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

[Charlot123]

Personally, I am shocked at the fact that people are willingly creating accident-laden episodes on the road while driving. Heck, we have enough involuntary mistakes due to tiredness, to be OK with intentional ones.

Both the deceased and her murderer have no criminal history, but both have history of reckless driving. Both, it seems, have created the situation that led to road rage, escalated into mayhem, and created dangerous situation for many other drivers.

So here - whether blocking the road, or hitting someone’s bike and then driving away, or chasing someone to house on a high speed, is dangerous to everyone around.

Both are guilty. Both were unsafe while driving. The witnesses, too. Three cars chasing one is not safe, I am glad there were no kids or pedestrians around at that time.

As to the end - I have read many comments about the case in the media, most point at the fact that out of three drawn out guns on the scene, one had to discharge. But neither pregnancy, nor being slightly hit, justifies intentional violation of safety rules while driving.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

The police aren't overlooking anything. They deal with facts not some over embellished web sleuther narrative.

What's over-embellished in my post? Please be specific. Tell me what I over-embellished so I can avoid doing it again.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

For some reason people are willing to give her the the benefit of the doubt and conveniently fill in a narrative that has not been officially established but won't do the same for the other three people.

The narrative HAS been officially established, but people keep ignoring it. He started the entire thing, per witnesses and then went bezerk and tried to play cop. She was on the phone with police. HE had already called police and had her license plate number. There is zero reason for him to chase her home. Zero. Did he think police couldn't track her down with a license plate? He senselessly followed her because he wanted her punished. That's a fact, by his own admission.

 

[Razz]

The narrative HAS been officially established, but people keep ignoring it. He started the entire thing, per witnesses and then went bezerk and tried to play cop. She was on the phone with police. HE had already called police and had her license plate number. There is zero reason for him to chase her home. Zero. Did he think police couldn't track her down with a license plate? He senselessly followed her because he wanted her punished. That's a fact, by his own admission.

That's because they are reading the earlier articles where Derr lies about what happened at the original scene. However, the latest article has more witness accounts. Derr 's account does not match what witnesses said what originally happened on 17-92.

 

[Kittybunny]

‘She tried to kill me,’ motorcyclist said of pregnant Volusia County librarian shot dead

"The office of the 7th Circuit State Attorney is reviewing the case and will decide if any charges will be filed."

I don't think anyone is going to change anyone's mind in this case, so I guess we will have to wait and see if more information or charges come from this review.

 

[Cryptic]

I don't think anyone is going to change anyone's mind

Usually that is the case, but.... @Charlot123 changed mind (with an "if").

Both the deceased and her murderer have no criminal history, but both have history of reckless driving.

Both, it seems, have created the situation that led to road rage, escalated into mayhem, and created dangerous situation for many other drivers. Both are guilty.

Well said.

Your post has caused me to re evaluate my feelings on the matter. I can now support criminal charges against "D" (not murder, but perhaps negligent homicide?) if it can be shown that:

- D chose to participate in mutually escalating " "F" you- no "F" you- and one up you. Now, match you and...double down" type contest with Morales.

As you pointed out, there is a public safety element. Thus, law enforcement interest in preventing these types of contests.

Modern US society is not the wild west for either D or Morales. Nor is it a stage for "Rakes" (Elizabethan term for deliberately trolling for duels out of thrills- then skillfully killing people who take the bait).

It would be good to investigate if "D" ever had social media posts or say, "bar talk" to the effect that he was Locked, loaded- and looking for a reason.

 

[Razz]

Of course Derr was locked and loaded. Why else would he carry a firearm? And as he stated when the cops put the handcuffs on him, "they (indicating the other 2 yahoos) have guns too." Now what did he mean by that? And how did he know they carried too? See the video here: Watch: Bodycam shows tense moments after library assistant was shot in road rage incident

The three of them took the law into their own hands when they chased her. Just like the 3 yahoo's in GA who are currently sitting in prison for the murder of Mr. Aubrey.

 

[Tee7077]

You mean after “The motorcycle rider became aggressive and started to ride next to the blue car and yell and point at it"?

Yeah, I did leave that out.

I feel like I've fallen into bizarro world here. The guy was clearly the aggressor from start to finish.

1. He was speeding
2. When she had the audacity to change lanes, she slowed him down and this is where the "road rage" begins and ends (the rest is a targeted hunt, not road rage). There's no indication she did this on purpose, yet he took it personally
3. He pulls up beside her (a sign of aggression) and begins yelling at her. Clearly escalating what should have been a non-event if he was following the laws of the roadway
4. She swerves at him and makes contact. This seems to be intentional and not smart
5. Mr. Aggressive decides she's not going to get away with that. He and two other supposed strangers then chase her home, repeatedly telling her to pull over (like hell would I ever pull over because 3 men chasing me ask me to, especially when at least one has already proven to be an unreasonable, impulsive, jerk)
6. She runs into the home to retrieve her gun while on the phone with 911. She waves it (I'm assuming this was as if alerting them she has it, and not the tale Derr tells)
7. He shoots her 5 times. Not once, not twice, not three times, not even four times. He shoots her 5 times. That isn't self defense. That's shoot to kill. In fact, my understanding of self defense laws is that you're only allowed to use enough force to get out of the situation. He had to shoot her 5 times to insure his safety? Right...

I'm amazed so many, including police, want to overlook 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7.

If the witness is to be believed, this was a woman who was minding her business and driving alone. Her only crime here was in swerving her car toward a man who was already aggressive with her. Who knows why she did that? Anger? Rage of her own? Triggered? Fear? We'll never know because she's dead. The punishment for swerving her car is not the death penalty. Yet Derr, already enraged, decided the smart thing to do is to follow her and when she didn't submit to his order to pull over, he and two others chased her home. Now they know where she lives.

Who in their right mind wouldn't feel threatened? I, for one, am not comfortable saying he shot her 5 times to kill her in self defense while blaming her for bringing her gun out. If we're going to say he acted in self defense, then why wouldn't we say she did too by bringing her gun out to protect herself from three men who, let's be frank, lost their minds that afternoon?

ETA: I have to say the reason road rage became so well publicized in the early 2000s is because of a rash of traffic mishaps/insults/accidents in which people followed the driver they felt slighted them. These drivers doing the following almost always escalated the situation and law enforcement's message was that if someone cut you off or did something that made you mad on the roadway, get their plate number if you can and let authorities handle it. Do not chase or pursue them. How quickly they've (police) forgotten.

1. You leave out the most important part because it doesn't fit your made up narrative.
2. "She had the audacity to change lanes and slow him down".. SHE CUT HIM OFF. Again that doesn't fit your narrative
3. Any biker is going to be upset at being cut off. How many motorcyclists are killed every day because of stupid people in cars not paying attention? Of course he's going to yell at her.
4. She swerves at him and makes contact. The fine print of your post. She tried to kill him and committed a crime called hit and run.
5. It was such a nothingburger that strangers to Derr decide they also need to follow her so the unreasonable jerk doesn't get away with her crimes. If she pulled over and called the police or went straight to police. We wouldn't be talking about this case.
6. She could have waited inside here house for the police but nope Dirty Harry need to come out with a gun and start waving it around. If course you are going to make assumptions about what she did with the gun to fit your narrative.
Of course you are amazed the police are overlooking your concocted story they deal in facts.
She easily could have easily sat on her couch with her gun on her lap waiting for police. Were they kicking in her door? I don't think I've read that I could be wrong. She decided to go outside and wave it around because let's be frank, she lost her mind.

 

[Tee7077]

Of course Derr was locked and loaded. Why else would he carry a firearm? And as he stated when the cops put the handcuffs on him, "they (indicating the other 2 yahoos) have guns too." Now what did he mean by that? And how did he know they carried too? See the video here: Watch: Bodycam shows tense moments after library assistant was shot in road rage incident

The three of them took the law into their own hands when they chased her. Just like the 3 yahoo's in GA who are currently sitting in prison for the murder of Mr. Aubrey.

Comparing this case to Aubrey is scraping the bottom of the barrel

 

[Cryptic]

Of course Derr was locked and loaded.

An argument that:

(A.) He was lawfully carrying a weapon for self defense -so- (B.) He must of had a pre disposition to provoke violence is not going to go far in Florida.

My guess is that the prosecutor is going to need to show more in support of a "pre disposition" to provoke / engage type violence component.

Evidently, he yelled at Morales for purportedly cutting him off. Then followed her home, despite not being able to point to any visible damage on his bike.

Though objectively, they followed a person home, Florida is still southern to a degree and the "she" component might still subjectively matter to a prosecutor and a jury. Both are human and not calculators.

But.... "D" was acting lawfully. My guess is that they are going to need evidence from outside the incident showing that "D" had a pre disposition to "double down" in a confrontation.

For example, Prosecutors initially declined charges in this case. Then.... filed charges after social media posts indicated that the defendant had a pre disposition to confront BLM type protestors and the investigation revealed that contrary to his statements, he had initially driven past the protestors, then turned back and went down the street.
Army sergeant indicted on murder and aggravated assault charges after fatally shooting Austin protester Garrett Foster in 2020

 

[Cryptic]

3. Any biker is going to be upset at being cut off. How many motorcyclists are killed every day because of stupid people in cars not paying attention?

It might be more accurate to say "purportedly cut him off". That aside...

I don't know the answer to the question, but you do have a good point. Then again, a certain number of stupid people riding motorcycles injure / kill also themselves in a given time frame.

In the end, riding a motorcycle does not mystically make somebody a safe operator any more than owing a motorcycle mystically makes somebody an aggressive out law biker bent on violent confrontations.

Rather, owning a motorcycle makes one a...... human. Individual humans have varying degrees of maturity and self control.

 

[Tee7077]

It might be more accurate to say "purportedly cut him off". That aside...

I don't know the answer to the question, but you do have a good point. Then again, a certain number of stupid people riding motorcycles injure / kill also themselves in a given time frame.

In the end, riding a motorcycle does not mystically make somebody a safe operator any more than owing a motorcycle mystically makes somebody an aggressive out law biker bent on violent confrontations.

Rather, owning a motorcycle makes one a...... human. Individual humans have varying degrees of maturity and self control.

"A motorcyclist traveling at a “high rate of speed” was passing a car last November when the car moved into the biker’s lane causing him to swerve, according to a report."

that is cutting someone off..

 

[darring21]

"A motorcyclist traveling at a “high rate of speed” was passing a car last November when the car moved into the biker’s lane causing him to swerve, according to a report."

that is cutting someone off..

A motorcycle, or any vehicle, traveling at a high rate of speed will get cut off because drivers look in their mirror, see nothing, and begin to switch lanes. By the time they are switching lanes, the fast vehicle is on their bumper. The motorcycle may be at fault here.

I've ridden a motorcycle for years and I assume people aren't going to see me because that happens. Someone looking in their mirror, perhaps with the sun behind them, is not going to see me. While I have been annoyed, I have never confronted or followed someone. It is often elderly people. If that is what happened here, that is over the top behavior.

 

[Razz]

"A motorcyclist traveling at a “high rate of speed” was passing a car last November when the car moved into the biker’s lane causing him to swerve, according to a report."

that is cutting someone off..

The only viewpoint (and a very important one) we are missing here is the one who is deceased.

Did she purposefully cut off a speeding motorcyclist or did she not see him?

Did she scuff D's saddlebag with the bumper of her car because she wanted to get away or did she want to "show him"?

Was she upset that she had cut someone off? Was she surprised? Did she have a chance to speak reasonably with D as he (according to witnesses' at the scene) was aggressive with her first?

Was staying "at the scene" the wisest thing for her to do? Why did she leave?

Why did D, another motorcycle and a truck chase her home? Had there really been an accident? Was anyone injured?

Why did she drive home and not to a police department or a hospital or to a
7-11?

Did she feel threatened when the 2 motorcyclists and a truck arrive in front of her home? If so, why?

Did she know they were only there "to wait for the police" and not to further subject her and her family to further verbal abuse and possible physical harm?

Is taking the law into your own hands under the pretext of getting a person to stop and wait for police (ie Aubrey) ever a good idea?

Too many unanswered questions and too many contradicting witness accounts to take D at his word.

D and the other 2 need to answer for the death of a woman....all over a scuffed saddlebag.

 

[Cryptic]

"A motorcyclist traveling at a “high rate of speed” was passing a car last November when the car moved into the biker’s lane causing him to swerve, according to a report."

that is cutting someone off..

Sticking with purportedly.... I visually and electronically searched your source for that quoted sentence and could not find it.

I did find:

"Morales and Derr exchanged words just before she struck him, Sampsell added" - and-

"Once at the home, Morales exchanged words with Derr and the witnesses...".

Looks like Derr was willing to have a conversation / "conversation" of some sort twice with Morales. Too bad her side of the story cannot be heard.

I would support charging Derr if there is evidence showing that he is prone to "double down" or engage in avoidable confrontations.

I would also like to know if there were any variation in what the survivors said the second exchange at the home was about. Then, charge Derr if he appeared to have provoked Morales. I would not charge him with murder. Manslaughter maybe a good option.

 

[evilwise]

This case and even the usually fairly reasonable discussion here of it baffles me in how people seem to be increasingly polarized in their thinking. "Someone must be right and someone must be wrong" when to be this is pretty clearly a case where both parties committed crimes which caused it to unnecessarily escalate to the point that someone died.

I have been sort of assuming that there were legal complications when it comes to what to charge the dude with because if he's found guilty of certain things then it would follow that Sara had a legal right to defend herself and so shooting her under those circumstances would be murder, which I (subjectively) don't believe this is.

After taking a look at Florida law, what I do believe this bike guy (and probably his buddies too) are guilty of is "aggravated stalking", willfully following a person and posing a credible threat. This is a third degree felony.

Now, in the state of Florida, the fairly generous stand your ground law states that a person only has a right to defend themselves with deadly force in a situation where another person is committing a forcible felony which it seems to me these guys were not doing. The law also says that a person has a right to use deadly force of they believe it is the only way to prevent or end trespass on their property - and I think these guys knew that and stayed on public property because of it. Sara was then improperly displaying a weapon which in itself is only a first degree misdemeanor.

So basically this case is all whack because Florida law is kind of whack. I think that these guys knew a lot more about the law than Sara did and intentionally created a situation where they thought they could legally shoot because they were angry.

Unfortunately, the law in this situation ultimately comes down to whether the shooter felt a threat to his life, which I honestly don't believe he did but I do think he can make a reasonable argument that he did unless he's recorded making statements to the contrary - which may be what we're (and the prosecutors) are waiting for.

 

[Cryptic]

Unfortunately, the law in this situation ultimately comes down to whether the shooter felt a threat to his life, which I honestly don't believe he did but I do think he can make a reasonable argument that he did....

I think they can consider other softer factors.

For example, this case:
Army sergeant indicted on murder and aggravated assault charges after fatally shooting Austin protester Garrett Foster in 2020

Mutually armed confrontation between BLM sympathizers illegally blocking a road and a motorist. Initially no prosecution: BLM sympathizer pointed a weapon at the motorist. Motorist then shot and killed him.

But.... later investigation revealed that motorist lied about driving down the street by happenstance (he actually turned around to go down the bocked street). Likewise, social media posts before shooting suggested that he was willing to confront BLM'ers blocking streets. So.... charged now.

Then..... there is this case:
Murder conviction stands for 'Bird Rock Bandit'.

Skilled street fighter with a habit of seeking "knockouts" has a mutually agreed upon fight with another surfer hot head out side the other mans home. He then kills him accidently (head to pavement after punch).

Convicted of murder after prosecutors could show soft factors such as a history of starting or pursuing confrontations with other dim wits.

Then.... going even softer:

Three men have "conversations" with a woman- then follow her regarding an incident with no visible property damage. All perfectly legal letter of the law. Prosceutors, however, are not computerized machines.

Florida above Miami is still the South where women are still women- even if they are not very lady like. Three guys just don't follow women home- unless they have a very good reason for doing so.

My guess is that Derr gets charged with manslaughter.

 

[Tee7077]

Sticking with purportedly.... I visually and electronically searched your source for that quoted sentence and could not find it.

I did find:

"Morales and Derr exchanged words just before she struck him, Sampsell added" - and-

"Once at the home, Morales exchanged words with Derr and the witnesses...".

Looks like Derr was willing to have a conversation / "conversation" of some sort twice with Morales. Too bad her side of the story cannot be heard.

I would support charging Derr if there is evidence showing that he is prone to "double down" or engage in avoidable confrontations.

I would also like to know if there were any variation in what the survivors said the second exchange at the home was about. Then, charge Derr if he appeared to have provoked Morales. I would not charge him with murder. Manslaughter maybe a good option.

My source is the article on the last page

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

1. You leave out the most important part because it doesn't fit your made up narrative.

None of my narrative is made up. It is all based on the FACTS of the case as reported by witnesses.

2. "She had the audacity to change lanes and slow him down".. SHE CUT HIM OFF. Again that doesn't fit your narrative

Who says she intentionally cut him off? The witness who helped HIM, says that he was speeding down the road and she changed lanes in front of him. Nowhere does it say she did this intentionally. If he hadn't been speeding maybe he wouldn't have been cut off.

3. Any biker is going to be upset at being cut off.

But most have the intellectual and emotional maturity not to respond like a 16 year old. If he wasn't speeding, it wouldn't have happened. Simple as that.

How many motorcyclists are killed every day because of stupid people in cars not paying attention? Of course he's going to yell at her.

You know how many road rage tombstones should include that inscription?

4. She swerves at him and makes contact. The fine print of your post. She tried to kill him and committed a crime called hit and run.

If he hadn't been speeding, the entire encounter could have been avoided. But fine, he sped. Then she changed lanes and his answer to that is to harass her on a public roadway. He didn't seem too concerned about his life (or the lives of others) when he created a dangerous situation, then elevated it repeatedly.

5. It was such a nothingburger that strangers to Derr decide they also need to follow her so the unreasonable jerk doesn't get away with her crimes. If she pulled over and called the police or went straight to police. We wouldn't be talking about this case.

Are you a man or a woman? I can promise you that 99% of women out there would never, in a million years, stop their vehicle when three men are chasing after her, one of whom has already harassed her while she was driving for having the audacity to change lanes. Never. In. A. Million. Years. I would drive myself to the nearest police station which is what she should have done.

6. She could have waited inside here house for the police but nope Dirty Harry need to come out with a gun and start waving it around. If course you are going to make assumptions about what she did with the gun to fit your narrative.
Of course you are amazed the police are overlooking your concocted story they deal in facts.
She easily could have easily sat on her couch with her gun on her lap waiting for police. Were they kicking in her door? I don't think I've read that I could be wrong. She decided to go outside and wave it around because let's be frank, she lost her mind.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of this.

 

[Tee7077]

"So basically this case is all whack because Florida law is kind of whack. I think that these guys knew a lot more about the law than Sara did and intentionally created a situation where they thought they could legally shoot because they were angry."

you honestly think these guys conspired to kill her? The other 2 witnesses who it is said Derr never met before the incident? You gotta be joking.