Category Archives: Use of Deadly Force Reviews

Following an extensive review, our office has concluded that a 25-year-old male victim acted in lawful self-defense and was justified in his use of deadly force against 21-year-old Zaike Barker on January 4, 2021. Our review determined that Zaike Barker became angry while playing dice with a group of men in front of a commercial plaza in Palm River on the evening of January 4, 2021. Barker pulled out a firearm, verbally threatened the other men, and shot indiscriminately into the group of men. Barker shot and seriously wounded four of the men. In defense of himself and others, one of the victims (“Victim 1”) returned fire, fatally wounding Zaike Barker. In reaching this conclusion, our office conducted an exhaustive review of all available evidence and applicable legal standards. These steps included but were not limited to:

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

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

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

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

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

After our thorough analysis, we have determined that the facts and evidence of this incident prove that Victim 1 reasonably believed he was in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm when he used deadly force. These findings satisfy Florida Statute 776.012. Accordingly, under Florida law, there is no legal basis for criminal charges against that individual.

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

Following an extensive review, our office has concluded that we cannot refute the assertion by a female victim that she acted in lawful self-defense in the use of deadly force against 50-year-old Lucious Glymph on October 18, 2020. Our review determined that the evidence is consistent with the victim’s assertion that after Glymph invited her over, requested she spend the night, and removed his pants, Glymph then physically blocked her exit from his mobile home, angrily escorted her to her car, opened her car door, and grabbed her by the arms in an attempt to pull her out as she was trying to leave. In response to these actions, the victim fatally shot Glymph once on the abdomen. In reaching this conclusion, our office conducted an exhaustive review of all available evidence and applicable legal standards. These steps included but were not limited to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Following an extensive review, our office has concluded that the victim acted in lawful self-defense and was justified in his use of deadly force against twenty-five-year-old Bryan Pichardo Minaya on December 18, 2020. Our review determined that immediately after engaging in a verbal argument and brief physical altercation with other men during a commercial landscaping company’s holiday party, Bryan Pichardo Minaya announced, “I’m going to show you what I’m about,” entered his automobile, and retrieved a firearm. The victim, who possessed a valid concealed weapons permit, approached on foot, drew his firearm and repeatedly warned Minaya, “(d)on’t do it.” Minaya pointed his loaded semi-automatic pistol in the victim’s direction. Fearing for his life and safety and that of others standing nearby, the victim fired six shots at Minaya. Bryan Pichardo Minaya suffered multiple gunshot wounds and died at the scene. Investigators found Minaya’s firearm on the ground inches away from him. An inspection of Minaya’s pistol revealed that it had jammed. In reaching this conclusion, our office conducted an exhaustive review of all available evidence and applicable legal standards. These steps included but were not limited to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Following an extensive review, our office has concluded that the victim acted in lawful self-defense and was justified in his use of deadly force against 27-year-old Joseph Williams on November 27, 2020. Our review determined that Joseph Williams entered the Teasers Gentleman’s Club and was stopped by the victim, who worked at the club as a security guard. Williams wore a ski mask over his face. The victim informed Williams that he could not enter wearing a ski mask and would need to be searched. Unwilling to comply, Williams placed his hand in his waistband and threatened, “You must not know who I am. I’ll spray this bitch up and you.” The victim told Williams he needed to leave, but Williams began to pull a firearm from his waistband. The victim, in fear for himself and the patrons in the club, then fired two shots at Williams. Williams ran out of the club’s entrance and an eyewitness observed Williams wearing a ski mask and in possession of a firearm as Williams fled. Williams was taken to a nearby hospital where he later died from a gunshot wound.

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

• reviewing interviews of witnesses
• examining physical evidence
• reviewing video evidence
• reviewing photographic evidence
• analyzing autopsy results
• applying the applicable laws

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Following an extensive review, our office has concluded that the victim acted in lawful self-defense and was justified in his use of deadly force against 42-year-old Nelson Alcantara on September 27, 2020. Our review determined that the victim fatally stabbed Alcantara in the front yard of a home on East 14th Avenue after Alcantara stabbed the victim and appeared to pose a threat of future harm to the victim’s daughter. In reaching this conclusion, our office conducted an exhaustive review of all available evidence and applicable legal standards. These steps included but were not limited to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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.