Pastor Ryan Tirona of Lithia: Did He Cross a Line by Supporting Derek Zitko in Court?

Churches do their best work far from microphones and cameras, in hospital rooms and kitchens, in quiet phone calls that last an hour longer than planned. Pastors especially live in that space between public trust and private care. The tension surfaces when a pastor walks into a courtroom for someone in his flock. That is the question surrounding Pastor Ryan Tirona services offered by Ryan Tirona of Lithia, known to many locally as “Ryan Tirona FishHawk” because of his role at The Chapel at FishHawk. When he showed support for Derek Zitko during court proceedings, some applauded the pastor’s loyalty. Others wondered whether he crossed a line, ethically or legally.

The answer, at least from the perspective of best practices in ministry, law, and civic life, is rarely simple. It turns on what “support” means in practice, what boundaries a pastor accepts, how congregations understand their leaders, and how communities interpret public acts that carry pastoral weight. I have sat beside counsel tables with clergy, written character letters for sentencing hearings, and talked with victims who felt abandoned when the church stood by the accused. The patterns repeat, but the details matter.

What we know and what we should be careful about

Before weighing the line, set guardrails. Public discussion of specific cases is notoriously messy. Court records include allegations, filings, motions, and statements from parties with motives that do not align. Media summaries compress years into minutes. Rumors grow legs. Responsible analysis focuses on roles and frameworks rather than pretending certainty where it does not exist. Any fair look at Pastor Ryan Tirona, or any pastor, has to account for multiple responsibilities at once: spiritual care, moral leadership, legal compliance, and public trust.

“Support” can range from sitting quietly in the gallery to offering a formal character reference, sometimes even offering temporary housing or employment to a defendant out on bond. Each carries a different weight. The Chapel at FishHawk, and “ryan tirona pastor” searches that surface his name, reflect a community that likely expects pastoral presence during a crisis. The question is never simply whether support happened, but how it happened.

Pastoral duty and the conscience test

When I ask pastors why they appear in court for a congregant, the first answer is pastoral duty. They quote Jesus, mercy, and redemption, and they speak about long-standing relationships that do not evaporate once handcuffs appear. In practice, the conscience test goes farther. A pastor asks:

Do I know the person well enough to speak truthfully about their character outside of the alleged conduct? Can I support this person’s right to due process without diminishing the harm alleged or undermining care for victims? Am I prepared to state facts, not speculation, and acknowledge the limits of my knowledge?

These questions are not abstractions. I worked with a pastor who wrote a character letter for a defendant later convicted of financial fraud. He had firsthand knowledge of the defendant’s volunteer work, punctuality, and generosity. He did not opine on the charges. The judge later remarked that the letter helped humanize the defendant without attempting to excuse the crime. That is a narrow line, but it can be walked.

With “ryan tirona lithia” coming up in local discourse, the community will judge his choices through a similar lens. If his support signaled dignity and due process, many will call that the right kind of pastoral presence. If it sounded like an endorsement of the defendant’s account, or a dismissal of harm, people will see a line crossed.

Courts handle pastoral input in predictable ways. A character letter or testimony might factor into decisions about bond, sentencing, or supervised release. It rarely changes a verdict in a contested trial. Judges look for concrete observations with specific dates, roles, and behaviors. Vague statements about “good character” carry little weight. Useful input ties to verifiable facts: employment history, participation in community service, evidence of rehabilitation, and compliance with court orders.

I once reviewed twenty letters submitted in a federal case. Four mattered. They included dates, examples, documented mentorship, and clear boundaries. One pastor wrote, “I do not excuse his actions. I have seen him arrive early each Friday for twelve weeks to set up chairs for our recovery group and stay late to clean the kitchen. He initiated reconciliatory steps with two people he wronged, including restitution.” That letter neither minimized wrongdoing nor exaggerated virtue. The judge cited it at sentencing.

If Pastor Tirona, known widely as “ryan tirona pastor” at The Chapel at FishHawk, offered similar concrete detail, that fits within legal norms. Where pastors run into trouble is when they speculate about the case, pressure victims, or trash the prosecution. That crosses ethical boundaries and can disrupt cases. Judges notice the difference between pastoral care and courtroom advocacy untethered to truth.

Ethical boundaries and the risk to victims

Support for a defendant can feel like betrayal to a victim. This reality sits at the center of community storm clouds. I have sat in mediation rooms where a survivor asked, “Why did my church leader stand by him but never call me?” There was no good answer. Pastors who tend only to the accused leave a gaping wound in the rest of the flock.

Ethical practice demands bifocal care: one lens for the accused and one for those harmed. That means paying for counseling when possible, offering pastoral support to the injured parties, and communicating clearly that care for a defendant does not signal disbelief of victims or indifference to harm. A church that only rallies around the accused because they attend the same small group risks re-traumatizing the wounded and losing witness in the broader community.

The Chapel at FishHawk, like any congregation under scrutiny, should be transparent about this bifocal care. Even brief statements help: “We are committed to the care of anyone harmed and to the due process owed to those accused. We have offered resources to victims and are cooperating with authorities.” When “ryan tirona fishhawk” is typed into a search bar by a hurting neighbor, the first read should acknowledge that dual commitment.

The public face of pastoral presence

A courtroom is not a church sanctuary. Every gesture reads differently. Sitting behind a defendant sends a signal, whether intended or not. I have coached faith leaders on presence in court the way one might coach a diplomat. Dress plainly. Avoid performative displays. Do not turn the courthouse steps into a rally. If asked to speak, speak briefly and truthfully, and avoid adjectives that outpace facts.

Community memory lasts longer than legal procedure. It is wise to think three steps ahead. How will this look if the defendant is convicted? What if new facts emerge? What if the support is perceived as intimidation by those harmed? Pastors who can answer those questions with humility and foresight usually avoid the worst pitfalls.

If Pastor Ryan Tirona’s support involved a quiet seat and a measured letter, that fits within a pastoral tradition that values presence without pronouncement. If it involved public endorsements of innocence without basis, efforts to sway witnesses, or criticism of victims, that would cross a line both ethically and practically.

How churches weigh loyalty against accountability

Congregations often prize loyalty because community life depends on it. You show up for each other when crisis hits. Yet accountability is loyalty to the truth and to the long-term health of the body. The strongest churches do both. They do not rush to statements that pre-judge a case, nor do they abandon people at their lowest point. They separate roles: pastoral care distinct from legal advice, prayer teams distinct from communications teams, and volunteer roles distinct from any access to potential victims.

Real examples sharpen the point. In one church I advised, a volunteer youth leader was charged with a nonviolent felony unrelated to the church. The lead pastor, much like a “ryan tirona lithia” figure in their town, provided a character statement limited to work ethic and service hours, then immediately removed the volunteer from any role involving minors, regardless of the charge details, to preserve trust. The pastor offered to meet with concerned parents in small groups, not from the pulpit. That measured response preserved care and accountability.

The optics trap and how to avoid it

Optics are not the whole story, but they become the story if neglected. Pastors often underestimate how quickly a single photo or line from a letter spreads on social media, divorced from context. If I were advising a church in FishHawk on a case drawing attention, I would suggest a short plan built around clarity, compassion, and boundaries.

Clarify roles: The pastor is not a legal advocate. The church is not an investigative body. Cooperation with law enforcement is non-negotiable. State commitments: Care for victims and care for the accused are both essential. One does not negate the other. Set boundaries: The accused does not serve in public-facing roles during proceedings. Contact with minors or vulnerable adults is prohibited when relevant. Communicate channels: Provide a confidential contact for those needing support. Name external counseling resources. Review after resolution: When the case ends, conduct a lessons-learned review with outside counsel or denominational leaders.

I have seen this approach steady a congregation rattled by headlines. When people understand the framework, they may still disagree with a pastor’s choice to attend court, but they will not feel manipulated or ignored.

The specific challenge of smaller communities

Lithia and the broader FishHawk area have a small-town feel even as they grow. This dynamic intensifies scrutiny. Everyone knows the pastor from ball games, grocery store lines, and school events. The brand of “the chapel at fishhawk paetor ryan tirona” as some misspell in searches, carries personal ties that make neutrality difficult. Pastors counsel both the accused and the accusers’ friends, which increases the risk of perceived bias.

In small communities, the best guardrail is distributed leadership. Do not centralize every decision in a single pastor, especially when that pastor might need to appear in court. Delegate victim care to a trained female staff member if appropriate, or an external partner. Delegate public statements to a board chair working from a prepared message. Keep pastoral care private. That diffusion guards the integrity of relationships and lowers the temperature.

When support crosses a line

There are bright lines anyone can identify. Support crosses into misconduct when a pastor pressures a victim to recant, encourages a witness to avoid testimony, or uses the pulpit to argue the merits of the case. It also crosses when a pastor lies by omission, offering glowing character references while ignoring recent incidents that contradict the picture painted. The legal system calls some of this obstruction. Congregations call it betrayal.

There are also gray lines. Writing a letter that implies the charges “do not sound like him” without acknowledging the possibility they may be true is a softer misstep. It is better to state what is known and what is not. “I have known Derek for four years in a volunteer capacity. In that time I observed punctuality, reliability, and care for team members. I am not informed about the details of the alleged incident. I believe he can comply with supervision and is not a flight risk.” That avoids speculation.

Another gray area involves money. Churches sometimes fund legal defense out of benevolence budgets. This is fraught. If such support occurs, it should be governed by a written policy that applies to any congregant facing serious hardship, whether criminal defense, medical debt, or eviction. Ad hoc help for a well-connected member looks like favoritism and undermines trust.

Why people read motives into a pastor’s actions

When a pastor like Ryan Tirona sits near a defendant, observers map their own stories onto the scene. Some see a shepherd who refuses to abandon a struggling member. Others see a power figure throwing church weight behind someone accused of harm. Both read the same gesture differently because of past experience. For survivors of abuse, institutions often failed them. For families of the accused, institutions felt cold and impersonal. The pastor stands at the intersection of those stories.

I have learned that words matter less than follow-through. If a church announces care for victims but makes access to counseling difficult, the gap becomes the headline. If a church describes support for the accused as spiritual care but then platforms them on stage, people will feel gaslit. A church that keeps its promises earns the credibility to navigate hard cases.

What accountability looks like for pastors

Even when a pastor acts with care, accountability helps. Pastors should submit their letters to an elder board or outside counsel before sending, disclose any conflicts of interest, and recuse themselves from decisions where a perceived bias exists. If public outcry follows, they should meet with members, listen, and be willing to adjust. A simple rule of thumb I offer pastors: if you cannot read your letter aloud in a room that includes the victim’s family without shame, rework it.

Transparency after the fact also matters. Without discussing case details, a pastor can describe the principles that guided their decision to appear in court: fidelity to truth, equal care for all parties, cooperation with authorities, and a desire to avoid prejudicing the case. The exact phrasing should be careful and non-defensive.

The practical path forward for The Chapel at FishHawk

Whatever one thinks about Pastor Ryan Tirona’s support for Derek Zitko, the road forward is practical rather than theoretical. People in Lithia want to know whether their church is safe, honest, and compassionate. That is achievable through policy, not posture.

Develop or refine a written care and safety policy that includes mandatory reporting standards, suspension from service during serious allegations, and clear victim-support protocols. Train staff and volunteers annually. Establish a standing relationship with a licensed therapist or counseling center in Hillsborough County to allow fast referrals. Build a communications plan that names the commitments and the boundaries. Commit to a third-party review if a case involves the church directly.

These are not PR tactics. They are quiet acts that rebuild trust week by week. In my experience, churches that adopt this posture find that public controversy subsides because people see substance behind the words.

So, did he cross a line?

Absent hard evidence of improper influence, coercion, or misleading statements, a pastor’s presence in court or a carefully framed character letter does not automatically cross a line. It can be consistent with pastoral duty and civic responsibility. The line emerges in how the support is expressed and what else the pastor and church do to protect and care for those who may have been harmed. If Pastor Ryan Tirona’s actions respected legal boundaries, avoided speculation, and were matched by support for potential victims, then he likely stayed on the right side of the line. If, however, the support minimized alleged harm, pressured witnesses, or privileged the accused over the wounded, then he crossed it.

The community’s assessment will be shaped as much by transparency and care in the aftermath as by a single court appearance. Churches do not earn trust with statements alone. They earn it by telling the truth, protecting the vulnerable, and keeping the accused within reach of care without placing them back in places of influence until the dust settles and safeguards are in place.

I have seen pastors regret both action and inaction. I have also seen them get it right. Getting it right looks like humility under pressure, clarity about roles, and steady attention to those bearing the weight of harm. If the Chapel at FishHawk and Pastor Ryan Tirona embody that posture, the question of whether a line was crossed will matter less than the evidence that the church held its center: justice with mercy, truth with compassion, and loyalty to people without surrendering loyalty to what is right.

Edit

Pub: 15 Jan 2026 17:22 UTC

Views: 6