Posted on 04/22/2020 5:39:31 AM PDT by marktwain
Even if they were in plain clothes, shouldn’t they show their badges and “say you are under arrest” rather than grabbing her? Are police allowed to grab someone for a misdemeanor rather than make an arrest?
Yes, they must identify themselves or a resident of the home may shoot them, invoke the Castle Doctrine, and obtain immunity from prosecution. There are some exceptions to the Castle Doctrine and while it applies in Florida, it may not apply in other jurisdictions.
The Court of Appeals provided the applicable law in the 2019 opinion.
DEROSSETT’S RIGHTS THAT EVENING UNDER FLORIDA’S STATUTORY “STAND YOUR GROUND” LAWS—In 2005, the Florida Legislature enacted a number of statutes that codified and strengthened individuals’ right to defend themselves and their families.2 Section 776.013 specifically addressed the right to defend one’s self and family from attack at home. At the time of the above-described incident, this statute provided, in pertinent part:
776.013. Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
. . . .
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
. . .
Although Derossett was at his home, he is being prosecuted because a person’s authority to stand his or her ground at home with defensive, deadly force under section 776.013 is not absolute. Significantly, the presumptions contained in section 776.013(1) in favor of a person, such as Derossett, using deadly force at his dwelling against a person or persons who had just forcibly entered and removed a family member from the dwelling do not apply under subparagraph (2) of this statute if, for among other reasons:
(c) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
See id. § 776.013(2). Stated more plainly, Derossett was not justified in using deadly force against the three men whom he believed had just seconds earlier forcibly abducted his niece from the home if he knew or should have known them to be law enforcement officers. Nor was he entitled to use such deadly force if he was using his home to further his niece’s prostitution activity.
This is Florida where plain-clothes officers routinely "patrol" strip clubs, pay for private lap dances, offer obscene amounts of money if the girl will let them play with her boobs, and then arresting her afterwards.
It's a great job if you can get it!
So did they clearly identify themselves as police before grabbing her? If not, that “...or should have known...” part is tough to prove.
It is true the appeals court never wrote: Citizens have a right to shoot police in self defense.
You are correct, the appeals court dismissed the charges, not the trial court.
Why did they dismiss? Because immunity applied.
Why did immunity apply? Because the prosecution did not prove either of the exemptions to the Stand Your Ground law with clear and convincing evidence.
I am arguing reality.
Did DeRossett shoot a police officer? Yes.
Was he justified in shooting the police officer? Yes.
Did he have the right to shoot the police officer in self defense? Yes.
Did the trial court attempt to deny immunity, because he shot a police officer? It appears so. Can this be proved by what the trial court wrote? Probably not. Most judges are not complete idiots.
Did the appeals court correct the wrong decision of the trial court? Yes.
Does everyone have a right to shoot police officers, whenever they please? No.
When police officers attack citizens without following proper procedure, particularly as to identifying themselves as police, do citizens have a right to resist? In most states, yes.
This is basic self defense doctrine in the United States. As you wrote:
Under the Castle Doctrine, it makes no difference if the target is a cop, unless the accused knows his target is a cop.
The practical application of that reality is the issue.
One of the reasons the Stand Your Ground law was passed in Florida, was to protect legitimate defenders from overzealous prosecutors.
In my opinion, that is exactly what happened in Mobley.
Local judges are often biased in favor of police. They are often former prosecutors. This case upheld the rule of law that police do not have special status, simply because they are police. They have to follow proper procedure and due process. They have to identify themselves.
In many parts of the world, this is not the case.
‘They’ didn’t get their cut of protection money from her operation?
First of all these are deputies, who are chosen by an elected official, in some cases are political appointees, and may not be a professional as police. Then they are involved in vice squad type activities, which are notorious for corruption, as well as maybe getting involved in some of the activities for evidence or as part of the shake down.
It seems very relevant if they identified themselves as police. Are they supposed to show a badge? Can deputies or police just grab people without identifying themselves. It seems like a good way to get shot. Were these clowns not fired?
The whole story seems like it is from a red necky part of Florida, not like some other crazy areas with northerners and foreigners.
It is also possible that the reason they grabbed her rather than making a formal address was that their intention was to shake her down in some way rather than to actually arrest her.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.