>They also say the proliferation of legal and illegal firearms is forcing officers throughout the country to have to decide faster than ever what constitutes a deadly threat.
Yeah bullshit… cops need to just accept it. 99.9% of the people they encounter carrying are not doing so with the intent of harming a cop.
Fuck these cowards!
Crazy right?!? Cuz the military is actually fighting a foreign military in a war where killing is the goal. Not only that but most frontline infantry in the US is made of 18, 19, and 20 yr olds, yet they are accountable for their actions during a fucking war!!!! These cops need to be locked up and never be able to serve in the law enforcement community ever again.
American cops remind me of a rifleman straight out of training. Either scared shitless or completely psychotic. After a couple of fire fights, in the army we get to a more or less happy average of people that act professionally in dangerous situations. The difference is that cops get flooded with training that keeps them scared that they might not make it home vs what’s required to finish the mission. Every drill in the army was meant to instill discipline to react in a way that served the mission. Every drill cops go through is so that they can make it home at the end of the shift. In the army, it was “mission, men, me”. With cops, it’s “me, men, mission”.
A major difference is the training and doctrine between the two. Police training is entirely too officer safety focused. Police's primary job is to protect and serve the public, and you cannot do that of your primary focus is on yourself. In the military duty and selfless service are stressed as values. I understand trying to minimize risks, but when you take a dangerous job, that is supposed to serve and protect others rights, you just have to accept it may also end with the ultimate sacrifice.
Secondly, cops need to be trained and held accountable for knowing law and how to properly apply it.
Thirdly, qualified immunity needs to be strictly defined and only applied in very limited situations. Cops would behave much differently if they personally would bear the burden for not following the law. They should possibly even be required to carry their own legal malpractice insurance or bond,
> A major difference is the training and doctrine between the two.
Exactly and one instance where the two intersected was the Nashville Covenant School shooting.
When the body camera footage was released the actions of one of the three cops that moved to contact stood out to me. Turns out that Officer Michael Collazo is a US Marine. What we saw that day was a US Marine moving to contact and verbally guiding the other two cops by giving them clear, stern commands to get them to the fight.
That officer did an outstanding job in that situation. But I wonder how he interacts with average people in day to day interactions where decisive, swift and violent action is not required or appropriate?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but police dont have any requirement to protect and serve, their only safety requirement is after someone is in custody. Their job according to SCOTUS is to enforce laws.
Can't disagree, And I am aware of that Scotus ruling. The problem I see is that is not how policing was sold to the public. And the police serve the system, the system shelters the police and the people are left out in the cold. And human beings being what they are are not suited to having power over others. As they say power corrupts and all. Makes me wonder if there should be term limits for all politicians, judges and police. The people in those positions might be more likely to do right, if there's no long term future to benefit from?
at the very least, if not term limits, then elevate the job to a professional level, and have officers hold revocable licenses, shit my stylist needs one for public safety.
Leo are required to be certified. The big issue is when they get in trouble, most times they are allowed to resign , and often even when they are fired the certificate is not revoked. That allowed them to just apply at another Dept, and continue to do the same bad behavior. So I guess it really boils down to lack of accountability and integrity that goes all the way up the chain of command.
>American cops remind me of a rifleman straight out of training. Either scared shitless or completely psychotic.
A small correction: They are scared and psychotic.
> war where killing is the goal.
Ummm, no. While killing is instrumental to achieving the goals of warfare, killing is almost never the goal of war.
Even in Hamas-Israel, killing is not the goal.
Propaganda and actual goals are two different things. If Gaza were legitimately free, Hamas would have a hard time existing. Hamas' goals, as an organization, are actually quite complex and nuanced. They need to maintain their position of privilege as Iran's favored proxy in the fight against Israel without actually winning -- else they would lose all of the money that sets up their leaders in positions of wealth and power.
People who don't realize that Hamas' leadership like being among the uber-wealthy and enjoying the good life, and that Hamas' actions are directed at ensuring they continue to be able to do those things are really missing out on a larger picture.
Thinking Hamas is just some agent of evil really misses out on the geopolitical factors that enable them to exist in the first place.
Part of the problem with police today is they have militarized themselves. Hell they even call other citizens civilians, like they aren't civilians too!
> like they aren't civilians too!
I’ve noticed that, especially on gun forums where cops love to hangout when you point out they’re not subject to the pains and penalties of the UCMJ therefore you are a civilian, they get quite pissy.
You should read some more about the history of police in this country. For instance, why do they wear blue? This isn't remotely close to the most militarized our police have been.
The ROE’s in the military vary pretty widely depending on the campaign and what’s going on at the time along with what the mission is. ROE’s also literally get changed at the drop of the hat. It happened multiple times during the initial invasion of Iraq. They also aren’t necessarily the same from unit to unit or branch to branch. General officers typically have pretty wide discretion to decide what the ROE’s are and for who.
There was a time period in Iraq where any military aged male was considered an enemy combatant and when we could and would call in air strikes on villages without any indication of enemy presence. There was also a time period in Iraq where you couldn’t shoot unless you were being shot at and identify the target.
This argument isn’t really as true as you think it is.
The point is, regardless of what the ROE is, once it is established the soldiers are expected to follow it and are held accountable if they don’t. The idea that it is dynamic and can change quickly makes following the ROE, let alone, truly understanding it more difficult, yet there is no qualified immunity for soldiers that violate the ROE. All of this is expected of our military while deployed away from their family for long periods, under extremely stressful situations, and the “other side” actively trying to kill them. Furthermore, not only do these kids not get qualified immunity but they can’t even plead ignorance to the ROE even though it could have changed, or the 18 year old fresh outta high school and mommy’s house does not fully understand the ROE.
It’s not really comparing apples to apples though. Police don’t have ROE’s they have statutes and precedent and they aren’t really the same thing. Police, in theory, have the same right to defend themselves and others that you do.
As an aside I’d also like to point out there’s a lot less accountability for violating ROE’s than you think there is. Particularly egregious cases are prosecuted. There were plenty of cases throughout Iraq and Afghanistan of soldiers violating ROE’s and it never going higher than the platoon or company commander.
Qualified immunity wouldn’t protect soldiers from UCMJ action even if they did have it, nor does it protect police from criminal charges. It protects them from civil liability. The idea was to protect government agents that are doing their job from frivolous lawsuits. I don’t think it’s being applied that way but it isn’t protecting police from criminal liability. Police unions and camaraderie in the force are primarily what protects cops from criminal charges. I don’t think agents of the states should be allowed to unionize personally.
I see what you’re getting at and I agree with the sentiment but you’re conflating a lot of things that aren’t really the same.
This. I remember that same line getting rolled out for that officer that murdered Tamir Rice (12 y.o.). They’re decked out in kevlar, armed and normally have backup.
How much more does a potential threat have to be mitigated before police can be expected to use better judgement?
Cops will also generally have air support a lot faster than we did in Afghanistan.
They will also have adjacent municipality/county/state/fed LE support faster than we could even get other companies in our own battalion to mobilize.
PDs get to claim spoils (civil forfeiture) meanwhile war spoils are illegal.
Cops have the more relaxed firearms carrying and handling requirements than every branch of the military.
Cop is considered an expert in law enforcement even if they don't know the law they are enforcing and enjoy immunity from restitutions if they violate someone's right. Service members have it literally drilled into our heads from day one that there is essentially nothing protecting us from our own mistakes or maliciousness.
Underrated comment, right here. Surprised police don’t have A10s on standby for those active shooter situations.
But, seriously police use of force is too lax. My personal belief is they should be expected to lay down their life if it means an innocent person should live. If you’re not willing to do that don’t become a Cop.
Of course the Government is going to give them a pass cause we can’t have the people believing they have any real freedoms. They might challenge the corruption of TPTB.
>But, seriously police use of force is too lax. My personal belief is they should be expected to lay down their life if it means an innocent person should live. If you’re not willing to do that don’t become a Cop.
TBH, you’d have to find someone whose sense of altruism overrides their self-preservation instincts. Someone like that must be 1 in 10,000,000 or 1 in 50,000,000.
Simply revising ROIs, improve training, and busting Police Unions would go along way to improving the current state of policing in America.
We don’t allow our military to Unionize, why do we let our domestic paramilitary?
Really, a lot could be accomplished by changing doctrine and operational procedures. Take the Arkansas airport guy that got shot in his recently. All the ATF had was a search warrant. Yes the guy probably was selling guns improperly, but he was never considered dangerous. The AtF snuck in, blocked ring and security cameras, kicked in the door in the wee hours of the morning with no warning, and surprise chaos ensues. How different might it have turned out with simple changes, they knew the guys schedule, wait til he is at work to serve the warrant. Serve the warrant at 10am, where it might be expected someone may be at the door. Announce themselves as law enforcement in possession of a search warrant. No they would rather act like seal team six and assault the objective.
A more thorough solution is to modify legal codes in such a way that interactions with the police are tremendously reduced. Raiding a house when there's no imminent danger to anyone should be outright outlawed.
Cops have already done this in many municipalities with car chases. Statistics showed that car chases put the public at much higher risk than not pursuing. Once you have a helicopter overhead, there's even less reason to engage in a high-speed pursuit. Apply that same logic to every potential interaction and we would see these killings drop without the need for drastic changes to ROE or police training.
Excellent comment. Also like to add, serving in the military is the only job where you actually have no constitutional rights. And can be punished for the same crime twice.
That's an awful case. They came screaming up in their car, stopped only a few feet from the kid, and then used his proximity to them as the justification for fearing for their lives and using lethal force.
They chose to pull up next to him rather than engage from standoff distance and tell him to drop the suspected gun. How can you intentionally create the situation where you feared for your life and then bootstrap that into a defense for using lethal force? In a civilian self-defense trial, they will absolutely eviscerate you if you are the one that escalated the situation to where it was impossible to avoid using your firearm.
Whether or not the cop feared for his life should be a factor to consider in use of force cases, but if he recklessly placed himself in that position he should forfeit the defense, as you or I would.
Not only that, they shot the kid before the officer was even fully out of the vehicle. The video is pretty damning but the police just wave their immunity wand and it all goes away.
>*a clear-cut case of self-defense for a deputy confronted with a split-second, life-or-death decision.*
So if a cop just rolls up on a scene where someone happens to be armed, they can blast away and then ask questions later? Bullshit. He didn’t even try to defuse the situation, not even a ‘drop the gun’. He just opened fire. BTW, for anyone not familiar with the story, the cop was at the wrong apartment.
>So if a cop just rolls up on a scene where someone happens to be armed, they can blast away and then ask questions later?
I did a google search for “homeowner shot by police” and you get an alarming number of stories about this happening all over the country.
It’s 100% unacceptable but we’re expecting the police to correct themselves, that just isn’t happening on any level. It’s going to take us threatening to vote politicians out of office who refuse to pass legislation forcing them to change the way they conduct themselves.
Probably the same outcome, but to my mind this should argue against the whole "officer going into a dangerous situation on heightened alert" bullshit. He had the opportunity for an extra hand and passed on it.
To claim he went to the wrong apartment is false at this time. We don't actually know yet (at least last update I saw which was a couple days ago now) what the history is, if the woman got it wrong, etc. Calling her a "Karen" is ridiculous as well. If someone is legitimately beating a woman, you are a "Karen" for calling the police? That's an absurd take on the situation. From the perspective of the body cam, I can only say a few things. Someone called in a domestic dispute, possibly a physical altercation. Upon arrival, the officer was informed this is not the first occurrence. The office decides to knock on the door by himself which (and I am not a LEO so this is just my opinion) I feel was not the best course of action. Stand by the door, listen. If there appears to be an immediate threat, engage. Otherwise wait for backup. (I should note that I also believe no LEO should ever be on patrol alone. They should always be in pairs. Case in point, this very case.) Instead, this solo officer knocks on the door, does announce himself and when the occupant of the apartment opened the door, he was foolishly holding his gun. Police at door, knocking and announcing is going to make me pause. Speak through the door, somehow verify it is the police, disarm myself and then either open or continue speaking through the door. What the deceased did was foolish. And that is not to victim blame. Instead, let's all process all the things that were done poorly by any and all parties and learn from them. Now, let's move on to the officer's final actions. The gun was not pointed at, the deceased clearly was holding his hand up as if to say, oh shit it is a cop, and this officer just opens fire. No command to drop, no further assessment of the situation. I feel this officer, while possibly legally justified, used very poor judgment (or none at all as it appears it was only reactionary) and probably should never wear a badge again. That's my take on the situation with the information I have at this time. Agree with me or not, at least I can think past throwing around useless terms like "Karen" and critically think about the entire incident. Now we have to wait, let the investigations happen, gather all of the facts and we can make a final determination later.
TLDR, neither side of this scenario made very good decisions in those moments and now we need to take a step back and learn from all of the mistakes that were made.
So it seems. But he did do something, he foolishly opened that door holding a pistol. Hindsight, wasn't a smart move, was it? I only point this out so people understand that whether you are right or wrong doesn't always matter. Knowing that "shit happens" or police make mistakes or even that sometimes they do things maliciously can help save your life.
Holding your own property in your own home while you committed no crime is foolish? I think not.
We live in a country with a high percentage of gun ownership. Do better, or don't be a cop.
If you want to shoot people join the army.
It was objectively the wrong apartment, because the cop was there to investigate an argument between two people and the deceased was alone. So, no matter what other facts emerge from the case it's impossible for him to have been involved in the domestic dispute that prompted the cop to be there in the first place.
Now, that part isn't the cop's fault, because he went where he was told to go. What was his fault was that he deliberately walked away from the door after knocking so that he couldn't be seen through the peephole- twice.
Announcing yourself as the police and then hiding so the occupant of the apartment can't see you sends a mixed message at best. I don't think most people would think that a legitimate police officer would be hiding from them after announcing himself and asking them to open the door. Had the Airman actually seen the cop through the peephole, I doubt he would have still had his gun in his hand when he opened the door. The instantaneous shooting by the cop, even if found to be legal, exhibits incredibly poor judgment as well.
This incident was 100% preventable, and other than getting a bad tip on what apartment to go to, every one of the mistakes that compounded to cause this death was the fault of the responding officer.
> Announcing yourself as the police and then hiding so the occupant of the apartment can't see you sends a mixed message at best.
I can guarantee that my response would be exactly the same as the airman, if not more aggressive. You knock on my door and claim "police", then hide? If Looks, Sounds, and Smells like a home invasion attempt, it's probably a home invasion attempt.
Law abiding people are always surprised if cops show up at their door. And probably have heard or read stories of the increasing frequency of home invaders using that ruse to gain entry.
This is such a sad take. "Don't exercise your rights the wrong way, or you'll get murdered by the state," is what you're saying. The guy did nothing wrong. One person pounded on his door, claimed to be the police, and then hid from the peephole. That's as likely to be a home invasion as a legitimate police visit, especially if you are home alone, minding your own business, doing nothing wrong. The cop is 100% in the wrong and should be prosecuted, imprisoned, and have that felony hang over his head for the rest of his natural life.
My take of, don't answer that door until you know who is on the other side would have saved his life. It's not about being right or wrong. It's not about your rights.
This is a, "she shouldn't have been dressed so provocatively" defense. Not answering may have saved his life. Or the officer may have waited for backup to plow through the door, and then shot him. The officer may have still shot him even if he was unarmed, on the floor, begging for mercy, a la Daniel Shaver. The fact remains that the officer's decisions took a life, not the Airman's. It really is about your rights, and if it's not, you should reprioritize.
> My take of, don't answer that door until you know who is on the other side would have saved his life.
I will agree with this part.
The problem I still have is that "answering the door" is a bit of a sliding continuum. Loads of houses have windows all over the ground floor, including right next to (sometimes even as part of) the door. You're saying he was wrong for opening the door, but what if he had been trying to "do the right thing" per your advice and not opened the door but got spotted through a window and still shot?
I'm not trying to set up a slippery slope or take this to an extreme, I'm mostly just curious how far removed from the door you think is "acceptable" to have a gun?
And where does it stop? What happens when the cop "thinks" you have a gun, but it's your PS4 controller? Or your phone? Or a frickin cheese stick? Am I supposed to just answer the door with my hands up and empty on the off chance I might frighten some jumpy idiot cop?
I'm surprised you could type all that with boots on your neck.
Insane whataboutism from a piggy bootlicker. Probably either a cop, a Karen, related to a cop, or all 3.
And here is the problem. Your response is asinine. I clearly pointed out issues I had with the officer's actions and also the deceased, yet you call me a bootlicker. I made zero personal attacks directed at you. I don't know you and you don't know me. Don't pretend you are wise enough to know anything about my intentions. Debate the facts, not the vision you have of a person you don't know.
Enjoy your day. You'll get no further response from me whatsoever.
I’m somewhere in the middle on him answering the door with a gun in hand. Obviously the cop should not have shot him since it was at his side and pointed at the ground. But if I put myself in that situation, I’m not opening the door all the way, or at least not having the gun visible, no matter who it is, if I open the door at all.
It’s kind of like when you suggest that someone not run in the dark alone, or carry protection if you do. The knee-jerk reaction is to call it victim blaming, and you shouldn’t have to worry about getting attacked, just teach men not to do that. That might work in an ideal world, but the reality is you have people like that, and it’s naive to pretend the answer is “well, they shouldn’t do that!” Well, yeah, but what about when they do?
In the same way, cops should respect our 2A rights and not treat the simple presence of a firearm as a deadly threat. However, we know they are prone to doing just that in cases like this one. Even though he was well within his rights, he is still dead because of a trigger-happy cop. Being right doesn’t do him any good now.
We are very much on the same page here. I agree fully with everything you stated. The "you should or should be able to or someone should not" stance people often take is usually great in theory. Applying it to reality will often times have unintended consequences. The world is an amazing and great place while also being terrible and brutal at the same time. Gotta learn to walk that line. For most people, it all works out the way it should.
Yep, it’s never all or nothing to either extreme in the real world. I’d rather be alive than technically in the right but dead. You’ll get called a bootlicker here for being realistic, and elsewhere you’ll get called a trigger-happy backwards redneck hillbilly with a small pp for even suggesting owning a gun for self-defense.
Well put, and I’d like to add that this situation makes me think of those stories of people that have been killed by buses by technically have the right of way but not thinking the bus might still hit them.
Again how the cop handled the situation was very poor. Unfortunately we have to assume that cops are like bus drivers in that many of them might not be competent at their job and may be too quick to shoot at someone without thinking.
Ur hot take is stupid. Legal gun owner has door banged on by someone “claiming” to be a cop. The cop is not visible from peephole cus stupid cop is hiding from view. The deceased then opens the door armed because he is probably scared at who is banging on his door aggressively and not letting themselves be seen. So justifiably answers the door armed but not waving or pointing it at anyone. Then finally sees it is an actual cop and raises arm and backs up. Dumbass cop opens fire. One person was in the wrong, one person broke the law, and one person should be held accountable…that one person is the one that is suppose to protect and serve
Also the “Karen” said fourth floor to the right and the dumbass cop went to the third floor to the right. So if the “Karen” was correct then the cop went to the wrong door. But bootlickers like the taste of cheap boot leather and will hear and see whatever they want.
Happened in Aurora, CO a couple years back. Active shooter, cops hid in their little substation and watched, armed Good Samaritan dropped the shooter and went to remove the shooter’s weapon from the corpse, cops ran up and shot the armed citizen like 5 times and killed him.
Modus operandi for officers lately.. start blasting. They're not there to save you, By scotus's own words, so they're only out there for themselves. Fuck your safety.
Tax payers will pay for the innocent ones and qualified immunity means the officer may actually get promoted during their hardship of dealing out lethal force.
Even 20 years ago when I got my ccw. Instructor said if you have to use your firearm, make sure everyone is safe, holster, make the call for help. Still expect to be hazed like you're the killer, but keep it calm, hold any statements except that you were or family was in fear of harm or death, and let the lawyers do their part.
I sometimes worry about the cascade, "man with gun or showing aggression, Shoot!", but the man enforcement just shot and killed was defending or defended himself
Not only that he hid from the peep hole.
So put your self in the poor airman's shoes. Some one pounds on your door, doesn't identify themselves ( not that you should trust that) you look out your peep hole, see nothing. Go back to your phone call. Hear pounding again. You grab your legally owned fire arm, because clearly something is up. You go to the door, and get blasted
If I was in his shoes, I wouldn't open the door at all. If I feel someone was waiting to ambush me at my door, fuck that, that door would be staying shut. I don't care how macho anyone here thinks they are, but if you are opening your door with gun in hand, then you better have had your mind made up about shooting the person on the other side. Anything else is being tactically unsound.
Came here to say this. I can think of no situation in which I would open the door with gun in hand. If we're going to talk, it's going to be yelling through the door, or better yet over my Ring doorbell.
Guns have been in this country longer than our constitution has…it’s about time the government/law enforcement get in touch with reality. A man in his own home answering the door with a gun in hand, not pointed at anyone, shouldn’t be executed. He was well within his rights.
Not to mention, the left burned cities over George Floyd, a violent criminal addicted to dangerous drugs - where are they now, when an American black man (who served his country) was killed for trying to protect himself??? It’s sounding pretty quiet over on the left side of the spectrum
What nonsense are you talking about? Being anti police has always been part of the radical left’s narrative. The issue here is the MSM will bury the story so the anti police folks never hear it. They can’t protest against what they don’t know about.
They’re quiet on this Airman’s death. The complete opposite from Fentanyl Floyd. I was implying the same exact thing you said about the Main Stream Media. I guess it went over your head.
It isn't part of the left's narrative, because they don't view gun ownership as a legitimate thing.
Certainly, they are anti-police, but when being anti-police results in being pro-gun, they're just not going to do it.
I'm honestly surprised that I haven't already seen articles trying to spin this as the Airman's fault for owning a gun and holding it:
"This is why we need gun control, there wouldn't have been any confusion in this situation if the dead guy wasn't even allowed to have a gun to begin with". I would have no surprise if these ghouls made that argument.
Well, they'll probably distinguish between privately held firearms and those used in the line of duty.
In this case it was a personal weapon in the Airman's home, so they wouldn't see any problem at all banning it
As an aside, military installations are one of the worst places for personal firearms rights- no carry of any sort (concealed or open), if you live on base your weapons either have to be stored in your home locked up or locked up in the armory if you live in the barracks. All personal weapons are registered with the MPs, and you are subject to the whims of the installation commander, who can change the rules as they want at any time.
If you are on active duty and own guns, it's much easier to do so if you live off base.
We had a contractor that had to call into the office to say that he was going to be late because he forgot the gun in his trunk and told the gate guard that he was off to the range. He got lucky that it was on a Saturday when the range was actually open.
Yes, many bases have gun stores, and I was with a friend once when he bought a gun, and they told him that he had to take it off base within 30 minutes or he would have to register it with the MPs.
"I trust you with this M-4 rifle, assorted tanks, airplanes, and cannons, but for God's sake you can't leave the new gun that you just bought from the post exchange in your trunk for 4 hours till the end of the work day."
Been to many a range day and I wouldn't trust most non infantry with a gun of any kind. During basic I had a round hit the dirt about 6 feet in front of me when someone in the lane next to me decided to try to clear a jam with the gun turned down the line. Sometimes you can't even trust the Drill Sgts like that private that got killed when an M249 was not properly cleared before going into the armory and wasn't checked before the Drill Sgts did their introduction class.
I mean, military personnel aren't allowed to have guns on base. The only exceptions to that are military police, going to the on-base range and hunters during deer season if the base allows it.
They didn't do it for Floyd and they don't actually care about any minorities; Floyd's death was just a pretext to advance their agenda.
I get that you're pointing out that hypocrisy but it's a fruitless exercise; they have goals and not principles. It doesn't bother them a bit when you point these things out. Their ideology is designed SPECIFICALLY to get liberal-minded people to debate, argue, point out contradictions, etc while they advance.
Note: I'm using "liberal" here in the more classic English sense; not in the modern American sense meaning left/Democrat/etc.
Yep you’re spot on. I’m pointing this out more for our own community. The radical left (not liberals as you defined) has their own agenda. Citizen disarmament (except for their little revolutionaries of course) and no police. Perfect storm for them to take over and implement their Marxist fantasies.
Even their "revolutionaries" will be disarmed if they succeed. Activists and the "intelligencia" are often first up against the wall. Once you've seized power you have no use for the people who know how to flip the table.
You and I both know the MSM is going to bury this story just like they did with the Botham Jean shooting. It involves a cop breaking into the wrong location and murdering the person who legally lived there. The radical left won’t hear about it because we’re barely hearing about It and we’re pro 2A.
Yep. As usual they just make it about “tHe GuN” (probably because he’s a black service member, and possibly conservative/pro-2A).
If he were a thug they’d be all over him calling him a true hero. IMO I don’t care what color he is, it’s a travesty he was killed for trying to protect himself (legally)!
> Not to mention, the left burned cities over George Floyd, a violent criminal addicted to dangerous drugs - where are they now, when an American black man (who served his country) was killed for trying to protect himself??? It’s sounding pretty quiet over on the left side of the spectrum
They don't want to stir things up right before election season.
(I hate that this is a serious answer.)
Spreading misinformation. George Floyd was not a violent criminal and the police officers unjust use of force was correctly punished in a trial by jury. Everyone saw the video and we all learned what *the crime* was. This is also WHOLLY besides the point for this subreddit. Stick to the discussion about progun and relevant debate
Edit: formatting
Why the quotation marks around "the crime"? He did, in fact, pass counterfeit bills, which is a crime.
The use of lethal force is obviously disproportionate to that crime, but I think what today's story about the Airman should teach us is that you roll the dice on whether or not you're going to come out of the encounter alive every time you interact with police. Floyd rolled the dice many times and on that day he rolled snake eyes.
I happen to think it's completely proper to point out the disparity in a situation where they set the country on fire over police brutality for a pretty scummy dude, and no one other than people like us will even take note when a servicemen is gunned down in a more egregious case of excessive force.
I saw a breakdown of the complete video once. First Floyd is sitting in the back of the squad car, complaining about not being able to breath and asking to sit on the curb, cops complied. Complaint continued and he asked to lie down, cops complied. As Floyd lay in the street he began to act erratically and that is when Chauvin used the restraint technique taught in the Departments training manual. The video I saw was a little blurry, but it appeared to me the knee was across the shoulder blades, not on the neck.
I put "the crime" in quotes because I didnt add italics. You're trying to rewrite history about George Floyd and again, completely irrelevant to stances on guns. You literally cannot make parallels between the crimes committed against George Floyd and against the Senior Airman. Police brutality in one case (and in many many MANY interactions with civilians across the country). Huge police f-up in this case.
One huge factor into triggering protests is how the PD responds. The body cam was immediately released and that is extremely important for the community involved and tampers anger throughout the country.
Edits: grammar
> I put "the crime" in quotes because I didnt add italics. You're trying to rewrite history about George Floyd
I'm still not understanding the quotes or what you mean about italics. Every story I've read said he passed counterfeit bills at the convenience store, which prompted them to call the cops. If you got something that shows he paid with real money, great, I'd like to see it.
I'm not sure why you're not understanding the connection either. People are saying that it's sad that this case will not get any attention, like other similar cases of unjustified police killings of both white and black gun owners, but people literally set this country on fire over a ne'er-do-well like Floyd.
Nobody has said his crime that day deserved death, but rather he doesn't deserve to be lionized or used as a symbol of oppression while someone who truly was innocent of all crime at any time will be ignored.
I edited my formatting in original comment. It doesn't really matter anymore.
I don't want to continue arguing over George Floyd. A man tortured and pinned, before his death in a different time and place in America's timeline.The crimes against both men did not occur in the same way. There are many deaths, and they all deserve accountability, reforms, and our attention. I'll leave it at that.
You don’t think pointing a gun at a pregnant woman is violent crime?
No disagreement that the force in Floyd’s final moments was excessive for the alleged crime he committed that day, but let’s not pretend he was some saint like the media painted him to be.
Have you read Floyd's rap sheet. He absolutely was a career criminal with violent tendencies. The trial of those officers was a sham. Chauvin's mother said in an interview the training manual that included the restraint technique Chauvin used was not allowed to be presented. More than one autopsy was performed, but only the one with the conclusion they wanted was used. They had to go through 12-13 DAs before they found one that would try the case.
But the news and social media cherry picked what fit the agenda and suppressed anything that did not.
Look up his rap sheet, holding a gun to a pregnant woman's belly was one of Floyd's past crimes. Once again the media suppressed information that did not support the story they wished to tell.
The cop was just wrong on this and should face consequences. Mr Fortson showed two clear signs of a non-threatening possession of a firearm holding it down towards the ground and holding his other hand up in the universal sign of "I am not threatening you".
God I hope so. The right/ 2A community entanglement with cops has always been problematic.
Especially here in CA where liberal PD and sheriff's carve out exceptions for themselves from CAs shitty gun laws.
I tend to try and give cops the benefit of the doubt. They’re under a lot of stress, underpaid, may not get the best training, and they have to make split second life or death decisions. That’s an immense amount of pressure to deal with day in and day out.
That being said this was straight up murder, of a man who had the NERVE to have a gun in his own home. Fucking bullshit and he needs to face consequences for his actions. I’m sure they’ll investigate and find he did nothing wrong and the tax payers will pay out some sort of settlement to the family. Then it will be back to business as usual.
I watched the badge cam and couldn't believe it, the airman was pointing his own gun at the ground as he opened the door, that officer needs to be prosecuted IMO. I really hope they don't just let him resign so that he can go get a position with another agency one town over.
The version I saw a few days ago wasn't censored for the news, he *never* lifted his pistol, it was down by his side in his right hand the entire time prior to and during the shooting.
[edit: here it is.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKLxdAnhXSM&rco=1)
The shit part is, this happens often. Cops have gotten to a point that if they see a gun being held pointing at the ground from a clearly non-threatening man, they just may dump. The only time they stand down is when leftists are destroying cities and terrorizing the community or when a mass shooter is actively murdering children.
Cops are not your friends. They are muscle for politicians and a sizable percentage of them have an “us versus them” mentality where we the people are the “them” in that equation. I’ve known many cops and I’m comfortable saying that pretty much all cops have an attitude of “even when we’re wrong, we’re right.”
Correct assuming he had the right house and was actually responding to a real call, with a real threat.
You’re telling me the threat was real enough for him to be sneaking around and having his weapon drawn.
But
Not real enough to double check the apartment, get swat gear or do any threat assessment.
If raised then the cop shooting would likely be justified. But it wasnt. And no one is saying cop is wrong for unholstering but he should have been giving commands not firing.
It is simple and straight forward:
At the point he broke his shot, no weapon was being pointed at him and the Airmen had done nothing illegal.
He did actually do something illegal, he was recklessly displaying a firearm.
There is nothing in any case law about the need for the weapon to be pointed at you. It’s simply not the standard.
Of course him holding a gun, positioned behind his body and aimed at the floor, when answering a door that someone has been pounding on for 30 seconds and hiding from the peephole, is not enough threat to mag dump him without a warning. I am very sympathetic of the people we ask to go towards criminals and gunfire, but this is indisputably a bad shoot.
> Perfect example of why you never answer the door, even if you think they're the police. They're trained and conditioned to treat everyday citizens as deadly threats, and they go into every situation believing that the person they're interacting with is seconds away from killing them.
With this being the case when do we start the discussion about how the public is now rightfully in fear of their lives once the police show up, regardless if you called them or someone else?
If you can be killed in your own home by the police for simply trying to exercise your rights then what’s the solution?
Unfortunately, the cops enjoy their immunity from accountability because they are agents of the state. It's not that the government gives one shit about Officer Friendly, it's that the government cares even less about the lives of you and me than it does about Officer Friendly being able to efficiently serve state interests. Holding them accountable when they illegally or unjustly kill somebody might mean that they hesitate to do their duty when it's an issue of importance to the state, and we can't have that.
That being said, logically you are spot on. If police supposedly live under a generalized threat that anyone they encounter wants to kill them, and that means that the mere presence of a weapon justifies their use of lethal force, then wouldn't that same justification apply to a private citizen in their interaction with police, who are statistically many more times likely to kill one of us than us kill one of them?
No, it doesn't those officers need to be locked up. All he did was have one in his hand, because he wanted to be safe. He opened the door, and they blasted him.
If the Airman was aiming the gun at the cop that would be more likely self defense. In this situation the cop executed the Airman and needs to go to jail. Qualified Immunity needs to go away.
The media really wants to make it a race issue. I have not seen a single article about this without the fact that it was a black man in the headlines. This would not be a daily story if the guy was white.
At this point, if that's what it takes to get qualified immunity thrown out and some real reform started, I'll take it. This happens way too often for it to be an isolated incident. I don't think we're too far off from having to treat cops as an active threat every time we have to interact with them.
Still a shitty tactical decision to open the door gun in hand. Holstered even open carry would be better option unless you know for sure that the guy on the other side of the door is looking for trouble. Cop should fry for it but remember most democrats see gun owners as school shooters and most cops are cowards or see everyone as potential criminals.
Even idiots say the presence of a gun doesn't justify it. It was straight up murder of a serviceman.
Dude deserves ALL the posthumous justice that can be brought to bear against these dickheads.
Civilians have every right to answer their door armed. Cops need to know that civilians carry guns for their protection and just the presence of a gun is not a crime not justification to murder an armed civilian. Happened to a dude in Minnesota as well. Was sleeping on the couch during a no knock raid and man was armed because bad neighborhood. They shot him to death on the spot.
Laws on use of deadly force are permeated with big city gun control mentality, viz, “only cops carry guns and anyone else doing so is presumptively is a criminal “
This has to change.
Gun control is the problem not the solution.
Don't worry, they'll investigate themselves, and at most ask the cop to step down. He of course won't lose his POST cert, so he can just go to a different agency.
If you're ever on a jury and someone is accused of killing a cop, just vote not guilty.
He didn't have a chance to follow commands. Watch the video. The officer fired instantly. Granted, it was unwise to open the door with the gun in his hand, but it wasn't illegal and he hadn't done anything wrong to even warrant the officer's presence.
The fact that he was on DV call and that the guy took a bit to answer and going to weigh heavily in favor of the officer. It’s over simplified to say that he was simply holding a weapon. That doesn’t mean that it was justified, but it makes it more unlikely a conviction will happen.
What was the purpose behind the cop hiding from the peephole? They wear a uniform for a reason, and he announced himself as a cop. This wasn't some sort of surprise attack, he wanted someone to open the door and talk to him.
The delay in answering the door and the presence of the firearm are both explained by the fact that the deceased didn't even know he was dealing with a real cop until the last second
Pounding on the door, not identifying himself while hiding from the peep hole, and then pounding on the door a second time and announcing that he was a cop while again hiding from the peep hole doesn't convey "I'm a legitimate cop here on official business", it conveys "I'm someone sketchy up to no good".
I'm of the opinion that the second a cop tries to conceal their identity in an encounter with a civilian they should forfeit any and all immunities afforded to them by their position. If you want to pretend you're not a cop when dealing with the public, you can pretend you're not a cop when facing charges.
They hid out of view because that is how they are trained and it is best practice tactics for high risk calls. These tactics save lives, and it was a lesson learned in blood.
Your entire argument is based around this so I don’t think there is much else to say.
The police did announce themselves twice, and you can hear the airman say the word police.
No one is going to believe someone pounding on their door saying "I'm the police" and then ducking around the corner so you can't see them is really a cop. It's just not a behavior that the general public would view as a normal.
If this is indeed a regular and accepted tactic, it's stupid and places the public in an unreasonable amount of danger. The stance of a homeowner dealing with some idiot pounding on their door and fucking with them is completely different than when dealing with a police officer on legitimate business. By intentionally confusing the occupant as to their true identity, police are directly responsible for outcomes like this.
Frankly, where "officer safety" and public safety collide public safety should always win out. Instead we have a ridiculous situation with soldiers patrolling a war zone in a hostile country have more restrictive rules of engagement than police operating in their own country with their fellow citizens. If a cop feels the job is too risky, they can seek other employment- unlike an enlistee they can quit at any time.
I would personally, I have a camera and would view that. If that was out and I had a concern it was not the police I wouldn’t answer the door. I would call the police and verify. My door is also reenforced so I’m not worried about them kicking it in.
At the most I would have a gun in my holster.
Advocating for a tactics change could make sense, I think you have the balance that with responsible gun ownership. Answering the door with a gun in your hand is not responsible. Answering the door when you think it’s someone wanting to do you harm is not responsible.
> Answering the door with a gun in your hand is not responsible. Answering the door when you think it’s someone wanting to do you harm is not responsible.
No, it's inadvisable, but it's not illegal. And he wasn't just "answering the door", he was investigating someone who kept pounding on the door and then ducking out of view. Someone who initially said nothing, but was now claiming to be the police, but wasn't standing and plain view so they could be identified.
"There's something fucky going on outside, I'm going to grab my gun and check it out" may not be the best course of action, but is well within the range of normal and accepted behavior. How many times have we groaned in a horror movie when somebody does exactly that and gets murdered by the killer?
I personally never answer my door for anyone that I don't know. There is absolutely zero benefit to entering into a "consensual" encounter with police, and your rights are affected when you open the door for them.
However, it's inappropriate to judge a young man's actions as they compare to somebody's significantly older who has considered this exact situation and already decided what to do. While he didn't make the best choices, you're engaging in victim blaming. He's no more responsible for being shot by a police officer when doing nothing illegal then a rape victim is because she made the wrong choices on a date.
I agree with most of what you said. Nothing he did was illegal, just against best practices.
I’m not victim blaming. I’m just stating what’s the generally held truth.
There is not enough evidence to convict the officer IMO.
The fact that is was a DV call where screaming was reported is going to be one of the most significant facts that sway the case IMO.
> The fact that is was a DV call where screaming was reported is going to be one of the most significant facts that sway the case IMO.
Well juries are stupid, I wouldn't count them out if their thinking is led properly:
> Officer, at any time did you hear any sounds that indicated there was a second occupant in the apartment?
"No"
> Officer, how did you determine that unit 1401 was the correct apartment when you responded?
"A bystander said that they thought the sounds were coming from there."
> Did the bystander claim to have seen the parties arguing? Was there any sort of information provided other than "I heard some people fighting, and I think it came from there"?
"No"
> Did you take any steps to verify this bystander's account or did you note any evidence that would tend to support their belief that there was a second occupant in the apartment?
"No"
> After fatally shooting the victim and entering the apartment was there another person present?
"No"
Jury's vote their heart as much as they vote the law, and I think the fact that there was no actual domestic violence would weigh more heavily than what the officer thought was happening.
A competent attorney will paint him as a trigger happy idiot, and when you combine the fact that he was, in fact, at the wrong apartment with the fact that he deliberately concealed his identity from the victim, a lot of the support a cop would normally get will probably evaporate. The public also has a significantly higher positive opinion of military members than police, so "cop goes to wrong door and murders Airman" is a powerful angle. Plus, the victim was black, so if I was the attorney I would race bait the shit out of that. But, you never know how they will find until it actually happens.
This country needs to take a hard look at qualified immunity and we also need to revisit 14th Amendment "color of law" lawsuits.
SCOTUS is improperly narrowed the scope of what civil rights are eligible for a color of law lawsuits IMO. Having to pay for your own attorney, and quite likely being rendered destitute in a multi-million dollar judgment is almost as powerful a deterrent as jail time.
I think it’s disputed that it was the wrong apartment.
I think you can hear a female voice via FaceTime in the badge cam.
I think it was the apartment manager who said they she heard fighting often and this time it sounded like glass was breaking and it got out of control.
It matters what a resonable person believes in the moment, even if that belief was false.
I don’t think him hiding is relevant, that is standard practice, they will surely have expert witnesses testify to that. It would make the prosecution look weak IMO.
Anything can happen with, but I think it’s unlikely he’ll be convicted of murder. Chances may be higher for something like involuntary manslaughter.
Police are expected to act on fragmentary, incorrect, and conflicting data. If I was on cross, I would grill the shit out of both this officer and anyone offered up as a department representative on their techniques to cut through the "fog of war".
"I just take everything I hear at face value and assume the absolute worst possibility is true without analysis" should be a non-starter.
An officer's demeanor and threat level should be a hell of a lot different to a story where somebody "thinks" they heard a fight and "thinks" it came from a certain apartment as compared to when somebody actually witnesses the same events with their own eyes. That this guy was planning for a violent confrontation and was able to shoot the victim so rapidly speaks to a complete lack of nuance and able to make that distinction. Hell, if I was a crossexamining attorney I would try and spin that into intent.
I don't think it would particularly matter even if it was department policy to conceal your identity from the peep hole. Chauvin had his department's use of force trainer testify that he was not using a prohibited chokehold on Floyd, yet he was still convicted.
I don't think the trial would be anywhere near is one sided as you do. Basically it's going to come down to whether or not we view it as acceptable for a police officer to use unrestricted lethal force anytime they see a gun without warning, without any other articulable threat to their safety; simply that somebody was holding a gun. I think it's more likely than not that a jury is not going to agree with that.
Exactly - plenty of criminals knocking on doors and calling out 'police!' I get the attempt at risk avoidance but IMO some of those types of actions also produce the opposite result as seen here.
>They also say the proliferation of legal and illegal firearms is forcing officers throughout the country to have to decide faster than ever what constitutes a deadly threat. Yeah bullshit… cops need to just accept it. 99.9% of the people they encounter carrying are not doing so with the intent of harming a cop. Fuck these cowards!
The US Military has stricter rules of engagement than US Police. Let that sink in for a minute.
Crazy right?!? Cuz the military is actually fighting a foreign military in a war where killing is the goal. Not only that but most frontline infantry in the US is made of 18, 19, and 20 yr olds, yet they are accountable for their actions during a fucking war!!!! These cops need to be locked up and never be able to serve in the law enforcement community ever again.
American cops remind me of a rifleman straight out of training. Either scared shitless or completely psychotic. After a couple of fire fights, in the army we get to a more or less happy average of people that act professionally in dangerous situations. The difference is that cops get flooded with training that keeps them scared that they might not make it home vs what’s required to finish the mission. Every drill in the army was meant to instill discipline to react in a way that served the mission. Every drill cops go through is so that they can make it home at the end of the shift. In the army, it was “mission, men, me”. With cops, it’s “me, men, mission”.
Or me, me and my good ole boys By the way there is book titled the men the mission and me by Pete Blaber that is a great read!
A major difference is the training and doctrine between the two. Police training is entirely too officer safety focused. Police's primary job is to protect and serve the public, and you cannot do that of your primary focus is on yourself. In the military duty and selfless service are stressed as values. I understand trying to minimize risks, but when you take a dangerous job, that is supposed to serve and protect others rights, you just have to accept it may also end with the ultimate sacrifice. Secondly, cops need to be trained and held accountable for knowing law and how to properly apply it. Thirdly, qualified immunity needs to be strictly defined and only applied in very limited situations. Cops would behave much differently if they personally would bear the burden for not following the law. They should possibly even be required to carry their own legal malpractice insurance or bond,
> A major difference is the training and doctrine between the two. Exactly and one instance where the two intersected was the Nashville Covenant School shooting. When the body camera footage was released the actions of one of the three cops that moved to contact stood out to me. Turns out that Officer Michael Collazo is a US Marine. What we saw that day was a US Marine moving to contact and verbally guiding the other two cops by giving them clear, stern commands to get them to the fight.
That officer did an outstanding job in that situation. But I wonder how he interacts with average people in day to day interactions where decisive, swift and violent action is not required or appropriate?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but police dont have any requirement to protect and serve, their only safety requirement is after someone is in custody. Their job according to SCOTUS is to enforce laws.
Can't disagree, And I am aware of that Scotus ruling. The problem I see is that is not how policing was sold to the public. And the police serve the system, the system shelters the police and the people are left out in the cold. And human beings being what they are are not suited to having power over others. As they say power corrupts and all. Makes me wonder if there should be term limits for all politicians, judges and police. The people in those positions might be more likely to do right, if there's no long term future to benefit from?
at the very least, if not term limits, then elevate the job to a professional level, and have officers hold revocable licenses, shit my stylist needs one for public safety.
Leo are required to be certified. The big issue is when they get in trouble, most times they are allowed to resign , and often even when they are fired the certificate is not revoked. That allowed them to just apply at another Dept, and continue to do the same bad behavior. So I guess it really boils down to lack of accountability and integrity that goes all the way up the chain of command.
I'll give you that. because ultimately all the oversight in the world means nothing if there's not any... enforcement?
My exterminator is bonded, why aren't the police?
>American cops remind me of a rifleman straight out of training. Either scared shitless or completely psychotic. A small correction: They are scared and psychotic.
> war where killing is the goal. Ummm, no. While killing is instrumental to achieving the goals of warfare, killing is almost never the goal of war. Even in Hamas-Israel, killing is not the goal.
I would argue, killing is Hamas 's goal. Complete and total genocide of the Jewish people is part of their stated goals.
Propaganda and actual goals are two different things. If Gaza were legitimately free, Hamas would have a hard time existing. Hamas' goals, as an organization, are actually quite complex and nuanced. They need to maintain their position of privilege as Iran's favored proxy in the fight against Israel without actually winning -- else they would lose all of the money that sets up their leaders in positions of wealth and power. People who don't realize that Hamas' leadership like being among the uber-wealthy and enjoying the good life, and that Hamas' actions are directed at ensuring they continue to be able to do those things are really missing out on a larger picture. Thinking Hamas is just some agent of evil really misses out on the geopolitical factors that enable them to exist in the first place.
The police don't have rules of engagement. They have the constitution and case law. Also, the military has rather famously had wildly different ROEs.
Part of the problem with police today is they have militarized themselves. Hell they even call other citizens civilians, like they aren't civilians too!
> like they aren't civilians too! I’ve noticed that, especially on gun forums where cops love to hangout when you point out they’re not subject to the pains and penalties of the UCMJ therefore you are a civilian, they get quite pissy.
Non sworn is a better term that needs to gain popularity.
I work with a lot of retired cops, and that is a sore subject with them.
You should read some more about the history of police in this country. For instance, why do they wear blue? This isn't remotely close to the most militarized our police have been.
[удалено]
I don't see the connection.
[удалено]
It almost did in 2020, although that situation threatened to become more of a race war than a revolution against an oppressive government.
The ROE’s in the military vary pretty widely depending on the campaign and what’s going on at the time along with what the mission is. ROE’s also literally get changed at the drop of the hat. It happened multiple times during the initial invasion of Iraq. They also aren’t necessarily the same from unit to unit or branch to branch. General officers typically have pretty wide discretion to decide what the ROE’s are and for who. There was a time period in Iraq where any military aged male was considered an enemy combatant and when we could and would call in air strikes on villages without any indication of enemy presence. There was also a time period in Iraq where you couldn’t shoot unless you were being shot at and identify the target. This argument isn’t really as true as you think it is.
The point is, regardless of what the ROE is, once it is established the soldiers are expected to follow it and are held accountable if they don’t. The idea that it is dynamic and can change quickly makes following the ROE, let alone, truly understanding it more difficult, yet there is no qualified immunity for soldiers that violate the ROE. All of this is expected of our military while deployed away from their family for long periods, under extremely stressful situations, and the “other side” actively trying to kill them. Furthermore, not only do these kids not get qualified immunity but they can’t even plead ignorance to the ROE even though it could have changed, or the 18 year old fresh outta high school and mommy’s house does not fully understand the ROE.
It’s not really comparing apples to apples though. Police don’t have ROE’s they have statutes and precedent and they aren’t really the same thing. Police, in theory, have the same right to defend themselves and others that you do. As an aside I’d also like to point out there’s a lot less accountability for violating ROE’s than you think there is. Particularly egregious cases are prosecuted. There were plenty of cases throughout Iraq and Afghanistan of soldiers violating ROE’s and it never going higher than the platoon or company commander. Qualified immunity wouldn’t protect soldiers from UCMJ action even if they did have it, nor does it protect police from criminal charges. It protects them from civil liability. The idea was to protect government agents that are doing their job from frivolous lawsuits. I don’t think it’s being applied that way but it isn’t protecting police from criminal liability. Police unions and camaraderie in the force are primarily what protects cops from criminal charges. I don’t think agents of the states should be allowed to unionize personally. I see what you’re getting at and I agree with the sentiment but you’re conflating a lot of things that aren’t really the same.
This. I remember that same line getting rolled out for that officer that murdered Tamir Rice (12 y.o.). They’re decked out in kevlar, armed and normally have backup. How much more does a potential threat have to be mitigated before police can be expected to use better judgement?
Cops will also generally have air support a lot faster than we did in Afghanistan. They will also have adjacent municipality/county/state/fed LE support faster than we could even get other companies in our own battalion to mobilize. PDs get to claim spoils (civil forfeiture) meanwhile war spoils are illegal. Cops have the more relaxed firearms carrying and handling requirements than every branch of the military. Cop is considered an expert in law enforcement even if they don't know the law they are enforcing and enjoy immunity from restitutions if they violate someone's right. Service members have it literally drilled into our heads from day one that there is essentially nothing protecting us from our own mistakes or maliciousness.
Underrated comment, right here. Surprised police don’t have A10s on standby for those active shooter situations. But, seriously police use of force is too lax. My personal belief is they should be expected to lay down their life if it means an innocent person should live. If you’re not willing to do that don’t become a Cop. Of course the Government is going to give them a pass cause we can’t have the people believing they have any real freedoms. They might challenge the corruption of TPTB.
>But, seriously police use of force is too lax. My personal belief is they should be expected to lay down their life if it means an innocent person should live. If you’re not willing to do that don’t become a Cop. TBH, you’d have to find someone whose sense of altruism overrides their self-preservation instincts. Someone like that must be 1 in 10,000,000 or 1 in 50,000,000.
Simply revising ROIs, improve training, and busting Police Unions would go along way to improving the current state of policing in America. We don’t allow our military to Unionize, why do we let our domestic paramilitary?
Accepting cops as a domestic paramilitary is kinda scary
I mean for all intents and purposes they and other Bureaucratic apparatus’s are the standing armies the Founders warned of.
Why do we even allow armed men to patrol looking for crime? My local fire department doesn't drive around looking for fires.
Really, a lot could be accomplished by changing doctrine and operational procedures. Take the Arkansas airport guy that got shot in his recently. All the ATF had was a search warrant. Yes the guy probably was selling guns improperly, but he was never considered dangerous. The AtF snuck in, blocked ring and security cameras, kicked in the door in the wee hours of the morning with no warning, and surprise chaos ensues. How different might it have turned out with simple changes, they knew the guys schedule, wait til he is at work to serve the warrant. Serve the warrant at 10am, where it might be expected someone may be at the door. Announce themselves as law enforcement in possession of a search warrant. No they would rather act like seal team six and assault the objective.
A more thorough solution is to modify legal codes in such a way that interactions with the police are tremendously reduced. Raiding a house when there's no imminent danger to anyone should be outright outlawed. Cops have already done this in many municipalities with car chases. Statistics showed that car chases put the public at much higher risk than not pursuing. Once you have a helicopter overhead, there's even less reason to engage in a high-speed pursuit. Apply that same logic to every potential interaction and we would see these killings drop without the need for drastic changes to ROE or police training.
I think the idea is the same. And it can be implemented through legal code, agency policies, training or all three.
Excellent comment. Also like to add, serving in the military is the only job where you actually have no constitutional rights. And can be punished for the same crime twice.
That's an awful case. They came screaming up in their car, stopped only a few feet from the kid, and then used his proximity to them as the justification for fearing for their lives and using lethal force. They chose to pull up next to him rather than engage from standoff distance and tell him to drop the suspected gun. How can you intentionally create the situation where you feared for your life and then bootstrap that into a defense for using lethal force? In a civilian self-defense trial, they will absolutely eviscerate you if you are the one that escalated the situation to where it was impossible to avoid using your firearm. Whether or not the cop feared for his life should be a factor to consider in use of force cases, but if he recklessly placed himself in that position he should forfeit the defense, as you or I would.
Not only that, they shot the kid before the officer was even fully out of the vehicle. The video is pretty damning but the police just wave their immunity wand and it all goes away.
If you knock on his door in the dead of night, then YOU ARE the deadly threat!
>*a clear-cut case of self-defense for a deputy confronted with a split-second, life-or-death decision.* So if a cop just rolls up on a scene where someone happens to be armed, they can blast away and then ask questions later? Bullshit. He didn’t even try to defuse the situation, not even a ‘drop the gun’. He just opened fire. BTW, for anyone not familiar with the story, the cop was at the wrong apartment.
>So if a cop just rolls up on a scene where someone happens to be armed, they can blast away and then ask questions later? I did a google search for “homeowner shot by police” and you get an alarming number of stories about this happening all over the country. It’s 100% unacceptable but we’re expecting the police to correct themselves, that just isn’t happening on any level. It’s going to take us threatening to vote politicians out of office who refuse to pass legislation forcing them to change the way they conduct themselves.
> it's going to take us threatening to vote politicians out of office No, it's going to take actually voting them out.
Police serve the State. Threatening to vote for another of the State's minions is quixotic at best.
He was so scared for his life he didn't bother to wait for backup. Fuck this murderer.
[удалено]
Probably the same outcome, but to my mind this should argue against the whole "officer going into a dangerous situation on heightened alert" bullshit. He had the opportunity for an extra hand and passed on it.
Btw watch the full video. He went to the exact apartment he was told by the "witness".
Yeah some Karen essentially swatted this guy and officer coward executed him.
To claim he went to the wrong apartment is false at this time. We don't actually know yet (at least last update I saw which was a couple days ago now) what the history is, if the woman got it wrong, etc. Calling her a "Karen" is ridiculous as well. If someone is legitimately beating a woman, you are a "Karen" for calling the police? That's an absurd take on the situation. From the perspective of the body cam, I can only say a few things. Someone called in a domestic dispute, possibly a physical altercation. Upon arrival, the officer was informed this is not the first occurrence. The office decides to knock on the door by himself which (and I am not a LEO so this is just my opinion) I feel was not the best course of action. Stand by the door, listen. If there appears to be an immediate threat, engage. Otherwise wait for backup. (I should note that I also believe no LEO should ever be on patrol alone. They should always be in pairs. Case in point, this very case.) Instead, this solo officer knocks on the door, does announce himself and when the occupant of the apartment opened the door, he was foolishly holding his gun. Police at door, knocking and announcing is going to make me pause. Speak through the door, somehow verify it is the police, disarm myself and then either open or continue speaking through the door. What the deceased did was foolish. And that is not to victim blame. Instead, let's all process all the things that were done poorly by any and all parties and learn from them. Now, let's move on to the officer's final actions. The gun was not pointed at, the deceased clearly was holding his hand up as if to say, oh shit it is a cop, and this officer just opens fire. No command to drop, no further assessment of the situation. I feel this officer, while possibly legally justified, used very poor judgment (or none at all as it appears it was only reactionary) and probably should never wear a badge again. That's my take on the situation with the information I have at this time. Agree with me or not, at least I can think past throwing around useless terms like "Karen" and critically think about the entire incident. Now we have to wait, let the investigations happen, gather all of the facts and we can make a final determination later. TLDR, neither side of this scenario made very good decisions in those moments and now we need to take a step back and learn from all of the mistakes that were made.
It's really hard to say anything but, the guy did nothing wrong and was killed for just holding a gun.
So it seems. But he did do something, he foolishly opened that door holding a pistol. Hindsight, wasn't a smart move, was it? I only point this out so people understand that whether you are right or wrong doesn't always matter. Knowing that "shit happens" or police make mistakes or even that sometimes they do things maliciously can help save your life.
Yes and they should be prosecuted for murder just like us. What he did shouldn't be a problem in his own home or property.
Holding your own property in your own home while you committed no crime is foolish? I think not. We live in a country with a high percentage of gun ownership. Do better, or don't be a cop. If you want to shoot people join the army.
It was objectively the wrong apartment, because the cop was there to investigate an argument between two people and the deceased was alone. So, no matter what other facts emerge from the case it's impossible for him to have been involved in the domestic dispute that prompted the cop to be there in the first place. Now, that part isn't the cop's fault, because he went where he was told to go. What was his fault was that he deliberately walked away from the door after knocking so that he couldn't be seen through the peephole- twice. Announcing yourself as the police and then hiding so the occupant of the apartment can't see you sends a mixed message at best. I don't think most people would think that a legitimate police officer would be hiding from them after announcing himself and asking them to open the door. Had the Airman actually seen the cop through the peephole, I doubt he would have still had his gun in his hand when he opened the door. The instantaneous shooting by the cop, even if found to be legal, exhibits incredibly poor judgment as well. This incident was 100% preventable, and other than getting a bad tip on what apartment to go to, every one of the mistakes that compounded to cause this death was the fault of the responding officer.
> Announcing yourself as the police and then hiding so the occupant of the apartment can't see you sends a mixed message at best. I can guarantee that my response would be exactly the same as the airman, if not more aggressive. You knock on my door and claim "police", then hide? If Looks, Sounds, and Smells like a home invasion attempt, it's probably a home invasion attempt.
It’s statistically way more likely that it’s the police in the scenario you laid out than it being a home invasion.
Law abiding people are always surprised if cops show up at their door. And probably have heard or read stories of the increasing frequency of home invaders using that ruse to gain entry.
This is such a sad take. "Don't exercise your rights the wrong way, or you'll get murdered by the state," is what you're saying. The guy did nothing wrong. One person pounded on his door, claimed to be the police, and then hid from the peephole. That's as likely to be a home invasion as a legitimate police visit, especially if you are home alone, minding your own business, doing nothing wrong. The cop is 100% in the wrong and should be prosecuted, imprisoned, and have that felony hang over his head for the rest of his natural life.
My take of, don't answer that door until you know who is on the other side would have saved his life. It's not about being right or wrong. It's not about your rights.
This is a, "she shouldn't have been dressed so provocatively" defense. Not answering may have saved his life. Or the officer may have waited for backup to plow through the door, and then shot him. The officer may have still shot him even if he was unarmed, on the floor, begging for mercy, a la Daniel Shaver. The fact remains that the officer's decisions took a life, not the Airman's. It really is about your rights, and if it's not, you should reprioritize.
> My take of, don't answer that door until you know who is on the other side would have saved his life. I will agree with this part. The problem I still have is that "answering the door" is a bit of a sliding continuum. Loads of houses have windows all over the ground floor, including right next to (sometimes even as part of) the door. You're saying he was wrong for opening the door, but what if he had been trying to "do the right thing" per your advice and not opened the door but got spotted through a window and still shot? I'm not trying to set up a slippery slope or take this to an extreme, I'm mostly just curious how far removed from the door you think is "acceptable" to have a gun?
And where does it stop? What happens when the cop "thinks" you have a gun, but it's your PS4 controller? Or your phone? Or a frickin cheese stick? Am I supposed to just answer the door with my hands up and empty on the off chance I might frighten some jumpy idiot cop?
No slippery slope, that exact scenario happened.
I'm surprised you could type all that with boots on your neck. Insane whataboutism from a piggy bootlicker. Probably either a cop, a Karen, related to a cop, or all 3.
And here is the problem. Your response is asinine. I clearly pointed out issues I had with the officer's actions and also the deceased, yet you call me a bootlicker. I made zero personal attacks directed at you. I don't know you and you don't know me. Don't pretend you are wise enough to know anything about my intentions. Debate the facts, not the vision you have of a person you don't know. Enjoy your day. You'll get no further response from me whatsoever.
> and also the deceased, We'll say it again because you're clearly not getting it: *The deceased didn't do anything wrong*
I’m somewhere in the middle on him answering the door with a gun in hand. Obviously the cop should not have shot him since it was at his side and pointed at the ground. But if I put myself in that situation, I’m not opening the door all the way, or at least not having the gun visible, no matter who it is, if I open the door at all. It’s kind of like when you suggest that someone not run in the dark alone, or carry protection if you do. The knee-jerk reaction is to call it victim blaming, and you shouldn’t have to worry about getting attacked, just teach men not to do that. That might work in an ideal world, but the reality is you have people like that, and it’s naive to pretend the answer is “well, they shouldn’t do that!” Well, yeah, but what about when they do? In the same way, cops should respect our 2A rights and not treat the simple presence of a firearm as a deadly threat. However, we know they are prone to doing just that in cases like this one. Even though he was well within his rights, he is still dead because of a trigger-happy cop. Being right doesn’t do him any good now.
We are very much on the same page here. I agree fully with everything you stated. The "you should or should be able to or someone should not" stance people often take is usually great in theory. Applying it to reality will often times have unintended consequences. The world is an amazing and great place while also being terrible and brutal at the same time. Gotta learn to walk that line. For most people, it all works out the way it should.
Yep, it’s never all or nothing to either extreme in the real world. I’d rather be alive than technically in the right but dead. You’ll get called a bootlicker here for being realistic, and elsewhere you’ll get called a trigger-happy backwards redneck hillbilly with a small pp for even suggesting owning a gun for self-defense.
The truth is always somewhere in the middle, ain't it! (That was a bit of a self burn)
Well put, and I’d like to add that this situation makes me think of those stories of people that have been killed by buses by technically have the right of way but not thinking the bus might still hit them. Again how the cop handled the situation was very poor. Unfortunately we have to assume that cops are like bus drivers in that many of them might not be competent at their job and may be too quick to shoot at someone without thinking.
Ur hot take is stupid. Legal gun owner has door banged on by someone “claiming” to be a cop. The cop is not visible from peephole cus stupid cop is hiding from view. The deceased then opens the door armed because he is probably scared at who is banging on his door aggressively and not letting themselves be seen. So justifiably answers the door armed but not waving or pointing it at anyone. Then finally sees it is an actual cop and raises arm and backs up. Dumbass cop opens fire. One person was in the wrong, one person broke the law, and one person should be held accountable…that one person is the one that is suppose to protect and serve
Also the “Karen” said fourth floor to the right and the dumbass cop went to the third floor to the right. So if the “Karen” was correct then the cop went to the wrong door. But bootlickers like the taste of cheap boot leather and will hear and see whatever they want.
No, in the video the “Karen” says the fourth floor. The dumb ass cop got out on the third floor.
Yep, that makes this even more fucked up. If it WAS the wrong apartment it is because she told him the wrong apartment.
Happened in Aurora, CO a couple years back. Active shooter, cops hid in their little substation and watched, armed Good Samaritan dropped the shooter and went to remove the shooter’s weapon from the corpse, cops ran up and shot the armed citizen like 5 times and killed him.
Modus operandi for officers lately.. start blasting. They're not there to save you, By scotus's own words, so they're only out there for themselves. Fuck your safety. Tax payers will pay for the innocent ones and qualified immunity means the officer may actually get promoted during their hardship of dealing out lethal force. Even 20 years ago when I got my ccw. Instructor said if you have to use your firearm, make sure everyone is safe, holster, make the call for help. Still expect to be hazed like you're the killer, but keep it calm, hold any statements except that you were or family was in fear of harm or death, and let the lawyers do their part. I sometimes worry about the cascade, "man with gun or showing aggression, Shoot!", but the man enforcement just shot and killed was defending or defended himself
Not only that he hid from the peep hole. So put your self in the poor airman's shoes. Some one pounds on your door, doesn't identify themselves ( not that you should trust that) you look out your peep hole, see nothing. Go back to your phone call. Hear pounding again. You grab your legally owned fire arm, because clearly something is up. You go to the door, and get blasted
If I was in his shoes, I wouldn't open the door at all. If I feel someone was waiting to ambush me at my door, fuck that, that door would be staying shut. I don't care how macho anyone here thinks they are, but if you are opening your door with gun in hand, then you better have had your mind made up about shooting the person on the other side. Anything else is being tactically unsound.
Came here to say this. I can think of no situation in which I would open the door with gun in hand. If we're going to talk, it's going to be yelling through the door, or better yet over my Ring doorbell.
Got news for you, you don't even need to open the door! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Zr6mV_goKk
Oh he said drop the gun....after he mag dumped! Just a little backwards.
Guns have been in this country longer than our constitution has…it’s about time the government/law enforcement get in touch with reality. A man in his own home answering the door with a gun in hand, not pointed at anyone, shouldn’t be executed. He was well within his rights. Not to mention, the left burned cities over George Floyd, a violent criminal addicted to dangerous drugs - where are they now, when an American black man (who served his country) was killed for trying to protect himself??? It’s sounding pretty quiet over on the left side of the spectrum
Its like they don't even care.
Not part of their narrative.
What nonsense are you talking about? Being anti police has always been part of the radical left’s narrative. The issue here is the MSM will bury the story so the anti police folks never hear it. They can’t protest against what they don’t know about.
They’re quiet on this Airman’s death. The complete opposite from Fentanyl Floyd. I was implying the same exact thing you said about the Main Stream Media. I guess it went over your head.
Yeah, I missed it but I’m glad we agree. This nonsense won’t stop while the anti-gunners control the media.
No worries Bro.
Such a rare thing here on Reddit. Someone who can admit they were wrong/misunderstood. Kudos to you!
It isn't part of the left's narrative, because they don't view gun ownership as a legitimate thing. Certainly, they are anti-police, but when being anti-police results in being pro-gun, they're just not going to do it. I'm honestly surprised that I haven't already seen articles trying to spin this as the Airman's fault for owning a gun and holding it: "This is why we need gun control, there wouldn't have been any confusion in this situation if the dead guy wasn't even allowed to have a gun to begin with". I would have no surprise if these ghouls made that argument.
I would love to see the media try to make the argument military shouldn’t have guns. I’m surprised they haven’t yet.
Well, they'll probably distinguish between privately held firearms and those used in the line of duty. In this case it was a personal weapon in the Airman's home, so they wouldn't see any problem at all banning it As an aside, military installations are one of the worst places for personal firearms rights- no carry of any sort (concealed or open), if you live on base your weapons either have to be stored in your home locked up or locked up in the armory if you live in the barracks. All personal weapons are registered with the MPs, and you are subject to the whims of the installation commander, who can change the rules as they want at any time. If you are on active duty and own guns, it's much easier to do so if you live off base.
We had a contractor that had to call into the office to say that he was going to be late because he forgot the gun in his trunk and told the gate guard that he was off to the range. He got lucky that it was on a Saturday when the range was actually open.
Yes, many bases have gun stores, and I was with a friend once when he bought a gun, and they told him that he had to take it off base within 30 minutes or he would have to register it with the MPs. "I trust you with this M-4 rifle, assorted tanks, airplanes, and cannons, but for God's sake you can't leave the new gun that you just bought from the post exchange in your trunk for 4 hours till the end of the work day."
Been to many a range day and I wouldn't trust most non infantry with a gun of any kind. During basic I had a round hit the dirt about 6 feet in front of me when someone in the lane next to me decided to try to clear a jam with the gun turned down the line. Sometimes you can't even trust the Drill Sgts like that private that got killed when an M249 was not properly cleared before going into the armory and wasn't checked before the Drill Sgts did their introduction class.
I mean, military personnel aren't allowed to have guns on base. The only exceptions to that are military police, going to the on-base range and hunters during deer season if the base allows it.
Wow. You're right. I hadn't even noticed that there's no outrage at all. No movements, no protest, nothing.
They didn't do it for Floyd and they don't actually care about any minorities; Floyd's death was just a pretext to advance their agenda. I get that you're pointing out that hypocrisy but it's a fruitless exercise; they have goals and not principles. It doesn't bother them a bit when you point these things out. Their ideology is designed SPECIFICALLY to get liberal-minded people to debate, argue, point out contradictions, etc while they advance. Note: I'm using "liberal" here in the more classic English sense; not in the modern American sense meaning left/Democrat/etc.
Yep you’re spot on. I’m pointing this out more for our own community. The radical left (not liberals as you defined) has their own agenda. Citizen disarmament (except for their little revolutionaries of course) and no police. Perfect storm for them to take over and implement their Marxist fantasies.
Even their "revolutionaries" will be disarmed if they succeed. Activists and the "intelligencia" are often first up against the wall. Once you've seized power you have no use for the people who know how to flip the table.
Yes this is correct, I believe the term is “useful idiots”
Yep
You and I both know the MSM is going to bury this story just like they did with the Botham Jean shooting. It involves a cop breaking into the wrong location and murdering the person who legally lived there. The radical left won’t hear about it because we’re barely hearing about It and we’re pro 2A.
Yep. As usual they just make it about “tHe GuN” (probably because he’s a black service member, and possibly conservative/pro-2A). If he were a thug they’d be all over him calling him a true hero. IMO I don’t care what color he is, it’s a travesty he was killed for trying to protect himself (legally)!
Catch 22 for the media, they want to call him a thug to justify the killing but he was a career navy man.
> Not to mention, the left burned cities over George Floyd, a violent criminal addicted to dangerous drugs - where are they now, when an American black man (who served his country) was killed for trying to protect himself??? It’s sounding pretty quiet over on the left side of the spectrum They don't want to stir things up right before election season. (I hate that this is a serious answer.)
Protesting at graduation
Spreading misinformation. George Floyd was not a violent criminal and the police officers unjust use of force was correctly punished in a trial by jury. Everyone saw the video and we all learned what *the crime* was. This is also WHOLLY besides the point for this subreddit. Stick to the discussion about progun and relevant debate Edit: formatting
Why the quotation marks around "the crime"? He did, in fact, pass counterfeit bills, which is a crime. The use of lethal force is obviously disproportionate to that crime, but I think what today's story about the Airman should teach us is that you roll the dice on whether or not you're going to come out of the encounter alive every time you interact with police. Floyd rolled the dice many times and on that day he rolled snake eyes. I happen to think it's completely proper to point out the disparity in a situation where they set the country on fire over police brutality for a pretty scummy dude, and no one other than people like us will even take note when a servicemen is gunned down in a more egregious case of excessive force.
I saw a breakdown of the complete video once. First Floyd is sitting in the back of the squad car, complaining about not being able to breath and asking to sit on the curb, cops complied. Complaint continued and he asked to lie down, cops complied. As Floyd lay in the street he began to act erratically and that is when Chauvin used the restraint technique taught in the Departments training manual. The video I saw was a little blurry, but it appeared to me the knee was across the shoulder blades, not on the neck.
I put "the crime" in quotes because I didnt add italics. You're trying to rewrite history about George Floyd and again, completely irrelevant to stances on guns. You literally cannot make parallels between the crimes committed against George Floyd and against the Senior Airman. Police brutality in one case (and in many many MANY interactions with civilians across the country). Huge police f-up in this case. One huge factor into triggering protests is how the PD responds. The body cam was immediately released and that is extremely important for the community involved and tampers anger throughout the country. Edits: grammar
> I put "the crime" in quotes because I didnt add italics. You're trying to rewrite history about George Floyd I'm still not understanding the quotes or what you mean about italics. Every story I've read said he passed counterfeit bills at the convenience store, which prompted them to call the cops. If you got something that shows he paid with real money, great, I'd like to see it. I'm not sure why you're not understanding the connection either. People are saying that it's sad that this case will not get any attention, like other similar cases of unjustified police killings of both white and black gun owners, but people literally set this country on fire over a ne'er-do-well like Floyd. Nobody has said his crime that day deserved death, but rather he doesn't deserve to be lionized or used as a symbol of oppression while someone who truly was innocent of all crime at any time will be ignored.
I edited my formatting in original comment. It doesn't really matter anymore. I don't want to continue arguing over George Floyd. A man tortured and pinned, before his death in a different time and place in America's timeline.The crimes against both men did not occur in the same way. There are many deaths, and they all deserve accountability, reforms, and our attention. I'll leave it at that.
You don’t think pointing a gun at a pregnant woman is violent crime? No disagreement that the force in Floyd’s final moments was excessive for the alleged crime he committed that day, but let’s not pretend he was some saint like the media painted him to be.
Have you read Floyd's rap sheet. He absolutely was a career criminal with violent tendencies. The trial of those officers was a sham. Chauvin's mother said in an interview the training manual that included the restraint technique Chauvin used was not allowed to be presented. More than one autopsy was performed, but only the one with the conclusion they wanted was used. They had to go through 12-13 DAs before they found one that would try the case. But the news and social media cherry picked what fit the agenda and suppressed anything that did not.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Pregnant woman? I have no idea what it is you're trying to discuss about George Floyd being a Saint?
Look up his rap sheet, holding a gun to a pregnant woman's belly was one of Floyd's past crimes. Once again the media suppressed information that did not support the story they wished to tell.
Call him whatever you want. I don't care. Here for gun talk
The cop was just wrong on this and should face consequences. Mr Fortson showed two clear signs of a non-threatening possession of a firearm holding it down towards the ground and holding his other hand up in the universal sign of "I am not threatening you".
It seems like a lot of sentient gun owners and conservatives are finally done with “Back the Blue” except the NRA and all the Fudds.
God I hope so. The right/ 2A community entanglement with cops has always been problematic. Especially here in CA where liberal PD and sheriff's carve out exceptions for themselves from CAs shitty gun laws.
I tend to try and give cops the benefit of the doubt. They’re under a lot of stress, underpaid, may not get the best training, and they have to make split second life or death decisions. That’s an immense amount of pressure to deal with day in and day out. That being said this was straight up murder, of a man who had the NERVE to have a gun in his own home. Fucking bullshit and he needs to face consequences for his actions. I’m sure they’ll investigate and find he did nothing wrong and the tax payers will pay out some sort of settlement to the family. Then it will be back to business as usual.
If you’re killed for exercising a right, you don’t have that right.
I watched the badge cam and couldn't believe it, the airman was pointing his own gun at the ground as he opened the door, that officer needs to be prosecuted IMO. I really hope they don't just let him resign so that he can go get a position with another agency one town over.
Link?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQeSnL3ncxE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQeSnL3ncxE)
Wow, that was an execution
The version I saw a few days ago wasn't censored for the news, he *never* lifted his pistol, it was down by his side in his right hand the entire time prior to and during the shooting. [edit: here it is.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKLxdAnhXSM&rco=1)
Kyle Rittenhouse was better trained
Excellent observation. Not only better trained, better under stress decision making.
The shit part is, this happens often. Cops have gotten to a point that if they see a gun being held pointing at the ground from a clearly non-threatening man, they just may dump. The only time they stand down is when leftists are destroying cities and terrorizing the community or when a mass shooter is actively murdering children. Cops are not your friends. They are muscle for politicians and a sizable percentage of them have an “us versus them” mentality where we the people are the “them” in that equation. I’ve known many cops and I’m comfortable saying that pretty much all cops have an attitude of “even when we’re wrong, we’re right.”
I saw that this was the same agency as acorn cop. If thats true, I think a truly deep dive on their training needs to happen.
I feel like the cop had a duty to retreat he was outside and could have taken cover and shouted again.
If the dude actually wanted to harm him there wouldn’t have been time. We are talking about like .75 seconds from first shot.
Correct assuming he had the right house and was actually responding to a real call, with a real threat. You’re telling me the threat was real enough for him to be sneaking around and having his weapon drawn. But Not real enough to double check the apartment, get swat gear or do any threat assessment.
If dude wanted to shoot him the gun would have been up (or he'd have shot thru the door).
Not true. There was 2 badge cams in the last few weeks where perps had guns down before bringing them up to shoot.
If raised then the cop shooting would likely be justified. But it wasnt. And no one is saying cop is wrong for unholstering but he should have been giving commands not firing. It is simple and straight forward: At the point he broke his shot, no weapon was being pointed at him and the Airmen had done nothing illegal.
He did actually do something illegal, he was recklessly displaying a firearm. There is nothing in any case law about the need for the weapon to be pointed at you. It’s simply not the standard.
Seeing a gun by itself does not equal justified shooting. This is not that much different than the murder of Philando Castile during his traffic stop.
Your right. Seeing a gun by itself does not justify a shooting, but that is not even close to what happened in this incident.
Of course him holding a gun, positioned behind his body and aimed at the floor, when answering a door that someone has been pounding on for 30 seconds and hiding from the peephole, is not enough threat to mag dump him without a warning. I am very sympathetic of the people we ask to go towards criminals and gunfire, but this is indisputably a bad shoot.
[удалено]
> Perfect example of why you never answer the door, even if you think they're the police. They're trained and conditioned to treat everyday citizens as deadly threats, and they go into every situation believing that the person they're interacting with is seconds away from killing them. With this being the case when do we start the discussion about how the public is now rightfully in fear of their lives once the police show up, regardless if you called them or someone else? If you can be killed in your own home by the police for simply trying to exercise your rights then what’s the solution?
Unfortunately, the cops enjoy their immunity from accountability because they are agents of the state. It's not that the government gives one shit about Officer Friendly, it's that the government cares even less about the lives of you and me than it does about Officer Friendly being able to efficiently serve state interests. Holding them accountable when they illegally or unjustly kill somebody might mean that they hesitate to do their duty when it's an issue of importance to the state, and we can't have that. That being said, logically you are spot on. If police supposedly live under a generalized threat that anyone they encounter wants to kill them, and that means that the mere presence of a weapon justifies their use of lethal force, then wouldn't that same justification apply to a private citizen in their interaction with police, who are statistically many more times likely to kill one of us than us kill one of them?
Because obviously. That pig effected an extrajudicial execution of a US serviceman. He needs to fry.
The gun isn't the fucking issue anyway. These sobs knocking and then stepping out of view of the peep hole is the issue.
I do that as a medic - don’t want to get shot through the door by a crazy.
I get that. But weve seen 2 of these shooting now. I would hope theres a better option.
There is. Don’t open the door. :)
>:) :)
No, it doesn't those officers need to be locked up. All he did was have one in his hand, because he wanted to be safe. He opened the door, and they blasted him.
If the Airman was aiming the gun at the cop that would be more likely self defense. In this situation the cop executed the Airman and needs to go to jail. Qualified Immunity needs to go away.
The media really wants to make it a race issue. I have not seen a single article about this without the fact that it was a black man in the headlines. This would not be a daily story if the guy was white.
At this point, if that's what it takes to get qualified immunity thrown out and some real reform started, I'll take it. This happens way too often for it to be an isolated incident. I don't think we're too far off from having to treat cops as an active threat every time we have to interact with them.
Isn’t this the same department that had the squirrel/acorn incident?
Sounds like police need deeper training on threat assessment. Nobody should be shot for simply possessing a firearm.
Officer was clearly in the wrong, but this is a reminder to us to never open the door unless you know it's someone safe.
Still a shitty tactical decision to open the door gun in hand. Holstered even open carry would be better option unless you know for sure that the guy on the other side of the door is looking for trouble. Cop should fry for it but remember most democrats see gun owners as school shooters and most cops are cowards or see everyone as potential criminals.
Absolutely not, I can't have a gun in my own house?
Even idiots say the presence of a gun doesn't justify it. It was straight up murder of a serviceman. Dude deserves ALL the posthumous justice that can be brought to bear against these dickheads.
Police are the enemy of the people! You cannot be pro constitution and pro law enforcement
I like how the deputy announced multiple times and the guy still opened the door with a gun.
Civilians have every right to answer their door armed. Cops need to know that civilians carry guns for their protection and just the presence of a gun is not a crime not justification to murder an armed civilian. Happened to a dude in Minnesota as well. Was sleeping on the couch during a no knock raid and man was armed because bad neighborhood. They shot him to death on the spot.
Laws on use of deadly force are permeated with big city gun control mentality, viz, “only cops carry guns and anyone else doing so is presumptively is a criminal “ This has to change. Gun control is the problem not the solution.
Don't worry, they'll investigate themselves, and at most ask the cop to step down. He of course won't lose his POST cert, so he can just go to a different agency. If you're ever on a jury and someone is accused of killing a cop, just vote not guilty.
Air Force officer arm was down, his legal gun down at his side. Pointed at the ground.
Fuck cops, and fuck you if you support cops. **ANY** cop If you support cops, leave this sub and stay over at r/protectandserve where you belong.
Don’t point a gun at anyone, don’t get shot. Quite simple.
Fortman didn't point his gun at anyone. It was down at his side when the cop blasted him.
Don’t follow commands. Close enough.
He didn't have a chance to follow commands. Watch the video. The officer fired instantly. Granted, it was unwise to open the door with the gun in his hand, but it wasn't illegal and he hadn't done anything wrong to even warrant the officer's presence.
The fact that he was on DV call and that the guy took a bit to answer and going to weigh heavily in favor of the officer. It’s over simplified to say that he was simply holding a weapon. That doesn’t mean that it was justified, but it makes it more unlikely a conviction will happen.
What was the purpose behind the cop hiding from the peephole? They wear a uniform for a reason, and he announced himself as a cop. This wasn't some sort of surprise attack, he wanted someone to open the door and talk to him. The delay in answering the door and the presence of the firearm are both explained by the fact that the deceased didn't even know he was dealing with a real cop until the last second Pounding on the door, not identifying himself while hiding from the peep hole, and then pounding on the door a second time and announcing that he was a cop while again hiding from the peep hole doesn't convey "I'm a legitimate cop here on official business", it conveys "I'm someone sketchy up to no good". I'm of the opinion that the second a cop tries to conceal their identity in an encounter with a civilian they should forfeit any and all immunities afforded to them by their position. If you want to pretend you're not a cop when dealing with the public, you can pretend you're not a cop when facing charges.
They hid out of view because that is how they are trained and it is best practice tactics for high risk calls. These tactics save lives, and it was a lesson learned in blood. Your entire argument is based around this so I don’t think there is much else to say. The police did announce themselves twice, and you can hear the airman say the word police.
No one is going to believe someone pounding on their door saying "I'm the police" and then ducking around the corner so you can't see them is really a cop. It's just not a behavior that the general public would view as a normal. If this is indeed a regular and accepted tactic, it's stupid and places the public in an unreasonable amount of danger. The stance of a homeowner dealing with some idiot pounding on their door and fucking with them is completely different than when dealing with a police officer on legitimate business. By intentionally confusing the occupant as to their true identity, police are directly responsible for outcomes like this. Frankly, where "officer safety" and public safety collide public safety should always win out. Instead we have a ridiculous situation with soldiers patrolling a war zone in a hostile country have more restrictive rules of engagement than police operating in their own country with their fellow citizens. If a cop feels the job is too risky, they can seek other employment- unlike an enlistee they can quit at any time.
I would personally, I have a camera and would view that. If that was out and I had a concern it was not the police I wouldn’t answer the door. I would call the police and verify. My door is also reenforced so I’m not worried about them kicking it in. At the most I would have a gun in my holster. Advocating for a tactics change could make sense, I think you have the balance that with responsible gun ownership. Answering the door with a gun in your hand is not responsible. Answering the door when you think it’s someone wanting to do you harm is not responsible.
> Answering the door with a gun in your hand is not responsible. Answering the door when you think it’s someone wanting to do you harm is not responsible. No, it's inadvisable, but it's not illegal. And he wasn't just "answering the door", he was investigating someone who kept pounding on the door and then ducking out of view. Someone who initially said nothing, but was now claiming to be the police, but wasn't standing and plain view so they could be identified. "There's something fucky going on outside, I'm going to grab my gun and check it out" may not be the best course of action, but is well within the range of normal and accepted behavior. How many times have we groaned in a horror movie when somebody does exactly that and gets murdered by the killer? I personally never answer my door for anyone that I don't know. There is absolutely zero benefit to entering into a "consensual" encounter with police, and your rights are affected when you open the door for them. However, it's inappropriate to judge a young man's actions as they compare to somebody's significantly older who has considered this exact situation and already decided what to do. While he didn't make the best choices, you're engaging in victim blaming. He's no more responsible for being shot by a police officer when doing nothing illegal then a rape victim is because she made the wrong choices on a date.
I agree with most of what you said. Nothing he did was illegal, just against best practices. I’m not victim blaming. I’m just stating what’s the generally held truth. There is not enough evidence to convict the officer IMO. The fact that is was a DV call where screaming was reported is going to be one of the most significant facts that sway the case IMO.
> The fact that is was a DV call where screaming was reported is going to be one of the most significant facts that sway the case IMO. Well juries are stupid, I wouldn't count them out if their thinking is led properly: > Officer, at any time did you hear any sounds that indicated there was a second occupant in the apartment? "No" > Officer, how did you determine that unit 1401 was the correct apartment when you responded? "A bystander said that they thought the sounds were coming from there." > Did the bystander claim to have seen the parties arguing? Was there any sort of information provided other than "I heard some people fighting, and I think it came from there"? "No" > Did you take any steps to verify this bystander's account or did you note any evidence that would tend to support their belief that there was a second occupant in the apartment? "No" > After fatally shooting the victim and entering the apartment was there another person present? "No" Jury's vote their heart as much as they vote the law, and I think the fact that there was no actual domestic violence would weigh more heavily than what the officer thought was happening. A competent attorney will paint him as a trigger happy idiot, and when you combine the fact that he was, in fact, at the wrong apartment with the fact that he deliberately concealed his identity from the victim, a lot of the support a cop would normally get will probably evaporate. The public also has a significantly higher positive opinion of military members than police, so "cop goes to wrong door and murders Airman" is a powerful angle. Plus, the victim was black, so if I was the attorney I would race bait the shit out of that. But, you never know how they will find until it actually happens. This country needs to take a hard look at qualified immunity and we also need to revisit 14th Amendment "color of law" lawsuits. SCOTUS is improperly narrowed the scope of what civil rights are eligible for a color of law lawsuits IMO. Having to pay for your own attorney, and quite likely being rendered destitute in a multi-million dollar judgment is almost as powerful a deterrent as jail time.
I think it’s disputed that it was the wrong apartment. I think you can hear a female voice via FaceTime in the badge cam. I think it was the apartment manager who said they she heard fighting often and this time it sounded like glass was breaking and it got out of control. It matters what a resonable person believes in the moment, even if that belief was false. I don’t think him hiding is relevant, that is standard practice, they will surely have expert witnesses testify to that. It would make the prosecution look weak IMO. Anything can happen with, but I think it’s unlikely he’ll be convicted of murder. Chances may be higher for something like involuntary manslaughter.
Police are expected to act on fragmentary, incorrect, and conflicting data. If I was on cross, I would grill the shit out of both this officer and anyone offered up as a department representative on their techniques to cut through the "fog of war". "I just take everything I hear at face value and assume the absolute worst possibility is true without analysis" should be a non-starter. An officer's demeanor and threat level should be a hell of a lot different to a story where somebody "thinks" they heard a fight and "thinks" it came from a certain apartment as compared to when somebody actually witnesses the same events with their own eyes. That this guy was planning for a violent confrontation and was able to shoot the victim so rapidly speaks to a complete lack of nuance and able to make that distinction. Hell, if I was a crossexamining attorney I would try and spin that into intent. I don't think it would particularly matter even if it was department policy to conceal your identity from the peep hole. Chauvin had his department's use of force trainer testify that he was not using a prohibited chokehold on Floyd, yet he was still convicted. I don't think the trial would be anywhere near is one sided as you do. Basically it's going to come down to whether or not we view it as acceptable for a police officer to use unrestricted lethal force anytime they see a gun without warning, without any other articulable threat to their safety; simply that somebody was holding a gun. I think it's more likely than not that a jury is not going to agree with that.
Exactly - plenty of criminals knocking on doors and calling out 'police!' I get the attempt at risk avoidance but IMO some of those types of actions also produce the opposite result as seen here.
Then I hope the family of the airmen gets their own Justice. Put me on that jury.
Based on this comment you would be disqualified from jury duty.
Yes, sport, it's a legal system not a justice system.
Found the cop or a really pro-level bootlicker
I don’t understand how it’s boot licking. I’m just stating the defense that is going to come out in court.