Questions That Still Remain After the State Attorney's Decision on PULSE

Pulse Families and Survivors for Justice
2 days ago
5 min read

Yesterday, the Office of the State Attorney issued an eleven-page memorandum explaining why it would not pursue criminal charges against any individual, corporation, or government entity in connection with the regulatory failures at PULSE Nightclub. The memorandum itself acknowledges that extensive reports were reviewed and that considerable effort went into presenting evidence to the State Attorney's Office.

In a private meeting held last month with survivors, the State Attorney's Office also stated that the agency does not conduct investigations, as it does not have the resources to do so, and that their role was to review the evidence presented and the Orlando Police Department's (OPD) investigation—which was a sham investigation riddled with conflicts of interest.

After carefully reviewing both the memorandum and the State Attorney's subsequent responses to follow-up questions, significant legal and factual issues remain unresolved.

The Central Legal Question: What Must Be Foreseeable?

The State Attorney's decision ultimately rests on one conclusion:

Although there may have been code violations and negligence, the PULSE shooting was an unforeseeable intervening criminal act. Therefore, criminal liability for manslaughter cannot be established.

That raises an important legal question.

Does Florida law require that a defendant foresee the precise event that occurred?

Or does it require only that the defendant foresee the general type of harm that unsafe conditions could produce?

Those are very different legal standards.

For example, if emergency exits are obstructed or illegally modified, must the owner foresee:

that a terrorist armed with a rifle will enter the building?

Or only that:

occupants may someday be unable to escape during a life-threatening emergency?

Those are not equivalent questions.

The follow-up correspondence with the State Attorney's Office, which can be downloaded below, reiterated that an unforeseeable criminal act generally breaks the chain of criminal liability, citing Reylea v. State.

But it did not directly answer the question that was asked:

Does Florida law require foreseeability of the specific intervening event, or only foreseeability of the general type of harm?

In other words, does Florida law require that the Pomas reasonably foresee that Omar Mateen would enter Pulse Nightclub on June 12, 2016, at approximately 2:01 a.m. and carry out a mass shooting? Or is it sufficient that they reasonably foresee that obstructed exits, false or misleading exits, or other unsafe conditions affecting emergency egress could hinder occupants' ability to escape and first responders' ability to rescue victims during a life-threatening emergency?

That distinction remains central to understanding the memorandum's reasoning.

Means of Egress Are Life-Safety Provisions

Another significant issue concerns the memorandum's discussion of building and fire codes.

The memorandum states:

"...the possibility of fire...is why municipalities have building code regulations—not mass murderers."

After this language was questioned, the State Attorney's Office clarified that the intent was to refer specifically to regulations concerning fire prevention rather than all building regulations. Mr. William Jay also noted that building regulations serve other purposes, such as ADA compliance.

That clarification narrows the original statement. However, it still leaves an important issue unresolved.

Modern building and fire codes are fundamentally life-safety regulations.

Their provisions governing (1) means of egress, (2) exit capacity, (3) unlocked exits, (4) emergency hardware, (5) occupant loads, (6) emergency lighting, (7) crowd movement, and (8) other life safety measures exist because people sometimes must evacuate buildings quickly.

The reason for the evacuation may be fire, smoke, hazardous materials, explosion, structural instability, criminal violence, or another life-threatening emergency.

Once evacuation begins, the code's concern is facilitating safe escape—not identifying the cause of the emergency.

Whether one agrees with the State Attorney's legal conclusion or not, the memorandum's categorical distinction between "fire code" emergencies and an active-shooter event remains open to legitimate legal and factual debate. The question posted to the State Attorney's Office remains unresolved.

A Different Question Than Security

An additional aspect of the follow-up response deserves careful attention.

The response states that accepting the plaintiffs' position would effectively require every venue in America to provide enough security to stop someone armed with an assault rifle.

Respectfully, that was not the question posed.

The issue is not whether PULSE should have prevented Omar Mateen from entering the nightclub, although the nightclub was required by law to have adequate security and to keep the nightclub a gun-free zone. The issue is whether allegedly unlawful conditions affecting emergency egress increased the risk that occupants could not escape once an emergency—of whatever kind—occurred.

Those are distinct legal questions.

Questions About the Memorandum's Accuracy

Beyond the legal analysis, several factual issues also deserve correction.

Authorship of the Reports

The memorandum repeatedly refers to reports written and prepared by "Dr. Zachary Blair." That characterization is incomplete.

The reports submitted to both the OPD and the State Attorney's Office were collaborative works prepared with the assistance of numerous contributors, including families, survivors, and victim advocates. Referring to them as though they were solely authored by one individual does not accurately reflect how they were developed.

Delivery of the Reports

Likewise, the memorandum states that the State Attorney's Office received the reports from Dr. Blair.

In reality, the reports were delivered by families and survivors—a meaningful distinction given that these investigations were undertaken on behalf of those directly affected by the tragedy.

This is documented in the photo below, taken on June 12, 2025, when survivors and families handed the report over to the State Attorney's Office.

Errors in the Factual Timeline

Researcher Dr. Jeffrey Badger, who also analyzed the mass shooting that occurred in Uvalde, Texas and co-authored a book on the PULSE shooting police response, also identified several factual errors in the memorandum's "Facts" section, including:

the duration of the initial gunfire,
the timing of subsequent shots,
omissions regarding the rifle malfunction,
omission of the shooter's subsequent handgun fire,
and aspects of the responding officers' timeline.

The State Attorney's Office responded that their memorandum's summary relied upon Detective Chris Haas's timeline contained within the submitted report and was never intended to replace the more detailed factual record.

That explanation provides useful context, but it also highlights why precision matters.

When a memorandum concludes that no criminal charges should be filed, the factual narrative supporting that legal analysis should itself be as complete and accurate as possible.

You can read Dr. Badger's emails and the State Attorney's response below:

Respectful Disagreement Strengthens Accountability

The legal questions surrounding foreseeability remain worthy of discussion. The purpose and scope of modern life-safety codes deserve careful consideration. And factual inaccuracies—however inadvertent—should be corrected whenever they appear in an official memorandum.

Our families and survivors who have spent the past decade seeking answers to answerable questions deserve nothing less than a legal analysis that is both legally rigorous and factually precise. Furthermore, we continue to demand a credible and legitimate independent investigation, which is why we continue to call for a PULSE Truth and Accountability Commission.