FREE e-Newsletter
Important News - Hot Topics
Get them Now!

The Law Officer's Pocket Manual - Bloomberg BNA
This handy 4" x 6" spiral-bound manual offers examples showing how rules are...

Top News

Florida Deputy Indicted for 2013 Shooting of Man Carrying Air Rifle

December 11, 2015  | 

Broward Judge John Hurley (left) with Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Peter Peraza. (Photo: Handout)
Broward Judge John Hurley (left) with Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Peter Peraza. (Photo: Handout) 

A Florida grand jury has indicted a Broward County Sheriff's deputy on a charge of manslaughter in the 2013 shooting death of 33-year-old computer systems engineer Jermaine McBean, the state attorney's office said Friday.

Broward Sheriff's Deputy Peter Peraza shot McBean as he was walking through his Oakland Park apartment complex while carrying a newly purchased, unloaded air rifle across his shoulders.

The sheriff's office said the day after the July 31, 2013 shooting that McBean began to turn and point the gun in the direction of the deputy, the Sun Sentinel reports.

A photograph that surfaced in May showed a fallen McBean wearing earbuds, and his family has said he would have been unable to hear any orders to drop the weapon.

Peraza told a sheriff's investigator that deputies screamed numerous times at McBean to drop his weapon, and that it didn't appear as though anything was obstructing his hearing at the time of the gunfire, according to an agency case report.

Comments (12)

Displaying 1 - 12 of 12

Percy @ 12/11/2015 12:29 PM


Handcuff @ 12/12/2015 4:57 AM

So its the deputy's fault that the idiot was wearing earbuds and carrying what appears to be a rifle. What ever happened to personal responsibility? At 33 years old you should know better than to carry what looks like a rifle out in the open.

randyGT50 @ 12/12/2015 9:21 AM

Handcuff, I'm assuming neither one of us know more than what this article states. I have a little different opinion. In America we have this thing called a constitutional right to bear arms. Particularly on private property. An officers job is to evaluate the surroundings and the people you feel you need to engage. If this guy was walking with (lets assume a real firearm) across his shoulders, why not tackle the guy? If he's not paying the copy any attention why not throw something at him? Since he's not in a hostile position, confrontational, mad, upset, pointing at anything, etc.... Could he be deaf? These are things to consider. The apartment complex area could not be very big, the police had to be close enough to evaluate this logically... Sounds like there were sufficient reasons to indict this officer....

Lets just not loose sight of our rights in America. You can't just shoot someone who simply has a firearm.

JakeRyan @ 12/12/2015 10:17 AM

randyGT50, "tackle the guy"?? Are you mad? I spent 16 years as a reserve officer and would never "tackle" a guy with a gun. I also trained nine years in MMA and would still never "tackle" a guy with a gun. "Throw something at him"???

I agree fully with the protecting constitutional rights and it's sad someone had to die here, but with the small amount in this story, no reader is equipped to know if the officer did right or wrong. A jury must now determine that in the light of what a reasonable officer would have done or perceived if in the same position.

Here in California the open area of an apartment complex, unless gated, is not considered private property as it would relate to brandishing a firearm. It would cause alarm and is not a safe nor smart thing to do.

Tony @ 12/12/2015 11:27 AM

Why is still allowing trolls outside of the profession into this forum? I can read that type of ignorance anywhere else. I come here for professional news and insights; not these poorly thought out (if thought out at all) diatribes of "so why didn't the officer [ fill in the mind reading prowess, future telling ability, super power, ability here ] ?" Posters should learn something about real life law enforcement and force encounters, or keep their uninformed comments to a blog that appreciates them. PoliceMag: how about getting applicants better for this sight? Jake & Handcuff: stay safe!

Tony @ 12/12/2015 11:30 AM

(Sorry for the spelling error. "Vetting" , not "getting!"

Jordie @ 12/14/2015 5:45 AM

Easy fellow officers, Randy is a frequent libtroll George Soros-sponsored pajama-boy bed-wetter that revels in in the freedom (to be stupid) the truly brave provide him on a daily basis. He's never worn a uniform, put himself at risk for others peace and freedom or had to make that tough life or death decision at 3 AM in a dark alley, so he doesn't know what its like to be a cop. He just sits in mom's basement sipping hot chocolate judging the deeds of others much braver and less selfish than he.

Robert @ 12/14/2015 10:58 AM

I do not understand the huge negative response on this board.
1. The GJ said there was "probable cause" that a crime was committed...bottom line the guy was shot, and I assume there were either conflicting witness reports OR some witnesses said he was not a threat. Have a gun is not the same as a threat.
2. A Criminal jury will decide if there is proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" on whether the LEO is guilty. I would assume during this trial more information will be released to the public.
3. Either way, after #2 above, there will be a civil trial where a 2nd jury will decide on civil liability....with a preponderance of the evidence.
This is our system...LEO and anti-LEO need to understand!!
My issues comes when an LEO is not placed on criminal trial..yet a jury (or the taxpayer's representatives) decide there is civil liability.
How can there be evidence that shows a civil tort happened..and requires payout. ...but there is not even probable cause evidence of a crime?

Jordie @ 12/15/2015 6:41 AM

If you knew the law, which apparently you do not, you would know the difference between the burden of proof between a civil tort - or injury to a party (preponderance of evidence a very low standard) due to possible negligence, recklessness, and liability versus criminal law - proof beyond a reasonable doubt predicated on the concurrence of actus reus (a criminal act for the uninitiated) and mens rea (the evil mind) or intent. If there is no criminal intent you have no criminal act -i.e. fearing for your life of the life of another something known as an affirmative defense or justification for the act, and as such there should be no resulting criminal charge. Apparently the prosecutor (a politician) forgot this when placing politically motivated charges.

Robert @ 12/15/2015 8:22 AM

Jordie, apparently you do not know the law.
A GJ does NOT have to find criminal intent, that is for a trial jury to find. All a Grand Jury has to find is that there is probable cause that a crime has been committed, by the person charged. The defense of criminal intent, self defense, etc. may or may not be raised in a GJ. IF the suspect testifies in the GJ, they may raise these defenses...but most do not testify at GJ.
Preponderance of evidence (51%) is a HIGHER standard than a GJ need to indict...Here is the ranking (I hope a LEO would know by heart):
Most states:
Reasonable suspicion: required to detain
Probable cause: required to arrest, indict or charge with a crime
Preponderance of Evidence: 51% required for MOST civil awards...but this can be split if the court allows comparative/Contributory type of shared faults
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: Greater than 51%, but less than 100%. Left to the individual person to determine, with very limited input from the court.

S.S. @ 12/18/2015 6:27 AM

You know things are f**ked up when that she male percy agrees with what is going on. Randy you are a complete and total moron for saying what you just said. You must be in front of a tv all day to say something as stupid as you did. Please DO NOT REPRODUCE. Instead you and her (percy) should get together and play with each other. Just as long as we don't have to see or read your moronic posts.

Percy @ 12/18/2015 1:10 PM


1 So you are back with your wit and insight,it really is a privaledge to watch you work.

2 Where have you been did PM put you on timeout until you stop your tantrums?

3 POLICE Magazine does not tolerate comments that include profanity, personal attacks or antisocial behavior (such as "spamming" or "trolling"). This and other inappropriate content or material will be removed. We reserve the right to block any user who violates this, including removing all content posted by that user.

Join the Discussion

POLICE Magazine does not tolerate comments that include profanity, personal attacks or antisocial behavior (such as "spamming" or "trolling"). This and other inappropriate content or material will be removed. We reserve the right to block any user who violates this, including removing all content posted by that user.
Police Magazine