Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Exonerated stand-your-ground defendant faces lawsuit in Hillsborough County(FL)
tampabay.com ^ | 9 February, 2010 | Dan Sullivan

Posted on 02/09/2010 3:54:43 AM PST by marktwain

TAMPA — The mother of a man whose death was ruled justified under Florida's "stand your ground" law filed a wrongful death lawsuit Friday against the man who shot her son.

A civil complaint in Hillsborough Circuit Court says that Charles Podany, 49, acted "with reckless disregard" when he shot 24-year-old Casey Landes on Feb. 29, 2008, in a neighborhood dispute.

Landes' mother, Ruby Landes, seeks damages in excess of $15,000 from Podany as well as the condo association of Bay Hills Village in Thonotosassa, where the incident took place, and its managing authority, the Vanguard Management Group Inc.

A judge tossed out a manslaughter charge against Podany in September, siding with his attorneys, who argued that Podany fired in self-defense and therefore was immune from prosecution under the law.

(Excerpt) Read more at tampabay.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: banglist; defense; fl; suit; tampa
We need tort reform. Loser pays would be a good start.
1 posted on 02/09/2010 3:54:43 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“Loser pays” would also have the beneficial result of putting a lot of lawyers out of work. I remember reading about some country that made “Loser pays” the law and within 1 year major law firms were letting about 1/3 of their lawyers go, as in fired. Now, there’s something I’d like to see.


2 posted on 02/09/2010 4:06:02 AM PST by rgboomers (This space purposely left blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rgboomers

Yup, however with the various legislatures controlled by the solicitors (I prefer that name), what are the chances anything like this would pass here?


3 posted on 02/09/2010 4:12:10 AM PST by Mouton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mouton

“...controlled by the solicitors (I prefer that name)”
You are giving prostitutes a bad name.


4 posted on 02/09/2010 4:19:07 AM PST by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Scotsman will be Free
““...controlled by the solicitors (I prefer that name)”
You are giving prostitutes a bad name.”

Sorry for denigrating prostitutes in this fashion. I guess ambulance chasers would be a better term.

5 posted on 02/09/2010 4:25:30 AM PST by Mouton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mouton

The current crop of legislators in the USA would not pass “Loser pays”, but the tea party movement just might put some people more friendly to the idea in office. Let’s hope and pray!


6 posted on 02/09/2010 4:26:03 AM PST by rgboomers (This space purposely left blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mouton

Good man. LOL!


7 posted on 02/09/2010 4:28:15 AM PST by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

We (Florida) already have tort reform. The Stand Your Ground law includes a bar against prosecution and then a bar against tort if it involves a righteous shoot. The attacker in this case jumped out of a vehicle, knocked his victim to the ground, and continued to hit the victim. The attacker’s blood was .28 % alcohol. The victim shot the attacker during the fight.


8 posted on 02/09/2010 4:28:15 AM PST by sig226 (Bring back Jimmy Carter!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain; rgboomers

It always seems to me like many of these civil cases are effectively “double jeopardy”.

It seems to me that if you can’t get a conviction for criminal wrong doing, that you shouldn’t be able to bring a subsequent civil suit for damages at all.


9 posted on 02/09/2010 4:30:26 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
It seems to me that if you can’t get a conviction for criminal wrong doing, that you shouldn’t be able to bring a subsequent civil suit for damages at all

That would require fixing the whole lawsuit process - a good idea, but it will take about forever.

Until then, how about a required jury instruction that the defendant in the lawsuit has already been acquitted by a jury of criminal conduct?

10 posted on 02/09/2010 4:34:38 AM PST by Jim Noble (Hu's the communist?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sig226

You are correct!!!! Florida’s Castile Doctrine will stop her lawsuit in it’s tracks .... unless, some left wing wacko judge decides to contest the law .... he will lose!!


11 posted on 02/09/2010 4:49:22 AM PST by Highest Authority (DemonRats are pure EVIL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Double jeopardy is the State bringing charges again. In a civil suit the State is not bringing the charges. Civil law is not criminal law.
12 posted on 02/09/2010 5:02:55 AM PST by Mark was here (The earth is bipolar. ---- "OBAMA: THE GREAT MISTAKE OF 2008")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mark was here

BTTT


13 posted on 02/09/2010 5:08:16 AM PST by snowtigger (It ain't what you shoot, it's what you hit...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

This sounds roughly akin to a FReeper’s tagline that I saw recently: “Never pick a fight with an old man - if he’s too old to fight, he’ll just kill you.”


14 posted on 02/09/2010 6:30:55 AM PST by 2nd Bn, 11th Mar (The "P" in democrat stands for patriotism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rgboomers
“Loser pays” would also have the beneficial result of putting a lot of lawyers out of work. I remember reading about some country that made “Loser pays” the law and within 1 year major law firms were letting about 1/3 of their lawyers go, as in fired. Now, there’s something I’d like to see.

Well, it sounds good, but then what OTHER businesses are they going to go around and infect? You know they're going to end up working somewhere. OTOH, might be worth whatever damage is done just to get them out of the courtrooms.

15 posted on 02/09/2010 8:24:13 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mouton
Yup, however with the various legislatures controlled by the solicitors (I prefer that name), what are the chances anything like this would pass here?

But but but I thought solicitation was against the law. Hmmm...against the law....but making the laws....has to be a joke in there somewhere.

16 posted on 02/09/2010 8:25:42 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Scotsman will be Free
You are giving prostitutes a bad name.

Talk about giving prostitutes a bad name. I was doing some consulting work on some manufacturing equipment in a plant in Vegas that was building solar collectors, and I noticed some weird activity. I asked and was told that "The Senator" (Harry Reid) was due to make a visit that day. I spent the rest of the day hoping that they didn't bring him round to see the equipment I was working on despite its politically correct nature. I was afraid I'd say something like "I'd call you a c**k s**ker, except that would imply that you serve a purpose!" and then they'd probably shoot me or arrest me or something. I got fortunate; they didn't bring him around and I got to live another day.

17 posted on 02/09/2010 8:31:08 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
We need tort reform. Loser pays would be a good start.

Ditto that.

18 posted on 02/09/2010 8:33:35 AM PST by TChris ("Hello", the politician lied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN; Jim Noble
One problem is the difference in burden of proof. In the criminal case it's reasonable doubt, but in a civil case preponderance of evidence. So you might be guilty enough to lose a lawsuit, but not guilty enough to convict of a crime.

I like Jim Noble's idea of a jury instruction, or perhaps in a case like this with a criminal acquittal raise the civil burden of proof from preponderance to clear and convincing (lower than reasonable doubt but higher than preponderance).

19 posted on 02/09/2010 8:36:53 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Florida law prevents this lawsuit from ever taking place, so I’m not sure why a lawyer familiar with Florida laws would even try to start a case.

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.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(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).


20 posted on 02/09/2010 8:56:27 AM PST by MissouriConservative (Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods. - H. L Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissouriConservative
so will the plaintiff lawyer be liable for the damages outlined in section 3 ???

if so, what a dumbass, if not, then the defendant will be out a bunch of money and unable to collect from the scums momma...

21 posted on 02/09/2010 10:55:06 AM PST by Gilbo_3 (Gov is not reason; not eloquent; its force.Like fire,a dangerous servant & master. George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

LOL! Harry probably would have said; “So? What’s your point?”


22 posted on 02/09/2010 12:22:01 PM PST by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Criminal and civil cases have different standards of proof. Civil cases have a lower burden of proof for the plaintiff, so even though a criminal case may not reach the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, the civil case may achieve a positive finish for the “victim.”
A good example of this is the OJ Simpson criminal trial(not guilty) then the civil trial which he lost.


23 posted on 02/09/2010 12:25:20 PM PST by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

“...a plant in Vegas that was building solar collectors,.... Harry Reid...”

I thought this banglist post was going somewhere else..

( :>)


24 posted on 02/09/2010 12:25:54 PM PST by Yehuda (Land of the free, THANKS TO THE BRAVE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Scotsman will be Free
Harry probably would have said; “So? What’s your point?”

If he'd said that, I'd have been forced to grudgingly admire the guy's style!

25 posted on 02/09/2010 1:01:28 PM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Gilbo_3

Sounds like he would be able to collect. If I remember, the judge said he was immune from prosecution when he tossed the case.


26 posted on 02/09/2010 2:52:40 PM PST by MissouriConservative (Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods. - H. L Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson