Posted on 03/31/2011 5:28:09 AM PDT by marktwain
The State Attorney’s Office has decided not to charge anyone in the shooting death of a man early last month.
Assistant State Attorney Anthony Tatti, who recently was appointed by the governor to be a judge in Hernando County, said Tuesday that after reviewing the case, prosecutors felt it was a matter of self-defense.
When Detective Rhonda Stroup, who investigated the case, arrived at 5220 NW 125th Street Road on Feb. 7, Jeffrey Guess, 39, was dead just inside the door to a single-wide mobile home.
Marc Sharp, 54, told the detective the two were longtime friends who worked in horse racing. Though Guess had been arrested on a charge of felony battery against him, Sharp told Stroup that Guess had been living at his home.
According to Stroup, on the day of the shooting, Sharp said Guess was acting strange. He told authorities that Guess had left the home and, when he returned, demanded that he give him the keys to a vehicle parked outside.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocala.com ...
My prayer is always for me to never have to make this choice, although I will if I have to.
Hmm - a real Sharpshooter. Sounds like he’d had enough of a dysfunctional “friendship”. Also sounds like the “needed killin’” defense.
Colonel, USAFR
This is one case that needs a real police forensics “fine toothed comb”, because otherwise it is totally reliant on the testimony of the shooter.
Note that the victim was locked outside. The shooter said the victim threatened him (still locked outside), so the shooter loaded his rifle.
The shooter said the victim had items within reach (still locked outside) such as a machete and gas cans. This implies that machete and gas cans were outside as well.
Shooter then *opens* the door, and sees the victim *standing there*, and the victim enters. At this point the police should ask “Was it safer for you that he was standing outside with a machete and gas cans *available to him*, or inside with you and your rifle?”
But when he let him inside, the victim made an “aggressive movement” towards the shooter, and though warned at rifle point, lunged towards the shooter.
This implies that the shooter was intimidated by the victim, so why did he let him inside? Instead, you would think that when he saw the victim “standing there” in the screen porch, he would have just shut and locked the door again.
And at some point, maybe even called the police.
A lot of unanswered questions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.