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

[Catmommy]

Simply put, at that time, if she hadn't left the protection of her house with a gun in her hand she couldn't have been shot dead in her yard. I see this as a series of bad choices by all involved with subsequent tragic results. This, in my opinion, should be the ultimate lesson here.

 

[GatorFL]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed, as was the response to the removed quoted post>

As an aside, I've ordered Sara's autopsy report, I'll post it here when I receive it. I'd like your opinion, as a medical professional, on how swiftly her death occurred after she was shot.

 

[Razz]

Wait just a doggone minute....am I imagining this or did D and co. try to stop
SM at N. Wisconsin and 17-92??!!

That is harassment at the max! WTHeck?!

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

<modsnip - quoted post and the response to it were removed>

As an aside, I've ordered Sara's autopsy report, I'll post it here when I receive it. I'd like your opinion, as a medical professional, on how swiftly her death occurred after she was shot.

I'm not a forensic pathologist. Neither I, nor any other doctor who has not been trained in autopsies, can tell you how quickly she died in most cases. I would be curious to see the report for other reasons, however.

 

[evilwise]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>

In the video where we see the scene, her mother describes her death as "she'd lost too much blood" which leads me to believe she did not die instantly. It also leads me to believe her mother went to her after she'd been shot and considering her mother had also been reported to have been carrying an unloaded gun she might be lucky to be alive - but on the flip side that fact might be taken to suggest a difference between the way she was carrying an unloaded gun and the way Sara was carrying the loaded one.

But it wouldn't have happened if those guys weren't there in the first place

And to revisit the argument that having her plate wasn't enough to legally identify her, they were riding along beside her yelling at her and at stable enough speeds they were willing to kick her car. I think we can assume that they clearly saw her face - not like it was a triple black Cadillac with 90% tint all the way around but it makes me wonder if they would have acted the same way had it been - maybe pounding some hip hop too, or a truck with two dudes and a bigass dog in the bed.

 

[Kathy023]

Wait just a doggone minute....am I imagining this or did D and co. try to stop
SM at N. Wisconsin and 17-92??!!

That is harassment at the max! WTHeck?!

My thoughts exactly.

From news site linked below: "Multiple witnesses, including Derr, followed Morales’ blue Kia to the next intersection, where they told her to stop because police were on the way..."

Pregnant Florida library worker killed after pulling gun on biker she intentionally hit with car

For all we know, AD might even have discreetly flashed his 'concealed' weapon while pulling up next to her. Thus her panic. But we'll never know.

It just bothers me so much that police seemed to wrap this up with such haste.

 

[curiouser_]

Wait just a doggone minute....am I imagining this or did D and co. try to stop
SM at N. Wisconsin and 17-92??!!

That is harassment at the max! WTHeck?!

Can you elaborate? (I'm sorry, I'm not with it, this morning.) Is the location they tried to stop her at a prominent one? Or just the fact that they tried to stop her at all?

 

[Catmommy]

Seems to me that lots of conclusions are being drawn about this story irregardless of the actual facts available at this time.

 

[GatorFL]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>
Really interesting reading in the case law and jury instructions of other justifiable force cases in FL. I thought this might be useful to pare down what is a justifiable use of force and what is not.

First, as I read the case law, I noticed that Derr is immune from civil liability based upon the statutes.

West's Florida Statutes Annotated Currentness Title XLVI. Crimes (Chapters 775-899)

"\j Chapter 776. Justifiable Use ofForce (Refs & Annos)
oo+oo+ 776. 032. Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force

(I) A person who uses force as permitted ins. 776.DI2, s. 776.Dl3, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined ins. 943. 10(14), who was acting in the performance ofhis or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

Secondly, I don't think based upon case law and jury instructions that Sara had the right to do what she did. This is from a jury instruction in a FL case:

https://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Bob-Dillinger-Handout.pdf

The use of deadly force is justifiable only if the defendant reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] while resisting:

1. another's attempt to murder [him] [her], or
2. any attempt to commit (applicable felony) upon (him] [her], or
3. any attempt to commit (applicable felony) upon or in any dwelling, residence, or vehicle occupied by [him] [her].

Why? Because the bikers were not trying to murder her and they had not and were not trying to commit a felony upon her. So, on that view, she had no legal standing to attack them. Furthermore I don't think she meets the sentiment below, where it says the person must believe that the danger could be avoided only through the use of force:

"In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real."

Now, I see your argument that imminent danger is in the eye of the beholder, but that is at the same time a pretty high bar in terms of the law. It is an easy argument to make that Sara had some options to avoid great bodily harm or death. She could have stayed inside. They were not physically violent with her, they were not attacking her, and perhaps most importantly, they were not even trying to breach her dwelling. Her options to use deadly force were zero, based upon further research, IMO.

 

[Razz]

Can you elaborate? (I'm sorry, I'm not with it, this morning.) Is the location they tried to stop her at a prominent one? Or just the fact that they tried to stop her at all?

Yes, Derr and the others tried to stop her at Wiscosin and 17-92. She was able to make a left hand turn.

"Update to the original... - Orange City Police Department | Facebook" Log into Facebook | Facebook

 

[GatorFL]

Wait just a doggone minute....am I imagining this or did D and co. try to stop
SM at N. Wisconsin and 17-92??!!

That is harassment at the max! WTHeck?!

How so? It's not a major intersection.

 

[darring21]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>
Really interesting reading in the case law and jury instructions of other justifiable force cases in FL. I thought this might be useful to pare down what is a justifiable use of force and what is not.

First, as I read the case law, I noticed that Derr is immune from civil liability based upon the statutes.

West's Florida Statutes Annotated Currentness Title XLVI. Crimes (Chapters 775-899)

"\j Chapter 776. Justifiable Use ofForce (Refs & Annos)
oo+oo+ 776. 032. Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force

(I) A person who uses force as permitted ins. 776.DI2, s. 776.Dl3, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined ins. 943. 10(14), who was acting in the performance ofhis or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

Secondly, I don't think based upon case law and jury instructions that Sara had the right to do what she did. This is from a jury instruction in a FL case:

https://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Bob-Dillinger-Handout.pdf

The use of deadly force is justifiable only if the defendant reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] while resisting:

1. another's attempt to murder [him] [her], or
2. any attempt to commit (applicable felony) upon (him] [her], or
3. any attempt to commit (applicable felony) upon or in any dwelling, residence, or vehicle occupied by [him] [her].

Why? Because the bikers were not trying to murder her and they had not and were not trying to commit a felony upon her. So, on that view, she had no legal standing to attack them. Furthermore I don't think she meets the sentiment below, where it says the person must believe that the danger could be avoided only through the use of force:

"In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real."

Now, I see your argument that imminent danger is in the eye of the beholder, but that is at the same time a pretty high bar in terms of the law. It is an easy argument to make that Sara had some options to avoid great bodily harm or death. She could have stayed inside. They were not physically violent with her, they were not attacking her, and perhaps most importantly, they were not even trying to breach her dwelling. Her options to use deadly force were zero, based upon further research, IMO.

You're looking at this through the lens of a man. A woman followed home by three men may accurately believe she is in grave danger. They might be in the street now, but they might not be in 2 minutes.
Furthermore, I don't know if they were violent with her and neither do you. Did Deir try to box her in at a stop light and is that why she hit his saddlebag? Everyone is making assumptions without knowing what actually happened. Your bias determines your conclusions. I'm guilty of this, as well.

 

[GatorFL]

You're looking at this through the lens of a man. A woman followed home by three men may accurately believe she is in grave danger. They might be in the street now, but they might not be in 2 minutes.
Furthermore, I don't know if they were violent with her and neither do you. Did Deir try to box her in at a stop light and is that why she hit his saddlebag? Everyone is making assumptions without knowing what actually happened. Your bias determines your conclusions. I'm guilty of this, as well.

I agree there is a lot that we don't know. I've been saying since I joined this thread the 911 calls in their entirety would be helpful. I do think it is reasonable to assume they were not violent with her for several reasons. They would have lost the right to use justifiable force if they had been violent prior to her shooting. There were several 911 calls happening concurrently and there was no violence on their part reported by the authorities. None of them were detained for any violence towards her. And finally, Derr was not arrested for shooting her and I do believe he would have been had he started it. JMO, IANAL.

I also am looking at this through the lens of completing my concealed weapons permit in Florida and so I am familiar with the requirements to use justifiable force.

On the flip side, I am a man in a world of women. I am married and have a wife and two daughters. I have a mother in law and sister in law that live nearby me. My boss and closest coworker are women. My usual crowd is me and 3-5 women. I respect women and worry for the women in my circle when they are not around me. I cannot imagine any one of those women doing what Sara did, from getting aggressive while driving to getting really aggressive by coming out of her house with a gun and walking to the roadside where some strangers were.

 

[katydid23]

You're looking at this through the lens of a man. A woman followed home by three men may accurately believe she is in grave danger. They might be in the street now, but they might not be in 2 minutes.
Furthermore, I don't know if they were violent with her and neither do you. Did Deir try to box her in at a stop light and is that why she hit his saddlebag? Everyone is making assumptions without knowing what actually happened. Your bias determines your conclusions. I'm guilty of this, as well.

But if she was so frightened by them, why leave her locked up home and go outside? She knew the police were on their way. She had a loaded weapon.

If they had walked across her front yard and began knocking on her door, I could understand her being frightened. I would have shot them myself if they were pounding at the door, threatening to come inside. Even that would be illegal, but if there were 3 of them and they had followed her home, it might have been considered self defense.

But I cannot believe that she was severely afraid and so she went OUTSIDE to confront them. That doesn't make sense to me at all. That sounds more like anger than fear to me.

Also, those 3 men did follow her home. But they were speaking to the 911 dispatcher at the same time. If they had followed her to do harm to her, they wouldn't be sitting on the phone with dispach, imo.

 

[Razz]

How so? It's not a major intersection.

It doesn't matter. Imo she was accosted twice by Derr. And the 2nd time by the other 2 people following her.

 

[scapa]

<modsnip - quoted post and the response to it were removed>



I'm not a forensic pathologist. Neither I, nor any other doctor who has not been trained in autopsies, can tell you how quickly she died in most cases. I would be curious to see the report for other reasons, however.

Agree. Also a doc and did my set of path rotations and I would not presume to do their job, especially on the basis of an autopsy report, and even for the purposes of general forum discussion.

The results will be interesting, however. This case is absolutely tragic and bewildering to me.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

But if she was so frightened by them, why leave her locked up home and go outside? She knew the police were on their way. She had a loaded weapon.

Under SYG, she is not required to stay inside. The links have already been posted in this thread. She is also able to "threaten" harm to protect herself if she feels she is in imminent danger.

If they had walked across her front yard and began knocking on her door, I could understand her being frightened. I would have shot them myself if they were pounding at the door, threatening to come inside. Even that would be illegal

No, it would not based on the SYG statutes posted in this thread.

But I cannot believe that she was severely afraid and so she went OUTSIDE to confront them. That doesn't make sense to me at all. That sounds more like anger than fear to me.

Because she was so afraid, she brought a gun, in my opinion. She told them she was afraid. I don't see how we can second-guess the emotions she felt.

Also, I have point out that if she had lived and they were charging her for what the witnesses said - that she intentionally hit his bike - law enforcement would be saying she has to be proven guilty of that, but because she's dead, the cops somehow feel justified in saying that's what happened as fact. That's just one reason this case drives me crazy. I do not for one minute feel the cops investigated it with an open mind.

Also, those 3 men did follow her home. But they were speaking to the 911 dispatcher at the same time. If they had followed her to do harm to her, they wouldn't be sitting on the phone with dispach, imo.

But SHE didn't know that and that's an important distinction. She has no idea they're on the phone with 911. In my opinion, she thinks she's being "chased down" by 3 men who already tried to force her to stop, already kicked her car, already yelled at her. In her mind, she's about to become a road rage statistic.

MOO.

 

[GatorFL]

Under SYG, she is not required to stay inside. The links have already been posted in this thread. She is also able to "threaten" harm to protect herself if she feels she is in imminent danger.



No, it would not based on the SYG statutes posted in this thread.



Because she was so afraid, she brought a gun, in my opinion. She told them she was afraid. I don't see how we can second-guess the emotions she felt.

Also, I have point out that if she had lived and they were charging her for what the witnesses said - that she intentionally hit his bike - law enforcement would be saying she has to be proven guilty of that, but because she's dead, the cops somehow feel justified in saying that's what happened as fact. That's just one reason this case drives me crazy. I do not for one minute feel the cops investigated it with an open mind.



But SHE didn't know that and that's an important distinction. She has no idea they're on the phone with 911. In my opinion, she thinks she's being "chased down" by 3 men who already tried to force her to stop, already kicked her car, already yelled at her. In her mind, she's about to become a road rage statistic.

MOO.

Respectfully I don't think you're interpreting the statute properly. There is wide leeway given to a person in imminent danger. Someone inside her house with some people standing in the roadway is not in imminent danger.

I posted jury instructions from a similar case in FL. Here is the instruction:

"In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real."

Would a reasonably cautious and prudent person, inside her home, with cops on the way, feel so threatened that her only option was to use justifiable force? There is an easy argument to make that she had plenty of other options. She was not cautious at all with her thinking. JMO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Respectfully I don't think you're interpreting the statute properly. There is wide leeway given to a person in imminent danger. Someone inside her house with some people standing in the roadway is not in imminent danger.

But what are you basing this on? It doesn't say that in the statute so I'm not sure how you can say my opinion of the statute is wrong.

"In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real."

These instructions are exactly what I'm going by. The very crucial part here is the danger "need not have been actual..." but that someone else in those same circumstances would realistically felt the same. As a female, I am saying that I would have felt the same. Other females on this thread have said that too. On a jury, I would agree with Sara's assessment of the situation based on what we know.

Would a reasonably cautious and prudent person, inside her home, with cops on the way, feel so threatened that her only option was to use justifiable force?

Yes. 100% yes.

MOO.

 

[Catmommy]

Justifiable force is the operative phrase.
Was the force used in this circumstance justifiable?
No. 100% NO!

MOO