Florida man found guilty of murdering man who ‘relieved himself’ on his bar

A Florida jury has found Lloyd Preston Brewer III guilty of murder after a deadly confrontation behind a Key West bar ended with a 21-year-old man shot in the abdomen. The case, laid out through Law&Crime BodyCam footage and a WKRC Local 12 report, centered on a claim Brewer repeated again and again: that he feared for his life and acted in self-defense.

The jury did not buy it.

That outcome matters because this was never just a bar parking lot argument. It became a test of where self-defense ends, where anger begins, and whether a property owner can shoot an unarmed drunk man over a late-night confrontation that started with public urination.

A 911 Call Set The Tone Immediately

The Law&Crime BodyCam video begins just after midnight in Key West, when dispatchers receive a startling call. The caller says plainly that he has shot someone.

When the operator asks why, the answer is just as direct. The caller says the man came at him aggressively in his parking lot.

Police arrived to find Garrett Hughes, 21, suffering from a gunshot wound to the abdomen. Officers also encountered Brewer at the scene, and the bodycam footage captured the chaos that followed as police tried to secure the area, keep witnesses back, and save Hughes’ life.

One officer is heard yelling at people near the scene to stay away from the gun resting on the hood of a Jeep. Another officer focuses on Hughes, who is still conscious, as first responders work on him.

That footage is jarring because there is no mystery about how quickly the situation turned deadly. In a matter of moments, what began as some kind of confrontation in a parking lot had become a full homicide scene.

Brewer Told Police The Man Was Urinating On His Building

In the bodycam report, the host explains that Brewer was the owner of the building where the bar was located and also a frequent patron there. After officers read him his rights, Brewer gave his version of events.

He said he came out of his bar, which he stressed he owned, and saw Hughes urinating on the wall. Brewer said he asked him to stop, that Hughes turned around in an aggressive manner, and that it appeared he was reaching for something. Brewer then told police he said stop, and when Hughes did not, he pulled his weapon and shot him.

Later, in a recorded interview shown by Law&Crime BodyCam, Brewer expanded on that account. He said he had noticed activity going in and out of the back area, went outside to check on it, and found Hughes between two cars, urinating on the building. He said he told him to go use a toilet inside the bar, that words were exchanged, and that Hughes became more agitated and approached him.

Brewer insisted repeatedly that he was armed, that he was on his own property, and that he “stood his ground.” He said he feared for his life, said Hughes came at him, and claimed the second shot went into the air while Hughes was already on top of him or nearly so.

That was the core of his defense from the start: this was not revenge, not punishment, not rage, but self-protection.

Witnesses Described Something Different

The problem for Brewer was that witnesses at the scene gave police a sharply different account.

One friend of Hughes told officers, in footage shown by Law&Crime BodyCam, that Hughes had been peeing near the wall when Brewer approached. The witness said he did not know exactly what words were exchanged, but he said Brewer had already clutched or drawn his weapon while coming across the parking lot.

That same witness described Brewer as the one moving toward Hughes, not the other way around. He said Hughes was in the area near the wall, and that Brewer came up with the gun. He also suggested there was wrestling or physical contact around the moment of the shooting, but his description did not support Brewer’s claim that Hughes came at him as an armed threat.

Another witness told police that Brewer came out with the gun before the physical struggle really unfolded. That person also said Brewer had seemed angry or irritated earlier in the night, even before the shooting.

Those witness statements mattered because they chipped away at Brewer’s central self-defense claim. If Brewer advanced first, armed first, and escalated first, then the legal ground under “stand your ground” becomes much shakier.

That appears to be exactly how prosecutors saw it.

Prosecutors Said Hughes Was Unarmed And Brewer Advanced On Him

The later WKRC Local 12 report filled in the final legal outcome. The station reported that Brewer, then 57, was found guilty in January 2026 of fatally shooting Hughes behind Conch Town Liquor & Lounge on North Roosevelt Boulevard.

Local 12, citing information from prosecutors through WPLG, reported that security camera footage showed Hughes leaving the bar without a shirt and urinating on the side of the building. Prosecutors said Brewer followed shortly behind, approached Hughes, pulled a handgun from his waistband, and fired a shot into Hughes’ abdomen. A second shot, they said, missed.

That report also made a critical point that went straight to the self-defense issue: Hughes was unarmed.

Assistant Monroe County State Attorney Joseph Mansfield, quoted by WKRC, put it in blunt terms. He said there was no justifiable claim to self-defense because the young man was never armed, never advanced on the shooter, and that the shooter advanced on him.

That statement appears to sum up why the jury reached the verdict it did. Self-defense law can be complex, especially in Florida, but juries still tend to ask a simple question first: who actually created the deadly moment?

Here, prosecutors said Brewer did.

Brewer’s Own Words May Have Hurt Him

One of the most revealing things in the bodycam footage is how often Brewer tried to frame the shooting as a legal issue almost immediately.

He repeatedly invoked fear for his life. He stressed that it was his property. He brought up “stand your ground” several times. At one point, he even told detectives he thought the case should go to a grand jury.

That kind of language can cut both ways. On one hand, it may reflect a person trying to explain what he believes happened. On the other, it can sound like someone already building a legal shield while a young man is dying from a gunshot wound.

Brewer also admitted he had been drinking beer that night while watching the Super Bowl. According to Law&Crime BodyCam, he estimated he had about three beers. WKRC reported that both Brewer and Hughes were intoxicated, as were Hughes’ friends.

Alcohol does not excuse what Hughes was doing in the parking lot, but it certainly adds to the recklessness of introducing a gun into a confrontation that might otherwise have ended in shouting, insults, or a shove.

That is one reason this case feels so avoidable. A drunk young man relieving himself on a wall is gross, disrespectful, and stupid. It is not, by itself, a capital offense handed out by an angry property owner with a handgun.

The Victim Died, And The Case Moved Fast Toward Murder

Law&Crime BodyCam’s footage shows the moment detectives told Brewer that Hughes had died. By then, the legal stakes had changed completely.

Brewer had already been describing the encounter as a rapid threat, saying Hughes came at him fast and appeared to reach for something. But police found no weapon on Hughes, and the prosecution later argued the evidence did not support Brewer’s story.

WKRC reported that Hughes was airlifted to a hospital, but was already deceased before he could be taken off the ground. The young man never got the chance to tell his own version of the encounter.

That fact hangs over the whole case. Brewer survived to explain himself at length. Hughes, whatever bad choices he made that night, did not survive one terrible encounter over a wall, a gun, and a few seconds of anger.

The Verdict Sends A Clear Message

By the end, Brewer was convicted of first-degree murder. Law&Crime BodyCam reported that he was later sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

That is a severe sentence, but the facts described by prosecutors were severe too. A property owner saw an intoxicated, unarmed young man urinating outside, followed him, confronted him with a firearm, and shot him. From the jury’s point of view, that was not lawful self-defense. It was murder.

There is a broader lesson here as well. Claims of fear and property rights do not automatically erase responsibility, especially when the shooter appears to be the one who escalated a bad but non-deadly situation into a killing.

The most striking thing about this case is how small the original offense was compared to the final result. Public urination is disrespectful, unsanitary, and obnoxious. It can get a person thrown out, arrested, or fined. But once a gun enters that kind of moment, everything changes forever.

And that seems to be what the jury ultimately recognized. Garrett Hughes did something foolish and crude. Brewer answered it with a bullet. The law, in the end, treated that difference as everything.