I have mixed feelings on this....

[cycleguy2300]

Clearly not as he is no longer a police officer, and hopefully never will be again. Like I said, you may spend all your time sitting in silence by the front door, but people usually don’t.

You are using political theater to evaluate the legality of an action and they have, practically speaking, nothing to do with each other.

Are you purposely ignoring that the door opened about a full second after the deputy knocked and LOUDLY announced "SHERIFF'S OFFICE"? You cannot go from sitting on your butt AT the door to standing in that time, much less walk over from far enough to have not been able to hear and UNDERSTAND the deputy's announcement. Its down right silly to make that claim.

We have to presume what the deputy reasonably believed and the time, that is what the justification is based on.

In civil court you can make up scenarios that are favorable to the plaintiff, but in criminal court the facts that matter are the REASONABLY held beliefs about the facts as known to the officer at the moment the deadly force was used.

But in the end, you using the deputy being fired from the Sheriff's office supports the assertion his actions were illegal just as much as when a walmart employee stops a shoplifter or a robber and gets fired.



Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Havok1]

You are using political theater to evaluate the legality of an action and they have, practically speaking, nothing to do with each other.

Are you purposely ignoring that the door opened about a full second after the deputy knocked and LOUDLY announced "SHERIFF'S OFFICE"? You cannot go from sitting on your butt AT the door to standing in that time, much less walk over from far enough to have not been able to hear and UNDERSTAND the deputy's announcement. Its down right silly to make that claim.

We have to presume what the deputy reasonably believed and the time, that is what the justification is based on.

In civil court you can make up scenarios that are favorable to the plaintiff, but in criminal court the facts that matter are the REASONABLY held beliefs about the facts as known to the officer at the moment the deadly force was used.

But in the end, you using the deputy being fired from the Sheriff's office supports the assertion his actions were illegal just as much as when a walmart employee stops a shoplifter or a robber and gets fired.



Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

I’m purposefully not ignoring that the case law you cited in his defense was the metric that was used to determine his use of force was not reasonable.

I’m purposefully not ignoring that despite your belief that the victim must have heard the officer, the victims gf said the victim yelled to ask who was at the door and that could not be heard in the video, and was not acknowledged by the officer. The officer claimed he thought he heard “**** the police”though, which was not in the video.

I’m purposefully not ignoring that despite the claims of all the fighting and loud noise coming from the apartment that were made by a person that we, and the officer knew was not there and didn’t hear anything, the officer walked up and could not hear anything going on inside the apartment.

In purposefully not ignoring that it is to your benefit if officers get a pass for stuff like this in case you find yourself in a similar situation.

 

[cycleguy2300]

I’m purposefully not ignoring that the case law you cited in his defense was the metric that was used to determine his use of force was not reasonable.

I’m purposefully not ignoring that despite your belief that the victim must have heard the officer, the victims gf said the victim yelled to ask who was at the door and that could not be heard in the video, and was not acknowledged by the officer. The officer claimed he thought he heard “**** the police”though, which was not in the video.

I’m purposefully not ignoring that despite the claims of all the fighting and loud noise coming from the apartment that were made by a person that we, and the officer knew was not there and didn’t hear anything, the officer walked up and could not hear anything going on inside the apartment.

In purposefully not ignoring that it is to your benefit if officers get a pass for stuff like this in case you find yourself in a similar situation.

The problem is you dont have any actual training or understanding of what a court uses to decide if the deputy's actions were justified.

Videos dont catch everything, they show a lot, but not everything. Based on opening a door to an office loudly announcing who he was and a report of a disturbance a "**** the police" certainty seems to fit the man's behavior...

The ONLY thing the court can use to determine if the actions were justified is the DEPUTY'S REASONABLY HELD BELIEFS ABOUT THE FACTS AS HE UNDERSTOOD THEM TO BE AT THE MOMENT HE USED DEADLY FORCE.

What *actually* was doesnt matter much id at all, so long as the belief about what was happening was reasonable. Had the guy been 100% deaf (unknown to the officer) obviously he couldn't have heard and it WOULD NOT CHANGE THE REASONABLENESS OF THE DEADLY FORCE because it is reasonable to think after knocking and announcing that the person inside would know who as at the door.

Here is an excerpt from a document that is worth all of you reading and noting the supporting cases and reading at least the abstract of the holding.

https://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/reasonableness.pdf

"Reasonable” mistakes

Because it is inevitable that officers will make mistakes, the law punishes only those
mistakes that were unreasonable. Although the courts sometimes say that suppression is
not required if the officer’s mistake was “honest” or “understandable,”in reality these
are just other names for reasonable mistakes. As the Court of Appeal explained, “The touchstone inquiry in all Fourth Amendment cases is the reasonableness—not certainty—of the official’s conduct.” At this point, it is necessary to distinguish between mistakes of fact and law.

MISTAKES OF FACT: A mistake of fact occurs when officers were wrong about one or
more of the circumstances that caused them to take action.

If their mistake was reasonable, the courts will analyze the officer’s conduct as if the circumstance did, in fact, exist.

For example, if an officer pat searched a detainee because he mistakenly thought a
bulge under his jacket might be a gun, the pat search will be lawful if the size and shape
of the bulge was not inconsistent with that of a gun.

Consider a some college students in a film class who decide to make a short horror movie about a clown with an ax (fake of course for safety). They go to a park, forget to twll abyone what they are doing and start shooting scenes. Someone calls saying there is a guy chasing people with an ax. The officer arrives, sees someone running after a screaming woman with a raised ax. This is all 100% legal mind you... the woman falls the clown stands over her and raises his fake, toy ax and bang a shot rings out and the clown is killed. The officer may be wrong about a lot of things, maybe everything, but the mistakes of fact would probably be reasonable.


Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Renegade]

The ONLY thing the court can use to determine if the actions were justified is the DEPUTY'S REASONABLY HELD BELIEFS ABOUT THE FACTS AS HE UNDERSTOOD THEM TO BE AT THE MOMENT HE USED DEADLY FORCE.

"Only Thing"? that is 100% make believe. The court can use all kinds of evidence to make determination.

The ONLY thing the court can use to determine if the actions were justified is the DEPUTY'S REASONABLY HELD BELIEFS ABOUT THE FACTS AS HE UNDERSTOOD THEM TO BE AT THE MOMENT HE USED DEADLY FORCE.

And the "reasonable" standard the professional investigators in his own department used in their investigation concluded his actions were NOT reasonable.



eta too wordy, deleted most.

 

[Renegade]

. to try to say he didnt hear the deputy announce is just ridiculous.

He was face timing his GF, and if he was wearing ear buds he likely would not have heard much.

He also saw nobody when he went to door after first knock and looked through peephole. Video shows LEO away from door.

On 2nd knock first announce, deputy was down hall yelling into concrete wall, so might not have heard that announce. Also he might not have heard it if he was in bedroom getting his gun.

he opened door quickly after 3rd knock, so he might have heard that one.

His action seem to me to be consistent with what someone who does not think LEO is at his door, but someone pranking him.

Whether he knew or not though is not really a material fact given his "none aggressive actions" (as per OIS investigation).

• I asked if either she or Mr. Fortson heard, “Sheriff’s Office, open the door.”
She said neither of them heard that.

• Mr. Fortson was in the living room when the third knock occurred. I asked
if either she or Mr. Fortson heard, “Sheriff’s Office, open the door” after the third knock, and she answered, “No, but the knock gets aggressive. … It's louder like they're banging on the door at this point.”

• explained Mr. Fortson’s actions after the third knock, “Then he puts the
phone down and says, I'm gonna go grab my gun, because I don't know who that is.” said he kept his firearm in his bedroom.

 

[Renegade]

Also too wordy deleted. Made more concise above.

 

[cycleguy2300]

He was face timing his GF, and if he was wearing ear buds he likely would not have heard much.

He also saw nobody when he went to door after first knock and looked through peephole. Video shows LEO away from door.

On 2nd knock first announce, deputy was down hall yelling into concrete wall, so might not have heard that announce. Also he might not have heard it if he was in bedroom getting his gun.

he opened door quickly after 3rd knock, so he might have heard that one.

His action seem to me to be consistent with what someone who does not think LEO is at his door, but someone pranking him.

Whether he knew or not though is not really a material fact given his "none aggressive actions" (as per OIS investigation).



View attachment 456652

• I asked if either she or Mr. Fortson heard, “Sheriff’s Office, open the door.”
She said neither of them heard that.

• Mr. Fortson was in the living room when the third knock occurred. I asked
if either she or Mr. Fortson heard, “Sheriff’s Office, open the door” after the third knock, and she answered, “No, but the knock gets aggressive. … It's louder like they're banging on the door at this point.”

• explained Mr. Fortson’s actions after the third knock, “Then he puts the
phone down and says, I'm gonna go grab my gun, because I don't know who that is.” said he kept his firearm in his bedroom.

But none of that is reasonable to expect the deputy to know.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Renegade]

But none of that is reasonable to expect the deputy to know.

It is reasonable to expect any human being on Earth to know that just because you knock/announce, does not mean people on the other side of the door/wall heard you. Especially if one of your announcements is 6 feet or so from door into a concrete wall.

Deputy also admitted he could only hear muffled voices from inside, and did not hear Airman ask "Who Is It?" (as per his gf). Given that, it is reasonable to expect deputy to know if he cannot clearly hear them, they cannot clearly hear him through walls/door.

Hence the third knock was much louder, as was the announce. Door opened 1-2 seconds later.

OIS investigation does not seem to care much about whether Airman heard or did not hear the announce. It appears it was immaterial to the fact Airman did not "The objective facts as discovered in this administrative investigation do not show Mr. Fortson made hostile, attacking movements"

 

[cycleguy2300]

It is reasonable to expect any human being on Earth to know that just because you knock/announce, does not mean people on the other side of the door/wall heard you. Especially if one of your announcements is 6 feet or so from door into a concrete wall.

Deputy also admitted he could only hear muffled voices from inside, and did not hear Airman ask "Who Is It?" (as per his gf). Given that, it is reasonable to expect deputy to know if he cannot clearly hear them, they cannot clearly hear him through walls/door.

Hence the third knock was much louder, as was the announce. Door opened 1-2 seconds later.

OIS investigation does not seem to care much about whether Airman heard or did not hear the announce. It appears it was immaterial to the fact Airman did not "The objective facts as discovered in this administrative investigation do not show Mr. Fortson made hostile, attacking movements"


View attachment 456662

So the deputy could hear voices through the door but the other guy couldn't?

Having a gun in hand is more hostile than had he reached to draw from a holster.

Had the gun been sitting on a table near the door and the man, after opening the door and without any verbal threats, calmly reached for the gun any cop would have (and should have) shot him.

If you were stopped for a blinker being out and tell the cop you have a pistol under a blanket innthe passenger seat and then reach under that blanket, you'll get shot regardless of any other "hostile or attacking movements" because the act of reaching for the gun IS "hostile and attacking", just as it is to open a door with a gun in hand.

Seriously, what legal purpose did opening a door to a common area with a gun in hand and displayed serve? The only reason I can fathom is to intimidate or cause alarm which would be illegal...

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Renegade]

So the deputy could hear voices through the door but the other guy couldn't?

Yes on Deputy.

Airman, heard first knock, asked who is there. No response. Video confirms Deputy had not spoke yet.

Second knock, did not hear deputy announce (this is the one where deputy was 6 feet or so down hall talking into concrete). Airman goes to door, looked through peephole saw nobody.

After 3rd knock, he went to bedroom to get gun after saying he did not know who was there. No mention of if he heard anything. Given door opened 1-2 seconds after knock, he must move like the Flash or gf was mistaken about timeline or which knocks were which.

Having a gun in hand is more hostile than had he reached to draw from a holster.

Professional investigators from Sheriffs Department with more access to evidence, witnesses etc concluded Airman made NO hostile, attacking movements.

 

[Havok1]

The problem is you dont have any actual training or understanding of what a court uses to decide if the deputy's actions were justified.

Videos dont catch everything, they show a lot, but not everything. Based on opening a door to an office loudly announcing who he was and a report of a disturbance a "**** the police" certainty seems to fit the man's behavior...

The ONLY thing the court can use to determine if the actions were justified is the DEPUTY'S REASONABLY HELD BELIEFS ABOUT THE FACTS AS HE UNDERSTOOD THEM TO BE AT THE MOMENT HE USED DEADLY FORCE.

What *actually* was doesnt matter much id at all, so long as the belief about what was happening was reasonable. Had the guy been 100% deaf (unknown to the officer) obviously he couldn't have heard and it WOULD NOT CHANGE THE REASONABLENESS OF THE DEADLY FORCE because it is reasonable to think after knocking and announcing that the person inside would know who as at the door.

Here is an excerpt from a document that is worth all of you reading and noting the supporting cases and reading at least the abstract of the holding.

https://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/reasonableness.pdf

Consider a some college students in a film class who decide to make a short horror movie about a clown with an ax (fake of course for safety). They go to a park, forget to twll abyone what they are doing and start shooting scenes. Someone calls saying there is a guy chasing people with an ax. The officer arrives, sees someone running after a screaming woman with a raised ax. This is all 100% legal mind you... the woman falls the clown stands over her and raises his fake, toy ax and bang a shot rings out and the clown is killed. The officer may be wrong about a lot of things, maybe everything, but the mistakes of fact would probably be reasonable.


Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

You keep framing your posts as if anything the officer did was automatically considered reasonable and that’s not the case. The investigation concluded that his use of force was not reasonable.

Your comment that I bolded is mind boggling. i have to wonder if you even watched the body cam or realize what occurred here. What exact behavior does the comment fit? The behavior of a guy home alone playing video games and talking on the phone? The gf who was on the phone with the victim said he said something entirely different. Have you considered that maybe the officer didn’t actually know what was said, but said what he thought would help his case? Trying to talk through a door works the same both ways. If the officer couldn’t clearly hear what the victim was saying, it’s not unreasonable to think the victim couldn’t clearly hear what the officer was saying.

Anyway, no point in continuing to discuss this with you. An investigation was done that concluded the opposite of what you thought you knew. Hopefully this officer will never be able to have another job where he’ll be able to harm any innocent people.

 

[popsgarland]

Last year there was knock on my door around 3 AM. I looked in my security camera but
whoever knocked was at my door and the camera couldn't pick him up as he was under the camera at this point. I got my gun, walked to the door and with my gun out of sight, I opened the door just enough to see who was there. If someone tried to push the door open more, I
would have been able to get out of the way, bring my gun around and shoot.

As I looked out I saw a police officer who had backed up about 20 feet from my door and
he knew I was armed because of the slightly opened door and my right arm out of sight.

I told him I couldn't see him in the camera and when I saw who it was I opened the door
all the way but kept my gun out of sight.

The reason he was here is a lost 3 year old girl they found and was trying to find her
parents and I had a indoor light on and he figured someone was awake.

 

[cycleguy2300]

You keep framing your posts as if anything the officer did was automatically considered reasonable and that’s not the case. The investigation concluded that his use of force was not reasonable.

Your comment that I bolded is mind boggling. i have to wonder if you even watched the body cam or realize what occurred here. What exact behavior does the comment fit? The behavior of a guy home alone playing video games and talking on the phone? The gf who was on the phone with the victim said he said something entirely different. Have you considered that maybe the officer didn’t actually know what was said, but said what he thought would help his case? Trying to talk through a door works the same both ways. If the officer couldn’t clearly hear what the victim was saying, it’s not unreasonable to think the victim couldn’t clearly hear what the officer was saying.

Anyway, no point in continuing to discuss this with you. An investigation was done that concluded the opposite of what you thought you knew. Hopefully this officer will never be able to have another job where he’ll be able to harm any innocent people.

I am framing his actions as reasonable because they are the same REASONABLE actions countless other police including myself and officers I personally know take every day.

Yesterday, I got sent to a call at an address for squatters on a construction site. Well, the address was a regular house but next door was a house with boarded up windows, doors and obviously under construction... the comp didn't answer when I called back to try to confirm (squatting isnt as time sensitive as a potential assault in progress).
Which house do I go to?
Do I value the description or the address?

It is not normal for people inside to not hear and know when police knock and announce. We hear people scurring around hiding drugs etc all the time who then try to tell us they took a long time to answer because they were sleeping...

But in the end, whether the guy knew, suspected or didnt know who was at his door, HIS choice to display a gun in his hand to a deputy responding to a call of reported violence was the single action that precipitated his death. If the officer wouldn't let the man reach for and pick up a gun, why would he let him stand there with one already in his hand? When dealing with police or even armed citizens, certain actions will bring about a certain response, like fiddling with the cheese of a mousetrap, the result isn't the traps fault but the fault of the one that initiated the final sequence, which here was having a gun in hand when answering the door to someone he SHOULD have know were police.

This thread really should be moved to the FAFO thread, because that is all this is, no different than Austin's own AF "vet" who thought he could run up to cars with AKs...





Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Tblack89]

Let’s be real here, there is no confusing that knock for anything other than a police officer either. You could have a 5,000 sqft house and still hear that knock.

Thats 1 of those moments that little voice in your head says “ it was at that moment he knew he fucked up”. Even if you aren’t doing anything wrong that knock will tell you otherwise.

 

[glenbo]

Let’s be real here, there is no confusing that knock for anything other than a police officer either. You could have a 5,000 sqft house and still hear that knock.

Thats 1 of those moments that little voice in your head says “ it was at that moment he knew he fucked up”. Even if you aren’t doing anything wrong that knock will tell you otherwise.

I'm almost deaf. I can't hear when UPS guy knocks on our front door 20 feet away from me.

 

[Tblack89]

I'm almost deaf. I can't hear when UPS guy knocks on our front door 20 feet away from me.

UPS doesn’t knock like the police, it’s a completely different thing.

I would probably look into hearing aids or hope someone is around you all the time that can hear well. If there’s a fire and smoke detectors we’re going off or a neighbor were to knock to alert you and you cannot hear them, you could find yourself in a bad situation.

 

[seeker_two]

Last year there was knock on my door around 3 AM. I looked in my security camera but
whoever knocked was at my door and the camera couldn't pick him up as he was under the camera at this point. I got my gun, walked to the door and with my gun out of sight, I opened the door just enough to see who was there. If someone tried to push the door open more, I
would have been able to get out of the way, bring my gun around and shoot.

As I looked out I saw a police officer who had backed up about 20 feet from my door and
he knew I was armed because of the slightly opened door and my right arm out of sight.

I told him I couldn't see him in the camera and when I saw who it was I opened the door
all the way but kept my gun out of sight.

The reason he was here is a lost 3 year old girl they found and was trying to find her
parents and I had a indoor light on and he figured someone was awake.

I'm almost deaf. I can't hear when UPS guy knocks on our front door 20 feet away from me.

According to some people, y'all should be dead....and they'd be OK with that. That disturbs me more than anything....

 

[brashears9567]

I'm just waiting for the officer to be charged, which he should be and will be. Very bad shoot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cycleguy2300]

I'm just waiting for the officer to be charged, which he should be and will be. Very bad shoot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why?

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[brashears9567]

Why?

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

All of the same reasons already presented by Renegade and Havoc. Police officers, in cases like this, seem to want to shoot first then hide behind some law that protects them. F that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk