Jump to content


AR15Armory Announcements


Photo

A 2A Win for Floridians


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 ONLINE   hlhneast

hlhneast

  • Group:Members
  • Member ID: 30,977
  • Posts: 1,365
  • Joined: Jan. 25 2016
  • Location:Jacksonville, FL


Posted May. 08 2017 - 05:59 PM

Awaiting Governor Scott's signature is a rewrite of the use of force in stand your ground situations.  The burden of proof now squarely is on the prosecutors, not the defendant.  As I read it, as long as the use of force is justified, I am no longer subject to prosecution or even arrest at the time of the incident.  If there are any lawyers here, I would appreciate your input and comments from the membership as always.  Here is the excerpt from the bill.

 

776.032
Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use or threatened use of force.
(1)A person who uses or threatens to use force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in such conduct and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use or threatened use of such force by the person, personal representative, or heirs of the person against whom the force was used or threatened, unless the person against
whom force was used or threatened 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 or threatening to use 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 OFFLINE   Steelborn1

Steelborn1

  • Group:Bronze Patron
  • Member ID: 16,628
  • Posts: 6,379
  • Joined: Sep. 14 2009
  • Location:Pflugerville, TX


Posted May. 08 2017 - 06:04 PM

Paging Gmountain!


Signature:
I WILL NOT COMPLY!!!!
"Sittin' on 2000 horsepower of nitro injected war machine!"
"Pigs are just life support systems for bacon and BBQ!" Redbarron

#3 ONLINE   Gmountain

Gmountain

  • Group:Senior Staff
  • Member ID: 417
  • Posts: 56,542
  • Joined: Nov. 20 2005
  • Location:Heliosphere


Posted May. 08 2017 - 07:03 PM

I'm trying to see the difference between what  you have posted and the current statute.




Signature:

Wag more. Bark less.

 

So many guns, so little time.

 


#4 ONLINE   Snake46

Snake46

  • Group:Gold Patron
  • Member ID: 30,414
  • Posts: 540
  • Joined: Jun. 06 2015
  • Location:S of the Red, E of the Brazos


Posted May. 09 2017 - 09:55 AM

Send whatever is left over to Texas..


#5 OFFLINE   gshayd

gshayd

    Crazy as a craphouse rat


  • Group:Gold Patron
  • Member ID: 24,285
  • Posts: 25,543
  • Joined: Oct. 10 2011
  • Location:The ugliest house on the block


Posted May. 13 2017 - 11:06 PM

You still have to obey use of force laws for your state. So you may want to review those. Which means if you did not follow use of force laws in that state you have no immunity.....

 

"justifiable use or threatened use of force."

 

"uses or threatens to use force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031"


Edited by gshayd, May. 13 2017 - 11:09 PM.



Signature:

NRA 4 Life
M1Garand.jpg

 

 3b3e8bab-4ecf-46a2-a495-0d6d30813a76.jpg
 

As it will be in the future it was at the birth of Man

There are only four things certain since Social Progress began

That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire.

And the burnt Fool's Bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the fire

 

"It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer “universal health care.”  Dr Thomas Sowell


#6 OFFLINE   gshayd

gshayd

    Crazy as a craphouse rat


  • Group:Gold Patron
  • Member ID: 24,285
  • Posts: 25,543
  • Joined: Oct. 10 2011
  • Location:The ugliest house on the block


Posted May. 13 2017 - 11:10 PM

Send whatever is left over to Texas..

We already have this in Texas.....

 

https://opencarrytex...astle-doctrine/


Edited by gshayd, May. 13 2017 - 11:12 PM.



#7 ONLINE   redbarron06

redbarron06

    FATALITY!!!


  • Group:G.D. Staff
  • Member ID: 6,696
  • Posts: 46,396
  • Joined: Jul. 20 2008
  • Location:Whites Creek TN


Contributor

Posted May. 13 2017 - 11:14 PM

Pretty much have the same in TN just not the same words.


Signature:
Posted Image

DUSTOFF IS “REQUEST PRESENT POSITION DEPARTURE FOR URGENT 9-LINE”

If I advance, follow me! If I retreat, kill me! If I die, avenge me! -- Francois De La Rochefoucauld

Posted Image

#8 ONLINE   Snake46

Snake46

  • Group:Gold Patron
  • Member ID: 30,414
  • Posts: 540
  • Joined: Jun. 06 2015
  • Location:S of the Red, E of the Brazos


Posted May. 18 2017 - 07:35 AM

We already have this in Texas.....
 
https://opencarrytex...astle-doctrine/


I was actually referencing the immunity from civil action if the use of force is justified..


#9 OFFLINE   TomJefferson

TomJefferson

  • Group:Senior Staff
  • Member ID: 7
  • Posts: 37,084
  • Joined: Sep. 13 2005
  • Location:Tennessee


Contributor

Posted May. 18 2017 - 08:01 AM

I was actually referencing the immunity from civil action if the use of force is justified..

Yes, that's by far the bigger deal.  What is justified can almost always be questioned unless its clear cut as before.  The same precedence before would apply.  Attacker has a weapon etc. is still clear cut so most likely no arrest but once in the gray areas, there can still be arrest, but the bigger deal is if no criminal charges then no civil liability. 

 

TN has that stipulation in our "Castle Doctrine". 

 

What it does is end the second guessing "Could have" of civil lawsuits like guy with knife could have shot him in the leg, etc. 

 

Been following the boards since there were boards and I think this a first for self defense laws.  Just a guess, I'd say its going to be challenged.  I think its a good change though because there's been a shift in this country that if someone dies, their family should be compensated some how and usually a civil case.  This could have dramatic impact on police departments which get sued all the time by hoodrats families. 

 

Tj




#10 ONLINE   Gmountain

Gmountain

  • Group:Senior Staff
  • Member ID: 417
  • Posts: 56,542
  • Joined: Nov. 20 2005
  • Location:Heliosphere


Posted May. 18 2017 - 09:38 AM

Florida has had the immunity from civil suit for years.

 

This is the addition to the statute:

(4) In a criminal prosecution, once a prima facie claim of  self-defense immunity from criminal prosecution has been raised  by the defendant at a pretrial immunity hearing, the burden of  proof by clear and convincing evidence is on the party seeking  to overcome the immunity from criminal prosecution provided in  subsection (1).

 

What this does is once a self defense at a pre- trial  argument is raised, then the burden of proof shifts to the prosecution, to prove that it WAS NOT self defense.  That has been case law in Florida for a while, but this codifies it. 

 

Even if, after a  hearing, the defendant does not win on the self defense argument, it can still be raised again at the actual trial and a jury can determine it was self defense. 


  • Snake46 likes this


#11 OFFLINE   gshayd

gshayd

    Crazy as a craphouse rat


  • Group:Gold Patron
  • Member ID: 24,285
  • Posts: 25,543
  • Joined: Oct. 10 2011
  • Location:The ugliest house on the block


Posted May. 22 2017 - 07:28 AM

I was actually referencing the immunity from civil action if the use of force is justified..

That is what that law in Texas does.....




#12 ONLINE   Snake46

Snake46

  • Group:Gold Patron
  • Member ID: 30,414
  • Posts: 540
  • Joined: Jun. 06 2015
  • Location:S of the Red, E of the Brazos


Posted May. 22 2017 - 03:04 PM

That is what that law in Texas does.....


Ok, maybe I'm reading it incorrectly, but your article, in the last paragraph, states "..even though an actor may have been justified in using force-deadly or non-deadly-he may face civil litigation and penalties associated with the use of force against another."
What am I missing?





Forum Statistics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Information Center