Radley Balko | July 30, 2007
Singletary, you'll remember,
is the elderly man in Florida who, upon seeing drug dealers on his
lawn, came out of his home with a gun to scare them off.
Unfortunately, they weren't drug dealers, but undercover cops
posing as drug dealers. Upon seeing Singletary with his gun, they
shot him dead. Even the police and town officials concede that
Singletary was involved in no criminal activity, and was merely
attempting to protect his property from what he thought were
criminals.
As noted before, Singletary's death is drug war collateral
damage. His death is the entirely predictable consequence of having
crimes on the books that the police have to break in order to
enforce, and of ratcheting up the stakes for those crimes by
declaring a "war" on them.
It now looks like the cops who killed Singletary won't face
criminal charges. I'm a bit conflicted on this one. But if there
are no criminal charges, there should at least be some disciplinary
action, at least if that
"new professionalism" Justice Scalia was telling us about means
anything at all.
The disturbing parts of this case:
- The undercover narcotics officers were trespassing on
Singletary's private property. And they were doing so to engage in
drug activity. I doubt this is legal. And if it is, it shouldn't
be. Unless they have a warrant, and are investigating Singletary
himself (they weren't).
- The state's attorney investigation found the police actions
justified because Singletary "was an armed civilian who refused
orders to drop his gun." But the same report criticized the police
for not announcing themselves as police before they fired on
Singletary. If both of these things are true, then the state's
attorney is saying Singletary should have obeyed orders to drop his
gun from armed men he understandably believed were dangerous, and
trespassing on his property. If Florida's
new home defense law means anything at all, one would think it
would mean the right to hold your ground when armed men are on your
property.
- Singletary was shot four times. Once in the back.
- The state's attorney chose to believe police accounts of who
fired first (they say Singletary) over the account of a witness who
says the police fired first, because the witness is a convicted
drug dealer. Seems reasonable. Except when you consider that (a)
one of the police investigators changed his story about who fired
first, (b) attorneys for Singletary's family have found four other
witnesses who contradict the police account (why didn't the
investigator talk to these people?), and (c) police take the word
of convicted drug dealers as gold all the time when it comes to
securing warrants for drug raids, or to prosecute other drug
dealers.
- Just as an aside, why isn't the National Rifle Association all
over this case? I've been told they won't get involved in the Cory
Maye case because of the minuscule amount of marijuana (a burnt
roach) found in Maye's apartment. But Singletary was an innocent
man gunned down for defending his home from what he thought were
criminal trespassers. Isn't what he did what the NRA is all
about?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245