Florida deputy that shot and killed airman terminated

[MarkJ]

There is one common denominator in the Airman shooting and the Phoenix shooting.

Both officers made questionable decisions.

In the Airman shooting that decision cost a man his life. That Officer was terminated and will certainly face civil charges and possibly criminal charges.

In the Phoenix shooting that decision got multiple officers shot along with one suspect and one victim dead, the infant child was saved.

 

[Longtooth]

Anyone can use deadly force if they feel threatened and the court decides it was reasonable to do so. Also, and super importantly, whether or not it was reasonable is based on the facts the person knew at the time of the application of DF, not with the 20/20 clarity of hindsight.

The deputy didn't start the situation, he was sent there. Saying he started it makes it sound like he just picked a door and started knocking, but that may just be a matter of perspective.

In watching the video, I do think the deputy was too quick on the trigger. Just my opinion. I could make an argument that what he did was legal, but I know I probably wouldn't have pulled the trigger nor looked at myself in the mirror afterwards if I had. He was fired, and he may yet be indicted so he's not out of the woods yet on that. I'm not DD, but I can answer your two questions, and you aren't going to like the answers.

1) He didn't do anything illegal, but that doesn't matter. If you do something that is perfectly legal but an objectively reasonable person would perceive it as a lethal force threat they can use lethal force against you. It doesn't matter that what you were doing was legal, it matters that what you were doing would be perceived as a threat. I've read enough of your posts that I know that isn't going to sit well, but it's the truth. If someone started shooting at you (or so you thought) and you drew and blasted them but they were really shooting at a threat behind you that you didn't see you would almost certainly not be prosecuted. What they did was 100% legal and even attempting to benefit you, but they're dead and you're probably not going to go to jail for it.

2) Like I posted before, if someone has a gun in their hand down by their side and you have your gun up and pointed at them, they can still raise and fire 1-3 shots at you before you can react. As a person who carries a gun around every day (I'm assuming you do but maybe not) you need to know how far behind the action/reaction curve you really are. It is non-intuitive, for sure, but I've run the scenario dozens of times and the very best you can do is shoot simultaneously and hope the other person misses and you don't. A gun held by someone's side is legit just as dangerous as if it was already pointed. The only way it is inferior is because to beat the pointed gun you don't have time to aim so it's point shooting vs at least partially aimed fire, but the speed favors the person who moves first. He may have felt the need to shoot immediately because he probably has run the same scenarios I have and knew he wouldn't be able to beat the other guy to the first shot.

I think the question is going to be whether or not the totality of the circumstances would lead a reasonable officer to the conclusion that the Airman was a threat. I could argue either way because he certainly had the capacity to shoot before the deputy could, but just being behind the curve isn't enough to justify DF "just in case" the guy was a bad actor.

FYI - It took me about an hour to put this together, so forgive me if you respond and I don't get back to it right away.

I wish more people took a bit longer to respond. It would improve the quality of the discussions.

 

[Welldoya]

I wish more people took a bit longer to respond. It would improve the quality of the discussions.

I agree. There have been too many Facebook-type comments on here. There is no need to resort to snide, condescending comments and name calling. It doesn’t help your argument.

 

[Bodhisattva]

If a cop shows up at my door and he/she are not expected, a quick call to 911 could/would get the dispatcher for the agency on the line, who then could make contact with the individual at my door. Am I correct?

Remember when we told our loved ones, if you are the subject of a traffic stop, and the car appears unmarked or undercover, or if it’s late at night, drive to a well lit location and call 911 to confirm that’s a real cop pulling you over and not an imposter.

I think the same logic can be applied here. Too late for the airman, but if Johnny Law is at my door and you don’t have a warrant you can show me, I’m calling 911 and sitting tight.

 

[ABlaster]

I agree. There have been too many Facebook-type comments on here. There is no need to resort to snide, condescending comments and name calling. It doesn’t help your argument.

I’ve blocked/ignored a few folks on here because they wouldn’t keep a civil tone. The anonymity of forums makes people forget their manners sometimes.

 

[ABlaster]

If a cop shows up at my door and he/she are not expected, a quick call to 911 could/would get the dispatcher for the agency on the line, who then could make contact with the individual at my door. Am I correct?

Remember when we told our loved ones, if you are the subject of a traffic stop, and the car appears unmarked or undercover, or if it’s late at night, drive to a well lit location and call 911 to confirm that’s a real cop pulling you over and not an imposter.

I think the same logic can be applied here. Too late for the airman, but if Johnny Law is at my door and you don’t have a warrant you can show me, I’m calling 911 and sitting tight.

Yes, a call to dispatch should clear things up.

I’m getting old, so I remember the traffic stop caution. Hazards on, slow roll to a well lighted area. Now we can call dispatch on our cell phones to confirm the traffic stop, but in the 80’s we couldn’t. The young cops these days seem to have forgotten that because I’ve seen a few cops on TV respond to the driver like they were attempting to flee when one second of conversation would dispel that concern.

 

[Welldoya]

If a cop shows up at my door and he/she are not expected, a quick call to 911 could/would get the dispatcher for the agency on the line, who then could make contact with the individual at my door. Am I correct?

Remember when we told our loved ones, if you are the subject of a traffic stop, and the car appears unmarked or undercover, or if it’s late at night, drive to a well lit location and call 911 to confirm that’s a real cop pulling you over and not an imposter.

I think the same logic can be applied here. Too late for the airman, but if Johnny Law is at my door and you don’t have a warrant you can show me, I’m calling 911 and sitting tight.

I think that’s a very good idea and inform the cop that’s what you are doing.

 

[Snake-Eyes]

Anyone can use deadly force if they feel threatened and the court decides it was reasonable to do so. Also, and super importantly, whether or not it was reasonable is based on the facts the person knew at the time of the application of DF, not with the 20/20 clarity of hindsight.

The deputy didn't start the situation, he was sent there. Saying he started it makes it sound like he just picked a door and started knocking, but that may just be a matter of perspective.

In watching the video, I do think the deputy was too quick on the trigger. Just my opinion. I could make an argument that what he did was legal, but I know I probably wouldn't have pulled the trigger nor looked at myself in the mirror afterwards if I had. He was fired, and he may yet be indicted so he's not out of the woods yet on that. I'm not DD, but I can answer your two questions, and you aren't going to like the answers.

1) He didn't do anything illegal, but that doesn't matter. If you do something that is perfectly legal but an objectively reasonable person would perceive it as a lethal force threat they can use lethal force against you. It doesn't matter that what you were doing was legal, it matters that what you were doing would be perceived as a threat. I've read enough of your posts that I know that isn't going to sit well, but it's the truth. If someone started shooting at you (or so you thought) and you drew and blasted them but they were really shooting at a threat behind you that you didn't see you would almost certainly not be prosecuted. What they did was 100% legal and even attempting to benefit you, but they're dead and you're probably not going to go to jail for it.

2) Like I posted before, if someone has a gun in their hand down by their side and you have your gun up and pointed at them, they can still raise and fire 1-3 shots at you before you can react. As a person who carries a gun around every day (I'm assuming you do but maybe not) you need to know how far behind the action/reaction curve you really are. It is non-intuitive, for sure, but I've run the scenario dozens of times and the very best you can do is shoot simultaneously and hope the other person misses and you don't. A gun held by someone's side is legit just as dangerous as if it was already pointed. The only way it is inferior is because to beat the pointed gun you don't have time to aim so it's point shooting vs at least partially aimed fire, but the speed favors the person who moves first. He may have felt the need to shoot immediately because he probably has run the same scenarios I have and knew he wouldn't be able to beat the other guy to the first shot.

I think the question is going to be whether or not the totality of the circumstances would lead a reasonable officer to the conclusion that the Airman was a threat. I could argue either way because he certainly had the capacity to shoot before the deputy could, but just being behind the curve isn't enough to justify DF "just in case" the guy was a bad actor.

FYI - It took me about an hour to put this together, so forgive me if you respond and I don't get back to it right away.

I appreciate the time it took to share that viewpoint.

As is apparently more common than I’d prefer, I seem to still be misunderstood a little.

Your answers to my questions have solid explanations that I don’t dispute.

I know the use of deadly force depends on what happens at the time, not hindsight info.
I know action-beats-reaction for many things.

The point is that the Airman actually didn’t do anything illegal, AND the incident actually Was started by the deputy. I know, he was sent there, just doing his job, etc. Not a valid excuse for itchy trigger finger.

Maybe someone else can word it better than I seem to be failing, but the baked-in rhetoric seems to be that the LEO gets a pass on poor-judgement pending an internal inquiry, and the Citizen gets jail time pending scheduling a trial.

The “appearance” is more and more that LEO are quick to escalate, as you said “just in case” the guy is a bad actor.

In THIS case with the Airman, the deputy was driving the scenario, and he’s presented with a young man with a gun. He went straight for shots fired. No authoritarian voice or official words. No taking cover. Just trigger pull. That’s trained somewhere. That’s considered one of a few “acceptable” responses. And it happens enough that it gets shrugged off as “risks of not being cooperative with LEO”.

I don’t want LEO to have paintball guns only or social workers in the squad cars, etc. I just see a disturbing trend of disrespectful civilians and understandably on-edge LEO, but since the pressure valve has up-to-and-including deadly force, these situations happen.

I appreciate the LEO on here who have the realistic mindset that shit happens and we should ALL be able to learn from it to do better.

I know on the Air Force side, this incident went Force-wide with briefings and updates and lessons learned. Granted some of the BS was “if you feel like you need to talk to someone” crap, but discussions were happening everywhere, just like here, on what could’ve been done better on BOTH sides of that door.

In the end, I still don’t see an honest assessment that what the deputy did was the last resort only option.

I appreciate the civilized alternate viewpoints, though.

 

[Frankie251]

The deputy should be prosecuted, and if anyone should understand that you can‘t kill a man because he’s legally holding a gun in a non-threatening position, it should be members of a gun forum. Please don’t go to the gun range if you think killing someone who‘s holding a gun is acceptable. It’s mind boggling to me that the deputy is being defended, here of all places, and apparently because Fortson was black as if that makes killing him ok. Quit frankly, that’s disgusting. This entire OCSD needs to be disbanded and the sheriff fired. They continue to be a threat to the public. It’s only a miracle that an innocent person didn’t die in the ”acorn incident.” Look at that video and you’ll see the female deputy firing toward a busy street AFTER the acorn deputy mag dumps toward apartments. God only knows where all those rounds impacted. This department needs to be put out of business.

 

[Snake-Eyes]

Nobody with two brain cells to rub together has made this about skin tone. If they have, they’re either grief-stricken or have an agenda to push.

Please stop reviving that worthless narrative.

 

[Longtooth]

Yes, a call to dispatch should clear things up.

I’m getting old, so I remember the traffic stop caution. Hazards on, slow roll to a well lighted area. Now we can call dispatch on our cell phones to confirm the traffic stop, but in the 80’s we couldn’t. The young cops these days seem to have forgotten that because I’ve seen a few cops on TV respond to the driver like they were attempting to flee when one second of conversation would dispel that concern.

The Ask, Tell, Make process seems to be used less and less. From my perspective - most jump directly to Make/Tell at the same time.

I get the rhetoric is worse and you couldn't pay me enough to be in Law enforcement in this environment with the laws and public they way they are currently.

I appreciate the time it took to share that viewpoint.

As is apparently more common than I’d prefer, I seem to still be misunderstood a little.

Your answers to my questions have solid explanations that I don’t dispute.

I know the use of deadly force depends on what happens at the time, not hindsight info.
I know action-beats-reaction for many things.

The point is that the Airman actually didn’t do anything illegal, AND the incident actually Was started by the deputy. I know, he was sent there, just doing his job, etc. Not a valid excuse for itchy trigger finger.

Maybe someone else can word it better than I seem to be failing, but the baked-in rhetoric seems to be that the LEO gets a pass on poor-judgement pending an internal inquiry, and the Citizen gets jail time pending scheduling a trial.

The “appearance” is more and more that LEO are quick to escalate, as you said “just in case” the guy is a bad actor.

In THIS case with the Airman, the deputy was driving the scenario, and he’s presented with a young man with a gun. He went straight for shots fired. No authoritarian voice or official words. No taking cover. Just trigger pull. That’s trained somewhere. That’s considered one of a few “acceptable” responses. And it happens enough that it gets shrugged off as “risks of not being cooperative with LEO”.

I don’t want LEO to have paintball guns only or social workers in the squad cars, etc. I just see a disturbing trend of disrespectful civilians and understandably on-edge LEO, but since the pressure valve has up-to-and-including deadly force, these situations happen.

I appreciate the LEO on here who have the realistic mindset that shit happens and we should ALL be able to learn from it to do better.

I know on the Air Force side, this incident went Force-wide with briefings and updates and lessons learned. Granted some of the BS was “if you feel like you need to talk to someone” crap, but discussions were happening everywhere, just like here, on what could’ve been done better on BOTH sides of that door.

In the end, I still don’t see an honest assessment that what the deputy did was the last resort only option.

I appreciate the civilized alternate viewpoints, though.

You are fine, Im reading this having read a lot of your posts in the past.

I dont know if the the person, the training, or the mindset at this point. Something is terribly wrong and we need a course correction quickly or this is just going to keep getting worse.

Given all the crazy clips coming out on a daily basis, can't say that I blame LEOs for being skittish - Id be the same way (another reason Im not in LE)

 

[FNHman]

You clearly stated you couldn’t help a person actively being stabbed or you would face trespassing charges… that’s a complete load of crap.

Not doubting the incident, just calling BS on the couldn’t help lawfully statement… I stand by that.

I have no problem with people calling out bad actors in LE as it’s necessary for the betterment of the system, I’ve openly criticized LE here with no problem.

Why would you be interested in knowing about someone I killed?

I'm interested in how many people you have killed because you obviously have lots of support and sympathy for those who kill innocent law abiding citizens. So it is obvious to me that you too have made the same decision at some time in you life. You are quick to judge me and the facts surrounding the neighbor geting stabbed but deflect and wouldn't answer truthfully the question I asked you about taking a life. We are not the same. If your so worried about if I'm telling the truth but you won't even attempt to answer truthfully seems kind of wierd to me, no? That just speaks about your character and integrity not mine.

I remember meeting you in person many years ago at your house when I bought the Saige from you. It was a pleasure and I think personally your a wonderful person with great intentions. It saddens me that one could continue to support cold blooded murder because someone answered the door of a rough apt complex with personal protection. People dont often hear the announcement of law enforcement. People should be held accountable for takeling an innocent life regardless of the killers though process at the time. If one supports a killers thoughts at the time then maybe someone on drugs thinks that a dragon is eating his wifes face so he unloads his mag into the dragon... when the drugs wear Off he realized the dragon was his son that was just hugging his mom. So he should be let free because he thought the dragon was going to kill him at the time? Thoughts aren't reality. The police offers thoughts where not reality.

 

[Bowhntr6pt]

I'm interested in how many people you have killed because you obviously have lots of support and sympathy for those who kill innocent law abiding citizens. So it is obvious to me that you too have made the same decision at some time in you life. You are quick to judge me and the facts surrounding the neighbor geting stabbed but deflect and wouldn't answer truthfully the question I asked you about taking a life. We are not the same. If your so worried about if I'm telling the truth but you won't even attempt to answer truthfully seems kind of wierd to me, no? That just speaks about your character and integrity not mine.

I remember meeting you in person many years ago at your house when I bought the Saige from you. It was a pleasure and I think personally your a wonderful person with great intentions. It saddens me that one could continue to support cold blooded murder because someone answered the door of a rough apt complex with personal protection. People dont often hear the announcement of law enforcement. People should be held accountable for takeling an innocent life regardless of the killers though process at the time. If one supports a killers thoughts at the time then maybe someone on drugs thinks that a dragon is eating his wifes face so he unloads his mag into the dragon... when the drugs wear Off he realized the dragon was his son that was just hugging his mom. So he should be let free because he thought the dragon was going to kill him at the time? Thoughts aren't reality. The police offers thoughts where not reality.

Wrong person, I’ve never sold you anything let alone had anyone to my house when I did sell something.

I live below Ocala by the way. I’m not even sure what that is.

Nothing in my post suggests I agree with the shooting, point to a sentence that says I believed the shooting was justified.

Yes, I’ve killed in the line of duty. But I don’t see how that has anything to do with me not believing that you lawfully could not intervene and possibly safe a life… please stay on track and the topic to which you and I are discussing.

Long story short, guy was shooting up his neighborhood and I confronted him, he was armed with a pistol, he refused to disarm and raised his pistol, I did what was necessary. Hope this seemingly useless tid bit of information comforts you.

ETA- just to be clear, I’m sure you’re a good guy, I just don’t believe your story 100% as presented.

Don’t waste time on me not believing you, I’m just a dude on the internet.

 

[FNHman]

Wrong person, I’ve never sold you anything let alone had anyone to my house when I did sell something

Apologize, it was Bowfreak I got the Sagia from, different member.

 

[Timbo229]

I agree but wasn't the officer at the right apartment?

Yes he was, but it was just the airman that was home, he was arguing on zoom or FaceTime, guessing it was loud for the neighbor to hear it as well as the deputy who beat on the door multiple times announcing himself. And again we don’t know if there had been a previous complaint where a threat was placed or anything else. I don’t have all the information so I can’t make a judgment call. It’s funny though so many on here talk about how crooked the media is, but they sure do eat it up and willing to judge someone’s actions on their word .

 

[Timbo229]

You don’t need to be LE to see or experience rights violations. Cops are always considered above the citizen in a courtroom unless hard independent evidence is available to show otherwise. Cops are always willing to shoot first and overreact too many times.

lol lol now that funny and I don’t care who you are lol Just think if everyone acted like you, heck we could get rid of all law enforcement

 

[Timbo229]

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you here.

If the law says you can open carry a firearm to and from fishing (and it does) than you should be able to. The comment that you want someone 'checked out because there are too many crazies' is the exact opposite of "Shall Not Be Infringed".

I’ve gotten many many calls where someone says I seen this person bend over getting something off the lower shelf and he had a gun on his hip. I ask them did he remove it from the holster or point it at anyone, no he didn’t but he had one on his hip, and that the only complaint? I let them know I will not be making contact with this person, it was not displayed with any intent, and he’s done nothing wrong. Man they get mad , are you going to at least get his name? Nope, if there’s nothing else have a good day, and I leave .

 

[Timbo229]

The deputy pounds on the door and eventually announces who he is. The resident opens the door and is standing there with a gun pointed at the ground.

Both of you quoted me, so I’ll respond to both the same: the deputy was supposed to be the “armed professional”. The deputy instigated that interaction. Did he honestly think he knocked on a cop-killer’s door, and the cop-killer was now opening the door, presenting a perfect shot for the deputy before raising his cop-killing gun? The FIRST WORDS the deputy said directly to the Airman were AFTER the deputy shot him. Bang bang bang bang bang bang…. Drop the gun.


I’m using the facts as they played out, and that shooting is only “justified” to people who are WAY TOO COMFORTABLE with the status quo default of “I’m a LEO, and I’m allowed to use deadly force to make you do what I want.”

The job of a LEO is wrought with hazards, no doubt. God Bless and watch over every single one of the good ones.

However, if the nerves are wound too tight or the judgement isn’t quite up to task, then that LEO needs to not being wielding up-to-and-including deadly force that day.

In the military, if you aren’t physically or mentally able to do the mission, you’re supposed to self-identify and fix the issue or step aside, if at all able. No secrets, no BS “Pride”, no hidden agendas. Let your team or commander know what is going on, so there aren’t any surprises at the worst possible time. I expect nothing less from the LEO’s who walk around with a sacred public trust. That deputy was too quick to shoot an unknown person in their own home. I seriously doubt that was his first “hiccup” at work.

That Airman did nothing ILLEGAL, and he was killed because a LEO panicked.

Some I agree with, but no one knows if there had been a threat made in previous calls to Leo, or what if anything had occurred prior, and he didn’t just hold a gun when he answered the door, he also put his left hand up, why? I don’t know. And I can promise you, there’s many many more times law enforcement could have shot but chose not to. And the military is no better, hang a camera around their neck while at work or in the field and I won’t be surprised but many will.

 

[MarkJ]

Some I agree with, but no one knows if there had been a threat made in previous calls to Leo, or what if anything had occurred prior, and he didn’t just hold a gun when he answered the door, he also put his left hand up, why? I don’t know. And I can promise you, there’s many many more times law enforcement could have shot but chose not to. And the military is no better, hang a camera around their neck while at work or in the field and I won’t be surprised but many will.

I would say the Military is much better (but by no means perfect) and the difference is the result of more extensive training. There are plenty of cameras on soldiers but since it's DOD you won't get to see it as readily as you can Law Enforcement footage in the States.

• Police generally get about 60 hours of firearms training, soldiers average 92 hours and more.
• For Police, 21 States don't even require De-escalation training, those that do average about 40 hours of training once and done.
• The Military trains incessantly on LoW (Laws of War) and RoE (Rules of Engagement) and that training is continuous. The ROE was printed out on a card to carry and you had to know the content of that card.
• In 2022 there were zero fatalities by hostile force in the Military which at the time numbered about 1.4 million. By contrast there were 62 Police killed on duty from a nationwide total of about 708,000.

No one can convince me that the streets in the US are overall more dangerous than Afghanistan so it's my opinion that the Military is just better trained for their high stress environment than the Police are.

Here's a great opinion piece by a Marine talking about De-Escalation and what the Police could learn from the Military;

What police can learn from a former infantry Marine about de-escalation

'First, do no harm' approach, accountability helped service members like me succeed in high-stress situations. Those rules can do the same for police.

www.usatoday.com

Sources from my numbers above;

U.S. law enforcement officers 2022 | Statista

How many police officers are there in the U.S.? In 2022, there were 708,001 full-time law enforcement officers employed in the United States, an increase from 660,228 the previous year.

www.statista.com

https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/Blue-alert/2022_Blue_Alert_Officers_Shot_Year_End_Report.pdf

21 states still don’t require de-escalation training for police

Studies have shown that teaching officers to de-escalate confrontations can reduce violent encounters, but many states don’t mandate it.

www.apmreports.org

Defense Casualty Analysis System

dcas.dmdc.osd.mil

Army overhauls small arms training with tougher standards, combat-like rigor

The U.S. Army has drawn up a sweeping overhaul of how it will train Soldiers in using small arms -- rifles, pistols and automatic rifles -- a revamp that adds tougher standards and combat-like rigor to training and testing marksmanship.

www.army.mil

Introduction to Military Rules of Engagement (ROE) | Tactical Experts | TacticalGear.com

The U.S. Military’s rules of engagement (ROE) define where, when, how and against whom military force can be used, and with which weapons. We cover these rules, how often and why they change and how they relate to the Law of War, or the law of armed conflict (LOAC).

tacticalgear.com

 

[F4E Phantom]

Man I’m glad did not want to go into LE when he got out of the Marines.