Another Similar Case in Florida:

Background and Charges

On May 3, 2020, in Baker County, Florida (near North Raulerson Road), Roger Dale Raulerson was charged with:

• Aggravated battery with a deadly weapon,
• Shooting or throwing a deadly missile into an occupied vehicle,
• Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and
• Criminal mischief.

He moved to dismiss the first, second, and fourth counts, claiming immunity under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law. He argued he was making a citizen’s arrest (and using force to prevent escape) and/or acting in justifiable self-defense under § 776.012(2) because he reasonably believed deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.

Key Facts (from the evidentiary hearing)

Husband and Wife (married ~27 years) had recently moved in with Husband’s half-brother. They argued while running errands to a Dollar General store that morning (including a return trip for forgotten items). Raulerson, who lived nearby across the road, claimed he saw them racing/trying to run each other off the road in separate cars and reported this to the Baker County Sheriff. A lieutenant (Lt. Marker) was directed to contact him.

While on the phone with Marker, Raulerson claimed he saw Husband strike/kill Wife and said he might have to go shoot the guy. Marker instructed him to stay put (he was ~12 minutes away); Raulerson later denied hearing the stay-put order and went over anyway, armed with an AR-15 platform pistol from his truck. His girlfriend also called 911 about a fight.

At the scene, Raulerson claimed he saw Husband choking Wife in the car. He approached, pointed the gun through the driver’s window, and ordered them out and onto the ground. They exited. Husband told him to “fight like a man” instead of complying fully. Husband then got back in the car (Wife’s car) and drove away, turning right to exit (turning left would have risked hitting Raulerson, Wife, or the house).

Raulerson yelled that Husband was under citizen’s arrest and fired two shots ~2–3 seconds after the car moved. Both bullets hit Husband in the upper left thigh (entering through the driver’s side door). Forensic/tire-track evidence and expert testimony (including from Raulerson’s own expert) showed the car was turning right/away, and Raulerson was positioned to the side (near the left-front wheel well/fender area, 7–9 feet away), not directly in the path of an oncoming vehicle accelerating at him. Raulerson’s claim that he jumped mid-air while firing at a car driving straight at him was rejected as not credible. He also initially failed to tell responding officers that Husband was trying to run him over.

The trial court weighed credibility, found the State’s evidence clear and convincing, and denied the motion. Even assuming a valid citizen’s arrest, it held Raulerson lacked an objectively reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary for self-defense or to prevent escape.

Holding and Reasoning

The First DCA denied the writ of prohibition. Writs of prohibition are extraordinary and narrow; they are not a routine substitute for appellate review of nonfinal orders. The court reiterated that prohibition remains available for criminal Stand Your Ground immunity denials (even after rule changes that expanded appeals for civil defendants).

On the merits, the court did not fully resolve the citizen’s-arrest authority question (noting it was “dubious on the law and on the facts” and that an unauthorized detention at gunpoint could itself constitute false imprisonment, undermining any self-defense claim). The decisive point was the self-defense claim under § 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. …

Raulerson failed to show clearly and conclusively (without bona fide factual dispute) that a reasonable person in his position would have believed deadly force was necessary. The trial court’s credibility findings and the physical/expert evidence (car turning away; Raulerson to the side; no corroboration of an imminent threat from Wife/Hunt standing nearby; alternative less-lethal options available) supported the denial. The appearance of danger must be such that a reasonably cautious person would believe force was the only way to avoid it; that standard was not met here.

Significance

This decision underscores the limits of Stand Your Ground/self-defense claims when a civilian intervenes with a firearm in a domestic dispute, especially after being told law enforcement is en route. It highlights the importance of objective reasonableness, forensic evidence over self-serving testimony, and the narrow availability of extraordinary writs for pretrial immunity denials in criminal cases. Citizen’s-arrest authority remains constrained under Florida common law (felony or breach of the peace in the citizen’s presence, with probable cause and proper intent/declaration), and deadly force is rarely justified solely to prevent escape by a private person.

Primary sources for the full opinion include the Justia PDF of the First DCA decision and secondary analyses (e.g., law firm case summaries). The opinion is reported at 409 So.3d 713.