• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Stand Your Ground Hearing

Excon

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,615
Reaction score
9,087
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Stand Your Ground Hearing
Upon questioning, O'Mara just stated that it will be set.
 
Excon said:
Stand Your Ground Hearing
Upon questioning, O'Mara just stated that it will be set.
Click to expand...

I don't see how it could. The law states it's pre-trial, doesn't it?
 
buck said:
I don't see how it could. The law states it's pre-trial, doesn't it?
Click to expand...
Well a civil trial has not happened yet, has it?
That is pre-trial is it not?
lol :2razz:



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 subsection (1).
History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27.​
 
Excon said:
Well a civil trial has not happened yet, has it?
That is pre-trial is it not?
lol :2razz:



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 subsection (1).
History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27.​
Click to expand...

That's interesting... Except for the "and".

Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force
Click to expand...

Of course I could be wrong, and it should be an interesting argument if Omara does seek it.
 
buck said:
That's interesting... Except for the "and".



Of course I could be wrong, and it should be an interesting argument if Omara does seek it.
Click to expand...
Just read #3, which is about Civil Action.
The Statute doesn't say when this hearing must be had.
 
Excon said:
Just read #3, which is about Civil Action.
The Statute doesn't say when this hearing must be had.
Click to expand...

I still don't see it, but I imagine we'll find out for certain soon enough.
 
buck said:
I still don't see it, but I imagine we'll find out for certain soon enough.
Click to expand...
Maybe it is because of the way you are looking at it? :shrug:

Criminal responsibility and Civil responsibility are totally separate, even though this specific statute applies to both.
Just because a person does not take advantage of a statute for Criminal purposes, does not preclude them for using it for Civil purposes.
 
Excon said:
Maybe it is because of the way you are looking at it? :shrug:

Criminal responsibility and Civil responsibility are totally separate, even though this specific statute applies to both.
Just because a person does not take advantage of a statute for Criminal purposes, does not preclude them for using it for Civil purposes.
Click to expand...

Could be, but I used to deal with a lot of legalese in my prior job... and the 'and' is really doing it for me.

The statute allows him to be immune from civil and criminal actions. If it had said "or", I would be with you... but, since he has already gone through the criminal action he can no longer be immune from that. So, the 'and' in "civil and criminal" can no longer be satisfied. At least in my reading.

I'm more than happy to be wrong. I think it would be wrong for him to have to now face civil actions... but...
 
buck said:
Could be, but I used to deal with a lot of legalese in my prior job... and the 'and' is really doing it for me.

The statute allows him to be immune from civil and criminal actions. If it had said "or", I would be with you... but, since he has already gone through the criminal action he can no longer be immune from that. So, the 'and' in "civil and criminal" can no longer be satisfied. At least in my reading.

I'm more than happy to be wrong. I think it would be wrong for him to have to now face civil actions... but...
Click to expand...

He is not required to take advantage of the statute, is he?
It is more than possible to use it for one and not the other.

And since O'Mara has indicated it was going to be used I would say your reading is obviously not in accordance with his.
 
People will lose their minds if the State has to reimburse Zimmerman for all his legal fees and loss incomes.
 
Fishstyx said:
People will lose their minds if the State has to reimburse Zimmerman for all his legal fees and loss incomes.
Click to expand...
That is in a civil action.
 
Excon said:
He is not required to take advantage of the statute, is he?
It is more than possible to use it for one and not the other.

And since O'Mara has indicated it was going to be used I would say your reading is obviously not in accordance with his.
Click to expand...

Well, I hope you and he are right and me and the other attorneys saying otherwise are wrong.
 
Fishstyx said:
Which is certainly forthcoming. Theres is no way this won't be a civil action.
Click to expand...
Yet the point was that it is for civil actions, not criminal action taken by the state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom