Ex-NFL player acquitted of murder charges; Mom allegedly shot by neighbor in dispute — TCD Sidebar
In this episode of True Crime Daily The Sidebar Podcast
Michael Ayala joins host Joshua Ritter to break down the biggest cases making headlines across the nation. They discuss the acquittal of former FSU wide receiver Travis Rudolph following a fatal confrontation, a woman facing manslaughter charges after being accused of shooting her neighbor, and the ongoing trial for a former sheriff’s deputy assigned to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School during the Parkland mass shooting.
Tweet your questions for future episodes to Joshua Ritter using the hashtag #TCDSidebar.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:00:10]
Hello and welcome to The Sidebar, presented by True Crime Daily, taking you inside the courtrooms of high profile and notorious cases from across the country. I am your host, Joshua Ritter. I'm a criminal defense lawyer based in Los Angeles and previously an LA County prosecutor for nearly a decade. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter at @JoshuaRitterESQ or at joshuaritter.com. We are recording this on Friday, June 9th, 2023.
In this week's episode, trial begins for a former sheriff's deputy charged with allegedly failing to intervene in the fatal Parkland shooting that left 17 dead and another 17 injured. Also, a Florida woman faces manslaughter charges after she allegedly shot and killed her neighbor through the front door of her house in what officers describe as an ongoing feud. But first, a former NFL wide receiver has been acquitted on all counts of murder and attempted murder for a violent confrontation that unfolded at the player's home.
Today, we are excited to be joined by Michael Ayala, an attorney, Emmy award winning legal analyst and anchor who you can currently catch on Court TV. Michael, welcome.
Michael Ayala:
[00:01:22]
Oh, great to be here. Thank you for having me.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:01:24]
Oh, thank you for coming. Michael, tell us a little bit before we jump into these cases, a little bit about your background and how you currently got involved in the work that you're involved in today?
Michael Ayala:
[00:01:34]
Well, I've been doing television for quite a while now. Graduated from law school. My focus was criminal defense work. Interestingly enough, though, I had a sideline during law school where I was getting involved in the record industry. I was representing some small labels. I was working with some artists and developing artists and things. It was just an interest of mine.
So I joined a firm upon graduation, and they wanted me, rather than to do criminal defense work to develop an entertainment practice. So I did that for quite a few years, and we had some real success. Eventually, I was swooped up by Warner Music. I Had been doing a lot of work with them on an international basis, so their international wing got me into the fold, and I was working with them for quite a few years.
And it was then, Court TV's offices were not too far from the offices I was working in. I had a friend who worked there. I stopped in just to say hello. I was intrigued by what they were doing. I was a television radio major, journalism major in college, so it interested me.
I had some time. I started working there, part-time. One thing led to another. I started working at the original Court TV full time, worked there for quite a while, left. Then, I went into national news at CBS, local news at CBS, Chicago, Washington, DC, did a lot of different things, and then went out on my own for a while.
The new Court TV started up again. I got a call from Vinnie Politan, who worked with me at the old Court TV. Actually, there were quite a few people from the old Court TV. They said, hey, would you be interested in doing this again? And I was like, absolutely.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:03:19]
And the rest, as they say, is history. Yeah. I love that story that you took quite a couple of pivots there from criminal defense to being involved in the music industry. Well, I always enjoy watching your segments on Court TV. You always have such great insights. So we're really looking forward to hear what you have to say about these cases because I know you follow them closely.
So let's jump right in. We're talking out of West Palm Beach, Florida, where former FSU and NFL wide receiver Travis Rudolph has been acquitted on all counts after a Florida jury debated for a little under four hours, ultimately siding with Rudolph's claim of self-defense.
Rudolph faced one count of first-degree murder, along with three counts of attempted first-degree murder after a fatal shooting that took place outside of his home. Following an argument with a girlfriend, four men showed up to the player's Lake Park home, hoping to confront Rudolph about the alleged dispute. This prompted him to arm himself with a semiautomatic rifle before firing 39 rounds at the fleeing men and their vehicle, ultimately killing, pardon me, Sebastian Jacques and injuring Tyler Robinson.
Rudolph previously attempted to have the case dismissed using Florida's Stand Your Ground laws as a basis. However, a judge denied the request, leaving it to a jury to decide whether Rudolph's actions were an attempt to save his own life. Despite the fact that jurors were given the option to convict Rudolph on lesser offenses, including second-degree murder and manslaughter, the jury opted to acquit Rudolph outright.
Like I said, Michael, I know this is a case you've been following closely. Give us your impressions. Were you surprised by this outcome?
Michael Ayala:
[00:05:08]
No, I wasn't. I wasn't surprised at all. I think the biggest problem here is the unlikability of the victims. They were the one that initiated the entire event. And it can be argued that Dominique Jones, who was the girlfriend of Travis Rudolph, was the true instigator of the entire event.
She texted her brothers. Two of the guys who went over to the house were her brothers to go over and shoot his house up. And she used a different word, but basically telling them you need to go over and do that because of this little domestic spat that they had had.
And I think when she took the stand, her demeanor, her description of what was going on, I thought left a lot to be desired. And as you know, a lot of these trials boil down to, especially when you have a case where it's a he said she said about what went on, it boils down to the likability of both the victims and the defendant. And I think the defendant is much more likable, much more genuine, told a story that at the end of the day made more sense.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:06:17]
Yeah. I'm so glad that you said that, because it's something that kind of doesn't get talked about enough, that sometimes your witness can be saying all the right things, but it's how they say it and how they present themselves in court that can, you know, jurors are just people. And if they end up not liking someone, they just might be looking for an excuse to also not believe them, which it sounds like may have occurred in this case.
Something that, to me, I was very curious about, because when we hear about the case, it was described as the men were fleeing and that they were leaving the property, which makes at first blush a self-defense claim seemed to be very difficult. Tell us, how did that play out in court and how was that handled and why do you think that didn't cause a problem for the defense?
Michael Ayala:
[00:07:08]
I think at the end of the day, again, they were the ones that initiated it. And I've said all along throughout the trial, there was also a gun at the scene. Travis Rudolph's brother testified that one of the guys who came over to the house pointed a gun at him and told him, you're a dead man. A gun was found at the scene, but the defendants claimed they never took it out, that it had fallen out of their pocket when they were headed over to the house, that they never took it out there. They never brandished it.
But I thought just the introduction of a gun into the scene, a Florida jury would take that and run with it. So I believe that that aspect of the case gave Travis Rudolph license to believe that his life was in danger. And also, Darrel Rudolph, Rudolph's brother, testified he thought his life was in danger as well.
But I'll be 100 percent honest with you, if you just went by the video, these guys were absolutely fleeing. The car was backing out and ready to go away as he was shooting. Travis Rudolph said he saw a gun being pointed from the car. No gun was found in the car. No gun was found in the area.
But I believe just the mere introduction of a gun by these victims made it possible to create a bit of a reasonable doubt there as to exactly what he saw and how he felt about whether his life was in danger. So I think that was the key to the case, because without that gun, might have been a different story.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:08:44]
Yeah, very interesting. Florida has some kind of notoriously strong laws when it comes to self-defense. As far as the Stand Your Ground law, and this whole idea of the Castle doctrine as well, this was taking place on the defendant's property or a home he was at, at least. Do you think that played a role in all of this? In other words, I guess my question is, would you have maybe not been surprised by a different outcome in a different jurisdiction?
Michael Ayala:
[00:09:18]
No. I think Stand Your Ground never really made it into the case, right? Because at the end of the day, he did leave his home. So at one point, they begin to leave. He begins to go into his home, and he gets his AR 15, comes back out and walks around and begins shooting at them. His posture while shooting at them did not suggest to me that he saw a gun.
If you come out and you see somebody pointing a gun at you in a car, you would cover, you would take cover. He never did any of that. This was pointed out in the closing arguments by the prosecution. So I think there was a clear question for the jury. I think any jury now, had the jury been chosen properly, which I think it was obviously in this case, I don't think it made a difference as to what state it was in, because, again, the defendants were so unlikable.
And uniformly, our comments on CourtTV.com regarding this case was they charged, the prosecutors charged the wrong person, Joshua. Everyone felt that Dominique Jones should face charges in this case. Now, generally, prosecutors, I told people that's not likely. You don't want to, in a case like this, put people in that position. You don't want people not wanting to come forward under situations like this. So I don't expect to see charges.
But she certainly is someone that had the prosecutor looked at this case a little differently, could have been charged from the beginning, because, as I said, she set this whole thing off. Someone died. I think felony murder wouldn't have been outside the realm of possibility as far as she was concerned.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:10:54]
Very interesting. Yeah. Jurors can see through some of this stuff sometimes and really understand who the truly --
Michael Ayala:
[00:11:01]
They saw through her, Joshua. They absolutely saw through her.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:11:04]
Yeah. Who the truly culpable people are in the case. And if that's not the defendant, then they're not going to come back with a guilty charge. Well, I ask about Florida because funny enough, all of our cases today involve Florida's.
Let's move along to Ocala, Florida, where Susan Lorincz faces charges of manslaughter, amongst others, after a confrontation with her neighbor turned deadly. Lorincz has been arrested and charged in the shooting death of her neighbor, Ajike, AJ Owens, a mother of four. Lorincz, who is white, and Owens, who was black, allegedly had engaged in a feud spanning two years, culminating in the tragic shooting.
The quarreling reportedly reached a boiling point when an argument started between Lorincz and two of Owens' sons who were only aged 10 and 12. Shortly before the shooting, Lorincz was reportedly overheard yelling at the boys. The young boys allegedly went over to their neighbor's house to speak with Lorincz when they say she swung an umbrella at them. After the boys told their mother, Owens herself went to speak with Lorincz, reportedly knocking on her neighbor's door multiple times and asking Lorincz to come out to speak.
At this point, authorities allege Lorincz fired a shot through her front door, striking Owens in the chest. While Owens' 10-year-old son was standing next to her. The tragedy of this is just hard to imagine. According to the sheriff's office, this is a quote, "Detectives were able to establish that Lorincz's actions were not justifiable under Florida law". Nevertheless, the arrest has prompted renewed debate about the state's Stand Your Ground law.
Michael, in your opinion, how does this case differ, if it does, in your opinion, to the case we just talked about? How do you see this playing out for the defense here?
Michael Ayala:
[00:12:57]
Again, this is a case where she claimed, the defendant claimed, to be in fear for her life. The way she described in the police report how she was experiencing this event was that AJ Owens, the victim in this case, was pounding on the door, doing everything she could to get into the house and actually screaming threats of I will kill you. That's how she described how AJ was acting. Her two sons and one other witness describe it a little differently, more along the lines of what you were talking about, knocking on the door saying, I want you to come outside. I think that makes a difference.
But at the end of the day, there was no attempt and it was noted in the police report to actually get into the house. She never tried. And this was admitted by Lorincz. She never tried the door handle in attempt to get into the house. So whether she actually feared for her life reasonably, again, it's what's going on in her mind, whether she reasonably feared for her life, I think is very questionable under this case.
But here's the other thing that strikes me about this case, Joshua. She was charged with manslaughter. I think the facts of this case clearly call for a murder charge because of the ongoing dispute between these folks. She knew this person. The way the shot went through the door, it was shot from the kitchen. And she claims she just wanted to get her away from the door.
But the shot by description in the police report, the hole in the door was just a little bit above dead center. So this was not a shot meant to scare somebody away. This was a shot aiming at the door in a way that, you know, this other person on the other side would be hit. So I was surprised that it wasn't a more serious charge in this case. And I don't think she has solid grounds for a Stand Your Ground defense.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:14:50]
Yeah. A lot of people are agreeing with you, especially on what charges were brought and why they weren't more serious. I want to get more into that. But before then, you had mentioned how the history that these folks had with each other. And I'm curious to know how you think that will play a role, because in my view, if I'm the prosecution, I want all that coming in.
I want the jurors to understand that this was not an immediate instance where she felt fear. But this was a boiling point of anger and resentment, whatever you want to call it, between these neighbors. If you're the defense, though, I think you want to do just the opposite. You want to make it just about this instance. And if you can prove that she was in fear of her life, that's maybe all you can hope for. But how do you think that plays out, the history?
Michael Ayala:
[00:15:40]
I don't know if I agree with you, Joshua, in terms of how the defense wants to play this and the prosecution. The prosecution certainly wants there to be this sense that there was this ongoing feud. It was basically based on kids playing in an area that Susan Lorincz thought was a private area or an area that they didn't belong. It was a general grassy area that, according to the person who owns the complex, was a general area for everyone. So the kids were really not in the wrong. This was just someone who just had issues with it. And this caused problems between her and AJ Owens, the victim in this case.
What's interesting in the police report, she told police she actually bought the gun used in this shooting because of a previous threat, made by AJ Owens during a different fight. Police apparently came to check out that incident that Susan Lorincz is talking about. Didn't find anything justified in her claim that a threat was made to her life. So there's that.
But if I'm the defense attorney, I want to bring that in, that there had been previous incidents here and my client feared for her life based on a number of different incidents that had resulted in threats, because she also claims that in other incidents, the children threatened her life as well, saying that they were going to kill her as well. So I want the jury to hear all of that, to inform what my client was believing when she was on the other side of that door. So I think that helps them as well.
So there's a lot to work with here. It's not an open and shut case. And I do have to add this, Joshua, race is playing a role in this, without question. I think a white woman on one side of a door and a black woman on the other side, certain actions by people of color are interpreted differently than perhaps actions by, if it had been a woman, a white woman of the same age. Does that make her fear more reasonable? These are absolute questions that the justice system deals with on a daily basis. And we see time and time again people of color coming up on the wrong side of those things. So that's certainly going to be a factor as well.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:17:48]
Yeah, it's hard to imagine that won't play some role if this ever does end up in trial, that that would not be something that the jurors would be educated about. You had mentioned how she shot dead center on the door. Also, it's through a door. So I'm assuming she can't see what's on the other side of it. Right. So I mean all the problems attendant to that.
But one question I've had is where was this gun located in her home? So if, and here's where I'm going with this, if the gun she's going to claim was locked, as it should be, and put in a safe area somewhere in her home, think about all the steps she had to go through to go get that gun, open the safe, bring the gun out, then decide to use it. That all tends to work towards your argument that why isn't this more of a premeditated action, I.E. murder, than the manslaughter charge they have currently charged her with? What are your thoughts on that?
Michael Ayala:
[00:18:49]
I agree with you, 100 percent. The other thing that I want to know as well that I do not know, and I don't know completely where the gun was, I believe she said in the police report it was in the kitchen. It was locked up. She got it. And again, she just wanted to end the threat is how she put it.
But here's the other thing I want to know. This is an apartment. It's not a home. How close? So later on, when the police went into the house, they found a shell casing on top of the kitchen counter saying, okay, she was in the kitchen when she shot. Does that help or hurt? Well, to me, it's how far was the kitchen from the front door? In a lot of apartments, that kitchen counter is not very far from a front door. So that distance, I think, is important as well.
So my knowledge as to what I'm doing when I shoot at that door, depending on how far I am from the door, I think is definitely a factor to be considered by the jury. So I'm interested to know as well how far that kitchen counter was, where she shot the gun from to that front door.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:19:51]
A hundred percent. Yeah, all of that will become important. So much of this is going to have to do with her mindset, what she was doing when she was inside of the home where she retrieved the gun from. All stuff if you can get where I'm going with this that only she can really tell us about and testify to. Do you think this is maybe one of those rare cases where we might see her take the stand?
Michael Ayala:
[00:20:15]
Yeah, I think she has to take the stand. There's no question about it, because the facts as they exist do not play in her favor. And you mentioned one of the couple of reasons why, the shot dead center, the door actually being closed, testimony from people outside saying she wasn't really trying to get in or threatening her life. She is going to absolutely have to testify to explain to these people just why she felt that she was under the type of threat that she said she was under, how she felt trapped.
There is an argument to be made that an older woman under those circumstances trapped in her home, somebody knocking at the door, she misinterprets what she's saying, she feels under threat, there's nowhere else to go, she's in her own home. There's an argument to be made. If she testifies the right way, the right jury, I'm not sure that won't play on some level.
Again, there are facts that work against her, and I think very serious facts that work against her. But at the end of the day, if she took the stand and really told a compelling story, I think that's the best. And quite frankly, the only way she gets away with this, if that, in fact, is what's going to happen.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:21:22]
Yeah, I think you might be right. It might not be a matter of a choice, but she's left with nothing else. But I mean, I don't know how else she gets some of this evidence in front of the jurors.
Michael Ayala:
[00:21:31]
There's no one else to tell her story. Because everyone else, even all the neighbors, called her a problem. They didn't understand why she kept messing with the kids. There's also a small factor of, I don't know if this is going to play whether she initiated this thing because, as you know, self-defense, you can't initiate a situation. She threw roller skates at the kids and apparently hit one of the kids on the foot with the roller skate. So whether she initiated this or not is a little bit of a nebulous question as well.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:22:05]
Yeah. Wow. Well, like I said, we'll continue to watch it. But end of the day, it's just one of those cases that breaks your heart because you have a mother dying in front of her children, a situation that I think anybody could agree easily could have been avoided. But we'll see how this all plays out, at least from a legal perspective.
Michael Ayala:
[00:22:24]
There's one other thing I want to bring up, Joshua, before we leave this one. So when Susan Lorincz is taken into custody initially, she's allowed to keep her phone, which is interesting. Okay. There are cameras on the front porch, which would clearly show what AJ Owens, the victim, was doing when she, and sang, when she was knocking on that door. Somehow those videos are not in the cloud where they would be as they were filming this thing happening. She suggests from time to time when it's darker outside, the cameras don't film.
But deputies who arrived on the scene when she was in the car, again she was allowed to keep her phone, she was doing something with her phone. And a lot of people think she might have been deleting those videos from the cloud. So that's an interesting point. They looked into it. They say she didn't. They say they didn't see any activity that suggested anyone deleted anything. But again, it's an issue.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:23:28]
Yeah. No, I'm glad you brought that up. I had forgotten about that. And that is an important point. And it's funny to me that they would be able to say this early on that they know she didn't do that. It seems like you would need to do a little bit of computer forensic work before you could come to that conclusion. So we'll see how that all plays out.
Finally, our last stop here in our tour of Florida, we turn to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, where a trial is underway for former sheriff's deputy assigned to a high school during the fatal Parkland shooting that left 17 dead and another 17 injured. Former Deputy Scott Peterson, a resource officer at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, has been charged for allegedly failing to intervene.
Peterson reportedly sought cover in a neighboring building away from the active shooter, Nicholas Cruz. Prosecutors claim this evasion action by Peterson was a failure by the then deputy to follow his active shooter training as Cruz's shooting rampage continued to take lives.
Peterson faces 11 counts, including felony child neglect and culpable negligence. These charges all stem from the victims killed and injured on the third floor of the high school. The former deputy is not being charged in relation to the deaths and injuries that occurred on the first floor where Cruz began his shooting rampage. In his defense, Peterson has claimed that he did not enter the school at the time because he couldn't properly identify where the shots were coming from, allegedly claiming in a statement that he only heard a few gunshots.
Peterson is also facing one count of perjury with prosecutors alleging that witnesses who survived the shooting testified to hearing additional shots and placing the location of the shooter inside the building. The prosecution and the defense delivered their opening statements June 7th, and the trial is expected to last several weeks.
Michael, jump right in. Well, first of all, what are your thoughts on the prosecution's decision to even bring this case in the first place?
Michael Ayala:
[00:25:33]
I mean, first and foremost, this is a reach as far as I'm concerned. They're trying to fit this school resource officer, a first responder, if you will, under a caregiver statute that requires the person to be a parent or guardian or someone who is responsible for the well-being of the children. To say that a school resource officer has responsibility for 1200 students, to me is a true stretch.
However, I will say this, precedent in Florida suggests that a kidnapper has been found guilty under that same child neglect statute as a caregiver. A teacher has been found guilty under the statute as a caregiver. So there is a broad reading of it, but I think this is especially broad. So I have issues with that.
You're charging a man for perhaps not following his training. That's even questionable as to how far the training went. It was also a policy within the sheriff's office that they said you are not the caregiver of these children. They've charged him with perjury for lying about how many shots he heard. Really? I mean, these are things to me suggest at the time they wanted this person to pay because on video it showed that he was acting what a lot of people believed in a way that was cowardly.
I'm not going to address that. I've never been in that situation. I don't know how I'd respond. He claims he didn't know where the shots were coming from. I think there's a very, very thick line between not doing what protocols say you should do and criminal activity. And I think this case falls way on the wrong side of that thick line.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:27:16]
Yeah. Yeah. I have to say, I agree with you. And almost across the board, everybody I've talked to about this case agrees with you that it just seems like it's just one bridge too far as far as criminal liability, like you point out. Civil liability, I don't know. I mean if you want to say --
Michael Ayala:
[00:27:35]
Even that is questionable.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:27:35]
Yeah. Yeah.
Michael Ayala:
[00:27:37]
We had testimony yesterday, Joshua, in the case from a SWAT. So the SWAT guys show up at the scene. It takes them 30 minutes to get to the third floor because there's a protocol for when you go in a building with an active shooter, you have to clear certain rooms. The guy on the stand said, look, our protocols say you don't do it alone because there's too many angles that if you look in one angle, he could be behind the other wall and kill you. So our protocols say you do it two at a time or more if possible.
So you're asking this guy to go into a situation no matter whatever training he had. To me, the testimony we've heard over and over again is -- and here's the thing, Joshua, he wasn't doing nothing. We've heard testimony from prosecution witnesses saying and we have a list of all the radio calls, he's providing Intel. He's the one that called and said, hey, you guys got to get somebody over here. He's helping kids saying stay away. He's keeping people out of the building.
He's constantly on the radio trying to find out what's going on. During one transmission, about six minutes in, there was an injured kid, and he realizes over the transmissions that they have this injured kid. He's asking, can he give a location of the shooter? So he clearly doesn't know where the shooter is. So this one, I don't know. I think the jury might be seeing this the same way up to this point.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:29:04]
Yeah, you make such a good point, too. It's not like he got in his car and took off two blocks away and just abandoned his duties altogether. He was there doing something. You may have wished he did more, but --
Michael Ayala:
[00:29:20]
And he's trying to even set to do more, but it's a criminal.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:29:26]
Yeah. Well, and also, we're assuming that had he done more, it would have caused any good, that he could have stopped the shooter and not just ended up another dead body himself. I mean, I always have a problem with these cases where we're finding criminal liability for something, actions that a person didn't take rather than actions they did take.
Usually that's how the crime works. You broke into a home, you robbed a liquor store. But to say that you're now criminally liable for actions you didn't take is just such a difficult, and I'm not saying it never applies, but it's very difficult.
Michael Ayala:
[00:30:02]
Under criminal neglect laws, it's about an omission activities, right. When you don't take care of a child properly, I understand that. But again, I think all of it is such a stretch that I honestly believe, and we're early on in the case and there's weeks to go, but as of right now I think the jurors might be seeing through some of this.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:30:22]
Yeah. That SWAT officer that you said that testified, was that a person called by the prosecution?
Michael Ayala:
[00:30:28]
Yes, that was a person called by the prosecution.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:30:31]
And if that's the testimony that came out, that just seems incredibly devastating to their case to begin with. And like you said, we've just started.
Michael Ayala:
[00:30:38]
Joshua, we had another witness. There was a sergeant who was there. He was off duty. His wife and his son were in the building. And so he's got a very personal stake in this whole thing. Even he testified that before he decided to go in the building, first of all, he thought he wasn't sure where the sounds were coming from. There was a lot of echo to all the sounds. He thought it was firecrackers at first.
When he realized it was coming, he did eventually realize it was coming from the building, but he wouldn't go in the building until he got a bulletproof vest that said SWAT on it, because what he realized was if I went in the building and I wasn't at least identified and protected, I could either die or draw friendly fire if there were other police officers with guns. Because, again, you go in and you're not identified, you look like someone, you know, they don't know what's going on.
So again, the amount of confusion at the scene, the amount of difficulty in assessing what was going on was brought out by prosecution witnesses. So, again, I just think the jury might be seeing through some.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:31:39]
Yeah, another excellent point I hadn't thought of. It might not even be that you're concerned about the shooter, but you're also concerned about other officers. Do you want them firing on you or are you firing on them if you're not doing this in some sort of organized way. You can't just rush in there like it's some sort of Arnold Schwarzenegger movie or something and try to take down the bad guy. Wow. Yeah.
Last point on this is I'm curious in your thoughts. Law enforcement is under a lot of criticism, probably more now than they ever have been. What do you think are the effects this will have outside of this case, but in the overall law enforcement community that this case was even brought to begin with, regardless of the outcome?
Michael Ayala:
[00:32:23]
Yeah, I think law enforcement needs to address this because we do not want to put our first responders in a position where they could be charged with a crime like this. Courts uniformly across the country, Joshua, have said that police do not have a responsibility or a duty to go in and approach an active shooter. They do not have that. We expect that of them. They are trained to do things of that nature, but they are not legally bound to do that. They have no more responsibility or duty than the average citizen under those circumstances.
So if this case can be brought, I think the police lobby, the folks working on behalf of police, need to go in and get a positive statement in the law that says we are not caregivers, we are not responsible. We do not have this duty. It needs to be codified because it would have such a chilling effect. And we've got, with all the all that police officers and the men in blue have been facing over the last five years or so, you're losing police officers left and right. They're having trouble finding numbers. It's a difficult job.
And now if you put this on them as well, it's just going to make things much more difficult, much harder for them to do their job. And you risk punishing brave souls who might have done something under the circumstances. Who's to say he would have done the wrong thing and shot a kid by mistake and now he's not finding himself charged with that crime. So I think this has to be addressed. So certainly, if we see a conviction in this case, there's going to be some action, but I think there should be action anyway.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:34:04]
No, I agree with you. And listen, I understand the frustration that we're all feeling. Seventeen lost lives, school shootings that we hear about. I understand that everybody is desperately working in the same direction of trying to do something to stop this. But is this it? Is this the right thing to be doing? I just I don't think so. But we will continue to follow this case because it's, I think, important for many reasons, but it's also just interesting from a legal standpoint to see how they're going to put this all together.
But in the meantime, that's our show. Michael, thank you so much for coming on this week. Where can people find out more about you?
Michael Ayala:
[00:34:45]
At michaelayalacourttv.com. You can follow me on Twitter there. You can catch me on, I do a weekly segment on CourtTV.com where I discuss issues a lot like this, cases that interest me, perhaps that were not particularly covering on Court TV. So definitely check out those. YouTube as well.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:35:03]
Fantastic. And I'm your host, Josh Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter at @JoshuaRitterESQ or check me out at Joshuaritter.com. You can find our Sidebar episodes wherever you get your podcasts. And we want to hear from you. If you've got questions or comments you'd like us to address, tweet us your questions with the hashtag #TCDSidebar. And thank you for joining us at the True Crime Daily Sidebar.
