Or maybe make sure you are at the correct address. Stop, look and listen.  Then knock on the door like an adult while announcing POLICE loudly.

If you want to have an actual consensual conversation, unlike this guy, that’s one thing.  Rabid Judge Dredd is another.

Didn't say that did I? I was pointing out your statement goes both ways. It's shooting like this that are cause people to say f the police. If it's hard for you to understand that the kid had just as much right to live as the cop then you have a screw loose. Why is it that Game Wardens that deal with armed people all the time aren't killing people left and right? Are they better trained or just have a better mentality?

Or just don't kill someone who isn't threatening them?

Not sure why that's such a big ask.  No problem with a knock and talk, just don't go killing people because they have have gun that's not being used in a threatening manner.  But literally held to their side.

Show us where entry was made.... Or even attempted.

Go read what these others typed........ no noise means the police should not even bother contacting anyone inside. That is what these posters here want.

Knock and talk was correct. Listening first was correct. Doing this alone was not correct. Without any noise, there was no point in rushing the contact.

The guy literally shot someone who didn't make any threatening action.  I mean literally nothing threatening.

Again, no problem with knocking and talking.

Big problem with killing a guy because he has a gun in his hand pointed down, and zero threatening actions.

Want to take a guess why people are upset?

We are talking about your hypothetical now.

And just assuming it's the right thing to do to ventilate the guy who opens the door without threatening.

Went to know why fewer trust government agents?

Lack of accountability.

If it weren't such a sad situation, I'd honestly laugh at someone the posts in this thread trying to demonize the victim by claiming that he had a "rude" demeanor in the second between opening to door and being aerated or that he "drew down" on the officer.

My late father was an attorney who worked as a prosecutor and as defense counsel.

He used to say that eyewitness testimony was generally worthless because people always let personal biases inform what they actually saw. As time has passed, I've realized that the old man was right, as usual.

Only when they feel the pain like the families experience, it isn't even a blip on the radar to them.

The California Supreme Court just ruled that a person trying to avoid contact with police doesn't provide reasonable suspicion for an investigative detention.

I've seen some people crapping on the decision, but if the standard is that cops are allowed to use any manner of force if they feel even slightly threatened, then it's only reasonable that most people should want to avoid dealing with them if possible.

Again this is all hearsay. Did they verify any of this? I don't see where they did. It would be real easy to verify who the alleged trouble maker was if that was the case.

I don't doubt it's a possibility and DV calls are usually the ones where things could go sideways instantly. But they still need to verify and then not light the guy up just because he is holding a gun.

You ignore this over and over and it gets old.

I agree. Still want to hear more about the incident and I haven't found the video Aimless posted about.

My comments were directed towards the fools that thought without them locating immediate evidence to support the call that the police should never make contact.

First off the Airman is not a "civilian" and second off the Police are "civilians" you got that completely backward. About par for GD.

You did at least get the bad shoot part right.

Not sure what video he's talking about, I've only seen the I've from the press release.

So to be clear, do you think good shoot or bad shoot?

You're a former LEO? Sound pretty confused on what I understand the law to normally be - an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury, not an immediate threat.

This isn't the first, or likely the last, time someone has been shot answering their own door with a firearm in hand. In TONS of cases, holding a firearm absolutely constitutes a hostile act/hostile intent, generally because other facts are present. And if you watch enough youtube, you can find TONS of police interactions where someone starts holding a weapon at their side, or behind them, only to shoot at the officers a few seconds later. It sucks that no one cared enough for this kid to tell him not to answer the door with a gun in his hand. But who knows, maybe it was a high crime apartment, or maybe he had problematic neighbors. Maybe there were criminal crews pretending to be police officers in order to rob people, which happens.

If nothing happens criminally, its because of the facts:

Person credibly reported possible domestic.
Officer knocked and announced.
Person at the residence appeared at the door with a weapon in their hand.

None of that means it wasn't a tragedy, but your take on this is bonkers and I'd love to know what LE agency you claim to be part ot.

Dude, calm down. What is a non-consensual encounter? What is illegal detention? What is unreasonable legal force? There are lots of videos where real experts are talking about this shooting, people with law degrees, people who understand use of force laws in the U.S. Watch those and post less.

This Airman must have a Colonel way above him in his chain. Sure hope that Colonel makes it very clear to this sheriff that accountability will be had at either the state or federal level.

How do they verify a possible DV is underway or just happened? By knocking on the door of the residence where they are told the DV(s) have happened perhaps?

I'm not seeing where Ive ignored anything.....................what exactly have I ignored?

Was he breaking the law by holding his gun at his side in his own residence?

Here….just like the gd, understand shit half ass

You think it would have stopped with a knock and talk? Entering the residence was next on the list in all probability. Could the resident have just shut the door?

Kinda hard to close a door when he was killed in under a couple seconds while not actually breaking any laws near as can be determined.

Guess the only solution is to let government do whatever they need to do to assure themselves of whatever they are thinking of.

"We had a call" would have covered searching the residence for phantom victims given the mindset. You know, just to be sure.

Murder.

"What if I'm at the nude beach?"

Do the outdoors (woods, beach, whatever) where you live have doors in them that only the nude hunter can open?  If not then your what if is irrelevant and retarded.

English please.

In the first video the initiator was static with his gun in full view of the reactor.  That video wasn't good enough for some people so they did another drill with live Simunitions and it still isn't good enough!

Your comprehension is bad and you should feel bad.  The video shows that the initiator has the advantage in getting the first shot off and nothing else.  Being the initiator while already being aimed in would be an even bigger advantage.

It and the original video erase the idea that it is impossible for a guy with his pistol pointing down at his side to be a threat to the officer.

At what hit rate would you accept the risk to your life?  99%? 50%? 25%? 5%? 1%? 0.01%?  Is your acceptable-for-you risk the same as your acceptable-for-somebody-else risk?

The officer had a railing to his back when Fortson opened the door.  He couldn't back up unless you expect him to jump off the fourth floor.

Really?  Aikibiker posted the other video from them and this one, also from them, was the top suggested video for me.

draw 1b: to pull up or out of a receptacle or place where seated or carried
At some point, before he opened the door, he drew the pistol from a holster or storage location.  It's even theoretically possible he did so long before the cop arrived and just happened to be holding it the entire time.

Open carry?  What are you on about?

Let me turn that right back on you.  Do you really think any sane juror is going to buy your argument that displaying a gun while you answer the door isn't brandishing and no reasonable person that ever has existed or ever will exist could possibly interpret that as a threat?  You're going to get a real hard lesson if you try that.

I already said, repeatedly, "Cops or Girl Scouts -- it doesn't matter."  Which orifice did you pull the "Why you think this is any different from the officers is beyond me." BS from?

It's called the TOTALITY of the circumstances.  He's not "merely holding a pistol."  He's displaying a firearm, while answering the door, while knowing it was a cop.  (You can hear Fortson say "police" on the body camera.)  Stop picking and choosing.

How you can misconstrue displaying a firearm as you answer the door as anything other than inherently rude and threatening is beyond me.  It amazes me the levels some people will go to defend this sort of behavior.

A recent definition—last several decades. Previously it was understood that civilians were persons not subject to military law, following an older distinction between secular and Canon law. It’s not a distinction that we can fairly expect a tradesman to understand.

Murder

That's one way to make sure nobody ever opens the door for police. Good grief.

I think we should only open the door completely naked and as soon as it’s open we hold our hands and reach for the sky. Will people still be shot by police? Absolutely, especially if you use the “totality of the circumstances” argument the poster a few posts back referenced. “I saw his boner and feared for my safety.” Think about it, the cops are at the door and the guy answers naked? The cops were obviously sent there for some kind of violation obviously. Through their training and experience it’s evident that while investigating a possible crime they encounter a man, who knows the police are outside his door, answers completely naked? Obviously he has ill intent, maybe a rapist, or even worse, the Odessa ass bandit? As people who subscribe to this way of life quite possibly have all kinds of nasty diseases, it would be unwise and perhaps deadly (AIDS?) for the police to go hands on with this naked aggressor and risk having their anus or other bodily orifice penetrated and be inflicted with a possibly deadly disease, the totality of the circumstances would warrant the use of deadly force in this case so the officer would be able to go home and STD free.

Get out of here with the crazy talk!

So, we've gone from holding a firearm, to brandishing a firearm, to now merely displaying a firearm?  You really can't be this obtuse.  Just look at the pic.  He is merely holding a firearm, while still in his own private residence, and is in no way acting aggressively or in any threatening manner.  In fact, he never had time to act in any way other than to raise his left hand in a defensive posture.

Furthermore, you have no idea what the young man knew or heard.  Period.  All we know is that he opened the door and was immediately shot.  Dead men never really get to tell their side of the story, we are just extremely fortunate in this case the body cam wasn't turned off or conveniently malfunctioning.

I ask myself all the time how people can just sit back and let gun laws/restrictions get passed so easily, and these sort of threads make it all painfully obvious why it happens.

Find one single cop in this thread who's said it was a good shoot.

Legally justified is not the same as good. Plenty of shootings, by cops and armed citizens alike, have been decided as not rising to the level of a criminal charge...and yet still been entirely unnecessary and tragic losses of life.

Where things go off the rails (besides the general media-inflamed hatred for LE these days) is understanding the why of how things happen, or the legalities thereof. Much like how the legal definition of "brandishing" has been pointed out and argued repeatedly in this thread, the blunt truth is that if few cops have a deep and thorough knowledge of use of force laws, the overwhelming majority of the public/gun owners/GD have an almost non-existent knowledge of applicable statutes and case law. In the immortal words of Richard Feynmann, they're "not even wrong" because the fundamental concepts at play globally within the US criminal justice system are totally unknown to the people commenting on them.

Which is precisely why the most applicable takeaways from this: don't answer the goddamn door with a gun in your hand - is also the statement least willing to be understood and heard by the crowds here.

Many people here argued that it was lawful for the decedent in Farmington, NM to answer the door while holding his pistol at waist level pointing out at the officers who were knocking.

Oddly, none of those posters wanted to eat crow and admit they were wrong because their knowledge of the law was incomplete and faulty.

GD needs to spend less time worrying about guilty or not guilty, and a FUCKLOAD more time sitting through some basic classes on use of force laws.

I didn't make the accusations. The woman who told the apartment management to call 911 did so. If you can't distinguish between the words of a person in GD, and the actual reporting party of a call, why should anyone pay attention to what you're saying?

As far as what was said, I'm describing what's visible in the video. If the deputy's statement to investigators is "beats me, I just panicked when I saw the gun and started shooting" then no, it's not going to be found justifiable. If he reports that he heard "fuck da POLICE!" and a moment later sees the gun in hand, that's an entirely different situation.  I can't tell what he says other than "police". Neither can the PIO editing the video. Obviously the deputy heard something with greater detail than bodycam captured, and more than likely the deputy made a statement to an investigator..which will eventually come out.

#1   Don't answer the door for the police with a gun in your hand.

#2  Reasonable people do not answer the door for the police with a gun in their hands.   Even 911 Operator will tell you to put the weapon away in a safe place.

Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy.

The actor has the ability to cause serious bodily injury or death to the deputy.

The actor is in a position that can cause serious bodily injury or death to the responding deputy.

The actor has the ability to act before the deputy can react.

People don’t hate LE because of “general media”. It’s because they kill people standing in their own house over nothing, or mag dump over an acorn, and then hide behind case law and QI to get away with it.

If cops get special treatment, and have special laws to protect them, then they’re going to get special hatred when they abuse it over and over and over.

You mistake claims that it was legal for the man in NM to brandish his weapon for claims that it was unlawful for the police to shoot him.

Again, the statement of a suspect in a homicide investigation shouldn’t carry much weight.

You’ll have to forgive the public for not wanting the police to shoot everyone who the police think they can articulate a reason for shooting.

This was a scenario that was hammered on back in 2007 and 2008 when I went through tech school and then my duty station. Doing what the deputy did here was an automatic failure.

Which is probably why I didn't shoot 2 people that answered the door with a weapon in hand(kitchen knife and gun respectively), on 2 different DV calls, one of which was before I was even old enough to legally purchase a hand gun.

Step back and draw, command and call out, hands first. Makes the situation real clear if the person comes charging out the door or the weapon comes out first.

I've watched the video below more than a few times....

The initial knock is @ 2:29, with no announcement...just a loud knocking.  Within roughly 7 seconds (by 2:36) the officer is completely out of a clear view from the peephole.  18 seconds later (2:54), there is inaudible dialogue that is reported as maybe containing the word "police", but I am not sure its been confirmed.  Regardless, within the time the initial knock is made (and before the 2nd and 3rd knocks), it is entirely plausible that Fortson has checked the peephole and sees no one outside the door, or at the very least, has no idea who the individual is.  Actual announcement of "Sheriff's Office" isn't made until the second knock at 3:01, 30 seconds after initial contact, with the 3rd and final knock @ 3:09.

Door is opened slowly by Fortson @ 3:15, clearly lowering his left hand, and the only instruction from the officer is "step back".  Within one second @ 3:16, the officer has drawn and begins firing.

Here's what is factual from the video.  The officer doesn't identify himself until the 2nd knock, 30 seconds after initial contact.  Fortson opens the door @ 3:15, roughly 45 seconds after initial contact.  Bodycam video shows no aggressive movements from Fortson, he didn't jerk the door open, and you can clearly see him lowering his left hand.  Within 2 seconds, the officer commands "step back" and begins shooting.  Fortson never exited the apartment, never yelled anything at the officer, didn't lunge, make any furtive movements, or do anything illegal under current Florida law.  The officer never attempted to move away from the supposed threat, stays in the door way, and begins shooting within 2 seconds.

What isn't factual from the video is we have no idea how Fortson interpreted the knocking, what he heard from the officer, or whether he understood it was in fact a legitimate LEO at his door.  We also have no idea what Fortson said while in the apartment, nor how the officer interpreted at that time what he heard (or even thought he heard).

This idea that Fortson was somehow brandishing displaying a handgun in any sort of aggressive matter is laughable given the information available at this time.  For all we know, he had no idea who he thought was at the door and certainly did not know their intentions.  What I see from the video is an immediate overreaction from an amped up deputy to a gentleman answering his door while holding a handgun.  That's it. I rarely have people coming to my house I am not expecting, and its even rarer to get knocks at my door.  When I do, I always answer with a way of protecting myself.

I don't believe for a second (based on the video) that this guy answered the door with a handgun as a challenge to the officer, had any intentions of shooting the officer, or intended on starting a gunfight.  This is a 23yr old Senior Airman with no criminal record I can find...and he certainly doesn't sound defiant or belligerent after being shot.  It simply looks like he was unsure who was at the door, and grabbed the gun just in case...unfortunately, "just in case" turned out to be an overreacting officer who just had to get it on the second he saw a firearm.

Anytime Ben Crump's name gets thrown into a situation I immediately think race-baiting, but its these kinds of cases where the Ben Crumps of the world are a necessary evil.

Brought to you by the same people that recently changed the definition of a vaccine.

I don't like Crump's shtick. However, he's negotiated like a half a billion dollars in government settlements, and the idiots on cable news love him.

Shining on a spotlight on a PD is often the only way to guarantee that things don't get swept under the carpet in a use of force investigation.

The Sheriff wasn't being responsive at all to the family until Crump did the rounds in the media.

EXACTLY.  These threads really bring out some of the best that GD has to offer.

GD has GD’d the fuck out of this as expected, but holy shit.

Huh.  You didn't immediately kill them just because they had a weapon in their hand?  You must be the best of the best to pull that off!

Can't expect a reasonable officer to pull that off.