I have mixed feelings on this....

[Havok1]

If that’s a good job then I’d hate to see what you consider a bad job. Pretty sure everything in those posts hasnt been addressed already. Nothing new there.

 

[Whistler]

A string of gray squares...

 

[cycleguy2300]

If that’s a good job then I’d hate to see what you consider a bad job. Pretty sure everything in those posts hasnt been addressed already. Nothing new there.

Wrong again... lots of good info that hasnt been shown or discussed here yet.

The body cam shows the deputy talking IN PERSON to the witnesses who (absent discrediting information known at the time to the deputy) are what courts describe as a "credible person" and their descriptions of what they saw and heard can be relied on heavily.

It reminds us of who the family attorney is, a lying, race baiting, POS. Crump will and has said anything to bias potential jury members.

The video disproves that the deputy was at the wrong apartment and lends credence to there being prior disturbances and possibly prior assaults, which would fit with the deputy hearing a "**** the police" through the door and answering the door with a gun in hand for malicious purposes.

The video reinforces my belief the shoot was justified.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Havok1]

Wrong again... lots of good info that hasnt been shown or discussed here yet.

The body cam shows the deputy talking IN PERSON to the witnesses who (absent discrediting information known at the time to the deputy) are what courts describe as a "credible person" and their descriptions of what they saw and heard can be relied on heavily.

It reminds us of who the family attorney is, a lying, race baiting, POS. Crump will and has said anything to bias potential jury members.

The video disproves that the deputy was at the wrong apartment and lends credence to there being prior disturbances and possibly prior assaults, which would fit with the deputy hearing a "**** the police" through the door and answering the door with a gun in hand for malicious purposes.

The video reinforces my belief the shoot was justified.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

The person the officer talked to wasn’t a witness.nothing new was revealed here.

 

[cycleguy2300]

The person the officer talked to wasn’t a witness.nothing new was revealed here.

You're so dismissive of facts and information its rather sad.



Witness = someone with information about the situation.

The apartment manager corroberating original caller (assuming the original caller was still unknown the the deputy) with personal knowlege of what sounded like frequent violent disturbances in the apartment lends credibility to the original story. It also describes someone who is violent, controlling, angry and would be likely attempt to fight or shoot an officer...

In short the man sounds like he was a jerk and tried to FA with a cop but FO instead.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Johnny Diamond]

I am reading, paying attention.
I am always ready for information.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

[cycleguy2300]

100% justified the more I learn about it the more I am convinced.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[brashears9567]

100% justified the more I learn about it the more I am convinced.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

Are you serious? I see a picture of a cop pointing a pistol at a guy's chest. I see the other guy pointing a pistol at the ground. So, the guy pointing at the ground can aquire the target and get off a shot in a quarter of a second? I guess that would mean the cop could get off a shot in a tenth of a second. Cop should have ordered to drop the weapon. He overreacted. Bad shot. You won't convince me otherwise. If I'm on that jury, he's going to jail. From what I've seen from the responses here, you're in the minority.

Editing to add, that was a rhetorical question. I have no interest in arguing about it, I'll wait to see what happens. I said my piece and that's all I'll say about it. I don't know how some of y'all find the time or the energy to go back and forth for weeks on end.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cycleguy2300]

Are you serious? I see a picture of a cop pointing a pistol at a guy's chest. I see the other guy pointing a pistol at the ground. So, the guy pointing at the ground can aquire the target and get off a shot in a quarter of a second? I guess that would mean the cop could get off a shot in a tenth of a second. Cop should have ordered to drop the weapon. He overreacted. Bad shot. You won't convince me otherwise. If I'm on that jury, he's going to jail. From what I've seen from the responses here, you're in the minority.

Editing to add, that was a rhetorical question. I have no interest in arguing about it, I'll wait to see what happens. I said my piece and that's all I'll say about it. I don't know how some of y'all find the time or the energy to go back and forth for weeks on end.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From the mans position with gun in hand, by his side, pointing down, it takes .25 of a second at most to rotate the wrist and shoot with enough accuracy to make good hits.

Action beats reaction. I have posted about this already. EVEN IF THE DEPUTY HAD NOT FIRED and instead held him at gun point, the man would have been able to get shots off before the deputy could react. It is a textbook case for justified deadly force given the totality of the circumstances.

Had the man been 50 or 100yd away, AND the officer was in a position of cover he *probably* could have waited to shoot.

Saying "oh the gun was pointed a little away from the officer", well, so was the AK that garret foster (was/were) held (100% legally I might add), BUT BECAUSE THE TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES made it reasonable to believe deadly force was immediately necessary, the Deputy and SGT Perry justifiably fired and killed the person confronting them.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Havok1]

You're so dismissive of facts and information its rather sad.



Witness = someone with information about the situation.

The apartment manager corroberating original caller (assuming the original caller was still unknown the the deputy) with personal knowlege of what sounded like frequent violent disturbances in the apartment lends credibility to the original story. It also describes someone who is violent, controlling, angry and would be likely attempt to fight or shoot an officer...

In short the man sounds like he was a jerk and tried to FA with a cop but FO instead.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

The apartment manager didn’t hear anything, didn’t see anything, and was uncertain of the apartment number. The only thing the apartment manager was witness to was that she heard yelling from an unknown location a couple weeks prior which was not relevent to this.


Now, let’s talk about being dismissive of “facts and information”. You previously said “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...”. Can you point out at exactly what moment in the video the officer opened the door to the officer and loudly announced who he was? You have made numerous attempts at justifying this shooting based on other scenarios that are incomparable with this situation. Your Instagram influencer is also not credible. Although Ben Crump is a race baiting POS, your influencer brought up Brianna Taylor and Crump saying they went to the wrong address in an attempt to discredit Crumps claims. The inaccuracy in Crumps claim lies in the fact that the officers turned out to be corrupt scum that fabricated a warrant to raid an innocent persons apartment as opposed to them just being incompetent and accidentally raiding the neighbors house. bottom line, it was still the wrong apartment. Just because something is on Instagram doesn’t make it valuable information.

 

[Odalvwaya]

As an AF veteran I really am struggling with this incident. The airman legally owned the gun and was licensed to carry it. He was in his own residence. The officer identified himself but the young airman was facetiming with his gf and didn' hear the verbal commands, just the knocking. He answered the door with his firearm in his hand. The officer reacted and opened fire. And it was the wrong residence for the domestic call.. What are your thoughts?

https://nypost.com/2024/05/09/us-news/robert-fortson-bodycam-florida-deputy-fired-without-warning/

Bad shoot. The deputy did not observe the airman pointing the weapon at him. He should have drawn and presented his firearm while moving off the X and then taken the seconds to verify the threat.
In the service this saved a few folks life.
Now in all fairness, the airman should have used his awareness and paused to verify with all his senses, including a vocal call to identify before opening the door (barrier).
Not all servicemen receive the same training nor have the same experiences which magnify the training effects. But if you’re going to brandish your firearm you had better be trained in all aspects of using it. Both of these individuals had failures and they both paid dearly. One with his life and the other throughout his life.

 

[cycleguy2300]

The apartment manager didn’t hear anything, didn’t see anything, and was uncertain of the apartment number. The only thing the apartment manager was witness to was that she heard yelling from an unknown location a couple weeks prior which was not relevent to this.

Dude, The woman the deputy is talking is an apartment manager I believe and staff usually know exactly who is doing what and she clearly knew which apartment she heard the prior disturbances.

Now, let’s talk about being dismissive of “facts and information”. You previously said “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...”. Can you point out at exactly what moment in the video the officer opened the door to the officer and loudly announced who he was?

Catch up... No one here that I know of has ever claimed the deputy forced entry and opened the door to the apartment. A cursory watching of almost any of the body cam videos make is obvious the deputy never opened the apartment door.

You have made numerous attempts at justifying this shooting based on other scenarios that are incomparable with this situation.

Ever scenario I have described is applicable to elucidate a portion of case law.

Your Instagram influencer is also not credible.

So say you, who has probable never heard of reasonable belief before last week. He 20 year police vet and he is not only credible but correct.

Although Ben Crump is a race baiting POS, your influencer brought up Brianna Taylor and Crump saying they went to the wrong address in an attempt to discredit Crumps claims.

Yeah, Crump himself lied about that and this case

The inaccuracy in Crumps claim lies in the fact that the officers turned out to be corrupt scum that fabricated a warrant to raid an innocent persons apartment as opposed to them just being incompetent and accidentally raiding the neighbors house.

The police didn't raid Breonna Taylor's neighbor and I suggest you go look up Breonna Taylor and her history before you say she was innocent she and her BF were drug dealers and she was likely a murderer. its unfortunate she dies instead of Walker he BF, but alas...

bottom line, it was still the wrong apartment. Just because something is on Instagram doesn’t make it valuable information.

The commentary is valuable, but the most valuable information is the additional body camera footage that counters in every point Crump's version of events.

This was a good deputy who was responded to a CREDIBLE report of domestic violence to an apartment with CREDIBLE WITNESSES describing vididly prior violent events. The deputy was then confronted by a man suspected to be involved in that violent with a gun in hand after knocking loudly and clearly announcing "Sheriff's Office!" So that it would be reasonable to believe anyone in the apartment *should* know (and did if he said "****, its the police" as the deputy described).

If you put half the effort you put into down playing good, accurate, useful information into learning and expanding your knowledge, you could have a grade school diploma by now. I cannot express how basic the concepts involved here are to policing and while novel at first they are common sense and constitutional. Seriously, none are so blind as those who refuse to see.
This shooting IS text book it Is exactly what I was trained to do, almost to a specific scenario from the academy. You dont have to like it, it usually sucks anytime someone dies, but the officer did EXACTLY what they were trained to do and should have done. It is absolutely unreasonable to expect the officer to risk his life against hope alone, against all better judgement and against his training

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[cycleguy2300]

Bad shoot. The deputy did not observe the airman pointing the weapon at him. He should have drawn and presented his firearm while moving off the X and then taken the seconds to verify the threat.
In the service this saved a few folks life.
Now in all fairness, the airman should have used his awareness and paused to verify with all his senses, including a vocal call to identify before opening the door (barrier).
Not all servicemen receive the same training nor have the same experiences which magnify the training effects. But if you’re going to brandish your firearm you had better be trained in all aspects of using it. Both of these individuals had failures and they both paid dearly. One with his life and the other throughout his life.

Since when does a firearm need to be "pointed" at you?

Why would "pointing the weapon at him" different? Because of the deputy's inability to react to save his own life?

A gun, exactly where the man had it is employable in under 1/4 second, which is faster than most humans ability to recognize and react, even in a "sterile" environment where all they have to watch is a gun or start light. The gun innhand, held by the side is JUST AS MUCH OF A DEADLY THREAT as of he had been pointing it at the deputy's face.


These are both excellent articles written by two of the most prominent organizations that provide standards for police.

Reasonableness and Reaction Time in Police Use of Force Incidents

Police chiefs seeking to explain deadly force incidents must understand the concepts of reasonableness and reaction time in police use of force.

www.lexipol.com

Force Science Reactionary Gap | Office of Justice Programs

www.ojp.gov

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[DaBull]

There must be a 100 or more cop cam videos on you tube that are comparable to this case: a cop on a call suddenly encounters a person armed with a pistol. Typically, he'll draw and yell "drop the gun". If the gun is not dropped and begins drifting (either intentionally or unintentionally) in the cop's direction, he fires until the gunman is down. He then keeps his weapon pointed at the gunman and may fire again until the gun is out of reach or secured. The videos often include a slo mo that emphasizes the cop did not shoot until the weapon started to move toward him. The videos are presented by the cop's agency to show the shoot was good.

In this case, the cop responds to a call and he encounters a guy who opens the door with a gun pointed down at his side. The cop draws and shoots him several times and then yells drop the gun. He should not have fired. People make mistakes. This one was a bad one. The context and speculation in these posts will be useful to lawyers on both sides of the forthcoming legal procedings.

 

[cycleguy2300]

There must be a 100 or more cop cam videos on you tube that are comparable to this case: a cop on a call suddenly encounters a person armed with a pistol. Typically, he'll draw and yell "drop the gun". If the gun is not dropped and begins drifting (either intentionally or unintentionally) in the cop's direction, he fires until the gunman is down. He then keeps his weapon pointed at the gunman and may fire again until the gun is out of reach or secured. The videos often include a slo mo that emphasizes the cop did not shoot until the weapon started to move toward him. The videos are presented by the cop's agency to show the shoot was good.

In this case, the cop responds to a call and he encounters a guy who opens the door with a gun pointed down at his side. The cop draws and shoots him several times and then yells drop the gun. He should not have fired. People make mistakes. This one was a bad one. The context and speculation in these posts will be useful to lawyers on both sides of the forthcoming legal procedings.

Why don't you post a couple, just 2 or 3 to discuss and compare the circumstances and outcomes...

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[brashears9567]

There must be a 100 or more cop cam videos on you tube that are comparable to this case: a cop on a call suddenly encounters a person armed with a pistol. Typically, he'll draw and yell "drop the gun". If the gun is not dropped and begins drifting (either intentionally or unintentionally) in the cop's direction, he fires until the gunman is down. He then keeps his weapon pointed at the gunman and may fire again until the gun is out of reach or secured. The videos often include a slo mo that emphasizes the cop did not shoot until the weapon started to move toward him. The videos are presented by the cop's agency to show the shoot was good.

In this case, the cop responds to a call and he encounters a guy who opens the door with a gun pointed down at his side. The cop draws and shoots him several times and then yells drop the gun. He should not have fired. People make mistakes. This one was a bad one. The context and speculation in these posts will be useful to lawyers on both sides of the forthcoming legal procedings.

Exactly....thank you. But you'll never convince cycleguy. He'll die on this hill, and almost alone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cycleguy2300]

Exactly....thank you. But you'll never convince cycleguy. He'll die on this hill, and almost alone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I won't die on this hill, I'll be alive just like this deputy.

No one has yet described why the deadly force the deputy used was excessive or unlawful, in the light of the circumstances he was responding to.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[DaBull]

Why don't you post a couple, just 2 or 3 to discuss and compare the circumstances and outcomes...

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

I don't think there is much to discuss, and the videos are not hard to find. Well...perhaps my personal feed has something to do with that. I sympathize with LEO's predicament and understand why they would be on edge when a gun is present with less than a second to make a decision, but my understanding does not extend to shooting as soon as you see a pistol in someone's hand, no matter where it is pointed. If this becomes routine, I think most armed bad guys will realize they are better off shooting rather than running when a cop walks up, and that will not improve the situation.

 

[brashears9567]

I won't die on this hill, I'll be alive just like this deputy.

No one has yet described why the deadly force the deputy used was excessive or unlawful, in the light of the circumstances he was responding to.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

That deputy was never in danger of not being alive. Call it Monday morning quarterbacking. Call it whatever. In my opinion, it's a bad shot. That's the last I'll say on it. Let the courts sort it out, if it gets there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tblack89]

Who wants to put some money on it? If y’all are so sure he’s legally wrong and should be charged, put some money up. I’d rather get paid to listen to a bunch of grown men cry than do it for free.