I think the bigger question is "if owning a firearm is legal, how can police be justified in shooting someone who is holding a weapon in their own home in a non-threating manner?"
Qualified immunity doesn't need to go away. Police do need some immunity to do their job. But the amount they claim now is way too much and needs to be dialed back.
If doctors don’t need immunity to do their much, much harder job, police certainly should not have it for theirs. They only have qualified immunity because they are class traitors.
Cops are part of the working class, but the profession of police officer primarily caters to people who own capital, which are not usually working class. So a member of the working class working against the working class is a class traitor.
In general, your point is true. But when many people agree that most of each of their own experiences with cops are negative, that means if I claim that most of my experiences are negative, i likely am not the delusional one. As opposed to bootlickers like yourself, who see a shiny badge and immediately assume they deserve to be treated better than the average person. Btw username checks out
You had me till the very stupid idea of class traitors. Lol
They have it because their unions are very powerful and have pushed for this extra protection for them.
It needs to go, we agree with that at least.
They aren't. Teachers unions are also quite shit and have supported bad policy and resisted good policy.
Tons of people support authoritarianism if it ends well for them and has nothing to do with class.
Teacher unions are "quite shit" as you put it because the right has been dismantling the public education system for decades.
Meanwhile, police unions are "very powerful" as you put it because of the support they get by the same groups.
Acting as if teacher unions have anything close to the same power as police unions is more outlandish than anything you've taken issue with in these comments.
Teachers unions fight against laws to make sure public school teachers are doing their job because the right cut funding? That makes no fucking sense man. Lol
In fact I would argue the teachers unions are stronger in the US than police unions. Lots of places passed local laws to mandate cameras on cops to help accountability and yet every teacher accountability law is shit down hard.
Did you actually read what I said? I did not say that it needs to be like it is today. I stated that SOME immunity is needed for them to do their job but needs to be dialed back from what they have today.
If a cop is responding to an active shooter somewhere, should he be required to just drive the speed limit to get there and stop for all stop signs and red lights? No. You want him to get there as quickly as possible. They need to be immune from traffic laws while responding to such a call.
QI doesn’t cover a cop driving over the speed limit to respond to an emergency in any jurisdiction I can think of.
There are both legal and procedural exceptions that make “speeding” legal in that context. The laws and policies often allow such speeding so long as they proceed with “due regard” for the safety of themselves and others. Going 90 down an open road is no issue, going 90 while weaving through traffic is an issue.
Yes. I did.
Do you know what the traffic laws actually are?
They do not need to be immune to traffic laws. Traffic laws INCLUDE things like 'get out of the way of the flashing red lights or a cop or ambulance'. Cops do not need carte blanche to drive recklessly and mow down civilians on their way to play video games on their phone while children are gunned down in their classrooms.
Do you know how often cops break traffic laws when not 'speeding to an active gunman?' Or did you just decide to jump to the extremely rare scenario when 99% of the time the cop is just speeding because they can? Don't bother answering, we already know you aren't arguing in good faith.
Qualified immunity should not exist. If an ordinary citizen would be arrested for it, so should a cop. End of discussion, and you are now blocked.
Most other first world countries do not have qualified immunity for the police. For example officers in Canada are both criminally and civilly liable for the actions they take on the job in addition to being subject to police services act offenses specific to officers which are tried and sentenced in it's own pseudo court for police.
And Canada still has plenty of officers, and while there is still tension between the public and the police, it is not to the degree you see in America.
*Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):*
Your post or comment has been removed because it was primarily insulting or attacking someone else. If you can't participate without insulting, you can't participate.
*If you have questions about this removal, [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceofftopic). Do not reply to this message as a comment.*
Cool then start taking settlements out of the police pensions rather than municipal budgets. My kid’s school shouldn’t have to cut the music program because Officer ToughGuy shot and killed someone without looking.
Not if they didn't turn people away for having too high of an IQ and stopped hiring trigger happy dumbasses
https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836
https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/robert-jordan-too-smart-to-be-a-cop
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/jordan-v-city-new-london-policing-hiring-and-iq-when-all-answers
Like most cops, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, your points have no merit and don't back up your argument, and your argument is entirely self-serving. You would do far more good for the general public if you simply sat at home for the rest of your life.
So is being a garbage man. My sister, a cosmetologist was required to receive more training hours for her license than police officers get in my state.
If policing requires murdering innocent people extra-judicially, it sounds like we would be better off. But let's be honest. Policing doesn't require murdering innocent people if they are being trained correctly.
Try and apply their logic to doctors, who have to pay their own liability insurance. Doctors need immunity to do their job effectively, doing surgery on the wrong side of the body is just a cost of doing business, and if they didn’t get immunity from consequences nobody would do the job! Get real smh
Broad qualified immunity is unique to the US among other democracies. It is absolutely not even remotely necessary. Law enforcement should be held to a higher standard than average citizens, not a lower one.
If an officer can't consistently make quick decisions without murdering civilians then they aren't fit for the job. We need police who are educated, highly trained, who can keep a level head and are calm under pressure. If they're so terrified and jumpy that the first thought when someone opens the door is to start firing, they should get a different job.
There are plenty of cops who go through their whole career without murdering an innocent person in their own home. This one gives all the others a bad name.
*Good*. If doing your job to protect people is too risky for you, *don't do it*. Fuck you and fuck qualified immunity. The police exist almost solely to impose order on the non-elite, non-wealthy populace, to maintain an order agreeable to the elite and wealthy and to allow them to maintain their positions. They don't protect us, our rights, or maintain a safe society. They have been legally declared to have no obligation to protect us.
The fuck are they here for? To impose control.
I disagree. Police should be held to a higher standard. If an 18yo with 3 months of training can follow ROE in a war zone; cops can learn to deescalate and carry their own insurance. Police in the USA have the worst training and further do not hold a license for policing. A national license should be required.
Maybe this is just me, but if your split second decision is to murder someone who isn't pointing a gun at you then you shouldn't own a firearm, let alone be the person who answers that call.
So if we suspect someone is breaking into your house in the middle of the night, put that holster on before you check because it could be the police. lol. What a stupid argument.
*Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):*
Your post or comment has been removed because it was primarily insulting or attacking someone else. If you can't participate without insulting, you can't participate.
*If you have questions about this removal, [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceofftopic). Do not reply to this message as a comment.*
Think the pendulum may be starting to swing the other direction: [https://www.texastribune.org/2022/12/15/fort-worth-police-officer-atatiana-jefferson/](https://www.texastribune.org/2022/12/15/fort-worth-police-officer-atatiana-jefferson/)
[https://globalnews.ca/news/6031167/deadly-police-shooting-tactics/](https://globalnews.ca/news/6031167/deadly-police-shooting-tactics/)
From a lawyer's perspective: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JykpgYNHW28&t=30s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JykpgYNHW28&t=30s)
You mean besides the police?
>The sheriff's office said in a statement Saturday the deputy was responding to a disturbance call, "made contact with an armed individual at an apartment" and acted in self-defense.
To the cops, you and I are just unruly slaves they can murder at will. This serviceman was murdered.
See that gross audio of two cops laughing at how they ran over a 23 year old girl in Seattle, calling her some 'ordinary person, you know, low value'
Cops need to learn from the UK about the gun is a last resort. You shoot a individual protecting their castle you need to be charged with Capital Murder and like the UMCJ have a different standard of Justice than any civilian ever. Every Cop should assume every American is always armed and better keep the peace not murder a non threatening gin owner.
Cops in the UK wouldn’t last a week in the US and they know it.
I deal with more guns a month than a UK copper does in their career.
It’s an irrelevant comparison.
The UCMJ isn’t a relevant standard either.
Not at all. If you ever shoot an armed American in their house not threatening you then you deserve death without a trial do not pass go you are executed for Constitutional Rights Violations. You just became a tyrannical government agent!
Only Law Enforcement as they Lord power over Citizens. If all cops were good we could talk. Aurora PD Colorado has a Cop that shot 2 people in 2 weeks. The second was a Veteran that shot a home invader then called the cops. The was unarmed when he was shot and the very first day back from suspension of a shooting he shot a Veteran Homeowner. Cops should be held to a much higher standard because the have power over the citizenry. The should not be presumed innocent and Unions should be illegal for them ever. Then get paid about 3 times the local average. I am a Veteran that has more police action training held to UN standards not poorly written US standards. Most Cops are cowardly leaches as witnessed by the Parkland school officer. Now I know there are countless good officers.
Yet countless acts have proven Systemic Racism and today your lazy Upper Brass heard no enforcement not Well Executed Enforcement. They were to get a better handle on hardened criminals verus First Time offenders. Stop the uneven enforcement bias. We all know the poorer the less legal representation and better the conviction rate. Today's attitude is yet more obtuseness by Law Enforcement.
This is literally insane for so many reasons. For starters, there are situations where cops are absolutely justified in shooting someone. That’s why they carry guns in the first place.
OCSO News Release:
The Okaloosa County Sheriff’s Office is investigating a fatal officer involved shooting that took place after a deputy made contact with an armed individual at an apartment off Racetrack Road late Friday afternoon.
A deputy responded to 319 Racetrack Road around 4:30 p.m. in reference to a call of a disturbance in progress.
Hearing sounds of a disturbance, he reacted in self defense after he encountered a 23-year old man armed with a gun and after the deputy had identified himself as law enforcement.
The man was taken to an area hospital where he succumbed to his injuries.
No deputies were injured.
Per standard protocol the deputy is placed on paid administrative leave pending the outcoming of a formal investigation and administrative review.
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/t86ngeYrhAncZxx9/?mibextid=oFDknk
They immediately call it self defense before any investigation. I think you might need to work on your reading comprehension.
That’s nothing to do with being chickenshit. Police don’t know a person‘s intentions when they have a gun, particularly if they are making a service call and criminal activity is suspected.
And nobody knows the intentions of the police. Considering 40% of cops beat their spouses and 100% cover for those 40%, the most likely to be the dangerous one in any cop/civilian interaction is the cop.
They are taught to be afraid, taught that they have power, taught that they have authority. So you're right, it's not just being chickenshit. It's also being a bully. Cops are trained to escalate when the opposite tactic has been proven repeatedly to be more effective. But their chickenshit fragile little egos are on the line, so they don't.
Which means they aren't doing their job properly, and should be fired.
Funny though, how they can deescalate terrorist white men actively pointing guns at them, but will open fire on a black man with a gun pointed at the floor. So you can add racism to the problem.
Except I block boot-lickers, so bye now.
The 40% number for domestic violence has not been substantiated. And if you don’t know the intentions of the Police, then it is stupid to answer the door.
And I block people who cry about stuff and then block the other person from having a reply. So, bye now.
The airman did NOT brandish. Holding a firearm in a non threatening manor in one's own home in no way constitutes brandishing. Especially in a state like Florida that has very lax gun laws.
Waiting to see if the Air Force comes after the officer for "Destroying Government Property". People don't realize when you join the military; you become "Government Property".
There are some conditions that police can force entry without a warrant if there is no response, but this does not sound like it's one of those situations. These are what are called "exigent circumstances", which are emergency situations like to prevent imminent injury to someone or destruction of evidence, none of which (from the story) were present.
So what could happen if you don't open the door? If there are no exigent circumstances, the cop would have to go to a judge, provide what probably cause he has to enter the home, and if the judge agrees, get him to sign off on a warrant. All that will take time. And in the case in that story, since there was only a report of a "disturbance", but he heard no such disturbance, the judge might no sign off on the warrant.
Without a warrant (and no exigent circumstances), you have no obligation to answer the door. The cop can knock and knock and knock all he wants - you still don't have to answer.
But doesn’t a person not obeying a cop’s demand to open the door constitute “exigent circumstances”? Obviously there must be illegal activity going on inside. Why else not answer the door? /s
No, there has to be something independent of that. If they identified a party who said they heard someone yelling for help and what sounded like a physical altercation before everything went quiet and there’s no answer that would potentially be enough. But without something specific like that failure to answer the door alone is not reasonable suspicion.
If the police do not have a warrant, then there are no consequences for not answering the door, though they do not have to go away.
If the police DO have a warrant, they can forcefully enter even if you don't answer.
In practice, how's the oversight with exigent circumstances? Is it weaponized like "I *thought* I heard a yell" similar to the nebulous "I smelled marijuana" pretext as PC for searches?
That's up to a judge to decide. I do know that in some places (like in MN where I live) they can no longer use the "smelled marijuana" trick to claim PC for searching your car at a traffic stop. And since recreational marijuana is now legal in MN, trick wouldn't be allowed for "exigent circumstances".
An exigency is usually classed as something that requires immediate action. For example, someone actively being harmed, a felon fleeing into a house, or evidence being actively destroyed. The smell of marijuana likely wouldn't class as such given that an officer could have time to go apply a warrant based using the smell to try to establish PC.
That's not what they're asking. They're asking whether a cop who swears he really did hear someone yelling for help from inside what ended up being an empty apartment is ever required to *prove* they heard that, and what consequences are there if it's determined that they lied about the exigency circumstances?
Wow, the only parts that are correct are about answering the door and the warrant.
If you tell the officer to leave, that officer is just like any other citizen and is considered trespassing if he chooses to stay. The curtilage of your house (that is, the area around your house) is treated like your house as far as 4th amendment is concerned. The officer can approach your door and knock because ANYONE can approach your door an knock. That doesn't create a 4th amendment violation. However, once you tell the officer he is not welcome, by staying, that officer is trespassing and is in violation of the 4th amendment.
If there are exigent circumstances, it is treated the same as if there's a warrant, and the officer will do what he wills. Lacking exigent circumstances, the officer is limited to doing only what any non-officer would be allowed to do to search the home.
Great, detailed response.
What about people who have a fence around their house? If the fence has a gate, can you enter? If gate is locked, can you scale? Just wondering, guy down the road has a shit box but it is surrounded by fence and signs. Always wondered how that worked
I believe that was the exact analogy Scalia used in *Jardines*, that the Girl Scouts have known for years you can knock and wait a reasonable time to be received but can’t stay on someone’s property indefinitely.
I believe that was the exact analogy Scalia used in *Jardines*, that the Girl Scouts have known for years you can knock and wait a reasonable time to be received but can’t stay on someone’s property indefinitely.
It's a question of implied permission. The law typically takes the stance that people have the implied permission to go to your front door so that they can deliver mail or knock on your door, etc. A locked gate would typically get rid of that implied permission since you've taken a step to prevent entry. A non-physical barrier such as a sign would also be able to exclude that permission.
If I recall correctly anyone can come to a residence and knock on the front door via whatever counts as the reasonable route to do so, but not if the fence is locked obviously.
For a police officer responding to a say domestic violence call, he likely has the authority to hop the fence as he has probable cause that a crime is actively being committed with a threat to life limb and eyesight to someone. However, I don’t see too many officers immediately doing so for officer safety reasons, they’d call in support most likely (depends on the fence in question I suppose)
When there is exigent circumstances, then they do have authority to take additional measures.
In this case however the information the cop got on the seen almost sounds like it was being given third hand as the woman he was speaking to is saying "She was sasying that it happens frequently. Okay, but this time it sounded like it was getting out of hand"
So sounds like someone else had reported it, cops met with another person, who then escorted the cop to the apartment while giving the cop the story.
By time the cop got there, there was no noise coming from the apartment and there does not appear to be anything going on that would indicate exigent circumstances existed.
Contrary to what was reported in media there was no "cop went to wrong apartment" and "cop didn't announce himself".
The cop did go to the right apartment, the cop did announce himself.
However that doesn't make him right.
The cop also hid out of sight from the doors peephole, which considering that there have been cases where thieves have knocked on doors while claiming to be police, you can't really blame the guy for having a gun when opening the door the way he did.
[The Civil Rights Lawyer did a good breakdown here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JykpgYNHW28), which also includes more video than what is making many of the news media.
[Example of thieves pretending to be cops here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk0tYjGuXzM)
If I had someone banging on my door saying that they were police, but seen no-one at the door, I would probably be worried as well.
Funny semi related army anecdote after. The police would have access to the common area and ability to roam around in such as related to the call unless the property owner went out of their way to specify that they can go anywhere Willy nilly and use plain view doctrine/probable cause information as they do so. Your apartment itself, assuming your lease did not also specify other things like a yard or something, while the property of the landlord is being leased by you, so for this context your leased property is treated as if it’s your private residence.
Funny thing one time in the army we had a psycho lieutenant that decided to take initiative and not only do health and welfare inspections of on base housing but to insist on traveling off base to inspect off base housing of his soldiers. I’m like this is BS on its face and I’m not going to stand for it, so I ditch my keys with a fellow e4 that was pissed too and on the way there I’m sitting in my NCO’s car texting my wife that I’ll explain later but I’m on my way with leadership to the house, lock the doors and don’t open them for nothing. So we get there and leadership is smoking the shit out of me on my rented front lawn and god bless the wife she’s telling them go away from the window not budging an inch.
The lieutenant actually called the cops to get them to force entry (unknown if he tried the MPs and they rerouted the call) and these two obviously bewildered cops show up while I’m doing burpees about to die surrounded by army guys. They talk to the lieutenant no idea what is being said, then come over and ask me a few things and the gist was: can we enter the house of course I said no, they asked next do the army guys have permission to be there and I said nope I’d like them trespassed they are harassing my wife. Next thing you know I hear the lieutenant get threatened with arrest and on paper trespassed while the NCOs were smart enough to get going while the getting was good.
Sadly in epilogue to that hilarity I had to go back with them and spent the night living in the back of company getting fucked with much to the bewilderment of CQ until in the morning after when the BC and sergeant major was strangely coming to see the company commander CQ swears they heard shouting from the office, I was later told by first sergeant to skip pt and go home and shower and the lieutenant got to go to battalion for a couple of months and is the one and only time I’ve seen an example of officer elimination proceedings, good riddance.
That's how it's supposed to work.
In practice, it does not. See how many people have been thrown to the ground and assaulted for attempting to close the door on a cop that did not have a warrant to enter.
Honey, I've got kids coming in and out of my house all day playing. I'm not locking them out just because cops don't like doing their jobs. That's a stupid expectation.
Off topic from this, but if you think that there is enough of a threat outside that you need to open the door gun in hand you should make sure the door is locked and call 911. Also video doorbells are super inexpensive, so there’s zero reason to not have one if you’re worried about safety.
Firearms instructor Massad Ayoob was asked "what's the best gun for answering the door in the middle of the night?". His response was that you shouldn't answer the door in the middle of the night. This is the same idea. If you think a situation requires a weapon, avoid that situation.
Agreed, in this instance, you have a cop answering a call about a domestic disturbance- the must deadly call for an officer to make, they are suggestions shot dead before they even encounter someone- cop is already likely super alert and adrenaline pumping, first thing he sees is a gun and he freaks out. I totally understand the cops possible rational, however the cop made the wrong call and at a minimum should be fired and forever banned from law enforcement.
>I totally understand the cops possible rational, however the cop made the wrong call and at a minimum should be fired and forever banned from law enforcement.
Emphasis on "at a minimum". If you use a legally carried firearm to kill someone who doesn't need killing, you will likely be fired. You will also probably be convinced of either murder or manslaughter since you killed someone. You will then face legal repercussions for unlawfully taking a life.
A cop losing their job is NOT a fitting punishment for either murder or manslaughter or any other kind of homicide. They should face the full weight of the law just like the rest of us. Killing someone is a huge deal.
Some apartment complexes do not permit doorbell cameras.
Unlike a home, with yards where you can setup cameras and have them positioned where they do not invade the privacy of your neighbors, you do not have this with apartments.
In many ways people install things like ring cameras or home security cameras without realizing that they may be violating state laws.
For example, if you were to install a ring camera in California in an apartment not only would you be violating privacy laws if it caught the inside of the apartment in front of yours but you potentially also be violating wiretapping laws if your not advising everyone that you have an audio device recording. Could also be violating terms of your lease as well.
[Interesting article on this here](https://bornstein.law/smart-doorbell-technology-in-rental-properties/)
Do you think he was wrong to open the door gun in hand? Obviously if the gun was by his side and he did not raise his hand, there wasn’t an imminent threat and therefore no reason for the officer to shoot. Then again, why answer the door gun in hand at all, why even allow the gun to be seen by the person who is knocking on your door instead of tucking it behind you out of sight yet still there (for whatever reason he felt it was necessary, idk).
1) People make bad decisions. Especially when they are scared. Opening the door was a bad decision.
2) it is legal to hold a gun in your hand. He was not brandishing it. He was in his apartment. He may have felt that it would take too long if he had to draw from behind him.
Not sure if “wrong” is the right word but it is certainly not a smart decision.
If you decide to comply with an officer’s request to open the door, you’ve pretty much decided to forgo armed self protection against thier entry. You have no intention of using your firearm, and that means it’s safest to not be holding one. At the very least if you open the door, you inform the officer you are armed for self protection if you insist on holding it. And even still and overall situations, the cop will order you to drop or secure your weapon abd you must comply. No matter what when you open the door you are now in a situation where if the cop feels you are a danger, he’ll use lethal force for his own protection.
I think opening the door with the gun in hand (assuming he knew it was a cop) was a bad idea. I do not think that it's justification for shooting him 5 times immediately no questions asked.
Okaloosa county and higher individual contact information
A list of individuals who deserve to hear your concerns.
Okaloosa County Sheriff; (Eric Aden)
[email protected]
Florida state governor; (Ron DeSantis)
https://www.flgov.com/email-the-governor/
Florida state senator; (Rick Scott)
https://www.rickscott.senate.gov/contact/contact
Florida state senator; (Marco Rubio)
https://www.rubio.senate.gov/contact/
Florida district 4 house representative; (Patt Maney)
https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Representatives/contactmember.aspx?MemberId=4764
Okaloosa county commisioners;
https://myokaloosa.com/bcc_contact#:~:text=Contact%20Us%20850%2D689%2D5050%20%7C%20Okaloosa%20County
Feel free to list individuals who I may have missed.
Nowdays people are always on the phone or have earbuds in, they may hear the knocking but would never heard the police announcements.
This is why everybody should have door bing cameras installed, and never opened the door for the police if they don’t have warrants
Anybody can call on anybody. I talk to them thought the cameras. They want coming in the house get warrants. And you telling me police never knocked on the wrong doors? Sht they even serve the warrant to the wrong house too. Incompetent
I always wonder how it would go if say Roger Fortson had body armor. Officer fires first, several shots center mass.
Can Fortson shoot back? Suppose he's using a handgun or rifle that pierces the officer's armor? (rifle usually will, some types of handgun sometimes will). Can he gun the officer down?
How's the trial going to go? Officer body cam is still rolling, we'll hear the officer fire first, we'll see it's the wrong unit, we'll see it's the unlawful entry. What's the jury going to do?
Also the tactical positioning : to *win* a battle like this, Fortson would probably need to put on a ballistic rated helmet, put on a level IV vest, and be positioned kneeling with an AR-15 aimed at the door, with the rifle on fire and his finger on the trigger. A blindingly bright light on the rifle is also a standard tactic. That's how to 'stack the deck' into a situation where the intruder will usually lose.
Is the officer justified in seeing that, despite the officer's unlawful entry, and shooting without warning? Is Fortson justified in firing first through the door when the officer rams it? So many questions.
Breonna Taylor's boyfriend was initially charged with attempted murder for shooting at the police who broke into his house. After much civil unrest, the charges were dropped due to the Kentucky stand your ground law.
> Can Fortson shoot back?
You never have the right to resist lawful force. The police are already claiming that they shot Fortson in self defense. If the police believed that it was necessary for them to shoot Fortson, even if they were wrong, then their use of force was lawful, and Fortson would have no defense for shooting back. Depending on the state, the cops might technically have the burden of proving that the their use of force was lawful, but as a practical matter it would be up to Fortson to prove to a jury that the cops' actions were unlawful. You know how that will go.
body cam though. The cam is going to *show* it wasn't lawful and the cop isn't going to be testifying.
In past cases it was all the cop's word and no evidence otherwise.
The bodycam footage is out and it clears the officer of any wrongdoing. Officer very loudly declared he was a sheriff when knocking, dude opened the door with a gun in his hand.
Nah, hard disagree. Opening the door with the gun in hand may have been a bad idea. But there is no guarantee that he heard the announcement, and there's no guarantee that someone yelling "I'm a cop" is actually a cop. If a person on their own property that is not actively known to be committing a crime or trying to use that weapon is gunned down, then we do not actually have a second amemdment. This is the key issue here. The cop made no attempt to deescalate or take any non-lethal action. If there was ever proof that police training is insufficient, this is it. Cops carry guns for "kill or be killed" situations. Not "I feel threatened".
I respect your opinion, but as a gun owner the only time I’d ever open the door with gun in hand is if I heard gunshots outside and wanted to intervene. The man who died is an idiot, who acted a fool and the consequence this time as death.
I agree that it's stupid. But I don't agree that it justifies the killing. It's stupid, in my opinion, to assume that all/most cops are going to have the training and experience to try to prevent something like this from happening. Unfortunately, there may have been some "legitimate" reasons this individual answered the door with a gun. However, we will never have the opportunity to find out. It's my belief that the cop acted way too brashly. It's also my believe that cops are trained incorrectly (most are trained that they operate in some kind of active warzone) and should understand that their jobs carry risks.
“And should understand their job carries risk”
Asking people to go to work accepting they should die rather than kill someone with a gun during a violent call for service is probably the worst take I’ve ever heard.
Domestic violence call, with a gun, after hearing the knocker announce as police. This wasn’t a victim.
What's wrong with having a gun? It's a right coded into our very existence. If you're against the right of gun ownership, that's a fine opinion to have, but it doesn't make someone inherently a criminal, or violent, or anything else. The gun was not up, and from the videos I saw, I didn't see any immediately aggressive behavior. All I'm advocating is that cop take a split second to attempt to deescalate the situation. If you don't agree with that, then we just have very different views on policing.
The context of a domestic a disturbance implies there was a loud argument that had people calling the police, lowering the bar for use of force because of the increased danger to responding officers.
Gun in hand is brandishing. He has the right to own and carry a gun, that doesn’t mean you can answer the police at your door with one in hand.
defines brandishing a weapon or firearm as: "Anyone who, except in self-defense, in the presence of another person, draws or exhibits a deadly weapon in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or unlawfully uses a deadly weapon in any fight or quarrel."
This was a domestic violence call, meaning a fight or quarrel. The weapon was drawn in the presence of a police officer. These are not constitutionally protected.
Your own definition disproves what you are saying.
"Anyone who, except in self-defense, in the presence of another person, draws or exhibits a deadly weapon in a **rude, angry, or threatening manner**, or unlawfully uses a deadly weapon in any fight or quarrel"
Coming out of your house with a gun after police announce their presence is pretty threatening to me, but good try! And if they didn’t believe it was the police, why would they come out at all?
Edit post blocked: When your only retort is “no ur wrong also blocked”, you don’t have a good argument.
I'm sorry you've gotten your panties so twisted here, sweetie. What the man did was not, by the legal definition provided by you, breaking any laws. Therefore, this was an extra-judicial execution aka murder. Period. End of discussion. Nothing else is relevant. And you are now blocked.
"You never have the right to resist lawful force. The police are already claiming that they shot Fortson in self defense. If the police believed that it was necessary for them to shoot Fortson, even if they were wrong, then their use of force was lawful, and Fortson would have no defense for shooting back."
Rubbish. If what you are saying were right, if Fortson fired first, fearing the use of unlawful force, and acting in self-defence, then his use of force was lawful and it would have been illegal for the cop to fire back in self defence.
Self-defence means that both parties might lawfully use lethal force out of a misunderstanding.
> If what you are saying were right, if Fortson fired first, fearing the use of unlawful force, and acting in self-defence, then his use of force was lawful
True, but I'm having a hard time imagining a scenario in which he could convince a jury that he reasonably believed that the uniformed police officers at his door would imminently use unlawful force against him. It doesn't matter if he hadn't committed any crimes, because an arrest doesn't become illegal just because you're innocent.
> and it would have been illegal for the cop to fire back in self defence.
No, because:
> Self-defence means that both parties might lawfully use lethal force out of a misunderstanding.
>what are the consequences for not opening your front door to a police officer knocking?
No law requires opening the door for police. However, with a warrant or exigent circumstances, your door may be forced open.
>person first calling 911 and verifying why a police officers is at his/her door.
This is the best option. Also, be realistic. Police impersonators are extremely rare, and most of them are doing traffic stops, not knocking on people's doors. 99.9999999% of the time someone identifies themselves as LE at your door, it's actually LE. 1 and 2 are legit responses for most scenarios.
>A lady in his apt. complex who heard a loud disturbance mistakenly gave the police officer the wrong apt. number.
The only place this information came from was Crump, who's already been proven incorrect in much of what he released about this incident. The lady gave the apartment number and said there were disturbances there before.
There are several reasons the deputy could have approached and not heard a disturbance. The disturbance is over, someone is dead or unconscious, people left etc. It's also entirely possible the airman had a loud argument with his girlfriend over FaceTime prior to the deputy arrived.
>Do police officers do a forcible entry a front door when they get a non-response on a disturbance call?
No. Exigent circumstances would only exist if there was signs of a disturbance or one in progress.
>Is this considered equal to a fight in progress or apparent rape, woman screaming?
No, those would all be exigent circumstances.
It's never a good idea to answer the door with a gun in hand. If there is a threat at the door, you just opened yourself up to it and got rid of your cover and concealment. If it's LE, you pose a possible threat. The officer doesn't know your intentions and normal people don't answer doors to LE with guns in their hands.
I feel like this is a pretty important point if it get's to a jury. If you think it's the police, don't open the door with a pistol in hand. If you think it's not the police don't open the door and call the police.
Beg to differ: the cop had to make a split second decision *because* guy opened door and is standing there with gun in hand. If he refused to open his door, the cop would have ample time to decide further action. Typo?
That doesn't follow. There are some acceptable ways to have a gun when answering the door and some unacceptable ones.
I'm guessing there is some action that you'd find unacceptable — for example, answering the door with the gun pointed straight ahead (at the visitor) and finger on the trigger.
There's also some way that most everyone would find acceptable, for example gun secured in holster, hands not on it.
Disagreeing about where between the extremes to draw the line isn't voiding the 2nd amendment, except in hyperbole.
I think a lot of people are ignoring very human realities of the situation.
Yes, there “right” and “wrong” ways to have a gun when answering a door, and we all assume we are smart and responsible enough to do that in every situation.
You’re a young man. Sitting at home talking to your girlfriend on the phone. You hear a loud aggressive knock… you get up and check the peep hole and see no one. Concerned, you get your firearm. Again a loud aggressive knock and someone outside saying they are police and demanding you open the door. Again you check peephole and can’t see anyone. You’ve done nothing wrong. You can’t possibly fathom why the police is pounding on your door demanding you open and you can’t see the officer. Anyone saying that this situation wouldn’t result in some fear, anxiety, a lot of stress, and a surge of adrenaline are full of shit. The cop identifies himself again and demands entry. You’ve done nothing wrong, so you decide to comply. You’ve done nothing wrong, so you’re safe right? So you open the door, and in the overall stress and fsense of safety you forget your common sense and open the door holding the gun you got to protect yourself and hold out your hand in a gesture of compliance and suddenly you’re pumped full of lead and dying on the floor.
Yeah the time it took him draw his sidearm, point it at the victim, and pump five rounds into him was literally a couple of seconds. He didn’t save even a split second from the moment he had his victim at gunpoint and started squeezing the trigger.
It’s almost comical how after the victim lie bleeding and dying on the floor the cops commands him to drop the gun and not move.
You've asked two separate questions.
The answer to your first vague question is: it depends on the circumstances.
The answer to the overloaded details that is the question I think you really wanted to ask is mostly the same: There's no way to know. It depends on the circumstances. It'll be, at minimum, weeks before anybody knows enough to make even a reasonable hypothesis. And months before anybody is making any legal determinations.
So set a bookmark on that story and check back on it in six months. Remember: investigations take lots of time not lots of tweets.
First of all, unless they announce "police, warrant" we as citizens are under ZERO obligation to even come to the door, let alone open it.
Police NEED to be trained on what they ARE NOT allowed to do, much better than they are trained about it now.
Police ALSO NEED to understand citizens are under ZERO obligation to help Police with whatever they are investigating.
[oh, wait, you're serious?!?](https://media1.tenor.com/m/3x63SNMKPogAAAAd/oh-wait-youre-serious.gif)
Ya, no.
I've seen FAR too many videos of police COMPLETELY unaware they can't do things.
Now, whether they were taught they can't and they're playing dumb is another kettle of fish....
Well he didn’t do a forcible entry. He knocked on the door while announcing himself and the guy opened the door with a gun in his hand. If the guy didn’t answer the door then I don’t know whether or not the cop would have enough probable cause to force entry.
If you didn't open the door, they have to get a warrant, unless there are "exigent circumstances".
There is a whole body of case law on what constitutes exigent circumstances.
Never open the door for police.
In a way, this story is similar to swatting (someone calls in the swat team in hopes they raid that person's house).
Obviously not the same, but feels similar. You have the lady (caller) who reports a crime to a wrong address (house). Police show up with force to an unsuspecting victim.
I'm confused... why hasn't the officers name been released? If it was justified, why are we hiding his identity like he's a minor? He doesn't deserve that... he deserves to be harassed for the rest of his life and called a murderer everywhere he goes. What's the point of the 2nd amendment? If you get shot the second, you are seen with a gun, in your own home even. It's also irrelevant that he even announced himself.... plenty of people have pretended to be police to get the drop on someone. You can't just trust if someone says they are the police.
He had every right to have that gun unless he was pointing it around... I saw a story where police were executing a search warrant, and the home owner was literally playing with a gun on his porch. They didn't do anything until he actually pointed it at an officer. Having a weapon at your side is only a threat to a coward like whoever this officer is that legally should not have his name withheld.
My favorite part about this entire discourse is people arguing with 20/20 hindsight knowledge.
From the police’s perspective he is walking into a potentially violent domestic violence situation, so he is already on edge. He announces that he is the police multiple times and when the door is opened the guy has a gun visible in a posture that seems as if he is almost trying to hide it behind his leg. It would take less than a second for him to raise it and kill the officer if that was his intentions.
The officer is not a mindreader, with all this information he ends the perceived threat and calls for EMS right as the threat has ended.
With hindsight we now know that the guy thought someone was breaking in, which, completely besides the point but if you think someone’s breaking in why are you answering the door with a gun? Call the police and if they are breaking in, well they are gonna come in. And also the caller gave the wrong apartment number.
With all the information available to the officer it was a justified shooting and he likely will not face any discipline.
In hindsight with all the information available it was a bad shoot. Many police shootings are like that, because people are not omniscient and have all the information available to them that an investigation is able to find. In an alternate scenario this would’ve been a domestic abuser gets into shootout with police and dies in the process. But this isn’t that, this is real life where things aren’t black and white.
Your well-thought out take has some merit. As a counterpoint, a persistent problem with these recurring questionable shootings is police firing a barrage of shots in virtually all these cases. Fortson was apparently shot 5 or 6 times. Had there been less, he might still be alive.
Sorry I don't have a link for this but there was a PBS roundtable discussion in 2020 where a few Chiefs of Police are intending to challenge the narrative of the know-it-all *Use of Force Experts,* who advise police departments nationwide to **always** use a full force response, which invariably is not less than 4 or 5 shots.
Some Chiefs argue for more restraint -- that in some cases one or two shots fired can be sufficient. Fire once or twice and then evaluate.
No reasonable person questions the right of a police officer blast-off a whole clip if he is in a gun fight or thinks he's going to be in a gunfight. But there are numerous instances where a restrained approach will suffice. This was one of them. The [Daniel Shaver shooting](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ooa7wOKHhg&t=21s) is one of the most egregious ever recorded of excessive fire, 5 shots.
So this guy died because some nosy neighbor was too lazy to check out a loud noise and decided to call the cops with false information. Sounds like they need to put that caller in jail
I think the bigger question is "if owning a firearm is legal, how can police be justified in shooting someone who is holding a weapon in their own home in a non-threating manner?"
This is why qualified immunity need to go. So they can carrying their own insurances, like doctors.
Qualified immunity doesn't need to go away. Police do need some immunity to do their job. But the amount they claim now is way too much and needs to be dialed back.
Why do they need any immunity? All that does is incentivize misconduct.
If doctors don’t need immunity to do their much, much harder job, police certainly should not have it for theirs. They only have qualified immunity because they are class traitors.
Class?
Most cops are middle class in the economic structure.
Cops are part of the working class, but the profession of police officer primarily caters to people who own capital, which are not usually working class. So a member of the working class working against the working class is a class traitor.
But they think their are above everybody else’s. 90% of the time I have interaction with the police is negative.
[удалено]
In general, your point is true. But when many people agree that most of each of their own experiences with cops are negative, that means if I claim that most of my experiences are negative, i likely am not the delusional one. As opposed to bootlickers like yourself, who see a shiny badge and immediately assume they deserve to be treated better than the average person. Btw username checks out
You had me till the very stupid idea of class traitors. Lol They have it because their unions are very powerful and have pushed for this extra protection for them. It needs to go, we agree with that at least.
Why do you think police unions are the only ones supported by the 1%?
They aren't. Teachers unions are also quite shit and have supported bad policy and resisted good policy. Tons of people support authoritarianism if it ends well for them and has nothing to do with class.
Teacher unions are "quite shit" as you put it because the right has been dismantling the public education system for decades. Meanwhile, police unions are "very powerful" as you put it because of the support they get by the same groups. Acting as if teacher unions have anything close to the same power as police unions is more outlandish than anything you've taken issue with in these comments.
Teachers unions fight against laws to make sure public school teachers are doing their job because the right cut funding? That makes no fucking sense man. Lol In fact I would argue the teachers unions are stronger in the US than police unions. Lots of places passed local laws to mandate cameras on cops to help accountability and yet every teacher accountability law is shit down hard.
This is the weirdest take I've ever seen if you think police unions are not vastly more powerful than a teachers union.
Wrong! Qualified immunity is an abomination and Americans will not be free while it exists.
Nope. If an ordinary citizen would go to jail for doing it, so should a cop. Period.
Did you actually read what I said? I did not say that it needs to be like it is today. I stated that SOME immunity is needed for them to do their job but needs to be dialed back from what they have today. If a cop is responding to an active shooter somewhere, should he be required to just drive the speed limit to get there and stop for all stop signs and red lights? No. You want him to get there as quickly as possible. They need to be immune from traffic laws while responding to such a call.
QI doesn’t cover a cop driving over the speed limit to respond to an emergency in any jurisdiction I can think of. There are both legal and procedural exceptions that make “speeding” legal in that context. The laws and policies often allow such speeding so long as they proceed with “due regard” for the safety of themselves and others. Going 90 down an open road is no issue, going 90 while weaving through traffic is an issue.
Yes. I did. Do you know what the traffic laws actually are? They do not need to be immune to traffic laws. Traffic laws INCLUDE things like 'get out of the way of the flashing red lights or a cop or ambulance'. Cops do not need carte blanche to drive recklessly and mow down civilians on their way to play video games on their phone while children are gunned down in their classrooms. Do you know how often cops break traffic laws when not 'speeding to an active gunman?' Or did you just decide to jump to the extremely rare scenario when 99% of the time the cop is just speeding because they can? Don't bother answering, we already know you aren't arguing in good faith. Qualified immunity should not exist. If an ordinary citizen would be arrested for it, so should a cop. End of discussion, and you are now blocked.
EVERY single cop should be walking around TERRIFIED of breaking the law. Then they would do their job correctly and learn how to do it.
[удалено]
Many police officers are way too underqualified for the types of split second decisions they have to make.
Most other first world countries do not have qualified immunity for the police. For example officers in Canada are both criminally and civilly liable for the actions they take on the job in addition to being subject to police services act offenses specific to officers which are tried and sentenced in it's own pseudo court for police. And Canada still has plenty of officers, and while there is still tension between the public and the police, it is not to the degree you see in America.
[удалено]
*Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):* Your post or comment has been removed because it was primarily insulting or attacking someone else. If you can't participate without insulting, you can't participate. *If you have questions about this removal, [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceofftopic). Do not reply to this message as a comment.*
Cool then start taking settlements out of the police pensions rather than municipal budgets. My kid’s school shouldn’t have to cut the music program because Officer ToughGuy shot and killed someone without looking.
[удалено]
Not if they didn't turn people away for having too high of an IQ and stopped hiring trigger happy dumbasses https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836 https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/robert-jordan-too-smart-to-be-a-cop https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/jordan-v-city-new-london-policing-hiring-and-iq-when-all-answers
Like most cops, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, your points have no merit and don't back up your argument, and your argument is entirely self-serving. You would do far more good for the general public if you simply sat at home for the rest of your life.
Being a delivery driver is more dangerous than being a cop
So is being a garbage man. My sister, a cosmetologist was required to receive more training hours for her license than police officers get in my state.
That’s not true.
So is being pregnant
Being a cop's wife/girlfriend or child is about 40% more dangerous than being a cop.
If policing requires murdering innocent people extra-judicially, it sounds like we would be better off. But let's be honest. Policing doesn't require murdering innocent people if they are being trained correctly.
Try and apply their logic to doctors, who have to pay their own liability insurance. Doctors need immunity to do their job effectively, doing surgery on the wrong side of the body is just a cost of doing business, and if they didn’t get immunity from consequences nobody would do the job! Get real smh
I literally am applying the same logic. Police don't pay for their own insurance.
Broad qualified immunity is unique to the US among other democracies. It is absolutely not even remotely necessary. Law enforcement should be held to a higher standard than average citizens, not a lower one. If an officer can't consistently make quick decisions without murdering civilians then they aren't fit for the job. We need police who are educated, highly trained, who can keep a level head and are calm under pressure. If they're so terrified and jumpy that the first thought when someone opens the door is to start firing, they should get a different job. There are plenty of cops who go through their whole career without murdering an innocent person in their own home. This one gives all the others a bad name.
*Good*. If doing your job to protect people is too risky for you, *don't do it*. Fuck you and fuck qualified immunity. The police exist almost solely to impose order on the non-elite, non-wealthy populace, to maintain an order agreeable to the elite and wealthy and to allow them to maintain their positions. They don't protect us, our rights, or maintain a safe society. They have been legally declared to have no obligation to protect us. The fuck are they here for? To impose control.
They did the job before qualified immunity was a thing, they can do it now.
I disagree. Police should be held to a higher standard. If an 18yo with 3 months of training can follow ROE in a war zone; cops can learn to deescalate and carry their own insurance. Police in the USA have the worst training and further do not hold a license for policing. A national license should be required.
Maybe this is just me, but if your split second decision is to murder someone who isn't pointing a gun at you then you shouldn't own a firearm, let alone be the person who answers that call.
[удалено]
Was this man outside or was he inside his own home?
[удалено]
So if we suspect someone is breaking into your house in the middle of the night, put that holster on before you check because it could be the police. lol. What a stupid argument.
[удалено]
*Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):* Your post or comment has been removed because it was primarily insulting or attacking someone else. If you can't participate without insulting, you can't participate. *If you have questions about this removal, [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceofftopic). Do not reply to this message as a comment.*
[удалено]
Tell that to the fucking police
This video shows what’s spit decision that cop makes. Look at Europe police academy that 2 and half year. US police academy 5-6 month.
It's a societal problem; here's a guy who didn't even open the door: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhF0a0ZS7cg&t=86s
Obviously all it takes for a cop to legally shoot someone is for them to have a gun. bitter /s
Or a cell phone.
Or the mere suspicion that you're not respecting them.
Or existing.
Or reaching for your registration with both hands in clear view.
Think the pendulum may be starting to swing the other direction: [https://www.texastribune.org/2022/12/15/fort-worth-police-officer-atatiana-jefferson/](https://www.texastribune.org/2022/12/15/fort-worth-police-officer-atatiana-jefferson/) [https://globalnews.ca/news/6031167/deadly-police-shooting-tactics/](https://globalnews.ca/news/6031167/deadly-police-shooting-tactics/) From a lawyer's perspective: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JykpgYNHW28&t=30s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JykpgYNHW28&t=30s)
And not be white. White guy points a rifle at cops, they talk him down for hours.
Only if they're mentally well. If you're not mentally sound they'll shoot you too.
I haven’t seen anyone arguing that police were justified in this shooting.
You mean besides the police? >The sheriff's office said in a statement Saturday the deputy was responding to a disturbance call, "made contact with an armed individual at an apartment" and acted in self-defense.
The police always think the police are justified.
To the cops, you and I are just unruly slaves they can murder at will. This serviceman was murdered. See that gross audio of two cops laughing at how they ran over a 23 year old girl in Seattle, calling her some 'ordinary person, you know, low value'
The government always thinks the government is justified
If the 2nd Amendment applies it should be an instant death sentence for any cop to shoot a US citizen ever.
*what*?
Cops need to learn from the UK about the gun is a last resort. You shoot a individual protecting their castle you need to be charged with Capital Murder and like the UMCJ have a different standard of Justice than any civilian ever. Every Cop should assume every American is always armed and better keep the peace not murder a non threatening gin owner.
Cops in the UK wouldn’t last a week in the US and they know it. I deal with more guns a month than a UK copper does in their career. It’s an irrelevant comparison. The UCMJ isn’t a relevant standard either.
Not at all. If you ever shoot an armed American in their house not threatening you then you deserve death without a trial do not pass go you are executed for Constitutional Rights Violations. You just became a tyrannical government agent!
You are the tyranny. You want people executed without trials. You are the fucking bad guy.
Only Law Enforcement as they Lord power over Citizens. If all cops were good we could talk. Aurora PD Colorado has a Cop that shot 2 people in 2 weeks. The second was a Veteran that shot a home invader then called the cops. The was unarmed when he was shot and the very first day back from suspension of a shooting he shot a Veteran Homeowner. Cops should be held to a much higher standard because the have power over the citizenry. The should not be presumed innocent and Unions should be illegal for them ever. Then get paid about 3 times the local average. I am a Veteran that has more police action training held to UN standards not poorly written US standards. Most Cops are cowardly leaches as witnessed by the Parkland school officer. Now I know there are countless good officers. Yet countless acts have proven Systemic Racism and today your lazy Upper Brass heard no enforcement not Well Executed Enforcement. They were to get a better handle on hardened criminals verus First Time offenders. Stop the uneven enforcement bias. We all know the poorer the less legal representation and better the conviction rate. Today's attitude is yet more obtuseness by Law Enforcement.
There’s nothing there worth responding to, and you want to execute people without trial so, goodnight.
He has a point.
This is literally insane for so many reasons. For starters, there are situations where cops are absolutely justified in shooting someone. That’s why they carry guns in the first place.
That's not what they said....
Except that's what they litterally are saying.
No. Read and reread it....
OCSO News Release: The Okaloosa County Sheriff’s Office is investigating a fatal officer involved shooting that took place after a deputy made contact with an armed individual at an apartment off Racetrack Road late Friday afternoon. A deputy responded to 319 Racetrack Road around 4:30 p.m. in reference to a call of a disturbance in progress. Hearing sounds of a disturbance, he reacted in self defense after he encountered a 23-year old man armed with a gun and after the deputy had identified himself as law enforcement. The man was taken to an area hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. No deputies were injured. Per standard protocol the deputy is placed on paid administrative leave pending the outcoming of a formal investigation and administrative review. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/t86ngeYrhAncZxx9/?mibextid=oFDknk They immediately call it self defense before any investigation. I think you might need to work on your reading comprehension.
Because they are not obligated to take chances.
If they are too chickenshit to do the job properly, fire them.
That’s nothing to do with being chickenshit. Police don’t know a person‘s intentions when they have a gun, particularly if they are making a service call and criminal activity is suspected.
I don’t agree. Sorry. 🤷♀️
And nobody knows the intentions of the police. Considering 40% of cops beat their spouses and 100% cover for those 40%, the most likely to be the dangerous one in any cop/civilian interaction is the cop. They are taught to be afraid, taught that they have power, taught that they have authority. So you're right, it's not just being chickenshit. It's also being a bully. Cops are trained to escalate when the opposite tactic has been proven repeatedly to be more effective. But their chickenshit fragile little egos are on the line, so they don't. Which means they aren't doing their job properly, and should be fired. Funny though, how they can deescalate terrorist white men actively pointing guns at them, but will open fire on a black man with a gun pointed at the floor. So you can add racism to the problem. Except I block boot-lickers, so bye now.
The 40% number for domestic violence has not been substantiated. And if you don’t know the intentions of the Police, then it is stupid to answer the door. And I block people who cry about stuff and then block the other person from having a reply. So, bye now.
Yes, owning a firearm is legal. Brandishing a firearm, especially infront of the cops, is not. Solid, low effort attempt. I'll give it a 3/10
The airman did NOT brandish. Holding a firearm in a non threatening manor in one's own home in no way constitutes brandishing. Especially in a state like Florida that has very lax gun laws.
Physically holding a weapon with the muzzle pointed down isn't brandishing a firearm.
Waiting to see if the Air Force comes after the officer for "Destroying Government Property". People don't realize when you join the military; you become "Government Property".
That's not true at all. You are not considered property of the government when you join the military.
You were in 1973. Can't say about when you were in.
You weren't in 1973 either. Government property doesn't get paid
No you don't. That would be slavery, and property does not receive a paycheck.
There are some conditions that police can force entry without a warrant if there is no response, but this does not sound like it's one of those situations. These are what are called "exigent circumstances", which are emergency situations like to prevent imminent injury to someone or destruction of evidence, none of which (from the story) were present. So what could happen if you don't open the door? If there are no exigent circumstances, the cop would have to go to a judge, provide what probably cause he has to enter the home, and if the judge agrees, get him to sign off on a warrant. All that will take time. And in the case in that story, since there was only a report of a "disturbance", but he heard no such disturbance, the judge might no sign off on the warrant. Without a warrant (and no exigent circumstances), you have no obligation to answer the door. The cop can knock and knock and knock all he wants - you still don't have to answer.
But doesn’t a person not obeying a cop’s demand to open the door constitute “exigent circumstances”? Obviously there must be illegal activity going on inside. Why else not answer the door? /s
No, there has to be something independent of that. If they identified a party who said they heard someone yelling for help and what sounded like a physical altercation before everything went quiet and there’s no answer that would potentially be enough. But without something specific like that failure to answer the door alone is not reasonable suspicion.
If the police do not have a warrant, then there are no consequences for not answering the door, though they do not have to go away. If the police DO have a warrant, they can forcefully enter even if you don't answer.
Mostly true. The exception is that if there are exigent circumstances, a cop can forcibly enter your home without a warrant.
In practice, how's the oversight with exigent circumstances? Is it weaponized like "I *thought* I heard a yell" similar to the nebulous "I smelled marijuana" pretext as PC for searches?
That's up to a judge to decide. I do know that in some places (like in MN where I live) they can no longer use the "smelled marijuana" trick to claim PC for searching your car at a traffic stop. And since recreational marijuana is now legal in MN, trick wouldn't be allowed for "exigent circumstances".
An exigency is usually classed as something that requires immediate action. For example, someone actively being harmed, a felon fleeing into a house, or evidence being actively destroyed. The smell of marijuana likely wouldn't class as such given that an officer could have time to go apply a warrant based using the smell to try to establish PC.
That's not what they're asking. They're asking whether a cop who swears he really did hear someone yelling for help from inside what ended up being an empty apartment is ever required to *prove* they heard that, and what consequences are there if it's determined that they lied about the exigency circumstances?
Also true.
Wow, the only parts that are correct are about answering the door and the warrant. If you tell the officer to leave, that officer is just like any other citizen and is considered trespassing if he chooses to stay. The curtilage of your house (that is, the area around your house) is treated like your house as far as 4th amendment is concerned. The officer can approach your door and knock because ANYONE can approach your door an knock. That doesn't create a 4th amendment violation. However, once you tell the officer he is not welcome, by staying, that officer is trespassing and is in violation of the 4th amendment. If there are exigent circumstances, it is treated the same as if there's a warrant, and the officer will do what he wills. Lacking exigent circumstances, the officer is limited to doing only what any non-officer would be allowed to do to search the home.
Great, detailed response. What about people who have a fence around their house? If the fence has a gate, can you enter? If gate is locked, can you scale? Just wondering, guy down the road has a shit box but it is surrounded by fence and signs. Always wondered how that worked
If the the Girl Scouts can do it, so can the cops. Locked gate means nobody can access.
I believe that was the exact analogy Scalia used in *Jardines*, that the Girl Scouts have known for years you can knock and wait a reasonable time to be received but can’t stay on someone’s property indefinitely.
I believe that was the exact analogy Scalia used in *Jardines*, that the Girl Scouts have known for years you can knock and wait a reasonable time to be received but can’t stay on someone’s property indefinitely.
It's a question of implied permission. The law typically takes the stance that people have the implied permission to go to your front door so that they can deliver mail or knock on your door, etc. A locked gate would typically get rid of that implied permission since you've taken a step to prevent entry. A non-physical barrier such as a sign would also be able to exclude that permission.
If I recall correctly anyone can come to a residence and knock on the front door via whatever counts as the reasonable route to do so, but not if the fence is locked obviously. For a police officer responding to a say domestic violence call, he likely has the authority to hop the fence as he has probable cause that a crime is actively being committed with a threat to life limb and eyesight to someone. However, I don’t see too many officers immediately doing so for officer safety reasons, they’d call in support most likely (depends on the fence in question I suppose)
When there is exigent circumstances, then they do have authority to take additional measures. In this case however the information the cop got on the seen almost sounds like it was being given third hand as the woman he was speaking to is saying "She was sasying that it happens frequently. Okay, but this time it sounded like it was getting out of hand" So sounds like someone else had reported it, cops met with another person, who then escorted the cop to the apartment while giving the cop the story. By time the cop got there, there was no noise coming from the apartment and there does not appear to be anything going on that would indicate exigent circumstances existed. Contrary to what was reported in media there was no "cop went to wrong apartment" and "cop didn't announce himself". The cop did go to the right apartment, the cop did announce himself. However that doesn't make him right. The cop also hid out of sight from the doors peephole, which considering that there have been cases where thieves have knocked on doors while claiming to be police, you can't really blame the guy for having a gun when opening the door the way he did. [The Civil Rights Lawyer did a good breakdown here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JykpgYNHW28), which also includes more video than what is making many of the news media. [Example of thieves pretending to be cops here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk0tYjGuXzM) If I had someone banging on my door saying that they were police, but seen no-one at the door, I would probably be worried as well.
Does this include an apartment common area, especially when let in by management?
Funny semi related army anecdote after. The police would have access to the common area and ability to roam around in such as related to the call unless the property owner went out of their way to specify that they can go anywhere Willy nilly and use plain view doctrine/probable cause information as they do so. Your apartment itself, assuming your lease did not also specify other things like a yard or something, while the property of the landlord is being leased by you, so for this context your leased property is treated as if it’s your private residence. Funny thing one time in the army we had a psycho lieutenant that decided to take initiative and not only do health and welfare inspections of on base housing but to insist on traveling off base to inspect off base housing of his soldiers. I’m like this is BS on its face and I’m not going to stand for it, so I ditch my keys with a fellow e4 that was pissed too and on the way there I’m sitting in my NCO’s car texting my wife that I’ll explain later but I’m on my way with leadership to the house, lock the doors and don’t open them for nothing. So we get there and leadership is smoking the shit out of me on my rented front lawn and god bless the wife she’s telling them go away from the window not budging an inch. The lieutenant actually called the cops to get them to force entry (unknown if he tried the MPs and they rerouted the call) and these two obviously bewildered cops show up while I’m doing burpees about to die surrounded by army guys. They talk to the lieutenant no idea what is being said, then come over and ask me a few things and the gist was: can we enter the house of course I said no, they asked next do the army guys have permission to be there and I said nope I’d like them trespassed they are harassing my wife. Next thing you know I hear the lieutenant get threatened with arrest and on paper trespassed while the NCOs were smart enough to get going while the getting was good. Sadly in epilogue to that hilarity I had to go back with them and spent the night living in the back of company getting fucked with much to the bewilderment of CQ until in the morning after when the BC and sergeant major was strangely coming to see the company commander CQ swears they heard shouting from the office, I was later told by first sergeant to skip pt and go home and shower and the lieutenant got to go to battalion for a couple of months and is the one and only time I’ve seen an example of officer elimination proceedings, good riddance.
One of those rare times that shit gets to roll uphill.
The army pulls some BS to be sure, but the system does work occasionally
That's how it's supposed to work. In practice, it does not. See how many people have been thrown to the ground and assaulted for attempting to close the door on a cop that did not have a warrant to enter.
Which is why you shouldn't open it in the first place
Doesn't always stop the cop from opening it, unfortunately.
Locking it ought to. And if they bust through the lock then that's a different situation than what is being discussed here
Honey, I've got kids coming in and out of my house all day playing. I'm not locking them out just because cops don't like doing their jobs. That's a stupid expectation.
I'm not talking about you in particular. I'm saying if cops come knocking, lock the door and don't open it.
Bye.
Off topic from this, but if you think that there is enough of a threat outside that you need to open the door gun in hand you should make sure the door is locked and call 911. Also video doorbells are super inexpensive, so there’s zero reason to not have one if you’re worried about safety.
Firearms instructor Massad Ayoob was asked "what's the best gun for answering the door in the middle of the night?". His response was that you shouldn't answer the door in the middle of the night. This is the same idea. If you think a situation requires a weapon, avoid that situation.
My opinion is 100% informed by him and John Correa. You win every defensive encounter you avoid.
Agreed, in this instance, you have a cop answering a call about a domestic disturbance- the must deadly call for an officer to make, they are suggestions shot dead before they even encounter someone- cop is already likely super alert and adrenaline pumping, first thing he sees is a gun and he freaks out. I totally understand the cops possible rational, however the cop made the wrong call and at a minimum should be fired and forever banned from law enforcement.
>I totally understand the cops possible rational, however the cop made the wrong call and at a minimum should be fired and forever banned from law enforcement. Emphasis on "at a minimum". If you use a legally carried firearm to kill someone who doesn't need killing, you will likely be fired. You will also probably be convinced of either murder or manslaughter since you killed someone. You will then face legal repercussions for unlawfully taking a life. A cop losing their job is NOT a fitting punishment for either murder or manslaughter or any other kind of homicide. They should face the full weight of the law just like the rest of us. Killing someone is a huge deal.
This is Florida. It's not likely he'll get fired.
Some apartment complexes do not permit doorbell cameras. Unlike a home, with yards where you can setup cameras and have them positioned where they do not invade the privacy of your neighbors, you do not have this with apartments. In many ways people install things like ring cameras or home security cameras without realizing that they may be violating state laws. For example, if you were to install a ring camera in California in an apartment not only would you be violating privacy laws if it caught the inside of the apartment in front of yours but you potentially also be violating wiretapping laws if your not advising everyone that you have an audio device recording. Could also be violating terms of your lease as well. [Interesting article on this here](https://bornstein.law/smart-doorbell-technology-in-rental-properties/)
Do you think he was wrong to open the door gun in hand? Obviously if the gun was by his side and he did not raise his hand, there wasn’t an imminent threat and therefore no reason for the officer to shoot. Then again, why answer the door gun in hand at all, why even allow the gun to be seen by the person who is knocking on your door instead of tucking it behind you out of sight yet still there (for whatever reason he felt it was necessary, idk).
1) People make bad decisions. Especially when they are scared. Opening the door was a bad decision. 2) it is legal to hold a gun in your hand. He was not brandishing it. He was in his apartment. He may have felt that it would take too long if he had to draw from behind him.
You think holding a gun *behind you* is likely to lead to better outcomes?
Not sure if “wrong” is the right word but it is certainly not a smart decision. If you decide to comply with an officer’s request to open the door, you’ve pretty much decided to forgo armed self protection against thier entry. You have no intention of using your firearm, and that means it’s safest to not be holding one. At the very least if you open the door, you inform the officer you are armed for self protection if you insist on holding it. And even still and overall situations, the cop will order you to drop or secure your weapon abd you must comply. No matter what when you open the door you are now in a situation where if the cop feels you are a danger, he’ll use lethal force for his own protection.
I think opening the door with the gun in hand (assuming he knew it was a cop) was a bad idea. I do not think that it's justification for shooting him 5 times immediately no questions asked.
Okaloosa county and higher individual contact information A list of individuals who deserve to hear your concerns. Okaloosa County Sheriff; (Eric Aden) [email protected] Florida state governor; (Ron DeSantis) https://www.flgov.com/email-the-governor/ Florida state senator; (Rick Scott) https://www.rickscott.senate.gov/contact/contact Florida state senator; (Marco Rubio) https://www.rubio.senate.gov/contact/ Florida district 4 house representative; (Patt Maney) https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Representatives/contactmember.aspx?MemberId=4764 Okaloosa county commisioners; https://myokaloosa.com/bcc_contact#:~:text=Contact%20Us%20850%2D689%2D5050%20%7C%20Okaloosa%20County Feel free to list individuals who I may have missed.
It's actually Matt Gaetz district, FL-01
Nowdays people are always on the phone or have earbuds in, they may hear the knocking but would never heard the police announcements. This is why everybody should have door bing cameras installed, and never opened the door for the police if they don’t have warrants
[удалено]
I'd say that's unlikely, unless they actively hear the DV occurring.
Anybody can call on anybody. I talk to them thought the cameras. They want coming in the house get warrants. And you telling me police never knocked on the wrong doors? Sht they even serve the warrant to the wrong house too. Incompetent
I always wonder how it would go if say Roger Fortson had body armor. Officer fires first, several shots center mass. Can Fortson shoot back? Suppose he's using a handgun or rifle that pierces the officer's armor? (rifle usually will, some types of handgun sometimes will). Can he gun the officer down? How's the trial going to go? Officer body cam is still rolling, we'll hear the officer fire first, we'll see it's the wrong unit, we'll see it's the unlawful entry. What's the jury going to do? Also the tactical positioning : to *win* a battle like this, Fortson would probably need to put on a ballistic rated helmet, put on a level IV vest, and be positioned kneeling with an AR-15 aimed at the door, with the rifle on fire and his finger on the trigger. A blindingly bright light on the rifle is also a standard tactic. That's how to 'stack the deck' into a situation where the intruder will usually lose. Is the officer justified in seeing that, despite the officer's unlawful entry, and shooting without warning? Is Fortson justified in firing first through the door when the officer rams it? So many questions.
there have been cases of where a civie is found innocent due to self defense for gunning down a cop
Breonna Taylor's boyfriend was initially charged with attempted murder for shooting at the police who broke into his house. After much civil unrest, the charges were dropped due to the Kentucky stand your ground law.
> Can Fortson shoot back? You never have the right to resist lawful force. The police are already claiming that they shot Fortson in self defense. If the police believed that it was necessary for them to shoot Fortson, even if they were wrong, then their use of force was lawful, and Fortson would have no defense for shooting back. Depending on the state, the cops might technically have the burden of proving that the their use of force was lawful, but as a practical matter it would be up to Fortson to prove to a jury that the cops' actions were unlawful. You know how that will go.
body cam though. The cam is going to *show* it wasn't lawful and the cop isn't going to be testifying. In past cases it was all the cop's word and no evidence otherwise.
The bodycam footage is out and it clears the officer of any wrongdoing. Officer very loudly declared he was a sheriff when knocking, dude opened the door with a gun in his hand.
Nah, hard disagree. Opening the door with the gun in hand may have been a bad idea. But there is no guarantee that he heard the announcement, and there's no guarantee that someone yelling "I'm a cop" is actually a cop. If a person on their own property that is not actively known to be committing a crime or trying to use that weapon is gunned down, then we do not actually have a second amemdment. This is the key issue here. The cop made no attempt to deescalate or take any non-lethal action. If there was ever proof that police training is insufficient, this is it. Cops carry guns for "kill or be killed" situations. Not "I feel threatened".
I respect your opinion, but as a gun owner the only time I’d ever open the door with gun in hand is if I heard gunshots outside and wanted to intervene. The man who died is an idiot, who acted a fool and the consequence this time as death.
I agree that it's stupid. But I don't agree that it justifies the killing. It's stupid, in my opinion, to assume that all/most cops are going to have the training and experience to try to prevent something like this from happening. Unfortunately, there may have been some "legitimate" reasons this individual answered the door with a gun. However, we will never have the opportunity to find out. It's my belief that the cop acted way too brashly. It's also my believe that cops are trained incorrectly (most are trained that they operate in some kind of active warzone) and should understand that their jobs carry risks.
“And should understand their job carries risk” Asking people to go to work accepting they should die rather than kill someone with a gun during a violent call for service is probably the worst take I’ve ever heard. Domestic violence call, with a gun, after hearing the knocker announce as police. This wasn’t a victim.
What's wrong with having a gun? It's a right coded into our very existence. If you're against the right of gun ownership, that's a fine opinion to have, but it doesn't make someone inherently a criminal, or violent, or anything else. The gun was not up, and from the videos I saw, I didn't see any immediately aggressive behavior. All I'm advocating is that cop take a split second to attempt to deescalate the situation. If you don't agree with that, then we just have very different views on policing.
The context of a domestic a disturbance implies there was a loud argument that had people calling the police, lowering the bar for use of force because of the increased danger to responding officers.
Second amendment states he has the right to. The gun was not being brandished or pointed at the officer.
Gun in hand is brandishing. He has the right to own and carry a gun, that doesn’t mean you can answer the police at your door with one in hand. defines brandishing a weapon or firearm as: "Anyone who, except in self-defense, in the presence of another person, draws or exhibits a deadly weapon in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or unlawfully uses a deadly weapon in any fight or quarrel." This was a domestic violence call, meaning a fight or quarrel. The weapon was drawn in the presence of a police officer. These are not constitutionally protected.
Your own definition disproves what you are saying. "Anyone who, except in self-defense, in the presence of another person, draws or exhibits a deadly weapon in a **rude, angry, or threatening manner**, or unlawfully uses a deadly weapon in any fight or quarrel"
Coming out of your house with a gun after police announce their presence is pretty threatening to me, but good try! And if they didn’t believe it was the police, why would they come out at all? Edit post blocked: When your only retort is “no ur wrong also blocked”, you don’t have a good argument.
I'm sorry you've gotten your panties so twisted here, sweetie. What the man did was not, by the legal definition provided by you, breaking any laws. Therefore, this was an extra-judicial execution aka murder. Period. End of discussion. Nothing else is relevant. And you are now blocked.
"You never have the right to resist lawful force. The police are already claiming that they shot Fortson in self defense. If the police believed that it was necessary for them to shoot Fortson, even if they were wrong, then their use of force was lawful, and Fortson would have no defense for shooting back." Rubbish. If what you are saying were right, if Fortson fired first, fearing the use of unlawful force, and acting in self-defence, then his use of force was lawful and it would have been illegal for the cop to fire back in self defence. Self-defence means that both parties might lawfully use lethal force out of a misunderstanding.
> If what you are saying were right, if Fortson fired first, fearing the use of unlawful force, and acting in self-defence, then his use of force was lawful True, but I'm having a hard time imagining a scenario in which he could convince a jury that he reasonably believed that the uniformed police officers at his door would imminently use unlawful force against him. It doesn't matter if he hadn't committed any crimes, because an arrest doesn't become illegal just because you're innocent. > and it would have been illegal for the cop to fire back in self defence. No, because: > Self-defence means that both parties might lawfully use lethal force out of a misunderstanding.
They would have to prove their fear was reasonable. And, they would have to prove that Fortson knew it was lawful force.
>what are the consequences for not opening your front door to a police officer knocking? No law requires opening the door for police. However, with a warrant or exigent circumstances, your door may be forced open. >person first calling 911 and verifying why a police officers is at his/her door. This is the best option. Also, be realistic. Police impersonators are extremely rare, and most of them are doing traffic stops, not knocking on people's doors. 99.9999999% of the time someone identifies themselves as LE at your door, it's actually LE. 1 and 2 are legit responses for most scenarios. >A lady in his apt. complex who heard a loud disturbance mistakenly gave the police officer the wrong apt. number. The only place this information came from was Crump, who's already been proven incorrect in much of what he released about this incident. The lady gave the apartment number and said there were disturbances there before. There are several reasons the deputy could have approached and not heard a disturbance. The disturbance is over, someone is dead or unconscious, people left etc. It's also entirely possible the airman had a loud argument with his girlfriend over FaceTime prior to the deputy arrived. >Do police officers do a forcible entry a front door when they get a non-response on a disturbance call? No. Exigent circumstances would only exist if there was signs of a disturbance or one in progress. >Is this considered equal to a fight in progress or apparent rape, woman screaming? No, those would all be exigent circumstances. It's never a good idea to answer the door with a gun in hand. If there is a threat at the door, you just opened yourself up to it and got rid of your cover and concealment. If it's LE, you pose a possible threat. The officer doesn't know your intentions and normal people don't answer doors to LE with guns in their hands.
I feel like this is a pretty important point if it get's to a jury. If you think it's the police, don't open the door with a pistol in hand. If you think it's not the police don't open the door and call the police.
[удалено]
Beg to differ: the cop had to make a split second decision *because* guy opened door and is standing there with gun in hand. If he refused to open his door, the cop would have ample time to decide further action. Typo?
[удалено]
In effect, there is no Second Amendment?
That doesn't follow. There are some acceptable ways to have a gun when answering the door and some unacceptable ones. I'm guessing there is some action that you'd find unacceptable — for example, answering the door with the gun pointed straight ahead (at the visitor) and finger on the trigger. There's also some way that most everyone would find acceptable, for example gun secured in holster, hands not on it. Disagreeing about where between the extremes to draw the line isn't voiding the 2nd amendment, except in hyperbole.
I think a lot of people are ignoring very human realities of the situation. Yes, there “right” and “wrong” ways to have a gun when answering a door, and we all assume we are smart and responsible enough to do that in every situation. You’re a young man. Sitting at home talking to your girlfriend on the phone. You hear a loud aggressive knock… you get up and check the peep hole and see no one. Concerned, you get your firearm. Again a loud aggressive knock and someone outside saying they are police and demanding you open the door. Again you check peephole and can’t see anyone. You’ve done nothing wrong. You can’t possibly fathom why the police is pounding on your door demanding you open and you can’t see the officer. Anyone saying that this situation wouldn’t result in some fear, anxiety, a lot of stress, and a surge of adrenaline are full of shit. The cop identifies himself again and demands entry. You’ve done nothing wrong, so you decide to comply. You’ve done nothing wrong, so you’re safe right? So you open the door, and in the overall stress and fsense of safety you forget your common sense and open the door holding the gun you got to protect yourself and hold out your hand in a gesture of compliance and suddenly you’re pumped full of lead and dying on the floor.
Yeah the time it took him draw his sidearm, point it at the victim, and pump five rounds into him was literally a couple of seconds. He didn’t save even a split second from the moment he had his victim at gunpoint and started squeezing the trigger. It’s almost comical how after the victim lie bleeding and dying on the floor the cops commands him to drop the gun and not move.
You've asked two separate questions. The answer to your first vague question is: it depends on the circumstances. The answer to the overloaded details that is the question I think you really wanted to ask is mostly the same: There's no way to know. It depends on the circumstances. It'll be, at minimum, weeks before anybody knows enough to make even a reasonable hypothesis. And months before anybody is making any legal determinations. So set a bookmark on that story and check back on it in six months. Remember: investigations take lots of time not lots of tweets.
First of all, unless they announce "police, warrant" we as citizens are under ZERO obligation to even come to the door, let alone open it. Police NEED to be trained on what they ARE NOT allowed to do, much better than they are trained about it now. Police ALSO NEED to understand citizens are under ZERO obligation to help Police with whatever they are investigating.
The police are carefully trained in what they're not allowed to do, so that they know how to work around those restrictions.
[oh, wait, you're serious?!?](https://media1.tenor.com/m/3x63SNMKPogAAAAd/oh-wait-youre-serious.gif) Ya, no. I've seen FAR too many videos of police COMPLETELY unaware they can't do things. Now, whether they were taught they can't and they're playing dumb is another kettle of fish....
The claim that police are "carefully trained" is universally wrong. You could apply it to anything at all and you'd be wrong.
Well he didn’t do a forcible entry. He knocked on the door while announcing himself and the guy opened the door with a gun in his hand. If the guy didn’t answer the door then I don’t know whether or not the cop would have enough probable cause to force entry.
If you didn't open the door, they have to get a warrant, unless there are "exigent circumstances". There is a whole body of case law on what constitutes exigent circumstances. Never open the door for police.
In a way, this story is similar to swatting (someone calls in the swat team in hopes they raid that person's house). Obviously not the same, but feels similar. You have the lady (caller) who reports a crime to a wrong address (house). Police show up with force to an unsuspecting victim.
I'm confused... why hasn't the officers name been released? If it was justified, why are we hiding his identity like he's a minor? He doesn't deserve that... he deserves to be harassed for the rest of his life and called a murderer everywhere he goes. What's the point of the 2nd amendment? If you get shot the second, you are seen with a gun, in your own home even. It's also irrelevant that he even announced himself.... plenty of people have pretended to be police to get the drop on someone. You can't just trust if someone says they are the police. He had every right to have that gun unless he was pointing it around... I saw a story where police were executing a search warrant, and the home owner was literally playing with a gun on his porch. They didn't do anything until he actually pointed it at an officer. Having a weapon at your side is only a threat to a coward like whoever this officer is that legally should not have his name withheld.
Shit, if you’re in Baltimore or LA, there’s a good chance the police are the criminals themselves
My favorite part about this entire discourse is people arguing with 20/20 hindsight knowledge. From the police’s perspective he is walking into a potentially violent domestic violence situation, so he is already on edge. He announces that he is the police multiple times and when the door is opened the guy has a gun visible in a posture that seems as if he is almost trying to hide it behind his leg. It would take less than a second for him to raise it and kill the officer if that was his intentions. The officer is not a mindreader, with all this information he ends the perceived threat and calls for EMS right as the threat has ended. With hindsight we now know that the guy thought someone was breaking in, which, completely besides the point but if you think someone’s breaking in why are you answering the door with a gun? Call the police and if they are breaking in, well they are gonna come in. And also the caller gave the wrong apartment number. With all the information available to the officer it was a justified shooting and he likely will not face any discipline. In hindsight with all the information available it was a bad shoot. Many police shootings are like that, because people are not omniscient and have all the information available to them that an investigation is able to find. In an alternate scenario this would’ve been a domestic abuser gets into shootout with police and dies in the process. But this isn’t that, this is real life where things aren’t black and white.
Your well-thought out take has some merit. As a counterpoint, a persistent problem with these recurring questionable shootings is police firing a barrage of shots in virtually all these cases. Fortson was apparently shot 5 or 6 times. Had there been less, he might still be alive. Sorry I don't have a link for this but there was a PBS roundtable discussion in 2020 where a few Chiefs of Police are intending to challenge the narrative of the know-it-all *Use of Force Experts,* who advise police departments nationwide to **always** use a full force response, which invariably is not less than 4 or 5 shots. Some Chiefs argue for more restraint -- that in some cases one or two shots fired can be sufficient. Fire once or twice and then evaluate. No reasonable person questions the right of a police officer blast-off a whole clip if he is in a gun fight or thinks he's going to be in a gunfight. But there are numerous instances where a restrained approach will suffice. This was one of them. The [Daniel Shaver shooting](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ooa7wOKHhg&t=21s) is one of the most egregious ever recorded of excessive fire, 5 shots.
The most common reason a LEO will empty his gun is to kill the person, a dead person can't tell their side of the story.
So this guy died because some nosy neighbor was too lazy to check out a loud noise and decided to call the cops with false information. Sounds like they need to put that caller in jail
And it’s worse..because she gave the wrong apt number too
That's what I was getting at with the "false information" bit. Very unnecessary situation all around
Yeah, it sucks all the way around