Eric Holder denounces ‘stand your ground’ laws.

[Dixie Gunsmithing]

Frank,

I understand that one would have to prove what applies in a suit, but really, what attorney would take a case, knowing that they stood little chance of winning? You know yourself that they would have to lie to the attorney, and he would have to be blind to what happened, with it most likely being in the news.

A police report might be hearsay, but what proof do they have, as compared to the one they attacked? The homeowner can show pictures of what was broken, a medical report if they were attacked, even a vehicle torn up, and have neighbors as a witnesses, unless you live miles away from anyone. Anyone else within the house could be called as a witness. For the one attacked, it can be pretty easy to prove, if one had to. Or, like from your link, ask a "judge to invoke the civil immunity clause".

Oh, they might not be able to pay, but I would bring a counter suit as quick as they brought one, and ask for court costs plus payment for all damages, and I wouldn't be ashamed to place a lien, or garnish their wages if they were working, but of course, they would most likely be in jail, if not dead. Some of the robbers caught around here had some wealthy bank accounts.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...but really, what attorney would take a case, knowing that they stood little chance of winning?...

Beats me. But your just assuming that the attorney will conclude, after a full investigation, that he has little chance of winning. Maybe many cases will be like that, but maybe there will be a case here or there that's not so clearly a bad case for the plaintiff. And some lawyers really are excellent plaintiff lawyers and can do a lot with relatively little. And some plaintiff lawyers have an exaggerated idea idea of their own skill.

The point is that one can't categorically, blithely assume he won't get sued.

...A police report might be hearsay, but what proof do they have, as compared to the one they attacked?...

What do you think that means? What proof? You're making assumptions that may or may not be valid.

...The homeowner can show pictures of what was broken, a medical report if they were attacked, even a vehicle torn up, and have neighbors as a witnesses, unless you live miles away from anyone. Anyone else within the house could be called as a witness. For the one attacked, it can be pretty easy to prove, if one had to...

How do you know there is any such physical evidence? How do you know there are witnesses. You're allowing your imagination to run away with you.

Sometimes there is physical evidence, and sometimes there is not. Sometimes there are witnesses, and sometimes not. Sometimes the witnesses say things helpful to one side, and sometimes they say things that are helpful to the other side. What physical evidence there is, whether there are witnesses and what the witnesses say will all depend. You can not make assumptions about these things.

You don't really know any of this. You're just making more assumptions.

...Oh, they might not be able to pay, but I would bring a counter suit as quick as they brought one, and ask for court costs plus payment for all damages, and I wouldn't be ashamed to place a lien, or garnish their wages if they were working,...

But of course you can't know. Again, you can't make assumptions.

The bottom lines is that the statement:

...we are protected from suit after the incident...

is simply not a true statement. The true statement would be: The person who has successfully used force in justified self defense has a very high level of protection against frivolous civil suits and has a number of advantages if he needs to defend against such a civil suit arising from the successful self defense incident.

 

[Jimro]

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/FSAC/Menu/Crime-Trends/Violent-Crime.aspx

Florida's violent crime rate was falling before SYG, and continued to fall after SYG. According to the Tampa Bay Post, only 133 cases of SYG have come up since 2005, but their numbers are suspect because they are padding their numbers by at least the Zimmerman/Martin incident.

Since 2005, homicide has continually gone down as per 100,000 residents, even though the actual numbers of incidents per year have gone up and down during that time frame (the population is growing faster than the crime).

I am all for examining SYG laws in the light of actual "data" instead of "anecdote." Of course as states across the US opened up Concealed Carry violent crime has been on the downturn. So I see concealed carry as the bigger driver of crime reduction, and SYG as protection for concealed carry holders.

Jimro

 

[Dixie Gunsmithing]

Al,

Of course I'm making assumptions, as nothing has really happened here, but that could be the most likely scenario with the evidence, not necessarily, but it could be, as I think the homeowner would have more available true evidence than the home invader. What I am speaking about is what could happen, and the protection Ohio law gives one who has acted within the law when this happens, not that they can't be sued, as more than likely, a few would try it. Plus, to me, it would take a pretty unscrupulous attorney to bring suit for the invader, especially if they thought their client might be guilty, and to be honest, I have met a few that may do it.

Oh, I agree that somebody could set someone up, to come to their home and kill them, then claim a home invasion, but in what I am speaking of, is a hypothetically innocent person, one who was acting within the law, and nothing or nobody else. They are protected by Ohio law, from a suit for damages, even if a suit is filed, if any of this came about, and yes, the homeowner may have to prove their case. Plus, they are entitled to bring their own suit, and collect all the damages, court costs, and attorney fees the invaders action caused, as they have no similar protection.

The Wikipedia article on castle doctrine, probably sums it up better than I can, as you point out, I am no lawyer, I just understand what I've read.

Quote;

"In addition to providing a valid defense in criminal law, many laws implementing the Castle Doctrine, particularly those with a "Stand-Your-Ground clause," also have a clause which provides immunity from any civil lawsuits filed on behalf of the assailant (for damages/injuries resulting from the force used to stop them). Without this clause, an assailant could sue for medical bills, property damage, disability, and pain & suffering as a result of the injuries inflicted by the defender; or, if the force results in the assailant's death, his/her next-of-kin or estate could launch a wrongful death suit. Even if successfully rebutted, the defendant (the homeowner/defender) may still have to pay high legal costs leading up to the suit's dismissal. Without criminal/civil immunity, such civil action could be used as revenge against a lawfully-acting defender (who was, originally, the assailant's victim).

"Use of force in self-defense which causes damage or injuries to other, non-criminally-acting parties, may not be shielded from criminal or civil prosecution, however."

End quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

 

[wayneinFL]

Okay, let me try to clarify my question about stand your ground without mentioning the Z-word. I live in Florida, I am most familiar with FL law, and it's the first state that will get changed, so that's why I am using that state. This push for changes in SYG will affect me before it affects any of the rest if you.

I understand that in FL, the threshold is reasonable doubt, rather than a preponderance of evidence, even when self defense is used as an affirmative defense, and a SYG hearing is waived. Has this threshold changed as a part of SYG, this being the subject of a change in FL? Or has reasonable doubt always been the standard in FL?

 

[Frank Ettin]

... The Wikipedia article on castle doctrine, probably sums it up better than I can, as you point out, I am no lawyer, I just understand what I've read.....

Yes, you're not a lawyer. Nor is Wikipedia necessarily an authoritative legal text.

On the other hand, the thread here on Civil Liability, Civil Immunity, and the Use of Force to which I originally linked in post 40 was written by someone with a known legal background and with the assistance and review of three lawyers familiar with the subject.

So the nature and scope of the protection afforded by civil immunity laws is as described in that thread and by me in my several posts here.

 

[Evan Thomas]

I understand that in FL, the threshold is reasonable doubt, rather than a preponderance of evidence, even when self defense is used as an affirmative defense, and a SYG hearing is waived. Has this threshold changed as a part of SYG, this being the subject of a change in FL? Or has reasonable doubt always been the standard in FL?

I don't know about "always," which is a pretty long time, but the current standard in Florida was in place before the "Stand Your Ground" law was enacted in 2005. In a case that predated the SYG law (I can't find the exact date, but the original trial took place before 2005), the 4th District Court ruled (Murray v. State, 2006) that a defendant only needed to offer some evidence supporting a claim of self-defense; once that was done, the burden was on the state to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.

In most jurisdictions, the burden is on the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he/she acted in self-defense. This is a much lower standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt," but it still places the burden of proof on the defendant. In Florida, the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's claim is false.