AZ: Domestic Defense? Wife Shoots, Kills Retired Officer

Steve Bassett died more than a week after police say he was shot by his wife, Teri Bassett, inside their Mesa home, near Higley and Brown.

More Here

NC: Off Duty Officer Shoots Man Involved in Shooting at Apartment Complex

The shooting happened around 5 p.m. in the 4300 block of Emerald Forest Drive at the Emerald Place Apartment Complex off of NC-54. An off-duty officer who lived at the apartments heard shots and went to investigate, Durham Police said. The officer found a man on the ground suffering from a gunshot with another man standing next to him.

DPD said the officer tried to investigate what happened and "during the interaction" shot the man standing nearby. That man was taken to the hospital with serious injuries.
More Here

CA: Homeowner Shoots at Burglar Suspects to stop Vehicular Assault

Two suspected burglars were arrested after they fled a Sunol residence when the homeowner shot at their vehicle as they tried to run him down.

The suspects were arrested Tuesday in Union City after a pursuit by Alameda County sheriff's deputies.
More Here

MO: Resident Shoots, Wounds Home Invader

Bailey said one of the residents told police that someone broke into their home and shot at them, so they returned fire.

Bailey said the suspect in the break-in was shot and later taken to the hospital in serious condition.
More Here

AR: Dollar Store Employee Shoots, Kills, 45-Year-Old Keith Cobbins in Little Rock

LITTLE ROCK, Ark.- Little Rock Police say an employee at the Family Dollar on Dr. Martin Luther King Drive shot and killed a man Wednesday evening.

More Here

IL: Intruder Attempting to Break in, Shot by Resident

Authorities said a person tried to enter an occupied apartment by force. A resident shot a firearm through the door and hit the intruder as the door started to break open.

More Here

LA: Armed Victim is Wounded, Kills 1 of 3 Attackers

BATON ROUGE, La. (WAFB) - The intended target of an attempted armed robbery acted in self-defense during a deadly shooting Thursday night on East Smiley Avenue, according to investigators.

The Baton Rouge Police Department reported Tony Falgout, 18, was killed when he and two others tried to rob a 26-year-old man around 9 p.m. in the 2200 block of E. Smiley Ave. The victim of the armed robbery is hospitalized with life-threatening injuries, police said.
More Here

Gun Controls Fail: Canadian Mass Murderer Prohibited Possessor

Location of mass murders in Nova Scotia, Canada, April, 2020

The restrictions Canada has placed on obtaining, keeping, and using firearms failed entirely in the recent mass murder case in Nova Scotia. I refrain from using the murderer's name.

Canadian restrictions on gun ownership failed. The murderer had plead guilty to an assault charge in 2002. He paid a $50 fine, and served probation for nine months. He then had a lifetime ban on owning firearms.  From nypost.com:

Authorities said Wortman did not have a police record, but information later emerged of at least one run-in with the law. Nova Scotia court records confirm he was ordered to receive counseling for anger management after pleading guilty to assaulting a man in the Halifax area on Oct. 29, 2001.

The guilty plea came on Oct. 7, 2002, as his trial was about to begin. He was placed on probation for nine months, fined $50 and told to stay away from the man, and also prohibited from owning or possessing a weapon, ammunition or explosive substances.

Mass shootings are relatively rare in Canada. The country overhauled its gun control laws after Marc Lepine shot 14 women and himself to death at Montreal’s Ecole Polytechnique college in 1989. Before the weekend rampage, that had been Canada’s worst mass shooting.

Authorities have not released much information about what firearms the murderer used in his killings. We know he took one handgun and magazines from the RCMP officer he killed. The standard issue handgun for the RCMP is the Smith & Wesson 5946 9mm. It is a  a stainless steel, double action only version of the S&W model 59 series. The magazine holds 15 rounds of ammunition.  It has been reported the killer used one handgun and several long guns. From the CBC.ca:

Investigators are trying to piece together how Gabriel Wortman was able to obtain the handgun and long guns he used last weekend in a deadly rampage through rural Nova Scotia, including how some made it across the Canada-U.S. border.

Police have traced one of Wortman's weapons back to Canada, but believe the others may have been obtained in the United States, the RCMP revealed on Friday.

It is unlikely the killer used any "military style" semi-automatic rifles, because, if he had, it would have been reported. It would be in Prime Minister Trudeau's interest to have it reported.

In the former Soviet Union, people deduced what was happening by what was *not* said.  I suspect, eventually, we will know precisely what firearms were used; at the moment, it may suit the PM's purpose for that information to be withheld.

PM Trudeau is pushing for a ban on "military style firearms", although they are seldom used in crime in either the United States or Canada. Handguns have been tightly controlled in Canada since 1935. It is common for those who push for a disarmed population to use an unrelated crime to push for controls which would have had no effect on the crime being used.

Those who wish a disarmed population are never satisfied. Their cannot admit their  policies were wrong; a failure always results in a call for more restrictions.

The murderer was a fairly successful denturist (someone who makes dentures), and is reported as owning several properties in Nova Scotia. His business had been shut down during the Coronavirus restrictions, for the previous month before the murders.

It has been reported he and his girlfriend argued at a party, that they then returned home; the argument  become violent. The denturist tied up or restrained the girlfriend in some way. She escaped and hid in the woods.  Then the killer starts his killing spree.  The exact timing is not yet known.

There has not been any official speculation as to whether business losses from the Covid19 shutdown, or the knowledge that the girlfriend escaped, were triggers for the killing spree.  The Royal Canadian Mounted Police continue to investigate.

Strong restrictions on the ownership of firearms has proved ineffective in preventing violence by a person who has assets and is not concerned with losing them. The murderer burned down his own home at the start of the spree. He had plenty of money to accumulate unregistered guns over his life.

Mass killers often do not expect to survive their rampage, although some do.

Reducing the number of legal firearms seems to have little effect on the acquisition of firearms for illegal purposes.

India and China have had strict firearms control in effect for many decades. The Small Arms survey shows tens of millions of illegal firearms in both countries.

Brazil has had strict firearms controls, and a relatively small number of legal guns, yet it has had a very high murder rate with firearms.

In Australia, a jeweler, with similar skills to a denturist, made over a hundred submachine guns for the black market.  Similar submachine guns have been made in Canada, and all over the world.

Home and small shop manufacture place a physical limit on how effective gun control can be.

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

GA: Self Defense Shooting in Richmond Hill at Royal Inn

It happened just after 11:40 pm at the Royal Inn hotel near I-95. The shooter was arrested and after questioning was released due to self-defense; no charges were filed.

Richmond Hill Police say the shooting happened after an argument in one of the rooms at the Royal Inn. They say the people involved are not from here and shootings are pretty unusual for their department.
More Here

Supreme Court Punts Second Amendment Case back to Lower Courts

Dean Weingarten in front of  the Supreme Court of the United States

The long awaited ruling on the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, was issued on 27 April, 2020.  The Supreme Court resolved almost nothing.  The Court held the case was moot, because the City of New York and the State of New York changed their law, so as to prevent the Court from ruling on the case. The Court merely maintained the unsatisfactory status quo of the Second Amendment in the lower courts.

This is exactly what those who oppose a meaningful Second Amendment demanded of the Court.

Here is a brief summation of the history of the case. Seven years ago, in 2013,  the suit was brought against the City of New York and the License Division, by several individuals and the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association.

The restrictions on the exercise of Second Amendment rights were, and are, extreme. A carry license is nearly impossible to obtain without political connections. A premise license is slightly less difficult, but still involves large expenses and commitments of time and energy, and may be denied for a host of minor reasons.  Only about 1.29% of city residents have been issue handgun licenses. People who have premises licenses were not allowed to take their handgun outside the city. The lawsuit asked the court find the law unconstitutional. From the dissent on April 27, 2020:

According to the complaint, the City, by limiting licensees like petitioners to the seven ranges in the City, imposed a serious burden on the exercise of their Second Amendment right. App. 36. 

The amended complaint’s prayer for relief sought an injunction against enforcement of the travel restriction, as well as attorney’s fees, costs of suit, declaratory relief . . . and “[a]ny such further relief as the [c]ourt deems just and proper.” Id., at 47–48 (emphasis added).

The City of New York argued the restrictions did not infringe on the Second Amendment. They argued the restrictions were absolutely necessary for public safety.

 The District Court agreed.

The plaintiffs appealed to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals in the Second Circuit agreed with the City of New York.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme court. During this entire period, the City of New York held the law was absolutely necessary for public safety and did not infringe on the Second Amendment at all.

The Supreme Court decided to hear the case, by granting a writ of certiorari, the usual way.

The tactic of the City immediately changed. Faced with a near certainty the law would be found unconstitutional, they changed the law as little as they believed necessary to prevent the court from hearing the case, convinced the state legislature to back them up with a change in state law, and argued the case was now moot (no longer a live controversy).

In oral arguments, they admitted the law was not really necessary for public safety at all.

The Supreme Court initially refused to accept the case was moot, but with the recent decision, finally bowed to political pressure from the left.

The Supreme Court has avoided nearly all substantive Second amendment cases for a decade.

Justice Kavanaugh concurred with the decision, but said the court should address the issue by taking another of the several Second Amendment cases which have been appealed to the Supreme Court ( the plaintiffs have petitioned for a writ of certiorari).

Some of those cases are: Wilson v Cook County, Culp v Raoul, Malpasso v Pallozzi, Worman v Healey, Cheeseman v Polillo, Ciolek v. New Jersey,  Gould v Lipson, Rogers v Grewal,  Mance v Barr, and Pena v Horan, according to a discussion on freerepublic.com.

Three justices, Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas, strongly dissented. They denied the case was moot. Their argument is persuasive.

The dissent documents the intense pressure placed on the court from the left and leftist politicians. Justice Alito, in the opening paragraph of the dissent, writes this:

By incorrectly dismissing this case as moot, the Court permits our docket to be manipulated in a way that should not be countenanced.

The dissent details how the City of New York placed extreme burdens on the ability of legal gun owners in New York to attend shooting competitions, to use ranges, in short, how it infringes on basic Second Amendment rights.  

By ruling the case as moot, the court removes the potential for the petitioners to claim attorney’s fees under 42 U. S. C. §1988. 

Many of the cases decided by the Supreme Court are intensely political. The Court has, with its decisions, removed and weakened many of the checks and balances which were built into the Constitution to limit the power of the government, and to protect the rights of the citizenry. This weakening became increasingly strong as multitudes of progressive judges transformed the court during and since the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Progressive philosophy holds the Constitution is and should mean whatever the justices on the court wish it to mean for political expediency.

Some have claimed the Supreme Court showed cowardice by finding the case moot after bringing it all the way through oral arguments. It seems silly to do so, after the Court earlier refused to rule the case as moot. This can be explained by the political structure of the current court.

The Supreme Court is split on protecting Second Amendment rights. Once again, the Court has stalemated before addressing current infringments on the exercise of those rights.

It is not generally cowardice which we are seeing, but an intense struggle between a progressive view of the Constitution and the originalist and textualist vision of accepting the Constitution as written.

Four of the justices on the Supreme Court, Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan are, from a leftist standpoint, and the standpoint of the old, mainstream, progressive media, heroically and desperately working to hold back the tide of originalism, which would return a semblance of the rule of law back to the Constitution and the Republic.

Three justices, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch, are in the vanguard of restoring the rule of law and a Republic of limited power. Justice Brett Kavanaugh admits it is necessary, although he sided with the majority on this case.

Chief Justice Roberts is the one who appears to be vacillating with the winds of pressure from the media and leftist politicians.

The Left fears numerous Supreme Court decisions, which fly in the face of a common sense reading of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, will be struck down.  They fear the efforts of 70 years of progressives to shape a Progressive Constitution will be brought to ruin. They fear the 100 year old "progressive project" will be destroyed.

The progressive left desperately hopes the coronavirus will work to defeat President Donald Trump in the 2020 elections. It is likely no Second Amendment case will be heard until after the 2020 election. 

Delay, delay, delay. It is a desperate attempt by the Left to hold onto progressive power.

Who knows? President Trump may be defeated, and more progressives appointed to the courts. A war may happen. Justice Ginsberg may live until the end of President Trump's second term. For those who remember the old tale, the horse may learn to sing.

Meanwhile, the infringements of Second Amendment rights continue. Lives are ruined by unconstitutional laws; the march toward a Brave New World, where the only freedoms protected by the Court are those approved of by Progressives, as long as they approve of them, stays in place, and may even advance a halting step or two.

To paraphrase the Left, objective conditions have changed. The old, technological realities which gave the progressives virtual control over the flow of information in the United States, and thus, political power over most politicians, are crumbling. A majority of people no longer find the old, established progressive media, credible. More people are finding ways to access multiple sources of information, which often contradict the narratives the old, elite, progressive establishment uses to maintain its power.

Change is here. The best hope to keep our freedoms is to support the Constitution and the rule of law.

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

MI: Man who Broke into Home Shot by Resident

Police determined the wounded man had entered the home through a window he had broken, Kaiser said.

The wounded man was taken via ambulance to an area hospital, where he remains in stable condition.

The resident was not arrested or issued a citation, Kaiser said.
More Here

More on Florida Case where John DeRosset was Justified in Shooting a Deputy

A few days ago, on 15 April, 2020, the Florida 5th District Court of Appeals dismissed charges against retired General Motors worker John DeRossett, who wounded a deputy in a gunfight at his home in 2015. It was at night. The officer at the door was in plain clothes at the time, had no warrant, and was developing a case of solicitation for prostitution on DeRossett's niece, Mary Ellis.  The other two officers were in plain clothes, and hid in the dark outside the house.   The officers attempted to take Mary Ellis into custody, at DeRossett's home. The officers never identified themselves to DeRossett.

Everyone in the case admits going to the home of an alleged prostitute to make an arrest, after they fail to show up at the motel, where a controlled environment was set up, was highly unusual. From floridatoday.com:

Brevard County agents set up a prostitution sting on Aug. 20, 2015, arranging to meet DeRossett's niece, Mary Ellis, at a motel where a controlled environment had been set up to conduct an arrest.

When she didn't show, the three deputies in plain clothes went to her Covina Street home in Port St. John, where Agent Peter Stead grabbed Ellis from the doorway while John "Casey" Smith and Jason Roberts hid in the darkened yard.

During their testimony at the immunity hearing, the deputies said it was unusual to go to a suspect's home for a sting operation when a controlled environment had already been established.

When she was grabbed, Ellis began screaming for help from her uncle, who was in a back room eating at the time, according to court records.

I wrote about the case in a previous Ammoland article. Research has unearthed more about the case. I wish to clarify some of the legal and practical issues.

DeRossett knew his niece, Mary Ellis, had engaged in acts of prostitution in his home. He knew she had drug problems. That is why his sister had urged him to provide a place for his niece to stay. DeRossett had no criminal record. He worked as a security guard to supplement his retirement income. He had a concealed carry permit.

After DeRossett was in jail, two Brevard County deputies were dismissed because they were clients of Mary Ellis. Their names were found during the investigation of the case. From clockorlando.com, September, 2015:

TITUSVILLE, Fla. – Two Brevard County deputies are off the job after participating in prostitution, according to the Sheriff's Office.

"I'm absolutely disgusted by the actions of these two individuals," Sheriff Wayne Ivey said at a news conference Sunday.

The two now former deputies were clients of Mary Derossett, 42, whose uncle shot Deputy John "Casey" Smith last month in a Port St. John neighborhood, according to Sheriff Ivey.

Sheriff Ivy let slip his bias in the case:

While the findings are a tough pill to swallow for the sheriff, there's something much more important to him.

"The most important thing for me is that the individual who shot Casey never sets foot on soil unless he's got bars in front of him," said Sheriff Ivey.

Sheriff Ivy wanted DeRossett in prison. It does not appear to matter to him whether the shooting was justified or not.

In 2015, Sheriff Ivy was up for re-election in a few months. He was re-elected in 2016, without opposition. He is popular in Brevard County.

This mudracking piece by volusiaexposed.com shows potential bias on the part of Judge Lemonidis:

Prior to Lemonidis being elected to the bench (2014) - she was Michael Dunn's defense attorney. On November 23, 2012, Michael Dunn shot and killed 17 year old Jordan Davis at a Jacksonville, Florida gas station for allegedly playing his car radio too loud. Dunn would allege that Davis and / or his teenage friends threatened him with a shot gun - this shot gun was never recovered by the police.

According to a November 28, 2012 Huffingtonpost article - Lemonidis attempted to justify her client's eight gun shots, as being fired merely to scare off Davis and his teenaged companions.

The obvious question is - if Dunn can fire eight shots to scare off the teens - with Lemonidis still holding that her client qualifies for the SYG defense - then how as a judge, can Lemonidis ruled that Mr. Derossett waived his ability to claim an SYG defense - merely due to the fact that he fired ONE warning shot in the air?

Attorneys are hired guns in the legal profession. They are hired to do their best for their client. Just because Lemonidis argued for her client in the Dunn case does not mean she believed the argument in principle.

Volusiaexposed brings up interesting speculation as to why the authorities in Brevard County might want to keep John DeRossett locked up. It is hard to believe he would *not* be allowed out on bail, for five years, when he was a homeowner, a retired auto worker, had no criminal history, and was willing to put up a $450,000 bond (from relatives). I have not seen any reason to believe he was a flight risk or a danger to the community.  From Volusiaexposed:

Rumor has it that Mary's client list may reveal some other interesting clients' names. Making us wonder why they (BCSO) really invaded the Derossett home in the first place - was it simply to arrest Mary, or was it to recover her list of clients?

There are good reasons to believe DeRossett did not know the men accosting his niece were police officers. The deputies were not in uniform.  The area was dark. His statements, immediately after the shooting, in the hospital, and afterward, were all consistent with the belief unknown men were attempting to kidnap his niece.

It is the responsibility of police to reasonably make known they are acting officially. It is not the responsibility of citizens to assume anyone claiming to be a police officer *is* a police officer.

If the homeowner does not know a police officer is acting officially, they may legitimately defend themselves against that officer, just as they have the right to defend against any other person. What constitutes reasonable notice that an officer is acting officially, is up to judges and juries.

Prosecutors have accumulated enormous power over the last 50 years. The Supreme Court granted prosecutors absolute immunity for their actions. This has lead to prosecutors abusing their power. A person may be completely innocent, yet suffer enormous punishment, without ever being convicted of a crime.

This is known as punishment by process, or in common police parlance, "you may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride".

Part of the reason the Stand Your Ground law was passed in Florida, was to curb prosecutor abuse of people who legitimately defended themselves, but were punished by the process.

One of those people was Gabriel Mobley in Florida. 

Judges were given authority to determine if the case had any merit before the case was brought to trial, to curb punishment by process.  Legislators required a judge to review the evidence, to see if there was a reasonable chance of conviction. If the evidence did not meet the standard of proof of "clear and convincing evidence" to a judge,  it would be unlikely a jury would find the higher standard of proof of "beyond a reasonable doubt". From politico.com:

Supporters says the legislation, HB 245, which passed on a 23-15 vote, puts the burden of proof where it belongs: on the government.

“If you have been charged with a crime, the burden of proof is on the state,” said state Sen. Greg Steube, R-Sarasota. “We are not shifting the burden of proof, we are putting it where it belongs.”

John DeRossett is a free man today. He was not convicted and sentenced to life in prison for shooting a police officer.

He beat the rap. He did not beat the ride. He spent almost five years of his life in jail, because he shot a police officer in legitimate self defense. If the person attempting to grab his niece had been a pimp, he would have been hailed as a hero.

DeRossett had no reasonable reason to believe the person who grabbed his niece or the three men who shot at him were police officers.

Why was he held without bail for nearly five years?

One of those primarily responsible for this travesty of justice is former Assistant State Attorney Gary Beatty. He wrote an opinion piece about the case. It was published on 22 April, 2020. He admits the appeals court followed the law correctly when they dismissed the case. From floridatoday.com:

.. the Judges aren’t to blame for the outcome. They were bound by the statute the Legislature enacted.

Yet Beatty was the prosecutor who petitioned Judge Lemonides to keep DeRossett in jail without bond:

After DeRossett’s arrest, when he was in court for his first appearance, the judge granted my request that he be held without bond.

But why? DeRossett does not appear to have been a flight risk. He had been granted bond on 14 December, 2015, in the amount of $450,000, when the judge granted the request of prosecutor Gary Beatty to hold him without bond. Beatty says he requested DeRossett be held without bond at the first appearance, which would have been at the end of 2015 or early in 2016. It probably was before 24 February, 2016, because video footage in court on that day shows DeRossett in custody.

It would be interesting to find a transcript of the hearing to determine what reason was given for withholding bond. If anyone is able to locate it, please let us know. Beatty, in his opinion piece, does not give a reason for his request to have DeRossett held without bond.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal sums up what was shown by the evidence to the trial court for the immunity hearing. This is not my interpretation of the events, but the summation of what happened, by the Florida First District Court of Appeal, based on the voluminous evidence presented over five days to the trial court.  From the First District Court of Appeal order, 7 November, 2019.

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE— Petitioner, John Derossett, a sixty-five-year-old retired General Motors autoworker, owned a home in Brevard County, Florida. Derossett’s adult niece, Mary Ellis, lived with him in this home. Derossett had no criminal record, worked part-time as a security guard at Port Canaveral, and lawfully possessed a concealed weapons permit. He had also apparently taken a firearms training course.

On August 20, 2015, at approximately 9:30 p.m., Ellis answered a knock on the front door. As she opened the door, a man reached inside the threshold of the house, grabbed her arm, and began pulling Ellis out of the home and onto the covered front porch. Ellis struggled to resist her apparent abduction and screamed to her uncle (Derossett) that she needed help. At this point, two other men approached to physically assist the first man in pulling Ellis off the porch of the home and into the front yard.

Derossett, having heard his niece’s screams for help, hurried from his bedroom to the front porch. He was armed. One of the three men saw Derossett rapidly advancing to the front door with his firearm and announced to the other two men that a man with a gun was approaching. The three men abruptly released Ellis, pushing her towards the front door, and scattered on the front lawn. Derossett immediately came out of his front door and stood under “the canopy part of the porch.”

At this point, Derossett raised his gun, called out to the men, and fired a warning shot up in the air. The three men, now at diverse points on Derossett’s front yard, and likewise armed, immediately shot their respective firearms at him. Derossett fired back. In total, more than forty rounds were exchanged. Despite being fairly close to each other, because it was dark at the time, none of the four men engaged in this incident had a clear view of the others. Derossett and his niece were both struck by gunfire, as was one of the three men in Derossett’s front yard, who was severely wounded in the abdomen.

(As an aside, all four of the people shooting in the gunfight were shooting .40 caliber Glock pistols.  WESH News archive 24 February, 2016. The deputy who was severely wounded was wearing a bullet resistant vest, which stopped one the bullets. Another bullet struck him in the abdomen. He is a large man.)

The court of appeal found Judge Lemonidis erred when she ruled that DeRossett was not justified in firing the warning shot; The court of appeal found Judge Lemonidis made several errors of fact, in spite of clear evidence to the contrary. First District Court of Appeal order,

 For the following reasons, we conclude that certain factual findings made by the court in its order were not supported by competent substantial evidence and that its legal conclusions were erroneous.

First, the court’s findings that the deputies had neither entered the home nor removed Ellis from the home were not supported by any evidence. The testimony from Ellis and the deputies at the hearing conclusively showed that the first deputy reached into the home and pulled Ellis out and that the deputies thereafter physically engaged with the now-screaming and agitated Ellis on the covered front porch to eventually remove her to the front lawn within seconds of Derossett coming onto his porch with a firearm. No evidence was presented at the hearing that either refutes this sequence of events or suggests otherwise. Therefore, under section 776.013(5)(a) and (b), and directly contrary to the trial court’s factual findings, these actions of the deputies did constitute an entry into Derossett’s dwelling and a removal of Ellis from it.

Second, these unsupported factual findings led the trial court to its legal conclusion that Derossett was not entitled to the statutory presumption under section 776.013(1) of having a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to his niece at the time he fired the warning shot. The trial court essentially determined that the imminent threat of Ellis being abducted or kidnapped had dissipated because Ellis and the deputies testified that the deputies had released her and pushed her towards the front door just prior to scattering onto the front yard. Thus, the court found that Derossett’s firing of his warning shot at that precise moment after the deputies had scattered was “completely unprovoked” and, therefore, “unjustified.”

We conclude that the court’s apparent interpretation of subsections 776.013(1)(a) and (b) does not comport with the statute’s plain language. The statute directs a court to presume that a person held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself, herself, or another when using deadly force against a person if, among other things, that person had just removed another from the dwelling and the person using the deadly force knew that the abduction had occurred. Here, the three men clearly had just removed Derossett’s niece against her will from his dwelling. Derossett, as the person using the defensive deadly force, knew that this apparently unlawful and forcible act (his niece’s abduction) had just occurred. Thus, under these circumstances, Derossett was statutorily entitled to the presumption of having held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to his niece at the time that he used the defensive deadly force.12 The trial court’s conclusion that Derossett was not entitled to this presumption was incorrect.

The undisputed, rapid events that happened and were happening at Derossett’s home that night did not occur in a vacuum. There was no other evidence presented at this hearing other than that the forcible taking of Ellis from the home had just occurred, and that Derossett knew, or at the very least had reason to know, that it had just occurred. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court’s factual findings were not supported by competent substantial evidence and its legal conclusion was inconsistent with the plain language of the statute. However, for reasons more fully discussed below, we presently withhold the issuance of a writ of prohibition and relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court with directions that the court specifically address at a subsequent hearing whether either of the two exceptions under section 776.013(2)(c) or (d), Florida Statutes (2015), apply to preclude Derossett from being entitled to immunity from prosecution under section 776.032(1) for his otherwise justified use of deadly force.13

The account shows DeRossett was well within his rights to defend himself and his niece when he fired the warning shot and got into the gun battle. The only issue was if the exceptions to the Florida Stand Your Ground law applied. The  the evidence was presented in an immunity hearing before the trial, in front of Judge Lemonidis.

Judge Lemonidis was also in error when she found DeRossett had failed to state a prima facie claim of immunity. From the Court of Appeal: 

The trial court also separately found that Derossett failed to state a prima facie claim of immunity. This was erroneous for two reasons. First, after Derossett had presented his evidence for self-defense immunity at the hearing, the trial court in fact found that he had made a prima facie claim for immunity. The State then put on evidence at the hearing to rebut the claim. If Derossett had failed to present a sufficient basis for immunity, the trial court arguably would have denied his motion without the need to receive and consider evidence from the State.

A pertinent question is: Why did Judge Lemonidis make these factual and legal errors? Could it be she was biased against John DeRossett, because the person he shot was a police officer? 

The Court of Appeals found the State failed to present clear and convincing evidence, to prove DeRossett knew, or should have known, the men who had grabbed his niece, were police officers. The case was sent back to the trial court. The trial court now looked at the other potential exception: whether DeRossett was furthering criminal activity, because he knew his niece had conducted acts of prostitution in his house.

Judge Lemonidis ruled against DeRossett again, finding his knowledge of illegal acts constituted furthering of criminal activity.  During this period, DeRossett is still being held in jail without bond. DeRossett appealed this finding to the same Court of Appeal.

DeRossett was released on bond, on 20 March, 2020. On 15 April, 2020, the Court of Appeal again found Judge Leonidis at the trial court had erred.

The Court of Appeal then dismissed the charges against John DeRossett, and he was freed.

This is not a case of mere legal technicalities. This case was about the basic right to defend yourself, and whether defending yourself against police will bring harsh penalties, even if the police are in the wrong, and you are within your rights.

The repeated errors of the trial court, in favor of the prosecution and the police, and against John DeRosset, show a remarkable pattern.

If you are out walking, and find steel tracks laid on wooden ties; you see an engine with a motor running on the tracks; you see the engine hauling cars on wheels on the tracks; you very likely are seeing a railroad.

Prosecutors and judges have great power. They are people. People are fallible.  It is often difficult for people to set aside their biases. Justice is supposed to be blind. Prosecutors and judges are to set aside their biases, but they sometimes fail.

From a previous Ammoland article:

In Washington State, if a prosecutor's office charges an individual, and the individual is found not guilty in a self defense case, the state pays the legal fees of the accused, under RCW 9A.110.

The full text of RCW 9A.16.110 (2) provides:When a person charged with a crime listed in subsection (1) of this section is found not guilty by reason of self-defense, the state of Washington shall reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including loss of time, legal fees incurred, and other expenses involved in his or her defense.

In 2015, the Florida legislature considered whether the State should be liable for legal fees if the defender was found to be immune. That bill did not pass. The Florida legislature should reexamine the issue. They should follow the example of Washington state. The requirement for reimbursement of legal fees, when a defendant is found not guilty in a self defense case, has worked very well, in Washington state, to rein in prosecutors who have absolute immunity from the Supreme Court.  Such a bill in Florida should include those times the case is dismissed in an immunity hearing.

John DeRossett spent nearly five years in jail, because bond had been denied, even though it had previously been granted. Let us see those transcripts from the hearing which are supposed to justify that ruling. Given the numerous factual and legal errors the trial court made, it may make interesting reading.

It appears Florida residents need more protections from overzealous prosecutors, not less.

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

IL: Gunfight, Clerk and Brother Chase Down Armed Robbery Suspect

The clerk called his brother, who was driving with friends nearby on Roberts Road, Hanania said. Together, they chased the suspected robber into Bridgeview, where they engaged in a brief shootout.

The suspected robber was shot in the back and hospitalized in good condition, Hanania said. Weapons were recovered from both the suspect and the brothers.

More Here

CA: Suspect of Home Break-in Shot by Homeowner

A man suspected of breaking into a house in Lake Elsinore on Monday night was shot and injured by the homeowner, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department said Tuesday.

Deputies responded to the 18000 block of Carmela Court at around 11:30 p.m. after getting reports of gunshots in the area, authorities said. On arrival, they found a man in the street with multiple gunshot wounds.
More Here

Corps of Engineers Proposes Rule to Remove Federal Infringements on Second Amendment from COE Lands

For decades, the Corps of Engineers (COE) has infringed on the Second Amendment rights of people in the United States, by limiting the bearing of arms on Corps managed lands and waters. In the last decade, lawsuits have challenged these infringements. The Corps lost one, appealed, and appealed another. After the election of President Trump, the Corps agreed to settle the lawsuits in March of 2017. The proposed rule simply aligns the Corps of Engineers rules with existing law on other government managed lands and waters. 

Conformity with state and local laws has been the law for National Parks for a decade. It has been an enormous success.  At the link, there is a button to access the site to submit a comment. It is on the upper right of the screen,in a rectangular blue box, with white letters which say "Comment Now". Clicking on the button takes you to the page to fill out your comment. Your personal information for contact will not be displayed, unless you put it in the comment itself.

Here is the official summary of the proposed rule. From regulations.gov:

Proposed rule.

Summary

The Department of the Army, through the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”), is soliciting comments on its proposed revision of its regulation that governs the possession and transportation of firearms and other weapons at Corps water resources development projects (“projects”). This proposed revision would align the Corps regulation with the regulations of the other Federal land management agencies by removing the need for an individual to obtain written permission before possessing a weapon on Corps projects.

Dates

Written comments must be submitted on or before June 12, 2020.
Addresses

You may submit comments, identified by docket number COE-2018-0008, by any of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Email: Firearms@usace.army.mil. Include the docket number, COE-2018-0008, in the subject line of the message.

Mail: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Attn: CECW-CO-N, Steve Austin 3F68, 441 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20314-1000.

Hand Delivery/Courier: Due to security requirements, the Corps cannot receive comments by hand delivery or courier.

Here is the comment I submitted. You are limited to 5,000 characters.  Most comments are simple and are simply counted as for or against. Of the extisting comments, about 97% were in favor of the rule removing the infringements.

I support this rule change. It is long overdue. The Corps is required to make this change by existing law and court settlements.

This change brings the Corps into alignment with existing law in other federal government managed lands.

It removes an untenable burden from unarmed rangers.

Massive benefits come with this rule change.

People will see the Corps must follow the rule of law, raising the public image of the Corps.

Crime will be decreased on Corps lands.

The ability to exercise the right to keep and bear arms will be partially restored. No government agency should routinely violate citizens fundamental rights, as the Corps has done for several decades.

In the next 55 days, there will be tens of thousands of comments. The vast majority should be in favor of the rule; however, groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity, the Everytown campaign, Giffords, Brady, Bloomberg, and others are likely to gin up support against this common sense restoration of the right to bear arms.

In 55 days we will know how the proportions of Second Amendment supporters and those who wish for a disarmed public will play out.

Commenting is very easy, and can consist of a few words, such as "I support this rule change."

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

TX : Harris County, Armed Victim Shoots, Kills, Armed Robber

HPD patrol officers responded to a shooting call at the above address and found one male lying in the street unresponsive and another male (shooter) still on scene. HFD paramedics pronounced the male in the street deceased. The shooter, 29, surrendered his weapon to officers.

A preliminary investigation determined the deceased male robbed the other male and both men exchanged gunfire. The deceased male was shot. The other male was uninjured. Officers recovered property on the deceased male and learned the property belonged to the shooter.
More Here

AR: Domestic Defense, Ex Breaks in, Assaults Man, is Shot by Ex Wife

The initial investigation has revealed Luckey forced his way inside the apartment and began physically assaulting his estranged wife Tynisha Luckey and another man who was inside the apartment.

Tynisha Luckey allegedly retrieved a gun and shot Courtland Luckey several times. The other man involved was injured.

More Here

ND: Resident Shoots Man who Entered Home and Threatened Him

According to police, a resident in northwest Minot called authorities early Saturday to say he had shot an unknown man who entered his home and threatened him. Officers arrived to find a dead man inside.
More Here

OH: Robbery Suspect Shot in Legs

The first shooting took place on Iliff Avenue, near Talbert Street around 12:15 a.m. Sunday. Police said a suspect tried to rob someone and was shot in the legs.

More Here

CA: Clerk at Liquor Store Shoots, Wounds Armed Robbery Suspect

FRESNO, Calif. (KFSN) -- A store clerk shot an armed suspect who tried to rob a liquor store in Lindsay on Sunday night, police say.

Lindsay police officers responded to the store on East Honolulu Street at around 10:40 p.m.

More Here