All posts by Erin Maloney

Following an extensive review, our office has concluded that a Tampa Police officer was justified in his use of deadly force against 28-year-old Jeremy De La Cruz-Liwag on January 18, 2021. Our review determined an apartment complex resident called 911 to report that an unknown person, armed with a gun, was banging on their door. The resident provided doorbell camera footage to responding officers. In response, five uniformed Tampa Police officers approached the front door of Jeremy De La Cruz-Liwag’s apartment to investigate and make contact with De La Cruz-Liwag. As the officers approached the door, De La Cruz-Liwag opened the door, refused commands to show his hands, and began to raise a loaded 9 mm pistol at the officers. The officer closest to De La Cruz-Liwag, in fear for his life, fired his weapon three times at De La Cruz-Liwag, causing non-fatal injuries. 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 the involved law enforcement officers
• examining physical evidence
• reviewing video evidence
• reviewing photographic evidence
• reviewing 911 calls 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 January 18, 2021 at approximately 9:41 p.m., a resident of the apartment complex located at 6401 S. Westshore Blvd. called 911 to report that an unknown person, later identified as Jeremy De La Cruz-Liwag, was banging on their door and appeared to be armed with a handgun. The resident provided the doorbell camera footage to responding officers and left the apartment in fear for their safety. The two responding officers shared the video with another officer, who immediately recognized the person on the doorbell camera footage as Jeremy De La Cruz-Liwag, based on his prior dealings with De La Cruz-Liwag.

The doorbell camera footage shows De La Cruz-Liwag knocking on his neighbor’s door and making comments about De La Cruz-Liwag’s dog. While De La Cruz-Liwag was at the door, his left arm was behind his back. When De La Cruz-Liwag moved, a firearm was visible in his left hand. When he did not receive an answer at the door, De La Cruz-Liwag left and the doorbell camera turned off.

After viewing the doorbell camera footage and attempting to call De La Cruz-Liwag several times with no response, the five officers approached De La Cruz-Liwag’s apartment. The group was arranged in a line, with the officer who later fired his weapon positioned first in line, closest to the front door of the apartment. The first officer’s body worn camera (BWC) captured the entire interaction with De La Cruz-Liwag. Before the officer had an opportunity to knock on the door, De La Cruz-Liwag opened the door and started to step outside. The officer attempted to engage De La Cruz-Liwag in conversation by asking him whether he is the owner of the car parked in front of the apartment. Quickly, the officer noticed that De La Cruz-Liwag had his right hand behind his back. The officer commanded De La Cruz-Liwag to “come out here” and “let me see your hands.” De La Cruz-Liwag refused to show his right hand. He backed up into the apartment while producing a handgun from behind his right side and began to raise the firearm in the direction of the first officer.

The officer responded by raising his own firearm and firing three rounds at De La Cruz-Liwag. De La Cruz-Liwag fell in the entryway area of the apartment. The other officers assisted the first officer with pushing De La Cruz-Liwag away from the gun he had just wielded and removing it from the apartment. De La Cruz-Liwag suffered non-life-threatening injuries.

In addition to the first officer in line, three other officers were equipped with body worn cameras. The first officer’s camera captured the entire interaction with De La Cruz-Liwag. Another officer’s BWC captured some of the incident as well. The remaining two officers’ cameras do not have relevant footage. All of the footage has been reviewed and determined by FDLE to be consistent with the statements and evidence obtained during the investigation.

There were no civilian eyewitnesses to these events. Several apartment complex residents reported hearing gunshots but no one other than law enforcement officers saw the encounter with De La Cruz-Liwag at the front door of his apartment.

The first officer in line was the only officer who fired his weapon. He fired a total of three rounds from his TPD-issued firearm. Three shell casings were recovered near the entry to De La Cruz-Liwag’s apartment. The firearm De La Cruz-Liwag raised toward the officer was identified as a Sig Sauer 9mm pistol. This pistol had a round in the chamber and was loaded with 14 rounds in the magazine when it was raised toward the officers. FDLE testing of De La Cruz-Liwag’s pistol revealed it to be fully functional.

The name of the law enforcement officer who fired is being withheld due to Marsy’s Law, as he is a victim of an aggravated assault by Jeremy De La Cruz-Liwag.

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 officer.

Video related to this case previously made available by the Tampa Police Department is available at this link. 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 two Tampa Police Department officers were justified in their use of deadly force against 44-year-old Renardo Bucklon Butler on December 25, 2020. Our review determined that negotiators with the Tampa Police Department unsuccessfully tried over the course of several hours to convince Butler to peacefully exit a motel room that he had forcibly entered, unlawfully occupied, and barricaded himself inside. Butler shot at TPD officers outside the motel room in multiple waves of gunfire. Members of the TPD SWAT unit resorted to the use of deadly force only after another wave of gunfire as they attempted to approach the room. In fear for their safety and that of their fellow officers, two of the officers responded to Butler’s gunshots by firing several shots into the motel room, directed at Butler. Butler survived his gunshot wounds. 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 the involved law enforcement officers
• examining physical evidence
• reviewing video evidence
• reviewing photographic evidence
• reviewing 911 calls 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 Renardo Bucklon Butler barricaded himself in Rodeway Inn room #237 after forcibly ejecting the room’s occupant. When motel security tried to convince him to vacate the room, Butler fired a gunshot inside the room. After responding to a 911 call from motel staff, members of the Tampa Police Department spent several hours in an unsuccessful attempt to convince Butler to exit the room peacefully.

Butler told law enforcement negotiators that he was under the influence, heavily armed, and planned to injure anyone who entered the room. Investigators feared that Butler committed suicide upon hearing a gunshot and no other sounds from within the room. When officers attempted to gain entry through the motel room door to check on Butler’s welfare, he responded by firing multiple gunshots at the officers through the motel room door and window. The officers retreated without returning gunfire.

Over the course of the next four hours, Tampa Police Department officers deployed robots, flashbangs and chemical agents in non-lethal attempts to compel Butler to leave the motel room. Shortly after 1:00 a.m., more than seven hours after TPD officers first responded to the Rodeway Inn, members of the SWAT unit broke out the single front window of the motel room in an attempt to see into the room. Butler immediately fired multiple gunshots at members of the SWAT unit. A gunshot fired by Butler lodged in a protective shield held by one of the officers. Fearing for their lives and safety and that of their fellow officers, two officers returned fire. Within a matter of seconds, Butler and these officers exchanged multiple volleys of gunfire. Butler suffered multiple gunshot wounds but survived his injuries.

Six officers at the scene were equipped with body worn cameras (BWC). The video captured on these cameras is consistent with witnesses’ descriptions of events and shows officers outside the hotel room engaging in dialogue with Butler, as well as other officers staging close by. The ongoing negotiations and exchanges of gunfire are recorded. Because of the small opening of the hotel room window and his apparent efforts to conceal and barricade himself, Butler himself is not visible in the video clips.

One of the officers fired 44 rounds from a Colt M4 AR-15 rifle; the other officer fired 8 rounds from a Sig Sauer MPX rifle. The shell casings located outside and inside the hotel room are consistent with the shots fired by the officers and by Butler.

The names of the officers are being withheld due to Marsy’s Law, as they are victims of an aggravated assault committed by Renardo Bucklon Butler.

After our thorough analysis, we have determined that the facts and evidence of this incident prove that the law enforcement officers reasonably believed they were in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm when they used deadly force. They 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 two officers.

Video related to this case previously made available by the Tampa Police Department is available at this link. 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 28-year-old Arial Beebe on September 30, 2020. Our review determined that the victim fatally shot Arial Beebe inside of his home as she rushed at him with a knife. 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 Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office conducted the investigation, and a representative from the State Attorney’s Office responded to the scene. Investigators found Arial Beebe and the victim were in the final stages of a failed personal relationship when this fatal incident took place. Earlier in the afternoon of this incident, the couple had dinner and alcoholic drinks at a Plant City restaurant.

According to the unrefuted account of the victim, shortly after the couple returned to his mobile home, Beebe armed herself with a knife while becoming emotional and belligerent about text messages that the victim had sent to his estranged wife. The victim told Beebe to leave his residence, but she refused. The victim retreated to his bedroom, locked the door, and threatened to call law enforcement. Beebe used the knife to unlock the door. She entered the bedroom and charged at the victim with the knife. Using a pistol he had retrieved from his closet, the victim fired two shots, missing with one and fatally shooting Beebe in the chest with the other. He called 911 immediately. Upon their arrival at the scene, investigators found the victim attempting to resuscitate Beebe. A knife was found on the floor near Beebe’s body.

A photo posted on social media that afternoon with the added text of “Day Drinking? DAY DRINKING!!!” provides evidence for the victim’s timeline. Cell phone video taken by the victim during the initial part of the confrontation shows Beebe armed with a knife while admitting to being drunk and refusing to leave the mobile home.

When contacted by detectives, Beebe’s mother explained that her daughter’s behavior on the day of the shooting is consistent with her actions in the past, saying that Beebe would “get angry” when she did not get her way. Beebe’s mother said conversations with her daughter would go “sideways” and Beebe had started physical altercations in a previous relationship.

The victim stated he kept a CZ P-10 handgun in the pocket of a jacket in his closet, and that he retrieved it to defend himself. The 9mm casings at the scene and gunshot wound are all consistent with this weapon.

The Hillsborough Medical Examiner’s Office performed an autopsy on Beebe. It found one gunshot wound, to the upper left chest, and that the round had traveled at a downward angle, moving diagonally right-to-left. This is consistent with the victim’s account of the events. The manner of death was a gunshot to the chest, with a laceration of the right lung.

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

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 Sergeant Michael Hannaford, Corporal Steven Schneider, Deputy Devin Wooden, and Deputy Timothy Miskell from the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office were justified in their use of deadly force against 27-year-old Dylan Ray Scott on December 8, 2020. Our review determined that Scott engaged in a brief standoff with deputies who were trying to arrest him pursuant to multiple outstanding warrants. While in his truck, Scott concealed his hands and told deputies that he was armed. Deputies spent several minutes ordering Scott to show his hands and attempting to de-escalate the situation. Although Scott was in fact unarmed, he quickly raised his arm towards one of the deputies as if he was going to shoot him, and deputies shot him in response. 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 from the involved deputies’ body cameras
• reviewing video evidence from the HCSO helicopter
• reviewing photographic evidence
• reviewing radio communications and relevant audio
• analyzing autopsy results
• 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 deputies from the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office were executing multiple arrest warrants on Dylan Scott. Deputies came into contact with Scott in his pickup truck, which was parked in a McDonald’s parking lot in Riverview. After deputies approached Scott’s truck, Scott fled in his truck and crashed into a civilian’s vehicle on Bloomingdale Avenue. Deputies approached Scott’s crashed vehicle in the roadway and attempted to take him into custody.

The evidence obtained presents a clear picture of the incident. The deputies involved in the shooting were equipped with body-worn cameras. The body camera worn by the deputy who approached the driver’s side door of Scott’s vehicle shows Scott’s actions and movements within the vehicle and captures the communications between the deputies and Scott. In addition, there is video footage from a Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office helicopter that captures the entire incident from the initial encounter, to the automobile crash, to the fatal shooting.

Shelby Guy was a passenger in the vehicle with Scott; deputies pulled Guy out of the vehicle after the crash but before the shooting. Guy, who identified herself as Scott’s ex-girlfriend, provided a sworn statement that was consistent with the deputies’ accounts of what took place. Guy stated that Scott announced he had a gun when he was surrounded by deputies. She also said that prior to the incident, Scott had made statements that he would not go back to jail and would force law enforcement officers to kill him.

In addition, there was a previous incident between the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office and Scott that occurred on July 27, 2020, in which deputies were trying to arrest Scott for an active warrant. Scott fled from law enforcement in a vehicle and was able to get away. Following that incident, Scott sent Facebook messages to his mother stating, “Well I’m not gonna be around much longer mom I’m not letting them take me to prison I got something that will give them no choice but to shoot me..”

Although Scott twice said he was armed and repeatedly refused to show his hands, deputies never saw a gun during the entirety of the incident. After the shooting, a thorough search revealed that there was no gun on Scott or in his vehicle.

An autopsy was performed by the Hillsborough County Medical Examiner’s Office. Scott was shot 11 times in his head, shoulder, chest, and the left side of his body. The locations of Scott’s wounds were consistent with the deputies’ direction of fire and his location in the front seat of his vehicle. The deputies’ positions at the time of firing their weapons were captured in the aerial helicopter video footage.

The State Attorney’s Office reviewed the facts and evidence to determine what charges, if any, were appropriate against the deputies. Under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, any person, including a law enforcement officer, is immune from prosecution unless the State can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the use of deadly force was not justifiable self-defense. The deputies mistakenly believed that Scott had a gun, but their mistaken belief was objectively reasonable. The audio and video evidence clearly show that Scott told the deputies he had a gun in his waistband. Scott refused to show his hands and kept his hands in a covered position down by his waist, intentionally leading the deputies to believe that he had a firearm. The deputies reasonably believed, based upon Scott’s actions and words, that he possessed a firearm. Therefore, when Scott quickly raised his arm toward a deputy as if he was going to shoot him, the deputies reasonably perceived an imminent threat, which justified their use of deadly force. The audio and video evidence obtained from the deputies’ body-worn cameras clearly demonstrate the restraint and professionalism exhibited by the deputies in trying to convince Scott to peacefully turn himself in before resorting to the use of deadly force.

After our thorough analysis, we have determined that the facts and evidence of this incident prove that the law enforcement officers reasonably believed they were in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm when they used deadly force. They 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 any of the officers.

An initial release of materials related to this case from the State Attorney’s Office—containing a magnified and slowed version of the body-worn camera video, helicopter video, Facebook messages, forensic results, and crime scene photos—is available at this link. The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office has previously made body-worn camera video 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 there is no legal basis to file charges against either of the two Tampa Police Department officers who fatally shot 26-year-old Dominique Mulkey on October 20, 2020. As detailed below, the officers shot Mulkey after he pointed a gun at them as they approached him in connection with an armed robbery of a Dollar General store.

While the event itself unfolded in merely seconds, our team conducted an extensive and 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 law enforcement and civilian witnesses
• examining physical evidence
• reviewing video evidence
• reviewing photographic evidence
• reviewing 911 calls, radio communications, and relevant audio
• analyzing autopsy results
• reviewing forensic reports
• applying the applicable laws

Independent FDLE investigators conducted the investigation, and State Attorney Warren and a senior Assistant State Attorney responded to the scene. FDLE investigators found that on October 20, 2020 at approximately 9:20 a.m. employees of the Dollar General located at 3110 N. 50th Street called 911 and reported an armed robbery. They described the suspect as a Black male wearing an orange shirt and carrying a revolver. As the two Tampa Police officers who responded to this 911 call were driving on 50th Street, they saw a person less than 1,000 feet away from the Dollar General carrying a large black plastic bag and wearing clothes that matched the armed robber’s description. The uniformed patrol officers stopped and exited their marked patrol vehicles within eyesight of the suspect who was later identified as Dominique Mulkey.

One of the officers was wearing a Tampa Police Department issued body-worn camera, which shows what took place after he exited his patrol car. As they approached Mulkey, both officers drew their 9 mm handguns. Mulkey was holding a black garbage bag full of items. For at least 11 seconds, the officers repeatedly shouted commands, including “Tampa Police—get on the ground!” and “Get on the ground—show me your hands!” Mulkey ignored these commands and continued to walk down 50th Street, away from the officers.

Mulkey then let go of the black bag, reached into his waistband, and pulled out a black handgun with his left hand. After Mulkey drew his gun, the officers shouted more commands, yelling “Drop the gun!” several times. Instead of dropping the gun, Mulkey—who had been walking away—turned around completely to face the officers and raised his left hand from his waist up to chest height, pointing the gun in the direction of the officers. In response, both officers fired their weapons while continuing to command Mulkey to drop the gun. Mulkey was shot and fell to the ground, after which the officers stopped firing and approached Mulkey to render aid. They immediately recovered the loaded gun under Mulkey’s body.

Over the span of 15 seconds, the two officers fired a total of 42 rounds—33 by one officer, and nine by the other. Both officers used 9 mm handguns and 40 9 mm shell casings were recovered at the scene. Mulkey had an Armscor .38 Special six-shot revolver, which was fully loaded with six bullets and was later identified as having been reported stolen out of Cape Coral, Florida in 2013.

The Hillsborough County Medical Examiner performed an autopsy on Mulkey. The autopsy determined two bullets had likely entered Mulkey’s body, one in the head, and another that passed through two parts of his body, creating wounds in both the left elbow and left torso. The autopsy also located a bullet graze wound on the right bicep. The Medical Examiner’s Office determined the cause of death was gunshot wounds to the head and torso.

Additionally, State Attorney Warren, our leadership team, and senior Assistant State Attorneys received a detailed presentation about the incident from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, during which our office raised numerous questions and challenged some of the investigative details in order to fully and objectively evaluate the applicable facts and law.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement confirmed that the two Tampa police officers involved in the October 20, 2020 situation do not have any previous incidents involving the use of deadly force in their careers. Their names are being withheld due to Marsy’s Law, as they are the victims of an aggravated assault by Mulkey.

Recent public statements from Mulkey’s family members, who were not witnesses to the October 20, 2020 incident, shared many details of his difficult childhood, including time in the foster care system, as well as his ongoing challenges with mental health issues. The family members’ statements shine an important light on significant challenges we face in our community related to social services and mental health support, both which are critically underfunded and overextended. That is a necessary and valuable conversation our elected officials, law enforcement, and citizens must have.

While the statements from family members provide valuable facts that may explain Mulkey’s life prior to his encounter with Tampa Police on October 20, 2020, under the law, this information is not relevant to the legal determination. Moreover, none of this information was known to the two patrol officers who encountered Mulkey on the morning of the armed robbery at the Dollar General store. The officers rightfully perceived an imminent deadly threat and responded. Nevertheless, understanding Mulkey’s background is a critical first step to learning how our community can better provide social services and hopefully avoid situations that jeopardize the safety of civilians and law enforcement.

“Every life is precious, which is why we must uphold the highest standard when deadly force is used. This situation is tragic, but the law is clear—when an officer or anyone else has a gun pointed at them, they are allowed to defend themselves; here, they had no other choice,” Hillsborough State Attorney Andrew Warren said.

Florida law is clear that anyone—police officer or civilian—can legally use deadly force when put in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. We have determined the facts and evidence of this incident prove the two law enforcement officers reasonably believed they were in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm when they used deadly force. In addition, the law does not impose on any civilian or police officer faced with this situation 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 either of the officers.

The Tampa Police Department has previously made 911 audio, surveillance video, and a portion of the body-worn camera video available at this link. An initial release of materials related to this case from the State Attorney’s Office—containing forensic reports, crime scene photos, and a longer stabilized version of the body-worn camera video—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 her use of deadly force against Isaiah Burke on April 6, 2020. Our review determined that Mr. Burke became enraged when the victim told him to leave her home. Isaiah Burke punched the victim in the mouth and threw her into a mirror and a window in the victim’s bedroom. The victim sustained lacerations to her lips, elbow, shin, and forearm during this initial assault. Isaiah Burke got on top of the victim when she fell to the floor between the bed and the bedroom window. He began to choke her with his hands. The victim asserts that while she was being pinned on the ground by Mr. Burke, fearing for her life, she grabbed an unknown sharp object and stabbed Mr. Burke one time in the neck, ultimately causing his death. An autopsy conducted by Hillsborough County Medical Examiner personnel determined that Isaiah Burke suffered a fatally lacerated jugular vein. In reaching our 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 and incident reports
• reviewing photographic evidence
• reviewing 911 calls and relevant audio recordings
• analyzing autopsy results
• applying the applicable laws
• taking sworn, transcribed statements from the victim and her son

The Tampa Police Department conducted the investigation. Investigators found Isaiah Burke in the victim’s backyard. The victim was applying pressure to Mr. Burke’s wound when first responders arrived at the scene. They found the condition of the victim’s bedroom to be consistent with the account of the incident provided by the victim. Photographs of the broken bedroom window and bloodstains found in the victim’s bedroom corroborated her statement that the physical assault upon the victim and the fatal stabbing of Mr. Burke occurred in the victim’s bedroom. Although the sharp object used by the victim to inflict the fatal wound was not identified, all of the known physical, testimonial, and expert evidence is consistent with the victim’s account.

The name of the victim is being withheld due to Marsy’s Law, as she is the victim of an aggravated battery by Isaiah Burke.

After our thorough analysis, we have determined that the facts and evidence of this incident prove that the victim 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 we cannot refute the assertion by the victim that he acted in lawful defense of another in the use of deadly force against 59-year-old Jerry Murray on August 31, 2020. Our review determined that Jerry Murray, during an argument with the victim’s roommate, pulled out a gun, threatened the roommate, and approached him in an aggressive manner. In response to these actions, the victim fatally shot Jerry Murray. 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
• reviewing cell phone evidence

Hillsborough County Sherriff’s Office conducted the investigation, and representatives from the State Attorney’s Office responded to the scene. Investigators found out that, in order to get away from an abusive relationship with Jonathan Murray, a woman moved out of the home she shared with Johnathan Murray and their child. The woman and her child moved into a home with the victim and his two roommates. On the date in question, Jonathan Murray, the adult son of the deceased, went to the victim’s home unannounced and demanded to see his child. The victim’s roommate told Jonathan Murray that the woman did not want to see him, and he needed to leave. In response, Jonathan Murray got on the phone and told his father to bring a gun. Jonathan got into his truck and left.

A short time later, Jonathan Murray, along with his father, Jerry Murray, responded back to the victim’s home. Jerry Murray was armed with a firearm. Upon arrival, Jerry Murray yelled at the victim’s roommate and pointed a gun at him and others. When Jerry Murray pulled the gun out, the roommate retreated toward his home. However, Jerry Murray advanced toward the victim’s home while still holding the firearm. In response to Jerry Murray’s actions, the victim shot Jerry Murray. Jerry Murray died on scene.

Another person captured portions of this incident on cell phone video. The State reviewed video footage, which depicts the roommate arguing with Jerry Murray and Jonathan Murray. This argument occurred in front of the home where the victim and his roommate reside. At some point, it appeared as if Jerry and Jonathan Murray were leaving. However, subsequent video footage depicts Jerry Murray walking towards the roommate with a gun visible in his right hand. Jerry Murray can be seen and heard yelling and making threats while still in possession of the firearm. On the video footage, the roommate can be seen retreating toward his home. Jerry Murray walked behind the roommate and was still in possession of a firearm. According to the victim, fearing that Jerry Murray might shot his roommate, himself, or someone else, the victim shot Jerry Murray.   

Four independent witnesses informed the police that Jerry Murray pointed a gun at several people. They indicated that, a short time later, they heard gunshots. The roommate called 911 and informed the 911 operator that the victim shot Jerry Murray in self-defense.

Jerry Murray was in possession of a 9mm Hi-Point, which was found beside him when the police arrived on scene. Jerry Murray’s gun had a ten round capacity magazine, and he had seven rounds in the magazine. The victim shot Jerry Murray with a 9mm Glock 43. It had a six round capacity magazine, plus the ability to hold a seventh round in the chamber, and it was empty when the police collected it. The police collected seven 9mm casings from the scene. Law enforcement also recovered a total of 6 projectiles. One was found in the roadway in front of house. One projectile was recovered inside of Jerry Murray. One projectile was recovered inside of Jerry Murray’s hat, and three projectiles were recovered from Jonathan Murry’s green truck. One projectile remains unaccounted for.

The Hillsborough Medical Examiner’s Office ruled the manner of death to be a homicide, and it was determined that the cause of death was a gunshot wound to the head with perforation of the skull and brain. Wounds to Jerry Murray included an entrance and exit wound to his head, an entrance and exit wound to his left hand, an entrance and exit wound to his right chest area, and an entrance wound near his sternum.

The name of the victim and his roommate are being withheld due to Marsy’s Law, as they are victims of an aggravated assault by the decedent.

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 for himself and others 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 for the death of Jerry Murray.

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.