Mediaboss Marketing

TAMPA, Fla. We have new information about the shooting death of Orchard Park native Carson Senfield.

The 19-year-old was a freshman at the University of Tampa when he was killed while getting into a car he mistakenly thought was his Uber.

The driver shot Senfield, claiming he feared for his life. He was never charged.

The attorneys for Senfield's family are now making several claims, after getting an eight-page report from the Florida State Attorney's Office.

The report was shared with 2 On Your Side and has the name of the shooter and a mugshot. We are not sharing either of those because he hasn't been criminally charged.

Tampa Police say the driver feared for his life and would not identify him pointing to Florida's Marsy's Law, which shields victims.

Florida's State Attorney's Office wrote a letter to the police department, citing the Stand Your Ground Law for why they didn't press charges. The Florida law allows anyone who feels under threat to protect themselves with deadly force.

However, Fernandez claims the shooter has a history of drug and firearm violations and believes he was an informant for Tampa Police.

We asked Fernandez for evidence to confirm his claims, but he didn't produce anything to substantiate them.

The state attorney's report only shows the shooter previously had a charge for carrying a concealed weapon.

Fernandez also claims the shooter was Senfield's neighbor.

"That's what law enforcement said when we asked who is this guy and why was he there," Fernandez said. "He was picking up his girlfriend at her place, and he had the veil of protection because he was parked adjacent to the garage door, so we was on private property. And so he had a right to have, what would be on the street, an illegal gun.

"And we asked, 'Did he have a permit?' and were then told no. That's also a troubling thing because of some things that may unravel here in some point in time," Fernandez added.

Fernandez says despite several attempts, he has yet to receive a police report from the Tampa Police Department and may file a lawsuit to get it.

2 On Your Side has also requested the report. Tampa Police have not responded to our repeated requests for comment.

We're also told attorneys for the Senfield family may file a civil lawsuit against the shooter because they now know his name.

Continued here:
New information uncovered about person who fatally shot Carson Senfield in Florida - WGRZ.com

DADEVILLE Now that five of the six co-defendants charged with four counts of reckless murder each in the Dadeville shootings are being held without bond, whats next?

To say its a complicated case is an understatement. Four victims dead, 32 injured, some critically, by gunshots, and six co-defendants that include a 15-year-old. There are mountains of forensic evidence to sift through. The recent Aniahs Law hearing a judge ruled the five co-defendants being charged as adults will be held without bond included the first public airing of details in the case.

Investigators recovered 89 shell casings, many from .45-caliber, .40 caliber, 9 mm and .22-caliber handguns. Testimony indicated that seven guns were fired, including a gun found on one of the slain victims. There were 50 to 60 people in the tightly packed room when gunshots began about 10:30 p.m. on the recent Saturday night.

Evidence continues to be gathered, interviews of witnesses and injured party celebrants are ongoing. The Alabama Law Enforcement Agency is leading the investigation, which also includes the Dadeville Police Department, Tallapoosa County Sheriffs Office, 5th Circuit District Attorneys Office and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the FBI.

And dont forget, charges relating to those injured in the shootings have not been filed yet. They could range from felonious assault, since a firearm or other dangerous weapon or instrument was used, to attempted murder.

A Tallapoosa County Grand Jury is likely to review the cases to determine if enough evidence exists that a crime occurred. There are also several stages in the lengthy legal process where charges against the defendants could be dropped.

The brutal truth is, it could be years before any trials occur. Along the way will be possibly several years worth of court proceedings before the first jury is selected and seated.

Its going to be a long, difficult journey for this close-knit community.

The shootings occurred at a 16th birthday party April 15 at a dance studio in downtown Dadeville.

Killed were: Philstavious Phil Dowdell, 18, Shaunkivia Nicole Keke Smith, 17, Marsiah Emmanuel Siah Collins, 19, and Corbin Dahmontrey Holston, 23.

Police arrested brothers Tyreese "Ty Reik" McCullough, 17, and Travis McCullough, 16, of Tuskegee on April 18. Wilson LaMar Hill Jr., 20, of Auburn, was arrested April 19, and cousins Johnny Letron Brown, 20, of Tuskegee, and Willie George Brown Jr., 19, of Auburn, were arrested on April 20.

A 15-year-old juvenile from Tuskegee was arrested on April 20. His name has not been released due to his age. District Attorney Mike Segrest is seeking to have the teen charged as an adult. That requires a hearing in juvenile court.

The following court action will precede any trials. For the purposes of this story, these are the proceedings that will involve the co-defendants who are being charged as adults.

Set for May 23 before District Judge Clayton Taylor. The defendants will be read the charges against them and asked if they understand the charges. The matter of bond again can be raised for Taylor to consider. A purpose of the initial appearance also is to ensure the defendants have attorneys. The court has appointed attorneys for each of the defendants.

Defendants have a right to a preliminary hearing, where the state informs the court of the evidence investigators have collected so far. Defense attorneys can cross examine prosecution witnesses. Defense attorneys often waive preliminary hearings. After an initial appearance or preliminary hearing, the judge will determine if enough evidence exists to establish probable cause that a crime occurred so the grand jury can review the case.

Alabama has a Youthful Offender Statute where defendants ages 18 to 21 can seek review. It is open to people who have not been in legal trouble before and who are charged with non-violent crimes. If the judge grants Youthful Offender Status, the original charge or charges are dropped and the defendant is found guilty of violating the Youthful Offender Statute. The maximum punishment is three years in prison, and the persons record is sealed.

Its common for people who fall within the given age range and who are charged with violent crimes, up to capital murder, to seek Youthful Offender Status. The courts entertain the motions so as not to present an issue for any conviction to be reversed upon appeal. The court of criminal appeals could also order a retrial on the charges if a higher court finds proper legal methods were not followed.

During testimony in the Aniahs Law bond hearing, allegations were raised that Holston, one of the four who were killed, was armed and allegedly fired the first shot. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) investigations showed his gun had been fired, testimony revealed. That opens the door for defendants to argue self-defense. A judge would review evidence to determine if Alabamas Stand Your Ground Law applies. If it does, charges against all or some of the defendants could be dropped. If the judge determines Stand Your Ground doesnt apply, the cases go to the grand jury.

The grand jury reviews the evidence and could return indictments if the panel believes there is enough evidence present that a crime occurred. An indictment is not a finding of guilt, but is required for the case to go to trial. The grand jury could also no bill the case against some or all of the defendants, finding no evidence exists that a crime occurred; charges would then be dropped.

If a grand jury clears a defendant, they can never be charged with that particular crime again under the Constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy.

If indictments are returned by the grand jury, they can be on the original charge, or a stronger or lessor charge. The defendants appear before a circuit judge at arraignment to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty. Then the trials can be scheduled.

Defense attorneys could also seek a change of venue, asking that any trials be moved from Tallapoosa County. A change of venue is sought when the defense believes that media attention, or the high-profile status of the case, makes it impossible to find an impartial jury in the county.

Tallapoosa County is unique, divided into an Alexander City judicial district and a Dadeville district. Jurisdiction is determined by which side of the Tallapoosa River the crime occurs. Assuming no change of venue, any trials in the shootings would take place at the courthouse in Dadeville.

The grand jury meets twice a year in Tallapoosa County. During an April 16 press conference, Segrest said the grand jury serves a six-month term, and he could call them back at any time during those six months for a special session. He called such a move unprecedented in the history of the county.

Each district in Tallapoosa County has two, two-week criminal terms a year. The six co-defendants, if the 15-year-old is charged as an adult, would be tried separately. So, with that court schedule, it could take three years to have all the trials, trying two defendants a year.

Hopefully it wouldn't take that long, Segrest said during a Friday morning phone conversation.

These cases are a priority, he said, adding that the first trial could take place in June of 2024, if everything falls into place. We are going to follow the law in preparing for trials. There are also two, two-week civil terms a year. We could use any leftover civil term court days to have criminal trials. That would allow us to have more than two trials a year in these cases.

Shortcuts cannot be taken, said Tom Azar, a seasoned River Region defense attorney and former Montgomery police officer. He does not represent any of the defendants, but he has decades of courtroom time under his belt.

This is a complicated case, a very complicated case where you have multiple defendants and multiple victims, he said. You cant get in a hurry. You want to preserve the defendants rights to a fair trial. While you are also seeking justice for the victims and their families.

No one; not the defense, not the state, wants to do any of these trials more than once due to some mistake in the process.

Contact Montgomery Advertiser reporter Marty Roney at mroney@gannett.com.

Excerpt from:
Dadeville mass shooting cases now head to courts. What to expect ... - Montgomery Advertiser

Committing simple errors has become a death sentence thanks to Stand Your Ground laws.

Throughout April, three shootings have made national news due to the victims harmless mistakes. Sixteen-year-old Ralph Yarl received critical injuries after arriving at the wrong house to pick up his younger brothers. A shooter killed Kaylin Gillis because she pulled into the wrong driveway in New York. Texas cheerleader Payton Washington spent two weeks in the hospital after her teammate mistakenly entered the wrong car.

Each shooting occurred in states where Stand Your Ground laws protect a citizens right to use force in self-defense. Rather than protecting endangered citizens, Stand Your Ground laws are killing innocents. States need to rewrite these laws to protect citizens, not promote vigilante justice.

Florida passed the first Stand Your Ground law in 2005. Since then, 28 states have established self-defense laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. While the wording of each law differs slightly, the states share a common goalprotecting the right to bear arms.

Citizens should be able to access firearms for self-defense, but Stand Your Ground laws are unclear and often misinterpreted.

Floridas Stand Your Ground law states that a citizen has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm. The law does not explicitly define force or bodily harm. These words are up to interpretation.

As a result, young adults are being fatally injured in the name of self-defense, with the shooters being hailed as heroes.

The cases of Yarl, Gillis and Washington resulted in the shooter facing criminal charges. But think about the other victims who have never seen justice.

Authoring a study with Southern Poverty Law Center, Ari Freilich researched the roles of Stand Your Ground laws in the justice system.

They encourage a trigger-happy culture of anxious vigilantism that cheapens the value of human life, Freilich said.

States should amend self-defense laws to include clearer wording and detailed explanations. The laws should specify the type of situations that fall under the protection of Stand Your Ground laws. I know every situation is unique, but states should institute guidelines for Stand Your Ground laws.

Although Stand Your Ground laws aim to save lies, look at what happens when people take matters into their own handsinnocent people die.

Read more:
'Stand Your Ground' laws promote violence The Hawkeye - The HawkEye

THE CONVERSATION In one key respect, Ralph Yarl was fortunate. The wounds the 16-year-old suffered after being shot twice on April 13 by the owner of the house whose doorbell he rang, thinking it was where he was due to pick up his two younger brothers, did not prove fatal.

Others who have made similar mistakes have died. TakeRenisha McBride, who sought help after wrecking her car in a Detroit suburb in 2013, orCarson Senfield, who entered the wrong car in Tampa thinking it was his Uber on his 19th birthday. And then there is the case of 20-year-oldKaylin Gillis, a passenger in a car that turned around in a driveway in upstate New York on April 15, 2023. What these young people have in common is that they were killed in accidental encounters with armed property owners.

As ascholar who has studiedAmericaslove affair with guns and lethal self-defense, I have explored the history oflaws that selectively shield citizens from criminal responsibilitywhen they use force and claim self-defense. Since 2005, these stand your ground laws havespread to around 30 states, transforming the United States legal landscape.

While preexistinglaws regarding justifiable use of forceallowed the use of lethal force for self-defense in some circumstances, they required that people first try to retreat from a perceived threat if it was safe to do so or to seek a nonlethal solution to a hostile encounter. Stand your ground laws, meanwhile, authorize defensive violence without a duty to retreat, wherever a person may legally be. Some also expand the circumstances in which someone could use lethal force to defend property.

Although the laws appear to apply to all law-abiding citizens, research shows that they arenot equitably enforced, and that they may be emboldening property owners to shoot first and question their actions later, even when there is no real threat of harm.

Certainly that seems to be the case with the shooting of Yarl. The wounding of the Black teen, who was simply trying to pick up his siblings, generatedwidespread outrage, especially when Kansas City Police Chief Stacey Graves suggested that investigators would consider whether the shooter an 84-year-old white man might have recourse to the statesstand your groundlaw as a defense against prosecution.

Given that the encounter took place on the shooters property, there is a possibility the shooter could find legal protection in the castle doctrine, which allows someone to use reasonable force without first trying to retreat in self-defense in their home. But he would still have to show reasonable cause for firing two shots at the unarmed teen standing at his front door.

Defining reasonable force

It seems that in the case of Yarl, state prosecutors believe that the bar of reasonable cause was not met. Andrew D. Lester, the homeowner, hassince been chargedwith two counts: assault in the first degree and armed criminal action.

This does not preclude the defense from invoking Lesters right to stand his ground and use force in self-defense, if his lawyers can show Lester truly believed Yarl posed a real threat.

Missourisstand your ground law, in place since 2016, removes the duty to retreat anywhere a person may legally be, even beyond ones castle. But you still need to prove that force is used reasonably, that it was not carried out in aggression or anger, and that there was a genuine fear for your life.

Indeed, the resolution of cases like the Yarl shooting turn on a highly subjective reckoning of what counts as reasonable force, and on which side prosecution or defense bears the burden of proof.

Traditional laws on the use of force place that burden on the alleged self-defender, who must prove that their actions were reasonable. But some other states with stand your ground laws, like Florida,remove the burden of prooffrom the defense, placing it on the prosecution.

This means that the prosecution must prove that the alleged self-defender was not truly fearful when using force. In some instances, as in the shooting of Senfield after he tried to enter a car he misidentified as his Uber, the stand your ground law becomes a shield against prosecution.No charges have been filedin that case, in large part because there were no other witnesses to contradict the shooters claim that he was in fear for his life when Senfield tried to enter his car.

Increase in gun homicides

Contrary to theclaims of the framers and promotersof stand your ground laws, there isscant empirical evidencethat the laws prevent crime. In fact,multiple studiesshow just the opposite.

Research on public health and crime reveals a pernicious effect of stand your ground laws on public safety, showing a correlation withincreased rates of gun homicide. One study, which includes an assessment of Missouris law, found that the passage of stand your ground laws correlates with an8% to 11% increasein firearm homicide rates.

Ananalysis of stand your ground cases in Florida, carried out by gun violence prevention group Everytown for Gun Safety, addressed the way removal of the duty to retreat encourages violent escalation; researchers suggested that over half the cases could have been resolved without loss of life.

Further, recent scholarship shows how stand your ground lawsintensify existing racial injusticesin the U.S. criminal legal system.A study by the think tank Urban Institutefound significant discrepancies in the rate at which homicides in stand your ground cases were deemed justified, depending on the race of the shooter and the race of the deceased. White shooters were significantly more likely to to be exonerated when their victim was Black, suggesting that particularly in states with stand your ground laws white people may feel more legally empowered to use lethal force and avoid prosecution, as long as their victims are Black.

Encouraging armed citizenry

In the Yarl case, the possible presence of racial bias has notescaped the attention of Kansas City prosecutors. Lesters grandson hasdescribed his grandfatheras a QAnon devotee with racist tendencies and beliefs that likely prompted his violent reaction to Yarls presence on his doorstep.

Against the backdrop of historical legacies of racial bias in the U.S., stand your ground laws intensify the risks of shooting deaths in an increasinglygun-saturated public. With laws that encourage armed citizens to use force against any perceived threat real or imagined even the most innocent mistakes and chance encounters can turn deadly.

Read the original post:
The Conversation: 'Stand your ground' laws empower armed ... - Press Herald

Following hours of passionate debate, during which Florida lawmakers were urged to respect life from conception to the casket, 70 House members voted to effectively ban abortions in Florida.

A short time later, 67 of those same 70 voted to help prosecutors make executions easier by lowering the threshold for a death sentence to eight of 12 jurors. Florida now has the lowest execution threshold of all 50 states with repeal of a 2017 law that required a jurys death recommendation to be unanimous.

How can you be pro-life on one hand and be pro-death on the other? Rep. Yvonne Hinson, D-Gainesville, who opposed both bills, asked her colleagues.

Supporters of a less restrictive death penalty law hardly bothered to answer. It was simply a primal political scream over the 9-3 jury recommendation that spared the life of the Parkland mass murderer. No one claimed it would prevent another such massacre, which of course it wont.

But it was an opportunity not to be missed by those who want to be seen as tough on crime, especially Gov. Ron DeSantis, who, with no trace of irony, signed both pro-life and pro-death into law.

The hypocrisy was just as obvious in the Florida Senate. The vote there was 26-13 for the six-week abortion ban (SB 300), and 29-10 for the pro-death legislation (SB 450). Sens. Erin Grall, R-Vero Beach, sponsor of the anti-abortion bill, and Ileana Garcia, R-Miami, were the only two senators to oppose the death legislation and another bill to execute child rapists.

Only three House members who voted for the anti-abortion bill opposed the death penalty bill. They were Mike Beltran, R-Tampa, Will Robinson, R-Venice, and Dana Trabulsy, R-Fort Pierce.

Those who supported both may have cossetted their consciences by distinguishing the execution of a criminal from the dismemberment of an innocent human child, as Rep. David Borrero, R-Sweetwater, described abortion.

Thats not how the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops sees it. The Conference, which has consistently opposed executions and lobbied against SB 450, issued a statement in answer to a question from the Sun Sentinel.

The Catholic Church embraces a consistent ethic of life from conception to natural death that calls for the promotion of public policies essential to the defense of human life, whether that life is innocent or has caused great harm, the church said. It commended those whose consistent pro-life votes demonstrated respect for the inviolability and dignity of all persons.

No doubt many of those who voted inconsistently do value criminals lives less than those of fetuses, but the disconnect indicates that the anti-abortion legislation is as much about political power as about sincerity and consistency. Women are collateral victims in the Republican Partys alliance with social conservatives.

The 2023 session will be remembered as one that repealed the required permit to carry concealed weapons in Florida. Since that will spawn more murders, building on Floridas reckless stand your ground law, the death penalty bill is an ironic addition to the culture of violence. There continue to be more mass shootings this year than days on the calendar. Its becoming frequent for hotheaded homeowners to shoot people who mistakenly knock on their doors or turn into their driveways.

The death penalty, lax gun laws and gunfire are the fruit of a deep-seated culture of violence our nation cannot seem to shed. Its origins are many: the frontier, genocide against Native Americans, the brutality of slavery, the Civil War, the lynching mentality that permeated the Southern and Western states where the death penalty is still most invoked, and the lawlessness fostered by Prohibition and glorified in popular culture. It is not a stretch to argue that the anti-abortion bills are violence against women.

The law in Florida is now as pro-death as it was before 1972, when defendants of capital crimes were automatically condemned unless a majority of the jurors recommended life. Now, a death recommendation is automatic unless seven of 12 jurors oppose it. Only Alabama permits a less-than-unanimous vote of 10 to 2, although two other states let a judge decide when juries cant.

The new Florida law also requires judges to explain in writing if they dont accept jury death recommendations. That further tilts the scales and may create openings for peeved prosecutors to appeal to a state Supreme Court thats stridently pro-death penalty.

No governor since Reubin Askew in the 1970s has questioned the usefulness or morality of the death penalty. Askew said he became convinced it wasnt a deterrent, but signed the new death penalty law the Legislature passed in December 1972 to replace what the Supreme Court had outlawed.

Only three of 160 legislators voted against that bill. This time a total of 40 did (10 senators and 30 House members), so Florida has made progress. But its not nearly enough.

See the original post:
Hypocrisy on matters of life and death | Editorial - South Florida Sun Sentinel