USAF Airman Killed in Wrong Address Police Incident

[KLB]

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...

You are really stretching it here. He was repeatedly told not to reach for the gun. This airman was told to drop his gun AFTER he was shot.

 

[Denny347]

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

C'mon. As a man who makes a living based on language used, look at your statement. Yes, it cannot be the ONLY factor but "the presence of a firearm" sure can make deadly force reasonable...based on the totality of the circumstances....

 

[Denny347]

Interesting case out of the 11th from 2017. Similar kind of error that led to deadly force to a resident who answered the door with a gun in hand.
https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/enbanc_cases/14-14673rehearorder.pdf

 

[firecadet613]

Interesting case out of the 11th from 2017. Similar kind of error that led to deadly force to a resident who answered the door with a gun in hand.
https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/enbanc_cases/14-14673rehearorder.pdf

A good read, thanks. I'll agree with the dissenting judges and add, again, simply do not answer your door.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

C'mon. As a man who makes a living based on language used, look at your statement. Yes, it cannot be the ONLY factor but "the presence of a firearm" sure can make deadly force reasonable...based on the totality of the circumstances....

Yes, you are referencing Powell from like a few years ago down there?

If Airman Fortson had: raised it, ducked behind door frame, said "I'm going to shoot you", inter alia, you are correct.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Interesting case out of the 11th from 2017. Similar kind of error that led to deadly force to a resident who answered the door with a gun in hand.
https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/enbanc_cases/14-14673rehearorder.pdf

Ah, Young, yes, proving "it depends" is the default answer for nearly everything.

 

[maxipum]

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

Well since they are legal to own and hold in your hand…….

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Ah, Young, yes, proving "it depends" is the default answer for nearly everything.

What's that depend on?

That in this one they really did have the completely wrong apartment?

That the deputy had already drawn his sidearm prior to even knocking on the door?

That they did not announce as LEO?

IANAL, but the part about viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff means that they made their decision as though the contention the gun was by his side, straight down, was factual... and still found reasonable fear... so that part's the same, everything else is even "worse", IMO.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Well since they are legal to own and hold in your hand…….

Never said they weren't... what's your point?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What's that depend on?

That in this one they really did have the completely wrong apartment?

That the deputy had already drawn his sidearm prior to even knocking on the door?

That they did not announce as LEO?

IANAL, but the part about viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff means that they made their decision as though the contention the gun was by his side, straight down, was factual... and still found reasonable fear... so that part's the same, everything else is even "worse", IMO.

Depends on what Airman Fortson was doing.

Did you read Young? I think that helps explain it.

 

[ECS686]

What's that depend on?

That in this one they really did have the completely wrong apartment?

That the deputy had already drawn his sidearm prior to even knocking on the door?

That they did not announce as LEO?

IANAL, but the part about viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff means that they made their decision as though the contention the gun was by his side, straight down, was factual... and still found reasonable fear... so that part's the same, everything else is even "worse", IMO.

Ok I was gonna be done but I have to say.

Respectfully Sheepdog your whole angle on trying to defend the cop is EXACTLY the type of stuff that makes people despise LE because of that whole hero like worship mentality.

Several folks have explained the validity of why the LEO was charged and for me I totally agree with them charging him. That said he will get his day in court

when someone comes out of left field with nothing but theory and conjecture or thoughts and not experience like “he can see his sights at maybe a 45 degree angle” so it was justified or however else the like you put it. is a stretch it’s like I’m dealing with a Union arbitration and not facts that matter in a homicide investigation.

Again I say this respectfully and Kelly is a valid experienced attorney that has made valid points.

It is not illegal to hold a gun inside your home in the US there was no threat to the officer he doesn’t have a cape on he like anyone else will have his day for court.

 

[Denny347]

Respectfully Sheepdog your whole angle on trying to defend the cop is EXACTLY the type of stuff that makes people despise LE because of that whole hero like worship mentality.

"Dispise" LE. That's a bit harsh. Save hate for inanimate objects or situations, rather than people. It's hard to know what EXACTLY in a person's head while posting on the internet. This is why it's such a poor method of communication. We all have our histories that color our point of view, there is no reason to hate over it.

 

[ECS686]

"Dispise" LE. That's a bit harsh. Save hate for inanimate objects or situations, rather than people. It's hard to know what EXACTLY in a person's head while posting on the internet. This is why it's such a poor method of communication. We all have our histories that color our point of view, there is no reason to hate over it.

I suppose despise covers about 20% of the population is actually anti in their thoughts so maybe agitated towards would have been a better phrase.

I’ll work on that more next time.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Ok I was gonna be done but I have to say.

I know the feeling... everytime I think I'm done, I get "dragged" back in, lol!

Respectfully Sheepdog your whole angle on trying to defend the cop is EXACTLY the type of stuff that makes people despise LE because of that whole hero like worship mentality.

Believe me, I'm as surprised as anyone to be to the "right" of most of INGO on this one... there have been a number of times I've voiced that a LEO's actions appeared criminal to me. (I'd point to the ACAB thread as just an example)

Several folks have explained the validity of why the LEO was charged and for me I totally agree with them charging him. That said he will get his day in court

I respect that and appreciate you're posting.

I'll add, a few have raised very similar (or worse) cases where no charges were brought at all... cut-and-dry reasonable fear for life DA/GJ - another not recently discussed occurred close by my new area where a deputy on a medical alert wellness check around midnight shot a homeowner in his home through the glass beside the door because he had a handgun. Inside his home. No charges. Not fired. (I disagree on both counts on that one) Victim survived and recently received $650k.

Like I've already said, I'm in the distinct minority here, so it probably should go to trial and let a jury decide.

when someone comes out of left field with nothing but theory and conjecture or thoughts and not experience like “he can see his sights at maybe a 45 degree angle” so it was justified or however else the like you put it. is a stretch it’s like I’m dealing with a Union arbitration and not facts that matter in a homicide investigation.

Ummm... that was part of the investigation report. That the gun had to be pointed straight down or almost straight down for the deputy to see the face of the rear sight.

Another member posted that as proof the gun was by his side the whole time. I opined BS on the proof, I don't think that's true, and we both proved that part of the report demonstrably false.

Pretty clear to me (opinion) that was written into the report without any check as to whether it's physically true or not. Why? Why would a homicide investigation put forward something so flimsy as proof?

Again I say this respectfully and Kelly is a valid experienced attorney that has made valid points.

Thank you, and please take all I've written with the respect I've intended. Also, not sure which member is Kelly... I'm aware of two attorney's on the board, one who chimed in recently.

It is not illegal to hold a gun inside your home in the US there was no threat to the officer he doesn’t have a cape on he like anyone else will have his day for court.

I 100% agree it's not illegal to hold a gun inside your home, but respectfully will disagree that opening the door (to walk out) with a gun in hand is not threatening.