This is what I worried about the first time I looked at out immunity protection regarding self-defense. You get the wrong cop or the wrong D.A. and even if innocent the protection the law was meant to provide is gone.
Michael
The immunity returns once (a) an officer determines there is no longer probable cause (b) when a court determines there is no loner probable cause. Probablencause is what get s a defendant in front of a trier of fact to make determinations of fact. Take zimmerman, he was arrested right after the shooting, because he admitted to shooting somebody. After four hours the police determined that at the time it appeared to be self defense, and no longer had probable cause for continued detainment. Now after an investigation probable cause has returned, arrest and prosecution followed, albeit it is very thin...
F
fredkrueger
Guest
The difference in OJ's trial what we are talking about is very different to me. In his he wasn't protected by Castle Doctrine like we are. His was a totally different thing. If I shoot someone and go to court and get found "not guilty" I would think that under part of the Castle Doctrine that I wouldn't be able to be sued. I thought that is what that was for? But I am no expert on it nor am I trying to sound like one. But I do like all the comments that are being made. They are really something to think about.
Another thing to keep in mind when talking about the OJ Simpson case, is that he did not claim self-defense; he claimed that he did not do it, period. The Castle Doctrine, unless I am mistaken, only comes into play when a claim of self-defense is made.
Similar threads
