America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

I know this sounds crazy, but consider the following:

86.011 Jurisdiction of trial court.--The circuit and county courts have jurisdiction within their respective jurisdictional amounts to declare rights, status, and other equitable or legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. No action or procedure is open to objection on the ground that a declaratory judgment is demanded. The court's declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect and such declaration has the force and effect of a final judgment. The court may render declaratory judgments on the existence, or nonexistence:

(1) Of any immunity, power, privilege, or right; or

(2) Of any fact upon which the existence or nonexistence of such immunity, power, privilege, or right does or may depend, whether such immunity, power, privilege, or right now exists or will arise in the future. Any person seeking a declaratory judgment may also demand additional, alternative, coercive, subsequent, or supplemental relief in the same... action.

Background: Basically, there are two types of civil actions. One, which is the most common, is for $$ damages and the other, which is VERY rare, is for declaratory action.

Declaratory action asks the court to determine the rights and/or responsibilities of the parties at the request of one or both of the parties. Actual damages need not even be incurred yet; they must be only reasonably plausible. Here, Z has an undetermined wrongful death liability for an undeterminable amount "hanging over his head".

The aggressive solution to this IMO is to "steal T's parent's thunder" by suing them!

The complaint/petition, in most basic terms would say:

I shot T. I was prosecuted and found not guilty. Florida's stand your ground statute precludes civil liability in my situation. Please agree with me and rule that Z's parents have no right to sue me or collect any damages from me.

If I were Z's lawyer, I would file the declaratory action and serve it with a motion for summary judgment (and if permissible a notice of hearing including the date and time for about 45 days out). The matter could be determined at that one hearing. Z would stipulate to all the facts and allege that there is only one possible conclusion as a matter of law. IMO, there would be no need for lengthy, prolonged discovery (depositions, interrogatories, etc.) and the matter could (should) be resolved relatively quickly. The loser could then appeal.

Otherwise, we could easily see a lawsuit that drags on for a couple years...


(Let me know when you first hear of this being discussed in the media.)

What happened to "Innocent until proven guilty?"

It's locked in the back of white bronco...

http://rare.us/story/nugent-zimmerman-should-sue-trayvons-parents/

Interesting rfenster.

Enough hoodrat pieces of garbage already wanna off him. Bad PR too.

*shrug*

Suing is the new american way

"Hoodrat pieces of garbage"- well, at least we know what you think of them.

Look, Z can't get any worse PR than he already has from those who would off him. What I am proposing is an anti-lawsuit law suit- where z does not even ask for $$ and could end the whole civil-lawsuit-threat crap real quick. Suing the new American way? Sadly, no. It's been the way for >200 years.

Robert my piece of garbage statement was directed only at those who have been threatening him

My friend, you are totally clueless. He only waived for the criminal proceeding. See:

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted... 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.
...
(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.

No offense taken.

I have an undeniable ammount of azzhole in my personality, didn't want you thinking it was excessive!

According to Zs attny he will file and win immunity based on stand your ground if the civil crap starts.

Maybe he is wrong.

*shrug*

"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."



Technically there is no "Stand Your Ground" as those words do not exist in the Florida law. In Robert's quote he actually omitted the most important parts of the law.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm
776.031 Use of force in defense of others


When chapter 776 was modified by what was coined as "Stand Your Ground" by the media, they basically made two changes to the existing law although the media makes it appear as if some massive new law was written. One change was immunity from criminal and civil prosecution if a person used permitted force. This was to prevent criminals from suing victims who defended themselves which actually did happen.

The other change was in 776.012:

"776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013."

The big change was "does not have a duty to retreat if".

Prior to this change, a victim had the duty to flee even in the face of imminent death and could only fight back once cornered. (and then could get sued if they fought back) The old law clearly favored the attacker. Now it favors the defender. When the law was passed the media hype was that Florida would become the "Wild Wild West". In reality crime rates dropped.



So did Zimmerman use the "Stand Your Ground" defense? Kinda. He did waive his right to pre-trial immunity hearing under "Stand Your Ground". However, if Skittles was on top of him beating Z up, he had no ability to retreat and would have had the right to use lethal force even under the old law so "Stand Your Ground" wasn't even applicable. However, I do believe that "does not have a duty to retreat if" was included in the jury instructions.