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

[Unregistered]

What reasonable person would know it was a Deputy, go back in the house and retrieve guns, and start approaching this same Deputy with firearms in hand? Our expert here, is fixated on tactics. What emboldened these two numerously arrested lads to think that was the way to go? See, you have to go way back in their lives to see that no boundaries were ever taught or respected. They only know that violence is power in the thug life. Their behavior has been tolerated by the courts whom have given them many chances to change their ways. City leaders, both black and white tolerate this behavior and never address it unless there is a racial component to it. Black on black crime is so out of control that even horrific crimes only make the news for a day or so. Now we have so called police experts that are apologists for these thugs behavior. Trying to say that the Dep didnt have to use deadly force from a arm chair quarterback, after the fact, misses the biggest point here. The thugs made even poorer decisions, and the Deputy is lucky to be alive. It would appear that minimizing the thugs behavior and being hyper critical of the deputies tactics is not the conclusion of most Leo's, Thank God!

[Unregistered]

Nice response. Does your Momma know you talk loike that in public? Actually, you are wrong on almost all of this.

True, I was not there. Apparently NO ONE was there except the Deputy and the two armed men. It will intereting to see if any dash or body cam footage becomes available, if it exists. So, that argument is moot.

Now about attackingt the threat, if you are ambushed. That, my friend is total BS and shows that you are either an idiot or your training is seriously lacking. The first thing that you do, when ambushed, is to break contact. That has been infantry doctrine since the late 1800s. This is especially true if your are, or believe you are, being engaged by a superior force. Then, you regroup and either continue your retreat or engage the attacking force. Did you learn anything about the use of cover and concealment in your training?

So, do you have first hand knowledge of what is in the case file, to date? Does it show that Curry could not have left the immediate area safely?

Look, people make ill thought out decisions all the time. While these decisions are often considered less than optimum, under the circumstances, they can be justified, to some degree. Now, if the armed men, who approached Curry, knew or suspected that he was a deputy, then walking toward his vehicle, with exposed weapons, was extremely ill conceived. However, unless it was apparent that rhe two were intent upon attacking him, exiting the vehicle and deciding to brace them, face to face with nothing but a 9x19mm handgun and a smile, was also most likely ill conceived. This led to a decision on the part of one party to open fire. And, we still do not know exactly who opened fire. However, given the PCSO press release, it appears that Curry was the first to fire, as he reported said that he was in fear for his life. This tends to indicate that he was not under active fire, at the time he opened fire. If such iis the case, then he has to justify his decisions. Fortunately, he is alive to attempt to do so.

Funny. Doctrine I ws taught in this millennium was to assault through an ambush and break the enemy's will to continue fighting. Curry was faced with violence and correctly deduced that a vehicle is a funnel for bullets. He exited his vehicle and broke his opponents will to remain engaged with him. I dont know what curry knew, but its clear he made the right decision. Hes alive and the armed dope-boy is not. They picked a fight with the wrong guy, and were shocked and overwhelmed by his willingness and ability to deliver violence in return. Good on him. Rather than second guess him why not discuss the climate on the southside that makes savages like this think they can get away with it.

[Unregistered]

Only you liberal pussies run from an attack. Guess what Pelosi, Curry wasn't a ***** and took care of the job without having to spend millions on the trash being in prison. I suggest you and the likes of you move to a shithole run democratic city like Baltimore, Chicago, St.Louis and the such and see how dangerous democratic cities are. St.Pete is safer today, but we have a long way to go to rid that crime infested city of the trash that Curry dispatched.

This is a dangerous mindset to have. Now, i could care less if some dumbass, macho freak wants to stand and shoot it out with a force which is both superior in number and in weaponry. What I object to is when I have to risk my pretty pink butt to save this joker.

Then there is the 800# gorilla in the room. Curry was not in uniform and not operating a marked unit. He got out of his car and aggressively engaged the two men who were walking toward him with weapons in hand. Curry, apparently, initiated the gunfight. If he fired first, then he iis going to have to prove that he was in fear of his life from a viable and obvious threat.. And, getting out of the car, rather than attempting to drive away, and initiating the use of deadly force against people who had not yet actively threatened him, as well as being in plain clothes and an unmarked car, and this could be an uphill battle for Curry. They just sentenced a LEO in Palm Beach county for doing much the same thing. A tactical vest, with the words Police or Sheriff can be bought online. We'll have to wait for the investigation to end.

Also, there is the threat to the citizenry produced by Curry's actions. He fired somewhere between 17 and 19 rounds, according to news accounts. And, he scored somewhere between 1 and 5 hits, again according to news accounts. Where did the 12-18 rounds that missed the targets go? LEOs do not exist in a video game vacuum. There are innocent people around. And a LEO has no authority to randomly shoot innocent bystanders.

Quit thinking with your Johnson and start thinking with your head. Learn proper tactics and utilize them.

[Unregistered]

Funny. Doctrine I ws taught in this millennium was to assault through an ambush and break the enemy's will to continue fighting. Curry was faced with violence and correctly deduced that a vehicle is a funnel for bullets. He exited his vehicle and broke his opponents will to remain engaged with him. I dont know what curry knew, but its clear he made the right decision. Hes alive and the armed dope-boy is not. They picked a fight with the wrong guy, and were shocked and overwhelmed by his willingness and ability to deliver violence in return. Good on him. Rather than second guess him why not discuss the climate on the southside that makes savages like this think they can get away with it.

Where did you learn this doctrine of assaulting through an ambush? The biggest problem with pressing forward, through an active ambush is that you have no idea what is ahead of you. You have a pretty good idea what is behind you, unless you have been flanked. Your squad may fight its way past a small ambush only to run smack dab into a full company. How do you intend to fight your way through that, Chuckles? So, what brilliant strategist taught you to fight deeper into an ambush rather than to engage, break contact and withdraw?

Did they actually pick a fight with Curry? So far, all we have is a statement form the Sheriff, reportedly based upon what Curry told investigators, that Curry engaged the two men because the "feared for his life". If this is accurate, then it suggests that Curry initiated the gunfire, not the two armed men. A cop, who responded to a person shooting at him, would most likely say that the assailant fired at him and he returned fire. This would be a clear statement of self defense. We will have to wait for more of the investigation to be released. Also, we will have to wait to see why Curry could not have simply driven away from the assumed threat.

I'll make a little prediction here. This case is going to become convoluted, from an investigative standpoint. Ford is likely to claim sell defense and that Curry initiated the gunfight, to which he [Ford] and the other man responded. Hopefully, for Curry, there are bullet holes, from something other than a 9x19mm, in his vehicle. Otherwise, timing becomes a problem. Then there is the fact that Curry was in plain clothes and an unmarked vehicle. Why should anyone believe that he was a LEO? Unless he showed his creds to the person, his word is hardly of any value. He is just some guy in a tactical vest with the word "police" on it loitering behind some residences. Suspecting that the man is armed, two men approach the vehicle with visible arms, the man, in plain clothes jumps out and brandishes a handgun at them. And, someone begins firing. Now, the question is, if the two men actually intended to harm the unknown man in the alley, why didn't they continue their attack? This will be the defense, by Ford. and, it makes sense, unless there is some evidence to discredit it. This is not a cut and dried police defensive shooting, but a he said-he said case involving two armed men in plain clothes.

I have been critical of Curry, but Ford and his deceased partner also are responsible for the situation. If they did not believe that Curry was a deputy, then all they had to do was call the local PD or SO. They apparently did neither, instead choosing to investigate on their own. Not a bright move.

This may turn out all right for Curry, if the dead man has no family to push the issue.

[Unregistered]

Where did you learn this doctrine of assaulting through an ambush? The biggest problem with pressing forward, through an active ambush is that you have no idea what is ahead of you. You have a pretty good idea what is behind you, unless you have been flanked. Your squad may fight its way past a small ambush only to run smack dab into a full company. How do you intend to fight your way through that, Chuckles? So, what brilliant strategist taught you to fight deeper into an ambush rather than to engage, break contact and withdraw?

Did they actually pick a fight with Curry? So far, all we have is a statement form the Sheriff, reportedly based upon what Curry told investigators, that Curry engaged the two men because the "feared for his life". If this is accurate, then it suggests that Curry initiated the gunfire, not the two armed men. A cop, who responded to a person shooting at him, would most likely say that the assailant fired at him and he returned fire. This would be a clear statement of self defense. We will have to wait for more of the investigation to be released. Also, we will have to wait to see why Curry could not have simply driven away from the assumed threat.

I'll make a little prediction here. This case is going to become convoluted, from an investigative standpoint. Ford is likely to claim sell defense and that Curry initiated the gunfight, to which he [Ford] and the other man responded. Hopefully, for Curry, there are bullet holes, from something other than a 9x19mm, in his vehicle. Otherwise, timing becomes a problem. Then there is the fact that Curry was in plain clothes and an unmarked vehicle. Why should anyone believe that he was a LEO? Unless he showed his creds to the person, his word is hardly of any value. He is just some guy in a tactical vest with the word "police" on it loitering behind some residences. Suspecting that the man is armed, two men approach the vehicle with visible arms, the man, in plain clothes jumps out and brandishes a handgun at them. And, someone begins firing. Now, the question is, if the two men actually intended to harm the unknown man in the alley, why didn't they continue their attack? This will be the defense, by Ford. and, it makes sense, unless there is some evidence to discredit it. This is not a cut and dried police defensive shooting, but a he said-he said case involving two armed men in plain clothes.

I have been critical of Curry, but Ford and his deceased partner also are responsible for the situation. If they did not believe that Curry was a deputy, then all they had to do was call the local PD or SO. They apparently did neither, instead choosing to investigate on their own. Not a bright move.

This may turn out all right for Curry, if the dead man has no family to push the issue.

Take your criticism elsewhere beta boy. It’s obvious from your rant that you don’t know wtf you’re talking about. You’re going off limited information released to the media to hyper analyze this as if you’re some subject matter expert. The fact that you believe one of these azz clowns had to get the first round off in order for this to be a good shoot, shows you don’t know police training or the law. So once again go fuk yourself! You sound like you may be James’ bf.

[Unregistered]

I suggest we collectively stop feeding this troll; he has obviously been there and done that, ha!

[Unregistered]

What reasonable person would know it was a Deputy, go back in the house and retrieve guns, and start approaching this same Deputy with firearms in hand? Our expert here, is fixated on tactics. What emboldened these two numerously arrested lads to think that was the way to go? See, you have to go way back in their lives to see that no boundaries were ever taught or respected. They only know that violence is power in the thug life. Their behavior has been tolerated by the courts whom have given them many chances to change their ways. City leaders, both black and white tolerate this behavior and never address it unless there is a racial component to it. Black on black crime is so out of control that even horrific crimes only make the news for a day or so. Now we have so called police experts that are apologists for these thugs behavior. Trying to say that the Dep didnt have to use deadly force from a arm chair quarterback, after the fact, misses the biggest point here. The thugs made even poorer decisions, and the Deputy is lucky to be alive. It would appear that minimizing the thugs behavior and being hyper critical of the deputies tactics is not the conclusion of most Leo's, Thank God!

You make several unsupported assumptions, here.

The first is that the armed men knew, or even believed, that Curry was a LEO. Curry was in plain clothes in an unmarked car. He was wearing a est with the word police or sheriff printed on it, something that anyone with a credit card can purchase on line. According the Sheriff, Curry was asked if he was a "troll", not a LEO, and answered yes. There is no evidence that he produced his creds for examination. So, all the men knew was that there was some guy, wearing vest with police printed on it and possibly armed, parked in the alley behind their home.

Second, is the assumption that they intended to harm Curry. They were perfectly capable of reaching out and touching him with either the rifle or the .40 caliber pistol from a distance, they did not have to approach the car at all. Yet, they did not. In fact, apparently, they allowed him to get out of the vehicle before the shooting started. And, the sheriff, in his statement, said that Curry said that he feared for his life. This tends to indicate that Curry fired first. If the other men had started shooting at him, the sheriff would more likely have said that Curry was being shot at and returned fire.

Also, you justify Curry's actions based upon the criminal history of the two armed men. There is no evidence that Curry had any knowledge as to the identities of the men, or their criminal history. So, that argument is moot. You simply can not argue that people, even black people, can be executed for living in a bad area and being armed. For all he knew, one or more of them could have been retired LEOs. Heck, some clown jump out of an unmarked cafr behind my house, and point a gun in my direction, I'm liable to ventilate him, myself, if there is no cover around.

There are a lot of problems, with this shooting. The first is why Curry did not simply drive away, rather than exit his vehicle and engage the two men. There is the obvious question of who fired the first shot and if it was justified under the existing circumstances. Then there is the question of whether the armed men actual knew or suspected that Curry was a LEO. After all, it does not appear as though Curry adequately identified himself. The next question, if the men intended to harm Curry, why approach the car, rather than take him under fire from a safe distance? They had a rifle, after all. If this case does not have homicide investigators pulling their hair out, then it should.

Now, I am not defending the actions of the two armed men who approached Curry. As I said, they had plenty of opportunity to call the local PD and the SO and inquire as to whether there was a unit parked at that location and to have a PD unit swing by and check it out. They should not have gone out, armed. But, they did. Now, many people do the same thing, in the same situation. They are not thugs or criminals. Some of them are retired LEOs. So, we can not simply shoot people bearing arms, especially it there is chance that they do not recognize us as being LEOs, because we are in plain clothes. The use of all force, and especially deadly force, has to be legally justified, even by LEOs.

[Unregistered]

I suggest we collectively stop feeding this troll; he has obviously been there and done that, ha!

The only reason that I brought this up is that this is not a clear-cut, legally justified use of force. It may turn out to be, if enough evidence surfaces to support that conclusion. And, if the deceased has no family to push the case, in an election year, then it may simply be forgotten. Of course, you have one live person under arrest and he might not want to go to jail. So his story might be different.

So, here is my point. Use your heads. It is often better to disengage, from a potential deadly dangerous situation, and make use of your strategic advantage, overwhelming manpower, than to attempt to go it alone. In a gunfight, you have just as much chance of losing, as does your opponent. So, gunfights are way, way down on the list of things you want to become involved in. Then, you have to justify your use of force.

The whole point is that it not a modern LEO's job to engage in questionable activities, but to enforce the law with as little danger to the himself and the public as possible. This is not always possible. But, it is a very good idea to look for a non-violent way out of a questionable situation, before you engage in an action which can lead to the death or great bodily harm of another.

[Unregistered]

When two suspects who evaded apprehension by two other agencies approach with guns drawn it's safe to say they are not inquiring about joining the PBA. They intent to kill you. You don't talk or hesitate, you just shoot to save your life.

Another erroneous assumption. News reports state that the vehicle in question was not at the residence. There is also NO evidence that the two men were involved in evading the police. The car was registered to that address, but that does not mean that the owner of the car, or the person driving it, lived there; especially in a minority neighborhood.

Now, let's say that you assume two men, who are approaching your car, are intent upon killing you, why not simply drive away? This not only eliminates the risk of getting shot and killed, but allows you to monitor the situation and bring in overwhelming back-up? And, jump out of the protection of a motor vehicle, limited as that might be, and engage two heavily armed men, what the hell is that about? Even against a rifle, metal is better protection than air. Yet, Curry took the time to leave his vehicle and run behind a dumpster. Now, Curry has to justify the shooting. We'll see how it turns out.

[Unregistered]

Another erroneous assumption. News reports state that the vehicle in question was not at the residence. There is also NO evidence that the two men were involved in evading the police. The car was registered to that address, but that does not mean that the owner of the car, or the person driving it, lived there; especially in a minority neighborhood.

Now, let's say that you assume two men, who are approaching your car, are intent upon killing you, why not simply drive away? This not only eliminates the risk of getting shot and killed, but allows you to monitor the situation and bring in overwhelming back-up? And, jump out of the protection of a motor vehicle, limited as that might be, and engage two heavily armed men, what the hell is that about? Even against a rifle, metal is better protection than air. Yet, Curry took the time to leave his vehicle and run behind a dumpster. Now, Curry has to justify the shooting. We'll see how it turns out.

Hey ****tard, take your cop block anti-PCSO bullshit and shove it up your ****ing ass. Why don’t you get yourself a copy of the case file when it’s closed. Then you might be able to sound remotely intelligent. There are so many things wrong with your argument it makes me wonder how retarded you are. Please punch yourself on the face, really ****ing hard. EAD *****. Bring your gripe public ***** and go to the SAB and ask your questions. You won’t, because you are a ***** ass mother ****er.