Ruling of the Court:
1x Felony Assault - GUILTY
1x Brandishing - Dismissed as lesser included offense of Felony Assault
1x Obstruction - GUILTY
1x Criminal Use Firearm - Dismissed as lesser included offence of Obstruction
1x Failure to Maintain Lane - Not Guilty
The court heard that the defendant first encountered Captain Ripley (a uniformed BCSO Deputy) in the area of Legion Square where law enforcement officers were in pursuit of an unrelated suspect attempting to flee. The defendant testified that he initially swerved to avoid a hazard in the road, which lead him up on and onto the sidewalk. This was uncontroverted and deemed reasonable action by the court, and the infraction for failure to maintain lane dismissed.
The court further heard that the previously mentioned suspect did enter the defendants car after abandoning a moped, promptly leaving the vehicle and continuing to flee on foot. An altercation between Ripley and the defendant then followed with Ripley becoming agitated with the defendant, prompting him to kick the defendants car from his motorbike multiple times. From there, contact was broken, with the defendant placing a 911 call out of concern for the conduct of Ripley. Both parties encountered each other soon after again, at the Banner Hotel, where Ripley had driven his motorbike into lobby in continued pursuit of the suspect from Legion Square, and was alleged by the defendant to have driven his motorbike recklessly with bystanders nearby. The defense argued that this action, in conjunction with the earlier altercation by Ripley presented him with cause to act in self defense.
In ruling upon this case, the court examined the affirmative defense being presented by the defendant, with the primary question being: Was the defendant justified under Castle v. San Andreas in his actions? The simple answer is no.
In order for the defendant to have been exonerated, all prongs of Castle v. San Andreas must be met. For this case, the court focused on the first three.
Prong 1 - "In response to an unprovoked attack:" The court found that Ripley kicking an occupied vehicle "out of frustration" and then leaving without further articulated action or viable threat against the defendant did not constitute a credible attack on the defendants person. Had Ripley continued to follow the defendant making threats against his person, the court would have assigned more substance to this argument.
Prong 2 - "which threatens imminent injury or death." The court found that Ripley riding his motorbike into the lobby of the Banner Hotel, while potentially reckless, did not constitute a reasonable threat of imminent injury or death to the defendant. While Ripley's actions may have been concerning, and the defendant may have justified anger therefore, nothing presented to the court gave reason to believe that Ripley attempted any kind of "kidnapping" or made any direct threats against the defendant which would have been reasonably seen as putting him specifically in imminent danger.
Prong 3 - "The response must use an objectively reasonable degree of force..." - Citing the lack of a viable "imminent threat" above, the defendant's action of drawing a firearm and aiming it at Captain Ripley was therefore not viewed by the court as objectively reasonable.
On this same basis, the court ruled that the defendant's actions in "holding up" Captain Ripley at gunpoint, whilst in the commission of his duties and pursuit of a suspect who had made credible threats of violence, did meet the threshold for Obstruction.
While the court acknowledges the frustration of the defendant in regards to this ruling, and the conduct of Captain Ripley specifically, it should be noted that Captain Ripley was not on trial in this matter, and that there are avenues of "accountability" via criminal and civil court should the State or the defendant feel that Ripley's actions were a breach of the law.
