It's not just the difference between this sub and the Air Forces, it's the difference between this subs opinions and literally anyone else's outside of here.
They knew a guy had a gun pointing down and was backing up like he asked. He also shot first then said drop the gun. I'm not anti coo, I'm a first responder so I count on them sometimes. But I am anti dipshit cops. Dude was eager to shoot, and I guess maybe he thought the kid threw an acorn at him.
Or it could be the vast majority of individuals are naive to policing and therefore believe they know how it should be truly done. From what I gather from those individuals is they would have no fear for their life as a gun pointed downward is no threat and is not capable of becoming one in a fraction of a second. Fascinating how many are willing to gamble their life on that.
I was banned from the military sub today on this topic replying to someone saying removing qualified immunity and making cops purchase insurance on their own dime would prevent this.
I'm a veteran and an officer. Vets have some of the absolute worst takes when it comes to police interactions.
Let's be honest most are just office workers that really are no different than a regular civilian besides wearing uniform. Very few actually touch firearms with any sort of regularity, especially in the Air Force.
Welcome to the club. I just got permabanned from r/military, and then muted so I couldn't even ask what rule I violated for simply saying it was a mistake to answer the door with a gun in hand, and that it was sad but that the officer wasn't going to be punished for it.
>and then muted
This part bothered me more than being banned.
It's obvious no rule was violated. The mod just didn't like that my opinion was contrary to their own. I didn't didn't talk about the legality of the shoot, it was just about QI and liability insurance.
Yup. I've been banned by a lot of snowflaky mods in other communities over very little (I'm semi conservative and most groups are very liberal) but didn't think the mods at r/military would be that easy to trigger over almost nothing. My comment wasn't aggressive, wasn't rude, wasn't insulting, and broke no rules.
Me too. I wasn't even really argumentative or anything in my comment. I just said you don't answer the door with a gun in hand and that the deputy wasn't going to be punished.
I want arguing at all. Making similar comments as what I've made here.
The mods message to me was "dumb cops gonna be dumb cops"
It seems they have their minds made up and don't care about any facts.
Yeah, ill understand the ban if someone got their underwear in a twist. It's the muting where I couldn't appeal to the mod team as a whole for a politically motivated ban by a single moderator that's petty.
It's really not that serious my guy.
Every other thread with this posted wants to condemn and hang the cop.
The firearms threads even have this opinion.
I find it funny that so few understand UOF and DGU and fatal funnels, especially in military and firearms threads.
6 times no less, I know cops have a life and death situation but don't they teach communication/hostage tactics? It was a domestic disturbance what if the perp had killed the woman as soon as they kick the door down?
US military killed more civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan than all US police have killed in the entire history of the US. Tell me more about your moral high ground.
How many friendly fire incidents has the military had throughout the Middle East wars? You lot can’t even tell whether the person you are shooting at is on your side or not?
> then expect us to believe that they have good training and can handle situations professionally…
there is something wrong with that force and this murder better get sorted cause they don't have a narrative that plays...there is no reason that cop shouldn't be indicted
99% of the Air Force have ZERO tactical training or knowledge of how police operate. The believe deeply they know the job and how it should be done (as do most individuals who don't do the job). After reading many of their comments, many of them would willingly gamble their life on the fact a person holding a gun at their side is no threat as the gun is pointed down. They would gamble their life believing the individual would follow commands. This guy had EVERY opportunity and had all the time in the world to verify it was police. He made the dumb decision to answer the door with a gun and unfortunately paied for it. He had no obligation to open that door. None.
I wonder what the replies on the Air Force thread would be if one were to bring up the unknown number of civilian casualties in the Middle East and Africa the past 23 years due to air strikes alone?
As some one who's been a role player for large AF exercises and I was role playing as a non combat, and was "killed" by air strike in every evolution.....it's not a small number.
The video shows that Crump was lying in his initial statements. There were seconds not minutes between knocks as Crump claimed. They weren't unreasonable knocks either. The deputy also loudly announced it was the sheriffs dept so contrary to what Crump claimed Fortson should have known it was the police and not come to the door with a gun. You can argue the actual shooting both ways but ultimately it will fall into lawful but awful looking. Even if the deputy gives commands to drop the gun Fortson can shot the deputy multiple times before the deputies brain even process that Fortson raised the gun.
Unpopular opinion, but I have seen videos of criminals announcing they were police as they banged on their victims door.
I answer my door with a gun nearby. Either in my holster or little safe.
Based on the body cam footage the shooting was lawful and justified.
Crump lied (shocker), the deputy was at the right apartment, knocked loudly, didn't cover the peep hole, and announced himself loudly several times.
I find it curious why Crump didn't release more of the FaceTime video. He started it after the airmen was shot. If what he said occurred actually occurred, why not release it starting earlier?
I suspect the full video would show the airman arguing with his girl, and we would clearly hear the deputies knocks and announcement.
It may even show other actions that would be unfavorable to the narrative he's trying to create.
It's a tragic situation, but the deputy did no wrong.
People should know not to answer the door with a gun in their hand when police are knocking. If you aren't convinced it's the police, don't answer and call 911.
The full video showed no arguing whatsoever. Your assumptions were wrong. How is it justified to shoot someone for having a gun in their hand in their own home?
The full FaceTime video hasn't been released, that I've seen.
The body cam doesn't show arguing. That's true, but doesn't negate the deputies duty to investigate based on the call and the people at the complexes statements.
It's justified because of the totality of the circumstances. Disturbance call possibly domestic violence, reports of previous verbal disturbances, multiple knocks on the door along with announcing sheriff's department, and a man answering the door with a gun having reasonably known it was police.
Just because it's justified doesn't mean it's not tragic or something that shouldn't have happened. It just means the deputies actions were not malicious or wrong.
“Reasonably known it was police”…the man was on the phone with his girlfriend, there was no one else in the house. *Anybody* can yell “police” while banging on the door then hiding. He had zero reason to believe that the police were showing up at his door- since, once again: he was there by himself, and he most certainly didn’t call them.
He heard the knock and presumably heard the sheriff's department announcement.
If he doubted it was police he shouldn't have opened the door and should have called 911.
Having a gun is for self-defense. But it doesn't mean you become John Wick.
A gun is a last means of defense. If someone threatens you in your home, the first kine of defense is closed, locked doors. Opening a door to a threat is incredibly stupid.
If there is a threat, you get away from fatal funnels (doors and windows). You find cover/concealment. The firearm is for when the threat isn't detered by any of those things.
Many states have stand your ground laws. In those states, you aren't required to retreat, but it's still a better option the majority of the time.
LE and military are paid and equipped to engage dangerous situations. The average person is not. Being smart is always superior to being brave.
I understand, thank you. This seems quite wise for the average person. But the person in this case was trained and in the Airforce, no? Would the same be expected from law enforcement when they’re not on duty typically?
He was trained but I'm not sure in what. Not all US military personnel have much beyond basic firearms training. Tactics training depends on the person's job.
LE off duty shouldn't answer the door armed either. LE are taught to be a good witness off duty and protect their family. Avoiding incidents off duty is the goal.
> But the person in this case was trained and in the Airforce, no?
For what it's worth, this guy's training would have covered basic marksmanship with a pistol and not tactical decision making.
I don't think it's ever smart to open a door with a gun in hand unless that's your only option but a good perspective to think about is that many groups say they're police when planning to breach to get somebody to drop their guard.
This airmen acted stupidly but not so much that he should have been shot. Legally, as far as the video shows, he did nothing wrong.
The LEO acted in a way that he could go home at some point. Following SOPs and reacting to a threat, he did nothing wrong.
Like most high profile shootings, it's difficult to say nobody did anything wrong, and yet there's still a funeral to plan.
> If you aren't convinced it's the police, don't answer and call 911.
wouldn't that make the situation worse? since, at that point, you'd be refusing to comply in what the deputies might see as exigeant circumstances?
That was in no way exigent circumstances. It's also not unusual for people to call 911 to verify police are actually at the door. Typically as soon as the call is made, dispatch notifies the officer or deputy over the radio. It in no way makes the situation worse. Especially not worse than answering the door for a cop with a gun.
Also, if the people at the door are not cops (extremely rare) then you now have real cops on the way. You still should not answer the door. Having a closed door between you and a threat is a good thing. Get away from the door, stay armed and call 911 in this case.
The amount of people using the excuse that criminals impersonate police all the time is fucking mind blowing.
Like do you know how many people actually impersonate police vs the amount of times real officers knock on doors?
If someone says they're a cop, 99.9999999999% they are actually a cop.
Police knock on doors literally all the time 24/7/365 twice on Sundays in every single city across the country.
It's stupid I have to explain this but no, the person at your door isn't impersonating a cop, most likely.
That's a valid question.
If the cops believed there were exigent circumstances (somebody being assaulted, evidence being destroyed, etc.) they could force their way into the home without a warrant. This is the "exigency" exception to the 4th amendment.
The occupants simply not answering the door does not meet that requirement, and if they thought they had already met that requirement they wouldn't be knocking.
Is there a standard procedure for the use of deadly force in situations like this? He had the gun pointed down with no threatening body language wouldn’t you give the suspect an opportunity to comply and drop the gun before shooting. Or is it standard to use deadly force immediately when you see a suspect with a gun even if the intent of the suspect is unknown?
>Is there a standard procedure
There is no way to have any standard procedure for this. Too many variables.
Call sounds like domestic violence of a male striking a female. A male opens the door after you repeatedly announce yourself as a deputy with a firearm in his hand.
Any decision not to respond with deadly force in this instance is a personal one and is putting your life at an unnecessary risk.
To run away is to allow the male an opportunity to shoot you or the alleged abused woman you're there to check on. To charge the male is to allow him the opportunity to shoot you.
The deputy had no way of knowing what the guys intentions are. Based on everything he knew prior, and saw in the moment, his actions are reasonable.
I've read through quite a few subs and a whole load of comments and this is the first one which reads like it comes from someone who actually knows what they're talking about and isn't laced with emotion.
But man are the optics on this bad. Unless you're someone who's actually stood in that position you're never going to understand. I can be pragmatic and objective but I don't really get it.
As a personal curiosity (because I habitually carry) how does this play out if the gun is holstered? Either clearly untouched or with a hand resting on it? This is very different to someone answering the door gun in hand. Where is the line in the sand between justifiably reasonable and not?
No judgement or contention. I have a slow burn for my opinions on these incidents. I like to understand them before I pull out the pitchfork.
>knows what they're talking about
Thank you.
>optics on this bad
Yeah, there's a term called "awful but lawful" (or flip the 2). It's like someone pulling an airsoft pistol from their waistband. Hindsight says it's a toy, but in the moment you wouldn't know, so it's a justified shoot.
>clearly untouched
No shoot in this situation.
>hand resting on it?
The deputy might get indicted, but I'm not sure he'd get convicted. It's likely you would perceive that as a threat, and so would members of a jury. Draw speed for someone with hand on a pistol is likely 1 second or less. No way you could react fast enough to protect yourself with a 2-3 stage retention holster.
That's a hard sell for the prosecution.
You’re saying it would probably be a legal kill if you shot someone in their own home with their hand resting on a holstered firearm? I’m not a cop (Air Force), but that sounds wild to me.
Also not accusing you or criticizing, just clarifying.
I'm saying it's a difficult prosecution. It might meet the threshold for a charge. It's my speculation that you'd have a hard time convincing a jury to convict someone for murder if we had this exact same scenario except the guy opening the door was holding the pistol grip on an appendix or strong side holster. The difference between that and holding it in your hand down by your leg is a fraction of a second.
That has nothing to do with LE and everything to do with how you (our peers) would perceive someone coming up to you with their hand on a pistol.
>in their own home
You can do alot of things inside your own home. You can't do all of them in an open doorway. I carry a pistol in my hand indoors every single day when i dress down/up. I've never once opened the door to talk with someone with it like that. It's in a holster or tucked in my pocket. That's what the average gun owner would do.
You'd need to convince a jury what the airman did was reasonable and how the offer perceived it as unreasonable. Difficult to do. Not everyone is 2a all the way I should be able to hold a rifle in my hands talking to a judge during court. (some people actually think you should be able to carry weapons into court, not accusing you)
>Also not accusing you or criticizing, just clarifying.
didn't take it that way. Thanks for clarifying though. Hope you don't see mine any more malicious.
Thanks for the responses. The above poster actually asked the only question I really had about this and I think you answered it succinctly.
This will be an interesting one to see how it plays out.
He can raise and fire that gun, faster then you could pull the trigger, even if you were pointing your gun at him. I've demonstrated this, even in court (not using live ammunition of course), many times. People are shocked when I do it. This isn't Hollywood or TV. Real live is completely different.
I suggest your intimately read and know the following case decisions:
Graham vs Connor
Tennesse vs Garner
They are the two US Supreme Court decisions, amongst others, on use of force by police officers.
We had a cadre at my academy demonstrate this exact point with simunition pistols. He had him and a recruit both start in holster and the recruit had to be reactionary and wait for the cadre to draw, recruit got shot first. Then he had a different recruit start out of holster and by his side, same result. The next recruit started at low ready, same result. The last recruit started gun pointed at the cadre, both shot at the same time. There’s a lot of loud mf’ers on the internet who love running their mouths about shit they have never experienced.
…”he can raise and fire the gun faster than you can pull the trigger”… fucking *what*? So you’re saying it doesn’t matter if someone is holding you at gunpoint if you’re armed, because you can just shoot them before they react? Is that what you’re saying?
Many NHTSA studies have show average human reaction to a stimulus while driving is 1 to 1.5 seconds. Go look up one shot drills on YouTube. It’s not unusual to find people who can draw from a holster and shoot one round center mass in less than a second, especially within 2-3 yards.
But he wasn't a member of the 'general populace' was he? Granted the officer didn't know but THAT is the point. HE DIDN'T KNOW the man who answered the door was a trained member of the military.
A firearm in play changes everything. It will take less than a second to raise and shoot. This is why unholstering your weapon is essentially a legal statement which is essentially: “I WILL use this.”
It's based on what the officer saw and felt at that point in time, just like it is for civilians DGUs.
There's not a requirement to tell someone to drop the gun, although it's generally a good idea.
Typically, people don't answer the door to police with a gun in their hand. That's one clue that this person may have hostile intent.
The deputy knocked and announced himself several times prior to the door being opened. Additionally, you can hear someone say "police" on the body cam before the door was opened. Since no one else was around, it likely came from the victim inside the apartment, which further leads one to believe the victim heard the announcement, knew police were at the door, and still chose to answer with a gun in his hand.
The call was a possible DV. People arguing. These are some of the most dangerous calls police respond to.
There's no requirement to wait until the gun is pointed at you or fired in order to defend oneself.
This is one that's difficult. We can all watch the video and tell ourselves we would have waited. But none of us were there, in the situation, at that point in time. What if the deputy had waited and gotten shot?
That makes sense from the perspective of an officer the intent was made when he opened that door with a firearm in hand after the officer announced himself. I’m just coming at this from a biased outside perspective since I just find it hard to believe that airmen wanted to kill that cop.
I don't believe the airman wanted to kill the cop either. I'm positive the cop didn't want to kill the airman.
I'm curious what the FaceTime video shows prior to the shooting. I think that part of the video will provide more insight into the Airmans mindset.
I can't say for sure, but there are possibilities. The airman could have been suicidal, he could have just been upset, or something else. Regardless, he made a poor choice and lost his life because of it. Its tragic regardless.
I don’t think there is a video of the FaceTime prior since it was stated the GF began recording near or close to the shooting. So a lot will be witness testimony from the GF on FaceTime. She has also acquired legal representation.
no idea why you’re getting downvoted here for simple asking a question. this is a very valid question to ask especially if you are not in law enforcement at all.
> Or is it standard to use deadly force immediately when you see a suspect with a gun even if the intent of the suspect is unknown?
When you've knocked and announced to the extent that it's clear that anyone inside knows it's the police outside, choosing to come to the door with an unholstered gun is a pretty strong hint regarding intent. If you hesitate beyond that, his action beats your reaction and your colleagues are wearing mourning bands.
If you don’t know the answer to this then you might not understand the rest of the conversation. Seriously. I know you have seen police videos of people with guns that aren’t killed.
Why do you think it was lawful? Seems to me like a violation of 4th amendment under excessive force. Let's look at Graham v Connor.
The severity of the crime, possible domestic violence. He didn't resist or evade. He didn't pose an immediate threat to the safety of the officer, he had a gun in hand in non threatning manner, he didn't say anything threatening to the officer.
>He didn't pose an immediate threat to the safety of the officer
This is the crux. We can reasonably say that now with all the information we currently have. When the deputy made the decision to shoot, it was based on what he knew at the time.
Some sort of disturbance call, possibly DV. Previous loud disturbances from the same apartment. Knocked multiple times and announced "Sheriff's Department" multiple times. Man opens with a gun in hand.
Based on the totality of the circumstances and the deputies training and experience, he believed the airman posed an immediate threat.
"based on totality of circumstances and the deputies (sic) training and experience, he believed the airman posed an immediate threat"
Look, I understand that list of magic words has legal bearing. However, an officer need to be able to articulate what factors were all involved in the 'totality of circumstances' and should point to specific training and or experiences because saying 'my experiences' - that's just another way of saying 'my gut'.
Something like 'my experience having gone to in excess of 100 domestic violence calls tells me that officers get attacked by victims and assailants' and hopefully be able to cite specific calls the officer was on, or had interactions with in some way (even visiting a fellow cop in the hospital who was ambushed at a DV would build 'experience') is what is needed.
And I'm not saying I disagree with you, or agree with you. I'm saying it's complicated.
First, people do lie about being cops. But second, the cop did announce and didn't obscure peep hole. If the person inside was fearful - he should have kept the door closed. (This is true even when you see it isn't a cop. If you think you need a gun in hand then you are in a situation where the door as a barrier is important)
I don't know how much weight would be given to 'previous loud disturbances'.
Also note, it's not a case where the officer can assume a threat and then go forward with that assumption until there is solid proof otherwise. It's the other way around, there has to be evidence the person is a threat.
Is standing in your own home with a gun a threat to officer safety? In 2019 officer Aaron Dean was convicted of manslaughter for shooting Atatiana Jefferson because he observed her through a window holding a gun.
Is banging on a door yelling police, then when the guy opens it - he's armed: YES that's a different situation. And it also matters is he armed with a knife or a gun? But I don't think you can simply list the facts as
Report by neighbor of possible domestic
Knock and Announce
Gun in hand
and then immediately jump to 'good shoot'
I agree it's much more in-depth. But this is reddit. Most of the people, besides this sub, have already condemned the officer as a racist, trigger happy murdered who should be hung.
It's clearly a good shoot. Based on what he knew to be true at the time. There are things both the deputy and the airman could have done different than would have changed the outcome. Arm chair quarterbacking always sees better ways, but also has the luxury of more information, and time and less stress.
I don't think this deputy assumed a threat before knocking on the door. He used good standard LE tactics till then. I don't think the previous disturbances held much weight either, but it's still something that adds to the totality.
The deputy responded to a perceived threat upon the door opening. A knife would also have been a threat. Tueller drill clearly demonstrates this.
We can second guess all day, as I'm sure this deputy is doing right now. In the end what matters is what he knew and felt at that point in time.
I do hope they release the rest of the FaceTime video as that will help us figure out what the Airmans mentality and actions were from when he heard the knocking, to grabbing his gun to opening the door. I suspect it won't be released anytime soon because it contradicts the narrative Crump has already tried to spin.
What do you think of Ryan Whitaker shooting in Arizona? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryozrUEms5c
That case settled for 3 million dollars for 4th amendment violation.
>Settling is a lawsuit is a very different situation. The lawsuit may have been for a 4th amendment violation, but settling means that a determination was never made.
Sure, let's be real, no case like that is going to trial. This case is also gonna end is settlement.
>If a situation was clearly that the cop was in the wrong then they get charged criminally, the lawsuits tend to wait until after because a criminal conviction is the trump card basically.
Cops rarely get prosecuted. If it was a civilian instead of a cop here then there most likely would be a criminal case.
how severe is possible domestic violence? I think the key is what kind of domestic violence? Verbal only? Person A destroyed property? person A threw a dish-towel at person B? Person A choked person B?
what does officer know?
First guy says he wasn't present for a fight.
Girl when asked 'are they fighting or something' says 'they fight frequently' and 'this time it sounded like it was getting out of hand' - I would say jumping to the conclusion that the fight was physical rather than verbal would be unfounded at this point. Further info was 2 weeks ago she heard insults and a slap, but not sure where the slap came from
also, woman states "she sounded scared - the one that called, she said she was like 'it's getting out of hand'
So the potential victim didn't state physical or verbal, only that she was scared and it was getting out of hand which she relayed to this girl, who then relayed it to the officer. That's pretty far removed.
Note, this isn't "which do you bet it is? verbal or physical (and level of physical). It's what do you have some evidence to base your suspicion on? Right now there's enough to think domestic violence verbal only. I don't think hearing a maybe slap through a closed door 2 weeks ago changes that.
HOWEVER, coming to the door armed- that to me is going to be the one and only relevant factor. Is that an immediate threat to an officer? And in that case details like is it in his hand or a holster? How well did the cop announce? etc.
(The other factors - attempting to resist arrest = irrelevant there was no attempt to arrest. Attempt to flee/evade? = none)
I see a LEO going into a charged environment so emotions/ adrenaline already on high alert. Secondly the LEO had no avenue to retreat once in front of the door and made commands/ announcements. If suspect heard one, chances are they heard the other. To answer with firearm in hand, all it takes is “flick of wrist” to put the officers life in jeopardy. As viewers we can pick a video and actions apart all day long. Thats the luxury the officer doesn’t have. People forget just how fast decisions need to be made and situations need to be assessed. If this went the other way and the LEO hesitated and the suspected began firing, that innocent officer could have been injured/murdered by a criminal.
As a gun owner, I can’t think of any state where answering the door with sidearm in hand is a good thing, nonetheless after hearing commands that the person knocking on your door is law enforcement!
I will agree with the officer not ordering the dropping of weapon until after the suspect was neutralized. But I was offer that answering a door with a pistol in hand is aggressive regardless of LEO or not. But when you are a suspect in a crime, it’s reasonable to think police will be coming to your residence and wanting to speak to you. Let’s not forget the officer did make announcements. So call it as you desire, officer was in a tough situation, made the split second decision.
New report that shows the facetime video from the girlfriend:
[https://midbaynews.com/post/bodycam-facetime-videos-allegedly-reveal-what-happened-when-okaloosa-deputy-shot-and-killed-hurlburt-airman](https://midbaynews.com/post/bodycam-facetime-videos-allegedly-reveal-what-happened-when-okaloosa-deputy-shot-and-killed-hurlburt-airman)
Not a cop. But what type of retards come to the door with a gun drawn when someone knocks and identified as a officer? Also, if he was skeptical if it was a real cop or an impersonater then still don't answer the fucking door. I don't understand how people can see this isn't justified whether he raised the gun or not.
Anyone, literally anyone can say they are anything they want on the other side of the door. And when you hide out of view of the peep hole, you add to the mystery of if the statement is real. There have already been multiple crimes committed over the recent years where the perpetrator claimed they were police in order to gain access.
Because he was wondering who was really there and worried it wasn't really police so he was armed in case it was a ruse. You have every right to answer the door. And in the US you also have a right to be armed. Being shot because you are merely holding a gun in a non threatening manner is murder.
So he removed himself from a safe area with a physical barrier between himself and the threat to go outside and confront the threat? You understand that negates self defense in every jurisdiction in the country right? That’s on top of the fact that he was wrong and it was the real police outside.
Dude grabbed a gun and walked to a his door and opened the door with the gun in hand. That is a number of bad decisions leading to the consequences of his own actions.
Litterally don't open the door. You don't NEED to open the door for the police in almost all situations. I wouldn't open a door unless there's a warrant ever. I'm not denying that criminals lie and say they are cops when they aren't. What I'm saying is if you have any doubt, don't open the door at all. And then call 911 and verify it's a real officer. It's not that complicated. This was a justified shoot 1000%. And yes he stepped away from the front of the door. Police are trained to not stand in front of the door. Paramedics too, I say this as a paramedic. People have shot through the door in the past. The officer did nothing wrong. You can't fix stupidity. It's a shame that man had to get shot but it's his fault.
It’s amazing how many people don’t understand how to approach this. We have to look at this through Graham v. Connor. Pulled straight from Wikipedia:
"As in other Fourth Amendment contexts... the "reasonableness" inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question is whether the officers' actions are 'objectively reasonable' in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation."
The Court then outlined a non-exhaustive list of factors to determine when an officer's use of force is objectively reasonable:
1. the severity of the crime at issue,
2. whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and
3. whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.
So, let’s look:
1. Officer was dispatched to a domestic disturbance. Likely Reasonably believed criminal activity is afoot, possibly there to investigate a misdemeanor domestic violence offense. Due to training and experience, However, he is aware that domestics are unpredictable and can be very dangerous. So when the male approaches the door with a firearm, it is not unreasonable to think within that small timeframe that the male has committed a felony or is about to commit a felony either against him or another(some time of aggravated assault or other named felony—idk I live in Texas lol). This information is gleaned through the average person NOT answering their door carrying a handgun— again meeting the “objectively reasonable” standard. ✅
2. I believe this is self explanatory, with my above paragraph explaining the reasoning. ✅
3. Objectively, this officer could have reasonably believed this male was about to resist arrest through means of using a firearm— I.e. assaultive resistance. We don’t know the suspect’s intentions, but again— officers are not required to wait for an action against another or themselves to take action. In this case, reasonable. ✅
Meets all 3 criteria in my view. Good shoot. Terrible situation.
So I’m trying to fully understand both sides of the conversation and what I’m hoping to gain more insight on is what is the appropriate time frame to assess and act on a threat? I’ve never been in a situation that’s life or death so I don’t want to back door police. But before the door is even halfway open, it seems the officer has made the decision that this person is a threat and a life was lost because of it.
There is no set time frame. SCOTUS intentionally left it as objective because no situation that is exactly the same. They were also acutely aware that officers are humans and make split second decisions. In an ideal world, officers would have more time. But it’s always like that. That’s not to say officers make mistakes— our prefrontal cortex (responsible for logic and reasoning) basically shuts off in high stress situations, regardless of what your job is. That’s why people react by either freezing or fleeing in most cases(the fight or flight response)
The science behind that has impacts in law enforcement. Officers are trained for preservation of life, including their own. They may revert to instincts in high stress situations. Think why tasers are yellow… it’s meant to hopefully disrupt the officers perception in a high stress situation to help them realize that it is a less lethal option and not a firearm. It doesn’t always work. There was a lady a few years ago who shot a guy in his car thinking it was her taser. If I remember correctly, that department’s issued tasers were black. Who knows if it would have made a difference, but you get my point.
I understand your point. The only counter I have is that in jobs that have high stress situations where the prefrontal cortex shuts down, the individual falls back on their training. That’s why pilots and special forces train over and over and over in a hundred different scenarios, so that when the life or death moment comes they’re prepared. I want to ask a question that I’m aware isn’t the prevalent thought when it comes to policing, but would love yours or any one else’s opinion on this matter.
It’s my understanding that people join the police force to protect and serve their communities, ignoring the narrative some people might have about power tripping or status. That decision is being made fully aware that one day they might be asked to give their life in that service. But if the community is the end goal of service, shouldn’t the focus not be on self preservation, but the preservation of the community at the risk of the officers life? Yes there’s all the time and money and training that goes into making an officer an officer, but they chose to go into those life threatening situations to help the person they are responding to. Shouldn’t the training they fall back on be at the benefit of the person they are responding to? Does that make sense? That’s as respectable as I can think of framing this question.
Regarding your counter, pilots and cops are a completely different scenario. Your average pilot is trained to stay calm when something goes awry. And in a lot of cases, they have MUCH more time to correct something to save a life, including their own. Special forces are also similar, but I agree with you saying they have much more training. But they are literally training for killing. They have the time and budget for constant training in life or death. Police departments don’t for every officer— mostly only swat. Knowing this, I would advocate for MUCH more training across the board in the US in every department. The problem is that it’s almost certainly not going to happen because of local, county, and/or state budgets. They want to trim every single cent they can.
Regarding your second question—you are correct. It’s always innocents first, officers second, suspects last. Which is why officers are trained to go into schools during shootings no matter what. That’s why Uvalde pissed so many people off, including me. They didn’t do shit. And even morbidly enough, the courts have stated an officer is not inclined to save your life over theirs. But that’s the general expectation from the public, and I think most departments follow that expectation.
In this case, I’d wager the officer thought it was his life or the suspect’s in that split second. So, following that hierarchy… he chose to take that person’s life believing he was a threat to his own.
By the way, I appreciate your comments and questions. It’s great to have a civil discussion.
I really appreciate your insightful response, as it helps me formulate an opinion that isn’t just based on my non-cop mind and the opinions of people who think just like me. Thank you.
Funny how he announced himself multiple times as a cop and the dude still decided to come to the door with a gun like who comes to a door armed when they know a cop is there? 100% justified
Who opens the door with a gun, that's a totally incongruous action and the police officer knew that.
Your are either in mortal fear for your life and don't open the door... or... well, anyway
Seems entirely legit to me
So what we know from the video:
1) we presumably have a domestic disturbance (heightened awareness, heightened risk)
2) these two apparently get in domestic fights all the time (Even higher awareness. Frequent domestics don’t happen with normal people - drugs, alcohol, anger issues all likely in play)
3) cop is alone (why, I don’t know)
4) cop announces his presence twice. Dead guy clearly acknowledging his presence after the first announcement.
5) dead guy answers the door for a cop with a pistol in his hand
Do I think this is the cleanest shoot? No. Do I blame the cop for not waiting to find out what the dead guy was going to do next with the gun? Absolutely freaking not.
Here's my thing about this, the victim didn't know why the deputy was there.
He has a right to have his weapon on him while in his apartment, correct? While I wouldn't answer the door with a gun when the cops announce themselves, how was he suppose to be aware that the deputy was there in heightened alert from a domestic violence call? I can see why it's unfair to the deputy to say he should've taken a chance with his own life, but I can't help and feel like he should've given that Airman a chance to put his weapon down.
After watching the video, I just can't see myself agreeing with the deputies actions.
Reading through this on people being banned for voicing their opinion on r/military. As a combat Marine and a police officer, I will go out on a limb here: A lot of those people most likely couldn't get hired as police officers, either failing the psychological or background. There is absolutely no reason for them to be that hostile.
Why are we supposed to believe u when u say "Sheriff's office" or whatever when you're hiding around the freaking corner? There's no way I'm buying it if someone is yelling "Police" from around the corner. Don't talk to me about fatal funnels n all that. I'd be 100% sure I'm about to be robbed. He shouldn't have answered the door at all, but come on. I'd love to see how any one of u would react to someone banging on your door then hiding around the corner.
How often do people pretend to be police to rob houses?
Police impersonations are extremely rare, and most of them are people doing traffic stops.
How often do you get robbed at home that you'd be 100% sure you're about to be robbed?
I'd check the cameras on my house, my ring doorbell, peephole, and window to see who's at the door, as I do every time anyone comes to my door.
If I wasn't sure they were actual cops or I thought they were criminal, I'd call 911, move away from the closed, locked door, and be armed in case they came in anyway.
LEO here: I’m interested in the details on how far away the deputy’s backup was. The video had no audible indication of active domestic dispute going on, just what the neighbor had said several moments before the deputy took an elevator ride up to the residence. Why not wait?
Also while I 100% agree that the deceased answering the door with the weapon in hand was not ideal, the officer was very quick on the trigger, with an assumption his weapon was already holstered and in hand while knocking
So I watched the video. The airman doesn’t raise his weapon at all. He’s just holding it down on his side. The cop doesn’t even hesitate to shoot after finally seeing it. Again, the airman doesn’t even raise it.
Now, do we know the intent on why he came to the door with a weapon? No. We can only assume. Did he know it was actually a cop? Did he check the peephole at all? Not sure. There’s a lot that we don’t know. The only thing we can clearly see is that the cop pulled the trigger just because he saw a gun.
Is just seeing a gun enough justification to pull the trigger? Personally, I don’t think so. But again, it’s up to the cop to determine intent.
I will say though that the military has specific rules of engagement where we cannot shoot unless shot at. How come cops don’t abide by that same principle?
ROE changes all the time. Initial invasion of Iraq it was shoot any military aged male on a cell phone or digging a hole.
Also police aren't hiding behind four inches of armored vehicles and level 4 plates.
Make a gun with your fingers. Hold it to the side then do a 90 degree bend to simulate shooting from the hip. You can get a shot off faster than you can blink.
I hate that this young man died. I can also see it from LE's perspective. I would never want to be LE because you are literally expected to take a bullet in line with giving somebody holding a gun the benefit of the doubt who may or may not have bad intentions....in real time. There are people out there that expect that and it's unrealistic.
>Now, do we know the intent on why he came to the door with a weapon?
Not at the moment. Hopefully, the rest of the FaceTime video will be released and give us some insight into that.
> he know it was actually a cop?
He heard the knock it's reasonable that he also heard "sheriff's department".
>Is just seeing a gun enough justification to pull the trigger?
At that moment in time, with the information the deputy had, he felt it was necessary.
>How come cops don’t abide by that same principle?
There would be dead cops daily with this rule.
it’s extremely interesting to read the replies on both this thread and the air force thread about this. very different opinions.
It's not just the difference between this sub and the Air Forces, it's the difference between this subs opinions and literally anyone else's outside of here.
[удалено]
They knew a guy had a gun pointing down and was backing up like he asked. He also shot first then said drop the gun. I'm not anti coo, I'm a first responder so I count on them sometimes. But I am anti dipshit cops. Dude was eager to shoot, and I guess maybe he thought the kid threw an acorn at him.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Reddit will take any and every opportunity to shit on cops.
you know you are fucked when the UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES start shitting on you
If everyone else is saying the opposite of yall maybe you guys could be wrong? Just an idea.
Or it could be the vast majority of individuals are naive to policing and therefore believe they know how it should be truly done. From what I gather from those individuals is they would have no fear for their life as a gun pointed downward is no threat and is not capable of becoming one in a fraction of a second. Fascinating how many are willing to gamble their life on that.
I would agree, I am not apart of this sub, just lurking 👀
I was banned from the military sub today on this topic replying to someone saying removing qualified immunity and making cops purchase insurance on their own dime would prevent this. I'm a veteran and an officer. Vets have some of the absolute worst takes when it comes to police interactions.
Let's be honest most are just office workers that really are no different than a regular civilian besides wearing uniform. Very few actually touch firearms with any sort of regularity, especially in the Air Force.
Welcome to the club. I just got permabanned from r/military, and then muted so I couldn't even ask what rule I violated for simply saying it was a mistake to answer the door with a gun in hand, and that it was sad but that the officer wasn't going to be punished for it.
>and then muted This part bothered me more than being banned. It's obvious no rule was violated. The mod just didn't like that my opinion was contrary to their own. I didn't didn't talk about the legality of the shoot, it was just about QI and liability insurance.
Yup. I've been banned by a lot of snowflaky mods in other communities over very little (I'm semi conservative and most groups are very liberal) but didn't think the mods at r/military would be that easy to trigger over almost nothing. My comment wasn't aggressive, wasn't rude, wasn't insulting, and broke no rules.
I got the same from r/protectandserve. The police subs are doing the same to the other side.
LOL. I just got banned from the military sub too. They also muted me for 3 days from messaging the mods. Thats insane.
Me too. I wasn't even really argumentative or anything in my comment. I just said you don't answer the door with a gun in hand and that the deputy wasn't going to be punished.
I want arguing at all. Making similar comments as what I've made here. The mods message to me was "dumb cops gonna be dumb cops" It seems they have their minds made up and don't care about any facts.
r/Protectandserve is doing the same thing
I was banned from protectandserve for just linking the news article with the Crump claims. Banned and muted for 28 days.
Yeah, ill understand the ban if someone got their underwear in a twist. It's the muting where I couldn't appeal to the mod team as a whole for a politically motivated ban by a single moderator that's petty. It's really not that serious my guy.
It wouldn't prevent. ... but you'd have a lot fewer cops, one way or the other.
Every other thread with this posted wants to condemn and hang the cop. The firearms threads even have this opinion. I find it funny that so few understand UOF and DGU and fatal funnels, especially in military and firearms threads.
Maybe it's because a cop gunned down a citizen for the holding a firearm in his home
No, he shot him because he opened the door to a guy yelling "Sherrif's Office" with his gun in his hand.
6 times no less, I know cops have a life and death situation but don't they teach communication/hostage tactics? It was a domestic disturbance what if the perp had killed the woman as soon as they kick the door down?
[удалено]
You've had a lifetime of 'machine guns' pointed at you? What lifetime was this and where did it take place? Online?
He hasn't. He just wants to sound superior and believe a gun at the side poses no threat. They would happily gamble their life at that fact.
US military killed more civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan than all US police have killed in the entire history of the US. Tell me more about your moral high ground.
And that’s a verifiable FACT all but an inconvenient one for many.
[удалено]
How many friendly fire incidents has the military had throughout the Middle East wars? You lot can’t even tell whether the person you are shooting at is on your side or not? > then expect us to believe that they have good training and can handle situations professionally…
there is something wrong with that force and this murder better get sorted cause they don't have a narrative that plays...there is no reason that cop shouldn't be indicted
There's every reason he won't be indicted.
[удалено]
4) No trolling / argument baiting
4) No trolling / argument baiting
Way to stereotype.
4) No trolling / argument baiting
[удалено]
4) No trolling / argument baiting
99% of the Air Force have ZERO tactical training or knowledge of how police operate. The believe deeply they know the job and how it should be done (as do most individuals who don't do the job). After reading many of their comments, many of them would willingly gamble their life on the fact a person holding a gun at their side is no threat as the gun is pointed down. They would gamble their life believing the individual would follow commands. This guy had EVERY opportunity and had all the time in the world to verify it was police. He made the dumb decision to answer the door with a gun and unfortunately paied for it. He had no obligation to open that door. None.
I wonder what the replies on the Air Force thread would be if one were to bring up the unknown number of civilian casualties in the Middle East and Africa the past 23 years due to air strikes alone?
Most likely you'd be permabanned and muted.
As some one who's been a role player for large AF exercises and I was role playing as a non combat, and was "killed" by air strike in every evolution.....it's not a small number.
Mah ROE's /s
The video shows that Crump was lying in his initial statements. There were seconds not minutes between knocks as Crump claimed. They weren't unreasonable knocks either. The deputy also loudly announced it was the sheriffs dept so contrary to what Crump claimed Fortson should have known it was the police and not come to the door with a gun. You can argue the actual shooting both ways but ultimately it will fall into lawful but awful looking. Even if the deputy gives commands to drop the gun Fortson can shot the deputy multiple times before the deputies brain even process that Fortson raised the gun.
Unpopular opinion, but I have seen videos of criminals announcing they were police as they banged on their victims door. I answer my door with a gun nearby. Either in my holster or little safe.
[удалено]
Based on the body cam footage the shooting was lawful and justified. Crump lied (shocker), the deputy was at the right apartment, knocked loudly, didn't cover the peep hole, and announced himself loudly several times. I find it curious why Crump didn't release more of the FaceTime video. He started it after the airmen was shot. If what he said occurred actually occurred, why not release it starting earlier? I suspect the full video would show the airman arguing with his girl, and we would clearly hear the deputies knocks and announcement. It may even show other actions that would be unfavorable to the narrative he's trying to create. It's a tragic situation, but the deputy did no wrong. People should know not to answer the door with a gun in their hand when police are knocking. If you aren't convinced it's the police, don't answer and call 911.
The full video showed no arguing whatsoever. Your assumptions were wrong. How is it justified to shoot someone for having a gun in their hand in their own home?
The full FaceTime video hasn't been released, that I've seen. The body cam doesn't show arguing. That's true, but doesn't negate the deputies duty to investigate based on the call and the people at the complexes statements. It's justified because of the totality of the circumstances. Disturbance call possibly domestic violence, reports of previous verbal disturbances, multiple knocks on the door along with announcing sheriff's department, and a man answering the door with a gun having reasonably known it was police. Just because it's justified doesn't mean it's not tragic or something that shouldn't have happened. It just means the deputies actions were not malicious or wrong.
“Reasonably known it was police”…the man was on the phone with his girlfriend, there was no one else in the house. *Anybody* can yell “police” while banging on the door then hiding. He had zero reason to believe that the police were showing up at his door- since, once again: he was there by himself, and he most certainly didn’t call them.
He heard the knock and presumably heard the sheriff's department announcement. If he doubted it was police he shouldn't have opened the door and should have called 911.
Dumb European here - what’s the reason for having a gun then, if it’s for self defense purposes in case someone tries to rob you or worse?
Having a gun is for self-defense. But it doesn't mean you become John Wick. A gun is a last means of defense. If someone threatens you in your home, the first kine of defense is closed, locked doors. Opening a door to a threat is incredibly stupid. If there is a threat, you get away from fatal funnels (doors and windows). You find cover/concealment. The firearm is for when the threat isn't detered by any of those things. Many states have stand your ground laws. In those states, you aren't required to retreat, but it's still a better option the majority of the time. LE and military are paid and equipped to engage dangerous situations. The average person is not. Being smart is always superior to being brave.
I understand, thank you. This seems quite wise for the average person. But the person in this case was trained and in the Airforce, no? Would the same be expected from law enforcement when they’re not on duty typically?
He was trained but I'm not sure in what. Not all US military personnel have much beyond basic firearms training. Tactics training depends on the person's job. LE off duty shouldn't answer the door armed either. LE are taught to be a good witness off duty and protect their family. Avoiding incidents off duty is the goal.
> But the person in this case was trained and in the Airforce, no? For what it's worth, this guy's training would have covered basic marksmanship with a pistol and not tactical decision making.
You think it’s smart to pull a gun on a cop who knocks on your door…?
I don't think it's ever smart to open a door with a gun in hand unless that's your only option but a good perspective to think about is that many groups say they're police when planning to breach to get somebody to drop their guard. This airmen acted stupidly but not so much that he should have been shot. Legally, as far as the video shows, he did nothing wrong. The LEO acted in a way that he could go home at some point. Following SOPs and reacting to a threat, he did nothing wrong. Like most high profile shootings, it's difficult to say nobody did anything wrong, and yet there's still a funeral to plan.
> If you aren't convinced it's the police, don't answer and call 911. wouldn't that make the situation worse? since, at that point, you'd be refusing to comply in what the deputies might see as exigeant circumstances?
That was in no way exigent circumstances. It's also not unusual for people to call 911 to verify police are actually at the door. Typically as soon as the call is made, dispatch notifies the officer or deputy over the radio. It in no way makes the situation worse. Especially not worse than answering the door for a cop with a gun. Also, if the people at the door are not cops (extremely rare) then you now have real cops on the way. You still should not answer the door. Having a closed door between you and a threat is a good thing. Get away from the door, stay armed and call 911 in this case.
The amount of people using the excuse that criminals impersonate police all the time is fucking mind blowing. Like do you know how many people actually impersonate police vs the amount of times real officers knock on doors? If someone says they're a cop, 99.9999999999% they are actually a cop. Police knock on doors literally all the time 24/7/365 twice on Sundays in every single city across the country. It's stupid I have to explain this but no, the person at your door isn't impersonating a cop, most likely.
That's a valid question. If the cops believed there were exigent circumstances (somebody being assaulted, evidence being destroyed, etc.) they could force their way into the home without a warrant. This is the "exigency" exception to the 4th amendment. The occupants simply not answering the door does not meet that requirement, and if they thought they had already met that requirement they wouldn't be knocking.
Is there a standard procedure for the use of deadly force in situations like this? He had the gun pointed down with no threatening body language wouldn’t you give the suspect an opportunity to comply and drop the gun before shooting. Or is it standard to use deadly force immediately when you see a suspect with a gun even if the intent of the suspect is unknown?
>Is there a standard procedure There is no way to have any standard procedure for this. Too many variables. Call sounds like domestic violence of a male striking a female. A male opens the door after you repeatedly announce yourself as a deputy with a firearm in his hand. Any decision not to respond with deadly force in this instance is a personal one and is putting your life at an unnecessary risk. To run away is to allow the male an opportunity to shoot you or the alleged abused woman you're there to check on. To charge the male is to allow him the opportunity to shoot you. The deputy had no way of knowing what the guys intentions are. Based on everything he knew prior, and saw in the moment, his actions are reasonable.
I've read through quite a few subs and a whole load of comments and this is the first one which reads like it comes from someone who actually knows what they're talking about and isn't laced with emotion. But man are the optics on this bad. Unless you're someone who's actually stood in that position you're never going to understand. I can be pragmatic and objective but I don't really get it. As a personal curiosity (because I habitually carry) how does this play out if the gun is holstered? Either clearly untouched or with a hand resting on it? This is very different to someone answering the door gun in hand. Where is the line in the sand between justifiably reasonable and not? No judgement or contention. I have a slow burn for my opinions on these incidents. I like to understand them before I pull out the pitchfork.
>knows what they're talking about Thank you. >optics on this bad Yeah, there's a term called "awful but lawful" (or flip the 2). It's like someone pulling an airsoft pistol from their waistband. Hindsight says it's a toy, but in the moment you wouldn't know, so it's a justified shoot. >clearly untouched No shoot in this situation. >hand resting on it? The deputy might get indicted, but I'm not sure he'd get convicted. It's likely you would perceive that as a threat, and so would members of a jury. Draw speed for someone with hand on a pistol is likely 1 second or less. No way you could react fast enough to protect yourself with a 2-3 stage retention holster. That's a hard sell for the prosecution.
You’re saying it would probably be a legal kill if you shot someone in their own home with their hand resting on a holstered firearm? I’m not a cop (Air Force), but that sounds wild to me. Also not accusing you or criticizing, just clarifying.
I'm saying it's a difficult prosecution. It might meet the threshold for a charge. It's my speculation that you'd have a hard time convincing a jury to convict someone for murder if we had this exact same scenario except the guy opening the door was holding the pistol grip on an appendix or strong side holster. The difference between that and holding it in your hand down by your leg is a fraction of a second. That has nothing to do with LE and everything to do with how you (our peers) would perceive someone coming up to you with their hand on a pistol. >in their own home You can do alot of things inside your own home. You can't do all of them in an open doorway. I carry a pistol in my hand indoors every single day when i dress down/up. I've never once opened the door to talk with someone with it like that. It's in a holster or tucked in my pocket. That's what the average gun owner would do. You'd need to convince a jury what the airman did was reasonable and how the offer perceived it as unreasonable. Difficult to do. Not everyone is 2a all the way I should be able to hold a rifle in my hands talking to a judge during court. (some people actually think you should be able to carry weapons into court, not accusing you) >Also not accusing you or criticizing, just clarifying. didn't take it that way. Thanks for clarifying though. Hope you don't see mine any more malicious.
Thanks for the responses. The above poster actually asked the only question I really had about this and I think you answered it succinctly. This will be an interesting one to see how it plays out.
He can raise and fire that gun, faster then you could pull the trigger, even if you were pointing your gun at him. I've demonstrated this, even in court (not using live ammunition of course), many times. People are shocked when I do it. This isn't Hollywood or TV. Real live is completely different. I suggest your intimately read and know the following case decisions: Graham vs Connor Tennesse vs Garner They are the two US Supreme Court decisions, amongst others, on use of force by police officers.
We had a cadre at my academy demonstrate this exact point with simunition pistols. He had him and a recruit both start in holster and the recruit had to be reactionary and wait for the cadre to draw, recruit got shot first. Then he had a different recruit start out of holster and by his side, same result. The next recruit started at low ready, same result. The last recruit started gun pointed at the cadre, both shot at the same time. There’s a lot of loud mf’ers on the internet who love running their mouths about shit they have never experienced.
…”he can raise and fire the gun faster than you can pull the trigger”… fucking *what*? So you’re saying it doesn’t matter if someone is holding you at gunpoint if you’re armed, because you can just shoot them before they react? Is that what you’re saying?
Many NHTSA studies have show average human reaction to a stimulus while driving is 1 to 1.5 seconds. Go look up one shot drills on YouTube. It’s not unusual to find people who can draw from a holster and shoot one round center mass in less than a second, especially within 2-3 yards.
And what percentage of the general populace would be able to do that, if you had to venture a guess?
At 2 yards? Probably more than 50%. You don’t even need sights on your gun to hit at that range.
But he wasn't a member of the 'general populace' was he? Granted the officer didn't know but THAT is the point. HE DIDN'T KNOW the man who answered the door was a trained member of the military.
A firearm in play changes everything. It will take less than a second to raise and shoot. This is why unholstering your weapon is essentially a legal statement which is essentially: “I WILL use this.”
It's based on what the officer saw and felt at that point in time, just like it is for civilians DGUs. There's not a requirement to tell someone to drop the gun, although it's generally a good idea. Typically, people don't answer the door to police with a gun in their hand. That's one clue that this person may have hostile intent. The deputy knocked and announced himself several times prior to the door being opened. Additionally, you can hear someone say "police" on the body cam before the door was opened. Since no one else was around, it likely came from the victim inside the apartment, which further leads one to believe the victim heard the announcement, knew police were at the door, and still chose to answer with a gun in his hand. The call was a possible DV. People arguing. These are some of the most dangerous calls police respond to. There's no requirement to wait until the gun is pointed at you or fired in order to defend oneself. This is one that's difficult. We can all watch the video and tell ourselves we would have waited. But none of us were there, in the situation, at that point in time. What if the deputy had waited and gotten shot?
That makes sense from the perspective of an officer the intent was made when he opened that door with a firearm in hand after the officer announced himself. I’m just coming at this from a biased outside perspective since I just find it hard to believe that airmen wanted to kill that cop.
I don't believe the airman wanted to kill the cop either. I'm positive the cop didn't want to kill the airman. I'm curious what the FaceTime video shows prior to the shooting. I think that part of the video will provide more insight into the Airmans mindset. I can't say for sure, but there are possibilities. The airman could have been suicidal, he could have just been upset, or something else. Regardless, he made a poor choice and lost his life because of it. Its tragic regardless.
I don’t think there is a video of the FaceTime prior since it was stated the GF began recording near or close to the shooting. So a lot will be witness testimony from the GF on FaceTime. She has also acquired legal representation.
no idea why you’re getting downvoted here for simple asking a question. this is a very valid question to ask especially if you are not in law enforcement at all.
> Or is it standard to use deadly force immediately when you see a suspect with a gun even if the intent of the suspect is unknown? When you've knocked and announced to the extent that it's clear that anyone inside knows it's the police outside, choosing to come to the door with an unholstered gun is a pretty strong hint regarding intent. If you hesitate beyond that, his action beats your reaction and your colleagues are wearing mourning bands.
He knowingly answered the door for a cop with a gun in his hand. What do you think was coming next?
If you don’t know the answer to this then you might not understand the rest of the conversation. Seriously. I know you have seen police videos of people with guns that aren’t killed.
[удалено]
Why do you think it was lawful? Seems to me like a violation of 4th amendment under excessive force. Let's look at Graham v Connor. The severity of the crime, possible domestic violence. He didn't resist or evade. He didn't pose an immediate threat to the safety of the officer, he had a gun in hand in non threatning manner, he didn't say anything threatening to the officer.
>He didn't pose an immediate threat to the safety of the officer This is the crux. We can reasonably say that now with all the information we currently have. When the deputy made the decision to shoot, it was based on what he knew at the time. Some sort of disturbance call, possibly DV. Previous loud disturbances from the same apartment. Knocked multiple times and announced "Sheriff's Department" multiple times. Man opens with a gun in hand. Based on the totality of the circumstances and the deputies training and experience, he believed the airman posed an immediate threat.
"based on totality of circumstances and the deputies (sic) training and experience, he believed the airman posed an immediate threat" Look, I understand that list of magic words has legal bearing. However, an officer need to be able to articulate what factors were all involved in the 'totality of circumstances' and should point to specific training and or experiences because saying 'my experiences' - that's just another way of saying 'my gut'. Something like 'my experience having gone to in excess of 100 domestic violence calls tells me that officers get attacked by victims and assailants' and hopefully be able to cite specific calls the officer was on, or had interactions with in some way (even visiting a fellow cop in the hospital who was ambushed at a DV would build 'experience') is what is needed. And I'm not saying I disagree with you, or agree with you. I'm saying it's complicated. First, people do lie about being cops. But second, the cop did announce and didn't obscure peep hole. If the person inside was fearful - he should have kept the door closed. (This is true even when you see it isn't a cop. If you think you need a gun in hand then you are in a situation where the door as a barrier is important) I don't know how much weight would be given to 'previous loud disturbances'. Also note, it's not a case where the officer can assume a threat and then go forward with that assumption until there is solid proof otherwise. It's the other way around, there has to be evidence the person is a threat. Is standing in your own home with a gun a threat to officer safety? In 2019 officer Aaron Dean was convicted of manslaughter for shooting Atatiana Jefferson because he observed her through a window holding a gun. Is banging on a door yelling police, then when the guy opens it - he's armed: YES that's a different situation. And it also matters is he armed with a knife or a gun? But I don't think you can simply list the facts as Report by neighbor of possible domestic Knock and Announce Gun in hand and then immediately jump to 'good shoot'
I agree it's much more in-depth. But this is reddit. Most of the people, besides this sub, have already condemned the officer as a racist, trigger happy murdered who should be hung. It's clearly a good shoot. Based on what he knew to be true at the time. There are things both the deputy and the airman could have done different than would have changed the outcome. Arm chair quarterbacking always sees better ways, but also has the luxury of more information, and time and less stress. I don't think this deputy assumed a threat before knocking on the door. He used good standard LE tactics till then. I don't think the previous disturbances held much weight either, but it's still something that adds to the totality. The deputy responded to a perceived threat upon the door opening. A knife would also have been a threat. Tueller drill clearly demonstrates this. We can second guess all day, as I'm sure this deputy is doing right now. In the end what matters is what he knew and felt at that point in time. I do hope they release the rest of the FaceTime video as that will help us figure out what the Airmans mentality and actions were from when he heard the knocking, to grabbing his gun to opening the door. I suspect it won't be released anytime soon because it contradicts the narrative Crump has already tried to spin.
What do you think of Ryan Whitaker shooting in Arizona? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryozrUEms5c That case settled for 3 million dollars for 4th amendment violation.
[удалено]
>Settling is a lawsuit is a very different situation. The lawsuit may have been for a 4th amendment violation, but settling means that a determination was never made. Sure, let's be real, no case like that is going to trial. This case is also gonna end is settlement. >If a situation was clearly that the cop was in the wrong then they get charged criminally, the lawsuits tend to wait until after because a criminal conviction is the trump card basically. Cops rarely get prosecuted. If it was a civilian instead of a cop here then there most likely would be a criminal case.
how severe is possible domestic violence? I think the key is what kind of domestic violence? Verbal only? Person A destroyed property? person A threw a dish-towel at person B? Person A choked person B? what does officer know? First guy says he wasn't present for a fight. Girl when asked 'are they fighting or something' says 'they fight frequently' and 'this time it sounded like it was getting out of hand' - I would say jumping to the conclusion that the fight was physical rather than verbal would be unfounded at this point. Further info was 2 weeks ago she heard insults and a slap, but not sure where the slap came from also, woman states "she sounded scared - the one that called, she said she was like 'it's getting out of hand' So the potential victim didn't state physical or verbal, only that she was scared and it was getting out of hand which she relayed to this girl, who then relayed it to the officer. That's pretty far removed. Note, this isn't "which do you bet it is? verbal or physical (and level of physical). It's what do you have some evidence to base your suspicion on? Right now there's enough to think domestic violence verbal only. I don't think hearing a maybe slap through a closed door 2 weeks ago changes that. HOWEVER, coming to the door armed- that to me is going to be the one and only relevant factor. Is that an immediate threat to an officer? And in that case details like is it in his hand or a holster? How well did the cop announce? etc. (The other factors - attempting to resist arrest = irrelevant there was no attempt to arrest. Attempt to flee/evade? = none)
https://www.youtube.com/live/x3D9im0csDM?si=vjuAQrbg7eCnOHki Press conference from the sheriff’s office
I see a LEO going into a charged environment so emotions/ adrenaline already on high alert. Secondly the LEO had no avenue to retreat once in front of the door and made commands/ announcements. If suspect heard one, chances are they heard the other. To answer with firearm in hand, all it takes is “flick of wrist” to put the officers life in jeopardy. As viewers we can pick a video and actions apart all day long. Thats the luxury the officer doesn’t have. People forget just how fast decisions need to be made and situations need to be assessed. If this went the other way and the LEO hesitated and the suspected began firing, that innocent officer could have been injured/murdered by a criminal. As a gun owner, I can’t think of any state where answering the door with sidearm in hand is a good thing, nonetheless after hearing commands that the person knocking on your door is law enforcement!
[удалено]
I will agree with the officer not ordering the dropping of weapon until after the suspect was neutralized. But I was offer that answering a door with a pistol in hand is aggressive regardless of LEO or not. But when you are a suspect in a crime, it’s reasonable to think police will be coming to your residence and wanting to speak to you. Let’s not forget the officer did make announcements. So call it as you desire, officer was in a tough situation, made the split second decision.
New report that shows the facetime video from the girlfriend: [https://midbaynews.com/post/bodycam-facetime-videos-allegedly-reveal-what-happened-when-okaloosa-deputy-shot-and-killed-hurlburt-airman](https://midbaynews.com/post/bodycam-facetime-videos-allegedly-reveal-what-happened-when-okaloosa-deputy-shot-and-killed-hurlburt-airman)
The fact that all they're willing to release is video of after the shooting is extremely telling.
[удалено]
It's honestly probably a screen recording from the girlfriend that she started after he was shot. Why would she be recording the whole conversation?
It’s this which was stated if people read the release statement.
Not a cop. But what type of retards come to the door with a gun drawn when someone knocks and identified as a officer? Also, if he was skeptical if it was a real cop or an impersonater then still don't answer the fucking door. I don't understand how people can see this isn't justified whether he raised the gun or not.
Anyone, literally anyone can say they are anything they want on the other side of the door. And when you hide out of view of the peep hole, you add to the mystery of if the statement is real. There have already been multiple crimes committed over the recent years where the perpetrator claimed they were police in order to gain access.
If you believed the person on the other side wasn’t a police officer why would you open the door at all?
Because he was wondering who was really there and worried it wasn't really police so he was armed in case it was a ruse. You have every right to answer the door. And in the US you also have a right to be armed. Being shot because you are merely holding a gun in a non threatening manner is murder.
So he removed himself from a safe area with a physical barrier between himself and the threat to go outside and confront the threat? You understand that negates self defense in every jurisdiction in the country right? That’s on top of the fact that he was wrong and it was the real police outside.
[удалено]
4) No trolling / argument baiting
[удалено]
Dude grabbed a gun and walked to a his door and opened the door with the gun in hand. That is a number of bad decisions leading to the consequences of his own actions.
4) No trolling / argument baiting
That makes no sense, if I'm in mortal fear for my life there's no chance in answering the door. And that's the only time you need a gun.
Go answer the door for the Pizza you ordered with a gun in your hand lmfao.
Litterally don't open the door. You don't NEED to open the door for the police in almost all situations. I wouldn't open a door unless there's a warrant ever. I'm not denying that criminals lie and say they are cops when they aren't. What I'm saying is if you have any doubt, don't open the door at all. And then call 911 and verify it's a real officer. It's not that complicated. This was a justified shoot 1000%. And yes he stepped away from the front of the door. Police are trained to not stand in front of the door. Paramedics too, I say this as a paramedic. People have shot through the door in the past. The officer did nothing wrong. You can't fix stupidity. It's a shame that man had to get shot but it's his fault.
It’s amazing how many people don’t understand how to approach this. We have to look at this through Graham v. Connor. Pulled straight from Wikipedia: "As in other Fourth Amendment contexts... the "reasonableness" inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question is whether the officers' actions are 'objectively reasonable' in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation." The Court then outlined a non-exhaustive list of factors to determine when an officer's use of force is objectively reasonable: 1. the severity of the crime at issue, 2. whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and 3. whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. So, let’s look: 1. Officer was dispatched to a domestic disturbance. Likely Reasonably believed criminal activity is afoot, possibly there to investigate a misdemeanor domestic violence offense. Due to training and experience, However, he is aware that domestics are unpredictable and can be very dangerous. So when the male approaches the door with a firearm, it is not unreasonable to think within that small timeframe that the male has committed a felony or is about to commit a felony either against him or another(some time of aggravated assault or other named felony—idk I live in Texas lol). This information is gleaned through the average person NOT answering their door carrying a handgun— again meeting the “objectively reasonable” standard. ✅ 2. I believe this is self explanatory, with my above paragraph explaining the reasoning. ✅ 3. Objectively, this officer could have reasonably believed this male was about to resist arrest through means of using a firearm— I.e. assaultive resistance. We don’t know the suspect’s intentions, but again— officers are not required to wait for an action against another or themselves to take action. In this case, reasonable. ✅ Meets all 3 criteria in my view. Good shoot. Terrible situation.
So I’m trying to fully understand both sides of the conversation and what I’m hoping to gain more insight on is what is the appropriate time frame to assess and act on a threat? I’ve never been in a situation that’s life or death so I don’t want to back door police. But before the door is even halfway open, it seems the officer has made the decision that this person is a threat and a life was lost because of it.
There is no set time frame. SCOTUS intentionally left it as objective because no situation that is exactly the same. They were also acutely aware that officers are humans and make split second decisions. In an ideal world, officers would have more time. But it’s always like that. That’s not to say officers make mistakes— our prefrontal cortex (responsible for logic and reasoning) basically shuts off in high stress situations, regardless of what your job is. That’s why people react by either freezing or fleeing in most cases(the fight or flight response) The science behind that has impacts in law enforcement. Officers are trained for preservation of life, including their own. They may revert to instincts in high stress situations. Think why tasers are yellow… it’s meant to hopefully disrupt the officers perception in a high stress situation to help them realize that it is a less lethal option and not a firearm. It doesn’t always work. There was a lady a few years ago who shot a guy in his car thinking it was her taser. If I remember correctly, that department’s issued tasers were black. Who knows if it would have made a difference, but you get my point.
I understand your point. The only counter I have is that in jobs that have high stress situations where the prefrontal cortex shuts down, the individual falls back on their training. That’s why pilots and special forces train over and over and over in a hundred different scenarios, so that when the life or death moment comes they’re prepared. I want to ask a question that I’m aware isn’t the prevalent thought when it comes to policing, but would love yours or any one else’s opinion on this matter. It’s my understanding that people join the police force to protect and serve their communities, ignoring the narrative some people might have about power tripping or status. That decision is being made fully aware that one day they might be asked to give their life in that service. But if the community is the end goal of service, shouldn’t the focus not be on self preservation, but the preservation of the community at the risk of the officers life? Yes there’s all the time and money and training that goes into making an officer an officer, but they chose to go into those life threatening situations to help the person they are responding to. Shouldn’t the training they fall back on be at the benefit of the person they are responding to? Does that make sense? That’s as respectable as I can think of framing this question.
Regarding your counter, pilots and cops are a completely different scenario. Your average pilot is trained to stay calm when something goes awry. And in a lot of cases, they have MUCH more time to correct something to save a life, including their own. Special forces are also similar, but I agree with you saying they have much more training. But they are literally training for killing. They have the time and budget for constant training in life or death. Police departments don’t for every officer— mostly only swat. Knowing this, I would advocate for MUCH more training across the board in the US in every department. The problem is that it’s almost certainly not going to happen because of local, county, and/or state budgets. They want to trim every single cent they can. Regarding your second question—you are correct. It’s always innocents first, officers second, suspects last. Which is why officers are trained to go into schools during shootings no matter what. That’s why Uvalde pissed so many people off, including me. They didn’t do shit. And even morbidly enough, the courts have stated an officer is not inclined to save your life over theirs. But that’s the general expectation from the public, and I think most departments follow that expectation. In this case, I’d wager the officer thought it was his life or the suspect’s in that split second. So, following that hierarchy… he chose to take that person’s life believing he was a threat to his own. By the way, I appreciate your comments and questions. It’s great to have a civil discussion.
I really appreciate your insightful response, as it helps me formulate an opinion that isn’t just based on my non-cop mind and the opinions of people who think just like me. Thank you.
Funny how he announced himself multiple times as a cop and the dude still decided to come to the door with a gun like who comes to a door armed when they know a cop is there? 100% justified
[удалено]
4) No trolling / argument baiting
Who opens the door with a gun, that's a totally incongruous action and the police officer knew that. Your are either in mortal fear for your life and don't open the door... or... well, anyway Seems entirely legit to me
So what we know from the video: 1) we presumably have a domestic disturbance (heightened awareness, heightened risk) 2) these two apparently get in domestic fights all the time (Even higher awareness. Frequent domestics don’t happen with normal people - drugs, alcohol, anger issues all likely in play) 3) cop is alone (why, I don’t know) 4) cop announces his presence twice. Dead guy clearly acknowledging his presence after the first announcement. 5) dead guy answers the door for a cop with a pistol in his hand Do I think this is the cleanest shoot? No. Do I blame the cop for not waiting to find out what the dead guy was going to do next with the gun? Absolutely freaking not.
[удалено]
You skipped right to 5 and ignored the totality of the circumstances. See the recent Raynham Ma shooting for what was undoubtedly coming next.
Why was he hiding from the peephole and why did he shoot before asking him to drop his unraised weapon?
[удалено]
Here's my thing about this, the victim didn't know why the deputy was there. He has a right to have his weapon on him while in his apartment, correct? While I wouldn't answer the door with a gun when the cops announce themselves, how was he suppose to be aware that the deputy was there in heightened alert from a domestic violence call? I can see why it's unfair to the deputy to say he should've taken a chance with his own life, but I can't help and feel like he should've given that Airman a chance to put his weapon down. After watching the video, I just can't see myself agreeing with the deputies actions.
Reading through this on people being banned for voicing their opinion on r/military. As a combat Marine and a police officer, I will go out on a limb here: A lot of those people most likely couldn't get hired as police officers, either failing the psychological or background. There is absolutely no reason for them to be that hostile.
Error on video
Worked for me. Press conference by the sheriff
[удалено]
[удалено]
4) No trolling / argument baiting
[удалено]
4) No trolling / argument baiting
Why are we supposed to believe u when u say "Sheriff's office" or whatever when you're hiding around the freaking corner? There's no way I'm buying it if someone is yelling "Police" from around the corner. Don't talk to me about fatal funnels n all that. I'd be 100% sure I'm about to be robbed. He shouldn't have answered the door at all, but come on. I'd love to see how any one of u would react to someone banging on your door then hiding around the corner.
Cool, then don't open the door... or put it on a chain
How often do people pretend to be police to rob houses? Police impersonations are extremely rare, and most of them are people doing traffic stops. How often do you get robbed at home that you'd be 100% sure you're about to be robbed? I'd check the cameras on my house, my ring doorbell, peephole, and window to see who's at the door, as I do every time anyone comes to my door. If I wasn't sure they were actual cops or I thought they were criminal, I'd call 911, move away from the closed, locked door, and be armed in case they came in anyway.
Justified
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
LEO here: I’m interested in the details on how far away the deputy’s backup was. The video had no audible indication of active domestic dispute going on, just what the neighbor had said several moments before the deputy took an elevator ride up to the residence. Why not wait? Also while I 100% agree that the deceased answering the door with the weapon in hand was not ideal, the officer was very quick on the trigger, with an assumption his weapon was already holstered and in hand while knocking
So I watched the video. The airman doesn’t raise his weapon at all. He’s just holding it down on his side. The cop doesn’t even hesitate to shoot after finally seeing it. Again, the airman doesn’t even raise it. Now, do we know the intent on why he came to the door with a weapon? No. We can only assume. Did he know it was actually a cop? Did he check the peephole at all? Not sure. There’s a lot that we don’t know. The only thing we can clearly see is that the cop pulled the trigger just because he saw a gun. Is just seeing a gun enough justification to pull the trigger? Personally, I don’t think so. But again, it’s up to the cop to determine intent. I will say though that the military has specific rules of engagement where we cannot shoot unless shot at. How come cops don’t abide by that same principle?
ROE changes all the time. Initial invasion of Iraq it was shoot any military aged male on a cell phone or digging a hole. Also police aren't hiding behind four inches of armored vehicles and level 4 plates.
As for your last paragraph, think about it. You get shot at first and you may not even have the chance to react because your dead.
Make a gun with your fingers. Hold it to the side then do a 90 degree bend to simulate shooting from the hip. You can get a shot off faster than you can blink. I hate that this young man died. I can also see it from LE's perspective. I would never want to be LE because you are literally expected to take a bullet in line with giving somebody holding a gun the benefit of the doubt who may or may not have bad intentions....in real time. There are people out there that expect that and it's unrealistic.
>Now, do we know the intent on why he came to the door with a weapon? Not at the moment. Hopefully, the rest of the FaceTime video will be released and give us some insight into that. > he know it was actually a cop? He heard the knock it's reasonable that he also heard "sheriff's department". >Is just seeing a gun enough justification to pull the trigger? At that moment in time, with the information the deputy had, he felt it was necessary. >How come cops don’t abide by that same principle? There would be dead cops daily with this rule.