Brickbat: Justice Delayed


A Florida appeals court has dismissed charges that John DeRossett tried to kill three Brevard County sheriff's deputies, citing the state's "stand your ground" law. Plainclothes detectives tried to arrest DeRossett's daughter outside the home they shared for prostitution. When the daughter began to scream for help, DeRossett grabbed a gun and opened fire, wounding one of the deputies. DeRossett argued he did not know the men were law enforcement and thought they were trying to kidnap his daughter. He spent five years in jail awaiting trial.

NEXT: Plastic Bag Bans Do More Harm Than Good

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Damn, a judge got it right. But what took so damn long?
    I guess the process was the punishment again.
    I’ not sure why they needed the SYG law. He was
    rendering add to his daughter during an attack.
    That should be the only deciding factor.

    1. There’s a speedy trial provision in most, if not all states. Unless the defendant waives for some reason, usually to gather more information, and in a police-involved shooting, there’s going to be a lot of information to gather. The five year delay may not be exclusively the State’s fault here.

      What a miserable situation for that guy and his daughter.

      1. But why was he not bonded out? It sounds like he was in jail the entire time. I’m guessing the prosecutor sought remand and the judge granted it, presumably because he shot and wounded one of the King’s Men.

        1. What do you think bond was, five years ago, in Florida for someone who shot at a cop? If it was less than a quarter million, I’d be surprised. He may not have had the money for a bondsman’s fee, or as you note, he may have been held without bail. I don’t know the accused’s prior criminal history, but if it was lengthy, that might lean against the State granting bail. Lots of people—some of them who actually didn’t do the particular crime they were accused of—rot in jail because they can’t afford bond.

          Story time! Once upon a time, a Harris County Sheriff’s deputy was called at home to show up for something or other. Said deputy was in the bag, but decided to drive anyway. He ended up racing along a freeway frontage road at 1deputy. I don’t think it was a marked police car, and if it was, he wasn’t running lights or sirens. At that time, a delivery box truck driven by an illegal alien, made a right turn onto the frontage road, in front of the deputy. The deputy plowed into the back of the van, and later died, with something like a .21% or .25% BAC.

          Naturally, the police arrested the illegal alien driving. Not for immigration fraud, but because he failed to yield the right of way or something akin to that, which resulted in the death of a LEO. He ended up rotting in jail for something like 18 months before the charges of him killing the officer got dropped. Drunk cop, speeding his ass off at over twice the limit, rear ends someone, and the someone gets arrested and rots.

          1. ‘1deputy’ should be 114 MPH. Pretty fast in a 45-55 speed limit zone.

  2. Deputy Smith was not in uniform and initiated violence at a place and time when none existed. He got stung by his actions.

    1. And most likely learned nothing.

      1. He learned to shoot first next time.

  3. Grammar Nazi Alert:

    “… arrest DeRossett’s daughter outside the home they shared for prostitution” conveys something quite different from “..arrest DeRossett’s daughter for prostitution outside the home they shared”.

    Perhaps Charles should read his posts aloud before he hits “Send”.

    1. So you’re just going to assume that DeRossett wasn’t also a prostitute? Maybe they were indeed sharing a house for the purposes of prostitution.

      1. Personally, I’m more offended by the link to a “-today” site, those sites suck ass. And not in the good way you’d be willing to pay for.

    2. Why should he? We never do – – – – – – – –

    3. But your version implies the prostitution was outside the home.

      English needs parentheses.

      1. That’s funny coming from you drama llama

        1. What’s funny is you remembering the apostrophe, but not the comma or period.

          1. Punctuation is a big help! The classic is…

            “Let’s eat, Grandma!”
            “Let’s eat Grandma!” (And get mad cow disease!)

    4. Funny!

      I had copied that exact sentence to make some snarky comment myself. Ambiguous wording is ambiguous 🙂

  4. “He spent five years in jail awaiting trial.”

    We have some sort of Constitutional “right to a speedy trial”, right? How long does this get, before our rights are violated? 100 years? 100 years? 7,329 years?

    Inquiring minds want to KNOW, dammit!

    1. Two weeks should be a reasonable standard.
      It’s long enough to get (or not get) C19.

    2. He waived it you shiteating retard.

      1. I read the whole linked article and see no mention of such things… If he waived his right to a trial, why was he waiting for a trial, for 5 years, as stated? What planet do you get your info from? Smart and well-informed people already KNOW that it is common practice for prosecutors to threaten EXTREMELY heavy penalties to anyone demanding a jury trial, which is why many people confess to crimes they didn’t commit… For a lighter sentence. Then they get screwed anyway. So even if this article here is a lie, and he waived his right to a jury trial, and YOU know the REAL truth, via your tin-foil hat, then this is STILL gross injustice!

        You waived YOUR right to having readers take you seriously, a LONG time ago, Mary-Tulpa-Satan-“.”-Mary’s Period!

  5. This illustrates something I have always wondered about. Plainclothes police — why? I understand it for undercover, at least once you assume undercover is a necessary operation, which requires having victimless crimes. But the point of uniforms is so people know who the police are, so when you see a cop chasing somebody, or a cop shows up at your door, you start with the assumption of knowing it’s a cop. Same with sirens and the lightbar.

    So why do detectives want to ditch the uniform? If they were only forensic evidence gatherers, that would be one thing. But they have arrest authority — they presumably do get into chases and scuffles and gunfights, and how can they expect the general public to render assistance when they aren’t in a uniform?

    1. It’s so that can play Starsky and Hutch, or Crockett and Tubbs, or whatever the analogues are for 2020.

      1. Yeh 🙂 I should have phrased that better. I know why they want to ditch the uniform. But I would think this matter of the public not being able to identify them as cops would come up often, just as it did here. You see one guy chasing another, or two guys rolling around in a front yard, how can you tell what is going on?

        It’s sort or like no-knock warrants — don’t those clowns ever worry about getting shot as home invaders? I know they have firepower and the courts on their side, but they seem to not give a flying fuck about the immediate chances of getting shot. Maybe that adrenaline rush is worth more than getting home safely.

        Just more reason to distrust cops in general, as if there weren’t enough already.

        1. Fuck off SQRLSY

          1. Still no period. Are you pregnant?

            1. LOL. But I would have guessed menopause for something that obviously Alzheimer-y.

        2. They seem to rarely use no knock warrants when there is a real chance the people inside the home might shoot back.

    2. Undercover would not be solely for victimless crimes, although I would wager that the vast preponderance of cases are for drug and prostitution investigations.

      But there are other areas where this is used. You have fencing of stolen goods for one thing. And many white-collar crimes require some undercover element. Government fraud or insurance fraud are common. There are teams that do undercover investigations into fraudulent Medical organizations that exists solely to collect Medicare payments or insurance payments.

      And then of course we have Federal teams that are assembled to investigate disfavored government officials.

      1. Reasonable uses of undercover cops, I suppose. But why detectives who are not undercover? I’d think identifying them as cops would be to everybody’s benefit, except the pecking order egos of the cops themselves. Heck, even the forensics folks have CSI on their jackets, unless that is strictly a Hollywood invention.

        1. Pure guess here, but people will likely open up and talk to a guy outside of an interview room, if he’s not in a uniform. The uniform serves as a constant, unconscious reminder to the subject that if s/he says the wrong thing, s/he or their friends are going to jail.

          Wearing a suit/plainclothes allows the interview subject to loosen up and potentially forget that. People usually love to talk. Do everything possible to encourage it. And for some reason—probably related to the lower IQ of criminal types—people figure they can try to lie their way past a guy who spends eight hours a day talking to criminals and listening to them try to lie their way past him.

          Good luck.

          1. Interesting idea, thanks. But inside a police station, I expect it’s hard to forget where you are. Outside a police station, they usually identify themselves or wear the badge where it’s visible (according to Hollywood; I’ve never had to deal with detectives). But still not as obvious as a uniform, so good idea to think about.

          2. The reason that people think this is because we have decades of cops abusing power. There is a reason cops will tell their kids “never talk to the police”. Respect and trust are earned. The cops are starting from 0

        2. Fuck off SQRLSY

          1. Like a 7-year locust, you come out of hibernation once in a while, spew over everything, then disappear again. I wonder if that’s because logging out as one identify and back in as another is too much work for your feeble brain.

          2. Alphabet is way way to coherent to be sqrlsy, ALSO DOENST USE Nearly enough random capitalization

            1. Now THERE’S an IDEA whose TIME may have COME! I could REALLY confuse the SOCK PUPPETS and their INTERMITTENT logins.

    3. What happens to military members who are captured on the battlefield and aren’t wearing uniforms? When four Nazi spies landed on Long Island, they wore Kriegsmarine uniforms so, if stopped, they were military prisoners. Once they took them off (and they did) they were spies and subject to execution (and several were).

      1. The military and the police are separate institutions, with very separate mandates and procedures, for very good reasons. Confusing or blurring the two leads to tears in the end.

        (Frankly, the military should have reverted to the pre 1947 way of handling non-uniformed insurgents, or other fighters not fighting on behalf of a recognized sovereign: summary court-martial and subject to death by hanging.)

    4. Its also about cop status. Reaching a detective rank puts them above the rank and file blues.

      Plus it gives them the aura and privilege of secret police.

  6. Vice cops are the scum that scum scrape off their shoes.

  7. The woman was his niece, not his daughter. A minor thing, I know, but I think it’s good to get the details right.

    Also, for those who are interested, there’s an op-ed from a (now-retired) Assistant States Attorney who was the one who asked that DeRossett be held without bond for this trial.

    This former prosecutor argues that the Stand Your Ground law, as recently revised by the Florida legislature, places too much of a burden on the state to demonstrate that the shooter either knew that the people he was shooting at were cops, or that he was “furthering criminal activity” when he fired his weapon. He believes that the law, as it currently stands, places law enforcement in too much danger.

    Of course, if they turned up at the house in uniform, and clearly announced themselves as police, they could have avoided all of this in the first place.

    1. That’s the rub — they have no proof they were identified or even identifiable as police. I am frankly surprised the court recognized this at all, even if it did take 5 years.

      1. Fuck off SQRLSY

    2. So I’m guessing that this prosecutor’s objection to the law isn’t a general complaint that the law places too large a burden on the state’s ability to disprove a self-defense claim, but specifically the state’s ability to disprove a self-defense claim when an act of lèse-majesté is involved? If the mundanes wish to shoot one another there’s no concern but when a mundane shoots one of the King’s Men, why that’s an affront to God Himself.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.