Legal Analysis

The Law States:

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. - Florida Statute §776.012

1. Unlawful Activity Disqualifier

Florida Statute §776.012(1) explicitly states that individuals engaged in unlawful activity are not entitled to Stand Your Ground protection. David Ross Gregory was illegally carrying a concealed weapon without a valid permit at the time of the shooting, which constituted a felony under Florida law in 2022.

This fact alone should have automatically disqualified any Stand Your Ground consideration. The failure to acknowledge this critical legal disqualifier represents a significant oversight in the investigation and legal determination.

2. Initial Aggressor Status

Under Florida law, the initial aggressor in a confrontation cannot claim Stand Your Ground immunity. Both David Gregory and his wife Amy admitted in their testimony that David crossed over to Steven's side of the road, establishing Gregory as the aggressor who encroached into Steven's personal space.

This admission fundamentally disqualifies any self-defense claim under Florida's Stand Your Ground doctrine. The law is clear that a person who initiates a confrontation cannot later claim self-defense under Stand Your Ground when that confrontation escalates.

3. Reasonable Fear Requirement

Stand Your Ground requires that the person using deadly force reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. The evidence in this case, including witness testimony and forensic findings, contradicts Gregory's claim of reasonable fear, particularly given the prior threats he had made against Steven.

The forensic evidence directly contradicts Gregory's account of a close-range struggle, and multiple witnesses heard two gunshots, not one, suggesting excessive force. These facts undermine the claim that Gregory had a reasonable fear justifying the use of deadly force.

Detective Nathan King's Determination

Detective King's premature determination that this case qualified as "justifiable homicide" has been directly contradicted by the State Attorney's Office, which has acknowledged a "miscarriage of justice." This raises serious questions about:

1. Detective King's qualifications and training in making Stand Your Ground determinations
2. The thoroughness and impartiality of the investigation
3. The procedural protocols followed in homicide investigations involving potential self-defense claims

Stand Your Ground determinations require sophisticated legal analysis that may exceed standard law enforcement training. The premature nature of Detective King's determination, made before completing basic investigative steps, and his apparent failure to recognize clear legal disqualifiers for Stand Your Ground protection, necessitate a thorough review of his qualifications.

Cycle of Inaction

A troubling procedural deadlock has emerged where:

• The State Attorney's Office acknowledges a miscarriage of justice
• Yet they require the Sarasota County Sheriff's Office to reopen the case before charges can be filed
• The Sheriff's Office has not taken action to reopen the case
• This creates a cycle of inaction where neither agency takes responsibility for moving the case forward

This procedural deadlock has prevented justice from being served in Steven's case and must be addressed. The family of Steven Paul Colon should not be caught in a bureaucratic impasse while seeking justice for their loved one.

1. Reopening of the Investigation

The Sarasota County Sheriff's Office should reopen the investigation into Steven's death, acknowledging the legal and procedural errors in the initial investigation. A thorough, unbiased investigation that properly considers all evidence is essential for justice to be served.

2. Independent Review

An independent review of the case evidence and Detective King's qualifications to make Stand Your Ground determinations is necessary to ensure that proper legal standards are applied. This review should be conducted by experts in Florida's self-defense laws who can objectively assess the evidence.

3. Criminal Charges

Based on the evidence, criminal charges should be filed against David Ross Gregory for:

• First-degree murder (as indicated in "The State of Florida vs. David Ross Gregory" document)
• Unlawful possession of a firearm

The evidence supports these charges, and the legal disqualifiers for Stand Your Ground protection make it clear that Gregory should not be immune from prosecution.

4. Accountability for Procedural Failures

There must be accountability for the procedural failures that led to this miscarriage of justice. This includes a review of the protocols for Stand Your Ground determinations and the training provided to law enforcement officers who make these consequential legal judgments.