FL Police Officer Shoots Air Force Airman To Death for Answering Apartment Door While holding a Gun by his side.

[AU9377 5,133]

5 hours ago, AUDub said:

The guy was holding a deadly weapon. 

That was legal for him to own and was not pointed at the officer.  Should anyone holding a weapon capable of causing harm be shot on site?  This situation wasn't an officer involved in some sort of altercation.  Watch the body cam video.  The guy opened the door and the officer immediately began shooting.  The police officer could not have legally entered the man's home, but he had the right to shoot to kill?

[AU9377 5,133]

5 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

But he wasn’t was he?  Why don’t you volunteer to go down and lynch the cop because there is no reason for a trial.

I just don't understand how anyone can watch the body cam video and actually believe that was a justified use of force.  It clearly was not.  He is entitled to defend himself to the charges that will be forthcoming.  Nobody has argued that he isn't. 

This is much much worse than the George Floyd series of events. I often defend an officer's decision to use force.  I still don't understand how people cannot see the officer's point in the Michael Brown shooting.  This isn't like either.  Michael Brown was issued several warnings and continued to be the aggressor. 

This man was in his own home and did nothing illegal.  This man's crime was _____________________________ .  He didn't point the gun at the officer or say anything threatening.  He lost his life because a police officer decided that firing multiple shots was the best way to handle what situation?

[TexasTiger 13,119]

13 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

I just don't understand how anyone can watch the body cam video and actually believe that was a justified use of force.  It clearly was not.  He is entitled to defend himself to the charges that will be forthcoming.  Nobody has argued that he isn't. 

This is much much worse than the George Floyd series of events. I often defend an officer's decision to use force.  I still don't understand how people cannot see the officer's point in the Michael Brown shooting.  This isn't like either.  Michael Brown was issued several warnings and continued to be the aggressor. 

This man was in his own home and did nothing illegal.  This man's crime was _____________________________ .  He didn't point the gun at the officer or say anything threatening.  He lost his life because a police officer decided that firing multiple shots was the best way to handle what situation?

Im4au will defend almost any authoritarian act unless he think a Dem is somehow behind it.

[I_M4_AU 8,049]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

I just don't understand how anyone can watch the body cam video and actually believe that was a justified use of force.  It clearly was not.  He is entitled to defend himself to the charges that will be forthcoming.  Nobody has argued that he isn't. 

This is much much worse than the George Floyd series of events. I often defend an officer's decision to use force.  I still don't understand how people cannot see the officer's point in the Michael Brown shooting.  This isn't like either.  Michael Brown was issued several warnings and continued to be the aggressor. 

This man was in his own home and did nothing illegal.  This man's crime was _____________________________ .  He didn't point the gun at the officer or say anything threatening.  He lost his life because a police officer decided that firing multiple shots was the best way to handle what situation?

Again, I am not defending the policeman just trying to wait for the investigation to review what happened by people who are the professionals.

Edited May 12 by I_M4_AU

[AUDub 11,204]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

That was legal for him to own and was not pointed at the officer.  Should anyone holding a weapon capable of causing harm be shot on site?  This situation wasn't an officer involved in some sort of altercation.  Watch the body cam video.  The guy opened the door and the officer immediately began shooting.  The police officer could not have legally entered the man's home, but he had the right to shoot to kill?

The officer was responding to what he was told was a domestic. A very dangerous call. No rational human being reacts well to a gun.

yeah yeah “cops should be held to a higher standard” blah blah blah whatever.

Police are human beings, not automatons. People are going to be shot when brandishing deadly weapons. There’s literally no preventing it.

Again, it’s all a big dumb machine that eats fear and sh**s tragedy. 

[Gowebb11 9,424]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

He didn't point the gun at the officer

Did the video show if the gun was loaded and/or cocked? And if it was a revolver or semiautomatic?

[AUDub 11,204]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Im4au will defend almost any authoritarian act unless he think a Dem is somehow behind it.

Lazy. 

[AUDub 11,204]

1 hour ago, Gowebb11 said:

Did the video show if the gun was loaded and/or cocked? And if it was a revolver or semiautomatic?

Semi automatic handgun of unknown manufacture. 

[AU9377 5,133]

1 hour ago, Gowebb11 said:

Did the video show if the gun was loaded and/or cocked? And if it was a revolver or semiautomatic?

It clearly shows that the gun was not pointed in the direction of the officer.  It was pointed down and away. When the victim saw the officer's weapon drawn, he raises the other hand as though his hand can shield him from the shots, but never raises the gun in a defensive manner.  He never makes an aggressive move toward the officer whatsoever and is inside his home.  There was no disturbance at all when the officer arrived.  None. He was home alone.

The gun looked like a 9mm handgun.  My dad keeps a shotgun near the front door.  If someone from the Sheriff's dept was banging on his door, he may very well answer the door holding that shotgun, which he has every right to do. 

This officer had no probable cause to enter the apartment.  The only first hand information he had was from a woman that told him she heard people arguing in that apartment "a couple of weeks ago when she walked by the unit."  That was clearly BS, considering that the unit was on the 4th floor and on the end.  Walking by would not be possible.

[AU9377 5,133]

2 hours ago, AUDub said:

The officer was responding to what he was told was a domestic. A very dangerous call. No rational human being reacts well to a gun.

yeah yeah “cops should be held to a higher standard” blah blah blah whatever.

Police are human beings, not automatons. People are going to be shot when brandishing deadly weapons. There’s literally no preventing it.

Again, it’s all a big dumb machine that eats fear and sh**s tragedy. 

Nobody has the right to fire a weapon at another human being without justification.  Nobody.  There are way too many circumstances that are close calls.  This isn't one of them.  Watch the body cam footage and tell me what justifies shooting him 6 times in the chest. 

In fact, if this officer had entered that apartment without a warrant, he would have been entering the apartment illegally.  There was no disturbance at that apartment. 

The guy was an active duty senior airman in the Air Force. Do you really think he gets shot if he is white?  We cannot have two sets of rules in a functioning society.

Edited May 13 by AU9377

[AUDub 11,204]

8 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

 

This officer had no probable cause to enter the apartment. 

He didn’t enter the apartment. Hell the exigent circumstances didn’t even exist for him to force entry. The victim had no obligation to even open the door. But he did.

And while you might not think a handgun in hand is a threat, I do. Don’t answer the door with a gun visible. Best case scenario you might scare the everloving shoot out of the postman or some kids trying to sell Girl Scout cookies. Worst case you encounter another armed human being who will respond to the threat. 

[AUDub 11,204]

3 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Watch the body cam footage and tell me what justifies shooting him 6 times in the chest. 

If I answer the door with a gun visible and it’s another armed human being there, I don’t expect it to end well. Damn the legality. Use your ******* brain. 

[AU9377 5,133]

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

He didn’t enter the apartment. Hell the exigent circumstances didn’t even exist for him to force entry. The victim had no obligation to even open the door. But he did.

And while you might not think a handgun in hand is a threat, I do. Don’t answer the door with a gun visible. Best case scenario you might scare the everloving shoot out of the postman or some kids trying to sell Girl Scout cookies. Worst case you encounter another armed human being who will respond to the threat. 

This officer will now lose his job and serve 10-20 years in prison.  I hate it for his family as well, but the situation should have never happened.

[AUDub 11,204]

Just now, AU9377 said:

This officer will now lose his job and serve 10-20 years in prison.  I hate it for his family as well, but the situation should have never happened.

**** that noise he will not. The city will pay a settlement, but a conviction? Get your head out of your ass, counsel. 

[AU9377 5,133]

Just now, AUDub said:

**** that noise he will not. The city will pay a settlement, but a conviction? Get your head out of your ass, counsel. 

We will see.  The facts here are much worse than any other case I can recall like this. The body cam footage is crystal clear in showing that Fortson made no aggressive move toward the officer or acted in any manner that suggested unloading into his chest could be justified.  Unfortunately, we have promoted the gun culture that is now eating at our core.

[AUDub 11,204]

Thing is, yeah, I very much sympathize with the cop here. The ACAB crowd was always going to have a field day with this one, but people just don’t ******* get that the cops here are in a s*** situation too. We, as a society, have put them in an absolutely awful situation over the phrase “the right to keep and bear arms” that was written when rifling was a novelty and semi automatic fire was a a pipe dream being applied in a day and age when said arms are instant death if you choose option B rather than option A. 

The deputy made a bad decision that was clearly in error after the fact. ****, he literally killed a person. I can’t imagine what he’s dealing with right now. Personally, that would wreck my psyche for the rest of my days.

But feel free to Monday Morning QB that. I just can’t. 

[AUDub 11,204]

It’s patently lazy to be going “hurr durr bill of rahts second amendment should have waited a second or two to gauge intent blah blah blah blah blah” when you see your death in palm of someone’s hand should they will it at the drop of a hat and EXPECT a human, errors in judgement, faults and all that all humans have, to put his life on the line and get it right 100% if the time. 

Cops are human beings. Weigh that carefully. 

[AUDub 11,204]

20 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

like your right to free speech, or your right to remain silent.

Neither of which kills with a flick of the wrist and the pull of a trigger. You’re comparing apples and airplanes. Not all rights can be inherently equivocated. It’s  fallacy to try and do so. Well meaning people are dying or killing through no inherent fault of their own because there’s no squaring that circle.

I would argue it’s an inherent result. No normal person wants to pick between dying or killing someone under the kind of pressure the police (law ENFORCEMENT, mind you) has to weigh with mere seconds, usually less, to decide.

We did to ourselves. Until we come up with police drones (lol) this will be the result. 

[Gowebb11 9,424]

12 hours ago, AU9377 said:

It clearly shows that the gun was not pointed in the direction of the officer. 

I assure you I can take a loaded pistol from my side to a shooting position in a milliseconds. If the gun is locked and cocked I can have a couple of rounds in a target in 1-2 seconds. 

 

12 hours ago, AU9377 said:

There was no disturbance at all when the officer arrived. 

Great to know after the fact. He was dispatched to a call about domestic violence. He knocked on the door and announced himself as ‘Sheriff’s Office’ twice, in uniform, in broad daylight. He wasn’t kicking in a door in the middle of the night. 

 

12 hours ago, AU9377 said:

he may very well answer the door holding that shotgun, which he has every right to do. 

Good for your dad. I take a different approach. If I get pulled over by a cop for instance, I feel no need to reach for my pistol and have it in my hand when he comes to my car.  I go out of my way to show hands. Shows respect for the officer, minimizes escalation, and maximizes my chance of not being shot by stubbornly clinging to ‘my rights’. 

 

12 hours ago, AU9377 said:

This officer had no probable cause to enter the apartment. 

Zero evidence he wanted to enter. Cops knock on doors legally all the time, simply gathering facts. 
 

This whole situation is tragic. But you’ve got this cop tarred and feathered. If he ends up needing a defense attorney, they will have plenty to work with. Like the picture below and the 4 LEOs massacred last week in NC. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,223]

10 hours ago, AUDub said:

Neither of which kills with a flick of the wrist and the pull of a trigger. You’re comparing apples and airplanes. Not all rights can be inherently equivocated. It’s  fallacy to try and do so. Well meaning people are dying or killing through no inherent fault of their own because there’s no squaring that circle.

I would argue it’s an inherent result. No normal person wants to pick between dying or killing someone under the kind of pressure the police (law ENFORCEMENT, mind you) has to weigh with mere seconds, usually less, to decide.

We did to ourselves. Until we come up with police drones (lol) this will be the result. 

I see what you've been saying in this thread, and I agree with a lot of it. The United States put our police (and really our entire population) into a really s***ty, deadly position with our gun culture and interpretation of our founding fathers vague constitutional mandates. 

I don't envy police officers who have to face these situations and make split second decisions. Especially considering American police officers are very often under trained and under prepared for the situations and stresses they are tasked with dealing with. 

 

I 100% agree with you that the airman was stupid to open the door to an unknown person with a gun in his hand. He shouldn't have done that.  I also 100% understand that the police officer didn't show up to his apartment with the intention or desire to hurt or kill anyone. 

 

All of that is true....but that still leaves us with the problem of a police officer killing a civilian who didn't break any laws, didn't ignore any lawful commands, and ( albeit after the fact) it seems that he very likely didn't pose any actual threat to the officer. 

 

Yeah, it sucks really hard that this situation happened....but it did happen...so now what? 

 

 

[aubaseball 2,670]

13 hours ago, AU9377 said:

We will see.  The facts here are much worse than any other case I can recall like this. The body cam footage is crystal clear in showing that Fortson made no aggressive move toward the officer or acted in any manner that suggested unloading into his chest could be justified.  Unfortunately, we have promoted the gun culture that is now eating at our core.

I would add that there is also a narrative out there that says, the hell with what a policeman tells me, I’m going to do whatever I want.    
He very well might be charged with something or lose his job.   If any sensible human being answers a door with a gun in hand when a policeman knocked and announced and still came to the door with gun, that screams defiance and stupidity.   And he knew why the police were there, it was known that he and his girlfriend had domestic issues.   
It was bad police tactics (101) and he at minimum , in my opinion, will be fired.   

[Aufan59 83]

12 hours ago, AUDub said:

Neither of which kills with a flick of the wrist and the pull of a trigger. You’re comparing apples and airplanes. Not all rights can be inherently equivocated. It’s  fallacy to try and do so. Well meaning people are dying or killing through no inherent fault of their own because there’s no squaring that circle.

I would argue it’s an inherent result. No normal person wants to pick between dying or killing someone under the kind of pressure the police (law ENFORCEMENT, mind you) has to weigh with mere seconds, usually less, to decide.

We did to ourselves. Until we come up with police drones (lol) this will be the result. 

I don’t think it’s apples and airplanes.  They are rights guaranteed by the constitution.

 

If you can be legally murdered by government when exercising a right in your own home, then I think it’s fair to say that it isn’t really a right.

 

I agree we’ve backed ourselves into a corner with the second amendment.  There is no good answer to this, except amending the constitution, of which I would be in favor.

 

But the fascinating part is the contradicting place this puts conservatives in(and this is not directed at you specifically):  The second amendment is constantly argued as necessary, especially to empower the people against a tyrannical government.  However they somehow defend the government coming to your door and murdering you when you exercise this right.

 

And it is fascinating that any conservative could end up defending the government murdering its citizens for exercising their rights.  

 

 

[AU9377 5,133]

2 hours ago, aubaseball said:

I would add that there is also a narrative out there that says, the hell with what a policeman tells me, I’m going to do whatever I want.    
He very well might be charged with something or lose his job.   If any sensible human being answers a door with a gun in hand when a policeman knocked and announced and still came to the door with gun, that screams defiance and stupidity.   And he knew why the police were there, it was known that he and his girlfriend had domestic issues.   
It was bad police tactics (101) and he at minimum , in my opinion, will be fired.   

She wasn't there. We will never know what he actually heard or what he knew because the policeman chose to kill him rather than simply telling him to put the firearm down and asking him to step outside the apartment.  He was only there to ask if everything was ok in the apartment.  There was no active disturbance and there would have been no arrest or probable cause to enter the apartment.

 

[AU9377 5,133]

4 hours ago, Gowebb11 said:

I assure you I can take a loaded pistol from my side to a shooting position in a milliseconds. If the gun is locked and cocked I can have a couple of rounds in a target in 1-2 seconds. 

 

Great to know after the fact. He was dispatched to a call about domestic violence. He knocked on the door and announced himself as ‘Sheriff’s Office’ twice, in uniform, in broad daylight. He wasn’t kicking in a door in the middle of the night. 

 

Good for your dad. I take a different approach. If I get pulled over by a cop for instance, I feel no need to reach for my pistol and have it in my hand when he comes to my car.  I go out of my way to show hands. Shows respect for the officer, minimizes escalation, and maximizes my chance of not being shot by stubbornly clinging to ‘my rights’. 

 

Zero evidence he wanted to enter. Cops knock on doors legally all the time, simply gathering facts. 
 

This whole situation is tragic. But you’ve got this cop tarred and feathered. If he ends up needing a defense attorney, they will have plenty to work with. Like the picture below and the 4 LEOs massacred last week in NC. 

The body cam footage is what has the cop in hot water. What is happening around the country is unfortunate, but this case isn't about that.  This is about a young man needlessly losing his life at the hands of law enforcement.  The officer is allowed to stop and detain someone on the street.  He is allowed to carry a weapon anywhere and he is given the authority to detain and imprison someone.  The public places trust in the officer.  The officer has a responsibility to not abuse that trust. This type of shooting makes the lives of police officers more difficult, not less.  These type of shootings erode that trust.

I am not anti cop and 8 times out of 10 defend their actions.  This particular shooting is simply difficult, if not impossible, to defend.

[AU9377 5,133]

15 hours ago, AUDub said:

Neither of which kills with a flick of the wrist and the pull of a trigger. You’re comparing apples and airplanes. Not all rights can be inherently equivocated. It’s  fallacy to try and do so. Well meaning people are dying or killing through no inherent fault of their own because there’s no squaring that circle.

I would argue it’s an inherent result. No normal person wants to pick between dying or killing someone under the kind of pressure the police (law ENFORCEMENT, mind you) has to weigh with mere seconds, usually less, to decide.

We did to ourselves. Until we come up with police drones (lol) this will be the result. 

I actually agree with you more than i disagree when it comes to the cause.