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

[GatorFL]

I'm not sure they would win anything in a civil trial. If they have the witnesses that can credibly testify that she purposely veered into his motorcycle, hitting it as he was riding on the highway, then she escalated things herself.

And the same thing with her going outside, armed, and going to the edge of her property. Up until then she was safe and sound inside and they were on the street. She had no good reason to escalate things by going outside face to face, waving a gun around, IMO.

I don't think a civil trial would help that much.

Candidly, I agree.

I know we can't sleuth Derr but I think I can say this: any attorney would likely take into consideration what kind of assets he has that could be pursued in a civil case before taking the case.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

I don't think that is the way that criminal law works. I agree the mother can file a civil lawsuit, but prosecutors work off the facts of the case, not the outcome of a civil trial.

In my readings for this case I did see that there is no blanket protection for civil liability in a FL Stand Your Ground case.

I just meant that the attorney can interview the witnesses himself and if he finds something the police overlooked, can fight for Sara. In my opinion, the police had this case sewn up the day it happened.

 

[GatorFL]

I just meant that the attorney can interview the witnesses himself and if he finds something the police overlooked, can fight for Sara. In my opinion, the police had this case sewn up the day it happened.

Well of course they did. It was a pretty simple investigation, and it all started where she died: the edge of her yard with a gun in her hand.

JMO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

I'm not sure they would win anything in a civil trial. If they have the witnesses that can credibly testify that she purposely veered into his motorcycle, hitting it as he was riding on the highway, then she escalated things herself.

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.

And the same thing with her going outside, armed, and going to the edge of her property. Up until then she was safe and sound inside and they were on the street. She had no good reason to escalate things by going outside face to face, waving a gun around, IMO.

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.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Well of course they did. It was a pretty simple investigation, and it all started where she died: the edge of her yard with a gun in her hand.

JMO

Disagree. If it was that simple, why isn't a done deal? Why are others investigating now and why are we finding out more now? MOO.

 

[Auntie Cipation]

When you approach someone you are literally no longer standing your ground, no. What you do have in many states including Florida is a right to use force to remove someone from your property if they refuse to leave it. These bikers knew that and that's why they stayed on public property - and furthermore the stand your ground law where their rights are concerned says that they do not have a duty to retreat from anywhere they are legally allowed to be - which is actually probably the specific letter of the law they had in mind but it of course won't contradict the property protection laws. In fact they may have even been on her property but dutifully retreated exactly until they set foot on public property then turned around and shot her.

I really really wish we had video of the actual incident because it would be useful in establishing precedent but all we have is a he said/she said where the primary "she" is dead and the other she doesn't really seem familiar with the law. Somebody needs to go to bat for this lady and her family.

Thank you. I know SYG isn't the only law that may be applicable here (ie there are basic self defense laws that apply even when not on your own property) but understanding the basics of the SYG law helps me put things in context.

I still wonder why she didn't stay inside her home, ready to shoot if the guys approached but otherwise quiet. Will/has the coroner tested her body for toxicology/drugs that might have affected her thought process?

 

[GatorFL]

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.

Well, I've posted the appropriate statute multiple times and nowhere in it does it say that a person can pursue another. Based on the facts we know, seems to be what happened: Sara left her dwelling to confront Derr.

Also, you should know that jurors are given extremely specific instructions on what they can and cannot consider in a case: https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/content/download/329355/file/12-1363_062912_Appendix A.pdf

Now, I know this is for a criminal case. But I would expect a judge in a civil case to have similar guardrails on what could and could not be considered.

Witnesses also said she intentionally hit him with her car. I was told elsewhere that would be an assault with a deadly weapons charge against her. So Derr had every right to pursue her and to make a citizen's arrest.

JMO

 

[GatorFL]

Disagree. If it was that simple, why isn't a done deal? Why are others investigating now and why are we finding out more now? MOO.

Isn't it done? Unless Derr is arrested, it's over.

 

[GatorFL]

Thank you. I know SYG isn't the only law that may be applicable here (ie there are basic self defense laws that apply even when not on your own property) but understanding the basics of the SYG law helps me put things in context.

I still wonder why she didn't stay inside her home, ready to shoot if the guys approached but otherwise quiet. Will/has the coroner tested her body for toxicology/drugs that might have affected her thought process?

It's actually called the "Justifiable Use of Force" statute. It's pretty easy to read it and determine she was way out of the guardrails of that law.

JMO but she seemed hyper aggressive to me. She intentionally hit Derr with her car, went home, got a gun and ran about 100' out of her dwelling to confront him. I'd love to hear her 911 call in its entirety.

 

[evilwise]

Well, I've posted the appropriate statute multiple times and nowhere in it does it say that a person can pursue another. Based on the facts we know, seems to be what happened: Sara left her dwelling to confront Derr.

Also, you should know that jurors are given extremely specific instructions on what they can and cannot consider in a case: https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/content/download/329355/file/12-1363_062912_Appendix A.pdf

Witnesses also said she intentionally hit him with her car. I was told elsewhere that would be an assault with a deadly weapons charge against her. So Derr had every right to pursue her and to make a citizen's arrest.

JMO

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.

 

[Ozoner]

Isn't it done? Unless Derr is arrested, it's over.

If Derr was on Sara's property at the time she came out of her house with the gun, then I think that he will be arrested sooner or later. In that scenario, Sara was the one standing her ground.

It's fairly clear that Derr was the aggressor out on the highway, so he may be charged with something eventually even if he didn't trespass on Sara's property.

 

[evilwise]

If Derr was on Sara's property at the time she came out of her house with the gun, then I think that he will be arrested sooner or later. In that scenario, Sara was the one standing her ground.

It's fairly clear that Derr was the aggressor out on the highway, so he may be charged with something eventually even if he didn't trespass on Sara's property.

I think that circumstances strongly suggest Derr was the aggressor on the highway however he has biker bros who are willing to testify that Sara was.

Switch to Sara's house and she was definitely not standing her ground when she came out of her house. What she might have been doing was using force to remove a trespasser from her property but we have the bikers immediately and explicitly saying that they were in the road while Sara's mom is distraught and not saying the words she needed to say to dispute that claim.

The bikers knew the law and knowledge is power. Still, it is outright dangerous to society for this to go completely unpunished.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Well, I've posted the appropriate statute multiple times and nowhere in it does it say that a person can pursue another. Based on the facts we know, seems to be what happened: Sara left her dwelling to confront Derr.

Also, you should know that jurors are given extremely specific instructions on what they can and cannot consider in a case: https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/content/download/329355/file/12-1363_062912_Appendix A.pdf

Now, I know this is for a criminal case. But I would expect a judge in a civil case to have similar guardrails on what could and could not be considered.

Witnesses also said she intentionally hit him with her car. I was told elsewhere that would be an assault with a deadly weapons charge against her. So Derr had every right to pursue her and to make a citizen's arrest.

JMO

Again, we and the witnesses are only speculating on her intentions and I think in a court of law, any lawyer worth his salt will make the same argument. What makes them think/know she did it intentionally? Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't believe that you're able to testify to another person's thought process in court.

Per the link I posted a few pages back, he was not making a legal citizen's arrest. So I don't think that argument will fly in court either.

I don't understand where you all are getting that SYG doesn't apply to her yard. I read the link you posted and don't see that.

JMO.

 

[GatorFL]

I think that circumstances strongly suggest Derr was the aggressor on the highway however he has biker bros who are willing to testify that Sara was.

Switch to Sara's house and she was definitely not standing her ground when she came out of her house. What she might have been doing was using force to remove a trespasser from her property but we have the bikers immediately and explicitly saying that they were in the road while Sara's mom is distraught and not saying the words she needed to say to dispute that claim.

The bikers knew the law and knowledge is power. Still, it is outright dangerous to society for this to go completely unpunished.

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.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

"However, Florida does have one unique law that stands out. The state’s “Stand Your Ground” law is unlike the self-defense laws in other states, which state that you must retreat first before using a firearm, knife or other type of deadly force. This means that before you shoot or attempt to kill the person, you must back away. You must run or otherwise try to escape your attacker before using a weapon. The weapon must be your last resort.


Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law does not require this. The law allows a person to use deadly force anytime they are at risk of bodily harm or they feel their life is threatened. A person does not have a duty to retreat. As long as they are not trespassing onto someone else’s property, they can use deadly force to defend themselves. They can use a weapon in a home, outside, in a parking lot, in a restaurant, movie theater and other areas. They can use guns if they are in areas where concealed weapons are allowed and they have a proper permit."

Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law Provides Defense to Weapons Charges

"Essentially, it’s considered justifiable in Florida to use or threaten to use deadly force to defend yourself if you think you’re in danger of being killed or seriously harmed by another person. Unlike the laws in some other states, you’re not required to try to run away first."

"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.”

"“Duty to retreat” is the expectation that a person who’s being threatened with bodily harm will make a reasonable attempt to escape from the situation before resorting to using deadly force. In almost than half of U.S. states, it’s only legal to use deadly force in self-defense if you’ve attempted other avenues of escape or de-escalation unless you're in your own home, according to Findlaw.com."

This is not the case in Florida. A person who is obeying the law and in a place where he or she is permitted to be has no obligation to try to get away."

Florida's 'stand your ground' law explained: Q&A

 

[GatorFL]

Again, we and the witnesses are only speculating on her intentions and I think in a court of law, any lawyer worth his salt will make the same argument. What makes them think/know she did it intentionally? Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't believe that you're able to testify to another person's thought process in court.

Per the link I posted a few pages back, he was not making a legal citizen's arrest. So I don't think that argument will fly in court either.

I don't understand where you all are getting that SYG doesn't apply to her yard. I read the link you posted and don't see that.

JMO.

Let's parse it out then, based upon what we know. Let's begin with the statute:

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.

So, Sara had the right to protect her dwelling with deadly force if, and only if, she reasonably believed that Derr presented an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. I'll ask you, what did Derr do that presented and imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to Sara?

Based on everything that is out there, we know that was not the case. Sure, he followed her home to identify her to the police. Is that even a crime? Probably not. I was told by an attorney that he had the right to identify her to the police and likely the right to make a citizen's arrest. There is not one bit of evidence that he attempted to breach her residence. He wasn't threatening her with his gun. He wasn't even on her property.

Instead, in an ironic bit of fate, Sara was the aggressor, as the police said. She exited the safety of her domicile, brandished a gun at someone, and was shot because that person feared for his life. All she had to do was wait inside and let the cops show up. She didn't.

JMO

 

[GatorFL]

"However, Florida does have one unique law that stands out. The state’s “Stand Your Ground” law is unlike the self-defense laws in other states, which state that you must retreat first before using a firearm, knife or other type of deadly force. This means that before you shoot or attempt to kill the person, you must back away. You must run or otherwise try to escape your attacker before using a weapon. The weapon must be your last resort.


Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law does not require this. The law allows a person to use deadly force anytime they are at risk of bodily harm or they feel their life is threatened. A person does not have a duty to retreat. As long as they are not trespassing onto someone else’s property, they can use deadly force to defend themselves. They can use a weapon in a home, outside, in a parking lot, in a restaurant, movie theater and other areas. They can use guns if they are in areas where concealed weapons are allowed and they have a proper permit."

Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law Provides Defense to Weapons Charges

"Essentially, it’s considered justifiable in Florida to use or threaten to use deadly force to defend yourself if you think you’re in danger of being killed or seriously harmed by another person. Unlike the laws in some other states, you’re not required to try to run away first."

"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.”

"“Duty to retreat” is the expectation that a person who’s being threatened with bodily harm will make a reasonable attempt to escape from the situation before resorting to using deadly force. In almost than half of U.S. states, it’s only legal to use deadly force in self-defense if you’ve attempted other avenues of escape or de-escalation unless you're in your own home, according to Findlaw.com."

This is not the case in Florida. A person who is obeying the law and in a place where he or she is permitted to be has no obligation to try to get away."

Florida's 'stand your ground' law explained: Q&A

As I said in my post immediately beneath yours, which I would appreciate if you would reply to, Sara was not in imminent danger. The bikers were in the street. They were not attempting to enter her residence, or attempting to hurt her in any way. Because of that, she had no legal standing to exit her house and confront them.

JMO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

I'll ask you, what did Derr do that presented and imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to Sara?

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.

Based on everything that is out there, we know that was not the case.

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?

Sure, he followed her home to identify her to the police.

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.

Is that even a crime? Probably not. I was told by an attorney that he had the right to identify her to the police and likely the right to make a citizen's arrest.

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.

There is not one bit of evidence that he attempted to breach her residence. He wasn't threatening her with his gun. He wasn't even on her property.

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.

Instead, in an ironic bit of fate, Sara was the aggressor, as the police said. She exited the safety of her domicile, brandished a gun at someone, and was shot because that person feared for his life. All she had to do was wait inside and let the cops show up. She didn'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.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

As I said in my post immediately beneath yours, which I would appreciate if you would reply to, Sara was not in imminent danger.

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.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

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.