Category Archives: Use of Deadly Force Reviews

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.

Following an extensive review, our office has concluded that a 16-year-old male victim acted in lawful self-defense and was justified in his use of deadly force against a 15-year-old male (“Juvenile 1”) on August 6, 2021. Our review determined that the victim was attacked by a group of individuals while he was walking home alone. The victim had a prior conflict with this group. As three individuals approached the victim, one of them swung his fist at the victim. The victim had a pocketknife and swung back with the knife. Juvenile 1 then approached the victim and attempted to swing his fist. The victim swung the knife and struck Juvenile 1 in the neck area, which ultimately caused his death. The victim retreated and one of the individuals in the group retrieved a firearm and shot at least once in the direction of the victim. 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 and the investigation of the Tampa Police Department
• reviewing interviews of witnesses
• examining physical evidence
• reviewing video surveillance evidence that included audio of the event
• reviewing photographic evidence
• analyzing autopsy results
• reviewing social media posts and photographs
• applying the applicable laws

The Tampa Police Department conducted the investigation. Investigators determined that the victim was walking alone on the sidewalk along Sligh Ave. at 3:05 a.m. on August 6, 2021. The victim heard a vehicle pull up behind him and noticed the vehicle driving the wrong way on the road. The vehicle stopped immediately beside the victim on the roadway. Three individuals exited the back seat of the vehicle. The victim immediately recognized two male subjects, Juvenile 1 and another male, and felt they were about to initiate a physical fight with him based on prior encounters.  The victim armed himself with a knife he was carrying in his pocket. As one of the individuals approached and swung his fist, the victim swung his knife, cutting the attacker. At that time Juvenile 1 came toward the victim and swung his fist. The victim swung the knife, cutting Juvenile 1 on the neck. The victim then ran away from the incident. As the victim ran away, someone from the vehicle armed themselves with a handgun and fired toward the victim. Juvenile 1 was taken to the hospital by the other individuals where he was pronounced deceased by hospital staff.

Two video surveillance clips were located from nearby businesses. The first video showed the vehicle which carried Juvenile 1 making a U-turn upon seeing the victim on the sidewalk. The other individuals in the vehicle confirmed that the vehicle made the maneuver to confront and fight the victim. Another video captured the vehicle stopping near the victim. This video also had audio and voices can be heard yelling and arguing. The video did not capture the actual fight but did confirm that after Juvenile 1 yelled that he was bleeding the victim ran away from the incident. The video and audio also captured one of the individuals firing a gun toward the victim as he ran away.

Through the investigation it was learned that the individuals that attacked the victim had an ongoing dispute and had previously tried to fight the victim. One week prior to this incident, the individuals, including Juvenile 1, sent the victim a photograph posing on the victim’s porch, without his knowledge, with a firearm. The picture had a caption that read, “Brining Smoke to Ya Front Door Son Son.” This prior incident gave the victim a reasonable belief that he was going to be attacked when the individuals surprised him the morning of August 6. Witnesses confirmed that the individuals had an ongoing dispute with the victim and they had attempted to physically fight him in the past.

Three of the individuals in the vehicle gave interviews to law enforcement. Two of the individuals gave initial false statements to law enforcement about the location of the incident. They later changed their story and provided accounts of what occurred. They confirmed that the vehicle stopped so they could fight the victim. They also confirmed that someone fired a gun toward the victim as he ran away.

One shell casing was recovered from the scene. However, no firearm was recovered. The knife used by the victim was never recovered. The victim stated he left the knife at a friend’s house after the incident.

The Hillsborough County Medical Examiner’s Office found that Juvenile 1 died because of a stab wound to the neck/chest area with perforation to the right jugular vein.

The name of the victim is being withheld due to Marsy’s Law, as he is the victim of an aggravated assault by the deceased and the other individuals. The names of the other individuals are being withheld because they are under the age of 18.

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.

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 involve juvenile offenders. Under Fla. Statute 985.04, evidence in juvenile criminal matters is exempt from release. 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 an officer from the Tampa Police Department was justified when he employed deadly force against a 17-year-old male juvenile (“Juvenile 1”) on August 19, 2021. Our review determined that the officer was operating in plain clothes in a covert vehicle and conducting surveillance on Juvenile 1, who matched the description of a wanted suspect. After circling Juvenile 1 multiple times, the officer saw Juvenile 1 watching him and holding a handgun. As other police units moved in to make contact with Juvenile 1, the officer drove toward Juvenile 1. As he did, Juvenile 1 again pulled out a gun, this time raising it in the officer’s direction. The officer fired his service weapon rapidly eight times through his front windshield. Juvenile 1 was not hit and fled on his bicycle. Other police units located Juvenile 1 nearby and as they moved in to arrest him, he spontaneously stated, “I dumped the gun.” A loaded 9mm pistol was found along the path Juvenile 1 had taken while fleeing on his bike. 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
• reviewing interviews of the detained suspect
• examining physical evidence
• reviewing video evidence
• reviewing photographic evidence
• reviewing relevant audio
• 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 determined that on August 19, 2021, the officer was operating in a plain clothes capacity in an unmarked covert vehicle. The officer observed Juvenile 1 on a bicycle in the area of North Nebraska and East Linebaugh Avenues. He further observed that Juvenile 1 generally matched the description of a wanted suspect, although it was later determined that Juvenile 1 was not that subject. The officer conducted surveillance on Juvenile 1 by circling back in his vehicle multiple times and observed Juvenile 1 to be watching him and holding a handgun.

The officer maintained radio contact with other units of his squad while waiting for them to converge on the area. As the other units arrived, the officer drove toward Juvenile 1. As he did so, Juvenile 1 again produced the firearm and raised it in the officer’s direction. In response, the officer fired his service weapon eight times through the front windshield of his covert vehicle at Juvenile 1. Juvenile 1 was not struck. Although he raised his gun in the officer’s direction, Juvenile 1 did not fire his weapon. Juvenile 1 fled on his bicycle and was apprehended a short distance away by other members of the officer’s squad. An EAA Witness 9mm handgun was located, discarded along Juvenile 1’s path of flight. There was one round in the chamber and six in the magazine.

The officer’s account is corroborated by another member the officer’s unit who was in a position to observe Juvenile 1 raise his arm toward the officer immediately before the officer discharged his weapon.

A portion of this incident was recorded by the officer’s body-worn camera. Because the officer was seated in his vehicle, the video is largely obstructed by the dashboard; it shows momentary glimpses of Juvenile 1, but no specific actions by Juvenile 1 are visible. The apprehension of Juvenile 1 was captured by other officers’ body-worn cameras. Prosecutors were also able to review surveillance video from nearby commercial properties which did not capture the actual shooting.

Juvenile 1 was unharmed and has been charged as a juvenile with carrying a concealed firearm (Florida Statute 790.01(2)) and minor in possession of a firearm (Florida Statutes 790.22(3) and (5)(a)).

The officer was armed with a SIG Sauer P320 9mm handgun. Based on an examination of that firearm and video evidence, investigators determined that eight rounds were fired during this incident.

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

After our thorough analysis, we have determined that the facts and evidence support the conclusion that the officer was in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm when he employed deadly force against Juvenile 1. These findings satisfy Florida Statute 776.012 and 776.05 and the use of deadly force by the officer was justified. Accordingly, there is no legal basis for criminal charges against the officer.

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 and ongoing juvenile criminal case. Under Fla. Statute 985.04, evidence in pending juvenile cases 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 an officer from the Tampa Police Department was justified when he employed deadly force against 22-year-old Samario Lee Austin on August 16, 2021. The officer was responding to an active shooter in a Downtown Tampa apartment complex and located Austin, who was armed with both a handgun and AR-style rifle. Austin had already fired multiple gunshots and members of the public were clearly in danger. The officer fired seven shots at Austin with his handgun. Austin was not hit and retreated; he was taken into custody soon afterward. 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
• reviewing interviews of witnesses
• examining physical evidence
• reviewing video evidence
• reviewing photographic evidence
• reviewing 911 calls and relevant audio
• applying the applicable laws

The Tampa Police Department conducted the investigation. Investigators found that on August 16, 2021, Tampa Police Communications received a large volume of 911 calls about shots fired at Metro 510 Apartments in Downtown Tampa. Callers described the shooter as a shirtless African-American man armed with some type of rifle.

A Tampa Police officer, who was off duty and nearby at the time, heard what he initially believed may have been fireworks. The officer equipped himself with a handgun and went to investigate. Based on his training and experience, he soon identified the noises as gunfire. He then donned his ballistic vest and full duty belt with service pistol. He attempted to call 911 but the call did not go through, so he used his portable police radio to contact Tampa Police Department dispatch.

From a third-floor courtyard area of the complex, the officer heard two additional shots accompanied by some yelling. He then spotted Samario Lee Austin in black shorts with no shirt holding both a rifle and a handgun. Austin was walking backwards along a fifth-floor walkway that looked down into the courtyard. Austin was across the courtyard and two stories above the officer. Believing Austin had both a tactical and firepower advantage, the officer fired seven rounds at Austin without announcing himself. Austin, who was not struck, retreated out of the officer’s view.

The officer maintained cover and contact with Tampa Police and soon joined arriving units’ efforts to locate Austin. Ultimately, Austin was located and taken into custody without incident.

Witness statements and 911 calls are consistent with the officer’s account of events.

A portion of this incident was captured via cell phone video from a civilian in a nearby building. The apprehension of Austin was captured by officers’ body worn cameras.

Officers recovered a Glock 26 9mm handgun and a .22 caliber AR-style weapon discarded in a stairwell between the fifth and sixth floors. Investigators later located seventeen spent .22 caliber shell casings and nine spent 9mm shell casings from the fifth and sixth floors. Several projectiles were also located. Shell casings from a test fire of the .22 and 9mm weapons are a presumptive match for the recovered casings.

Austin was unharmed and has been charged by prosecutors with two counts of shooting at, within, or into a building (Florida Statute 790.19), one count of aggravated assault (Florida Statute 784.021(1)(a)), and one count of culpable negligence by exposure to injury (Florida Statute 784.05(1)).

The officer was armed with a SIG Sauer P320 9mm handgun. A total of seven spent shell casings were recovered from the location where the officer fired at Austin. Investigators observed seven apparent bullet strikes on the wall toward which the officer was shooting. This is also consistent with the amount of remaining ammunition in the officer’s gun after the incident.

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 support the conclusion that the officer was in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or others when he employed deadly force against Samario Lee Austin. These findings satisfy Florida Statute 776.012 and 776.05 and the use of deadly force by the officer was justified. Accordingly, there is no legal basis for criminal charges against the officer.

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 an officer of the Tampa Police Department was justified in his use of deadly force against 40-year-old John Reuben Turbe, Jr. on July 4, 2021. Our review determined that when the officer made contact with Turbe, Turbe turned toward the officer and pulled a firearm from his waist area. The officer shouted several commands to put the gun down. After a short foot pursuit, Turbe turned toward the officer and took several steps toward him. Turbe then raised his arm and pointed his gun at the officer. The officer fired his weapon four times, striking Turbe, who died as a result of the 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 civilian witnesses
• reviewing interviews of the involved law enforcement officers
• reviewing interviews of involved medical personnel
• examining physical evidence
• reviewing video evidence, including officer body worn cameras and surveillance camera footage
• reviewing photographic evidence
• reviewing 911 audio and TPD radio transmissions
• analyzing autopsy results
• applying the applicable laws

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) conducted the investigation, and a representative from the State Attorney’s Office responded to the scene. FDLE investigators found Turbe entered the Texaco Nas Mart at 10 p.m. on July 4, 2021. An employee observed Turbe approach the register and remove a black pistol from his left waist area and move it to his right waist area. Turbe exited the store and walked northwest toward three people. Turbe fired one round from the pistol, walked back toward store, and fired two additional shots into the air. The store employee called 911.

The officer was dispatched to the Texaco Nas Mart and arrived at 10:13 p.m. His response to the scene is captured clearly on his body-worn camera. He spoke with the store employee, who told the officer the suspect was close by and directed the officer toward the suspect. The officer walked out of the store and saw Turbe walking near the southeast corner of the gas station. Turbe turned toward the officer and pulled a pistol from this waist area. The officer immediately ordered Turbe to put down the gun. Turbe did not comply.

Instead, Turbe ran away from the officer and into a nearby neighborhood. Turbe ran south along the edge of Temple Street, still holding the same gun that he had fired into the air a few minutes earlier. The officer pursued Turbe, continuing to warn him to drop the gun, shouting, “Put the gun down! Put it down now! You’re gonna get shot!” and other similar warnings. After running for 20 seconds, Turbe stopped and turned around to face the officer. Turbe took five steps toward the officer, raised his arm, and pointed the gun at the officer. The officer fired his service weapon four times in quick succession from 15 feet away. Turbe fell to the ground.

The officer secured Turbe’s handgun. Another officer arrived immediately after the shooting and attempted life saving measures. An examination of Turbe’s gun showed that a live round was wedged in the top of the pistol’s slide (a position called “stove-piped”), which would have kept the gun from firing until that round was cleared.

FDLE was able to obtain surveillance video from the Texaco Nas Mart. The video depicts Turbe firing a firearm into the air on the property. FDLE agents located residential surveillance videos that captured a portion of the foot pursuit before the shooting. All involved officers, including the officer who fired at Turbe, were wearing a body-worn cameras. The entire shooting incident was recorded and is consistent with witness statements.

Several civilian witnesses gave statements to FDLE agents describing what they saw leading up to the shooting. Four of the witnesses saw Turbe with a black pistol and three of them observed him fire the weapon in the air two or three times. Several witnesses heard the officer yelling at Turbe to put down the gun. They did not see the officer-involved shooting itself, but two witnesses did hear three to four shots fired after the officer yelled. This is consistent with the video surveillance and body-worn camera recording.

The officer was carrying a Tampa Police Department-owned SIG Sauer Model P320 9mm handgun. When FDLE agents took custody of the officer’s firearm, it had thirteen rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber. Body-worn camera video shows the officer firing four rounds. Four 9mm caliber cartridge casings were recovered in the area where the officer fired his service weapon. Three .40 caliber cartridge casings were recovered in the parking lot of the Texaco Nas Mart, matching the caliber of Turbe’s handgun. The firearm evidence at the scene is consistent with the store surveillance video, body-worn camera footage, and witness statements.

The decedent’s autopsy was performed by the Hillsborough County Medical Examiner’s Office. Gunshot wounds were identified on the decedent’s left leg above the knee, chest above the right nipple, face to the left of the nose, and right earlobe. In addition, one of the rounds, or a piece of a round, struck the tip of Turbe’s right index finger—likely before that round then entered his body in one of the four areas listed above. The projectile that entered the chest travelled through the lungs and lodged in the back near the spine. The medical examiner was able to recover the projectile that entered through the face and lodged in the back of the skull. The cause of death was determined to be gunshot wounds to the head and torso penetrating the brain and skull and perforating the lung. Additionally, the Medical Examiner’s Office performed toxicology testing and detected ethanol and THC in the decedent’s peripheral blood.

The name of the law enforcement officer involved 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 officer.

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.