# Time to officially Pit the Sanford Police Dept and their cover-up.

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108>\
**Category:** The BBQ Pit\
**Created:** [March 29, 2012, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108 "2012-03-29T01:38:25Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 310

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\
**Post date:** [April 8, 2012, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108/310 "2012-04-08T06:27:36Z")

</div>

> [@Batfish](#):
>
> Your point is well taken that the case under discussion is in Florida and under that law.
> 
> Does the law really say that? That a shooter can’t even be detained until the police determine that a law was broken.? Can they detain him at the scene of the crime? What’s stopping the police from applying that to every death by gunshot? Where’s the dividing line for the police investigators that deternines who is detained and who isn’t? The testimony of the shooter?
> 
> “Pack it up Lou, he says it’s self-defense.”
> 
> I stick to my original expectations of how such a death should be investigated.
> 
> 1. Apply skepticism.
> 2. a. If there’s no crime don’t pursue charges.  
> b. If there’s a crime charge the shooter.
> 
> If the Florida law prevents or hinders the police from properly investigating such a death then it’s a bad law.

That’s exactly what Florida law says:

> [@A two-second murder trial: Legally, how should the jury find?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-two-second-murder-trial-legally-how-should-the-jury-find/616943/29):
>
> Raising self-defense can be done by the introduction of any evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to infer that the accused met the requirements for self-defense.
> 
> Typically, the accused must prove to the jury by preponderance of the evidence that the elements of self-defense were present, and then the burden shifts to the prosecution to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
> 
> Florida’s law creates an extra wrinkle. It would seem to require a threshold determination of probable cause to believe that the force used by the accused was unlawful. This is not a determination for trial, because the law says that without that finding, the accused is immune from arrest or prosecution:
> 
> > [@FSA § 776.032](#):
> >
> > (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force . . . As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
> > 
> > (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
> 
> See the issue? Florida requires a specific probable cause finding that the force used was unlawful, as opposed to a general finding of probable cause to believe a crime was committed, and it specifically says that absent that, there is immunity from arrest or even detention in custody.

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-officially-pit-the-sanford-police-dept-and-their-cover-up/617108)._