That is not exactly the message that O'Mara has been giving.
He has been saying all along that he is defending his client under the umbrella of traditional self defense -- not the "Justifiable Use of Force" Law.
But under traditional self defense there is no provision for an immunity hearing for immunity from civil suits.
Is he playing some sort of game here???
I don't read into that (assuming this is exactly what he's said), an intention to skip the remedy available under 776.032, the statutory immunity law.