Mediaboss Marketing

Using evidence and Florida's Stand Your Ground law, it was determined the four deputies were justified in their use of deadly force, according to prosecutors.

RIVERVIEW, Fla. On Monday, the State Attorney's Office released the findings of its review of a deadly shooting case involving four Hillsborough County deputies.

According to a press release, it was determined that Sgt. Michael Hannaford, Cpl. Steven Schneider, Deputy Devin Wooden, and Deputy Timothy Miskell were justified in their use of deadly force.

Body-camera footage released in December shows a wanted man repeatedly ignoring commands to show his hands before being shot and killed by deputies with the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office.

According to the report, on Dec. 8 deputies from the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office were serving multiple arrest warrants on 27-year-old Dylan Scott when they approached his truck at a McDonalds parking lot in Riverview. Investigators say Scott then took off in his truck and crashed into another vehicle on Bloomingdale Avenue.

When deputies attempted to take Scott into custody, they say Scott told them he had a gun. At about two minutes and 46 seconds into the video, Scott can be heard saying the firearm was in his waistband when asked by law enforcement.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement has since confirmed Scott did not actually have a gun with him, but his statements on camera gave deputies reason to believe he did.

According to the release, the State Attorney's Office's review determined that deputies spent several minutes attempting to de-escalate the situation and ordering Scott to show his hands.

Investigators say that although Scott was unarmed, he raised his arm toward one of the deputies "as if he was going to shoot him," and deputies shot Scott in response.

Deputies say there was a passenger in Scott's vehicle named Shelby Guy who was pulled from the truck after the crash but before the shooting.

Guy, who identified herself as Scotts ex-girlfriend, provided a statement consistent with the deputies' accounts, according to the press release. Investigators also say that Guy told them Scott "had made statements that he would not go back to jail and would force law enforcement officers to kill him."

In late July, "Scott's mother called HCSO when he left a note at her home claiming he wanted to die via suicide by cop," the sheriff's office said. Investigators say they also found Facebook messages that Scott sent to his mother confirming this.

According to the release, the State Attorney's Office determined that "the deputies reasonably perceived an imminent threat, which justified their use of deadly force" under Florida's Stand Your Ground law. It added that "restraint and professionalism" were exhibited by the deputies in "trying to convince Scott to peacefully turn himself in before resorting to the use of deadly force."

The State Attorney's office says the "exhaustive" review made use of all the available evidence including video evidence, autopsy results, civilian witness accounts, and interviews of the involved law enforcement officers.

What other people are reading right now:

Breaking news and weather alerts:Get the free 10 Tampa Bay app

The rest is here:
Use of force by 4 Hillsborough deputies involved in deadly shooting found to be justified - WTSP.com

Ethics

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 26, 2021, 10:57 am CST

Image from Shutterstock.com.

A Nashville, Tennessee, lawyer has been suspended for advising a Facebook friend on how she could use the castle doctrine to protect herself if she shot a former boyfriend she had accused of abuse.

In a Jan. 22 opinion, the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended lawyer Winston Bradshaw Sitton for four years, with one year to be served on active suspension and the remainder on probation.

Sitton had maintained that his Facebook post was dark humor and sarcastic, and his intent was to dissuade the woman from carrying a gun in her car. A hearing panel said a reasonable person would not perceive the comments that way. The panel recommended a 60-day suspension, but the Tennessee Supreme Court determined that the penalty was too light.

Posting the remarks on social media was an aggravating factor justifying an increase in discipline, the state supreme court said.

The Legal Profession Blog, Law & Crime, ABC News and the Tennessean have coverage.

Sitton wrote the Facebook post after the woman posted in December 2017: I need to always carry my gun with me now, dont I? Is it legal to carry in TN in your car without paying the damn state?

According to the ruling, Sitton responded: I have a carry permit, Lauren. The problem is that if you pull your gun, you must use it. I am afraid that, with your volatile relationship with your babys daddy, you will kill your exyour sons father. Better to get a taser or a canister of tear gas. Effective but not deadly. If you get a shot gun, fill the first couple rounds with rock salt, the second couple with bird shot, then load for bear.

If you want to kill him, then lure him into your house and claim he broke in with intent to do you bodily harm and that you feared for your life. Even with the new stand your ground law, the castle doctrine is a far safer basis for use of deadly force.

The woman responded: I wish he would try.

Sitton then wrote: As a lawyer, I advise you to keep mum about this if you are remotely serious. Delete this thread and keep quiet. Your defense is that you are afraid for your liferevenge or premeditation of any sort will be used against you at trial.

The woman deleted the post, but the former boyfriend brought screenshots to the district attorney, who reported Sitton to Tennessees Board of Professional Responsibility.

The Tennessee Supreme Court said the lawyers advice was clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice and a violation of ethics rules.

The social media posts fostered a public perception that a lawyers role is to manufacture false defenses, the court said. They projected a public image of corruption of the judicial process.

Sitton had contended that his remarks werent serious, as evidenced by the fact that he made them on a public forum.

There is no conceivable reason that petitioner, a lawyer with nearly 30-years of experience in New York and Tennessee, would have been stupid enough to publish such words openly in public view had there been any sinister intent or were this instruction to be taken literally, he wrote.

The Tennessee Supreme Court responded to the argument.

We agree with Mr. Sitton that it is hard to conceive of any reason why a lawyer, any lawyer, would offer instructions on how to commit murder and stage a concocted defense, the court said. But we disagree with Mr. Sitton that his publication of the advice on a public platform such as Facebook cuts in favor of his position.

To the contrary, the court said, Sittons decision to publish the comments on a public forum made his situation exponentially worse.

Sitton was administratively suspended from law practice in August 2018 for failing to pay the professional privilege tax and had not sought reinstatement. On his law firms Facebook page, Sitton said he didnt pay as a protest against an unconstitutional tax.

Sitton also commented on the new suspension.

I adamantly contest the finding that my gratuitous commentary offered in 2017 to a battered woman, who was being threatened and abused and harassed by her sons father, was legal advice as to how to commit a crime or in any way violated my duties as either a citizen or as a lawyer, he wrote on his firms Facebook page.

My intent in the offensive exchange, manifest in the context of the complete correspondence never considered as evidence, was to use sarcasm in order to emphasize the peril inherent in carrying a firearm without adequate training; as well as to underscore the additional danger that her extensive discussion of self-defense might be misconstrued to have a malign intent and used against her in ongoing litigation with her abuser.

I do admit that the language I used, albeit taken out of context, was intemperate and regret the way this utterance was phrased; however, I note that the comment was intentionally caustic and cynical as it was both offered as, and understood by the recipient to be, a sardonic, sarcastic remark made in order to convince the lady not to resort to lethal force and not to discuss any such matters in an open forum.

Read more from the original source:
Lawyer suspended for Facebook advice on how to shoot an abuser and avoid conviction - ABA Journal

Katie Nussbaum|Savannah Morning News

The killing of Ahmaud Arbery, an unarmed Black man, in Brunswick last year has led several state lawmakers to opposeGeorgias citizen's arrest and stand your ground laws. Savannah City Council is set to put itsvoice behind these efforts on Thursday as members voteon a resolution to support the repeal of the stand your ground legislation.

Both issues have been in the state and national spotlight over the past year after lawyers for the two white men accused of killing Arbery indicated they will cite the laws as a defense at trial.

Rep. Carl Gilliard (D-Garden City) said it was Arberys death that led him tosponsor House Bill 45, which would repeal the citizens arrest law. The lawcurrently allows those who witness someone committing a felony to detain the person.

As a nation, we saw a videotape that revealed that people were taking the law into their own hands and went bad, he said.

Travis McMichael and his father, Gregory McMichael, have both been charged with murder in Arberys death and told prosecutors they suspected he was responsible for break-ins in their neighborhood, even though no break-ins had been reported in recent weeks. A third man, William Bryan Jr., was also charged with murder after he joined the chase and allegedly struck Arberywith his vehicle.

Savannah Mayor Van Johnson said the repeal of the laws would help to legally protect Georgia residents.

"These stand your ground laws are associated with increased homicides," Johnson said.Right now our law allows the person to shoot and kill another person, even when they can clearly and safely walk away. There is not a retreat required.

In June, Johnson joined several other mayors from around the state in sending a letter to the Georgia General Assembly asking them to repeal the stand your ground law. Like Gilliard, they were moved to take action following Arbery's death.

"In order to prevent things like that from happening we have to prevent the opportunities for those things to happen," Johnson said.

Gilliard said other Georgia cities and counties have expressed their support for the measures, including Glynn County, Screven County, City of South Fulton and the City of Atlanta. If HB 45 moves to a committee, Gilliard believes it will be heard by the House Judiciary committee.

I think we've got a lot of good support with law enforcement because it's not anti-law enforcement its pro-law enforcement. Its saying that they are the professionals, theyre the ones that know more than Carl or anyone else, so we should allow them to be able to administer any arrest or any judgment, Gilliard said of the repeal efforts.

While citizen's arrest and stand your ground are two separate issues when it comes to legislation, both Johnson and Gilliard said they go back to the same factors.

What's happening is that when you think about stand your ground, you think about Trayvon Martin, unfortunately, who was taken away insensitively. A lot of times when we want to become law enforcement, but we can't, we're just not equipped and skilled enough, Gilliard said.

Even in the Trayvon Martin situation, if that individual had just let the law be the law with the 911 call maybe Trayvon Martin would still be alive.

Katie Nussbaum is the city and county government reporter for the Savannah Morning News. Contact her at knussbaum@savannahnow.com. Twitter: KmartSMN

Read this article:
Savannah City Council considers taking stand on stand your ground law with resolution - Savannah Morning News

The Columbus Dispatch

As one who preaches pragmatismon matters of public policy, I generally avoidhighpraise or condemnation of any politician. People have quirks and foibles;Idon't expect anyones recordtobeallgood or all bad.Being a fundamentally decentpersoncounts for a lot with me.

Gov. Mike DeWine is a primary example.Im not a fan of whatOhioRepublicans have done with their governmental monopolyfor the past decade-plus, andDeWinehas made a lot of decisions Idisliked.He also has done a lot of good work in his long political career.

As aU.S. senator,he supported conservation measuresandwas the prime backer ofa proposal to create a national wildlife refuge along theBig and Little Darby Creeksandstood up to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refugefrom oil drilling.

Along with thosestands, though, environmentalists will point out thatSen. DeWine took votes against energy efficiency standardsand in favor of subsidies for oil and gas companies.

Later, back in Ohio, Attorney General DeWinepursued enlightened policies to help victims of human trafficking and continued the work of improving the use of DNA evidenceto prove both innocence and guilt, but he alsosupported abortion and gun-rights laws that manyOhioans consider extreme.

As governor, hespoke seemingly from the heart in vowing common sense gun-law reform after the August 2019 mass shooting in Dayton,but then failed to fight for the bill he backed and, on Monday, surrendered any claim to common sense on gunsby signing a reckless stand your ground law.

The fact that his handling of pandemic-related restrictions satisfies almost no one is evidence of how he has tried to balance competing needs.

Through all of this, Ive maintained the impression of DeWine asdecent man whose beliefs are more conservative than mine but who is trying to serve the public.

Thats whatmakes hisrefusal to confront the reality of President Donald Trumpsdestructiveness so disappointing and so dangerous. As long as seemingly reasonable people like DeWine stay quiet, other Republicans who should know better can tell themselves its okay to ignore the presidentslying, corruption, cruelty and, most recently,his outright attempt to overthrow the election he just lost.

On Sunday, on CNN,DeWine had an opportunity tosay something important: that the stunt planned by far-right Congress membersto objecton Wednesdaytoformal acceptance of President-elect Joe Bidens Electoral College winis a dangerous and cynical ploy that is unworthy of U.S. democracy.

Instead, DeWine went on about the importance ofrestoring the publics faith in the election, with an audit by a bipartisan, blue-ribbon panel.He didnt endorse the Congressional challenge, buthe didnt speak the truth about it, either.

DeWine surely knows that the election already has been audited, by virtue of the official canvassof votes undertaken in every county of every state. He mightsee calling for anotherauditas a harmless way to avoid the wrath of diehard Trump voters, but its not harmless.The only reason a lot of people have questions about the election is because of the nonstop lying by Trump and his allies.

Those lies arent evidence of anything other than their efforts to undermine facts and create doubt, andtreating the liesas if they represent anything close to the truthperpetuatesthe bamboozling of the public.

DeWine is hardly alone inhis inability to speak the truth to Trumps base.But the ugly shadow it casts on his long and decent careermay be his unfortunate legacy one he will share with others who can't bring themselvesto call a lie a lie.

Mary Mogan Edwards is the Dispatch editorial page editor.

Excerpt from:
Column: DeWine had a chance to do the right thing and punted - The Columbus Dispatch

Lets begin by parsing the grammatically confounding title of Gov. Ron DeSantis aggressive legislative idea. He calls it the Combating Violence, Disorder and Looting and Law Enforcement Protection Act. Thats not what it would do. In reality, it would amplify the danger it professes to prevent.

Nor would it combat violence. Instead, it would expand the states stand your ground law. Neither would it stem disorder. Rather, it would limit the ability of citizens to demonstrate in the streets.

Among its innovations are enhanced immunities for police and civilian violence alongside tough financial penalties for localities trying to defund or reconfigure their police forces. It would outlaw forms of social protest that have long been protected as free speech, while criminalizing those who obstruct or interfere with the regular flow of vehicular traffic.

At the heart of the states original stand your ground legislation was an effort to flip the script on cause and effect, target and aggressor, by framing the victims of violence as perpetrators, and the perpetrators as self-defenders.

The new proposal which could become state law if it finds sponsorship and is approved by both chambers features multiple elements that at first glance appear disparate. But, actually, they intersect in limiting a persons right to occupy public space, the ground to which the original 2005 Florida law refers. For those gathering to protest racial injustice, the legislation would eliminate the ground on which they may safely stand.

DeSantis proposes to criminalize assemblies of seven or more people that damage property or obstruct law enforcement or other governmental functions or services. Property damage would include pulling down, destroying, or defacing public property, including but not limited to a monument or statue. Sound familiar? On June 26, President Donald Trump issued an executive order to Protect American Monuments, Memorials, and Statues and Combat Recent Criminal Violence from rioters, arsonists, and left-wing extremists. DeSantis proposal targets those who would dismantle or deface Confederate memorials. Florida boasts more than 60 of them.

The numerical limitation on assemblies echoes post-Civil War Black Codes, curtailing Black freedom of movement, employment and assembly. Georgias 1866 penal code forbid assemblies of over seven persons amongst freed people. Characterizing the Black Lives Matter protests as riots and mobs places blame for social disorder on to the shoulders of those most subjugated by entrenched violence and marginalization. Its a role-reversal with deep historic roots, where victims become perpetrators and perpetrators shape-shift into victims.

This role-reversal frames DeSantis efforts to depict unarmed protesters as criminals, so that they appear as reasonable targets for civilian violence. His proposal would provide legal immunity to a driver who causes injury or death to a person who obstructs or interferes with the regular flow of vehicular traffic, opening the door to vehicular violence like that responsible for Heather Heyers death at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017, and more than 100 occasions since March 2020 in which motorists have driven into groups of protesters. The proposal suggests that anyone who commits vehicular homicide against demonstrators and claims that it was accidental is not liable for such injury or death.

The legislation would amend the states existing stand your ground law by providing immunity to armed citizens who claim to be protecting property from looters and mobs, where looting is defined as criminal mischief that results in the interruption or impairment of a business operation. Florida laws already empower citizens to defend themselves and their own businesses, but DeSantis expansion would allow other people to use violence to protect businesses that dont even belong to them.

Like the popular you loot, we shoot memes that surface during hurricanes and tornadoes, Floridas stand your ground law invites armed aggression under the guise of protecting property. We witnessed the consequences of such logic in Kenosha, Wisc., where a white 17-year-old armed with an AR-15 crossed state lines in response to a social media entreaty for patriots to take up arms and defend our city tonight from evil thugs. Under the mantle of patriotism, the young gunman joined a group of armed civilians to defend the city from protesters, killing two unarmed people and injuring another. Afterward, he claimed to have acted in self-defense.

This capacity to claim self-defense after a lethal encounter is the key innovation of the stand your ground laws that originated in Florida and rapidly spread to more than half the states. If the governors recommended legislation passes, the law would allow an armed aggressor to kill in the course of upholding law and order or protecting property. By deflecting responsibility for instigating a deadly encounter, even if ones target was unarmed, it would elevate property over human life.

In the lethal logic of stand your ground, the killers perception of threat goes unquestioned if the only other witness is dead. In DeSantis proposal, even a crowd of witnesses will be powerless to establish criminal liability when armed citizens claim to be upholding the law against a violent or disorderly assembly.

The timing of DeSantis' proposal speaks to this momentous national reckoning, where we can feel the ground in which our democracy is rooted shifting under our feet. If approved, the legislation would deputize armed citizens to defend property, while criminalizing those who dare to stand up to systemic violence and racism.

In case it isnt clear on the surface, the goal is to silence these voices and to undermine the transformative justice demands that have proliferated nationwide. Against this powerful groundswell of public protest, the Florida governors proposal stands as a desperate effort to secure a reactionary legacy while obstructing the movement toward justice.

Caroline Light teaches gender and ethnic studies at Harvard University. She is the author of Stand Your Ground: A History of Americas Love Affair with Lethal Self-Defense. She wrote this exclusively for the Tampa Bay Times.

Read the rest here:
DeSantis new stand your ground would provoke the danger it professes to prevent | Column - Tampa Bay Times