Since you politely responded I’ll elaborate but in bullet point fashion as time is short.
Your post: “SYG does not apply in this case. Nobody who understands that law believes it does.”
No ifs, and or buts. Sorry but you invited a hit with that unsupported and imperious two line pronouncement.
SYG is actually an extension of pre-1995 self-defense law designed to assist a person forced to defend themselves against imminent death or serious bodily harm.
Re applicability: The law simply states that if you are lawfully in a place and face death or serious harm you may meet force with force which has always been true under common law but it changed the treatment of the defense.
The SYG law creates an IMMUNITY from arrest, prosecution or civil liability IF you establish that your actions were valid self-defense.
The immunity from arrest can be overcome by police determining probable cause that your right to self defense
was inapplicable because of other unlawful activity.
The SYG hearing for dismissal of charges was actually a creation of the courts simply trying to meet the immunity from prosecution provision of the law. If I’m immune from arrest or prosecution why are you taking me to trial?
Rarely is legislation the product of a single author and even the author often cannot foresee the application of his law in practice.
Perhaps of interest, the original bill provided that a court finding of valid self defense would allow for the defendant to recover attorney’s fees and costs from the charging authority (cops/state attorney) but that part got edited out.
Where you say the bill author thought the SYG inapplicable its unclear to what extent he was relying on the media distortions or even to what extent the media distorted/edited/misreported his statements. Not out of the realm of possibilities. ;-)
Judges, not all but many, regularly make their decisions based on the law, the arguments, the evidence and would be offended to be accused of caving to public opinion.
In the GZ case, with the incredible media and interest group pressure, the intent and correct application of the law may in fact become a victim.
I don’t know what happened in this case. I’ve read quite a bit and have an idea that GZ should be found to have acted in self defense.
Lastly, rarely mentioned, is that in an SYG hearing the judge is both the trier of fact and law.
Prior to SYG, if any question of fact was present (which would invariably be the case) the motion to dismiss would be denied and it was off to trial for the defendant.
Hope this helps. ;-)
Courts would inevitably be asked to apply 776.032. Courts didn't create that statute. They could have created an immune from trial rule as a matter of common law, but as far as I know, they did not.
-- Prior to SYG, if any question of fact was present (which would invariably be the case) the motion to dismiss would be denied and it was off to trial for the defendant. --
Technically, prior to FL Supreme Court Dennis decision, Florida courts were mixed. Some districts applied the "if the state has any evidence at all, then no immunity" standard, others followed the logic of the Peterson case, where a judge at the immunity hearing was obliged to weigh the evidence, and give the decision to the side that won by a preponderance (more likely than not) standard.
IOW, there were FL cases where a motion for 776.032 immunity was denied on a "if any question of fact was present" basis, and the decision of the trial court was upheld on appeal.