Upon arrival, officers located a deceased 19-year-old male with apparent gunshot wounds to the head. During the investigation, detectives determined that the decedent made arrangements via social media to purchase narcotics from an unfamiliar subject. When the subject arrived to conduct the transaction, the decedent attempted to rob the subject using a stolen firearm.
The subject, who was also armed, used deadly force against the decedent. Detectives identified the shooter and submitted a Probable Cause Affidavit to the Broward County State Attorneyâs Office Homicide Trial Unit (HTU) for the charge of felony murder based on the fact that the homicide occurred during the commission of an illicit drug transaction. HTU determined that the homicide was justified as the subject was acting in self-defense
I thought use of deadly weapon in self-defense is justified only when defender is not in process of committing a crime himself. By Broward HTUâs logic, a home invader is justified in shooting pizza delivery man who tried to prevent break in
I am going to guess because no transaction took place, nothing illegal happened prior to the shooting. So note to criminals looking to score some free drugs, bring the money needed, buy the product then rob the dealer to get your money back. That way if you die in the process at least your final thoughts will be, at least that guy is going to prison.
Iâm just curious on how can a guy in a criminal act, shoot and kill another guy because of that guy trying to rob him get away with murder and call it self defense? When Iâm sure that even though the guy who got away managed to ovoid getting robbed by shooting and killing the other guy is something that a normal legal citizen would do if they were being robbed, just without the criminal activity of trying to sell drugs, but the normal citizen would save their life from being robbed and be justifiable as self defense, but two guys trying to do an illegal transaction gone wrong is cool too kill another person is ok call it self defense? Why not arrest that guy and question and harass him the same way theyâll harass an innocent civilian minding his business and ends up being a victim of someone with illegal intent, and they do whatâs necessary to protect themselves legally. But this is the country we live in, to which illegal actions by criminals get justified and the innocent civilians get punished for doing law abiding citizens who have the right to protect themselves from criminals, but donât get the justice they deserve.
Is it possible that the unfamiliar subject (shooter) is an undercover agent on assignment posing as a drug dealer? Why would a âREAL DRUG DEALERâ have to sign a âProbable Cause Affidavitâ. âA curious case in FLâ indeed
Iâm guessing there is more to this story that we may never know.
âJournalismâ these days has a lot to be desired (or suspicious of).
Maybe a statement from the outspoken Sheriff will appear sometime.
At least two theories. I am leaning toward Robertâs guess. Shooter ditched the goods before the cops arrived, DA wonât prosecute with circumstantial evidence only - cause the jury wonât convict, so⊠he walks a hero who defended himself.
Is it possible that the unfamiliar subject (shooter) is an undercover agent on assignment posing as a drug dealer? 
Why would a âREAL DRUG DEALERâ have to sign a âProbable Cause Affidavitâ. âA curious case in FLâ indeed 