Court rules 'Stand Your Ground' applies in Port St. John man's case in deputy shooting

AR10ShooterinNC

AR10ShooterinNC

Happy to be here
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2016
Messages
13,533
Location
High Point
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
https://www.theledger.com/news/2020...plies-in-florida-mans-case-in-deputy-shooting

Citing the "Stand Your Ground" law, the 5th District Court of Appeal dismissed the longstanding charges against a Port St. John man accused of shooting Brevard County Sheriff’s Deputy John "Casey" Smith during a botched arrest in front of his home in 2015.

The decision — issued Wednesday — ends the prosecution of John DeRossett, 60, on the attempted premeditated first-degree murder of a law enforcement officer while discharging a firearm. DeRossett spent nearly five years at the Brevard County Jail Complex in Sharpes as he awaited a trial. He was allowed to leave on bond in March.

"The appellate decision is better than a jury acquittal. An acquittal only means ‘not guilty.’ This order means that John is innocent, that his actions were justified, and that he never should have been arrested in the first place. It’s a total vindication," said DeRossett’s Orlando-based attorney, Michael Panella.
 
Hopefully a civil suit against the city will help him get SOME payback for them locking him up wrongly for 5 YEARS.

Cops who show up at night in plain clothes & dont announce themselves should NEVER be a thing . Dude was totally justified. I'm just shocked a court vindicated him (although the whole story screams "Florida".
 
“Our law enforcement officers risk their lives daily to protect our community. This ruling adds to that risk by extending protection to those who turn a blind eye to criminal activity, even within their own home.”


Really, risk their lives? Over a prostitute?
 
Last edited:
J R Green said:
Speedy trial only occurs if the defendant files for it. He didn't. You can bet that some of the delays were at his behest.
Click to expand...
Both sides often file for delay, would the defendant have to file a waiver to a speedy trial vs requesting a speedy trial?
 
Button Pusher said:
Both sides often file for delay, would the defendant have to file a waiver to a speedy trial vs requesting a speedy trial?
Click to expand...
Defendant has to request it. You won't find a defense attorney that will suggest one though. They count on delays, judge shopping, loss of witnesses, etc.
 
Goofyfoot2001 said:
They should know not to attempt an arrest in a home with plain clothing. I wouldn't believe they were police if they screamed it at the top of their lungs. You go to arrest someone in their home you drive up in a police car with lights and wearing a uniform.
Click to expand...
I can see it both ways, i guess.
Roll up with sirens and lights and a bullhorn and they MAY get a violent response from some folks
but show up in plain clothes, don't announce, and don't give me time to verify you're cops with a legal warrant, and I almost guarantee I'll be trying to teach some hard lessons, delivered at varying speeds and in doses of 55 to 220gr depending on what room i'm in at the time.

Honestly, it would be best just to send a fedex asking me to appear with an attorney...

As for turning a blind eye to prostitution... was she actively engaged at the time, or were they just hassling somebody they knew from before? maybe looking for a freebie? did they even know her or is the article just aiming for character assassination?
 
DrScaryGuy said:
As for turning a blind eye to prostitution... was she actively engaged at the time, or were they just hassling somebody they knew from before? maybe looking for a freebie? did they even know her or is the article just aiming for character assassination?
Click to expand...

Could be character assassination. But even if she was actively engaging....showing up plain clothes at night without announcing? Sounds sketchy at best, and absurdly heavy handed at worst. The whole "risking their lives" nonsense....over prostitution? What risk besides them showing up like a couple of regular scum bags in the night asking for trouble.
 
mhuxtable said:
Hopefully a civil suit against the city will help him get SOME payback for them locking him up wrongly for 5 YEARS.

Cops who show up at night in plain clothes & dont announce themselves should NEVER be a thing . Dude was totally justified. I'm just shocked a court vindicated him (although the whole story screams "Florida".
Click to expand...

Unfortunately tax payers are punished in those kind of civil suits, not the cops.

In addition to tossing qualified immunity, we need to require that all law enforcement officers wear a uniform: detectives, drug task force guys, FBI agents...every last one of them that might otherwise knock on your door or try to arrest you wearing khakis or jeans and some t shirt that says police.
 
Robbie said:
Unfortunately tax payers are punished in those kind of civil suits, not the cops.

In addition to tossing qualified immunity, we need to require that all law enforcement officers wear a uniform: detectives, drug task force guys, FBI agents...every last one of them that might otherwise knock on your door or try to arrest you wearing khakis or jeans and some t shirt that says police.
Click to expand...

I also think every law enforcement officer should have to personally carry liability insurance. Would solve a lot of renegade and trigger happy wannabe cowboys.
 
mhuxtable said:
I also think every law enforcement officer should have to personally carry liability insurance. Would solve a lot of renegade and trigger happy wannabe cowboys.
Click to expand...
not if their insurance is paying for their mistakes. their union would find a way to make the taxpayer cover the insurance.
the only way to reform cops is to make cops personally responsible for their bad enforcement (which will NEVER happen, thanks to heine v nc)
 
DrScaryGuy said:
not if their insurance is paying for their mistakes. their union would find a way to make the taxpayer cover the insurance.
the only way to reform cops is to make cops personally responsible for their bad enforcement (which will NEVER happen, thanks to heine v nc)
Click to expand...

The idea is that if they do something stupid like these cops did, the victim would get paid out via the LEOs insurance policy & therefore premiums would go up after that. Eventually a bad cop will be priced out of the profession. In theory at least. And tax payers aren't on the hook. Its the best solution I've heard so far.
 
mhuxtable said:
The idea is that if they do something stupid like these cops did, the victim would get paid out via the LEOs insurance policy & therefore premiums would go up after that. Eventually a bad cop will be priced out of the profession. In theory at least. And tax payers aren't on the hook. Its the best solution I've heard so far.
Click to expand...
pay it out of the officer retirement fund and we'll solve the problem a WHOLE lot faster
 
If the police will not police themselves, who is going to? The police fight general population over site at every turn, but will not police themselves, maybe individual officers should be held financially responsible for their actions.
 
noway2 said:
“Announcing”, “plain clothes”, “warrants”, etc :rolleyes:

Here’s a simple solution: stay away from me and stay off my property unless your invited.
Click to expand...

But, but.....muh Heroez!

mhuxtable said:
The idea is that if they do something stupid like these cops did, the victim would get paid out via the LEOs insurance policy & therefore premiums would go up after that. Eventually a bad cop will be priced out of the profession. In theory at least. And tax payers aren't on the hook. Its the best solution I've heard so far.
Click to expand...

Any settlement comes out of the department's budget.

Yeah, taxpayers still on the hook. But of the rest of them had to do without equipment, they wouldn't tolerate the, uhhh, "rare" bad apples in their midst.

Additionally, the boss may be more deliberate in their hiring practices.
 
The shooting unfolded when Smith went to a house on the 1000 block of Covina Street in unincorporated Cocoa around 9:30 p.m. Aug. 20 after authorities got a complaint about possible prostitution in the neighborhood.

Smith and two other agents — Jason Roberts and Peter Stead — were conducting an undercover operation and made arrangements to meet with a woman, a suspect later identified as Derossett's niece, for sex.

Mary Derossett, 42, is being held at the jail on prostitution charges.

Stead "approached the door in an undercover capacity as the prospective customer" at 9:15 p.m. when John Derossett opened fire, Goodyear said.

"The agents exchanged gunfire with the defendant, during which time Agent Smith was struck as well as the defendant,'' Goodyear said in a statement.


https://www.orlandosentinel.com/new...shooting-suspect-arrested-20150826-story.html
 
Last edited:
noway2 said:
It’s her body. If she wants to sell access to it for sex that’s her business. The state has no business getting involved.
Click to expand...
Probably Half the women in Hollywood sold sex for something of value. Movie roles. Yet they are considered victims.
Plenty of young women marry older rich ugly men for money.
Time to repeal laws against the more direct exchange of cash for sex.
Focus on human trafficking instead.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
 
<MADDOG> said:
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/new...shooting-suspect-arrested-20150826-story.html
Click to expand...

Read the additional details at the ammoland link for the parts the cops didn't admit at first.
Like the "prostitute" not actually showing up to prostitute, and trying to forcibly extract her from the home...
I'll never believe an early police statement, because the only people who know what happened are the cops involved who have probably tried to spin a story already. how many times have we seen the official story eventually completely contradict the early statements?
 
DrScaryGuy said:
Read the additional details at the ammoland link for the parts the cops didn't admit at first.
Like the "prostitute" not actually showing up to prostitute, and trying to forcibly extract her from the home...
I'll never believe an early police statement, because the only people who know what happened are the cops involved who have probably tried to spin a story already. how many times have we seen the official story eventually completely contradict the early statements?
Click to expand...

I did not even see that link Dr, thanks!

And I agree with this statement 100%, "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."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom