Originally Posted By XNARC:



Hey that’s great… thank you your service, but to see if there is some relationship here, or the ‘same exact scenario’ , just afew questions: you’re you know tooling around Baghdad, maybe stopped for some tea at the local  Starbucks, single man unit in your humvee,  get a call about a disturbance at a house,  you roll up leave the m4 between the seat and radio, you keep your beretta on safe and holstered, and then announce yourself at the door?  You’re at the door , or in the house and then someone appears with an kalashnikov, or a pistol and…take it from there?  And, if you used deadly force, you would be in some federal prison? Your branch of service sued for millions… just trying to see the similarities that’s all.

Originally Posted By Middlelength:


I give a lot of people the benefit of the doubt in these circumstances because what happened is obviously a tragedy. But it is clear that lots of people don't have any ability to think critically about these types of incidents.

Lets say YOU, not a police officer, were walking door to door in this apartment complex, with your daughter, because she wanted to sell Girl Scout cookies. So you knocked on each door, yelled "Girl Scout Cookies", and waited. At this particular door, after knocking and announcing your purpose, the door swings open and our young Airman is standing there, holding a pistol. You draw your concealed pistol and shoot him.

Was that murder? Was that first degree murder? Using your logic, he is in his house with a firearm. He has brought that firearm to his door. Using your logic, no one at the other side of the door has any right to feel threatened, because a gun in a hand isn't threatening.

But of course the truth is that it is complicated and really boils down to how you, as the shooter, understood the facts presented to you. And if you thought the gun was MEANT to be threatening, you would have made a reasonable conclusion and even the most progressive anti-gun DAs office would have a hard time convincing anyone to the contrary. And a jury in most states, especially Florida, would have a hard time convicting you of any type of murder in the scenario presented above. And that is the standard that the sheriff will be held to, "what facts did he reasonably understand at the time of the shooting". And it is why when police show up at my door, or people I believe to be the police, I make sure that my hands are clear and visible. And it is also why I generally NEVER have a firearm in my hand when I am interacting with strangers. Which is very different from saying I am ever unarmed.

None of this is saying that the officer had to shoot the young man. But the mental dynamics so many people, including you, are applying to why he COULDN'T LEGALLY have shot him misses that there isn't a law enforcement agency that I know of in this country, and most other countries, where this shooting would be against law or policy. And that is what makes it a tragedy. No one loved this kid enough to tell him answering the door this way was a bad idea, or he had done it for long enough he thought it was good idea, and the exception proved it all wrong.

Originally Posted By Missilegeek:


If he doesn't show hostile intent, I don't shoot him. This isn't theoretical to me. I cleared houses in Baghdad and Talafar for 2 years. I've been in this exact scenario, more than a few times. Lots of people with guns in houses, on the street...If they aren't making a move, you don't have to get it on.  

If I would have done what this Deputy did, in Baghdad, I would have violated the ROE. The enemy has to show hostile intent. So even if your claims that this was a legal shoot were legit (they aren't) it's a VERY sad day when our Army does better at protecting the basic rights of people in a 3rd world country we are occupying, than a Deputy can do in Florida.

The Deputy fucked up. He murdered a guy.

Thanks for playing

Originally Posted By Pioneer1:
This is the huge disconnect.

People need to know these things. If a cop can smoke you for holding a remote in your hand at your door, there should literally be public service warnings on billboards saying 'citizens be aware, if you have anything in your hands when you open a door, a cop can by law, and is likely to smoke you in the name of him going home safe that night.

Then, knowledge and conversations can be had, and the laws that allow this be addressed to citizens' satisfaction.

Just the statement by cops, after the fact that "well, dumbass, you shouldn't have come to the door with a gun" when it is legal and a constitutionally protected activity just doesn't cut it.
And then they are cleared of any wrongdoing by the investigation. Either we have the right, and can expect not to get executed over it, or we really don't have the right.

I've personally never answered the door for anyone with a gun in my hand. I HAVE however, answered the door for a rando with a gun tucked in my back waistband.

From now on, I'm just not answering the door period they can just FO.

Originally Posted By exDefensorMilitas:


I can't comprehend living a life where the mere sight of a weapon causes me to fear for my life, as seems to be the case for a few posters here.

Originally Posted By XNARC:



Hey that’s great… thank you your service, but to see if there is some relationship here, or the ‘same exact scenario’ , just afew questions: you’re you know tooling around Baghdad, maybe stopped for some tea at the local  Starbucks, single man unit in your humvee,  get a call about a disturbance at a house,  you roll up leave the m4 between the seat and radio, you keep your beretta on safe and holstered, and then announce yourself at the door?  You’re at the door , or in the house and then someone appears with an kalashnikov, or a pistol and…take it from there?  And, if you used deadly force, and charged, would your jury be made up of btdt soldiers, or would they draw from the citizens of Baghdad, and then you would be in some federal prison? Your branch of service sued for millions… just trying to see the similarities that’s all.

Originally Posted By haveTwo:


We can't know that the victim knew it was a cop, he's dead.  Kinda hard to ask him what he knew.

100% bullshit that he was brandishing.  Holding a gun pointed down by your side is not brandishing.  May be tactically poor, but not brandishing, and not illegal, ESPECIALLY in your own residence.

Cops own worst enemies are cops and departments like this.

Originally Posted By UV18:




So, why would a person involved in a likely criminal incident answer the door for the police holding a gun?

Originally Posted By Missilegeek:


My AV sucks, and my hearing sucks. But I don't take it as a given fact that anyone said police or even if it was heard, that it was from him or even his apartment.

Does anyone actually hear someone say police in the video? I can't hear anything. I just see the subtitle... That subtitle I assume was put there by the acorn shooting sheriff department.

At the end of the day, the deputy instantly shot a guy answering his door, for holding a gun in his own home. A guy who showed no signs of hostility or threat. Everything else is pretty irrelevant.  

Here is a future look at Deputy shoot first meeting with his lawyers and Union rep in a few weeks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gdbUZXC3Go

Originally Posted By Missilegeek:


Soldiers fall under UCMJ. Investigating officers (essentially DA's) are appointed for suspected ROE violations. Most of these people are probably not best characterized as BTDT. They are more commonly paper pushing administrative people. Depending on the severity of the charge it can be decided a few ways: By Commanders essentially acting as judges, and or Juries.

And yes, when you wrongfully kill someone in a warzone, death payments are typically made to the family. The amounts vary.

In my experience, a shoot first and ask questions later Soldier, doing what this Deputy did, would be held accountable under the most common ROE (depending on where/when and the ROE that can change). With a video like this (we didn't have body or helmet cams in my day) I would suspect that a Soldier would be fired and summarily punished (loss of rank and pay) and a bad conduct discharge, at a minimum. It's very possible that they get charged for crimes for violation of ROE and LOAC. Keep in mind that this is for killing someone who is not a US citizen, in a declared warzone.

Personally, if I used this shoot first approach; of shooting someone for being armed at, or just through the door... I would have killed a half dozen Iraqis who really weren't threatening me. They were just armed at their home. Since I don't like killing people, murder or jail, I chose to assess the threat and give them a chance to submit, which they all did. Which is what 99% of armed people will do when confronted by an armed agent of the state.

Originally Posted By TGE:
"Likely criminal incident"? I thought that the victim being alone in the apartment was generally agreed upon. As such, did the dead guy know that he was engaged in a "likely criminal incident" by himself in his home?

Originally Posted By XNARC:


Seriously, you would have gotten fired, or really just adding to the outrage? Have you looked at say the past dozen shootings involving any of the federal law enforcement agencies and applied that triangle, and if not followed, anyone arrested, was anyone fired, and that would include the marshals task force guys since they operate under federal guidelines.

Originally Posted By UV18:



3:40 mark in the video.

Here it is on Reddit-

https://www.reddit.com/r/ThisIsButter/comments/1cokiha/bodycam_video_shows_fatal_shooting_of_air_force/

Originally Posted By TGE:
"Likely criminal incident"? I thought that the victim being alone in the apartment was generally agreed upon. As such, did the dead guy know that he was engaged in a "likely criminal incident" by himself in his home?

Originally Posted By UV18:



Can I punch you in your face and you leave, but a crime still occurred?

A DV incident is a likely criminal incident.

But if he thought it was the police, why would he answer the door holding a gun?

Originally Posted By UV18:



Can I punch you in your face and you leave, but a crime still occurred?

A DV incident is a likely criminal incident.

But if he thought it was the police, why would he answer the door holding a gun?

Originally Posted By KELBEAST:


Considering that the neighbor heard a supposed “slap through the wall,” I don’t know how the Airman could have known he was even suspected of domestic violence. I guess if he had actually been beating the shit out of the girlfriend he probably should have expected a LE knock on the door.

Originally Posted By xd675:
Pay attention to the gif.  Even the FoV on that extended view unit does not clear the area against the wall just beyond the door frame where the officer spends much of his time.

Unless the deceased happened to be looking through the peep at just the right time when the officer crossed the door its doubtful he sees anything.

Originally Posted By Middlelength:
Lets say YOU, not a police officer, were walking door to door in this apartment complex, with your daughter, because she wanted to sell Girl Scout cookies. So you knocked on each door, yelled "Girl Scout Cookies", and waited. At this particular door, after knocking and announcing your purpose, the door swings open and our young Airman is standing there, holding a pistol. You draw your concealed pistol and shoot him.

Originally Posted By TAG_Match:


The probability that he DID NOT know it was the police is significant to a degree it cannot be ruled out.

Originally Posted By TAG_Match:


Good post regarding the disconnect between the law and law enforcement.  Essentially the disconnect is that citizens must comply with the law while LEO must only comply with “policy”.  Example:  You open up on a stranger that answers the door with a gun in his hand, business end in a safe direction, nothing but daylight seen through the trigger guard:  Life in prison.

Cop opens up on a stranger that answers the door with a gun in his hand, business end in a safe direction, nothing but daylight seen through the trigger guard: Cop followed department policy regarding deadly use of force and he enjoys his vacation.

Cops love their policy carve out in the law.  Citizens hate the thought of being killed by mistake and a cocksucker walks because “policy”.

Originally Posted By UV18:



Correct. Police and polease could sound close enough. Nothing to say it is 100%.

Either way, answering the door at 1630 with a gun in a nice apt complex is not a typical response.

Originally Posted By UV18:



Correct. Police and polease could sound close enough. Nothing to say it is 100%.

Either way, answering the door at 1630 with a gun in a nice apt complex is not a typical response.

Originally Posted By TAG_Match:


You seem to be unusually pessimistic when it comes to an officer facing repercussions.  I do not share your opinion that he will face any significant professional sanctions.  Maybe we will revisit this subject in the future?

Originally Posted By Missilegeek:


But here's the thing. None of the things you are yammering on about are the critical thing being examined here. What are the critical things that happened? A door opened, and an armed agent of the state, met an armed civilian. The key question is if and when to shoot said civilian?

This is a scenario I have trained for and seen. You typically aren't allowed to just presume armed people mean to kill you, and kill them preemptively on sight. They have to do something threatening, make a football move so to speak. You have to give them an opportunity to either surrender or begin to get it on. This Deputy immediately drew, and shot the Airmen on sight of a weapon. That's murder, and unacceptable in a law enforcement context, as well as most military context.  

It looks real bad that while the deputy was getting it on, the victim did nothing but show signs of submission. If the Deputy had taken a fraction of a second to evaluate, he would have seen that. Instead he shit his pants and murdered a guy as fast as he could.

Originally Posted By thesquidliest:

I personally don't think there's any point to continue arguing about shit that isn't going to change, no matter how egregiously cops fuck up.  Just treat all police encounters accordingly (especially if you are a minority), and don't open your door to cops unless they have a search warrant in hand; the risks of doing otherwise are obviously too great.

Originally Posted By Deepsouth:



Yep, 'cop sees black man with a gun' .... bang bang bang bang bang bang

That's all you need to need to know the direction this will go

Originally Posted By thesquidliest:
25 pages in and it looks like GD is failing to realize the plain, ugly truth.

Just like Deckard's boss told him in Blade Runner , "You're not cop, you're little people."  Cops can and will get away shit that the little people can't, up to and including executing individuals inside their homes doing lawful activities, regardless of the circumstances.

I personally don't think there's any point to continue arguing about shit that isn't going to change, no matter how egregiously cops fuck up.  Just treat all police encounters accordingly (especially if you are a minority), and don't open your door to cops unless they have a search warrant in hand; the risks of doing otherwise are obviously too great.

Originally Posted By XNARC:


Crump is a advocate for crump… but he has a template for this, demand an outside agency review, there will be, but he’ll then say the fbi, he’ll say if it was a white airman, they would have already convened a grand jury, all they want is for the facts and circumstances to be heard by a grand jury, so he’s saying grand jury regardless of the investigation outcome, if the grand jury convenes and will not indict, he’ll continue on saying the family is just seeking justice, where’s his day in court, if the deputy is indicted and goes to trial and not convicted, he’ll demand a conviction and go on and systemic racism, and he’ll be probing to see how apt that county is to a settlement (does anyone know if he had ever sued in court  by way of actual trial or all just settled?), maybe there’s a state limit imposed, or he’ll look at the makeup of the county board that will ultimately vote to approve any settlement.