FL Stand Your Ground Law will not protect you from a Civil Suit

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by Sactown4

If you try to move your stuff after a lawsuit is filed, you could be hit with fraudulent conveyance.
If you move your stuff just before you kill someone, it could be argued as premeditation.

So your solution to all the ******* who think they might need to shoot an innocent person is to make sure they never directly own anything of value? I think most of these people are unlikely to be very successful anyway, so it won't be an issue.
But it'll be funny when they give things to family, and then they have to stand their ground against said family members when they refuse to give back their money/property.

You don't have to move anything. You should already be doing this with your house and other property and assets unless you don't mind the Govt getting a cut when you die. My guns go to my kids in a trust. If they want them sooner than later fine. I have plenty to go around.

If you have assets solely in your name and you become gravely ill the State will gobble it up if you need care.

[Floorist]

We have a state law in Missouri that doesn't allow civil suits in stand your ground cases. Guess we are lucky.

[Eumaois]

I thought SYG laws were made to not allow mother-in-laws to act as the head of the house as that should be left to her son-in-law or daughter-in-law.

[westcoastforme]

Originally Posted by ny_refugee87

not true, someone was shot in fort pierce and the family was awarded 4 dollars.

:d

[Corvette Ministries]

Originally Posted by NY_refugee87

Not true, someone was shot in Fort Pierce and the family was awarded 4 dollars.

Originally Posted by MPowering1

Wonder what they did with their windfall after their attorneys took their third.

It was actually four cents, but ... who's counting.

[T-310]

Originally Posted by TEPLimey

So you applied the facts to the relevant law and reached an outcome. Well done. That is different from concluding, for example, that you prefer to travel by rail and thus Piper Aircraft was negligent in failing to install a safety restraint like shoulder harnesses, which is the functional equivalent to what the poster to whom I responded was saying.

I own one of Pipers products, a PA-31t. And have upgraded several times since it was first built in 1982.

Juries in civil matters are not cut and dried as some are willing to imply.

[PullMyFinger]

Will Soros funded activist lawyers be able to work for free for the criminal’s families? That is a problem if that’s the case. If there is a civil claim it should be decided by a state paid arbitrator.