All posts by Erin Maloney

Following an extensive review, our office has concluded that we cannot refute the assertion by Elliott Sonny Merced that he and another man (“Victim 1”) acted in lawful self-defense in the use of deadly force against 34-year-old Willys Ramon Perez on February 24, 2021. Our review determined that the evidence is consistent with Merced’s assertion that he and Victim 1 shot at Perez only after Perez shot and seriously wounded Victim 1. 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 photographic evidence
• reviewing 911 calls, radio communications, and relevant audio
• analyzing autopsy results
• applying the applicable laws

The Tampa Police Department conducted the investigation, and representatives from the State Attorney’s Office responded to the scene. Investigators responding to the incident scene found Willys Ramon Perez dead in the parking lot of the Stop ‘N Pick convenience store at the southwest corner of Chapin St. and N. 22nd St. in Tampa. He was laying on his back with a gunshot wound to his head and a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol in his right hand.

Victim 1 and his family live nearby. While standing outside his home on the afternoon of this incident, Victim 1 observed a blue sedan parked in the convenience store parking lot. He believed the vehicle belonged to a person with whom he had a confrontation a few days earlier. Victim 1 walked to the convenience store to confront the vehicle’s owner. Once Victim 1 got to the intersection of Chapin St. and 22nd St., he gestured for Merced to follow him. Merced complied.

Victim 1 approached Perez and the two men exchanged words. The convenience store’s external security video recorded only fragments of the interaction that followed between Victim 1 and Perez. Perez pulled out his pistol and fired three gunshots at Victim 1, who was standing in the road on Chapin St. Perez’s gunshots struck Victim 1 in the right elbow and right hip, causing him to fall to the ground and drop his own firearm. Merced was standing a few feet east of the intersection when he heard the gunshots and saw Victim 1 fall to the ground. Merced immediately pulled out his own semi-automatic pistol and fired sixteen shots in the direction of Perez. One of these gunshots struck Perez in the head, and Perez immediately fell to the ground near his blue sedan. Seconds later, Victim 1 stumbled and limped to the intersection, pointed his firearm toward the convenience store parking lot, and fired three gunshots.

Crime scene investigators found three spent .45 caliber bullet casings on the parking lot pavement a few feet from Perez’s body. Preliminary testing conducted by the Tampa Police Department determined that these three casings matched the gun found in the right hand of Mr. Perez. This corroborates the statements of Merced and Victim 1 that Perez fired his pistol at Victim 1 from this location.

Crime scene investigators collected 19 spent shell casings at or near the intersection of Chapin St. and N. 22nd St. During the execution of a search warrant at the residence of Victim 1, investigators located a 9 mm Beretta brand semi-automatic pistol in Victim 1’s bedroom. This firearm was missing three bullets from its magazine when it was recovered. Three of the spent casings collected from near the intersection were identified as having been fired from Victim 1’s Beretta. The remaining sixteen spent shell casings found at or near the intersection were identified as belonging to a 9 mm semi-automatic pistol owned by Merced.

One witness at the convenience store told investigators that Victim 1 initiated the exchange of gunfire with Perez as he spoke to the decedent from the roadway near the convenience store parking lot. However, the absence of any 9 mm shell casings at this location refutes this witness’s account. Victim 1’s three spent shell casings were found more than forty yards from Perez’s body.

An autopsy conducted by the Hillsborough County Medical Examiner’s Office revealed that Perez died from a single gunshot wound to the head.

The name of Victim 1 is being withheld under the provisions of Article I, Section 16 (b) (5) of the Florida Constitution.

After our thorough analysis, we have determined that the facts and evidence cannot refute the assertion by Merced that he and Victim 1 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 Elliot Sonny Merced or 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 29-year-old Nickolas Earl Rogers AKA “Mystic” on February 10, 2021. Our review determined that the evidence is consistent with the victim’s assertion of 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:

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

The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office conducted the investigation. Investigators found that on February 10, 2021, the victim and Rogers were involved in a conversation. During the conversation, Rogers became aggressive, retrieved a knife, and attempted to attack the victim with the knife. In response, the victim retreated, retrieved his firearm, and shot Rogers. Rogers sustained a single gunshot wound to the head, perforating the skull and brain. The toxicology report indicates Rogers had methamphetamines in his system. Rogers died at the scene, and a knife was found near his body. The victim told the police he shot Rogers to avoid being “shanked.”

The name of the victim is being withheld due to Marsy’s Law, as he is a victim of an aggravated assault by Rogers.

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 of an aggravated assault and aggravated battery acted in lawful self-defense and was justified in his use of deadly force against 22-year-old Emmanuel White on February 21, 2021. Our review determined that White aggressively approached the victim in a vacant lot, threatened to fight him, pulled out a firearm and fired an errant shot at the victim’s head. The victim tackled White to the ground where a struggle ensued. White shot the victim in the thigh during the short struggle. The victim was able to wrestle the gun away from White and fatally shoot him. 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 photographic evidence
• reviewing 911 calls, radio communications, and relevant audio
• analyzing autopsy results
• applying the applicable laws

The Tampa Police Department conducted the investigation, and representatives from the State Attorney’s Office responded to the scene. Investigators found that at the time of the incident the victim had known Emmanuel White for several years. According to the victim, there was no known animosity between the two men. In fact, the victim considered White’s brother to be his friend. The victim knew White always carried multiple firearms and had heard that White was responsible for a number of recent shootings in the neighborhood.

At approximately 5 p.m. on February 21, 2021, the victim was rolling a blunt while sitting in the driver’s seat of a car, which was parked in a vacant lot near the intersection of East 27th Avenue and North 32nd Street in Tampa. A sedan pulled up and stopped directly in front of the victim’s parked vehicle. White exited the front passenger door of the sedan, immediately approached the victim’s vehicle, and instructed the victim to “[t]ighten up, get out of the car.” The victim stepped out of his car, prompting White to take a boxer’s stance and invite the victim to fight.

When the victim refused to fight him, White told the victim, “That’s fine, I’m gonna kill your ass.” White then pulled out a semi-automatic pistol, pointed it at the victim’s head and fired one errant gunshot. Once this gunshot missed him, the victim tackled White. During the initial struggle on the ground, White shot the victim once in the thigh. The victim was able to take the gun away from White as the two men wrestled on the ground. Fearing for his life and expecting White to possess at least one more gun, the victim fired several shots at White immediately after the two men got up from the ground. Seven of these shots struck White in the buttocks, back, and neck. White died at the scene. The victim handed the semi-automatic pistol to a bystander, got into his car, and drove himself to a nearby hospital.

White’s gun never has been recovered. No additional firearm was found on or near White’s body at the scene. Investigators found nine spent 9 mm shell casings at the incident scene. The number and location of these shell casings are consistent with the victim’s account of the incident. Following an autopsy conducted on the body of Emmanuel White, the Hillsborough County Medical Examiner’s Office determined that the multiple gunshot wounds suffered by White caused his death.

A bystander, who had tried to stand between White and the victim on White’s initial approach, confirmed that White had pointed a gun at the victim’s head. However, the bystander did not recall having heard the sound of the gunshot fired by White at the victim’s head.

Exterior security video from a nearby residence captured the entire incident. This video recording corroborates the victim’s account. A review of this video reveals that only nineteen seconds elapsed from the time White fired a shot at the victim’s head to the time that the victim fatally shot White with his own gun.

The name of the victim is being withheld due to Marsy’s Law, as he is the victim of an aggravated assault and an aggravated battery by Emmanuel White.

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 will not pursue charges against anyone involved in an encounter on March 17, 2021 between Isaac Denmark, Jr. and two officers from the Tampa Police Department. During the encounter, the officer fired four shots that missed Denmark, before Denmark then laid down and surrendered. As outlined below, the officers reasonably believed they were under threat of death or great bodily harm when Denmark turned toward them while holding a weapon—making the officer’s use of force justified under Florida law. Additionally, the evidence is insufficient to establish criminal intent—that Denmark specifically intended to threaten the officers, which led to the officer firing—thus there is no legal basis to charge Denmark with aggravated assault.

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, including footage from body worn cameras
• reviewing photographic evidence
• reviewing relevant audio
• applying the applicable laws

The Tampa Police Department conducted the investigation, and representatives from the State Attorney’s Office responded to the scene. Tampa Police Department investigators found that on the night of March 17, 2021, 57-year-old Isaac Denmark, Jr., who is homeless, was walking away from a park where he had been using a pellet gun equipped with a scope to shoot BBs at cans and squirrels. By his own account, Denmark had smoked marijuana and had drunk twelve sixteen-ounce beers throughout the day.

The officer was driving a marked patrol car when he and his partner, who was riding in the same car, observed Denmark walking southbound along N. 22nd Street near E. Hamilton Avenue carrying what appeared to be a rifle. The officer stopped his car approximately thirty yards behind Denmark. The officer put the car in park and unholstered his weapon as he exited the vehicle. As he stepped out of the car, he commanded Denmark to “Drop the rifle!” twice in rapid succession. Denmark turned around and faced the patrol car, at which point the officer fired four shots at Denmark. None of the officer’s gunshots struck Denmark, who then dropped the weapon, got down on the ground, and called out to the officers to “Calm down! It’s a BB gun!” The officer approached Denmark and ordered him to stay away from the dropped rifle as well as a knife that was near Denmark’s hand, then moved in and handcuffed Denmark.

Both officers said that Denmark had raised the gun and pointed it towards them as Denmark turned around. The entire exchange—from the car being shifted into park to the last of the four gunshots—took five seconds, based on what was recorded on the officer’s body-worn camera.

Interviewed separately, the officer’s partner said she also saw Denmark point the rifle towards them and that when she heard gunshots, at first she thought they had been fired by Denmark. During the incident, she drew her gun but did not fire.

Video from the body-worn cameras of the two officers does not capture Denmark’s location or actions before or during the gunfire. The video corroborates the officers’ accounts of their own commands and actions. It shows that one second elapsed between the end of the officer’s first command to drop the rifle and when he opened fire.

Denmark denied pointing the pellet gun at the officers but acknowledged that the officers could have reasonably perceived that he did so based on how he turned towards them.

Investigators interviewed nearby residents. No independent witness could be located who had witnessed the initial encounter and gunfire. A civilian witness responded to the scene and told investigators that he had been with Denmark earlier at the park. This witness revealed that he had warned Denmark not to carry the pellet rifle with him that night.

An independent witness said that she had seen Denmark walking down the street earlier, carrying the rifle by holding it in the middle of the stock, at his hip, parallel to the ground, with his hand near the trigger.

Four spent 9 millimeter shell casings were found at the incident scene. Testing conducted by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement laboratory verified that these four spent casings were fired from the officer’s weapon.

The names of the officers are being withheld under the provisions of Marsy’s Law, as reflected in Article I, Section 16 (b) (5) of the Florida Constitution.

After our thorough analysis, we have determined that the facts and evidence of this incident prove that the officer reasonably believed he was in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm to himself and his partner 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 officer.

Our office originally filed two charges of aggravated assault against Isaac Denmark, Jr. Following a full review of the case and information gathered since the incident, however, we lack sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant “intentionally and unlawfully threatened… to do violence to the victim,” which is required for an aggravated assault conviction. Accordingly, we have dismissed the charges against Denmark.

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 25-year-old male victim acted in lawful self-defense and was justified in his use of deadly force against 21-year-old Zaike Barker on January 4, 2021. Our review determined that Zaike Barker became angry while playing dice with a group of men in front of a commercial plaza in Palm River on the evening of January 4, 2021. Barker pulled out a firearm, verbally threatened the other men, and shot indiscriminately into the group of men. Barker shot and seriously wounded four of the men. In defense of himself and others, one of the victims (“Victim 1”) returned fire, fatally wounding Zaike Barker. 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
• applying the applicable laws

The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office conducted the investigation. Investigators found that a group of approximately twelve men, including Zaike Barker, had been playing dice for money in front of the Unique Stylez Barbershop, which is within a commercial plaza located on the corner of 78th Street and Rideout Road. Barker felt that he had been cheated and became angry. He produced a firearm and shot four of the other gamblers. Barker pointed his gun at Victim 1 and threatened to kill him. Victim 1 tackled Barker, then repeatedly fired a gun at Barker in self-defense. Barker died two weeks later in a Gainesville hospital. He had suffered multiple gunshot wounds to various parts of his body.

Some of the men involved in the dice game did not cooperate with investigators and left the scene prior to law enforcement’s arrival. Other witnesses and victims refused to cooperate with investigators. However, a security camera from a nearby restaurant captured the events in distant video footage.

Investigators found twenty-three spent shell casings at the scene of the shooting, including nineteen 9 mm caliber casings and four .40 caliber casings. These twenty-three spent casings bore six different brand names. No firearms were found at the scene or recovered during the investigation. As a result, the firearm used to inflict the fatal wounds has not been identified. Similarly, the total number of guns fired at the scene during this incident cannot be determined.  Although it appears from the security video that at least one individual other than Victim 1 also fired a gun at Zaike Barker after Barker shot and wounded four men, no conclusive determination can be made on this point given the limited cooperation of witnesses and the inability to conduct comparative ballistics analysis.

The names of the individuals shot by Zaike Barker are being withheld due to Marsy’s Law, as they are the victims of either aggravated batteries or attempted murders by Zaike Barker.

After our thorough analysis, we have determined that the facts and evidence of this incident prove that Victim 1 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 that individual.

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 male victim that he acted in lawful self-defense in the use of deadly force against 50-year-old Timothy Missler on November 24, 2020. Our review determined that the evidence is consistent with the victim’s assertion that Timothy Missler moved to arm himself with a firearm while intoxicated, emotionally disturbed, and having recently been both verbally and physically aggressive toward the victim. The victim told Missler to not arm himself with the firearm, but Missler ignored the warnings and picked up the firearm. In response, the victim shot Missler, which caused Missler to fall to the floor with his arm underneath his body. Uncertain whether Missler was still armed, the victim then fired again and caused the fatal 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:

• responding to the scene following the shooting
• reviewing interviews of witnesses
• examining physical evidence
• reviewing video 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 a family argument began on November 23, 2020 between Timothy Missler and his brother, Andrew Missler, who was visiting from out of town for the holidays. Timothy worked as a military contractor and had returned from Afghanistan about a week before this incident, after having been gone since July 2020. Both men had been drinking prior to the argument. The argument and ensuing disagreement between the brothers continued into November 24, 2020. Timothy later left the family residence on November 24, 2020 to continue drinking with a friend, Joseph Sullivan. The disagreement between the brothers prompted Andrew to leave the home on the evening of November 24, 2020. Timothy’s wife, Colleen, drove Andrew to a hotel while the victim stayed behind at the home by himself.

Timothy Missler returned to the family residence while the victim was home by himself. Missler became hostile and argumentative toward the victim and continued drinking inside the home. Missler made statements about both his marriage and relationship with his brother being “over” and also told the victim, “You’re dead to me.” Missler went to a cabinet in the kitchen, which the victim knew to be one of the many places in the home where Missler kept a loaded firearm. The victim told Missler to not grab the gun, but Missler ignored him, picked up the gun and began to remove it from its holster. In fear for his safety, the victim then drew the firearm he carried in a holster on his own hip and shot Missler. The shot caused Missler to collapse to the right, face down on the ground, with his arm under his body. The gun fell to ground in the opposite direction. From the victim’s vantage point, Missler was plainly visible, but the large kitchen island obstructed the victim’s view of the gun. Uncertain of the gun’s location, and with Missler still moving and his arm concealed under his body, the victim remained fearful. He approached Missler and fired multiple shots at him as he lay on the ground. Missler ultimately died from a gunshot wound to the back of his head near the base of the skull.

As part of the investigation, the victim, Collen Missler, Andrew Missler, and Joseph Sullivan were all interviewed by law enforcement. Multiple family members stated that firearms were concealed in various places all over the house.

Colleen confirmed that an argument began the night before the shooting and prompted Andrew to no longer want to stay at the family residence. She confirmed she drove Andrew Missler to a hotel so he could get a room and that the victim stayed home alone. She confirmed that Timothy had been drinking heavily and was being argumentative and aggressive. She also stated Timothy had said he wanted to die on the night of November 23, 2020.

Andrew confirmed he was visiting his family for the Thanksgiving holiday and planned to stay with them. He further confirmed that he got into an argument with Timothy on November 23, 2020 and that the disagreement continued into the next day. Andrew admitted he decided to go stay at a hotel because of the disagreement with Timothy and that Colleen drove him to the hotel while the victim stayed home alone. Finally, Andrew confirmed hearing Timothy making statements about wanting to get divorced or to die.

Joseph Sullivan confirmed he met with Timothy Missler on November 24, 2020 and the two of them drank alcohol together. Once they were done, he confirmed he drove Timothy back to the family residence and that only the victim was home. Sullivan stated that he did not notice anything out of the ordinary when he dropped off Timothy.

The evidence at the scene was consistent with the victim’s description of events. Investigators located two firearms at the scene. One was confirmed to be the firearm used by the victim. The other was confirmed as belonging to Missler and was found lying next to a holster on the ground. Four spent shell casings were recovered at the scene, all of which were determined to have been fired from the firearm belonging to the victim.

The Hillsborough County Medical Examiner’s office performed the autopsy on Missler’s body. A through-and-through gunshot wound was located on the right side of Missler’s head just behind the ear that later exited out through the right cheek near the jawline. A second gunshot wound was located at the rear of Missler’s skull, near the base of the skull. The location of these wounds was consistent with the victim’s description of events. The Medical Examiner deemed this a homicide and deemed the cause of death to be a gunshot wound to the neck with fractures of the cervical vertebra and transection of the brainstem. Toxicology reports determined Missler had a .17/.16 blood alcohol level.

The name of the victim is being withheld due to Marsy’s Law, as he is a victim of an aggravated assault by Timothy Missler.

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 we cannot refute the assertion by a female victim that she acted in lawful self-defense in the use of deadly force against 50-year-old Lucious Glymph on October 18, 2020. Our review determined that the evidence is consistent with the victim’s assertion that after Glymph invited her over, requested she spend the night, and removed his pants, Glymph then physically blocked her exit from his mobile home, angrily escorted her to her car, opened her car door, and grabbed her by the arms in an attempt to pull her out as she was trying to leave. In response to these actions, the victim fatally shot Glymph once on the abdomen. 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 photographic evidence
• reviewing 911 calls, radio communications, and relevant audio
• analyzing autopsy results
• applying the applicable laws

The Tampa Police Department conducted the investigation. Investigators found that the victim and Glymph had met several months prior to the shooing on a dating website. They had been on previous dates and the victim had been to his mobile home. However, this relationship had not been sexual. On October 18, 2020, the victim called Glymph and he invited her to his home. When she arrived, she indicated he was aggressive and intoxicated. She reported that he insisted she spend the night, she refused, and he went into the back of the mobile home and returned to the living room dressed only in underwear and a t-shirt. She attempted to leave and, at first, he physically prevented her from leaving. He then allowed her to leave and walked her outside to her vehicle, which was parked between his mobile home and another. When she got into her car, the victim stated that Glymph pulled open her door, grabbed her by her neck and arms, and tried to pull her from the vehicle. Unable to free herself, she grabbed her .380 firearm from her purse and fired one shot at Glymph. This caused him to turn and flee into the mobile home park. The victim indicated she was unsure whether she had struck Glymph and so she proceeded to fire two additional rounds in Glymph’s direction. Neither of these rounds struck Glymph. She then returned to her vehicle, exited the mobile home park, and called 911. Glymph was transported to the hospital where he died of his injuries.

There was no audio or video evidence recovered in this case. There were also no eyewitnesses to the incident. However, neighbors did report hearing a woman scream, then hearing gunshots, and then seeing the victim on foot in the mobile home park. Neighbors also reported the victim stating variously, “I shot him,” “he came at me,” and “call the police.” Glymph was found on the other side of a fence at the perimeter of the mobile home park, dressed in underwear and a t-shirt, and suffering from a single gunshot wound.

The physical evidence shows that the victim fired a total of three rounds from her .380 handgun, striking Glymph once. This projectile was recovered, and the two projectiles that missed Glymph were recovered from mobile homes inside the park. All three recovered rounds were identified as coming from the victim’s .380 handgun by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE).  Two cartridge casings were recovered from the scene and both were identified by FDLE as being fired from the victim’s firearm.

An autopsy was conducted on Glymph. The medical examiner determined that he suffered a single gunshot wound to the abdomen with perforation of the liver and aorta. The shot exited through his back. These injuries are consistent with the victim’s description of events and, based on the firearm-related findings of FDLE, what would be produced by her handgun. Toxicology results indicated a recent use of cocaine (within six hours) as well as a blood alcohol level of .22 at the time of his death. Glymph was seven inches taller and 60 pounds heavier than the victim; she was observed to have bruising on both wrists as well as the inside of her right arm.

The name of the victim is being withheld due to Marsy’s Law, as she is a victim of an assault by Lucious Glymph.

After our thorough analysis, we have determined that the facts and evidence cannot refute the statements by the victim that she reasonably believed she was in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm when she 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 twenty-five-year-old Bryan Pichardo Minaya on December 18, 2020. Our review determined that immediately after engaging in a verbal argument and brief physical altercation with other men during a commercial landscaping company’s holiday party, Bryan Pichardo Minaya announced, “I’m going to show you what I’m about,” entered his automobile, and retrieved a firearm. The victim, who possessed a valid concealed weapons permit, approached on foot, drew his firearm and repeatedly warned Minaya, “(d)on’t do it.” Minaya pointed his loaded semi-automatic pistol in the victim’s direction. Fearing for his life and safety and that of others standing nearby, the victim fired six shots at Minaya. Bryan Pichardo Minaya suffered multiple gunshot wounds and died at the scene. Investigators found Minaya’s firearm on the ground inches away from him. An inspection of Minaya’s pistol revealed that it had jammed. 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 photographic evidence
• reviewing 911 calls
• analyzing autopsy results
• applying the applicable laws

The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office conducted the investigation, and representatives from the State Attorney’s Office responded to the scene. Investigators found that this incident occurred during a landscaping company’s holiday party at the company’s Thonotosassa headquarters. The victim and Mr. Minaya were employees of the company, as were most of the people in attendance.

Witnesses described Bryan Pichardo Minaya as acting “drunk” and belligerent during the party. He was seen in possession of a firearm earlier during the party. While standing a few feet from his automobile, Minaya became involved in a brief altercation with other party-goers. He retreated to his vehicle and retrieved a loaded semi-automatic firearm. He pointed it in the direction of the victim and others standing nearby. The victim, who had produced his own firearm and warned Minaya against pointing the gun at the group, fired six shots at Minaya.

These events were captured by a distant external security camera of the landscaping company. This distant security video recording generally corroborated the accounts of witnesses who stood within feet of the involved parties during the incident.

Investigators found six spent shell casings at the scene of the incident. Forensic testing conducted by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement concluded that these casings had been fired from the victim’s semi-automatic pistol. An autopsy revealed that Minaya suffered two gunshot wounds to the chest, two to his left thigh and one each to his left arm and abdomen. The location of these wounds is consistent with the direction of gunfire described by eyewitnesses and by the victim. Toxicology test results revealed that Minaya’s blood alcohol level at the time of his death was higher than the legal limit to operate a motor vehicle.

The name of the victim is being withheld due to Marsy’s Law, as he is a victim of an aggravated assault committed by Bryan Pichardo Minaya.

After thorough analysis, we have determined that the facts and evidence of this incident prove that the victim reasonably believed that 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 27-year-old Joseph Williams on November 27, 2020. Our review determined that Joseph Williams entered the Teasers Gentleman’s Club and was stopped by the victim, who worked at the club as a security guard. Williams wore a ski mask over his face. The victim informed Williams that he could not enter wearing a ski mask and would need to be searched. Unwilling to comply, Williams placed his hand in his waistband and threatened, “You must not know who I am. I’ll spray this bitch up and you.” The victim told Williams he needed to leave, but Williams began to pull a firearm from his waistband. The victim, in fear for himself and the patrons in the club, then fired two shots at Williams. Williams ran out of the club’s entrance and an eyewitness observed Williams wearing a ski mask and in possession of a firearm as Williams fled. Williams was taken to a nearby hospital where he later died from a gunshot 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 interviews of witnesses
• examining physical evidence
• reviewing video evidence
• reviewing photographic evidence
• analyzing autopsy results
• applying the applicable laws

The Tampa Police Department began the investigation at Teasers Gentleman’s Club, which is located at 9700 North Nebraska Avenue. Investigators found the victim and another eyewitness, Desiree Peters, on scene. Investigators confirmed that both were employees of the business and that the victim was employed as a security guard for the club and allowed to carry a firearm as part of his duties. Investigators found two spent 9mm shell casings near the main entry/exit to the business. The victim and Peters were both interviewed.

The victim described an unknown black male entering the club wearing a full “ski mask.” The victim told the unknown male that he could not wear the ski mask inside the club and would have to be searched for weapons. The unknown male became hostile and reached for his waistband while also threatening to “spray this bitch up and you.” The victim told the unknown male to leave, but the male began to pull a firearm out of his waistband. The victim then fired two shots from the 9mm pistol worn in a holster on his belt. The victim said the unknown male fled out of the door and was not seen again.

Peters confirmed seeing an unknown black male enter the club wearing a ski mask and saw the victim speaking with that unknown male. Peters was not paying attention to their interaction as she was counting money at a register. Her attention was re-drawn to the two men when she saw the victim pushing the unknown male out of the club and heard gunshots. She did not witness either male firing a gun.

Investigators later spoke with another eyewitness named Lakeisha Bostick. Bostick described seeing an unknown black male wearing a mask as he was fleeing from the club. Bostick saw the unknown male collapse and went to check on him. The unknown male begged Bostick to take the firearm that was in his pants and had fallen down his pants leg near his knee. During that time, a white vehicle pulled up next to them and the unknown male entered the vehicle. The vehicle then left the scene.

Investigators also obtained copies of surveillance footage from inside the club that depicted the initial interaction between the victim and Williams as well as the moment when the shots were fired. Other surveillance footage depicted Williams fleeing the club, Bostick making contact with Williams, and Williams ultimately being taken away from the scene by a vehicle. Finally, surveillance video from a nearby hospital depicted the same vehicle dropping Williams off.

The statements provided by the victim, Peters and Bostick about the events that transpired inside and outside the club were consistent with the surveillance videos.

The victim turned over the firearm and belt holster he used during this incident, which was subsequently analyzed by the investigators. The firearm possessed by Williams was never recovered.

The Office of the Medical Examiner determined that Williams’ cause of death was a gunshot wound to the torso with perforation of the right lung and the manner of death was ruled a homicide. The fatal shot entered and then exited Williams’ right arm before then entering his torso. The projectile was recovered from inside Williams’ body. Williams’ left arm also contained an entry and exit wound near the elbow.

The name of the victim is being withheld due to Marsy’s Law, as he is a victim of an aggravated assault committed by Joseph Williams.

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 the victim acted in lawful self-defense and was justified in his use of deadly force against 42-year-old Nelson Alcantara on September 27, 2020. Our review determined that the victim fatally stabbed Alcantara in the front yard of a home on East 14th Avenue after Alcantara stabbed the victim and appeared to pose a threat of future harm to the victim’s daughter. 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 photographic evidence
• reviewing 911 calls and relevant audio
• analyzing autopsy results
• applying the applicable laws

The Tampa Police Department conducted the investigation, and a representative from the State Attorney’s Office responded to the scene. Investigators learned that the victim had come to his daughter’s home after she called to ask for his help. The victim’s daughter and Alcantara were previously in a relationship and have a 9-year-old son together, but they were no longer dating when the incident took place. Alcantara lived in one area of the home, while the victim’s daughter and their son live in another; each area had separate, locked access. On the date of the event, Alcantara returned home before his ex-girlfriend could leave the premises, first verbally assaulted her, and later began shoving and striking her. She called the victim, who was her father, for help.

The victim drove to his daughter’s home, taking his own father (the resident’s grandfather) along with him. When he arrived, he confronted Alcantara about his behavior. The victim attempted to restrain Alcantara and told his daughter and her son to go and get into his car; they complied and left. Alcantara freed himself and then went over to the car, where his son and ex-girlfriend were located. Alcantara grabbed his 9-year-old son and was trying to drag him out of the car when the victim crossed the yard and again confronted Alcantara to try to stop him from removing the child from the car.

After the victim pulled Alcantara off the child, both men moved into the area of the front yard. Alcantara pushed the victim to the ground. The victim grabbed onto Alcantara’s leg in a continued attempted to keep Alcantara away from his son and ex-girlfriend. Alcantara stabbed the victim in the lower back and shoulder. Alcantara’s ex-girlfriend joined the struggle in an attempt to help her father. Fearing for his life and safety, and that of his daughter, the victim repeatedly stabbed Alcantara in the upper back, neck, and head.

The victim called 911 after the incident and remained at the scene and was interviewed prior to being treated for his stab wounds. The victim’s daughter, grandson and father also provided recorded interviews to investigators. The information in these recorded interviews is consistent with the events described.

The Hillsborough Medical Examiner’s Office performed an autopsy on Alcantara. The medical examiner confirmed that there was a slash across Alcantara’s back, matching the victim’s description of events. In all, Alcantara had 13 stab wounds and died as a result of those wounds. The manner of death was a stabbing with cause of death being perforation of both lungs.

The name of the victim is being withheld due to Marsy’s Law, as he is a victim of an aggravated assault by Nelson Alcantara.

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 to himself as well as to others 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.