Pinellas County deputy shoots, kills man who pointed gun at him in St. Petersburg

[MOD 1]

Were they being displayed in a threatening manner? There exactly two living witnesses to this incident, Curry and Ford. And, we have not heard from Ford, publicly.

This is the publicly released series of events. Curry, in plain clothes wearing only aa tactical vest with the word "SHERIFF" printed on it is sitting in an unmarked car in an alley behind residences. He is approached by Golden. During this encounter, Curry does not identify himself as a deputy sheriff. Golden leaves and enters the building behind which Curry is parked. A few minutes later, Golden and Ford exit the building [which is later determined to be the current residence of one or both] and walk toward the alley where Curry is sitting. Both are armed, with Golden carrying a AR-15 variant, exposed in his hand. We do not know if Ford was carrying his pistol concealed or not. Curry, fearing for his life [this from the Sheriff's initial explanation for why Curry opened], jumps out of his vehicle and immediately begins firing at one or both men. He makes no attempt to leave in his vehicle. He, continues firing a total of 18 shots as he seeks cover behind a nearby dumpster. Golden is hit, drops his rifle, after firing only 3 shots, and a pistol and runs away. Ford, runs away, firing six shots to cover his retreat. He is later arrested while in possession of a pistol. That is it.

Now, here is why who opened fire first matters, in this case. If Golden and Ford were making obvious threats towards Curry, then Curry was justified in opening fire without identifying himself or ordering the men to disarm. But, we have no indication that such was the case. No verbal threats have been reported. If the range was short, as it probably was in this case, then the question arises as to why Golden only fired 3 shots and failed to hit Curry with the rifle. He can fire as fast as Curry and his rifle is more accurate at the range in question than Curry's pistol. And, Ford made no attempt to shoot Curry, until he was fleeing the scene, under fire from Curry. See the problems here? In this case, it sounds much more likely that Ford and Golden were walking through the yard next to their apartment with Ford's pistol in his waistband or pocket, not in his hand. Otherwise, he would have engaged Curry, as Curry exited his vehicle and we have no report of that being the case. If Golden was pointing his rifle at Curry, in a threatening manner, before Curry exited his vehicle, then we would expect Curry to have been hit by rifle fire, before or as he exited his vehicle, if Golden were intent upon harming him. None of this happened, though. So, what it sounds like, at this point, is that Curry saw Golden carrying a rifle and walking in his general direction, assumed Golden was going to use the weapon against him, Panicked. Jumped out of his vehicle and opened fire on Golden, without giving any verbal order to Golden to drop the weapon, who then returned fire. The criminal history of the Golden and Ford is irrelevant, as there is no evidence that Curry was aware of that, at the time of the shooting.

So, was the shooting legally justified? Maybe, maybe not. This not a classic police defensive shooting. Curry was not in any recognizable uniform [anyone can buy a tactical vest with the words police or sheriff printed on it]. He was not in a marked unit. He had failed to identify himself as a deputy sheriff, to any meaningful degree. It appears that he shot first and without any verbal commands to disarm directed toward Golden. And, that Golden and Ford very likely fired on Curry as he was firing at them. A lot of uncertainty exists as to the legality of Curry's actions. This what gets LEOs in trouble, in use of force situations. Curry made an assumption. Whether that assumption was accurate or not iis the whole crux of the case. So, we wil have to wait for more information to be released before we can come to an accurate conclusion as to the legality of Curry's actions. That is just the way it is.

In you post above, you state that "Curry made an assumption." I took the courtesy of making it red to make it easier for you to see.

In every single one of your posts you have made numerous assumptions, all of which have been negative towards Curry. You make allegations of wrong doing and you state "facts" that most people probably wouldn't know.

My question to you, and you know where I am coming from, how do you know any of these "facts" and what dog do you have in this fight? You are just putting so much time and effort into this, and I am just curious as to why. A lot of your posts have been in the grey area and I have resisted deleting them.

Mod 1

[Unregistered]

Not BS at all, SHERIFF says it all, they saw it and came back...armed. They pointed firearms at him so you have no duty to say a damn thing, you are either quick or you are dead. Curry did what every other reasonable cop or person, by your own admission would have done in the same situation, he shot at people who were pointing firearms at him. You cannot have it both ways.

MOD 1 has certainly been more than lenient with you and we have been more than fair, even when you insult us, our intelligence and experience. As if we didn’t know everything was debatable in court and such. Further, there is absolutely no requirement to have the full agency name on outerwear. A lot of agencies cannot afford such luxuries and buy generic POLICE/SHERIFF uniforms and jackets as a cost-saving measure. Some don’t wear uniforms at all and if you weren’t from that small town you wouldn’t recognize them. Ever been to a very rural County where the Sheriff himself handles calls for service?

I suppose you should stay in your lane as you have not had one meaningful thing to contribute to this discussion as it is clear you are only interested in finding fault with a Deputy. You have no useful insight or education to offer any of us.

[Unregistered]

What circumstances? So far all we have, publicly reported, is that two men came out of a residence, one of whom was carrying a AR-15 variant, and were walking toward Curry and his car. Curry jumped out of th car and opened fire on the men, because he reportedly felt threatened because, again reportedly, he felt that the men were pointing their guns at him in some type of threatening manner. Now, it is interesting that Curry was not shot, as he exited the vehicle, if the two men were actually pointing their weapons at him, in a threatening manner, at close range, if their intent was to harm him. We'll also have to see the evidence, such as where the bullet impacts directed at Curry were found. If there are no bullet holes in the vehicle, especially near the driver's door, Curry has a problem. And, it has already been reported that Ford fired at Curry, who had already fired at him, as he [Ford] ran away.

Iy is a violation of Florida Statute to shoot someone, unless a deadly force attack is reasonably believed to be imminent. The reasonableness standard, for LEOs, is what would a reasonable LEO do in the same circumstances. Now, if Curry can not justify his unannounced attack upon Golden and Ford, under the law governing self defense, then Golden and Ford have every right to shoot back in self defense.

So, we'll see how this plays out.

You're obviously not LEO. The totality of the circumstances is everything Curry knew directly or indirectly from the onset of the initial incident. Furthermore, the reason he wasn't hit and he was able to stop the threat has everything to do with his considerable training and Ford and Goldens lack of training.

[Unregistered]

In you post above, you state that "Curry made an assumption." I took the courtesy of making it red to make it easier for you to see.

In every single one of your posts you have made numerous assumptions, all of which have been negative towards Curry. You make allegations of wrong doing and you state "facts" that most people probably wouldn't know.

My question to you, and you know where I am coming from, how do you know any of these "facts" and what dog do you have in this fight? You are just putting so much time and effort into this, and I am just curious as to why. A lot of your posts have been in the grey area and I have resisted deleting them.

Mod 1

This is a public forum, so I can make any and all assumptions and opinions that I want. In case you haven't noticed this forum is not solely for the support of any of the agencies which choose to have a forum here.

But, to you answer your question, if you have been following my posts than you might have noticed that I have repeatedly said that I am relying upon publicly disseminated information, in coming to my present conclusions. I have listed the basis for these conclusions and have even stated that that they could be wrong, or inaccurate.

The dog that I have in this fight is two-fold. 1) Is to caution other LEOs that they have to be very careful how and when they use deadly force. If a LEO uses deadly force, especially when claiming it was done in self defense, then he has to be able to clearly articulate his reasonable belief that it is justified. Then evidence has to support that belief. as an illustration of legal use of deadly force, let's look at the Drejka/McGlockton case, from your neck of the woods. Many people believed that Drejka's actions, in shooting McGlockton, were legally justified because Drejka was violently shoved, by McGlockton, and fell to the ground. While McGlockton was standing over Drejka, in a menacing posture, he immediately backed off and made no further movement in Drejka's direction, when Drejka produced his pistol. There was sufficient time for Drejka to consciously decide not to shoot McGlockton, but he did so anyway. To further complicate things for Drejka, using deadly force against McGlockton is not authorized for the crime which McGlockton had committed, simple battery. The court decided that McGlockton was not legally justified, under Florida law, with usiing deadly force against MccGlockton. Then we have the Amber Guyger case, in Dallas Tx. Guyger made an assumption and shot her neighbor inside his residence. As the residence was on an upper floor, there was no way for the deceased too escape, except the front door, Guyger could well have simply retreated to the hallway, covered the doorway and called for back-up to assist in taking the man into custody. If that had happened, then there is a very good chance that she would have realized she was on the wrong floor and no one would have been hurt. She might have been embarrassed, b ut she would not be serving 10 years in prison. Get the picture? Use of deadly force, by EOs, is as strictly controlled, in its own way, as it is for civilians. LEOs do not have carte blanc to simply use force because they "feel" threatened. They have to have a reasonable fear for their use of force to be legal.
2) I have an aversion to being gunned down, without warning, by a passing LEO, while I cross my front yard with a rifle in my hand to enter my vehicle or to be picked up by another. My basis for saying that Curry made an "assumption" that he was facing imminent attack, using deadly force, and was not directly or indirectly under attack, is the initial statement of the sheriff. He, the sheriff, said that Curry feared for his life because Golden and Ford pointed guns at him, not that he was under attack and responded in self defense. So, at the moment, it looks as though Curry jumped out of his car and began shooting at Golden and Ford, without them shooting at him. In fact, according to published reports, Ford did not fire his gun until he was running away, while under fire from Curry. Thus Curry made an ASSUMPTION that he was facing an imminent attack and responded by opening fire on Golden and Ford. What interests me, is why he would choose to attack Golden and Ford, whom he apparently did not know, rather than driving either forward or backward down the alley, removing himself from the immediate "danger" zone? Tactical retreat is an option in Law Enforcement. Perhaps, as the investigation continues, we will see why Curry made the choice that he did and whether it is legally justified.

One last thing. I hate the current training of LEOs to simply spray and pray, with high capacity autoloaders. LEOs have a response to the community which they serve. And having 70--80% of their fired rounds whistling past the target places innocent members of the community at risk of great bodily harm or death. Like it or not, US cities are not war zones. And, the rules of engagement do not allow LEOs to simply hose down an area with suppressive fire, except in certain very specific and limited situations. Shots are supposed to be aimed and hit the target.


I hope that I have answered all of your questions, here. If members of the PCSO wish to believe Curry's account and reasoning, that is fine with me. As I have said, we will have to wait for the completion of the investigation and the release of its results to make a final decision.

[Unregistered]

Not BS at all, SHERIFF says it all, they saw it and came back...armed. They pointed firearms at him so you have no duty to say a damn thing, you are either quick or you are dead. Curry did what every other reasonable cop or person, by your own admission would have done in the same situation, he shot at people who were pointing firearms at him. You cannot have it both ways.

MOD 1 has certainly been more than lenient with you and we have been more than fair, even when you insult us, our intelligence and experience. As if we didn’t know everything was debatable in court and such. Further, there is absolutely no requirement to have the full agency name on outerwear. A lot of agencies cannot afford such luxuries and buy generic POLICE/SHERIFF uniforms and jackets as a cost-saving measure. Some don’t wear uniforms at all and if you weren’t from that small town you wouldn’t recognize them. Ever been to a very rural County where the Sheriff himself handles calls for service?

I suppose you should stay in your lane as you have not had one meaningful thing to contribute to this discussion as it is clear you are only interested in finding fault with a Deputy. You have no useful insight or education to offer any of us.

I just responded to the Mod's question about asumption and here you are making one, yourself. As this is a DISCUSSION, I will respond to you.

First of all, we are faced with a he said-he said situation. So far, we have only been privy to what the agency has divulged, publicly, to the media. And, that raises the question of justification for Curry's actions. With the lack of information being released by the agency, we are all left with a great deal of speculation. And, that speculation includes was Curry accurate in his account of what transpired. As I mentioned in a previous post, if Curry's assumption that Golden and Ford pointed weapons at him, in a threatening manner, then his actions may be justifiable. However, if they are not legally justifiable and he opened fire first, then Golden anf Ford become victims of a verifiable aggravated assault and thav have the right to defend themselves, regardless of whether Curry is wearing a very recognizable LE uniform. Noow, if Ford corroborates Curry's account, then a great deal of controversy disappears. Also, if physical evidence sows, or supports Curry's account, through logical analysis, a similar thing happens; the controversy disappears. But, if this was a civilian shooting, then the investigators would be looking very closely to corroborate that claim that an reason threat of imminent attack, with deadly force existed or that the shooting was in response to a viable, forcible felony.

If it turns out that the shooting proves to be justified, then I will cheerfully return and state that I am happy with the outcome. After all, Golden and Ford turned out to be bad guys, being convicted felons in possession of firearms. I still might be critical of Curry's decision not to retreat, but that is another matter divorced from the legality of Curry's actions.

As to the uniform question. A LEO has a duty to identify himself and that identification has to blatant enough so that there is no mistake, if a charge is made that a person knowingly took illegal action against a LEO. Even rural LEOs have to do that. Otherwise, as far ar others know, they are just another civilian and have no legal authority to take action to enforce the law.

[Unregistered]

Let me try it this way sir and if this doesn’t work I truly give up on you...we call it Barney-style...don’t point a firearm at a LEO, EVER, and expect him not to presume your intention is to cause great bodily harm or death to him. It doesn’t matter what your actual intention is or was or if you are just a moron. You WILL be engaged until you are no longer a threat. Any LEO not willing or able to do this is a danger to himself and others.

Curry is a LEO...firearms were pointed at him...Curry engaged the threat...

Stop throwing ASSumptions not in evidence out there; that is where you go off the rails and sound like a goofy fool. There is an old saying, “If worms had AAA, birds wouldn’t mess with them”. That is exactly what you do in every post; talk about assumptions and conjecture that is not known or germane. If you stuck to the facts, Curry was a LEO and chose to engage two armed men, there might be a discussion to have. We get that you think he should have disengaged and waited for back up, that’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. Most of us would choose to confront the threat and we are right to do so.

The same goes for active shooter responses; time matters. It would be awesome to wait for as much help as possible to stack the odds in your favor but lessons learned have taught us that ending the threat quickly saves lives. Nothing is accomplished by falling back and setting a perimeter. Very few could listen to innocents being slaughtered while they stood behind their vehicles. Tactics , Techniques and Procedures TTPs have changed with the times.

[Unregistered]

I just responded to the Mod's question about asumption and here you are making one, yourself. As this is a DISCUSSION, I will respond to you.

First of all, we are faced with a he said-he said situation. So far, we have only been privy to what the agency has divulged, publicly, to the media. And, that raises the question of justification for Curry's actions. With the lack of information being released by the agency, we are all left with a great deal of speculation. And, that speculation includes was Curry accurate in his account of what transpired. As I mentioned in a previous post, if Curry's assumption that Golden and Ford pointed weapons at him, in a threatening manner, then his actions may be justifiable. However, if they are not legally justifiable and he opened fire first, then Golden anf Ford become victims of a verifiable aggravated assault and thav have the right to defend themselves, regardless of whether Curry is wearing a very recognizable LE uniform. Noow, if Ford corroborates Curry's account, then a great deal of controversy disappears. Also, if physical evidence sows, or supports Curry's account, through logical analysis, a similar thing happens; the controversy disappears. But, if this was a civilian shooting, then the investigators would be looking very closely to corroborate that claim that an reason threat of imminent attack, with deadly force existed or that the shooting was in response to a viable, forcible felony.

If it turns out that the shooting proves to be justified, then I will cheerfully return and state that I am happy with the outcome. After all, Golden and Ford turned out to be bad guys, being convicted felons in possession of firearms. I still might be critical of Curry's decision not to retreat, but that is another matter divorced from the legality of Curry's actions.

As to the uniform question. A LEO has a duty to identify himself and that identification has to blatant enough so that there is no mistake, if a charge is made that a person knowingly took illegal action against a LEO. Even rural LEOs have to do that. Otherwise, as far ar others know, they are just another civilian and have no legal authority to take action to enforce the law.

No one has to justify anything to you. The agency reviews what actions took place concerning the deadly force policy. The State Attorney reviews what took place regarding the homicide. I’d there is a severe issue in the eyes of the agency they can take whatever action is appropriate. If the State sees an issue they can have a grand jury review the entire car. No where in there do I see the public in a position to decide if any of this was right or wrong you weren’t there but you make all of these assumptions of what you think happened. That makes you a Monday morning quarterback. And no one cares what you think. You like stirring the pot and saying outlandish things based on assumptions and guess work. If you fee that strongly get a copy of the car when it is closed. Then blab all you want. You will feel like a dumbass when you do. But I’m guessing you will never do that far. Troll away asshole.

[Unregistered]

I suppose you can post proof of your allegations? If so, please post your proof. If not, your post could get deleted and your IP banned.

Mod 1

I have had first hand conversations with witnesses that were there, relatives that have spoken with Ford, Golden's close friend and viewed videos not available to the general public. Just like Sheriff Gualtieri isn't releasing his evidence until the time is right, either are myself and my associates. Just letting people know that as usual with Gualtieri, all is not what he makes it out to be.

My comments posted here are a lot more accurate than Gualtieri's press conferences. Lexus chase lead to Golden. no shots fired, then shots fired, etc.

[Unregistered]

the totality of the circumstances

Another not publicised fact is that the night before this event, there was a shooting in Child's park that involved several people. This shooting involved people related to Ford and Golden that were beefing with them. You should all be aware of that event. Everyone inside Golden's house was making music when someone saw Curry sitting inside his car in the Alley. It was NOT Golden that went up to the window as Curry says. So the person that had the confrontation with Curry is still alive and not dead. Won't that freak Curry out when he realises that there is a witness to him NOT identifying himself as a police officer? This other witness went over towards Curry in the car to see if he could see if someone was inside but the windows were tinted too dark to see. Curry rolled the window down to EYE LEVEL only but this witness didn't notice the window went down a little so Curry banged on the glass real hard to get his attention. When he looked over towards Curry, all he saw was Curry from about the nose up in a dark car and Curry said to him "**** Off and get the **** away from my car". There was zero mention of him being a cop, zero ability to see what Curry had on and Curry did not ID as an officer. This witness went back to the house and told the people inside that the car outside may be "OPS". As in the rivals that were involved in the shooting the night before. This witness is in fear for his life. He saw Curry execute Golden and he knows that PCSO VCTF beat another friend of his that night to help him "get his story straight" trying to get him to say that he saw Ford Shoot at Curry first. Now run that by the people who know what happened that night and stop wasting everybody else's time.

[Unregistered]

In you post above, you state that "Curry made an assumption." I took the courtesy of making it red to make it easier for you to see.

In every single one of your posts you have made numerous assumptions, all of which have been negative towards Curry. You make allegations of wrong doing and you state "facts" that most people probably wouldn't know.

My question to you, and you know where I am coming from, how do you know any of these "facts" and what dog do you have in this fight? You are just putting so much time and effort into this, and I am just curious as to why. A lot of your posts have been in the grey area and I have resisted deleting them.

Mod 1

I do not see his posts as being "negative towards curry" at all. He has not made one derogatory comment towards curry, called him any names or threatened him like others have threatened this poster on this thread which you let stand. It is literally assinine to simply just accept what Gualtieri, or Curry, or anybody who has just taken a life claims to have occurred. Especially if those claimed versions of events make literally no sense at all. And more so when Gualtieri keeps changing the story day to day. So far we have no idea if anything Gualtieri said was actually stated by Curry. I have not seen his sworn statement, have you? Gualtieri is a skilled liar and manipulator of both the spoken and written word. So putting forwards alternative narratives that fit the claimed circumstances far better than the unsubstantiated, but claimed by Gualtieri word track is fair game.