“If Mr. Scott was subject to being shot and killed, simply because he made the “fateful decision” to answer a late-night disturbance at the door to his house, and did so while holding his firearm pointed safely at the ground, then the Second Amendment had little effect…”
In July of 2012, a group of police officers were attempting to locate Andrew Scott at an apartment complex around 1:30 am. Scott was wanted on charges of attempted murder. Officers knocked on the door hoping to get the suspect to answer.
There are conflicting stories on what Scott was doing when the officers knocked on the door. Some reports say he was sleeping; others say he was playing video games with his girlfriend. Regardless, due to the time of the night and the fact that whoever was knocking on the door had not identified themselves, Scott retrieved a handgun and went to the door. Now, this is not something that is out of the realm of the ordinary. If someone were knocking on my door at 1:30am, I would more than likely have a firearm with me when I went to the door. Except I would not open it not knowing who is out there, but that’s just me.
Deputies at the scene say that when Scott answered, he opened it far enough for Deputy Richard Sylvester to see the muzzle of the gun. He opened fire at Scott, with several rounds penetrating the door. Scott was hit multiple times and died at the scene.
It took deputies over an hour and a half before they realized they had the wrong apartment and the man they shot was not the one they were looking for. That man lived next door. The media played on the fact that the deputies were at the wrong apartment and killed an “innocent” man. The family of Mr. Scott sued the police officer and the department for wrongful death, saying that his killing was not justified. While it is true that the death of Mr. Scott was a tragedy, had things played out differently, he may still be alive. But we do not have that luxury to go back and do things over.
Without prejudging either party or their motives, let’s look at the legality of what happened. As this was in Florida, we will stick to Florida law.
A police officer who is acting in “good faith” and engages in an action that at the time they think is legal and justifiable but later turns out to be wrong, is protected by law from being sued or charged with a crime. The law protects officers when they make an honest mistake. Now, this is not to say that when an officer purposefully breaks the law or commits a crime that they should not be held liable to the fullest extent of the law.
When the deputies went to the apartment, they were looking for the suspect of a serious crime. It’s reported that they did not identify themselves, as they did not want the suspect to flee the scene. Mr. Scott, not knowing who was knocking on his door at 1:30 am, retrieved a firearm and went to the door.
Now here is where the legal issues are kind of touchy. It is completely legal to have a firearm in your home for protection. It is even legal for a person to carry or wear a firearm while at home (I am wearing my concealed firearm now as I type this). It is completely within a person’s rights, and would be prudent, to be armed when you go to the door when someone knocks at 1:30 am. But this is where two different legalities collide that resulted in the death of a citizen who did nothing more than arm himself in his home. The deputies had a legal right to be where they were, doing what they were doing, and at that moment thought they were conducting a legal and justified criminal investigation.
When the family of Mr. Scott sued the Deputy and the Sheriff’s Office, they alleged that Deputy Sylvester should be held civically liable for the wrongful death of Mr. Scott. The problem the court faced was which legal action outweighed the other? Does a police officer acting in the performance of their duty have precedence over the right of Mr. Scott to be armed in his home? Things like this make it very hard to take sides, but the Courts had to decide if the family could proceed with the lawsuit or not.
In 2014, a U.S. District Judge threw out the lawsuit saying that the officers were justified in shooting Mr. Scott based on the overall circumstances. The family appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals in the 11th Circuit and on March 16th, 2017, the judge ruled that Deputy Sylvester’s actions were not illegal and were within the confines of law. They went on to grant him with qualified immunity, holding that no “clearly established law” prohibited his actions. A panel of judges for the 11th Circuit affirmed. On Thursday, the 11th Circuit, sitting en banc, declined to revisit the panel’s decision.
In support of this refusal to rehear the case, Judge Frank M. Hull wrote that Sylvester’s behavior was a variation on “the knock and talk rule” which allows officers to enter private property and knock on an individual’s door for “legitimate police purposes.” Hull reasoned that Sylvester had merely engaged in a form of “knock and talk,” and that Scott could have simply declined to open his door. Shooting Scott once he did open the door, Hull wrote, did not violate any “clearly established … constitutional rights.”
Herein lies my issue, and many others also with the ruling of the entire case. As a cop for 35 years and now full-time instructor of police recruits, I understand the officer’s actions and the fact that he was found to be immune from civil litigation however, I have issue with the ruling and the dissenting opinion of the Appeals Court. Judge Beverly Martin brought up some very interesting points that make this whole case kind of hard to pick a side. Judge Martin said that Deputy Sylvester’s insistence that the shooting was justified because Mr. Scott answered the door while holding a firearm “plainly infringes on the Second Amendment right to ‘keep and bear arms.’” To support her opinion Judge Martin wrote:
“If Mr. Scott was subject to being shot and killed, simply because (as the District Court put it) he made the “fateful decision” to answer a late-night disturbance at the door to his house, and did so while holding his firearm pointed safely at the ground, then the Second Amendment (and Heller) had little effect.”
While I understand the deputy’s actions and understand why they were found to be legal and justified, I also have a hard time with the conflict of the citizen’s rights to be armed in their home and protect themselves, and the police’s rights to do the same. In this case, there is no winner, and no one came out better for it. It was a tragedy for all involved and it raises more questions than answers.
I’m conflicted as to how I’m feeling in terms of legality, right vs. wrong, and what is Constitutional. I have a hard time taking sides in this case. Maybe both were at fault. Maybe two wrongs don’t make a right and conversely two rights don’t make a wrong; however, lets not forget in all of this confusion that families on both sides were forever changed by what happened that evening.
Chris Wagoner is a Senior OpsLens Contributor and U.S. Army Veteran. He has been in law enforcement the last 35+ years. He specializes in LE Firearms Instruction, and is in charge of a large Police Academy in North Florida. In his spare time Chris is a freelance Military Reporter and owner/founder of the Largest Military Videos Channel on YouTube “3rdID8487”.
To contact or book OpsLens contributors on your program or utilize our staff for your story, contact [email protected].
