When to Go to the Gun (or Bat or Club)

[OldMarksman]

Immunity is already granted by the law.

If the court decides that the act was lawful (under s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031, .in FL).

The charging authority may choose not to charge, but that does not confer immunity; they can charge as long as immunity has not been granted by the courts, or any statutory limitations have run out

Self defense is lawful.

Yes...but what the actor considers self defense may not be considered self defense in the criminal justice system. That's why we have courts.

.... If they do not have the evidence then there is no charges... That does not mean you are charged with anything.

What?

Which is wrong. The burden of proof FOR THE STATE is higher; not the defendant.

In a criminal case, the burden of proof is a lot higher for the state, and in Florida, it is somewhat higher for the state at an immunity hearing.

For the third time, the burden of proof for a criminal defendant is a lot lower at trial than it is in an immunity hearing.

[davidsog]

If the court decides that the act was lawful (under s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031, .in FL).

It does not have to reach the court. An investigation can occur that determines no charges are warranted therefore none are brought before the court.

No court required. Now that is using the legal definition of court synonymous with Judge or judges as in a Judicial Tribunal established to administer justice.

Last time I dealt in the Criminal Court System...judges do not bring charges, prosecutors do. If the investigation concludes there is not enough evidence for the prosecution to bring before a Grand Jury then we have no charges.

OldMarksman says:
For the third time, the burden of proof for a criminal defendant is a lot lower at trial than it is in an immunity hearing.

I do not know if the evidentiary standard changes at trial. The statute does not say that.

It does say the burden of proof FOR THE STATE is higher at the pre-trial immunity hearing.

In order to charge someone and not declare the use of force lawful, the state has to prove that it was not lawful self defense to a higher standard than the person claiming self defense.

I do not know how else to state it.

[OldMarksman]

It does not have to reach the court. An investigation can occur that determines no charges are warranted therefore none are brought before the court.

Are you under the impression that that would provide immunity against either prosecution or civil liability? Who would conduct such an investigation, and with what authority?

Last time I dealt in the Criminal Court System...judges do not bring charges, prosecutors do. If the investigation concludes there is not enough evidence for the prosecution to bring before a Grand Jury then we have no charges.

Still true.

The burden of proof FOR THE STATE is higher at the pre-trial immunity hearing; not the defendant

I haven't said otherwise . Iit is true in Florida. But in some states, a preponderance of the evidence decides the case for either side--equal burden.

In order to charge someone and not declare the use of force lawful, the state has to prove that it was not lawful self defense to a higher standard than the person claiming self defense.

In Florida, yes.

At trial, in all states, criminal conviction requires proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt--meaning that the burden of proof for the defendant is low. In a tort case, a preponderance of the evidence wins it for either side.

I have been saying that since the beginning. Do you somehow believe it not to be true?

[davidsog]

I edit'd my reply in order to clarify. You replied just as I finished. Talking about trial vs pre-trial just confuses things and the statute says nothing about evidence levels at trial.

Are you under the impression that that would provide immunity against either prosecution or civil liability? Who would conduct such an investigation, and with what authority?

My impression is that the law literally states in black and white you have immunity from both civil and criminal liability for lawful use of force.

The Police would conduct the investigation as they would conduct any criminal investigation. If they find enough evidence then a DA will bring it before a Grand Jury. If they do not find enough evidence, then it is a lawful use of force.

Everything else can come down to the fact it was clearly stated the statute applies to Florida and Florida only. You need to check your state laws and abide by them. No need to morph the discussion into something that was never said.

[OldMarksman]

My impression is that the law literally states in black and white you have immunity from both civil and criminal liability for lawful use of force.

It does; whether the use of force was lawful is decided in an immunity hearing by a judge.

The Police would conduct the investigation as they would conduct any criminal investigation. If they find enough evidence then a DA will bring it before a Grand Jury.

True--but that only affects the criminal case.

If they do not find enough evidence, then it is a lawful use of force.

fFrst, the DA may decline to prosecute for political reasons. Second, they may do so because they think it unlikely that they would prevail in proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Legally, nether would establish the use of force to have been lawful, and either can be reversed.

And absent a court judgment granting immunity, civii plaintiffs are free to proceed, regardless of what the DA decides.

Got it?

[davidsog]

It does; whether the use of force was lawful is decided in an immunity hearing by a judge.

There is nothing in Florida statute that directs a pre-trial immunity hearing. If no charges are filed as the initial investigation has no probable cause concluding lawful use of force there will be no trial and no pre-trial hearing.

Lawful use of force is immune to both civil and criminal prosecution in Florida.

Got it?

A defendant has the right to request a pre-trial immunity hearing.

[OldMarksman]

If no charges are filed as the initial investigation has no probable cause concluding lawful use of force there will be no trial and no pre-trial hearing.

hTat is obvious; it is true in all US jurisdictions; it does not impact divil liability; and it has absolutely nothing all to do with immunity from prosecution under the law.

Lawful use of force is immune to both civil and criminal prosecution in Florida

Immunity from criminal prosecution and civl liability is provided in the laws of a number of states, and in all of them, it only exists when it is established by a judge in an immunity hearing.

We have gone around and around on this. We cannot tell whether you remain badly confused or you are deliberately being argumentative.

Do not raise this issue again.

[shafter]

I don't want to ever subject myself to our broken legal system, or even worse to the whims of a jury of my peers, therefore, if you ever hear that I used deadly force, rest assured that there was literally no other way for me to survive.

[davidsog]

it does not impact divil liability; and it has absolutely nothing all to do with immunity from prosecution under the law.

It does when the law states you have immunity.

it only exists when it is established by a judge in an immunity hearing.

We cannot tell whether you remain badly confused or you are deliberately being argumentative.

You keep stating a fiction that factually the courts have not sorted out completely. That you would blame me for disagreeing with you based my experience in the state combined with the fact this is unsorted in the judiciary is baffling.

Right now, the law in Florida is you do not need an immunity hearing if you are not charged. The law grants you immunity by that simple fact.

Until clarified by the Supreme Court. AFAIK, the only clarification the Florida Supreme Court has given on this issue the fact the statute as intended by the Legislation favors the defendant.

Here is a case that shows just how much the courts wrangle with this....

Robert Bouie shot Jeno Favors in a South Tampa parking lot
and was charged with attempted second-degree murder, aggravated battery, and - 2 - shooting at a vehicle.

Mr. Bouie says he was defending his brother, Jermaine McGee,
and filed a motion to dismiss asserting that he is immune from prosecution under the stand-your-ground law.

Charges trigger the Immunity Hearing.

In the case of No charges = No Requirement for immunity hearing = Immunity Protection under the law.

Could someone file a civil case? Sure. That filing would trigger the Immunity hearing which would be granted. That filing in civil court would be a waste of time; which is what most attorney's will tell you.

One can reasonably look at the facts of this case and say that it is not one in which the defendant deserves in a moral or public policy sense to be immune from a criminal prosecution. Whether the defendant deserves immunity in a moral or public policy sense, however, is not the question that the stand-your-ground law requires us to answer. The legislature has directed that a defendant who files a sufficient motion to dismiss on grounds of immunity is entitled to it unless the State clearly and convincingly
establishes that he is not. Here, the State failed to do so both because the initial provocation exception does not apply on these facts and because the evidence did not otherwise meet the State's burden of proof. Accordingly, we grant Mr. Bouie's petition for a writ of prohibition.
Petition granted.

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-co...our-Ground.pdf

I certainly agree this topic is dead and I have no desire to further discuss it.

[tdrizzle]

Two things:

Your permit is not a Batman badge. Too many people have ideas of intervening in others' personal conflicts or being a hero and stopping an armed robbery of another. Don't.

If you shoot someone, and everything is perfect, and you are not even charged, it will still cost you ten grand, minimum, for most any civil suit.

Good luck.

[davidsog]

Act accordingly