All posts by Erin Maloney

Following an extensive review, our office has concluded that a 30-year-old male victim acted in lawful self-defense and was justified in his use of deadly force against 23-year-old Joshua Lee Dylan Perkins on January 4, 2022. Our review determined that the victim, a truck driver, stopped on the side of U.S. 92 to troubleshoot an issue with his truck. Perkins approached the victim wearing a mask and brandishing a black BB gun that looked like a firearm. Perkins robbed the victim of his gold wedding ring, watch, credit cards, and driver’s license. Perkins walked away and the victim armed himself with a handgun that had been stored in his truck. Perkins then returned to rob the victim of his cell phone. When Perkins tried to rob the victim again, the victim shot Perkins multiple times. Perkins died at the scene and was found to have a black BB gun, along with the victim’s driver’s license, watch, and credit cards. The victim’s wedding ring was found on the ground near Perkins’ body.

In reaching this conclusion, our office conducted an exhaustive review of all available evidence and applicable legal standards. These steps included but were not limited to:

• responding to the scene following the shooting
• reviewing interviews of witnesses
• examining physical evidence
• reviewing video evidence
• reviewing body worn camera evidence
• reviewing photographic evidence
• reviewing 911 calls, radio communications, and relevant audio
• analyzing autopsy results
• applying the applicable laws

The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office conducted the investigation, and a representative from the State Attorney’s Office responded to the scene. Investigators found that the victim is a truck driver who stopped along the side of U.S. Highway 92 in Seffner to troubleshoot a problem with his truck at 11:07 p.m. on January 4, 2022. As the victim was working to resolve the issue, a man wearing a mask—later identified as Perkins—approached the victim, pointed the weapon at him, and said, “Give it up.” Perkins went on to demand the victim’s money and valuables.

Concerned that Perkins might return, Thomas retrieved his firearm from his truck. A short time later, Perkins returned to Thomas. While brandishing the same weapon, Perkins demanded Thomas’ cell phone. In response, Thomas fired several shots at Perkins, ran away from Perkins, and dialed 911. Perkins died on scene. Perkins had in his possession a black BB gun. In Perkins’ pocket, the police found Thomas’ credit cards, Thomas’ driver’s license, and Thomas’ watch. Thomas’ wedding ring was found on the ground, not far from Perkins’ body.

The victim handed over his wedding ring, watch, credit cards, and driver’s license, and showed Perkins that the part of his wallet that held cash was empty. Perkins began to walk away—while walking away, Perkins threatened to kill the victim if the victim dialed 911. Still in fear, the victim retrieved a handgun he stores in his truck for protection. Perkins returned, demanding the victim hand over his cellphone. The victim, with his back against his truck, and in fear for his life, fired several shots at Perkins. The victim then promptly called 911, reported what had happened, and moved to a safe location nearby to await deputies.

Perkins died at the scene. The weapon Perkins used to rob the victim was found in Perkins’ pants—a black BB gun pistol that looks like a firearm. In Perkins’ left front pocket, investigators found the victim’s driver’s license, credit cards, and watch. On the ground close to Perkins, they found the victim’s wedding ring. Dash camera video from a passing civilian witness and surveillance video from a nearby business show parts of the incident that are consistent with the victim’s account.

The victim handed his firearm to deputies, a Taurus PT 738 .380 ACP, which was empty. The gun holds 6 rounds. An expended projectile and five casings were found at the scene.

The Hillsborough County Medical Examiner’s Office performed an autopsy and determined the cause of death was gunshot wounds with perforations of the aorta, liver, and right kidney. Perkins’ body had four gunshot wounds. He had an entrance wound to the left shoulder/clavicle with an exit wound to his lower right side. He had an entrance wound to his lower left torso with no exit wound. He had an entrance wound to his upper right thigh with an exit wound to the outer right thigh. He also had an entrance wound to the left thigh and an exit wound on the side of his left calf. The angles of the shots are consistent with the victim’s explanation that he was standing on the step on the side of his truck cab, elevated slightly above Perkins, when he fired.

The name of the victim is being withheld due to Marsy’s Law.

After our thorough analysis, we have determined that the facts and evidence of this incident prove that the victim reasonably believed he was in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm when he used deadly force. These findings satisfy Florida Statute 776.012. Accordingly, under Florida law, there is no legal basis for criminal charges against the victim.

An initial release of materials related to this case is available at this link. These items illustrate the crime scene and key details of the case. Further documents related to the case, including additional photos, reports, and interview transcripts, are available to any member of the public subject to Florida’s Public Records Law; find details on making a request on the State Attorney’s Office Public Records page.

Following an extensive review, our office has concluded that a deputy from the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office was justified in his use of deadly force against 35-year-old Daniel Lighty on December 9, 2021. Our review determined that several Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office deputies responded to multiple 911 calls of a man in a Brandon parking lot firing numerous rounds from a handgun. When uniformed deputies arrived, they observed Daniel Lighty, armed with a gun, standing near a minivan in the parking lot of the Washed Up Car Wash. Lighty was firing his gun indiscriminately in the middle of the day near a busy road, endangering the lives of members of the public as well as the responding law enforcement officers. Surveillance and body worn camera video then show Lighty directing his fire at the responding deputies and ignoring repeated warnings to drop his weapon. Lighty fired multiple rounds at the deputies from his 9mm pistol. In response to this, one of the deputies fired his weapon three times at Lighty. Neither Lighty nor the deputy was struck. In reaching this conclusion, our office conducted an exhaustive review of all available evidence and applicable legal standards. These steps included but were not limited to:

• reviewing interviews of the involved law enforcement officers
• examining physical evidence
• reviewing video evidence
• reviewing photographic evidence
• reviewing 911 calls, radio communications, body worn camera footage, and relevant audio
• applying the applicable laws

The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office conducted the investigation. The investigation found that 911 calls from members of the public began coming in at approximately 12:48 p.m. on Friday, December 9, 2021, and deputies arrived at approximately 12:53 p.m. Multiple 911 calls described Lighty’s location and the fact that he was firing several times and reloading before law enforcement arrived. Responding deputies encountered Lighty, armed with a gun, in the parking lot of the Washed Up Car Wash at 834 East Brandon Blvd.

Surveillance video shows Lighty firing multiple rounds prior to law enforcement’s arrival. The surveillance video also shows Lighty continuing to fire his gun after the deputies arrived and directed him to drop his weapon. Lighty is seen on video firing in the direction of deputies. There is also damage to the building where the deputies were seeking cover consistent with Lighty’s shots, as well as body worn camera footage from multiple deputies. A responding deputy’s vehicle was struck by a bullet fired by Lighty while the deputy was responding to the scene and before any shots were fired by a member of law enforcement.

Lighty was warned to drop his weapon several times before the deputy fired, but the warnings were ignored. The deputy fired three rounds from his handgun. None of the rounds struck Lighty. After being fired on by the deputy, Lighty continued to fire his 9mm pistol toward the deputies. This incident occurred in the middle of the day near busy Brandon Blvd., endangering the lives of many people in addition to threatening the lives of the responding law enforcement officers.

Members of the crisis response team from HCSO were ultimately able to make phone contact with Lighty and convince him to surrender. A search warrant was executed on Lighty’s minivan, revealing two 9mm pistols on the front passenger side as well as 200 rounds of unspent 9mm ammunition. A total of 76 spent shell casings were recovered in the area where Lighty had been standing—in the parking lot of the car wash and inside the minivan. Firearms analysis by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement determined that the two pistols in Lighty’s minivan had fired all 76 of the spent casings. No one was injured.

The name of the law enforcement officer is being withheld due to Marsy’s Law.

After our thorough analysis, we have determined that the facts and evidence of this incident prove that the law enforcement officer reasonably believed he was in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm to himself, other deputies, and civilians when he used deadly force. He also did not have a duty to retreat. These findings satisfy Florida Statutes 776.012 and 776.05 and, therefore, under Florida law, the use of deadly force is justified. Accordingly, there is no legal basis for criminal charges against the deputy.

Our office typically includes an initial release of materials when publishing a use of deadly force review; that is not possible in this case because the materials are all evidence in an active criminal investigation. Under Fla. Statute 119.071(2)(c), evidence in active criminal investigations is exempt from release. Documents related to the case may be available in the future once all cases are resolved. Under Florida’s Public Records Law, any member of the public can make a request. Find details on making a request on the State Attorney’s Office Public Records page.

Following an extensive review, our office has concluded that we cannot refute that a male victim (“Victim 1”) acted in lawful self-defense and in defense of another in the use of deadly force against 54-year-old Levi Jones, Jr. on September 30, 2021. Investigators determined that after Jones got into a dispute with two people—Victim 1 and another man (“Victim 2”)—Jones pulled out a handgun and shot Victim 1 multiple times, causing him to fall to the ground. Jones then shot Victim 2. After Victim 2 fell to the ground, Jones began physically beating Victim 2 with the gun. In response, Victim 1 pulled out a gun and shot Jones in self-defense and in defense of Victim 2. In reaching this conclusion, our office conducted an exhaustive review of all available evidence and applicable legal standards. These steps included but were not limited to:

• reviewing interviews of witnesses
• examining physical evidence
• reviewing video evidence
• reviewing 911 calls
• reviewing photographic evidence
• reviewing responding law enforcement officer body worn camera footage
• analyzing autopsy results
• applying the applicable laws

The Tampa Police Department conducted the investigation. Investigators learned that officers were dispatched to 4804 35th Circle in Tampa’s Jackson Heights neighborhood in response to a ShotSpotter activation due to the detection of eight rounds of gunfire. Responding officers observed Victim 1, Victim 2, and Levi Jones, Jr. lying on the ground in a vacant lot on the northwest corner of Osborne Avenue and 35th Circle. There were several other people at the scene, standing near the people on the ground. Lifesaving measures were performed by first responders on all three men, and they were transported to local hospitals for treatment. An unidentified male witness approached one of the officers and stated that Victim 2 and Jones had shot one another.

An eyewitness stated that the incident stemmed from a long-standing dispute between Jones and Victim 2, and another eyewitness said it stemmed from a drug deal that occurred earlier in the day.

Victim 2 approached Jones while Jones was seated in the driver’s seat of a parked Ford F-150. Moments later, Jones pulled out a gun and pointed it toward Victim 2, causing Victim 2 to immediately retreat. Victim 1 then approached Jones to confront him about Jones pulling a gun on Victim 2. Jones then fired the gun at Victim 1. Victim 1 fell to the ground, and Jones continued to fire several more times at Victim 1 while he was lying on the ground. Then Jones ran toward Victim 2 and shot Victim 2. Jones stood over Victim 2 and began hitting him with the gun. In response, Victim 1 pulled out his own firearm and fired one shot at Jones. Jones was shot in the head and later was pronounced dead at the hospital.

Victim 2 was shot in the hands, buttocks, and right leg. He later died as a result of these gunshot wounds on October 16, 2021. Victim 1 was shot multiple times and was transported to the hospital. Detectives interviewed Victim 1 in ICU. He appeared to be uncooperative and was reluctant to provide information or details regarding the shooting and who was involved. Victim 1 never admitted to possessing a firearm or shooting it during the incident. He survived his gunshot wound injuries.

All firearms were taken and removed from the scene prior to law enforcement’s arrival. Seven total fired casings were recovered from the scene and submitted for analysis. Six of the casings had been fired from the same gun and one had been fired from a different gun—which is consistent with the eyewitness accounts that only two guns were involved and that Jones fired his gun multiple times at Victim 2, while Victim 1 had fired his gun only once at Jones.

The names of the victims are being withheld due to Marsy’s Law.

After our thorough analysis, we have determined that the facts and evidence cannot refute that Victim 1 reasonably believed he was in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or Victim 2 when he used deadly force. These findings satisfy Florida Statute 776.012. Accordingly, under Florida law, there is no legal basis for criminal charges against Victim 1.

An initial release of materials related to this case is available at this link. These items illustrate the crime scene and key details of the case. Further documents related to the case, including additional photos, reports, and interview transcripts, are available to any member of the public subject to Florida’s Public Records Law; find details on making a request on the State Attorney’s Office Public Records page.

Following an extensive review, our office has concluded that we cannot refute the assertion by the victim that he acted in lawful self-defense in the use of deadly force against Kyle Shelton on October 4, 2021. Our review determined that the evidence is consistent with the victim’s assertion that he repeatedly requested and then demanded that Kyle Shelton leave his home, yet Shelton refused to leave and threatened to hurt the victim. The victim asserts that he then armed himself with a gun and again demanded that Shelton leave. The victim asserts that Shelton then shoved the victim to the ground, and—as the victim fell to the ground—the firearm in his hand accidentally discharged and Shelton was shot in the chest. Shelton died from this wound. In reaching this conclusion, our office conducted an exhaustive review of all available evidence and applicable legal standards. These steps included but were not limited to:

• reviewing police reports
• reviewing interviews of witnesses
• examining physical evidence
• reviewing photographic evidence
• reviewing 911 calls, radio communications, and relevant audio
• analyzing autopsy results
• applying the applicable laws

The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office conducted the investigation and determined that on October 4, 2021, around 04:49 a.m., law enforcement responded to a home in West Tampa in reference to a shooting incident. Upon arrival, law enforcement located Kyle Shelton inside the home with an apparent gunshot wound.  Shelton was taken to a hospital where he was pronounced dead. The medical examiner later determined that Shelton died as a result of a single gunshot wound to his chest.

Investigation revealed that in addition to the victim and Shelton, there were two other people in the home at the time of the shooting, referred to here as Witness 1 and Witness 2.

Witness 1 was interviewed by detectives and told them that she was a friend of the victim and had been staying with the victim for several days. On the night of this incident, Witness 1 stated that Shelton came to the house around 10:00 p.m. to socialize with the victim. Shelton and the victim later went to the store to buy alcohol and returned with a young woman (Witness 2). Shortly after arriving at the home, Witness 2 began to ask Shelton to give her a ride home and Shelton refused. The victim then confronted Shelton about taking Witness 2 home. Shortly afterward, Witness 1 heard an argument and what sounded like something physical, then a gunshot. Witness 1 did not witness the actual shooting.

Witness 2 was interviewed by detectives and she explained that she had met Shelton and the victim at a local convenience store and asked them to give her a ride to her home. Shelton indicated that he would drive her to where she lived and she went with the men to the victim’s home with the anticipation that Shelton would then take her to her home. Once they got to the victim’s house Shelton refused to take her home; she then asked the victim and Witness 1 to take her home. Witness 2 then complained to the victim that Shelton had promised to take her home, which prompted the victim to confront Shelton about taking Witness 2 to her house. Later, Witness 2 was with Witness 1 in one of the bedrooms when they heard arguing, a physical fight, and then a gunshot. Witness 2 did not witness the fight or the gunshot. Once the shooting happened, Witness 2 ran out of the house.

The victim was interviewed by detectives following the incident. The victim advised that he and Shelton went to a local convenience store to buy alcohol and came into contact with Witness 2, who was asking for a ride home. Shelton agreed to take her home and brought her back to the victim’s house. Once they arrived, Witness 2 would not stop bothering everyone for a ride home and was complaining that Shelton had promised her a ride home. The victim then confronted Shelton, who was lying in bed in the spare bedroom, about taking Witness 2 home. He and Shelton argued for approximately five minutes and then the victim told Shelton that Shelton needed to leave the house. Shelton then refused to leave and told the victim, “I’m going to f— you up,” and, “Step one foot into this room and see what happens.”

The victim explained that he then got a gun from within the house both to protect himself and with the hope that the gun would persuade Shelton to leave. As the victim walked through his house into the kitchen, he ran into Shelton and told Shelton, “Now you’re going to leave.” The victim advised that Shelton then shoved him in the chest with both hands, causing him to fall backwards and trip over a case of bottled water that was on the floor behind him. As the victim was falling backwards, the gun went off accidentally. The victim advised that he had no intention of shooting Shelton. He immediately called 911 to report the shooting. The victim further said that he and Shelton had engaged in an argument three months before, during which Shelton had thrown him to the ground.

A short time after the victim’s interview, he agreed to participate in a video walkthrough of the shooting. In the video, the victim demonstrated his interaction with Shelton in the kitchen of the home and re-enacted the physical altercation, which included showing where and how he fell backwards and his position when the gun discharged.

Crime scene technicians located damage to the ceiling of the kitchen that was in an area above and behind where the victim indicated Shelton had been standing when the gun went off. The area of this damage is consistent with the victim’s account of the gun being near the floor when it discharged.

The weapon in this case, a .357 caliber revolver, belonged to the victim and was kept by him in his bedroom. Ammunition for the firearm was located in the area where the victim indicated he kept the weapon. The revolver was examined by a firearms examiner and test fired and was found to function as designed.

An autopsy examination was conducted by the Hillsborough County Medical Examiner’s Office. The cause of Shelton’s death was determined to be a gunshot wound to the chest. The direction of travel of the bullet as it passed through Shelton’s body was able to be determined and was consistent with the gun being discharged from an area in front of and below Shelton. This medical evidence is consistent with the victim’s account of the incident. Toxicology testing was also conducted by the Medical Examiner’s Office. Shelton’s blood alcohol level was determined to be 0.17 g/dL which is at a level that would be over twice the legal limit allowed for operation of a motor vehicle.

The name of the victim is being withheld due to Marsy’s Law.

After our thorough analysis, we have determined that the facts and evidence cannot refute the statements by the victim that the firearm was discharged accidentally and a claim that the victim lawfully defended himself from the commission of a forcible felony or reasonably believed he was in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm when he used deadly force. These findings satisfy Florida Statute 776.012. Accordingly, under Florida law, there is no legal basis for criminal charges against the victim.

An initial release of materials related to this case is available at this link. These items illustrate the crime scene and key details of the case. Further documents related to the case, including additional photos, reports, and interview transcripts, are available to any member of the public subject to Florida’s Public Records Law; find details on making a request on the State Attorney’s Office Public Records page.

Following an extensive review, our office has concluded that we cannot refute the assertion by the victim that he acted in lawful self-defense in the use of deadly force against Terrance Larry on September 30, 2021. Our review determined that the evidence is consistent with the victim’s assertion that he was trying to take back his own truck from Larry when Larry came outside and advanced on him, armed with two knives. There is no evidence to suggest that the victim was armed with any weapons. Larry began to swing the knife and fight with the victim. The victim grabbed Larry by the arm and it appears that Larry was stabbed in the neck, which resulted in his death. In reaching this conclusion, our office conducted an exhaustive review of all available evidence and applicable legal standards. These steps included but were not limited to:

• reviewing police reports
• reviewing interviews of witnesses
• examining physical evidence
• reviewing photographic evidence
• reviewing 911 calls, radio communications, and relevant audio
• analyzing autopsy results
• applying the applicable laws

Tampa Police Department conducted the investigation. TPD investigators determined that on September 30, 2021, at around 9:19 p.m., law enforcement responded to calls about two men involved in a physical altercation. When they arrived, officers found Larry lying in the grass with a cut to the right side of his neck and his upper right arm. Larry was found with a silver pocketknife in his left hand and a hunting knife in an orange case near his right leg. Larry was taken to the hospital but later died from his injuries. The orange case for the hunting knife was covered with blood. An autopsy by the Hillsborough Medical Examiner’s Office later determined that Larry died as a result of the stab wound to his neck.

A witness (“Witness 1”) told investigators that she was hanging out with Larry in her apartment when someone started knocking on the door. She recognized the person as the victim because she was acquainted with him. When no one answered the door, the person began pounding louder on the door. Larry got up from a couch and went outside. After a minute, Witness 1 went outside to look for Larry and saw the victim pulling out of the driveway in his black truck. She then found Larry lying on the side of the building. She stated that Larry had been driving the victim’s truck earlier in the day.

Another witness (“Witness 2”) was across the street from the yard where the altercation took place. Witness 2 said she was sitting outside her home when she saw a person banging on Witness 1’s door. Larry eventually came outside and began to fight with the person. Witness 2 lost sight of the two, as her view was blocked by a building, but later saw the person who had been banging on the door leave in a black truck.

An additional witness (“Witness 3”) said that Larry and the victim were always hanging out together outside the home. On the day of the incident, Witness 3 saw them both arguing about keys. The victim was demanding keys from Larry. The two began to fight and then the victim left in a black truck. The truck was determined to belong to the victim.

None of the witnesses ever saw a knife or weapon in the hands of the victim. However, the witnesses stated that Larry was known to always carry a knife with him.

Law enforcement located the victim, and he provided an audio recorded interview that is consistent with the accounts of the various witnesses. The victim stated that Larry had taken his truck and keys for several days. He went over to Larry’s home to get his truck. He was knocking on the door, but no one would answer. He stated that as he continued to knock on the door, Larry opened the door and was holding a knife. Larry then advanced and attacked him with the knife as he fought back. The victim denied being armed with any knife or weapon. He stated that he pushed Larry’s arm and then saw him bleeding. He continued struggling and fighting but then withdrew as he was able to grab his keys. He stated he was in fear from the knife and fought back only with his hands.

The name of the victim is being withheld due to Marsy’s Law.

After our thorough analysis, we have determined that the facts and evidence cannot refute the statements by the victim that he reasonably believed he was in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm when he used deadly force. These findings satisfy Florida Statute 776.012. Accordingly, under Florida law, there is no legal basis for criminal charges against the victim.

An initial release of materials related to this case is available at this link. These items illustrate the crime scene and key details of the case. Further documents related to the case, including additional photos, reports, and interview transcripts, are available to any member of the public subject to Florida’s Public Records Law; find details on making a request on the State Attorney’s Office Public Records page.

Following an extensive review, our office has concluded that the victim acted in lawful self-defense and was justified in his use of deadly force against 21-year-old Gunnar Samuelson on August 24, 2021. Our review determined that Samuelson entered the victim’s residence, armed with his own handgun, with the intention of robbing the victim of money and firearms. Samuelson struck the victim in the back of the head and pointed a firearm at him. The victim armed himself with a shotgun and shot Samuelson because he was in fear for his life. In reaching this conclusion, our office conducted an exhaustive review of all available evidence and applicable legal standards. These steps included but were not limited to:

• reviewing interviews of witnesses
• examining physical evidence
• reviewing video evidence
• reviewing photographic evidence
• reviewing 911 calls
• evidence obtained from Samuelson’s cell phone
• analyzing autopsy results
• applying the applicable laws

The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office conducted the investigation. Investigators found that the victim knew Samuelson and invited Samuelson over to his house to hang out and see some of the victim’s firearms. Samuelson entered the victim’s residence, armed with his own handgun, with the intention of robbing the victim of money and firearms.

Samuelson struck the victim in the back of the head with a gun and pointed a gun at him, putting the victim in fear for his life. Samuelson held the victim at gunpoint and demanded money and guns. Samuelson went through the victim’s pockets and took between $300 and $400. The victim then armed himself with a shotgun and shot Samuelson because he was in fear for his life. Samuelson shot the victim once in the leg, and then fled the scene after taking the victim’s firearms and money. Samuelson went to St. Joseph’s Hospital and later died of his injuries. Samuelson was driven to the hospital by an associate who received a call from Samuelson after he had been shot, asking the associate to pick him at the Puff ’n Panda Vape Shop and drive him to the hospital.

The photographs of the victim and the crime scene were consistent with the interview provided by the victim. The victim had an injury to the back of his head and a gunshot wound to his upper thigh. At the crime scene, there were three spent shotgun shells and a single spent .380 Blazer round located in the living room area. Later, evidence was recovered from Samuelson at the hospital including $220 in cash, a Chevrolet key fob, a blue iPhone, and a Glock .380 six-round magazine with five live .380 Blazer rounds in the magazine. Video surveillance recovered at the vape shop shows Samuelson driving a Chevrolet Malibu. Security at St. Joseph’s Hospital observed the associate driving a Chevrolet Malibu when she dropped off Samuelson at the hospital. HCSO located the Chevrolet Malibu and obtained a search warrant for the car. Inside, a gun case for a Glock firearm and a magazine containing .380 rounds were recovered. In addition, a search warrant was obtained to search Samuelson’s cell phone. Cell phone video found on Samuelson’s phone showed him filming and casing the victim’s residence before the date of the incident. There were also photographs of a Glock .380 on Samuelson’s phone that were taken a few weeks before the incident. There was also a photo on Samuelson’s phone of a list titled “Things drugs did to me” which included “got me in shootouts” and “made me take/rob people.”

The victim’s girlfriend was present in the home during the incident but in another room and overheard arguing and Samuelson demanding cash and firearms from the victim.

Initially, Samuelson told the hospital staff that his shotgun fell off of his bed and fired itself into his stomach. Samuelson provided multiple inconsistent statements to law enforcement including, originally stating that he accidentally shot himself. Later he stated that he did not own any firearms and, eventually, he stated that he went to the victim’s house to sell drugs to the victim when the victim tried to rob him.

Samuelson was released from the hospital on September 2, 2021. Samuelson was arrested and charged with aggravated battery with a deadly weapon; home invasion robbery; and shooting at, within, or into a building. After being arrested, Samuelson was found unresponsive in his jail bunk and transported to Tampa General Hospital. On September 5, 2021, Samuelson was pronounced dead. An autopsy was conducted, and it was determined that Samuelson’s cause of death was myocardial infarction due to sepsis due to complications of a shotgun wound to the abdomen.

The name of the victim is being withheld due to Marsy’s Law.

After our thorough analysis, we have determined that the facts and evidence of this incident prove that the victim reasonably believed he was in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm when he used deadly force. These findings satisfy Florida Statute 776.012. Accordingly, under Florida law, there is no legal basis for criminal charges against the victim.

An initial release of materials related to this case is available at this link. These items illustrate the crime scene and key details of the case. Further documents related to the case, including additional photos, reports, and interview transcripts, are available to any member of the public subject to Florida’s Public Records Law; find details on making a request on the State Attorney’s Office Public Records page.

Following an extensive review, our office has concluded that a deputy from the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office was justified in his use of deadly force against 20-year-old Ma’at Lee on October 31, 2021. Our review determined that the deputy was driving a marked patrol vehicle when he conducted a traffic stop on a vehicle driven by a suspect later identified as Ma’at Lee. The deputy stopped the vehicle because it did not have a tag. While the deputy was waiting for a backup deputy to arrive, Lee pulled out a firearm and pointed it out of his driver’s side window, then fired the gun several times at the deputy while he was still seated in his patrol car. The deputy immediately ducked down for cover and retrieved his own firearm, firing it four times out of his front windshield toward the suspect vehicle. In reaching this conclusion, our office conducted an exhaustive review of all available evidence and applicable legal standards. These steps included but were not limited to:

• reviewing interviews of civilian witnesses
• reviewing interviews of the involved law enforcement officers
• examining physical evidence
• reviewing video evidence
• reviewing photographic evidence
• reviewing 911 calls, radio communications, and relevant audio
• applying the applicable laws

The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office conducted the investigation. HCSO investigators found that at approximately 4:40 a.m. on October 31, 2021, a deputy was on duty and parked in a marked patrol vehicle with his lights off in a parking lot. The deputy observed a silver Jeep enter the parking lot and then back into a parking space. The deputy turned on his headlights as he was getting ready to exit the parking lot. The silver Jeep then turned on its own lights and sped out in front of the deputy. The deputy saw that the Jeep had no tag, dark tinted windows, and was driving away at high speed.

The deputy initiated a traffic stop at 4:46 a.m. at N. 43rd Street and Skipper Road. The silver Jeep did not pull off the road but instead stopped in the road. That led the deputy to use his PA system to give instructions to the driver of the Jeep. Since the Jeep had dark tinted windows, the deputy shined his spotlight onto the vehicle but could see only a person in the driver’s seat of the vehicle. The deputy stayed seated in his patrol vehicle waiting for backup deputies to arrive.

The deputy saw the driver of the Jeep hang halfway out of the window and then saw a flash; the deputy immediately recognized that the Jeep’s driver was firing a gun at him. The deputy, in fear for his life, ducked down in his vehicle—taking cover and using the engine block of his vehicle to shield him from the suspect’s gunfire. The deputy retrieved his own gun and fired four shots through his front windshield. The suspect fled in the silver Jeep. The deputy’s vehicle was disabled because his front tire was shot out by the suspect.

The incident is captured on the deputy’s body-worn camera and nearby Ring video camera surveillance. The Ring video also records sound and shows the traffic stop at a distance. Two distinct sounds of different gunfire are heard in the video, showing that the deputy fired his gun at the Jeep immediately after he was fired upon by the suspect—the Jeep was still parked in front of him, and he was in fear for his life. The silver Jeep is then seen fleeing the area. The driver then abandoned the Jeep a short distance away. Neither the deputy nor the suspect was injured.

There was a civilian witness who observed the incident from the window of nearby apartment and provided a statement that was consistent with the deputy’s account of the incident.

There were several spent shell casings recovered from the street around the area where the silver Jeep was parked during the traffic stop. The silver Jeep was found abandoned nearby and a casing found in the floorboard matched the casings recovered from the crime scene. The silver Jeep was taken at gunpoint during an armed carjacking that occurred on October 27, 2021. Ma’at Lee has also been identified as the perpetrator of that offense.

The name of the law enforcement officer who returned fire is being withheld due to Marsy’s Law.

After our thorough analysis, we have determined that the facts and evidence of this incident prove that the law enforcement officer reasonably believed he was in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm when he used deadly force. He also did not have a duty to retreat. These findings satisfy Florida Statutes 776.012 and 776.05 and, therefore, under Florida law, the use of deadly force is justified. Accordingly, there is no legal basis for criminal charges against the deputy.

Our office typically includes an initial release of materials when publishing a use of deadly force review; that is not possible in this case because the materials are all evidence in an active criminal investigation. Under Fla. Statute 119.071(2)(c), evidence in active criminal investigations is exempt from release. Documents related to the case may be available in the future once all cases are resolved. Under Florida’s Public Records Law, any member of the public can make a request. Find details on making a request on the State Attorney’s Office Public Records page.

Following an extensive review, our office has concluded that a male sheriff’s deputy (“Deputy 1”) from the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office was justified in his use of deadly force against 49-year-old James Allen Jackson on September 24, 2021. Our review determined that Jackson, after shooting a different deputy, barricaded himself in his home armed with a revolver. After several hours of communicating with Jackson, Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office SWAT team members entered the home in an attempt to extract and arrest him. During this process, Jackson drew his revolver and in response, Deputy 1 fired his weapon twice, in fear for his life and the lives of the other deputies present inside the residence. In reaching this conclusion, our office conducted an exhaustive review of all available evidence and applicable legal standards. These steps included but were not limited to:

• responding to the scene following the shooting
• reviewing interviews of civilian witnesses
• reviewing interviews of the involved law enforcement officers
• examining physical evidence
• reviewing video evidence
• reviewing photographic evidence
• reviewing 911 calls, radio communications, and relevant audio
• applying the applicable laws

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement conducted the investigation, and a representative from the State Attorney’s Office responded to the scene. FDLE investigators found that on September 24, 2021, at approximately 9:30 a.m., a relative of Jackson called 911 to report that Jackson had battered the relative inside the house in Brandon where Jackson lives. The caller informed the dispatcher that there were no weapons involved in the battery, but that Jackson did own a firearm. When deputies arrived, Jackson was inside his locked bedroom. Two Hillsborough County Sheriff’s deputies were led to the outside of Jackson’s bedroom door by a relative. The relative asked Jackson to come out of the room. He refused and fired one gunshot from inside his bedroom though the door, striking one of the deputies. The two deputies then left the house and removed everyone else from inside the home. Jackson then proceeded to barricade himself inside the house.

HCSO Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) personnel and the HCSO Crisis Negotiation team were alerted and responded to the scene. After numerous attempts to communicate with Jackson and deploying multiple chemical munitions into the house through windows and other openings, the decision was made for the SWAT team to enter the home. During the standoff, HCSO obtained a search warrant for the house and arrest warrants for Jackson.

At approximately 4:00 p.m., the HCSO SWAT team entered the house. Jackson was hiding in the laundry room. SWAT team members intended to induce Jackson to move into an open area of the home, where he could be taken into custody. As the SWAT team made its way to the laundry room/ kitchen area, HCSO deployed a robot into the area with a live video feed to SWAT planners, as well as a mechanical hand; the hand was used to turn the door handle to the laundry room. Once the entry team was in position, the robot released the door handle and Jackson opened the door, appearing in the doorway holding a gun in his right hand. Deputy 1 yelled, “Hands, hands, hands, show me your hands!” in attempt to have Jackson drop the weapon. Jackson did not drop the gun, and as he moved, Deputy 1 fired two rounds from his agency-issued rifle from approximately fifteen feet away. Jackson fell back into the laundry room.

Deputies gave additional commands to James to walk out and show his hands, and Jackson came out of the laundry room without the gun. Jackson then walked backwards toward the deputies. As the deputies attempted to place Jackson under arrest, he physically resisted them before they gained control. Jackson was escorted outside and placed on a gurney where first aid was rendered. Jackson was transported to Tampa General Hospital, where he was treated for his injuries. He declined to make a statement regarding this incident.

In addition to Deputy 1, six other Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office deputies observed Jackson holding a firearm in his hand at some point during the standoff. Deputy 1 was partially captured on other deputies’ body-worn-camera footage and video from the mechanical robot. All video evidence was reviewed by FDLE personnel and found to be consistent with the statements and evidence obtained during the investigation.

The name of the law enforcement officer is being withheld due to Marsy’s Law.

After our thorough analysis, we have determined that the facts and evidence of this incident prove that the law enforcement officer reasonably believed he was in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm when he used deadly force. He also did not have a duty to retreat. These findings satisfy Florida Statutes 776.012 and 776.05 and, therefore, under Florida law, the use of deadly force is justified. Accordingly, there is no legal basis for criminal charges against the deputy.

Our office typically includes an initial release of materials when publishing a use of deadly force review; that is not possible in this case because the materials are all evidence in an active criminal investigation. Under Fla. Statute 119.071(2)(c), evidence in active criminal investigations is exempt from release. Documents related to the case may be available in the future once all cases are resolved. Under Florida’s Public Records Law, any member of the public can make a request. Find details on making a request on the State Attorney’s Office Public Records page.

Following an extensive review, our office has concluded that we cannot refute the anticipated assertions by two male victims, “Victim 1” and “Victim 2,” that they acted in lawful self-defense in the use of deadly force against 24-year-old Michael Hector, Jr. on November 26, 2019. Our review determined that the evidence shows Hector and an associate drove to Plant City with the intent to commit an armed robbery on Victim 1 at his home. Hector and an associate approached the victims while they were sitting in a car in front of Victim 1’s home. A witness saw Hector point a gun at Victim 1, who was in the driver’s seat. The same witness heard an “argument” and then saw Victim 2 fire on Hector, who began to retreat and return fire. Hector was struck six times by projectiles from two different firearms and did not survive. Hector was killed while in the commission of an attempted robbery with a firearm of Victim 1. Our review determined that the evidence is consistent with the victims acting in self-defense. In reaching this conclusion, our office conducted an exhaustive review of all available evidence and applicable legal standards. These steps included but were not limited to:

• reviewing interviews of witnesses
• examining physical evidence
• reviewing video evidence
• reviewing photographic evidence
• reviewing 911 calls, radio communications, and relevant audio
• analyzing autopsy results
• reviewing cellular phone records and data
• applying the applicable laws

The Plant City Police Department conducted the investigation. Investigators found that Hector and an associate traveled from Winter Haven to Plant City on the evening of November 26, 2019, with the intent to rob Victim 1 at gunpoint. When Hector and his associate arrived at Victim 1’s home, they were seen in the backyard by a witness. Later, Hector was seen approaching the driver’s side door of a red car, where the victims were seated, and pointing a firearm at Victim 1. Victim 2 then shot at Hector from the vehicle. Hector tried to run away, while shooting back at the victims in the car. The associate of Hector stated, under oath, that the victims both shot at Hector while Hector was shooting back. Shell casings at the scene indicate that a total of three firearms were fired during the incident. Multiple witnesses saw the victims flee the scene in a red car immediately after the shooting

The Hillsborough Medical Examiner’s Office concluded that Hector was shot six times, with two of the gunshot wounds being fatal. Hector suffered six separate projectile injuries with eleven total wounds (entry and exit). The medical examiner was unable to determine the caliber of the projectiles that struck Hector, but due to only five 9mm rounds being fired at Hector, and Hector being shot a total of six times, Plant City Police concluded that three different firearms were used by the three people involved in the incident: two 9mm handguns and one .40 handgun.

Cellular tower records indicate Victim 1 was in the area at the time of the shooting and fled the area immediately as 911 calls were coming in. Cellular phone records also support a witness’s statement that Hector called him earlier that day and asked him to participate in a robbery in Plant City. Multiple neighbors heard multiple gunshots and saw a red car driving away immediately afterward. One witness observed two men in the backyard of Victim 1’s home before the shooting, and later saw them approach the red car. Another witness indicated they heard an “argument” at the driver’s side of the red car immediately before the shooting started. An eyewitness indicated she observed the two victims and another unknown man standing in the front yard of Victim 1’s home 30 minutes before the shooting. She was outside her home when she heard an argument and gunshots. She observed Hector running from the front yard of Victim 1’s home. Hector was running and shooting back toward the home while other people shot at him. As soon as Hector fell from being shot, she immediately observed the victims drive away in a red car.

An associate of Hector indicated that on November 26, 2019, Hector said he wanted to rob Victim 1 due to him flashing money on social media and selling drugs. He drove Hector to Victim 1’s home. Hector went in the back yard of the home first but he was confronted by a man in the yard and left. The associate then parked north of the home and observed a red car pull up to the house. The red car was occupied by Victim 1 (driver) and Victim 2 (front passenger). Hector was armed with a handgun and pointed it at the victims in an attempt to rob them. He observed Victim 2 shoot Hector from the passenger seat. Hector then ran away from the red car while pointing a gun at the victims and shooting back. The victims got out of the red car and began firing multiple rounds at Hector until he fell in the street. After Hector fell, the victims got back into the red car and fled the scene. Then man got into a silver vehicle, drove up to Hector’s body, and took unknown items from him. The associate believes the unknown person took the gun Hector had used, as well as Hector’s cell phone.

The victim’s names are being withheld due to Marsy’s Law.

After our thorough analysis, we have determined that the facts and evidence cannot refute the potential claim by the victims that they reasonably believed they were in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm when they used deadly force. These findings satisfy Florida Statute 776.012. Accordingly, under Florida law, there is no legal basis for criminal charges against the victims.

An initial release of materials related to this case is available at this link. These items illustrate the crime scene and key details of the case. Further documents related to the case, including additional photos, reports, and interview transcripts, are available to any member of the public subject to Florida’s Public Records Law; find details on making a request on the State Attorney’s Office Public Records page.

Following an extensive review, our office has concluded that we cannot refute the assertion by a 29-year-old male victim that on February 7, 2021, he acted in lawful self-defense in the use of deadly force against 25-year-old Mike Munoz. Our review determined that the evidence is consistent with the victim’s assertion that as he attempted to leave a party, he and his girlfriend were attacked, and a fight broke out. The host of the party discharged a firearm, and the victim fired back. During this exchange of gunfire, Munoz was shot and killed.

In reaching this conclusion, our office conducted an exhaustive review of all available evidence and applicable legal standards. These steps included but were not limited to:

• reviewing interviews of witnesses
• examining physical evidence
• reviewing video evidence
• reviewing body worn camera evidence
• reviewing photographic evidence
• reviewing 911 calls, radio communications, and relevant audio
• analyzing autopsy results
• applying the applicable laws

The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office conducted the investigation, and a representative from the State Attorney’s Office worked closely with detectives in the investigation of this case. Investigators found that the victim and Munoz attended a party in Plant City. At some point, there was an altercation between the victim and other people at the party. The victim was asked to leave. The victim was leaving when multiple people converged on him, with individuals throwing a beer bottle at him, pulling him out of the vehicle, and punching him. A fight broke out.

According to witness accounts, the host of the party pulled out a gun and fired it toward the victim, and the victim fired back with his own gun. During this exchange of gunfire, Mike Munoz was shot and killed. A witness heard someone yell, “Mike, get the AR!” No AR-style semi-automatic rifle was found at the scene. However, three spent 9mm shell casings were found on the ground near the driver’s side of the black Nissan where Mike Munoz had been standing. A total of 15 shell casings were found at the scene, and at least four firearms were discharged during this incident. The victim and his girlfriend had been beaten to the extent that they would later be treated at a local hospital.

The host of the party claims he got his gun and fired it into the ground. However, a witness claims the host of the party shot his gun in the direction of the victim. Projectiles were not found in the ground at the location where the host claimed to have fired shots.

The Hillsborough Medical Examiner’s Office performed an autopsy and determined the cause of death to be gunshot wounds to the abdomen with perforations of the aorta, colon, and mesentery. Munoz had a total of five gunshot wounds, including three entrance wounds on the front of his body. The entrance wounds were on the right side of his abdomen, the left side of his abdomen, and on his right thigh. Munoz had two exit wounds on his lower left back area. The manner of death was ruled a homicide.

The name of the victim is being withheld due to Marsy’s Law.

After our thorough analysis, we have determined that the facts and evidence cannot refute the statements by the victim that he reasonably believed he was in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm when he used deadly force. These findings satisfy Florida Statute 776.012. Accordingly, under Florida law, there is no legal basis for criminal charges against the victim.

An initial release of materials related to this case is available at this link. These items illustrate the crime scene and key details of the case. Further documents related to the case, including additional photos, reports, and interview transcripts, are available to any member of the public subject to Florida’s Public Records Law; find details on making a request on the State Attorney’s Office Public Records page.