USAF Airman Killed in Wrong Address Police Incident

[SheepDog4Life]

I don't have a Glock, so I cannot speak to them. I tried with both my M&P and my Masada. The M&P, with a straight back, dots become visible at about 60 degrees. The Masada, with a slanted back sight, is visible at about 40 degrees. Those are both when the sights first become visible, not plainly visible.

No Glock here either... all of my CZ's have blacked out rear night sights, only my HK P30SK has factory rear dots. Like you, I could start to see them at 60-65 degrees and at 45 degrees, 100% clear.

To see the rear face of the rear sight sufficiently enough to make out the markings, the firearm would have to have a significant downward pointing angle.

Admittedly, not with a Glock, but I think we have each thoroughly debunked that statement in report, 45 degrees exactly bisects straight down and straight out. If it's "significant downward" angle, then it's also "significant upward" angle.

It is much more likely, he saw the gun where it was in the first visible frame.

That's not how the deputy described it... his description more closely matches what your right arm naturally does when you take a step/walk forward with your left foot... which is what the Airman did, took a step forward with his left foot.

The conclusion of that investigation says the same thing. None of the available evidence suggests the gun was pointed anywhere but down.

There is no available evidence other than the deputy's statement, and the faulty deduction of the sights vs gun angle we both debunked above.

Do you think that the investigation was flawed and they just railroaded the Deputy?

I'd say it smells.

 

[ECS686]

I'd say it smells.

You can get into the weeds as much as you want but why do you think it smells?

As far as Ben Crump and team getting involved that’s gonna happen. The difference in this case the airman wasn’t fighting with police, wasn’t involved in criminal stuff was at his residence which several states have laws allowing anyone to use deadly force against an officer in certain circumstances
(I know of no case law but it is “legal” and has become a law in a few states recently)

This is a perfect example is wether LE or civilian all force especially deadly has to be “reasonable” and enough unreasonableness was decided by a GJ to recommend charges.

And like citizens Officers are also held to the criminal code. If you look at homicide there are subsections that it is permissible if X,y or z happens and your good but you don’t get to decide that despite what you stated happened!

 

[SheepDog4Life]

You can get into the weeds as much as you want but why do you think it smells?

First, let me say that Roger Forston didn't "deserve" to die. IMO, he did something stupid, totally legal but stupid, and paid a severe price for... the whole thing is nothing short of tragic.

Second, the Sheriff initially called this a self-defense situation because Forston answered the door gun in hand, that it was reasonable for the deputy to fear for his life and use deadly force.

And, after political pressure and national media campaigns, and lot's of lies, that bar moved... suddenly, it wasn't reasonable to fear for his life because the gun was not pointed at him (deputy statement) or in his direction (not per the deputy's statement but some faulty geometry logic on seeing sights) and did not comply with the department's UoF policy.

So, I disagree... the officer WAS on a DV call. He did go the RIGHT apartment as directed by the office manager (who, BTW, was relaying information from Forston's nextdoor neighbor). The officer knocking on Forston's door was doing his job and LOUDLY ANNOUNCED himself TWICE. (at least three Crump lies have found their way on these boards)

Apparently, Forston dis-believed it was really LEO outside his door, so he opened the door, gun in hand to step out... to do what? I'm really not sure how you do that without being intimidating... with a gun in your hand... which, IMO, is the only reason to take that particular action.

So, I guess my question is what level of "pointing" is sufficient in this scenario to be considered a reasonable threat?

Final thing for all of us to learn from is why open the door at all? If you're unsure who's at the door and what their intentions are, be sure about that first before opening the door, if you decide to open the door at all.

 

[KLB]

Second, the Sheriff initially called this a self-defense situation because Forston answered the door gun in hand, that it was reasonable for the deputy to fear for his life and use deadly force.

The mere presence of a gun does not make reasonable fear for the deputy to fear for his life. You keep saying that like it is true.

 

[ECS686]

First, let me say that Roger Forston didn't "deserve" to die. IMO, he did something stupid, totally legal but stupid, and paid a severe price for... the whole thing is nothing short of tragic.

Second, the Sheriff initially called this a self-defense situation because Forston answered the door gun in hand, that it was reasonable for the deputy to fear for his life and use deadly force.

And, after political pressure and national media campaigns, and lot's of lies, that bar moved... suddenly, it wasn't reasonable to fear for his life because the gun was not pointed at him (deputy statement) or in his direction (not per the deputy's statement but some faulty geometry logic on seeing sights) and did not comply with the department's UoF policy.

So, I disagree... the officer WAS on a DV call. He did go the RIGHT apartment as directed by the office manager (who, BTW, was relaying information from Forston's nextdoor neighbor). The officer knocking on Forston's door was doing his job and LOUDLY ANNOUNCED himself TWICE. (at least three Crump lies have found their way on these boards)

Apparently, Forston dis-believed it was really LEO outside his door, so he opened the door, gun in hand to step out... to do what? I'm really not sure how you do that without being intimidating... with a gun in your hand... which, IMO, is the only reason to take that particular action.

So, I guess my question is what level of "pointing" is sufficient in this scenario to be considered a reasonable threat?

Final thing for all of us to learn from is why open the door at all? If you're unsure who's at the door and what their intentions are, be sure about that first before opening the door, if you decide to open the door at all.

There is usually media and family outcry on any shooting. That’s irrelevant

I know several folks many personally that were 150% justified and still ran through the wringer. One was a Gunsite instructor who as a LEO shot a 15 year old with a painted Airsoft AK 47 and the department stepped away on the civil trial because racial overtones were interjected by the plaintiffs and they even tried relating Gunsite as in The Raven as a symbol that he taught at a White Supremacist Nazi gun camp. The Judge kicked the jury out and asked the defendent to explain and then that angle was removed and not allowed. This case isn’t that much going on (the case u mentioned was dismissed I believe either way he came out with nothing)

In any case Take away why the officer was there whether it was a DV call or simple loud music it doesn’t matter why he was there.

As far as political reaction even the most justified (with outright guy was shooting rounds someone somewhere is gonna say it wasn’t justified)

People expect immediate gratification that agrees with their views these as everyone knows takes weeks and months depending on how much they really have to look at (a shooting here officers were cleared in less than a week the guy took over a business kicked everyone out then 2 hours later while negotiating he Came out shooting basically mental dude suicide by cop)

If you don’t think someone is gonna criticize you for anything try doing anything on YouTube and wait for it……they will come!

With that I’m done with this thread they are gonna do what they are gonna do and I don’t care I’m semi retired!

 

[SheepDog4Life]

The mere presence of a gun does not make reasonable fear for the deputy to fear for his life. You keep saying that like it is true.

You keep mistating what I've said... It's GUN IN HAND, not mere presence of a gun.

 

[KLB]

You keep mistating what I've said... It's GUN IN HAND, not mere presence of a gun.

Same answer. That does not create a reasonable fear.

Do you think you could legally shoot someone in that scenario?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The mere presence of a gun does not make reasonable fear for the deputy to fear for his life. You keep saying that like it is true.

The 11th Circuit has held that the presence of a firearms does not make deadly force reasonable.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Do you think you could legally shoot someone in that scenario?

One cannot.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

You keep mistating what I've said... It's GUN IN HAND, not mere presence of a gun.

That is mere presence.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Bond denied for former Deputy.

 

[KLB]

Bond denied for former Deputy.

Why would they deny him bond?

 

[Ark]

Bond denied for former Deputy.

Does the judge think he's gonna put on a badge and shoot more people?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Same answer. That does not create a reasonable fear.

Do you think you could legally shoot someone in that scenario?

That is mere presence.

So OC in a holster... open carry in your hand... same, same?

Sounds like a Walmart story in the making.

 

[Shadow01]

So, I guess my question is what level of "pointing" is sufficient in this scenario to be considered a reasonable threat?

the same level that would apply the law equally to a civilian with the same outcome.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Why would they deny him bond?

Either he has some stuff in his background we haven't heard about (doubtful) or...

it's political. *shock* *gasp*

 

[SheepDog4Life]

the same level that would apply the law equally to a civilian with the same outcome.

Which is what, exactly?

And does that apply equally if you open your front door to some rando banging on it... and he has a Glock in his hand? Would you feel that was an imminent threat? Or nah, just the mere presence of a handgun... no different than all the fuds OC'ing 1911's (I'm one of them on occasion, when I feel dressy) around town?

Also, what about the dude/passenger in the car reaching (repeatedly) for the Draco on the floor board was that a bad shoot? He didn't even have a firearm in his hand(s), let alone pointing it... and if Crump gets the case, no doubt the dude was constitutional carrying in the car.

I've no doubt that I'm in the minority here, but man, what a house of cards this builds.

 

[Shadow01]

Which is what, exactly?

And does that apply equally if you open your front door to some rando banging on it... and he has a Glock in his hand? Would you feel that was an imminent threat? Or nah, just the mere presence of a handgun... no different than all the fuds OC'ing 1911's (I'm one of them on occasion, when I feel dressy) around town?

Also, what about the dude/passenger in the car reaching (repeatedly) for the Draco on the floor board was that a bad shoot? He didn't even have a firearm in his hand(s), let alone pointing it... and if Crump gets the case, no doubt the dude was constitutional carrying in the car.

I've no doubt that I'm in the minority here, but man, what a house of cards this builds.

As long as the law is interpreted the same for both civilians and LE, I can live with it. If I knocked on the wrong apartment door and the tenant opened the door in this very same situation, if I shot him, I expect the same legal outcome. The reason for being there has no effect on the law that’s being applied.

 

[foszoe]

So OC in a holster... open carry in your hand... same, same?

Sounds like a Walmart story in the making.

Nothing the habit of wearing a holster 24/7 or putting one on in the middle of the night to answer the door.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So OC in a holster... open carry in your hand... same, same?

Sounds like a Walmart story in the making.

No WalMart, in his house, 11th Circuit (you know, where Florida is) holds that it is the same.