June 10, 2025 – Tallahassee, FL — A letter issued by the State Attorney for Florida’s Second Judicial Circuit has concluded that the officer involved in a fatal shooting earlier this year acted within the bounds of the law. The decision, addressed to Tallahassee Police Chief Lawrence Revell, formally clears the officer of any criminal wrongdoing, citing Florida’s self-defense and law enforcement use-of-force statutes.
- Advertisement -
The decision was not based on emotional appeals or public sentiment, but on a strict legal analysis of the facts, evidence, and applicable law. Here’s a closer look at the legal reasoning that informed the State Attorney’s Office (SAO) conclusion.
Core Legal Standard: Was the Use of Deadly Force Lawful?
The letter from the SAO frames the entire review around Section 776.05(1) and (3) of the Florida Statutes, which governs when a law enforcement officer may use deadly force. Specifically, deadly force is justified if the officer reasonably believes it is necessary to:
- Advertisement -
• Defend themselves or others from imminent death or great bodily harm, or
• Prevent the escape of a fleeing felon who poses a significant threat of death or serious injury to others.
- Advertisement -
In this case, the State Attorney found that both statutory conditions were met.
Evidence Supporting the Officer’s Reasonable Belief
According to the letter, the SAO relied on an extensive body of evidence to determine whether the officer’s belief of imminent danger was objectively reasonable, which is the constitutional threshold established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor (1989). The following elements were cited as critical:
• Visual Confirmation of a Firearm: Body-worn camera (BWC) footage confirmed the suspect had a firearm in hand.
• Verbal Commands Ignored: Officers gave repeated commands to drop the weapon. The suspect failed to comply.
• Perceived Threat: Officers stated the suspect raised or pointed the weapon in their direction, a behavior that transforms a passive resistance situation into a deadly force encounter.
• Environmental Context: The shooting occurred in a public area where bystanders were potentially at risk, increasing the urgency of the perceived threat.
SAO’s Conclusion: A “Lawful and Justified” Use of Force
The letter unequivocally states:
“The use of deadly force by the officer was lawful, justified, and not a criminal act under Florida law.”
It also emphasizes that no elements of criminal homicide were present, and the facts do not support any charge that could be brought under Florida’s criminal code.
The officer’s response is described as “proportional to the threat presented,” a key principle in Florida and federal law regarding the use of deadly force. The SAO further noted that “the threat was real, immediate, and credible.”
Emphasis on Objective Reasonableness
The SAO reiterated a crucial legal doctrine: the standard is not hindsight, but what a reasonable officer would have believed at the time. The letter references the legal precedent that officers are not required to wait until a weapon is fired before defending themselves or others.
“It is not necessary that the threat actually result in death or great bodily harm—only that a reasonable officer would perceive such a threat under the circumstances.”
This principle is central to evaluating police use-of-force cases and serves as a safeguard for officers operating in fast-evolving, dangerous situations.
Final Legal Determination
The State Attorney closed the letter by confirming that:
• The case does not meet the evidentiary threshold for criminal prosecution.
• The officer’s conduct was within departmental policy and Florida law.
• No referral to a grand jury was necessary due to the clear legal justification.
What This Decision Does—and Does Not—Mean
The SAO’s finding only pertains to criminal liability. It does not make a determination about internal policy violations or potential civil liability. The Titusville Police Department is expected to continue with its own internal review to determine whether the officer adhered to all training and procedural standards.
Conclusion
The State Attorney’s rationale was methodical, rooted firmly in law, and insulated from political or public pressure. By focusing solely on statutory criteria and documented facts, the SAO found the shooting to be a justifiable and lawful act of self-defense by a sworn law enforcement officer.
As public conversations around police accountability continue to evolve, this case stands as an example of how prosecutors apply legal standards—not public opinion—to the complex and often tragic reality of officer-involved shootings
