CoffeeTiger 5,227 Posted May 10 Share Posted May 10 A Florida police officer was reporting to a call of a disturbance/ loud noises coming from an apartment around the caller. The officer was directed to the apartment of 23 year old Air force Arman Roger Fortson who was in his apartment at the time on the phone with his girlfriend. The Ariman's girlfriend says he heard the knocks on the door, asked who it was, didn't get a response, looked out the peephole and didn't see anyone (the video shows the officer stepping away from the door after knocking), and went to retrieve his gun fearing someone who means him harm. The police cam shows Him answering his door with his gun in his hand and relaxed arm facing down on the ground. As seems to happen all to often the police officer sees the gun, grabs his own service weapon and then empty's his clip into the civilian while at the same time yelling at him to drop the weapon. This event seems to happen regularly where being seen by police having a gun in your hand is deemed enough of a credible threat to justify killing you. The Question is do police have a responsibility to determine that the person with the gun actually means them harm in some way before they retaliate with force or is the act of having a gun in the presence of police enough justification for lethal force to be used against you? Some people say that it should be common sense not to have a gun in your hands around police, and that anyone who is killed for it deserves what they got because police officers have to put their own safety and security as their #1 priority at all times. OR is it a possible violation of a persons constitutional rights to be executed by law enforcement for merely possessing a legal weapon in your own home and not being given any chance or orders to drop it or put it away before being shot? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/05/10/roger-fortson-shooting-police-video-released/73636102007/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoffeeTiger 5,227 Posted May 10 Author Share Posted May 10 Here is a reddit thread on the incident on a Subreddit for police officers. The general consensus from the police on reddit of this situation is that this was "awful but lawful". They agree it's a bad look and a sad situation, but they also believe the police officer acted lawfully and within his training and that, as i stated above, his own safety comes above and beyond any other considerations. The subreddit moderator also does mention the 2nd amendment argument stating that it's stupid and has no relevance to this situation, however it doesn't give any details or explanation as to why that is so. The sub also seems to be making fun of Ben Crump and the family for hiring him claiming they are not ambulance chasing and lying to try and make the police look bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,204 Posted May 10 Share Posted May 10 It’s all a big dumb machine that eats fear and sh**s tragedy. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMWATS 114 Posted May 10 Share Posted May 10 (edited) WATCH: Bodycam video shows Okaloosa County deputy shoot, kill Air Force Airman (weartv.com) You can find the bodycam video of the shooting at the above link. Watching it here is what I learned... 1. Don't reside in Okaloosa Co. Florida 2. Don't answer the door if police are knocking. 3. Don't get directions from a woman Edited May 10 by JMWATS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,204 Posted May 10 Share Posted May 10 1 hour ago, JMWATS said: WATCH: Bodycam video shows Okaloosa County deputy shoot, kill Air Force Airman (weartv.com) You can find the bodycam video of the shooting at the above link. Watching it here is what I learned... 1. Don't reside in Okaloosa Co. Florida 2. Don't answer the door if police are knocking. 3. Don't get directions from a woman I’ll go with don’t answer the door with a deadly weapon in hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU9377 5,136 Posted May 10 Share Posted May 10 (edited) 2 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said: Here is a reddit thread on the incident on a Subreddit for police officers. The general consensus from the police on reddit of this situation is that this was "awful but lawful". They agree it's a bad look and a sad situation, but they also believe the police officer acted lawfully and within his training and that, as i stated above, his own safety comes above and beyond any other considerations. The subreddit moderator also does mention the 2nd amendment argument stating that it's stupid and has no relevance to this situation, however it doesn't give any details or explanation as to why that is so. The sub also seems to be making fun of Ben Crump and the family for hiring him claiming they are not ambulance chasing and lying to try and make the police look bad. Ben Crump is easy to make fun of, but this is a tragedy nonetheless. Of course, Crump is laughing all the way to the bank. He has made tens, if not hundreds of millions over the past 10-15 years alone flying from place to place and getting his face in front of the cameras. Edited May 10 by AU9377 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoffeeTiger 5,227 Posted May 10 Author Share Posted May 10 (edited) 41 minutes ago, AU9377 said: Ben Crump is easy to make fun of, but this is a tragedy nonetheless. Of course, Crump is laughing all the way to the bank. He has made tens, if not hundreds of millions over the past 10-15 years alone flying from place to place and getting his face in front of the cameras. On the flip side hiring Crump almost instantly gets your case into the national news media and garners responses from police agencies and politicians that smaller cases handled by local lawyers don't usually receive. Crump no doubt gets a lot of fame and money from taking up these cases, but the real question for me would be.....Does Crump get results for his clients and represent his clients in their own best interest? Are there any stories out there that indicates Crump could be corrupt in some way or doesn't ethically practice law? Edited May 10 by CoffeeTiger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gowebb11 9,429 Posted May 10 Share Posted May 10 4 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said: Question is do police have a responsibility to determine that the person with the gun actually means them harm in some way before they retaliate with force or is the act of having a gun in the presence of police enough justification for lethal force to be used against you? How many seconds do you think it takes someone with a gun already in their hand to kill you, while you’re processing what their intent may or may not be? Police shootings are always tragic and should be thoroughly investigated from every angle and perspective. I know this one will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,513 Posted May 10 Share Posted May 10 This is a result of our gun culture: Answer the door with a gun in your hand, get instantly shot by the police. USA! USA! USA! 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubaseball 2,673 Posted May 10 Share Posted May 10 3 minutes ago, homersapien said: This is a result of our gun culture: Answer the door with a gun in your hand, get instantly shot by the police. USA! USA! USA! It’s more of an indictment of the mentality of people in today’s society. USA has nothing to do with it. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoffeeTiger 5,227 Posted May 10 Author Share Posted May 10 5 minutes ago, Gowebb11 said: How many seconds do you think it takes someone with a gun already in their hand to kill you, while you’re processing what their intent may or may not be? Police shootings are always tragic and should be thoroughly investigated from every angle and perspective. I know this one will be. That's the rub isn't it? How much danger should police officers need to be in before they are justified in using lethal force against civilians. For a long time the answer to that question has been "if a police officer is willing to testify under oath that they feared for their life then they were automatically completely justified in whatever actions they decided to take in that moment" We're now entering a period where people and some policy makers are starting to ask: "Wait....shouldn't officers of the state have to prove....like literally everyone else....that they are in "real, actual danger" before deploying lethal force? Is 'being afraid' still adequate justification for all lethal force by officers? I'm not saying this officer intentionally killed this young man. If the airman thought he needed a gun in that situation the best course of action would have been to have the gun inside and not open the door at all. Of course this doesn't help if you're subjected to a no knock warrant or a middle of the night police raid where they'll still shoot you for having a gun in your own home even if you had a reasonable belief that the police were intruders. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,513 Posted May 10 Share Posted May 10 (edited) 18 minutes ago, aubaseball said: It’s more of an indictment of the mentality of people in today’s society. USA has nothing to do with it. From a police officer's perspective, you are far more likely to encounter armed people in routine activities. We have more guns per capita than any other first world (civilized) country, by far. Edited May 10 by homersapien 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMWATS 114 Posted May 10 Share Posted May 10 (edited) I’m a bit jaded because this is the very same county that had the widely reported acorn hits a police car incident a few months ago. They must be hiring deputies that are used to kicking doors in Afghanistan and shooting anybody with a weapon and asking questions later. Crump will make a million off this trigger happy bunch. Edited May 10 by JMWATS 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_M4_AU 8,056 Posted May 10 Share Posted May 10 59 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said: How much danger should police officers need to be in before they are justified in using lethal force against civilians. It was stated that the officer was responding to a *disturbance* (domestic I’m sure) and as is the case with a lot of domestic disturbances, it could lead to some kind of confrontation. It appears the apartment manager lead the officer to the wrong apartment which is curious as we really don’t know why that was and who called in the disturbance. There also is the question why would the Airman feel someone was out to get him to the point he thought he needed to get his firearm. It is certainly legal to have a gun and use it for self protection, but it also adds to the situation. As to how much danger should a police officer be in before he using deadly force; well that is up his experience, training and personal feelings about the situation that he fears. Who is going to be the judge? The police that trained him? The police that hired him? And using deadly force against a civilian; when does a civilian become a combatant? When he has a gun or other weapon? I’m not necessarily defending the officer, its just too early to draw a conclusion. Ben Crump is the lawyer in Kenosha on the Blake case who, even though it was a lawful shoot, filed a civil right case against the police department. I’m sure he will do the same here whether it is a legal shoot or not. No need to wait for an investigation. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jacob-blake-shooting-ben-crump-charges/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoffeeTiger 5,227 Posted May 10 Author Share Posted May 10 (edited) 24 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said: It was stated that the officer was responding to a *disturbance* (domestic I’m sure) and as is the case with a lot of domestic disturbances, it could lead to some kind of confrontation. It appears the apartment manager lead the officer to the wrong apartment which is curious as we really don’t know why that was and who called in the disturbance. The body cam video before the shooting shows a woman who called the police. I don't know if she was the apartment manager or another resident, but she said she's been hearing loud disturbances a couple of times but didn't know where it was coming from, but this time she pointed the officer to his apartment. I'm not sure why. 24 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said: There also is the question why would the Airman feel someone was out to get him to the point he thought he needed to get his firearm. It is certainly legal to have a gun and use it for self protection, but it also adds to the situation. Absolutely....having guns present ALWAYS adds an element of danger and unknown element to any interaction. I don't know why the airman felt the need to answer the door with a gun. He would have been better off not opening the door and telling the person at the door to come back with a warrant if he was a cop. AND/or calling 911 to confirm if there was a real cop at his door. Alternatively, I've heard the cop had some backup on the way and shouldn't have gone into that situation alone. He may have fired preimptivly because he knew he was by himself in that situation. One thing I've heard pro-2nd amendment guys say over and over is "It's none of your business why I want my gun or what purpose I have for having it" One thing that is clear is that the kid didn't seem to have the gun pointed at the officer or in any kind of ready or threatening firing positions and even simply held out his empty hand in self defense as the officer unloaded into him. 24 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said: As to how much danger should a police officer be in before he using deadly force; well that is up his experience, training and personal feelings about the situation that he fears. Who is going to be the judge? The police that trained him? The police that hired him? And using deadly force against a civilian; when does a civilian become a combatant? When he has a gun or other weapon? I’m not necessarily defending the officer, its just too early to draw a conclusion. That's what we as a society and our courts have to wrangle with and make a firm decision on. We're not doing cops any favors by having different localities have different guidance, laws, and policies on what constitutes unlawful use of force for officers. 24 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said: Ben Crump is the lawyer in Kenosha on the Blake case who, even though it was a lawful shoot, filed a civil right case against the police department. I’m sure he will do the same here whether it is a legal shoot or not. No need to wait for an investigation. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jacob-blake-shooting-ben-crump-charges/ Ben Crump is doing his job. If nothing is done wrong then police/cities shouldn't fear any lawsuits he files against them. Edited May 10 by CoffeeTiger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_M4_AU 8,056 Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 2 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said: That's what we as a society and our courts have to wrangle with and make a firm decision on. We're not doing cops any favors by having different localities have different guidance, laws, and policies on what constitutes unlawful use of force for officers. It would be difficul to have a national guide to unlawful use of force. There are State Police, Sheriffs, local PD and even NG could be involved in this type of decision. Each having their own idea of what and what in not a reason for deadly force. This issue is an officer can be trained every day of his life and will react to what he is involved in at the moment. You are always going to have people who don’t know what was going through the officer’s mind deciding if it was justified or not. If this officer is trigger happy there should be some evidence in his training file. 3 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said: Ben Crump is doing his job. If nothing is done wrong then police/cities shouldn't fear any lawsuits he files against them. He sets the narrative early and often without any evidence. Waiting for an investigation would be nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,204 Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 40 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said: If this officer is trigger happy there should be some evidence in his training file. I think it’s unfair to lay any sort of indictment on the deputy here. A gun in hand is a gun in play. The airman opened the door brandishing a deadly weapon. The deputy is human and made a split second decision under the assumption his life was in danger. How can we Monday morning QB that 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaltyTiger 7,908 Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 41 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said: Waiting for an investigation would be nice. Saw this on a FL station I watch nightly. The officer was there doing his job in answering a call. Seems pretty convinced he had to use his weapon as necessary. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auburnatl1 5,253 Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 One of the challenges of people combined with guns is there’s no ability to make one mistake in judgement. Often in a split sec. With no air bags. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aufan59 83 Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 15 hours ago, AUDub said: I’ll go with don’t answer the door with a deadly weapon in hand. Don’t open your own door, in your own house, exercising your own rights? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aufan59 83 Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 10 hours ago, I_M4_AU said: And using deadly force against a civilian; when does a civilian become a combatant? When he has a gun or other weapon? Well certainly that is not the answer, as simply exercising your rights does not make you a combatant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_M4_AU 8,056 Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 (edited) 3 hours ago, Aufan59 said: Well certainly that is not the answer, as simply exercising your rights does not make you a combatant. That’s why it was a question, not a statement. When confronting a police officer a citizen has to be aware of the possibility he/she may be thought of as a combatant if they are welding a weapon. The perception is all on the police officer and that is what matters in the moment. Edited May 11 by I_M4_AU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aufan59 83 Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 33 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said: That’s why it was a question, not a statement. When confronting a police officer a citizen has to be aware of the possibility he/she may be thought of as a combatant if they are welding a weapon. The perception is all on the police officer and that is what matters in the moment. I know it was a question that is why I answered it for you. Is it really a right if it makes you fair game for the government to murder you inside your home? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_M4_AU 8,056 Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 21 minutes ago, Aufan59 said: I know it was a question that is why I answered it for you. Is it really a right if it makes you fair game for the government to murder you inside your home? Yes it is a right and alway will be. With any right there comes responsibility, which in this case, seems to be difficult to comprehend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU9377 5,136 Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 13 hours ago, I_M4_AU said: It would be difficul to have a national guide to unlawful use of force. There are State Police, Sheriffs, local PD and even NG could be involved in this type of decision. Each having their own idea of what and what in not a reason for deadly force. This issue is an officer can be trained every day of his life and will react to what he is involved in at the moment. You are always going to have people who don’t know what was going through the officer’s mind deciding if it was justified or not. If this officer is trigger happy there should be some evidence in his training file. Without regard to where someone is, there is a framework they have to stay within. The officer is only allowed to use deadly force to protect his life or the life of another. In a situation where there is a pursuit, deadly force can be used to prevent the suspect from fleeing when that individual is suspected of committing a violent crime or is threatening the officer with violence. Even though that sounds pretty clear, it is still easy to lost in the weeds. From what I have seen so far, this situation is puzzling. The officer was responding to a domestic disturbance call. There was obviously no ongoing disturbance when he arrived. He was then taken to the wrong apartment. We then have a situation where the officer never has a weapon pointed at him, yet shoots the resident and then yells at him to "drop the gun." But for the cam footage, most would assume that the gun had been pointed at the officer, but from the tape we can see that is was pointed down. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/us/body-camera-video-shows-fatal-shooting-of-black-airman-by-florida-deputy-in-apartment-doorway/ar-BB1m71rh 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now