FL - Sara Morales, 35, shot dead by motorcyclist she hit with car, Orange City, 20 Nov 2021

[GatorFL]

I unfortunately have to agree that the evidence we're currently seeing suggests Sara being in the wrong when she was shot. The tone of her final words as we've heard them on her 911 recording do not sound threatening but that's subjective. Intent should matter but it is difficult to objectively prove especially when defendants are knowledgeable about the law.

I do believe a crime was committed in pursuing her to her home. Even if it was just a misdemeanor I would like to see it charged and a guilty verdict rendered and then for Sara's family to pursue civil action. To prove a civil liability is much easier once any kind of criminal charge is on the books.

As I've said along, for this to just be allowed to do with no consequences would be an outright dangerous precedent.

I looked at a couple of the statutes wondering what he might be charged with. IANAL but I think any charges could be a stretch.

 

[evilwise]

I looked at a couple of the statutes wondering what he might be charged with. IANAL but I think any charges could be a stretch.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
I believe that they were committing misdemeanor stalking, but the key question where that is concerned is if following her had any legitimate purpose, which can then lead to debate about whether she "assaulted" him
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
I believe it is a long stretch to suggest that what she did was assault although the bikers do seem intent on trying "she was trying to swerve into him" which is something that is legally problematic with stand your ground, which says that you do not have a duty to retreat (or apparently back away from a car that is trying to serve into you) but even if she did assault him there is a question if that gives him a right not just to defend himself but to pursue her and attempt to make a citizens arrest which there is no specific Florida law providing for but is Gevalia considered established by precedent in Fla. 3d DCA 1980 which effectively provides for citizens arrest when

• A purpose or intention to effect an arrest under real or pretended authority;
• An actual or constructive seizure or detention of the person to be arrested by a person having present power to control the person arrested;
• A communication by the arresting officer to the person whose arrest is sought, of an intention or purpose then and there to effect an arrest; and
• An understanding by the person whose arrest is sought that it is the intention of the arresting officer then and there to arrest and detain him.

I cannot personally imagine that Derr was legally attempting to make a citizen's arrest. The entire thing is very legally complicated but for society's sake it better get worked out right.

 

[katydid23]

How can anyone say what she "purposely" did when she's dead? How would anyone know if she did anything on purpose or not? Witnesses are already on the record as saying that Derr was speeding and that after she changed lanes, he drove up beside her yelling at her.



I think that depends largely on the civil jury. If I were on that jury, my opinion would be that this should not have resulted in her death and that she had every right to go outside with her gun to order them to leave. She was still on her own property. MOO.

I think it is pretty safe to say that if she did suddenly steer her car INTO the motorcyclist, it would have to be purposeful on her part. I mean, if she wasn't drunk or impaired, how does that happen? Her car moves in the direction she steers it, correct?

It doesn't matter if he was alongside her, yelling at her, or not. How does that justify her steering a deadly weapon into his motorcycle?

Yelling at someone is not the same thing as hitting them with your vehicle. That could have knocked him off the bike, which could result in a very serious accident, to himself or others.

Your 'opinion' may be that she had every right to go outside to order him to leave. But I do not think that is a correct legal opinion. In other words, if one wants the jury to decide who was most responsible for the victim's death, the jury is going to look at the victim's decisions and actions as well.

The victim made some very poor decisions which contributed to her tragic death.

 

[Kathy023]

But he was legally authorized to use that aggression under the Stand Your Ground law. He had an immediate fear for his life and he neutralized the threat.

"... he neutralized the threat."
I'm sorry, that was quite an uncompassionate way to put it, imo.
And, btw, he 'neutralized' it by firing 8 shots.

 

[katydid23]

I do not believe it would be assault. Motorcyclists have this tendency to want all the rights of both a motorist and a pedestrian at the same time but I'm relatively sure that hitting another person's vehicle with your vehicle, intentional or otherwise, is not considered assault and is not grounds for pursuit or use of deadly force.

I think that motorcyclists like this guy would love it if anytime someone bumped one of them they could gun them down right there on the highway but it is very, very important for the system to not establish any precedent that might enable that sort of interpretation of the law and categorizing something like this as assault with a deadly weapon would do just that. It's the sort of interpretation of the law that actual kicked off the whole "police are murderers" thing but at least those cops were on foot and acting as agents I the law. Armed bikers making citizen's arrests for fender benders is not what we want.

"but I'm relatively sure that hitting another person's vehicle with your vehicle, intentional or otherwise, is not considered assault and is not grounds for pursuit or use of deadly force."

Driver allegedly rammed into motorcyclist in road rage attack

A crazed driver deliberately slammed his SUV into a motorcyclist Wednesday morning during a wild road rage incident in Manhattan, police said.

The Jeep driver, identified as Oscar Bejar, was taken into custody at the scene and charged assault in the second-degree, criminal mischief, menacing, reckless endangerment and reckless driving, cops said.

The Jeep driver was taken into custody at the scene and charges were pending, police said.

Moments before the collision, both drivers “were stopped at the light, yelling at each other, arguing,” a security guard for the building that houses the BMW dealership told The Post.



So, although this case ended up with the motorcycle being demolished, it is still a case where a driver rammed into a motorcyclist after a road rage incident.

And the police did charge him with 'assault in the 2nd degree.'

 

[GatorFL]

"... he neutralized the threat."
I'm sorry, that was quite an uncompassionate way to put it, imo.
And, btw, he 'neutralized' it by firing 8 shots.

From my experience this is exactly what you are taught in a concealed weapons class. Neutralize a threat to your life by firing as many rounds as it takes to stop the aggressor.

 

[evilwise]

Driver allegedly rammed into motorcyclist in road rage attack

A crazed driver deliberately slammed his SUV into a motorcyclist Wednesday morning during a wild road rage incident in Manhattan, police said.

The Jeep driver, identified as Oscar Bejar, was taken into custody at the scene and charged assault in the second-degree, criminal mischief, menacing, reckless endangerment and reckless driving, cops said.

The Jeep driver was taken into custody at the scene and charges were pending, police said.

Moments before the collision, both drivers “were stopped at the light, yelling at each other, arguing,” a security guard for the building that houses the BMW dealership told The Post.



So, although this case ended up with the motorcycle being demolished, it is still a case where a driver rammed into a motorcyclist after a road rage incident.

And the police did charge him with 'assault in the 2nd degree.'

There was an injury in that case, presumably.

 

[GatorFL]

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
I believe that they were committing misdemeanor stalking, but the key question where that is concerned is if following her had any legitimate purpose, which can then lead to debate about whether she "assaulted" him
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
I believe it is a long stretch to suggest that what she did was assault although the bikers do seem intent on trying "she was trying to swerve into him" which is something that is legally problematic with stand your ground, which says that you do not have a duty to retreat (or apparently back away from a car that is trying to serve into you) but even if she did assault him there is a question if that gives him a right not just to defend himself but to pursue her and attempt to make a citizens arrest which there is no specific Florida law providing for but is Gevalia considered established by precedent in Fla. 3d DCA 1980 which effectively provides for citizens arrest when

• A purpose or intention to effect an arrest under real or pretended authority;
• An actual or constructive seizure or detention of the person to be arrested by a person having present power to control the person arrested;
• A communication by the arresting officer to the person whose arrest is sought, of an intention or purpose then and there to effect an arrest; and
• An understanding by the person whose arrest is sought that it is the intention of the arresting officer then and there to arrest and detain him.

I cannot personally imagine that Derr was legally attempting to make a citizen's arrest. The entire thing is very legally complicated but for society's sake it better get worked out right.

I don't think the bikers committed stalking. And regardless, misdemeanor stalking is most definitely NOT an imminent threat to body or life. It also does not meet the justifiable force statute of preventing or stopping a forcible felony. I actually thought the statute on mob intimidation was a better fit, but still a misdemeanor.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Again, I was told by a lawyer the bikers did have the right to pursue to ID her to the authorities and to make a citizen's arrest.

 

[katydid23]

There was an injury in that case, presumably.

But that doesn't matter. There was evidence that Sara's vehicle did make contact with Derr's cycle. So that is attempted vehicular assault, at the least.

Her moving vehicle made contact with his moving motorcycle. What would have happened if it destabilised him? Have you seen what can happen when a cyclist skids sideways on the pavement?

 

[evilwise]

But that doesn't matter. There was evidence that Sara's vehicle did make contact with Derr's cycle. So that is attempted vehicular assault, at the least.

Her moving vehicle made contact with his moving motorcycle. What would have happened if it destabilised him? Have you seen what can happen when a cyclist skids sideways on the pavement?

I'm not going to post the fairly vague Florida definition of assault but I believe that it must matter. Because if it is established that minor vehicle accidents are assault with a deadly weapon that would legalize gunfire on the road on otherwise unarmed motorists in self defense and as I said before that is the kind of thing police were catching serious backlash over just a few years ago - so there would at least be a public expectation of body cam evidence to support such claims, as we have come to expect from police.

I don't think the bikers committed stalking. And regardless, misdemeanor stalking is most definitely NOT an imminent threat to body or life. It also does not meet the justifiable force statute of preventing or stopping a forcible felony. I actually thought the statute on mob intimidation was a better fit, but still a misdemeanor.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Again, I was told by a lawyer the bikers did have the right to pursue to ID her to the authorities and to make a citizen's arrest.

A misdemeanor would be fine and would open the door for real consequences in civil court. However if it were established that they were stalking when they shot her, they might no longer meet the legal requirements for Stand Your Ground because that requires you to be somewhere you "have a legal right to be" which might not include the street outside of your stalking target's house.

Like I said, it's legally complicated especially in a state like Florida. I don't actually know but if they don't establish a precedent soon they're going to start getting copycats. Then they're going to get people like we've already seen in this thread afraid enough to actually start shooting bikers. Then chaos.

 

[katydid23]

I'm not going to post the fairly vague Florida definition of assault but I believe that it must matter. Because if it is established that minor vehicle accidents are assault with a deadly weapon that would legalize gunfire on the road on otherwise unarmed motorists in self defense and as I said before that is the kind of thing police were catching serious backlash over just a few years ago - so there would at least be a public expectation of body cam evidence to support such claims, as we have come to expect from police.


A misdemeanor would be fine and would open the door for real consequences in civil court. However if it were established that they were stalking when they shot her, they might no longer meet the legal requirements for Stand Your Ground because that requires you to be somewhere you "have a legal right to be" which might not include the street outside of your stalking target's house.

Like I said, it's legally complicated especially in a state like Florida. I don't actually know but if they don't establish a precedent soon they're going to start getting copycats. Then they're going to get people like we've already seen in this thread afraid enough to actually start shooting bikers. Then chaos.

Purposely veering your car into a motorcyclist on the road, is NOT a minor vehicle accident. It is considered road rage and is attempted assault. There is a BIG DIFFERENCE between a car ramming into another car, and a car ramming into a defenceless motorcyclist.

 

[evilwise]

Purposely veering your car into a motorcyclist on the road, is NOT a minor vehicle accident. It is considered road rage and is attempted assault. There is a BIG DIFFERENCE between a car ramming into another car, and a car ramming into a defenceless motorcyclist.

Seems like he defended himself just dandy

 

[katydid23]

Seems like he defended himself just dandy

true, but under different circumstances. I do think his final actions that day were coloured by his initials feelings about her trying to run into him on the highway.

So when she came out of her house, waving the gun, coming right up to them, yelling, he probably had that vision, of her veering into him on the highway, seared into his memory.

 

[GatorFL]

A misdemeanor would be fine and would open the door for real consequences in civil court. However if it were established that they were stalking when they shot her, they might no longer meet the legal requirements for Stand Your Ground because that requires you to be somewhere you "have a legal right to be" which might not include the street outside of your stalking target's house.

Like I said, it's legally complicated especially in a state like Florida. I don't actually know but if they don't establish a precedent soon they're going to start getting copycats. Then they're going to get people like we've already seen in this thread afraid enough to actually start shooting bikers. Then chaos.

How would charging the bikers with a misdemeanor open up real consequences in civil court? I don't agree. Unless they have substantial assets or umbrella insurance policies, I don't think the bikers are nice big juicy targets for lawyers who would likely be paid on contingency of recovery. I also think you're reaching a bit on the stalking thing. As I read the statute, and IANAL so I don't know the exact mechanisms, but as I read it they would have had to have been convicted of stalking beforehand, to be prohibited from contacting the victim. That MAY also include a judicial order to stay certain number of feet away from the stalking victim. You're sort of blending it all together to see what sticks and that is not the way the law works. In other words, they had every right to be on a public street.

I don't think the law in Florida is complicated. I'm also happy with the precedent that has been set in this case. Basically, the authorities have said:

1. If you're in an accident, pull over.
2. If you're in an accident and fear for your safety, call 911 and either go someplace safe and wait for the authorities to arrive.
3. If you're safely at home, don't become the aggressor to people on the street.

I'll remind you, there are a lot of bikers in Volusia county. They host Bike Week and Biketoberfest in Daytona, two major tourism events. Most people who have lived in the area even for a year know how to navigate the bikers.

Again, all my opinion.

Still would love to hear the 911 calls to see what was said to Sara, especially once she was inside her home.

 

[evilwise]

true, but under different circumstances. I do think his final actions that day were coloured by his initials feelings about her trying to run into him on the highway.

So when she came out of her house, waving the gun, coming right up to them, yelling, he probably had that vision, of her veering into him on the highway, seared into his memory.

But it wouldn't have mattered if he wasn't there in the first place, which is what a civil suit would argue. We're kind of jumping around a lot here though.

I understand that a lot of people have strong feelings one way or the other on this but rational thought has to win out in the end. If three bikers testifying that someone swerved their car at them were sufficient grounds for legally killing that person I hope we can all agree that would be a scary world to drive in.

 

[GatorFL]

But it wouldn't have mattered if he wasn't there in the first place, which is what a civil suit would argue. We're kind of jumping around a lot here though.

I understand that a lot of people have strong feelings one way or the other on this but rational thought has to win out in the end. If three bikers testifying that someone swerved their car at them were sufficient grounds for legally killing that person I hope we can all agree that would be a scary world to drive in.

But you're making a big leap with that statement. Nobody has said Sara died because she swerved at a biker. What happened was that she charged out of her house with a gun and one of the people she ran toward feared for his life and neutralized the threat she posed him. JMO

 

[evilwise]

I don't think the bikers committed stalking. And regardless, misdemeanor stalking is most definitely NOT an imminent threat to body or life. It also does not meet the justifiable force statute of preventing or stopping a forcible felony. I actually thought the statute on mob intimidation was a better fit, but still a misdemeanor.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Again, I was told by a lawyer the bikers did have the right to pursue to ID her to the authorities and to make a citizen's arrest.

What lawyer? I would be interested to read an official opinion made by a Florida attorney

But you're making a big leap with that statement. Nobody has said Sara died because she swerved at a biker. What happened was that she charged out of her house with a gun and one of the people she ran toward feared for his life and neutralized the threat she posed him. JMO

If a person is a victim of assault with a deadly weapon and they feel a fear for their life they have a right to shoot their assailant dead in Florida and many other states.

 

[katydid23]

But it wouldn't have mattered if he wasn't there in the first place, which is what a civil suit would argue. We're kind of jumping around a lot here though.

I understand that a lot of people have strong feelings one way or the other on this but rational thought has to win out in the end. If three bikers testifying that someone swerved their car at them were sufficient grounds for legally killing that person I hope we can all agree that would be a scary world to drive in.

No one is saying that someone swerving their car at you is grounds for legally killing them. I am certainly not saying that either.

Someone swerving their car at you, while you are riding on the highway, is a serious infraction. I can understand why someone would want to make sure that the police would come to confront the situation. That seemed to be a serious road rage infraction, on her part, imo.

Now, we have a situation where the cyclist and 2 witnesses are allegedly on a public roadway, in front of her home, and the cyclist is speaking to the 911 dispatcher, about the incident.

At this point, there is NO REASON for the cyclist to pull his weapon. Everything is under control, as they await the officer's arrival.

However, once the woman, who they had followed home, suddenly comes outside, yelling at them and waving her gun around, and approaching them threateningly,[ according to Derr]---that <<< is when the question arises----does he have the grounds to shoot in self defense?

I do not know the answer to that question. I would not have fired at her, as quickly as he did. But then again, she had tried to run into him with her vehicle a few hours earlier, so that may have affected his decision. ?

 

[GatorFL]

What lawyer? I would be interested to read an official opinion made by a Florida attorney


If a person is a victim of assault with a deadly weapon and they feel a fear for their life they have a right to shoot their assailant dead in Florida and many other states.

I had a private email conversation with a lawyer well versed in this type of law. I can share that with a moderator privately, but I am not going to share it publicly.

The law says you can use justifiable force if you are in imminent danger. The bikers were no longer in imminent danger from Sara's Kia when they were in the street. They were not in danger until Sara came out of her house brandishing a gun. Had she chosen to stay inside, I think none of us would have ever heard about this case.
JMO

 

[GatorFL]

No one is saying that someone swerving their car at you is grounds for legally killing them. I am certainly not saying that either.

Someone swerving their car at you, while you are riding on the highway, is a serious infraction. I can understand why someone would want to make sure that the police would come to confront the situation. That seemed to be a serious road rage infraction, on her part, imo.

Now, we have a situation where the cyclist and 2 witnesses are allegedly on a public roadway, in front of her home, and the cyclist is speaking to the 911 dispatcher, about the incident.

At this point, there is NO REASON for the cyclist to pull his weapon. Everything is under control, as they await the officer's arrival.

However, once the woman, who they had followed home, suddenly comes outside, yelling at them and waving her gun around, and approaching them threateningly,[ according to Derr]---that <<< is when the question arises----does he have the grounds to shoot in self defense?

I do not know the answer to that question. I would not have fired at her, as quickly as he did. But then again, she had tried to run into him with her vehicle a few hours earlier, so that may have affected his decision. ?

Spot on, except I would note this. Her mother pointed to the edge of the yard and said she died there. It looked like she was about 75' from the front door, at that spot, to my untrained eye. She wasn't far away from him, she was nearby. Had he waited much longer, she might have shot him. JMO

If that had happened, I wonder how we would be talking about the case? Driver hits biker, biker follows her home, driver goes inside, gets a gun and shoots the biker. Hm.