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

  • #721
I found a "podcast" with Sara's 911 call in its entirety. I don't think she called from the road, at all, as she stated she was already home. She received no instructions from dispatch at all, she was reporting that they followed her home then she went outside to confront them and was shot. Many of us have heard the tail end of this 911 call here.
 
  • #722
No Charges for Biker Who Fatally Shot Woman After She Hit Him With Car (msn.com)

On Tuesday, the Orange City Police Department confirmed to Newsweek that Derr would not face any charges in the shooting.

"While the facts in this case are truly heart-breaking, the law does not authorize the filing of any criminal charges. Our sincerest thoughts and prayers go out to the Morales family," the State Attorney's Office told WFTV in a statement.
 
  • #723
I found a "podcast" with Sara's 911 call in its entirety. I don't think she called from the road, at all, as she stated she was already home. She received no instructions from dispatch at all, she was reporting that they followed her home then she went outside to confront them and was shot. Many of us have heard the tail end of this 911 call here.
Do you remember the name of the podcast?
 
  • #724
Do you remember the name of the podcast?
Here is the link. Her smoke detector beeps about every 30 seconds so I recommend fast forwarding until you hear Sara's call, which is really brief.

 
  • #725
No Charges for Biker Who Fatally Shot Woman After She Hit Him With Car (msn.com)

On Tuesday, the Orange City Police Department confirmed to Newsweek that Derr would not face any charges in the shooting.

"While the facts in this case are truly heart-breaking, the law does not authorize the filing of any criminal charges. Our sincerest thoughts and prayers go out to the Morales family," the State Attorney's Office told WFTV in a statement.
As I thought. He had all the evidence on his side.

Maybe I'll try and get the AR again.
 
  • #726
Again, I believe this is your opinion based on your interpretation of the law. I do think she was in imminent danger and that is my opinion based on my interpretation of the law. Neither of us are stating facts here.

But I'm tired of going in circles. We're not going to agree so let's just agree to disagree on this.
Can you agree now that the SA will not charge Derr?
 
  • #727
Can you agree now that the SA will not charge Derr?

I don't remember saying he won't be charged. I think I said he SHOULD be charged. I maintain that stance. The law and the state of Florida failed Ms. Morales here. I hope Mom files wrongful death.
 
  • #728
I don't remember saying he won't be charged. I think I said he SHOULD be charged. I maintain that stance. The law and the state of Florida failed Ms. Morales here. I hope Mom files wrongful death.
IIRC, the way the law reads in FL, she can't. At least against Derr. The law gives him civil immunity under Justifiable Use of Force.

I also don't think she has a case against the authorities. It seems Sara didn't call 911 until she was home. The 911 dispatcher never gave her instructions to do anything. Might be different if she had made a 911 call from the road.

All of this seems to have played out exactly as taught in a FL concealed weapons permit class. I know we tangled earlier in this thread but the main reason I felt strongly that Derr would be never be charged is because of the training I had. Say what you will about Florida law, but I now have more confidence in the training I received.

JMO
 
Last edited:
  • #729
  • #730
  • #731
Biggest takeaway from all of this: know your state laws.
Exactly. I live in the Gunshine state, aka Florida. This crap is a daily occurrence. Too many lost lives.
 
  • #732
  • #733
  • #734
Just to play Devil's Advocate, I'll remind everyone that had Sara been well versed in the law and fully prepared for an armed confrontation she might have laid in wait with a high capacity automatic rifle or other vastly superior firepower until such time as she legally might claim she felt they were breaking into her home or even refusing to leave her property and killed them.

Them having an open line to 911 at the time of the shooting was probably yet another element of them wanting to have legal proof they weren't threatening her, verbally anyway.
 
  • #735
Just to play Devil's Advocate, I'll remind everyone that had Sara been well versed in the law and fully prepared for an armed confrontation she might have laid in wait with a high capacity automatic rifle or other vastly superior firepower until such time as she legally might claim she felt they were breaking into her home or even refusing to leave her property and killed them.

Them having an open line to 911 at the time of the shooting was probably yet another element of them wanting to have legal proof they weren't threatening her, verbally anyway.
Refusing to leave property-without posing an imminent threat of great bodily harm or death-is not grounds for the use of justifiable force. And these guys never set foot on her property.

She was so far afoul of Florida's justifiable force laws that it is clear she was not versed in that law at all. Nor Florida traffic law. Every opportunity she had to follow the law, she didn't.

Now that this is over, I'll say this. I wonder if she had some mental or emotional issues? She did not act like a normal law abiding citizen.

JMO
 
  • #736
Refusing to leave property-without posing an imminent threat of great bodily harm or death-is not grounds for the use of justifiable force. And these guys never set foot on her property.

She was so far afoul of Florida's justifiable force laws that it is clear she was not versed in that law at all. Nor Florida traffic law. Every opportunity she had to follow the law, she didn't.

Now that this is over, I'll say this. I wonder if she had some mental or emotional issues? She did not act like a normal law abiding citizen.

JMO
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

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:
(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.
776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

As you yourself said, the biggest takeaway from all this is to know your state laws. As I have already stated I believe Sara, were she alive, could easily argue that these guys were engaged in aggravated stalking and if they were the ones who were dead rather than her they would be just as unable to defend themselves against those allegations as she is now against theirs.

I can't say that I agree with this sort of "history is written by the victor" legal climate but it is what it is.
 
  • #737
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine


As you yourself said, the biggest takeaway from all this is to know your state laws. As I have already stated I believe Sara, were she alive, could easily argue that these guys were engaged in aggravated stalking and if they were the ones who were dead rather than her they would be just as unable to defend themselves against those allegations as she is now against theirs.

I can't say that I agree with this sort of "history is written by the victor" legal climate but it is what it is.
:rolleyes:
(3) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

As you can see from the statute, aggravated stalking requires repetition. I disagree she would be able to make that argument. And it is not her argument to make, it would be law enforcement's decision.

Again, following somebody home is not a crime. Standing in the roadway adjacent to their home is not a crime either. Heck, standing in somebody's yard against their wishes may be a crime, but not a serious enough crime to justify deadly force. That is why the justifiable force statute has the serious requirements it does.
 
  • #738
:rolleyes:
(3) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

As you can see from the statute, aggravated stalking requires repetition. I disagree she would be able to make that argument. And it is not her argument to make, it would be law enforcement's decision.

Again, following somebody home is not a crime. Standing in the roadway adjacent to their home is not a crime either. Heck, standing in somebody's yard against their wishes may be a crime, but not a serious enough crime to justify deadly force. That is why the justifiable force statute has the serious requirements it does.
They followed her to the intersection then they followed her home - and it is not law enforcement's decision if someone has committed a crime. It is law enforcement's job to decide if someone needs to be arrested. It is the prosecutor's decision if someone should be charged with a crime and it is the judge or jury's decision if someone has committed a crime. Had this situation resulted in the opposite outcome, with Sara alive and the bikers dead it would indeed have been up to her to justify her actions very much as the bikers justified theirs and it's a lot easier to make an argument against people who are dead. You can say they did whatever you want to say they did. You can say they they threw a rock through your window despite there being no sound of breaking glass audible on a 911 call and you can obviously say they were about to kill you despite the audio of the 911 call clearly reflecting that they were in the middle of making an argument asking for you to leave.
 
  • #739
They followed her to the intersection then they followed her home - and it is not law enforcement's decision if someone has committed a crime. It is law enforcement's job to decide if someone needs to be arrested. It is the prosecutor's decision if someone should be charged with a crime and it is the judge or jury's decision if someone has committed a crime. Had this situation resulted in the opposite outcome, with Sara alive and the bikers dead it would indeed have been up to her to justify her actions very much as the bikers justified theirs and it's a lot easier to make an argument against people who are dead. You can say they did whatever you want to say they did. You can say they they threw a rock through your window despite there being no sound of breaking glass audible on a 911 call and you can obviously say they were about to kill you despite the audio of the 911 call clearly reflecting that they were in the middle of making an argument asking for you to leave.
Again, all of that would not have been aggravated stalking. I posted the statute for you to see.

<modsnip - no source>They called 911 from the road and were attempting to get her to pull over which is what drivers are expected to do in an accident. Had she fired upon the bikers and harmed or killed them, I think that she would have been arrested for murder. Why? There was no evidence any of them posed an imminent danger to her. People have been arrested and convicted for misusing deadly force in Florida when the situation did not fit the grounds of the statute.

I don't think she deserved to die though. She made several mistakes and paid dearly for it. I wish she had made some different decisions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #740
Again, all of that would not have been aggravated stalking. I posted the statute for you to see.

<modsnip - no source>They called 911 from the road and were attempting to get her to pull over which is what drivers are expected to do in an accident. Had she fired upon the bikers and harmed or killed them, I think that she would have been arrested for murder. Why? There was no evidence any of them posed an imminent danger to her. People have been arrested and convicted for misusing deadly force in Florida when the situation did not fit the grounds of the statute.

I don't think she deserved to die though. She made several mistakes and paid dearly for it. I wish she had made some different decisions.
Yes I agree that she made a bad decision and then her fatal mistake was not committing to it. Had either party gone to trial for killing the other, I feel very confident that a jury would have been much more sympathetic to a librarian in her own home with her children and mother than they would have been with the bikers who followed her there, even had she mowed them down in the street with semi-automatic rifle fire. I think at worst she would have spent 3-5 years in minimum security prison. As it is, she will be dead forever.
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
144
Guests online
2,922
Total visitors
3,066

Forum statistics

Threads
632,121
Messages
18,622,406
Members
243,027
Latest member
Richard Morris
Back
Top