FL-Wrongfully Charged CCW Holder Entitled to Attorneys Fees and Costs?

[liberty911]

I received my Florida CCW a couple days ago and was reading the information provided which accompanied the licence. It stated that if a CCW holder is acquited of charges related to the CCW, the holder is entitled to recover attorneys fees, costs, and loss of income as a result of the charges. Has anyone heard of this happening in real life? Do other states have such provisions?

I do not intend to test this out, but I am interested in the real life applicability of this statute.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Washington State provides criminal recompense, but not civil immunity.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

Part of the "stand your ground" law, or as the Brady's call it "Shoot First"...there is language prohibiting the criminal or their family from sueing you in a civil court.

Provided of course you were totally in the right.

 

[DunedinDragon]

As Tread pointed out, it is a part of the set of laws that have been incorporated into what's known now as "Stand Your Ground" legislation making it's way through the different states. Florida was the first to adopt it, but it appears to be gathering steam, particularly in the southern states. You owe the NRA a membership for having done this for you, BTW.

Here are the specific laws that cover it. It's not just for civil protection from the criminal and his family, but also from having been arrested inapporpriately and having to defend yourself in court:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC032.HTM&Title=->2005->Ch0776->Section%20032#0776.032

and

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC085.HTM&Title=->2005->Ch0776->Section%20085#0776.085

Actually, it's pretty cool that if a criminal's family tries to sue you and they lose, their criminal relative loses all his prison rights like phone calls, visitation, canteen...etc.

 

[joab]

if a CCW holder is acquited of charges related to the CCW, the holder is entitled to recover attorneys fees, costs, and loss of income as a result of the charges.

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

You don't get reimbursed for being wrongly charged, you get reimbursed for being wrongly sued, according to this.

And you can't sue the officer for arresting you if he was acting in good faith even if he was way wrong.

The law is being used for the first time as a defense in the trial of a tow truck driver that shot and killed a man in March
http://www.tbo.com/news/metro/MGBXWQELDJE.html

 

[Manedwolf]

Part of the "stand your ground" law, or as the Brady's call it "Shoot First"...there is language prohibiting the criminal or their family from sueing you in a civil court.

Why I'm really hoping that sort of thing passes here. It's the worst sort of injustice that someone can make a righteous shoot to defend their life or defend the life of another from a violent criminal...and then the money-grubbing family of that criminal can insist they they were a "good boy" and end up causing the "hero" to lose their home so they can suck up the cash.

 

[joab]

the only part of the law I don't like, if I am reading it correctly, is that it makes no provisions for innocent bystanders

Just because you are righteous in the shooting does not mean that your aim was true.

I have to believe that those circumstances are covered under other statutes

 

[sumpnz]

As Tread pointed out, it is a part of the set of laws that have been incorporated into what's known now as "Stand Your Ground" legislation making it's way through the different states. Florida was the first to adopt it, but it appears to be gathering steam, particularly in the southern states.

Emphasis mine. That statement is incorrect. So called stand-your-ground laws have been in effect in quite a few states before FL (e.g. AZ at least). FL was just the most recent (welcome) addition to that family.

For that matter, FL wasn't even the first "shall-issue" state, even though they are credited with being the start of the turn towards shall issue. I know WA was shall issue long before FL switched in 1987 (IIRC). In fact, I believe there were a dozen or so shall issue states prior to 1987.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

You're right. Florida hasn't been the first on anything really. What Florida is, is the first diverse (battle ground) state to pass so many highly-pro-gun bills. Florida is 50/50. We are being flooded by northern Yankee gun-hating leftists every year. So, for a state whose population is very split down the middle, if it passes in Florida, it should be good to go for most of the nation (except for nazi-land like Illinois). A state like Arizona isn't a very good example of a "test" state for such laws, as the population there is more gun-friendly than in Florida.

As for innocent bystanders. Florida law states that if I use my firearm in a 100% justifiable manner and an innocent gets hurt, that falls on the perpetrator of a crime.

Example: I'm in a 7-11. Some thug pulls out a gun and shoots at the cashier. I pull out my pistol and fire 2 shots. 1 hits the dirtbag and the other hits the glass, goes into the parking lot and hits a bystander. The dirtbag who robbed the 7-11 will be charged with the shooting of the person in the parking lot. It was his actions that brought about all the injuries or deaths that might result...


This assumes of course, that my actions were fully justified, and that I did not exceed the legal limits of justifiable self-defense.