We have been following the case of Andrew Scott who was fatally shot by Lake County Deputies looking for a suspect in his apartment complex. Police did not identify themselves when they knocked on Scott’s door around 1:30 am. When Scott came to the door armed and allegedly pointed the gun at the officers, they killed him. Now, there is an allegation that officers increased the alleged crime of the suspect after the shooting.
There is no way to confirm that account of the officers that Scott pointed the gun at them before they killed him. What we do know is that they went to his house simply because the suspect’s motorcycle was near or across from his door. The suspect was not in the apartment. They said that they decided not to identify themselves out of fear for their own safety.
New recordings have been released that undermine claims that they officers were looking for an attempted murder suspect. WFTV says that recordings indicate that they were looking for a suspect for aggravated battery. While Jonathan Brown is now charged with attempted murder, WFTV says that it appears that the police upgraded the charge after killing Scott. The suggestion is that it looks much better to have gunned down a citizen while looking for an attempted murder suspect. It also could be used to excuse the failure to identify themselves given the danger of the suspect.
One tape reportedly shows an officer referring to the suspect as being sought in a “battery.”
Police insist that they feared if they identified themselves as officers, they could be harmed by the violent suspect.
Yet, it appears that the police were called over a simple street fight where Brown allegedly held a cinder block above the victim in a threatening way. However, he never used the cinder block and that does not sound like attempted murder to me. It sounds like a simple street fight. It is hard to see how this translates into such a heightened threat to the officer . . . whether a threat by cinder block or weapon. Standard procedures call for officers to identify themselves in most circumstances to protect themselves and others from these types of mistakes. Even with no knock warrants, officers are supposed to identify themselves as they break into homes. In a state with one of the highest rate of gun ownership in the country, the danger of such a confrontation with an armed homeowner is quite high — particularly in neighborhoods with high crime rates.
The police have largely failed to answer questions over the decision not to identify themselves — focusing instead on Scott’s response. If he pointed the gun at them, it was a highly negligent and threatening act. The range and time for a response of officers facing a gun is quite narrow. They have reason to fear for their lives in such a confrontation. However, there remains the question of the actions leading to the confrontation and whether the officers acted correctly in withholding their identity at such an early hour in pounding on the door.
If the street fight is the basis of the attempted murder charge, I fail to see how or why it would be charged as attempted murder. It would clearly be an abuse to charge Brown with the higher offense to try to legitimate the use of force against Scott after-the-fact. Notably, the Florida law below does not list battery as one of the underlying felonies for murder or attempted murder charges. The reason may be that it would convert virtually all batteries into attempted murder cases. It is also unclear if serious bodily injury occurred for an aggravated battery claim, even with the cinder block counted as a deadly weapon:
784.045 Aggravated battery.—
(1)(a) A person commits aggravated battery who, in committing battery:
1. Intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement; or
2. Uses a deadly weapon.
(b) A person commits aggravated battery if the person who was the victim of the battery was pregnant at the time of the offense and the offender knew or should have known that the victim was pregnant.
(2) Whoever commits aggravated battery shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
We obviously need to know more facts but the charge in the case raises some troubling questions, including whether Brown is facing a higher charge to offer a post-hoc rationalization for the handling of the case leading to Scott’s death. The police may have reason for the higher charge, but an investigation is clearly warranted into the charge as well as the original incident.
Source: WFTV
782.04 Murder.–
(1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:
1. When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being;
2. When committed by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:
a. Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
b. Arson,
c. Sexual battery,
d. Robbery,
e. Burglary,
f. Kidnapping,
g. Escape,
h. Aggravated child abuse,
i. Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
j. Aircraft piracy,
k. Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
l. Carjacking,
m. Home-invasion robbery,
n. Aggravated stalking,
o. Murder of another human being,
p. Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person,
q. Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism; or
3. Which resulted from the unlawful distribution of any substance controlled under s. 893.03(1), cocaine as described in s. 893.03(2)(a)4., or opium or any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium by a person 18 years of age or older, when such drug is proven to be the proximate cause of the death of the user,is murder in the first degree and constitutes a capital felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082.
(b) In all cases under this section, the procedure set forth in s. 921.141 shall be followed in order to determine sentence of death or life imprisonment.
(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) When a person is killed in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:
(a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
(b) Arson,
(c) Sexual battery,
(d) Robbery,
(e) Burglary,
(f) Kidnapping,
(g) Escape,
(h) Aggravated child abuse,
(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j) Aircraft piracy,
(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l) Carjacking,
(m) Home-invasion robbery,
(n) Aggravated stalking,
(o) Murder of another human being,
(p) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(q) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,by a person other than the person engaged in the perpetration of or in the attempt to perpetrate such felony, the person perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate such felony is guilty of murder in the second degree, which constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated without any design to effect death, by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any felony other than any:
(a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
(b) Arson,
(c) Sexual battery,
(d) Robbery,
(e) Burglary,
(f) Kidnapping,
(g) Escape,
(h) Aggravated child abuse,
(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j) Aircraft piracy,
(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l) Unlawful distribution of any substance controlled under s. 893.03(1), cocaine as described in s. 893.03(2)(a)4., or opium or any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium by a person 18 years of age or older, when such drug is proven to be the proximate cause of the death of the user,
(m) Carjacking,
(n) Home-invasion robbery,
(o) Aggravated stalking,
(p) Murder of another human being,
(q) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(r) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,is murder in the third degree and constitutes a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(5) As used in this section, the term “terrorism” means an activity that:
(a)1. Involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life which is a violation of the criminal laws of this state or of the United States; or
2. Involves a violation of s. 815.06; and
(b) Is intended to:
1. Intimidate, injure, or coerce a civilian population;
2. Influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
3. Affect the conduct of government through destruction of property, assassination, murder, kidnapping, or aircraft piracy.
History.–s. 2, ch. 1637, 1868; RS 2380; GS 3205; RGS 5035; s. 1, ch. 8470, 1921; CGL 7137; s. 1, ch. 28023, 1953; s. 712, ch. 71-136; s. 3, ch. 72-724; s. 14, ch. 74-383; s. 6, ch. 75-298; s. 1, ch. 76-141; s. 290, ch. 79-400; s. 1, ch. 82-4; s. 1, ch. 82-69; s. 1, ch. 84-16; s. 6, ch. 87-243; ss. 2, 4, ch. 89-281; s. 4, ch. 90-112; s. 3, ch. 93-212; s. 11, ch. 95-195; s. 18, ch. 96-322; s. 1, ch. 98-417; s. 10, ch. 99-188; s. 16, ch. 2000-320; s. 2, ch. 2001-236; s. 2, ch. 2001-357; s. 1, ch. 2002-212; s. 12, ch. 2005-128.
1Note.–Section 25, ch. 2005-128, provides that “[t]his act shall take effect July 1, 2005, and shall apply to offenses committed on or after that date.”
782.051 Attempted felony murder.–
(1) Any person who perpetrates or attempts to perpetrate any felony enumerated in s. 782.04(3) and who commits, aids, or abets an intentional act that is not an essential element of the felony and that could, but does not, cause the death of another commits a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life, or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, which is an offense ranked in level 9 of the Criminal Punishment Code. Victim injury points shall be scored under this subsection.
(2) Any person who perpetrates or attempts to perpetrate any felony other than a felony enumerated in s. 782.04(3) and who commits, aids, or abets an intentional act that is not an essential element of the felony and that could, but does not, cause the death of another commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, which is an offense ranked in level 8 of the Criminal Punishment Code. Victim injury points shall be scored under this subsection.
(3) When a person is injured during the perpetration of or the attempt to perpetrate any felony enumerated in s. 782.04(3) by a person other than the person engaged in the perpetration of or the attempt to perpetrate such felony, the person perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate such felony commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, which is an offense ranked in level 7 of the Criminal Punishment Code. Victim injury points shall be scored under this subsection.
History.–s. 1, ch. 96-359; s. 18, ch. 97-194; s. 12, ch. 98-204; s. 4, ch. 2001-236.
test website 1, March 17, 2013 at 1:35 pm
Hello. Neat post. There is an concern with your website in firefox, and you could want to test this… The browser is the market chief and a big part of other people will miss your fantastic writing because of this difficulty.
______________________________________________________
What difficulty? Do you want to go to lunch? I usually only ask three times.
Hello. Neat post. There is an concern with your website in firefox, and you could want to test this… The browser is the market chief and a big part of other people will miss your fantastic writing because of this difficulty.
http://www.dogheirs.com/tamara/posts/1555-loyal-pit-bull-saves-mother-and-child-from-home-invader
I always wear a shirt. 5′ 9″ 185 pounds. Nice doggie.
Better than a gun when answering a knock at the door after midnight, but if the cops are there, they’ll kill anyway.
http://www.dogheirs.com/tamara/posts/1555-loyal-pit-bull-saves-mother-and-child-from-home-invader
Don’t call the cops unless you really need to. When they get there, they’re going to do what they need to do. Women who think they can call the cops as a convenience should think again. Somebody might end up dead.
Mayfly,
Indeed it does in fact only go, “one way”.
Do you think for a minute that had the citizen homeowner actually shot first and killed one or more of the LEO’s, that the remaining cops wouldn’t have lied floridly to make a case against the homeowner? Of course history shows that they have in the past and invariably would in this case.
Next, do you really think the prosecutor who works hand in glove with the cop shop on a daily basis, would decline to file murder charges against the homeowner were he lucky enough to survive the fusilade? Of course he/she would file.
And lastly, the really disturbing part. Do you have a lot of confidence that with one or more dead cops, and the remaining witness’ being their brothers in arms spinning their web of deception and tale of woe about their heroic fallen comrade, that the jury would see fit to render the not guilty verdict that jury knows would outrage the police department that has been packing the court room with blue uniforms for the duration of the trial?
The police departments across the country have become very effective advocates, sometimes more like propogandists, that they are all heros when they pull on a uniform and strap on a Glock. That they are just about the only thing standing between you and anarchy. That you will not be safe unless you continue to cede more and more of your civil rights to their authoritarian control. After all, there is all that “gun violence” for the citizenry to be fearful of. Of course almost never, does an instance of the police misconduct that was the genesis of this discussion ever constitutes “gun violence” .
I think it more likely that the gendarmes are, in the final analysis, able to use the incident as another case supporting the need for additional “tools” that enhance the militarizement of the police force.
Regards,
Lexmanifesta
ID707,
24-year-old James Holmes. How do you know he was Norwegian? This has been imitated before in the United States.
If you want to talk about the CIA, prove it.
Flash: Killing in Batman movie
===============================
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/07/suspect_in_colo_batman_shootin.html
Check out his foto. Psychopath, Did not making it lying through first year med. Goodby cruel world.
What crazy Norwegians can inspire to do.
Who’s gonna imitate this one?
I was friends with a cop in San Leandro, California. He got called to an apartment complex on a supposed attempted rape.
It was the young woman’s boyfriend. He was dressed in dark sweats. The cop was standing at the door listening. The boyfriend opened the door suddenly, and the cop shot him twice.
There was no rape. Why did you shoot him? Why did you call the police?
Well, it IS Florida, after all.
These cops smell dirty and the odor is getting worse by the minute.
Blouise — FOTFLOL! 🙂
Every person in America requires security cameras that take video 24/7 and shoot it up to the clouds so that the internet depository has the video images stored and the Leo can not steal the video camera or contents after he kills someone or commits some other crime. Once installed, every person in America over the age of 18 needs a big shotgun in his/her home to shoot intruders. The Leo can be a gangster with a hoodie named Leo, a cop who calls himself Leo, or a Catholic pedophile priest named Fr. Leo, going door to door. All three catagories of these porkers need to be shot if they try to enter the castle without permission or when armed.
“The range and time for a response of officers facing a gun is quite narrow.”
If Scott believed, which he surely did, that unknown men were assaulting his home, he too had a narrow range of time for a response. It doesn’t go only one way.
The police sound just like any suspected criminal … constantly changing the story in order to appear in the most advantageous light.
These ends never justify the means….. Or in this case the means never justify the ends…..