Florida's Stand Your Ground Law

[Karmady]

The way I read the law, it looks to me that SYG immunity can be requested multiple times at various stages in a case after previous rejections including in appeals. And could be very expensive to the original prosecuting county since restitution will be required under the same law if SYG is accepted somewhere down the line.. That could have a chilling effect in questionable SYG cases. The law protects the shooter but offers practically no protection for a dead victim.

Would you mind telling me what you are looking at, specifically. On the one hand, I would be surprised if you could request what is, imo, essentially a preliminary hearing, more than once. On the other hand, I can see new evidence coming to light at a later point in the case that would justify it. I'm wondering if the defendant would have to show something like that there is new evidence that was unknown and not reasonably obtainable at the time of the first hearing?

 

[rotterdam]

Would you mind telling me what you are looking at, specifically. On the one hand, I would be surprised if you could request what is, imo, essentially a preliminary hearing, more than once. On the other hand, I can see new evidence coming to light at a later point in the case that would justify it. I'm wondering if the defendant would have to show something like that there is new evidence that was unknown and not reasonably obtainable at the time of the first hearing?

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 subsectio

I read that into the law logically because of what is not written there.
See BBM. These are various steps in the process and requires rejection of SYG immunity in earlier stages, otherwise such a case would never made it to the prosecution stage. I read prosecution as the case being in active trial position. And nowhere does it say that a denied SYG motion can only be used once, like in pretrial hearing, actual trial and/or appellate court trial. And since GZ was charged, SYG was determined already not be applicable or the prosecutor(Corey) would be in violation of the law..
Not a lawyer and did not even stay in a holiday inn. Just IMO. I did look for appealed past cases on SYG but could not find any. Not the best researcher so there could be some out there..

 

[impatientredhead]

There is not enough there for me to say it's a hate crime. As far as SYG, there is a reason why I have not voted in the poll yet and it's because I don't know yet. I can easily see this as manslaughter but I can also see it as something that did get out of control, out of GZ's control. I can see him getting scared and doing something in the heat of the moment (like shooting TM). That's where the law comes into play. I think the law as it stands now is a bad law but to me that's a secondary debate. The main issue is if he is protected by a bad law.

I think it is a bad law and I do think he will eventually be granted protection under it. By the judge, jury, or at appeal.

There were several cases before Trayvon that screamed that the law needed to be tweaked. Retreat in a public place should be everyones first obligation for public safety. I don't trust the average citizen to decide when they feel in fear of bodily harm (that they have likely put themselves in the position to receive if it exists).

 

[Karmady]

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 subsectio

I read that into the law logically because of what is not written there.
See BBM. These are various steps in the process and requires rejection of SYG immunity in earlier stages, otherwise such a case would never made it to the prosecution stage. I read prosecution as the case being in active trial position. And nowhere does it say that a denied SYG motion can only be used once, like in pretrial hearing, actual trial and/or appellate court trial. And since GZ was charged, SYG was determined already not be applicable or the prosecutor(Corey) would be in violation of the law..
Not a lawyer and did not even stay in a holiday inn. Just IMO. I did look for appealed past cases on SYG but could not find any. Not the best researcher so there could be some out there..

Thanks. I don't read it that way, but it's a reasonable interpretation, imo. I think one of the problems that's been acknowledged about the immunity part is that it puts the State between a rock and a hard place in questionable cases because they can't even, imo, take someone into custody without facing potential liability under the immunity statute. I believe that "criminal prosecution" is a defined term in the statute and when I read the definition, it appeared to me to be broad enough to include merely taking someone into custody. But certainly placing them under arrest. Which is why I believe that the prosecutor's office was immediately involved.

That said, yes, in making the arrest, the SP has potentially exposed the state to liability if George walks under the SYG. But, to my mind, that does not mean that he must make an application for the hearing at any particular time, or at all, or that he can make multiple applications. As I understand it, if the Judge rules that he is not immune at a preliminary hearing, which must be held (prior to trial, obviously) if the defense requests it, and the court upholds the ruling on appeal (if there is one) they are done. If the Judge does not grant the immunity, it goes to trial and George can assert SYG at the trial level and have a jury make that determination. I don't see room for more than one preliminary hearing unless, possibly, under the "new evidence" rationale I mentioned. An appeal wouldn't be a second hearing because the court of appeals would be constrained by the record below. I am fairly certain that they wouldn't be able to hear live evidence or consider any new evidence. They would only hear argument on the evidence presented below.

In short, I think arresting and charging a person who has a potential SYG defense is a crap shoot under the statute; that the defendant can assert his right to a preliminary SYG hearing one time at any point prior to trial; can, most likely immediately appeal that decision; and, if it does go to trail, can present the SYG defense to the jury. jmo I hope I've understood what you are saying!

 

[rotterdam]

I think it is a bad law and I do think he will eventually be granted protection under it. By the judge, jury, or at appeal.

There were several cases before Trayvon that screamed that the law needed to be tweaked. Retreat in a public place should be everyones first obligation for public safety. I don't trust the average citizen to decide when they feel in fear of bodily harm (that they have likely put themselves in the position to receive if it exists).

..

I think it is a badly written law and is now being used for cases it was not intended for. Even its sponsors have done some back peddling.
And I agree with you. GZ might walk with a big wad of money in his pocket because of this law. High probability unless there is more GZ damaging evidence out there. My hopes is on a Fed case but that is iffy too. Besides there are other SYG cases that the Feds should be looking into. Somehow, it does bother me if only the GZ case is singled out by the Feds because of high publicity.

 

[rotterdam]

Thanks. I don't read it that way, but it's a reasonable interpretation, imo. I think one of the problems that's been acknowledged about the immunity part is that it puts the State between a rock and a hard place in questionable cases because they can't even, imo, take someone into custody without facing potential liability under the immunity statute. I believe that "criminal prosecution" is a defined term in the statute and when I read the definition, it appeared to me to be broad enough to include merely taking someone into custody. But certainly placing them under arrest. Which is why I believe that the prosecutor's office was immediately involved.

That said, yes, in making the arrest, the SP has potentially exposed the state to liability if George walks under the SYG. But, to my mind, that does not mean that he must make an application for the hearing at any particular time, or at all, or that he can make multiple applications. As I understand it, if the Judge rules that he is not immune at a preliminary hearing, which must be held (prior to trial, obviously) if the defense requests it, and the court upholds the ruling on appeal (if there is one) they are done. If the Judge does not grant the immunity, it goes to trial and George can assert SYG at the trial level and have a jury make that determination. I don't see room for more than one preliminary hearing unless, possibly, under the "new evidence" rationale I mentioned. An appeal wouldn't be a second hearing because the court of appeals would be constrained by the record below. I am fairly certain that they wouldn't be able to hear live evidence or consider any new evidence. They would only hear argument on the evidence presented below.

In short, I think arresting and charging a person who has a potential SYG defense is a crap shoot under the statute; that the defendant can assert his right to a preliminary SYG hearing one time at any point prior to trial; can, most likely immediately appeal that decision; and, if it does go to trail, can present the SYG defense to the jury. jmo I hope I've understood what you are saying!

Yep, you got my interpretation dead-on. And I think that it is only fair and just that such borderline cases do end up at the mercy of a Jury's verdict. The problem I have with the law is that the rights of the dead victim in a hinky SYG defense might never end up in front of a jury.