Police Shoot Man After Non-Lethal Force Fails!: Legal Analysis by Marc J. Victor & Andy Marcantel
November 8, 2024
Two officers from the Charlotte County Sheriff’s Department shot and killed a man after he called them to report a trespasser on his property. Criminal defense attorneys Marc J. Victor and Andrew C. Marcantel examine the case in detail, analyzing the facts to determine whether the shooting was justified or an example of the use of excessive force.
Background
Elroy Clarke called 911, reporting there was a trespasser on his property. Mr. Clarke claimed that a tenant named Troy Johnson was unlawfully staying on his property. According to Mr. Clarke, there had been an ongoing dispute with Mr. Johnson, who had been living at the property for approximately three months. Mr. Clarke was attempting to evict Mr. Johnson, but Mr. Johnson refused to leave.
When two police officers arrived at the scene, they engaged in a calm and cordial conversation with Mr. Clarke. However, Mr. Clarke provided a false name to the officers, referring to himself using aliases such as “The King.” The officers then approached Mr. Johnson and requested that he vacate the premises. In response, Mr. Johnson revealed Mr. Clarke’s actual identity and disclosed that Mr. Clarke had an outstanding warrant for his arrest.
The Officers Confront Mr. Clarke
Upon confirming Mr. Clarke’s real name, the officers conducted a search warrant and discovered that he did, in fact, have an active warrant. His arrest records and photos were attached to the warrant. This discovery led to a confrontation in which Mr. Clarke began denying that Clarke was his real name. The attorneys noted that even if Mr. Clarke’s claims were true, he was still legally obligated to comply with the officers and resolve the matter through the court system.
“You’ve got an order from a judge that says arrest this guy, you’re going to be arrested.”
– Attorney Victor
According to the warrant, Mr. Clarke was charged with misdemeanor trespassing and misdemeanor failure to appear in court. While these charges are considered minor, the attorneys emphasized that resisting arrest is never justified. They stressed that the law applies universally beyond considerations of race or other irrelevant factors.
The Use of Non-Lethal and Lethal Force
Despite the officers’ repeated orders, Mr. Clarke continued to resist and insisted that they leave his property, claiming they were disturbing his peace. Throughout the encounter, the officers maintained a calm demeanor. However, after continued noncompliance, they began to escalate their use of force in an effort to subdue Mr. Clarke.
Officers ordered Mr. Clarke to get on the ground and put his hands behind his back. When he refused, officers employed a range of non-lethal measures, including pepper spray, a taser, a baton, and bean bag rounds. Despite being struck multiple times, Mr. Clarke remained uncooperative. It was only after he physically charged at the officers that they resorted to using lethal force.
“Watch the whole video and you will see that these officers are exercising amazing amounts of restraints here with this guy.”
– Attorney Marcantel
Police Reaction
The officer who fired the deadly shot was visibly distraught afterwards. While attorney Marcantel acknowledged the officer’s humanity and empathy, he expressed concern that law enforcement officers must maintain their composure during such critical moments. He argued that police should be able to perform necessary actions without becoming emotionally overwhelmed.
Attorney Analysis
In conclusion, the attorneys characterized the shooting as a “good shoot” that was within the bounds of legal reasonableness. Given Mr. Clarke’s physical size and the fact that he charged at an armed officer, they argued that the officer had reason to fear for his safety. Even if Mr. Clarke had been of equal size to the officer, the potential for him to gain control of the officer’s firearm would still present an imminent threat. Therefore, the attorneys considered the officer’s use of deadly force to be both reasonable and proportionate under the circumstances.
“The standard is that did they use reasonable force . . . and they were well within that standard here.”
– Attorney Victor
An internal investigation into the incident is ongoing. The attorneys believe that while it is appropriate for police departments to review their own actions, an independent investigation is also necessary to ensure transparency and accountability. The two officers who discharged their weapons are currently on paid administrative leave. The attorneys do not anticipate that either officer will face criminal charges as a result of this incident.
If you would like to know more about our law firm or our self-defense protection program, Attorneys On Retainer, please call 866-404-5112 or email us.