She was not the aggressor in the beginning! Witnesses said he was traveling at a high rate of speed when she pulled in front of him.
(Whether inadvertently or on purpose).
I wonder if he was wearing a helmet and sunglasses. I ask because that alone would have been intimidating. (I hate not being able to see a person's eyes. Especially one who is angry).
Biker dude's need to stop SM went beyond what was safe AND logical. All over a scuffed saddlebag. Further down the road where she was going to turn onto her road home, the 3 men again attempted to stop her.
You don't think this would have scared the heck out of her?
SM's mother could hear the 3 men roaring down their street on their motorcycles and asked, "who does this?!" Who does this? A biker boy looking to get revenge on a woman (terrified or not,) who wouldn't conform to HIS orders. And 2 other biker dudes who tried to stop her.
And no, and unfortunately he was not charged with a homicide or anything else for that matter. My comment pertained to had she been pregnant, he should, would or could have been charged with "the baby's" murder.
AND we don't know if BD (biker dude) had drugs in his system. He was released before he could be tested.
She was the aggressor in the beginning. Pulling in front of another vehicle traveling faster than you are makes you at fault in the event of an accident.
Helmets are optional in FL, I would never ride a motorcycle without one personally. However, it is irrational to assume someone wearing safety gear is intimidating. I don't get this argument at all. We don't know what Sara was thinking.
The law is clear here. When you are in a traffic accident you are to pull over and exchange information. Since she refused to pull over, I think it is reasonable for Derr to consider several things. One, he could not possibly know the extent of the damage to his vehicle that she caused in the accident. Two, she's fleeing for a reason, which could be anything: because she's uninsured, her license is suspended or revoked, the car is stolen, there is a warrant for her arrest, etc. Three, it would be reasonable and legal to follow her in an attempt to exchange information. Four, once she is stopped then he could call the authorities to notify them of the hit and run (a crime). I don't see how any of these things are unsafe or illogical. You're simply ignoring state law and giving her a free pass.
If she was scared, it would have been simple for her to call 911 from her cell phone or to go to the sheriff's substation just down the street from her house. She didn't do that. She went home to where she had a gun.
Regarding the mother, in Orange City, motorcycles are a regular thing. It's very close to Daytona, where Bike Week, Biketoberfest and other biker activities are attractions. Her mom probably hears bikers frequently. This is irrelevant, IMO.
Derr was cleared in two separate investigations. He had all of the facts and the evidence on his side.
There was only one lawbreaker in this case and that person broke multiple laws. She paid for that with her life unfortunately. I don't get all the people here giving her the free pass when she was the one who was in the wrong from the beginning.
For the record, and this is my opinion only, I think she was high (corroborated by the AR I posted) and so she didn't want to pull over initially for that reason. She knew once the police showed up she was going to have major problems. So she fled. While she was fleeing the scene of the accident she developed paranoia which made her feel like she was in danger. She drove home and ran into the house to get a gun. We know she ran out to the edge of the street with the gun in her hand to confront the bikers and she was shot and died there. She was not walking out to the street after the shots due to the nature of the injuries she received. Again, she was the aggressor. She made many terrible mistakes and broke numerous laws, (DUI, leaving the scene of an accident, brandishing a firearm) she's not an innocent victim.
As for Derr, he now has civil and criminal immunity for this justifiable use of force because that is exactly what Florida law gives him. Florida law does not require him to be tested for drugs or alcohol after a use of justifiable force so that is again irrelevant.
I'll see what I can do tomorrow.