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

[GatorFL]

He sped down the road then inaccurately blamed her and inappropriately got aggressive with her when she changed lanes, then he chased her homes (his own words were "chased her down") with two other men she didn't know, then kicked her car. I believe that's road rage, which we know turns deadly sometimes, and now he knows where she lives and he won't leave despite her telling him to. I don't think it's a leap to believe she feared for her safety.



This is where you lose me. How do we know that? No one knows what Sara was thinking, but your statement seems to imply that you're speaking for her saying she didn't feel she was in imminent danger. Where are you getting that?



I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I'm genuinely curious. Why are you affording him the benefit of the doubt, but not her? He says he followed her home to ID her to the police. I would too if I just shot her to death. I certainly wouldn't say I "chased her down" because I was angry. But the fact that he kicked her car shows us he was angry. Sara isn't here to tell you she was afraid, but you're assuming she wasn't and you're assuming everything Derr said was accurate when his recollection of events has already been contradicted by witnesses.



But he wasn't following the guidelines (posted earlier) to make a legal citizen's arrest. And I still think believing his excuse is giving him the benefit of the doubt while not affording the same to Sara.



He did damage her property by kicking her car and the fact that he "chased her down" with two other men is aggressive enough to provoke fear in a woman. If three men chased me home, I would absolutely be in fear for my life. I don't know any woman who wouldn't.



But she wasn't legally obligated to. That's where you lose me. SYG specifically says she is allowed she has no duty to hide from him. He was the one who chased her home and vandalized her property after already yelling at her on the road.

MOO.

Where was it reported that he vandalized her property? I have not read that anywhere.

To answer all of your arguments simply as possible, the answer is, she became the aggressor the second she exited her residence and confronted the men on the street with a firearm in her hand when they were merely standing there and not threatening her life. Everything that happened before that has nothing to do with Derr being charged with murder, or not.

 

[GatorFL]

But you're stating this as fact and it isn't. You have no idea if she was in imminent danger or not. Just the fact that he yelled at her on the road, "chased her down", and kicked her car is enough to see that his behavior was escalating, imo. He didn't get that far, but if he had broken in and shot her, I think most people would have said "didn't she see all the red flags along the way?" Nothing about his behavior was normal in my opinion and anyone he did that to would have had reason to fear him.

Explain to me how someone inside a house could be in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm from some guys standing on the street.

 

[GatorFL]

I also think this part of the link posted above is important.

"If the person using deadly force intentionally provoked the other party, or if the other party has already attempted to withdraw from the confrontation, the use of force is not justified under “stand your ground.”

I would suggest that "chasing her down" and kicking her car is provocation. Sara attempted to withdraw from the confrontation. He had her plates. There was no reason to provoke her further.

There seem to be different points of provocation in this incident. But in this specific instance, a biker kicking her car does not put the driver in imminent danger for her life. Is it scary for her? Sure. Is it going to crash her off the road? Of course not.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Where was it reported that he vandalized her property? I have not read that anywhere.

I'm talking about kicking her car.

To answer all of your arguments simply as possible, the answer is, she became the aggressor the second she exited her residence and confronted the men on the street with a firearm in her hand when they were merely standing there and not threatening her life. Everything that happened before that has nothing to do with Derr being charged with murder, or not.

I believe it has everything to do with it. If three strangers were standing there, you'd be right. But these weren't just three ordinary strangers. They were men who had "chased her down" and the ringleader had already been aggressive toward her. So to suggest they were never going to harm her is not substantiated by the violence risk analysis based on facts, imo.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Explain to me how someone inside a house could be in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm from some guys standing on the street.

I mean, all kinds of ways. Just the fact that they were there would have been threatening. Her child was inside. She didn't necessarily have to wait for them to breach the door before threatening them nor did she have to hold herself hostage in her home to prevent them from potentially harming her, in my read of the law. There's also nothing in the law that you've posted or that I've seen in my own research that says that she had a duty not to threaten the use of deadly force unless they were at her door.

 

[GatorFL]

I'm talking about kicking her car.



I believe it has everything to do with it. If three strangers were standing there, you'd be right. But these weren't just three ordinary strangers. They were men who had "chased her down" and the ringleader had already been aggressive toward her. So to suggest they were never going to harm her is not substantiated by the violence risk analysis based on facts, imo.

So they were attempting to harm her from the street? Tell me how.

 

[GatorFL]

I mean, all kinds of ways. Just the fact that they were there would have been threatening. Her child was inside. She didn't necessarily have to wait for them to breach the door before threatening them nor did she have to hold herself hostage in her home to prevent them from potentially harming her, in my read of the law. There's also nothing in the law that you've posted or that I've seen in my own research that says that she had a duty not to threaten the use of deadly force unless they were at her door.

You're not describing an imminent threat. Could you be describing a harassment? I think so, but the statute does not allow her to react with justifiable force for harassment.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

There seem to be different points of provocation in this incident. But in this specific instance, a biker kicking her car does not put the driver in imminent danger for her life. Is it scary for her? Sure. Is it going to crash her off the road? Of course not.

I have to disagree based on professional knowledge as some of my work is in prisons. Verbal and physical aggression are two significant predictors of acute violence.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

You're not describing an imminent threat. Could you be describing a harassment? I think so, but the statute does not allow her to react with justifiable force for harassment.

Again, they don't have to be actively breaking in for her to threaten them. And if I'm not mistaken, the statute allows for what she perceived as imminent threat. I think if you polled random people on the street and said a man starts harassing you on the road after a road rage incident, then three men chase you home, one kicks your car, and the three just stand outside your house, would you feel you're at imminent risk of harm. IMO, about >90% would say yes.

 

[GatorFL]

I have to disagree based on professional knowledge as some of my work is in prison. Verbal and physical aggression are two significant predictors of acute violence.

But acute violence did not occur.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

But acute violence did not occur.

Well of course it did. He shot her dead. He fired something like 8 times and if that doesn't show aggression, I don't know what does. But if you mean before, no it didn't escalate to violence against her because she came out with a gun before it could. My point is about her feeling threatened. She had every reason to feel she was at imminent risk of harm, imo.

 

[GatorFL]

Again, they don't have to be actively breaking in for her to threaten them. And if I'm not mistaken, the statute allows for what she perceived as imminent threat. I think if you polled random people on the street and said a man starts harassing you on the road after a road rage incident, then three men chase you home, one kicks your car, and the three just stand outside your house, would you feel you're at imminent risk of harm. IMO, about >90% would say yes.

Would they feel threatened? Of course. I would as well. But it's not an imminent threat, it's just harassment. They were not even on her property. Like I said, she became the aggressor the moment she left her dwelling with a gun to confront a guy 75-100' from her front door. IMO, the cops saw it that way as well. Remember, they are looking not only at the statute but also how the statute has been applied previously in their decision.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Would they feel threatened? Of course. I would as well. But it's not an imminent threat, it's just harassment.

But who decides what's imminent? The law does not say he has to be pointing a gun at you before you SYG. Isn't this how the Trayvon Martin case happened? Or am I remembering that wrong?

They were not even on her property. Like I said, she became the aggressor the moment she left her dwelling with a gun to confront a guy 75-100' from her front door.

I think that's just your interpretation. There's nothing in the statute that backs that up.

IMO, the cops saw it that way as well. Remember, they are looking not only at the statute but also how the statute has been applied previously in their decision.

I don't actually think the cops dug that deep. Isn't the state attorney's office still investigating? We'll see what ends up happening, but IMO, Sara got a raw deal here

 

[GatorFL]

Well of course it did. He shot her dead. He fired something like 8 times and if that doesn't show aggression, I don't know what does. But if you mean before, no it didn't escalate to violence against her because she came out with a gun before it could. My point is about her feeling threatened. She had every reason to feel she was at imminent risk of harm, imo.

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.

 

[GatorFL]

But who decides what's imminent? The law does not say he has to be pointing a gun at you before you SYG. Isn't this how the Trayvon Martin case happened? Or am I remembering that wrong?



I think that's just your interpretation. There's nothing in the statute that backs that up.



I don't actually think the cops dug that deep. Isn't the state attorney's office still investigating? We'll see what ends up happening, but IMO, Sara got a raw deal here

Well we know for a fact there was no physical contact between Sara and any of the bikers. So it is different than the Trayvon Martin case. She had the opportunity to stay in her house and wait for the cops. She didn't. She took the law into her own hands and paid dearly for it.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

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.

I guess this depends on interpretation of the law and events leading up to it. I believe he was the aggressor by virtue of harassing her on the road and chasing her home. I go back to if the situation was reversed, she could easily plead self defense in my opinion because there is ample evidence that he was the aggressor, both on the road and by chasing her home and kicking her car. JMO.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Well we know for a fact there was no physical contact between Sara and any of the bikers. So it is different than the Trayvon Martin case. She had the opportunity to stay in her house and wait for the cops. She didn't. She took the law into her own hands and paid dearly for it.

Derr also took the law into his own hands and at least Sara was trying to de-escalate the situation by going home. Derr escalated the whole thing from start to finish based on the facts we have. Derr also had the opportunity to let the police do their job, but instead he chose to become a vigilante and ended up killing someone for it.

 

[Ozoner]

But you're stating this as fact and it isn't. You have no idea if she was in imminent danger or not. Just the fact that he yelled at her on the road, "chased her down", and kicked her car is enough to see that his behavior was escalating, imo. He didn't get that far, but if he had broken in and shot her, I think most people would have said "didn't she see all the red flags along the way?" Nothing about his behavior was normal in my opinion and anyone he did that to would have had reason to fear him.

I agree. I believe that she was in imminent danger and feared for her life. She also had a young daughter in the house whom she needed to protect; it was the actions of the road rager and his fellow thugs that compelled her to exit her house in order to try to dispel an imminent threat.

 

[GatorFL]

Derr also took the law into his own hands and at least Sara was trying to de-escalate the situation by going home. Derr escalated the whole thing from start to finish based on the facts we have. Derr also had the opportunity to let the police do their job, but instead he chose to become a vigilante and ended up killing someone for it.

Again, harassment (and I am not convinced he committed a crime by following her) does not equal an imminent threat to someone's life. So she had no right to come out of her house with a gun. There is also a reasonable argument that she was fleeing the scene of an accident. Following someone who has fled an accident is not a crime.

She had every right to arm herself inside her home and use justifiable force if and only if the bikers tried to break in. But by standing on the street, a noticeable distance from her, they did not pose an imminent threat to her life under the justifiable force law.

Why? Because by standing in the street they were not committing a forcible felony. And if you read the law, those are the thresholds required to use deadly force.

776.013 Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person who is in a dwelling or residence in which the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use:
(a) Nondeadly force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force; or
(b) Deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

 

[evilwise]

The interview posted here with Sara's mom is proof that Sara was not acting within the Justifiable Use of Force statute, IMO. I haven't read anywhere that the bikers said they were in the street, but logic says that Sara would not have died at the edge of her property if the bikers were on her property.

What I think happened: she came out from her home and confronted the bikers. She was brandishing a firearm. Derr shot her in fear of his life.

What are the authorities supposed to do? Charge him with a crime when police have said she was the aggressor and he acted in self defense? I think at some point people need to trust the police and the State Attorney's office. They've made decisions for a reason and no opinion is going to change that, only evidence will.

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.