyway.
It's going to be cake for them to show that Zimmerman was acting irrationally and playing vigilante that night. He was kind enough to leave ample evidence of all of this on the audio recording of his call to police.
How about stop trolling? I don't understand what the common thread is between these two stories that they can be combined into one movie.
Zimmerman saw an apparent thug, up to no good, like he was on drugs or something, who was casing houses.
Drug tests show only weed... Weed's getting legalized more and more every election cycle and will probably be legal everywhere in the next decade...Trayvon was a thug, who was likely up to no good, and was on drugs or something, who has a history of casing houses.
Please.... You have obviously no experience with how a jury and trial works. Society is sick of thugs.
Zimmerman will walk from this, no doubt in my mind.
<snip>
Yeah, I don't either and I'm not trolling.
They are both black though as you pointed out. That's also the only common thread that linked Trayvon to the burglary suspects Zimmerman thought him to be in his little fantasy that he acted out that night.
Yeah, I don't either and I'm not trolling.
They are both black though as you pointed out. That's also the only common thread that linked Trayvon to the burglary suspects Zimmerman thought him to be in his little fantasy that he acted out that night.