Seen thiscase just now over Confessions of a Street Pharmacist. .

ORLANDO, Fla. – Markeith Loyd’s attorneys have filed a new motion that says Orlando police ignored evidence that suggests Lt. Debra Clayton fired first when the pair encountered each other in a Walmart parking lot in 2017.

Attorneys said authorities failed to look into Clayton’s actions the night of the shooting, claiming her actions could be against policy and change the course of his case.

Markeith Loyd attorneys say new evidence suggests Orlando officer fired first

Here is part of the description of what lead to the death of Orlando Police Lt. Debra Clayton

Clayton ran approximately 10 feet behind Loyd as he ran between two concrete pillars. Loyd looped around one of the pillars, drew his gun and pointed it at Clayton, the report said. Clayton pulled out her gun and turned to run toward the parking lot when Loyd fired three rounds at her, according to police.

Clayton was struck four times: one bullet in the hip, another going through her buttock and shattering her hipbone; one in the thigh and one going through her neck and lodging in her shoulder. (Bold are mine)

IANAL warning and proceed.

Dear Bad Guys, I have bad news: What your boy Loyd did pulling the weapon and aiming at the cop is called Aggravated Assault (F.S. 784.021) which includes intent and is considered a forcible felony. Legally it does not matter if he shot first of not because the legislators, in a strange moment of common sense, decided that it would be rather stupid to give a criminal a chance to shoot somebody first in order to prove intent and make a  Self Defense shooting legal.

The simple display of the firearm in what seemed to be a threatening gesture is enough and that is why it is classified as a forcible felony and that brings us to F.S. 776.08 Justifiable Use of Force against a Forcible Felony.  And if there were any doubts, we can always refer to F.S. 776.012 (2):

A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

Now comes the question: Is Mr. Loyd’s lawyer dumb or does he know something about the judge that will make him buy this new “self-defense because I did not shoot first” tactic?