Patriot Mobile

FL Supreme Court Stand your ground' immunity won't block civil suit

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Gulf Coast States

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,897
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL

    Big Shrek

    Marksman
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Mar 4, 2016
    Messages
    986
    Points
    63
    Location
    Pensacola, FL
    They're basically taking away the Immunity part of the law.
    Which was specifically written that way so that people being
    attacked could defend themselves and their homes from scumbags.

    Does anyone still think that Liberal Judges have our best interests
    in mind anymore?? This should clarify why Supreme Court appointments
    are so very important for Conservative Rights.
     

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,897
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    They're basically taking away the Immunity part of the law.
    Which was specifically written that way so that people being
    attacked could defend themselves and their homes from scumbags.

    Does anyone still think that Liberal Judges have our best interests
    in mind anymore?? This should clarify why Supreme Court appointments
    are so very important for Conservative Rights.
    You said Conservative rights. The rights enumerated in the body of the constitution and the 10 amendments are the rights of everyone that is a free citizen. We happen to also be fighting for rights of liberals and everyone else, even if they do not appreciate or understand the value of these rights.
    But yes these liberal judges are morally traitors to the body of laws they are sworn to live by and protect.
     

    Jeb21

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages
    2,098
    Points
    0
    Location
    Cantonment
    The court was correct for two reasons - first is the doctrine of Res Judicata and or collateral estoppel in Florida requires complete unity of parties. In other words to argue in the civil action, that we have already had this fight in the criminal court and I won, the "WE" must include the exact same parties in the civil action as were in the criminal action. This cannot happen because in the criminal case the parties were the State and the defendant. In the civil case the parties will be the victim and the defendant. Since the parties are not identical you cannot argue that the results of the criminal action are binding on the victim if he files civil suit because the victim was not a party to the criminal action.

    Second, the burden of proof is different in civil and criminal courts. Just because the state cannot meet its very high burden in criminal court does not mean that a civil plaintiff could not meet his much lower burden of proof in civil court.

    Do y'all remember that OJ Simpson was acquitted in criminal court for the murders, but then was successfully sued in civil court by the families of his victims. How was this possible? Because the parties in the civil case and the criminal cases were different and the burdens of proof in the two courts were different.

    This is not a shocking result to me. As for liberal judges on the Florida Supreme Court LMFAO!
     
    Last edited:

    Snake-Eyes

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Joined
    Jun 22, 2013
    Messages
    3,416
    Points
    113
    Location
    Florida
    The court was correct for two reasons - first is the doctrine of Res Judicata and or collateral estoppel in Florida requires complete unity of parties. In other words to argue in the civil action, that we have already had this fight in the criminal court and I won, the "WE" must include the exact same parties in the civil action as were in the criminal action. This cannot happen because in the criminal case the parties were the State and the defendant. In the civil case the parties will be the victim and the defendant. Since the parties are not identical you cannot argue that the results of the criminal action are binding on the victim if he files civil suit because the victim was not a party to the criminal action.

    Second, the burden of proof is different in civil and criminal courts. Just because the state cannot meet its very high burden in criminal court does not mean that a civil plaintiff could not meet his much lower burden of proof in civil court.

    Do y'all remember that OJ Simpson was acquitted in criminal court for the murders, but then was successfully sued in civil court by the families of his victims. How was this possible? Because the parties in the civil case and the criminal cases were different and the burdens of proof in the two courts were different.

    This is not a shocking result to me. As for liberal judges on the Florida Supreme Court LMFAO!


    You misuse the term "victim" quite a bit in that statement. To be non-prejudicial, just say plaintiff or defendant.

    Let's see. The Defendant gets attacked by a dirtbag. Defendant stands his/her ground and lives. The State tries to prosecute the defendant, so the Defendant has to defend himself/herself for a Second time. The State loses. Then, the dirtbag or the dirtbag's family/friends/probono-weasels sue the Defendant in civil court, so the Defendant has to defend himself/herself for a Third time. Chances are that this time the dirtbag wins.

    So, the only "Victim" I see is the Defendant who gets attacked THREE times.

    This court decision of itself says there's no immunity against the civil suit Happening, but perhaps the criminal case outcome will lend some sway in the civil suit. Kind of like some CCL laws provide defense against prosecution but not defense against detainment (the bubba sherif can still arrest you, knowing full well that you will walk later).

    Unfortunately, the burdens of "proof" are different, hence the inevitable THIRD attack on the Defendant.

    The illusion of Justice gets thinner the more the lawyers get involved...
     

    Jeb21

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages
    2,098
    Points
    0
    Location
    Cantonment
    Victim is the term used by the criminal courts to describe that individual. Dirtbag may also apply. It does not change the legal analysis.

    As for the defendant being attacked three times - I don't disagree. I am simply sharing with you the law in this issue.

    BTW if you are involved in a bar fight locally, and the LEOs determine that you were acting in self defense - odds are that they will still charge you with fighting in public. I have seen it and have defendant clients who were charged under almost the exact same circumstances as the one described in the article, the only exception being that the "victim" or "dirbag" was not as badly injured as the one in the article. Further, if you fight in a bar or restaurant - even in self defense - you will probably get a trespass warning from the establishment. So I guess you can say that is a fourth attack. If, in the course of defending yourself, you or the attacker hurt a bystander you will be sued civilly. There is your fifth attack. If your emotions are still up when the cops arrive and you give them any lip or if you physically resist them - you will be charged with obstruction or resisting. There is you sixth attack.

    So yea the system is not perfect. Still better than every other county in the world.
     

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,897
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    The court was correct for two reasons - first is the doctrine of Res Judicata and or collateral estoppel in Florida requires complete unity of parties. In other words to argue in the civil action, that we have already had this fight in the criminal court and I won, the "WE" must include the exact same parties in the civil action as were in the criminal action. This cannot happen because in the criminal case the parties were the State and the defendant. In the civil case the parties will be the victim and the defendant. Since the parties are not identical you cannot argue that the results of the criminal action are binding on the victim if he files civil suit because the victim was not a party to the criminal action.

    Second, the burden of proof is different in civil and criminal courts. Just because the state cannot meet its very high burden in criminal court does not mean that a civil plaintiff could not meet his much lower burden of proof in civil court.

    Do y'all remember that OJ Simpson was acquitted in criminal court for the murders, but then was successfully sued in civil court by the families of his victims. How was this possible? Because the parties in the civil case and the criminal cases were different and the burdens of proof in the two courts were different.

    This is not a shocking result to me. As for liberal judges on the Florida Supreme Court LMFAO!
    Please explain why you are LMFAO
    I admit that Lawson is listed as a conservative.
    The next justices will likely determine the ideological balance of the state's highest court: Pariente, Lewis, and Quince are regarded as the court's liberal-leaning contingent; Chief Justice Charles Canady and Justices Ricky Polston and Alan Lawson are the conservatives. Justice Jorge Labarga is often a swing vote.Sep 12, 2018
     
    Last edited:

    Jeb21

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages
    2,098
    Points
    0
    Location
    Cantonment
    this is a classic example of labels meaning nothing.

    I mostly do civil law. From my perspective the folks on the Supreme Court are stuck in the past and are not fond of any theories newer than the invention of the wheel. They are not bad judges they just like to stick to old and familiar ground when making a decision. That is why I was laughing at your description of them as being liberal judges.
     

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,897
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    this is a classic example of labels meaning nothing.

    I mostly do civil law. From my perspective the folks on the Supreme Court are stuck in the past and are not fond of any theories newer than the invention of the wheel. They are not bad judges they just like to stick to old and familiar ground when making a decision. That is why I was laughing at your description of them as being liberal judges.
    Liberals are also struck on previous conceptions of what is right or wrong. In other words they are people with strongly ingrained prejudices that guide them.
     

    bluedog46

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Mar 18, 2014
    Messages
    250
    Points
    18
    Location
    new castle/livingston

    Jeb21

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages
    2,098
    Points
    0
    Location
    Cantonment
    This was a Florida Supreme Court ruling - I doubt the US Supreme Court would be interested. Bankruptcy might work but W Bush modified bankruptcy rules to limit a debtor's ability to get relief from a single possible debt. I am not sure how that would work in this case.
     
    Top Bottom