If you don't open the door for the police they'll use a battering ram and probably throw in some flashbangs and/or tear gas, or just use an armored vehicle to destroy your house.

Never had someone drop by?

How about a mail lady that leaves her underwear in your box?

But he thought it was the police in this case.... or at least he is saying that word "Police". Maybe he was talking to the person on the phone or talking to his self. Who knows at this point.

Seeing the vacuum makes me wonder if he was vacuuming. It is hard to tell with the way the bodycam picks up sounds. The noise could be the vacuum or just traffic going by.

I’ll look at the doorbell camera and decide from there.  If it’s an unexpected cop they can talk to me through the doorbell.

Seriously, it’s 2024.

I got the feeling it will be found he didn't do anything against procedure. Maybe he'll feel remorse from fucking up so bad he'll retire.

But the family will sue in civil court and get a good size check. Guessing around $10-15M.

Serious question, would you open your door to a stranger without some method of protecting yourself?

Freedom is scary for some people.

How far was deputy from wall and how far to right or left?

Wow.

Police officer shoots a man for holding a pistol.

Fuck him.
Send him to prison.

Another government thug killing a man for exercising his 2nd amendment rights.

You keep using that word...

Apples to oranges.

Stepping out of a your car isn't even remotely the same as remaining inside your own residence.  At what point in the video does Fortson enter the hallway with the handgun in his hand?

brandish
1 of 2
verb
bran·​dish ˈbran-dish
brandished; brandishing; brandishes
Synonyms of brandish
transitive verb

1
: to shake or wave (something, such as a weapon) menacingly
brandished a knife at them
2
: to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner
brandishing her intellect

Holding a gun to your side in the doorway of your own home is not Brandishing, show where in the video he was using the gun in a menacing or aggressive manner towards the officer.

The cop should be charged with murder, plain and simple.

Does a door to door salesman with a CWP have the right to ventilate someone in the doorway of their own home because they have a weapon in their hand when they come to the door? Absolutely not, so why do people think a cop does?  

He wasn’t serving a warrant.

This always make my spidey senses tingle.

I doubt many families could afford to pay a lawyer of his level of notoriety. I wouldn't at all be surprised if someone in the shadows is paying on the victim's behalf every time you see Crump on the scene - at least as a loan until the victims get their settlement money.

Cause this man isn't going out and race baiting for free, and. It all of his cases win.

Can I ask why you and the other guys in the forum feel this way?

The victim is the victim whether you can trust his lawyer or not. They're not paid to tell us the truth, they're there to win for their client.

But no matter who the lawyer is, the events of the day don't change, all that change is the perspective and the way they're going to spin the story.

(I don't understand how your feelings for a lawyer can alter your feelings about the circumstances of the victim's death.)

Question- if some rando knocks on my door loudly, yells something unintelligible, then walks away, and then comes back again, and knocks some more. Let's say I can't understand anything he said through the door.

Let's just say I've seen him- through the peephole, or out of a window. In this case, it's not a cop, but some normal looking guy. And I decide, for whatever reason, to 'see what he wants'.

And I open my door with a gun simply in my hand. Not waving it around, not pointing it anywhere but down by my side, and making no movements whatsoever.

At that point in time, have I committed ANY crime?

There are members of this site, in this thread, who would shoot you and then come here and blame you for it.

There's the possible viewpoint also that the airman in this case is maybe around guns a lot. He may be comfortable with them, and is used to being around others who are carrying and handling guns. A gun to him in the hands of a good guy is not even a concern to him. He probably thinks a cop is supposed to be a good guy as well- therefore his cavalier attitude towards answering the door with his gun in his hand. He may have seen it was a cop, wanted to ask him what was going on, and didn't even consider what it would look like to the cop. He may have not even been consciously aware he was still holding it- or at least aware, but at that point not planning on using it.

Just some strange food for thought.

funny thing about that, pretty sure they are cops too

I still see that as murder by government agents protected by other government agents, and considered that when I drive through Farmington recently.

If the cops can smoke you for answering the door holding your TV remote, what do you think holding a gun is going to get you?

This is the huge disconnect.

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

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

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

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

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

"He's displaying a firearm, while answering the door, while knowing it was a cop." is one complete sentence.  You don't get to ignore the bits that contradict your narrative.  It's called the TOTALITY of the circumstances.  Oh, wait, I already said that and you conveniently ignored and clipped it.
I'm sorry you refuse to understand that answering the door with a pistol in hand and visible is intrinsically threatening.  I'll give it one last try.  The state and federal legal definitions of brandishing were posted a few pages back.  We can summarize them as brandishing has two elements: (1) displaying a weapon and (2) the context.  With the first element as a given let's consider the second:
Holding a gun while at the gun shop, gun show, range, while hunting, etc.?
Not brandishing.

Holding a pistol and displaying it while answering the door after verifying that the knocker is your shooting buddy?
Not brandishing.

Holding a pistol and displaying it while answering the door after verifying the knocker is a threat?
Not brandishing (but probably stupid.)

Holding a pistol and displaying it answering the door for an unknown?
Brandishing (and really stupid.)

Holding a pistol and displaying it while answering the door after viewing a uniformed police officer?
Brandishing (and really stupid.)

Please notice how simply holding a pistol and displaying a pistol while answering the door are different contexts and how who you know or don't know is at the door are different contexts.

You can, if you really want, argue that the "police" statement heard on the body cam wasn't him, was misunderstood, or was him telling himself it wasn't really a cop.  I doubt many would believe any of those are likely.

You highlighted the level of threat Fortson posed and how screwed the deputy was due to the action-reaction gap against him when he opened the door with your statement "In fact, he never had time to act in any way other than to raise his left hand in a defensive posture."  I would describe that as the "Oh shit, I fucked up but I'm too proud to drop my gun!" gesture.

It appears that gun control passes so easily because of how many people, even supposed gun owners, are woefully ignorant and misinformed about what they can and can't do and UOF in self-defense.

Geez dude!  The emotionally manipulative language is just oozing everywhere.  You would be a perfect spokesman for HCI (or whatever they're calling themselves these days.)

It doesn't matter whether the person answering the knock is the homeowner or a squatter.  It is completely reasonable for the knocker, whether they be cops or Girl Scouts, to interpret the display of the firearm as a threat and defend themselves.

How about the members of this site in this thread who's threat detection and fear response are so dulled and impotent they would think nothing of someone answering the door they knocked on with a weapon in hand?

I delivered pizzas for a while.  If someone had answered the door with gun in hand then I would have considered it a threat and defended myself.  Damn straight it would have been their fault.

Interesting and somewhat ironic, I guess.  The information in the videos is still good.  It matches with everything else I've read and watched and my own experience with reaction times.

Guess the new law enforcement standard operating procedure is to shoot first and ask questions later! The you will be cleared of all wrongdoing, the family will win a lawsuit and the officer is back on patrol looking for his next showdown.

I dont awnser my door. But if i did thats also my policy.

Everything you posted is entirely irrelevant, and you really are grasping at straws.  You can try to change the narrative all you want,  but this idea that the mere possession of a handgun while in your own residence justifies being shot buy an uninvited individual is just crazy in my mind.  You make all these assumptions to things we simply don't know, can't know, and may never know.  We have no idea who Fortson thought was at his door, nor what he thought their intentions were.  Everything else is just conjecture and a bunch of guesses.

I show up unannounced and unexpected to someone's residence, knock aggressively on the door multiple times and initially and purposely conceal my identity from the peephole, then I should not be surprised if they answer with some sort of weapon or manner to defend themselves....and the fact they do certainly does not give me the right (as the aggressor) to in turn shoot that person.

This is what I have a hard time understanding, and I am trying to be as objective as possible here.  I *really* want to be able to see the officer's side on this one, but it was handled about as poorly as possible in every regard....and ended in the death of young man who had committed no crime.

I'll play the hypothetical game with you.  Let's say Fortson had just gotten off the phone with his shooting buddy, who's meeting him at the apartment to go to the range.  He's just called to say he's in the parking lot and coming up, so Fortson is expecting him.  Fortson hears knocks, and thinking its his shooting buddy, answers the door brandishing displaying holding the handgun he wants to show him...except its the cop.  So in this brandishing/not brandishing scenario, is the officer still justified in shooting him?

This is ridiculously contrived notion you've created.  Think about this logically.  You open your door to an unknown (there is absolutely no evidence at this time that Fortson knew unequivocally it was LEO at the door), and in under 2 seconds that individual has instructed "Step back" and begins firing...and you believe that his first instinct should have been to drop the gun?  He never had time.  Watch the video, even if he had dropped the gun the moment the officer cleared holster, he still would have almost certainly been shot.  A span of under 2 seconds is an incredibly short timeframe for an unsuspecting individual to process and react to an aggressive threat, and the simple act of raising his free hand is an almost universal sign of a defensive reaction (certainly not threatening).  His hand reaches a defensive position in front of his chest almost the exact moment the first shot was fired.  Even a well trained individual would have had a poor chance at not being shot in this scenario.  You make assumptions that Fortson knew it was an officer, further confirmed it was an officer on opening the door, and processed all this information quickly and accurately enough that he should have dropped the gun.  These are simply all assumptions that have no basis in verifiable fact at this point.  Period.  This entire encounter took 48 seconds from first knock to shooting, and with roughly 2 seconds being the amount of time Fortson actually visualizes who is at the door.   48 seconds from initial contact to being ultimately shot dead.

You either didn't read the statute or don't know how to implement it.



The biggest problem with your argument is that you insist that the existence of a firearm is threatening. That is not the way the FL law reads. Even if it did, that would be unconstitutional, as we all know that RTKBA, particularly pistols in the home; is covered by the 2A and routinely affirmed by SCOTUS.

Both key elements of the FL law for improper exhibition are not met by the Airmen

1. There was no clear exhibition of a "rude, careless, angry or threatening manner"
2. It was absolutely necessary for him to keep his arms at the ready for potential attack from unknown threats. As it turns out, even doing so was clearly demonstrated as wholly inadequate.

Existence of guns is not a threat. Cops can't just shoot someone open carrying on the street, nor can they do so in your own house. The Deputy had no provocation for his attack, and has no justification for claiming it was in defense of himself or others. It is murder / manslaughter.

So your “policy” is to shoot anyone on your property and ask questions later?

This comparison is spot on.

But he was holding displaying brandishing a handgun!

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

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

Cops own worst enemies are cops and departments like this.

Curious, what are police officers trained to do in this situation?  Seems that most body/dash cam videos of police interacting with someone that has a gun, the office yells for the individual to drop the weapon (sometime multiple times) before firing.  Is that the training?

according to many TBL’ers here, yes, that is acceptable.

After reading this thread, and multiple others regarding police shooting homeowners/tenants in their own homes for simply holding a firearm…

It has been made very clear. In 2024 if you are holding a firearm in your home and police happen to see you at your door, on your porch, in your garage, in your living room through a window, etc., whether you know it’s the police or not, or even if they are in your backyard in the middle of the night peeping through your blinds, the police are allowed to shoot you dead.

I don’t think it’s right, but it’s seriously been made clear over and over. And over.

I don’t think it’s right or just, but it’s SERIOUSLY been made clear.

I can easily understand the “defund the police” mindset that has been becoming more popular these past few years. :(

Because it fits.

He answered the door with a gun in his hand which is threatening to the person on the other side of the door. Be it a cop, be it the Amazon driver, be it the pizza delivery man.

Answering the door with a gun in your hand is stupid. Use a holster.

It doesn't even begin to fit. He had the gun held down to his side, he wasn't waving it around, he wasn't pointing it anyone, it was simply hanging straight down. That cop murdered him, plain and simple.

Absolutely stupid reasoning.

I guess someone has to lick those boots.

firearm held in a down, non-ready position. directives to "drop the gun" should have been given by the Sheriff FIRST. see no reason to justify this Sheriff immediately resorting to repeatedly shooting before those directives being verbalized

I’m sure the Sheriff’s departments use of force training and policy involve something to the effect of a “deadly force triangle” which goes something like

Weapon - including max effective range
Opportunity - yes clearly the Airman had opportunity with it in his hand
Action - ughh nope. Definitely no action. Actually if I had taken that shot in simunitions or said I would take that shot in a classroom I’d probably have been kicked out of FLETC and sent home

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

Thanks for providing the New England cop perspective.

He did not brandish.  

Brush up on your reading comprehension then read the statute again.

How do you know the airman knew it was a cop at his door? Lets ask him, oh wait, never mind.

Cops maybe should be taught that sometimes de-escalation involves them backing down too. They are not wartime soldiers, nor judge and executioners.

You mean like the policy this cop followed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Deputy fucked up. He murdered a guy.

Thanks for playing

Backing down was definitely the right move for Aaron Dean.

A prowler, in the fenced back yard at night, with a flashlight outside your bedroom window while you're playing video games with your nephew?
Damn right you pull out your Glock and cover the window.

If the prowler is a cop engaged in criminal trespass (that's what it became when he breached the backyard fence) in the night, when he peers in the window and sees the Glock sweeping towards the window, he can get the fuck away from the window.

Good to go as long as they're holding a firearm, right?

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