User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 9:57:58 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When they start walking through the apartment looking for the 2nd person who never was, you will heard juicer comments as they get closer to the laptop. I can’t make out what they are saying, probably because of hearing damage. Anything you can feel like typing would be much appreciated. Understand if you don’t care too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 10:01:35 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I can’t make out what they are saying, probably because of hearing damage. Anything you can feel like typing would be much appreciated. Understand if you don’t care too. I don't know if it is another office or a medic that shows up, but they start talking about the injuries. They are very specific about there only be one exit wound. I think they say he was shot three times in the arm and once in the chest. They talk about applying pressure. I don't think the shooter rendered any aid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 10:02:43 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I can’t make out what they are saying, probably because of hearing damage. Anything you can feel like typing would be much appreciated. Understand if you don’t care too. My hearing and laptop speakers don't work well trying to decipher. There sure doesn't seem to be any concern for the dying airman though. That is pretty clear. I'll bet the group huddle on how to write the report will also be what she recorded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 10:03:27 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Go on... Do tell. How is he "lucky"? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: b Quoted: Did you watch the video. Unless he was deaf he knew it was a cop. Stop it with your bs twisting of events. Goddammit you people don't quit with your BS. I'm done with this dumbass post and the stupid posts. Even I could have heard that officer through the door, Unsubscribed WAH WAH WAH Them boots aren't going to lick themselves. Your lucky Go on... Do tell. How is he "lucky"? Yeah, that was a weird reply. Scared to type what he really wanted to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 10:06:56 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't know if it is another office or a medic that shows up, but they start talking about the injuries. They are very specific about there only be one exit wound. I think they say he was shot three times in the arm and once in the chest. They talk about applying pressure. I don't think the shooter rendered any aid. Thank you! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 10:07:30 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My hearing and laptop speakers don't work well trying to decipher. There sure doesn't seem to be any concern for the dying airman though. That is pretty clear. I'll bet the group huddle on how to write the report will also be what she recorded. Thank you very much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 10:18:01 PM EDT
[#7]
I can't breath and the officer telling him not to move and help is on the way. Then you hear them clearing the rest of the apartment kicking a door or 2.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 10:19:38 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sheriff’s records obtained by the Miami Herald on Thursday show that in the 17 months prior to the shooting, there were no calls, complaints or incidents at Fortson’s unit. However, another unit — 1412 — had repeated domestic calls, including a “battery,” several welfare checks and an EMS call for a “hemorrhage” at the unit. Deputies were called 10 times to 1412 since August 2023, records show. It’s not clear from the records whether that unit is in the same building as Fortson’s, but no other unit in the complex had as many complaints. Story Wrong address. Doesn't matter, he will still have support from the members of his profession and these incidents will continue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 10:31:52 PM EDT
[#9]
On a mission live action baby !!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2024 10:32:46 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I can't breath and the officer telling him not to move and help is on the way. Then you hear them clearing the rest of the apartment kicking a door or 2. After the first civil rights violation the rest are free. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 12:25:45 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wrong address. Doesn't matter, he will still have support from the members of his profession and these incidents will continue. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Sheriff’s records obtained by the Miami Herald on Thursday show that in the 17 months prior to the shooting, there were no calls, complaints or incidents at Fortson’s unit. However, another unit — 1412 — had repeated domestic calls, including a “battery,” several welfare checks and an EMS call for a “hemorrhage” at the unit. Deputies were called 10 times to 1412 since August 2023, records show. It’s not clear from the records whether that unit is in the same building as Fortson’s, but no other unit in the complex had as many complaints. Story Wrong address. Doesn't matter, he will still have support from the members of his profession and these incidents will continue. Well, you know a reasonable officer can't be expected to be competent. That'd be crazy. Any cops still wonder why they are losing support? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 12:36:59 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No it isn't normal or expected. I would feel threatened and expect the same from anyone else. It would never in a million years occur to me that a pistol pointed at the ground like that would be seen as a threat! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 12:45:06 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There you go again, testifying what the victim "knew". We don't know what he knew and when. Only that the deputy eventually hollered "sheriff's office" a couple times while pounding on the door and demanding he open it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The Reno911 real life acorn epic has nothing to do with a D/V SUSPECT (who knew it was LE) opening the door to announced police armed with a handgun. It's like there's some lefty conspiracy here, get the cops to shoot anyone armed until people are afraid to be armed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 1:49:31 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Police should train so that they don't reflexively jump to the use of deadly force at the mere sight of a gun, esp when that gun is not being used in any threatening way. The facts all together in this case make it a obvious as it can be that the guy at the door was not showing intent to use the gun on the officer. The officer saw the gun and the mere presence of it appears (I would say from the combined weight of the things we can see) to have triggered the reflex of the officer to start shooting, immediately. He activated because of it's presence. NOT because he saw any reasonable signs of the intent of it's use. Quoted: I’m sorry I inadvertently made my post hard to follow, I’ll try to explain: People doing dumb things = Breaking the law Police dealing with people doing dumb things = Criminals breaking the law Even no shit violent criminals are supposed to be given the opportunity to be arrested without being shot when not directly posing a lethal threat to the officer. I would have preferred in the case with the Airman he would AT LEAST have been treated like a common criminal. Had be been he would probably not have been killed by acorn pop’s buddy. BTW, when exactly is it that police protect society from criminals? Have you seen the crime stats lately? I mostly agree with both of you. I'm just trying to point out that anybody who thinks this is a black and white situation where the fault is 100% on the deputy is grossly oversimplifying things. I assume if this goes to trial, the deputy's side of the story is something like "I thought I was at the scene of domestic violence, and the guy who opened the door had just killed his wife and now was going to kill me as he tried to get away. My only option was to shoot him before he could shoot me." To me this is just obviously one more in a long line of stories where law enforcement reacts automatically based on pre-programming from training instead of using their heads and analyzing the situation properly. I'm confident many experienced officers would have handled the situation differently, but also we know that very experienced officers have died in the line of duty because they weren't aggressive or cautious enough when it was needed. Again--fortuitous outcomes don't validate everything that came before. Many times it just means the odds were on your side. Until they aren't. Sure, there's always benefit from more training. But if the goal is to avoid a bad outcome, it's much more effective to avoid the need for a critical decision to be made in the first place. Both sides can do a lot to make that happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 2:51:05 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I mostly agree with both of you. I'm just trying to point out that anybody who thinks this is a back and white situation where the fault is 100% on the deputy is grossly oversimplifying things. I assume if this goes to trial, the deputy's side of the story is something like "I thought I was at the scene of domestic violence, and the guy who opened the door had just killed his wife and now was going to kill me as he tried to get away. My only option was to shoot him before he could shoot me." To me this is just obviously one more in a long line of stories where law enforcement reacts automatically based on pre-programming from training instead of using their heads and analyzing the situation properly. I'm confident many experienced officers would have handled the situation differently, but also we know that very experienced officers have died in the line of duty because they weren't aggressive or cautious enough when it was needed. Again--fortuitous outcomes don't validate everything that came before. Many times it just means the odds were on your side. Until they aren't. Sure, there's always benefit from more training. But if the goal is to avoid a bad outcome, it's much more effective to avoid the need for a critical decision to be made in the first place. Both sides can do a lot to make that happen. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Police should train so that they don't reflexively jump to the use of deadly force at the mere sight of a gun, esp when that gun is not being used in any threatening way. The facts all together in this case make it a obvious as it can be that the guy at the door was not showing intent to use the gun on the officer. The officer saw the gun and the mere presence of it appears (I would say from the combined weight of the things we can see) to have triggered the reflex of the officer to start shooting, immediately. He activated because of it's presence. NOT because he saw any reasonable signs of the intent of it's use. Quoted: I’m sorry I inadvertently made my post hard to follow, I’ll try to explain: People doing dumb things = Breaking the law Police dealing with people doing dumb things = Criminals breaking the law Even no shit violent criminals are supposed to be given the opportunity to be arrested without being shot when not directly posing a lethal threat to the officer. I would have preferred in the case with the Airman he would AT LEAST have been treated like a common criminal. Had be been he would probably not have been killed by acorn pop’s buddy. BTW, when exactly is it that police protect society from criminals? Have you seen the crime stats lately? I mostly agree with both of you. I'm just trying to point out that anybody who thinks this is a back and white situation where the fault is 100% on the deputy is grossly oversimplifying things. I assume if this goes to trial, the deputy's side of the story is something like "I thought I was at the scene of domestic violence, and the guy who opened the door had just killed his wife and now was going to kill me as he tried to get away. My only option was to shoot him before he could shoot me." To me this is just obviously one more in a long line of stories where law enforcement reacts automatically based on pre-programming from training instead of using their heads and analyzing the situation properly. I'm confident many experienced officers would have handled the situation differently, but also we know that very experienced officers have died in the line of duty because they weren't aggressive or cautious enough when it was needed. Again--fortuitous outcomes don't validate everything that came before. Many times it just means the odds were on your side. Until they aren't. Sure, there's always benefit from more training. But if the goal is to avoid a bad outcome, it's much more effective to avoid the need for a critical decision to be made in the first place. Both sides can do a lot to make that happen. It was clearly an unjustified murder. That much is black and white, no matter what bs you and some others are slinging at it, to muddy it up. The argument that we should just look at it from the cops perspective is no more convincing than the argument that we should look at a murder from the perspective of any other criminal. A cops use of emotion as a defense "I was confused and scared so I killed him" Is not much better than A criminals common defense of "I was angry and outside of my mind so I killed him" The other possibility that he was an over aggressive and overzealous shitbag, is no defense at all. There's a lot of indicators, that could be the case with this guy. Either way, he needs to go to jail. Is murder bad or not? Do we expect people to put their emotions in check to prevent murder or not? Do we hold murders accountable for their crime or not? It's pretty black and white. This guy let his emotions take over and it cost an innocent young man his life. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 4:20:10 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you try and argue that it is, we'll come up with viable situations that fit the same standards where you would look like a moron for coming to the same conclusion. Quote HistoryQuoted: If you try and argue that it is, we'll come up with viable situations that fit the same standards where you would look like a moron for coming to the same conclusion. A decent mental exercise - If you were at a range and saw someone walking up behind you to his lane with his gun down and away like that, hand up in the same way, would you have considered it justified to have shot the person? Yes, you would feel threatened. No, given what the video shows, you would NOT be right to instantly escalate to the use of deadly force merely at the sight of someone holding a gun *in a situation where a reasonable person would expect to see that.* It's a basic rule: act like a threat, expect to be treated like a threat. I don't know what "cherry-picking" and unevenly applied standards you're rambling about. The whole "coward" schtick is just emotional manipulation to avoid facing the hard truth of things like reaction times and what they mean for reasonableness. Quoted: It isn't necessarily the house. It can be the porch or an area adjacent to the house. In this case the cop was in the curtilage. The deputy could have created space by moving parallel to the railing, perpendicular to the door. If there is a way into an area, it stands to reason there is a way out of an area. It is indeed reasonable for someone to acknowledge how fast one could bring a gun into play. It's also reasonable for one to know that not everyone wants to kill another person, much less a cop. It's also reasonable to note a FLEA's study that shows a mere presence of a firearm can de-escalate a situation, and does so an estimated 1,000+/- times a day. Then again, you pin the badge on, you take the oath, you get your free drink from QT or your discount from [insert store's name here], thems the risks you take. That said I gave three valid options for the deputy that were far better than killing someone for possession of a firearm. The deputy also had a wall behind him and couldn't retreat without stepping directly in line with the door. Has nothing to do with whether or not the knocker is a cop or not. Fortson was not "killed for possession of a firearm". He got himself killed by a sequence of choices of which possession of a firearm was only one piece of the puzzle. Quoted: You didn't say that this? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/481792/1000008458_jpg-3215538.JPG Stop gaslighting. Anyone can go to page 27 and see what you said... or to page 28 and see it quoted in case you decide to edit it. Oddly enough... that post also starts with "I never said that"... seems to be a whole lot of you saying that If a hostile act or hostile intent isn't included in your need for self defense... you shouldn't defend yourself. You don't understand when it's warranted. What's legally justified in an OIS is not typically legal for anyone else... even the military. That was his whole argument... Quoted: You are looking for reasons for government agents to kill citizens. Quoted: “If it makes you happier go back and replace "displaying" and "holding" with "brandishing" in all of my posts.” He literally believes that having a gun in the hand is “brandishing”. He cannot understand that their is actually a different criteria between “holding”, “displaying”, and “brandishing”. Must be a trust fund baby as their is no way one can hold that belief and be able to read and write one’s own post. Quoted: I can't imagine how threatened you must feel all day long in even the most innocuous circumstances. It would never in a million years occur to me that a pistol pointed at the ground like that would be seen as a threat! Quoted: Sheriff’s records obtained by the Miami Herald on Thursday show that in the 17 months prior to the shooting, there were no calls, complaints or incidents at Fortson’s unit. However, another unit — 1412 — had repeated domestic calls, including a “battery,” several welfare checks and an EMS call for a “hemorrhage” at the unit. Deputies were called 10 times to 1412 since August 2023, records show. It’s not clear from the records whether that unit is in the same building as Fortson’s, but no other unit in the complex had as many complaints. Story |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 4:52:11 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ... The deputy also had a wall behind him and couldn't retreat without stepping directly in line with the door. Has nothing to do with whether or not the knocker is a cop or not. Fortson was not "killed for possession of a firearm". He got himself killed by a sequence of choices of which possession of a firearm was only one piece of the puzzle. ... Here are some things that DON'T entitle you to shoot somebody: - not liking your tactical situation - seeing that someone is armed - a person opening their front door None of those things either individually or in combination add up to a reasonable fear of imminent harm. You are right that a series of bad choices added up to this murder - the deputy's choices. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 5:32:06 AM EDT
[#18]
truly a sad story.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 9:04:20 AM EDT
[#19]
Guys I haven’t had time to read all 35 pages and watch the linked content.
Can I get a Cliff’s Notes clarification of one thing please: At no time did the Airman ever POINT the weapon AT the officer, correct? TIA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 9:07:59 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Guys I haven't had time to read all 35 pages and watch the linked content. Can I get a Cliff's Notes clarification of one thing please: At no time did the Airman ever POINT the weapon AT the officer, correct? TIA. Pistol was in his hand, with arm dangling at his side, pointed towards the ground. He was shot immediately before he could do anything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 9:24:08 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Correct. Pistol was in his hand, with arm dangling at his side, pointed towards the ground. He was shot immediately before he could do anything. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Guys I haven't had time to read all 35 pages and watch the linked content. Can I get a Cliff's Notes clarification of one thing please: At no time did the Airman ever POINT the weapon AT the officer, correct? TIA. Pistol was in his hand, with arm dangling at his side, pointed towards the ground. He was shot immediately before he could do anything. Okay that’s what I thought, and yes, that officer committed a murder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 9:37:30 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Correct. Pistol was in his hand, with arm dangling at his side, pointed towards the ground. He was shot immediately before he could do anything. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Guys I haven't had time to read all 35 pages and watch the linked content. Can I get a Cliff's Notes clarification of one thing please: At no time did the Airman ever POINT the weapon AT the officer, correct? TIA. Pistol was in his hand, with arm dangling at his side, pointed towards the ground. He was shot immediately before he could do anything. So you’re saying the deputy should have waited until the airman’s gun was at least chest level? Has the media obtained the sheriff’s office use-of-force policy, sometimes they’re just posted on the sheriff’s office website. But that policy will give insight into whether the deputy would have to wait for the gun to be pointed directly at him, if commands had to be made first, etc, or if he had broader latitude in deadly force situations. I saw the media article link about the numerous calls to another unit. When I spoke to what information was available to the deputy, yes, that was something he may have been able to query thru dispatch about call history at that address, but a large apartment complex may be problematic. But nothing wrong with just asking the manager, who lived there, a name, what she knew about the resident, maybe even get a phone number. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 9:41:30 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Correct. Pistol was in his hand, with arm dangling at his side, pointed towards the ground. He was shot immediately before he could do anything. Sounds like a murder to me. I swear to God, if firefighters were as concerned about getting hurt or killed in the course of their job, we would never leave the station. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 9:44:47 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sounds like a murder to me. I swear to God, if firefighters were as concerned about getting hurt or killed in the course of their job, we would never leave the station. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Correct. Pistol was in his hand, with arm dangling at his side, pointed towards the ground. He was shot immediately before he could do anything. Sounds like a murder to me. I swear to God, if firefighters were as concerned about getting hurt or killed in the course of their job, we would never leave the station. Thank you, and amen. From what I gather, there are a lot of cops today who have no business wearing a badge or carrying a gun, period. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 9:47:30 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thank you, and amen. From what I gather, there are a lot of cops today who have no business wearing a badge or carrying a gun, period. There are certainly quite a few out there who would lay down their lives to help a citizen in need, but there also appear to be a bunch of scared rabbits who should have never been given a badge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 9:53:15 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There are certainly quite a few out there who would lay down their lives to help a citizen in need, but there also appear to be a bunch of scared rabbits who should have never been given a badge. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Thank you, and amen. From what I gather, there are a lot of cops today who have no business wearing a badge or carrying a gun, period. There are certainly quite a few out there who would lay down their lives to help a citizen in need, but there also appear to be a bunch of scared rabbits who should have never been given a badge. Agreed, but unfortunately, I think we are seeing an increase in the latter type. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 10:03:33 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Correct. Pistol was in his hand, with arm dangling at his side, pointed towards the ground. He was shot immediately before he could do anything. He put his support hand up, palm out, which is pretty much an automatic response meaning “I don’t want trouble, I feel threatened.” The deputy was way too fast on the gun. Legally criminal or not, I think even the department would agree on that. It was the lethal equivalent of automatically slamming someone on the ground because they didn’t instantly do what you wanted, which we have seen many, many times. If you can’t control yourself in a situation like this, you shouldn’t be on the street, plain and simple, it’s nothing to be embarrassed about… Unless you kill someone who didn’t deserve it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 10:32:15 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So you’re saying the deputy should have waited until the airman’s gun was at least chest level? Has the media obtained the sheriff’s office use-of-force policy, sometimes they’re just posted on the sheriff’s office website. But that policy will give insight into whether the deputy would have to wait for the gun to be pointed directly at him, if commands had to be made first, etc, or if he had broader latitude in deadly force situations. I saw the media article link about the numerous calls to another unit. When I spoke to what information was available to the deputy, yes, that was something he may have been able to query thru dispatch about call history at that address, but a large apartment complex may be problematic. But nothing wrong with just asking the manager, who lived there, a name, what she knew about the resident, maybe even get a phone number. Is it the policy of ANY police force in the United Stares to immediately shoot a citizen holding a firearm without an immediate and articulable reason to stop a deadly threat to the officer, another person, and/or the public at large? I don’t think the officer mistook Fortson for a known violent felon. I don’t see how he could have REASONABLY surmised that Fortson was a violent felon in commission of a violent felony. It sure as hell wasn’t because Fortson resisted or was not complying with the officers lawful (or unlawful) commands. All I can come up with is the Deputy killed him because he was scared of black dudes holding a gun. Is the fear of black dudes holding a gun reasonable? My guess is that the people making those decisions will say it was reasonable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 10:52:09 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: PLEASE DO!!!! Even a semi-intelligent attempt at a counter-example would be a welcome break from the idiotic responses I've gotten so far such as: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If you try and argue that it is, we'll come up with viable situations that fit the same standards where you would look like a moron for coming to the same conclusion. A decent mental exercise - If you were at a range and saw someone walking up behind you to his lane with his gun down and away like that, hand up in the same way, would you have considered it justified to have shot the person? How is the range response idiotic? Use the text I posted and show it. You can have meaningfully the same thing happen at the range, sans there even being a cop call, and it would be rediculous to act the way the cop did. Quoted: Yes, you would feel threatened. No, given what the video shows, you would NOT be right to instantly escalate to the use of deadly force merely at the sight of someone holding a gun *in a situation where a reasonable person would expect to see that.* Feelings and reality are not the same thing. You don't have to choose one and stick with it. Adults know that they should not follow their feelings, because their feelings are quite often wildly irrational and at the best of time require a big chunk of mental processing to understand why they are happening. "I feel threatened" does not mean "I am threatened in reality." That's why you do force on force training, to shove you past your limits and expose how your feelings and perceptions are broken and out of touch with reality. Quoted: It's a basic rule: act like a threat, expect to be treated like a threat. I don't know what "cherry-picking" and unevenly applied standards you're rambling about. The whole "coward" schtick is just emotional manipulation to avoid facing the hard truth of things like reaction times and what they mean for reasonableness. No, I didn't post it wrongfully tweak emotional reactions into happening. I posted it because I 100% believe it's true and that the evidence all points towards it. My comments about training go directly towards reaction time and if you've read my posts you've seen me say the guy was reacting faster than thought. Indicating this is quite possibly a deeper problem than just this one officer. We have to think about these kinds of situations and sort them out before they happen and train for them - because they happen so fast. "Cherry picking" - refers to the fact that there are numerous other situations (in daily life even) where people present the same level of threat with a deadly weapon to you or others that the airman did and people reasonably and rationally avoid responding the same way that officer did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 10:56:23 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So you’re saying the deputy should have waited until the airman’s gun was at least chest level? Has the media obtained the sheriff’s office use-of-force policy, sometimes they’re just posted on the sheriff’s office website. But that policy will give insight into whether the deputy would have to wait for the gun to be pointed directly at him, if commands had to be made first, etc, or if he had broader latitude in deadly force situations. I saw the media article link about the numerous calls to another unit. When I spoke to what information was available to the deputy, yes, that was something he may have been able to query thru dispatch about call history at that address, but a large apartment complex may be problematic. But nothing wrong with just asking the manager, who lived there, a name, what she knew about the resident, maybe even get a phone number. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Guys I haven't had time to read all 35 pages and watch the linked content. Can I get a Cliff's Notes clarification of one thing please: At no time did the Airman ever POINT the weapon AT the officer, correct? TIA. Pistol was in his hand, with arm dangling at his side, pointed towards the ground. He was shot immediately before he could do anything. So you’re saying the deputy should have waited until the airman’s gun was at least chest level? Has the media obtained the sheriff’s office use-of-force policy, sometimes they’re just posted on the sheriff’s office website. But that policy will give insight into whether the deputy would have to wait for the gun to be pointed directly at him, if commands had to be made first, etc, or if he had broader latitude in deadly force situations. I saw the media article link about the numerous calls to another unit. When I spoke to what information was available to the deputy, yes, that was something he may have been able to query thru dispatch about call history at that address, but a large apartment complex may be problematic. But nothing wrong with just asking the manager, who lived there, a name, what she knew about the resident, maybe even get a phone number. Ideally. At the basic least, his training should have stopped his dumbass from pulling the trigger until he saw the very first meaningful glimmer of intent of the gun actually *being used* on him. ETA: the gun being merely present IMO justified him presenting his gun and aiming it and everything else BESIDES the trigger pull. Fortson's mistake was answering the door *at all.* Ideally you'd make exit by another means and get a safer angle to determine the threat from behind cover. #2nd floor life is DUMB. Ground floor for the win. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 10:58:38 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is it the policy of ANY police force in the United Stares to immediately shoot a citizen holding a firearm without an immediate and articulable reason to stop a deadly threat to the officer, another person, and/or the public at large? I don’t think the officer mistook Fortson for a known violent felon. I don’t see how he could have REASONABLY surmised that Fortson was a violent felon in commission of a violent felony. It sure as hell wasn’t because Fortson resisted or was not complying with the officers lawful (or unlawful) commands. All I can come up with is the Deputy killed him because he was scared of black dudes holding a gun. Is the fear of black dudes holding a gun reasonable? My guess is that the people making those decisions will say it was reasonable. Well, it’s difficult. It was tragic what happened. It may very well be that the sheriffs office hold him to a higher standard than a prosecutor reviewing the investigation results, and fire him. I’m sure they’ll have an internal review separated from the state police investigation. Not sure what type of state police commission body they have, but they may have the authority to revoke his certification. A snippet from a courts perspective… Finally, the Court unequivocally advised all courts reviewing a LEO’s use of force to consider the imperfect and uncontrolled reality of the environment in which LEOs use force: “The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 11:05:50 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: PLEASE DO!!!! Even a semi-intelligent attempt at a counter-example would be a welcome break from the idiotic responses I've gotten so far such as: "Yes, you would feel threatened" and "no you can't react like you've been threatened" in the same paragraph. Choose one and stick to it. EXACTLY! Except this contradicts your last statement. I don't know what "cherry-picking" and unevenly applied standards you're rambling about. The whole "coward" schtick is just emotional manipulation to avoid facing the hard truth of things like reaction times and what they mean for reasonableness. The incident we are discussing involves the deputy being at the doorstep (or however you wish to describe it) while the curtilage is a much larger area. I'm not sure why you chose to expand the area like that. The deputy also had a wall behind him and couldn't retreat without stepping directly in line with the door. Has nothing to do with whether or not the knocker is a cop or not. Fortson was not "killed for possession of a firearm". He got himself killed by a sequence of choices of which possession of a firearm was only one piece of the puzzle. I DID say that. The meaning of and the reasoning behind that statement have somehow eluded you. Otherwise you would not be accusing me of believing anyone (not just police) does not need hostile act or hostile intent to defend themselves. You're not the only who can't seem to understand so I am repeating "I didn't say that" a lot. How did you come up with such a baseless and idiotic idea? No. I don't believe that. If you believe I believe that then you fucked up somewhere. If that is the level of your reading comprehension then I can't image how you must feel all day long in even the most innocuous circumstances. WTF? Shouldn't a journalist figure that out before submitting such a thing to their editor and shouldn't the editor kick it back until they do? My man, you need mental help... you literally responded to his comment about needing hostile acts with "I didn't know they took away your right to self defense". |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 11:08:39 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So you’re saying the deputy should have waited until the airman’s gun was at least chest level? Has the media obtained the sheriff’s office use-of-force policy, sometimes they’re just posted on the sheriff’s office website. But that policy will give insight into whether the deputy would have to wait for the gun to be pointed directly at him, if commands had to be made first, etc, or if he had broader latitude in deadly force situations. I saw the media article link about the numerous calls to another unit. When I spoke to what information was available to the deputy, yes, that was something he may have been able to query thru dispatch about call history at that address, but a large apartment complex may be problematic. But nothing wrong with just asking the manager, who lived there, a name, what she knew about the resident, maybe even get a phone number. Are you seriously asking if the Sherrif's use of force policy required some sort of actual hostile act/intent before murdering him, or if just seeing a weapon is justifiable? Per policy of course... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 11:22:21 AM EDT
[#34]
Here's what I'm seeing in so many cases. If you are armed in your own home and police enter, it is very possible you will be shot. If police are not being held culpable for those shootings, then the law should be revised such that an individual may not have a firearm in their physical possession in their home. That's logic. You can't allow police to shoot people for simply holding a gun, if that is a legal act. If the individual is pointing a gun at the officer, that's a real problem, and the officer will likely be exonerated.
The real kicker is the no knock warrant or door kicked in at night where the resident of the home has no way of knowing who just crashed into their dwelling. Good police policy addresses these possibilities, and we see a clear lack of that in these cases. It's similar to rolling up on the Mount Carmel complex all puffed up instead of stopping Koresh when he was out and about. Kinetic decisions have predictable outcomes, and policing policies often ignore likely outcomes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 11:27:07 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are you seriously asking if the Sherrif's use of force policy required some sort of actual hostile act/intent before murdering him, or if just seeing a weapon is justifiable? Per policy of course... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So you’re saying the deputy should have waited until the airman’s gun was at least chest level? Has the media obtained the sheriff’s office use-of-force policy, sometimes they’re just posted on the sheriff’s office website. But that policy will give insight into whether the deputy would have to wait for the gun to be pointed directly at him, if commands had to be made first, etc, or if he had broader latitude in deadly force situations. I saw the media article link about the numerous calls to another unit. When I spoke to what information was available to the deputy, yes, that was something he may have been able to query thru dispatch about call history at that address, but a large apartment complex may be problematic. But nothing wrong with just asking the manager, who lived there, a name, what she knew about the resident, maybe even get a phone number. Are you seriously asking if the Sherrif's use of force policy required some sort of actual hostile act/intent before murdering him, or if just seeing a weapon is justifiable? Per policy of course... I can’t make it any clearer… but somewhere in your post, I believe is a GD ‘gotcha’ pretext. Are you going to say that ‘so it’s okay to shoot and murder a guy at a firearms range with a pistol in his hand’ The scenarios are endless, and that’s both while out in public or in a residence. That’s why when looking at these events, you have to look at department policy and understand that courts will usually give broad latitude to the police, but it will be with objective reasonableness, concerning his actions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 11:27:25 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The girlfriends video of the facetime. I cannot make out much of what is being said so others will need to caption or transcript. Face time Where the audio from when the airman opened his door or leading up to that time stamp? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 11:39:13 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So you’re saying the deputy should have waited until the airman’s gun was at least chest level? Has the media obtained the sheriff’s office use-of-force policy, sometimes they’re just posted on the sheriff’s office website. But that policy will give insight into whether the deputy would have to wait for the gun to be pointed directly at him, if commands had to be made first, etc, or if he had broader latitude in deadly force situations. I saw the media article link about the numerous calls to another unit. When I spoke to what information was available to the deputy, yes, that was something he may have been able to query thru dispatch about call history at that address, but a large apartment complex may be problematic. But nothing wrong with just asking the manager, who lived there, a name, what she knew about the resident, maybe even get a phone number. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Guys I haven't had time to read all 35 pages and watch the linked content. Can I get a Cliff's Notes clarification of one thing please: At no time did the Airman ever POINT the weapon AT the officer, correct? TIA. Pistol was in his hand, with arm dangling at his side, pointed towards the ground. He was shot immediately before he could do anything. So you’re saying the deputy should have waited until the airman’s gun was at least chest level? Has the media obtained the sheriff’s office use-of-force policy, sometimes they’re just posted on the sheriff’s office website. But that policy will give insight into whether the deputy would have to wait for the gun to be pointed directly at him, if commands had to be made first, etc, or if he had broader latitude in deadly force situations. I saw the media article link about the numerous calls to another unit. When I spoke to what information was available to the deputy, yes, that was something he may have been able to query thru dispatch about call history at that address, but a large apartment complex may be problematic. But nothing wrong with just asking the manager, who lived there, a name, what she knew about the resident, maybe even get a phone number. Yes, pretty much. You're policing American citizens. OUR safety and rights should come first. Don't like it? Don't knock on our doors. Don't be a cop. That's what the whole point of the wartime ROE argument was about. We were in a foreign country, in an active war, after we invaded them, and we had to wait until they fired first or at least attempted to fire at us. "Look a gun!!!" Doesn't cut it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 11:42:12 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I can’t make it any clearer… but somewhere in your post, I believe is a GD ‘gotcha’ pretext. Are you going to say that ‘so it’s okay to shoot and murder a guy at a firearms range with a pistol in his hand’ The scenarios are endless, and that’s both while out in public or in a residence. That’s why when looking at these events, you have to look at department policy and understand that courts will usually give broad latitude to the police, but it will be with objective reasonableness, concerning his actions. A gotcha? There doesn't need to be any gotcha... the guy was already got for holding a firearm in an unthreatening manner in his own home. You're question was if there was a use of force policy that allowed him to be murdered for breaking no laws, not acting in any sort of threatening manner... because you have this inane need to defend the cop.... it wasn't trying to be a gotcha... it was supposed be a OPEN YOUR EYES BECAUSE THIS IS ABOUT AS DUMB OF A QUESTION AS YOU COULD ASK |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 11:42:32 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Where the audio from when the airman opened his door or leading up to that time stamp? It appears she didn't start recording until the Deputy executed her boyfriend. As others have stated probably more videos to follow. She must have had some composure to keep it together while she listened to him die. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 11:43:45 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So you’re saying the deputy should have waited until the airman’s gun was at least chest level? Has the media obtained the sheriff’s office use-of-force policy, sometimes they’re just posted on the sheriff’s office website. But that policy will give insight into whether the deputy would have to wait for the gun to be pointed directly at him, if commands had to be made first, etc, or if he had broader latitude in deadly force situations. I saw the media article link about the numerous calls to another unit. When I spoke to what information was available to the deputy, yes, that was something he may have been able to query thru dispatch about call history at that address, but a large apartment complex may be problematic. But nothing wrong with just asking the manager, who lived there, a name, what she knew about the resident, maybe even get a phone number. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Guys I haven't had time to read all 35 pages and watch the linked content. Can I get a Cliff's Notes clarification of one thing please: At no time did the Airman ever POINT the weapon AT the officer, correct? TIA. Pistol was in his hand, with arm dangling at his side, pointed towards the ground. He was shot immediately before he could do anything. So you’re saying the deputy should have waited until the airman’s gun was at least chest level? Has the media obtained the sheriff’s office use-of-force policy, sometimes they’re just posted on the sheriff’s office website. But that policy will give insight into whether the deputy would have to wait for the gun to be pointed directly at him, if commands had to be made first, etc, or if he had broader latitude in deadly force situations. I saw the media article link about the numerous calls to another unit. When I spoke to what information was available to the deputy, yes, that was something he may have been able to query thru dispatch about call history at that address, but a large apartment complex may be problematic. But nothing wrong with just asking the manager, who lived there, a name, what she knew about the resident, maybe even get a phone number. That, or waited until the airman acted like any kind of threat whatsoever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 11:44:24 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A gotcha? There doesn't need to be any gotcha... the guy was already got for holding a firearm in an unthreatening manner in his own home. You're question was if there was a use of force policy that allowed him to be murdered for breaking no laws, not acting in any sort of threatening manner... because you have this inane need to defend the cop. Don't bother arguing with him. Either he's trolling or he believes Police are the equivalent of Judge Dread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 11:47:14 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Don't bother arguing with him. Either he's trolling or he believes Police are the equivalent of Judge Dread. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: A gotcha? There doesn't need to be any gotcha... the guy was already got for holding a firearm in an unthreatening manner in his own home. You're question was if there was a use of force policy that allowed him to be murdered for breaking no laws, not acting in any sort of threatening manner... because you have this inane need to defend the cop. Don't bother arguing with him. Either he's trolling or he believes Police are the equivalent of Judge Dread. What's odd is he agreed with me saying the same thing, I just said it in a different manner. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 11:47:35 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "Civilian" is common vernacular for "someone not part of our scenario", or "someone normally off limits", i.e. not a cop or a criminal in this case. "Citizen" is also used in a similar fashion. Technically incorrect, but that's slang for you. It's pedantry not worth getting worked up over. It might be pedantry, but it is indicative of culture. The whole idea behind modern free societies (I won't use the normal term people use for this, as derpers will derp) includes the principle of civil authority over the military, including for the Defense department to be run by civilians and for domestic law enforcement to be a civilian function. This goes back to the concerns about how armies were used in the 18th century and the anti-standing army sentiment as the U.S. was being worked out as a political entity. This terminology thing, while pedantic, effectively frames law enforcement as a standing army and not the locally hired and managed, beholden to the local populace, civil function that it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 11:50:01 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, pretty much. You're policing American citizens. OUR safety and rights should come first. Don't like it? Don't knock on our doors. Don't be a cop. That's what the whole point of the wartime ROE argument was about. We were in a foreign country, in an active war, after we invaded them, and we had to wait until they fired first or at least attempted to fire at us. "Look a gun!!!" Doesn't cut it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Guys I haven't had time to read all 35 pages and watch the linked content. Can I get a Cliff's Notes clarification of one thing please: At no time did the Airman ever POINT the weapon AT the officer, correct? TIA. Pistol was in his hand, with arm dangling at his side, pointed towards the ground. He was shot immediately before he could do anything. So you’re saying the deputy should have waited until the airman’s gun was at least chest level? Has the media obtained the sheriff’s office use-of-force policy, sometimes they’re just posted on the sheriff’s office website. But that policy will give insight into whether the deputy would have to wait for the gun to be pointed directly at him, if commands had to be made first, etc, or if he had broader latitude in deadly force situations. I saw the media article link about the numerous calls to another unit. When I spoke to what information was available to the deputy, yes, that was something he may have been able to query thru dispatch about call history at that address, but a large apartment complex may be problematic. But nothing wrong with just asking the manager, who lived there, a name, what she knew about the resident, maybe even get a phone number. Yes, pretty much. You're policing American citizens. OUR safety and rights should come first. Don't like it? Don't knock on our doors. Don't be a cop. That's what the whole point of the wartime ROE argument was about. We were in a foreign country, in an active war, after we invaded them, and we had to wait until they fired first or at least attempted to fire at us. "Look a gun!!!" Doesn't cut it. Ok…you win the most fucked up post of the day. So the deputy should not have engaged until the airman pointed the gun at his chest? That’s your position? And, once again addressing ROE in wartime…  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 11:50:59 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: IMO officer too quick to shoot's first mistake (besides being where he shouldn't have) ... cornering himself in the walkway to bang on the door from the other side... and not immediately getting towards the wall to get off angle from fortson. Ideally. At the basic least, his training should have stopped his dumbass from pulling the trigger until he saw the very first meaningful glimmer of intent of the gun actually *being used* on him. ETA: the gun being merely present IMO justified him presenting his gun and aiming it and everything else BESIDES the trigger pull. Fortson's mistake was answering the door *at all.* Ideally you'd make exit by another means and get a safer angle to determine the threat from behind cover. #2nd floor life is DUMB. Ground floor for the win. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Guys I haven't had time to read all 35 pages and watch the linked content. Can I get a Cliff's Notes clarification of one thing please: At no time did the Airman ever POINT the weapon AT the officer, correct? TIA. Pistol was in his hand, with arm dangling at his side, pointed towards the ground. He was shot immediately before he could do anything. So you’re saying the deputy should have waited until the airman’s gun was at least chest level? Has the media obtained the sheriff’s office use-of-force policy, sometimes they’re just posted on the sheriff’s office website. But that policy will give insight into whether the deputy would have to wait for the gun to be pointed directly at him, if commands had to be made first, etc, or if he had broader latitude in deadly force situations. I saw the media article link about the numerous calls to another unit. When I spoke to what information was available to the deputy, yes, that was something he may have been able to query thru dispatch about call history at that address, but a large apartment complex may be problematic. But nothing wrong with just asking the manager, who lived there, a name, what she knew about the resident, maybe even get a phone number. Ideally. At the basic least, his training should have stopped his dumbass from pulling the trigger until he saw the very first meaningful glimmer of intent of the gun actually *being used* on him. ETA: the gun being merely present IMO justified him presenting his gun and aiming it and everything else BESIDES the trigger pull. Fortson's mistake was answering the door *at all.* Ideally you'd make exit by another means and get a safer angle to determine the threat from behind cover. #2nd floor life is DUMB. Ground floor for the win. Wasn't there a stairwell directly across the walkway from the airman's front door? I seem to remember seeing one in the officers BWC as he walked approached the residence. That stairwell could have provided him cover as he called the occupant out? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 11:53:46 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It might be pedantry, but it is indicative of culture. The whole idea behind modern free societies (I won't use the normal term people use for this, as derpers will derp) includes the principle of civil authority over the military, including for the Defense department to be run by civilians and for domestic law enforcement to be a civilian function. This goes back to the concerns about how armies were used in the 18th century and the anti-standing army sentiment as the U.S. was being worked out as a political entity. This terminology thing, while pedantic, effectively frames law enforcement as a standing army and not the locally hired and managed, beholden to the local populace, civil function that it is. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 11:54:38 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ok…you win the most fucked up post of the day. So the deputy should not have engaged until the airman pointed the gun at his chest? That’s your position? And, once again addressing ROE in wartime… https://i.imgur.com/Pw33iV1.jpg A gun in hand while opening the door, pointed at the ground, not threatening the officer in any way, is not justification for the cop to shoot the kid. Full stop. End of story. Cop was a trigger happy coward who will hopefully get his day in court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 11:54:48 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: IMO officer too quick to shoot's first mistake (besides being where he shouldn't have) ... cornering himself in the walkway to bang on the door from the other side... and not immediately getting towards the wall to get off angle from fortson. Ideally. At the basic least, his training should have stopped his dumbass from pulling the trigger until he saw the very first meaningful glimmer of intent of the gun actually *being used* on him. ETA: the gun being merely present IMO justified him presenting his gun and aiming it and everything else BESIDES the trigger pull. Fortson's mistake was answering the door *at all.* Ideally you'd make exit by another means and get a safer angle to determine the threat from behind cover. #2nd floor life is DUMB. Ground floor for the win. 100% if standard training doesn't get a deputy to the point that he can draw, point, but still be waiting for sufficient reason to pull the trigger, that's a major problem. After watching the video again, I think "I panicked and didn't have time to think" doesn't sound reasonable considering how calm he sounds when he gets on the radio. I know an old-school cop (worked in the 70's-80's) who said just seeing a gun meant he was probably shooting. I wonder if this deputy in his wargaming took the "I'm going home no matter what" mindset too far. Do we know his age yet? Still a dumb idea to open the door with a gun in his hand, though. My interest is avoiding something bad happening to me, not demanding every LEO be what I think they should be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 11:55:29 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It appears she didn't start recording until the Deputy executed her boyfriend. As others have stated probably more videos to follow. She must have had some composure to keep it together while she listened to him die. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Where the audio from when the airman opened his door or leading up to that time stamp? It appears she didn't start recording until the Deputy executed her boyfriend. As others have stated probably more videos to follow. She must have had some composure to keep it together while she listened to him die. No kidding, I was waiting for here to be screaming her head off the whole time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 12:01:25 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ok…you win the most fucked up post of the day. So the deputy should not have engaged until the airman pointed the gun at his chest? That’s your position? And, once again addressing ROE in wartime… https://i.imgur.com/Pw33iV1.jpg CoC prevents me from calling you what you really are. Do you really not understand that the mere presence of a weapon doesn't indicate there is a threat of severe physical harm or loss of life? There has to be more than a weapon before they can use force... they have to have some sort of indication that the weapon is going to be used in an illegal manner. How do you not understand this? 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
