“If the shooting is ruled a justifiable use of deadly force in self defense, then Martin’s family is barred from bringing a civil suit.”
Now I’m really curious? Do the statutes in Florida barr a civil lawsuit if/when the prosecution declines to bring something to trial? Failure to prosecute is not, in my understanding, a “ruling” of justifiable homocide. It is merely a determination by a DA that it would not be easy to get a conviction and they therefore decline to prosecute. There have been cases in other states where it was a clear cut case of “justifiable homocide” but an over zealous DA prosecuted anyway. In Mr. Zimmerna’s case no judge or jury has “ruled” anything.
However, I’m not familiar with the Florida statutes or much of the law for that matter.
I do know that in my home state of OK, at one time, a “self-defense” permit was only for that purpose. Someone on a “neighborhood watch” that carried would be in deep trouble if they got into an altercation with a person they followed and then shoot even in clear cut self defense. For one, neighborhood watchers were clearly told by police they could not “carry” while doing that - even IF they had a “self-defense” permint. Basically, you had to have the cover of being a licensed and legally employed “Security Guard” to even remotely get away with use of deadly force....even then they expected a licensed and armed guard on duty to retreat and call for law enforcement unless it was not possible. Even then you were subject to prosecution.
(1) It shall be a defense to any (suit against Zimmerman) for damages for...wrongful death...that such (suit against Zimmerman) arose from (death) sustained by (Martin) during the commission or attempted commission of a forcible felony (by Martin). The defense authorized by this section shall be established by evidence that the participant has been convicted of such forcible felony or attempted forcible felony, or by proof of the commission of such crime or attempted crime by a preponderance of the evidence.
I inserted names and deleted non-relevant sections to make for easier reading.
Yes.
Oklahoma may have a duty to retreat, but even if FL had one, the fact pattern here, as told by Zimmerman, precludes retreat. The question then becomes whether or not the use of deadly force is justified for a person in his predicament.
F.S. 776.032 - JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
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 ...
Zimmerman's defense lies in 776.012. You can backtrack from the link above, to the various statutory provisions.
That's my reading of the statute.