Originally Posted By Francisco_dAnconia:
...

Posting that image is dishonest as all hell.  He didn't bring his hand up until the deputy had completed his presentation and could not have stopped himself.
https://i.ibb.co/yN0R6t3/Okaloosa-Shooting4.png

Originally Posted By Lug1:
...

The bottom line is it is quite obvious the airman did not need to be shot.  The cop in this case simply freaked out.  Could be he should never have been a cop, could be his training sucked, could be a lot of things.  But the bottom line is most rational normal people probably would not have shot the guy.  

...

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:


What's incredible is the disconnect between what reasonable men and reasonable officers believe is acceptable.  I think most people would have believed the reasonable officer standard to be higher, yet the reasonable officer believes this cop that freaked out did good enough work in killing this innocent man.  

Originally Posted By TaskForce:
The only people that I have ever encountered that really care about the word civilian are here.

Originally Posted By XNARC:



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.

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

If you saw the cop through the window then odds are he saw you.  The reasonable officers here would call that a lawful shoot if the cop would have killed you.  

Let that sink in.

Originally Posted By Samsound:
Sounds like you're preaching to the choir on your 2nd point, but you're inventing information about my window. Persons outside my front door can't see clearly at all through the window in my door. It's mostly frosted decoratively with only some filigrees and a thin outline of clear glass. I never turn on my foyer or studio (front office) lights unless needed. So from outside in daylight, or under my porch light it's very difficult to se inside with any kind of fidelity. From inside I can easily get a decent look at the general makeup and posture of the visitor, gaining more detail as I approach. I also often have security camera feeds up at my workstation (which is 3 feet from the door) and I'll scan the porch cam as I approach.

But yes, if that shoot was 'good' by reasonable officers then the same could be said about officers shooting me if they could actually see me walk toward my foyer with my firearm in hand. And that's nonsense.

Originally Posted By MSGTUSAF:
So question for the Leo's on here, if the kid had chose to defend himself as the cop started draw, would it be self defense?

Originally Posted By MSGTUSAF:
So question for the Leo's on here, if the kid had chose to defend himself as the cop started draw, would it be self defense?

Originally Posted By BourbonBeast:


The ARFCOPS are arguing that it’s perfectly legal and okay to shoot someone suspected of domestic violence who has a gun, so the Airman would have a 40% chance of being justified shooting any cop by that logic.

Originally Posted By Francisco_dAnconia:
What's crazy is I NEVER SAID THAT!  I'm going to assume that your reading comprehension and command of the English language are garbage.  Your later paragraph proves this when you confuse the definition of assumed and verified.  Another failure of comprehension can be seen here:There is lots of legal shit that can kill you.  Whether or not Fortson committed a crime is irrelevant.  He completed the three elements of AOJ.  That's Ability (can aim and fire before the knocker can do anything about it), Opportunity (he's within a few feet without the knocker being securely behind cover), and Jeopardy (the choice to have the pistol in hand AND display it to the knocker instead of concealed from view or holstered instead of held.)

Yet again: I DID NOT SAY ANY OF THAT!  I did not claim that the mere existence of a weapon is threatening.  I did not say that FL law said that.

1) It is reasonable for anyone outside the door to feel threatened by the door being opened with the pistol visibly in hand.  If that wouldn't scare you then I am concerned for you.
2) He caused the effect by his choice.  It is possible to be prepared and keep the pistol out of sight so that argument is bunk too.

Open carry has nothing to do with this situation.

I heard that the ROEs in Iraq and Afghanistan were messed up, but learning that the ROE overrode your right to self-defense is a VERY sad day.

We do have bodycam with the word "police" being audible a few seconds before the door is opened.  You can argue it wasn't him, it was misunderstood, or he was talking to himself about calling the police instead of answering the door if you want.  I'm going to stick with it being Fortson and he knew or knew it was likely it was the police until and unless the deputy's or a witness's statement is released and says otherwise.

There's a big difference between assuming and them showing it to you.  I've been arguing from the assumption that everyone understood this.

This was very much advertent on Fortson's part.  Well, that's not quite true -- you could argue that he accidently opened the door or that he simply forgot he was holding the pistol.

Strange that you excoriate the deputy for staying to the side and shooting while simultaneously claiming you would get yourself out of the fatal funnel.  That statement demonstrates that, at least subconsciously, you know the truth.

Posting that image is dishonest as all hell.  He didn't bring his hand up until the deputy had completed his presentation and could not have stopped himself.
https://i.ibb.co/yN0R6t3/Okaloosa-Shooting4.png

Originally Posted By SekFan:


Evidently you and your “half the country” have plenty in common with BLM.  You take one, two - hell, a dozen highly emotional incidents over the years - to be proof positive of all cops are bastards.  The whole time ignoring that there are millions of absolutely boring police/citizen contacts a year.  

I suggest getting your emotions under control.  Not doing so inevitably leads to citing the same, single bullshit DV study of some a couple hundred random PD officers.  Does the family of an over emotional liar have his back, do they?  

Originally Posted By Towely:
If answering a door with a gun in hand is enough to make it go-time I would have shot so many people while working patrol...

Even when you announce, loudly, it was pretty regular that people would answer without knowing who was at the door.

Now.. a smarter person keeps the weapon out of sight while they assess who is actually at the door, but sometimes shit happens.

Originally Posted By MSGTUSAF:

That exact scenario has happened and been justified right here in GD

Originally Posted By XNARC:



The internet disagreed with you… but maybe a stern letter to them may correct the definition?

https://i.imgur.com/KtquXKe.jpg

Originally Posted By TAG_Match:


Aside…If I’m finger fucking a gun, dry firing, playing Batman and Batgirl role play with my wife, I shouldn’t have to think about “what the police might think”.

Originally Posted By Towely:


An overwhelming majority were completely uneventful.  Either you'd never see the gun, but you could hear them stash it after peaking out the door, or they'd immediately make it clear they weren't a threat and set it down.  Only once had someone actually answer the door with the gun pointed at me but, fortunately, in that case I unholstered and dove against the wall while she yelled "Oh my god! I'm sorry!"  Turns out she thought I was her abusive boyfriend coming back to finish her off, didn't expect me there so soon but by chance I happened to be right around the corner when the call came in.

Had to give a death notification to a guy that really didn't like law enforcement once.  When he answered he had the shotgun hanging over his forearm and gave me the "I don't care what you're here for, you can leave."  Told him I had some important info regarding his family and asked him to set the shotgun down.  He refused but I could tell it was one of those deals where he just wanted to prove a point so I verified he was the right guy, then told him that his dad died.  Changed his tune pretty quick after that.  Gave him contact info for the agency handling the death notification and let him use my cell phone to call them since he lived out in BF nowhere with no service or landline.

Ever since that day he was always civil with me whenever I'd bump into him, would even flag me down from time to time to bullshit.  Weird how friendly people can be when you aren't a dick to them and don't shoot them.

Originally Posted By XNARC:



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.

Originally Posted By wingnutx:
"Civilian" is common vernacular for "someone not part of our scenario", or "someone normally off limits", i.e. not a cop or a criminal in this case.

"Citizen" is also used in a similar fashion.

Technically incorrect, but that's slang for you. It's pedantry not worth getting worked up over.

Originally Posted By wingnutx:
"Civilian" is common vernacular for "someone not part of our scenario", or "someone normally off limits", i.e. not a cop or a criminal in this case.

"Citizen" is also used in a similar fashion.

Technically incorrect, but that's slang for you. It's pedantry not worth getting worked up over.

Originally Posted By TAG_Match:
Most all of the suggestions that Forsten was engaged in criminal activity, assertions that he caused his death by being dumb answering the door with a gun in his hand, and debating the extent he knew it was a police encounter  is pure copium.  We do know that Forsten was not involved nor had knowledge in setting up this encounter as he wasn’t the one that called for service.

Their was ONE armed professional that by virtue of wearing that badge is presumed to be trained by being certified by the state competent to initiate encounters with the public at large who actually ARE involved in criminal activity, armed, and being stupid, without unnecessary violence.  The only one present that was licensed and trained to initiate this encounter fucked up and killed a citizen that didn’t need killing.  And that’s the bottom line.

Originally Posted By IronBeard:



Not to distract, but it's worse than that. Actually, three cops involved. After the shooting starts, the female cop on scene starts yelling, "what's going?!" at the same time she's firing her weapon in the general direction the acorn killer is. Third dude on scene can't figure out WTF, and looks like he knows he's forever fucked for being present for the shit show. Yeah, this department has issues.

Originally Posted By BCPVP:
I can't think of any tactical/safety benefit to opening your door with a gun in hand but at your side. If you're concerned, why are you opening the door in the first place? If you're not concerned, why are you answering with a gun in hand on full display?

The only reasons that make any sense are if you plan to shoot the person on the other side of the door or you want to make them think you will/might.

Don't really understand the pushback on this. WI is an open carry state but that doesn't mean I can walk around town with a gun in my hand, even if I don't point it at anyone. Likewise, being on my property doesn't mean it's impossible for me to brandish a gun.

Originally Posted By BourbonBeast:


That’s why people are drawing the distinction - cops aren’t a special class of citizen that have more rights than the rest of us.

Originally Posted By Naporter:
While I get Crump is a shitbag of the highest order, there's not much suspicious about that.

A FaceTime call is still a phone call, and are not normally recorded. It stands to reason the recording was by the person on the other side and they only began recording when there was a reason to do so (the person on the other side of the call getting shot).