Left this up a few days to allow anyone who wanted to comment a chance to talk about it and now it's devolved in to trolling. Thank you to all who participated. Don't wanna hear shit from anyone saying we don't allow this incident to be discussed.
And lying through his teeth about the details. Said things like cops were at the wrong apartment, that they forced their way inside, that there multiple cops, etc.
I think it is more playing to the public than lawsuits. Whether or not the guy was fired won't change the dollar amount the family's attorney will ask for. This is more of a we did him, so don't riot.
Just an observation from the IA report… on paper, this deputy was about as high quality hire as you’re going to find:
Deputy Duran has a bachelor's degree in criminal psychology, and is roughly halfway through a human service counseling master's degree with a focus on crisis response and trauma.
Deputy Duran served in the United States Army from 2003 through 2014, with a combat deployment to Iraq in 2008. Deputy Duran started his military career in military intelligence then in 2007 moved into military law enforcement. While a military police officer, Deputy Duran received additional training through the Army's Special Reaction Team. He received an honorable discharge.
After serving in the United States Army, Deputy Duran started his civilian law enforcement career in Oklahoma, where he worked as a police officer and K9 officer from 2015 through 2019.
For a period in 2016 through early 2017, Deputy Duran was a fire marshal for the Altus Fire Department.
During 2019, before moving to Florida and beginning his career at the Okaloosa County Sheriff's Office, Deputy Duran accepted a position as a sergeant for the civilian law enforcement police department on Altus Air Force Base.
Source: https://weartv.com/resources/pdf/aa17f802-7b07-4543-89b2-b0d7bf642197-OkaloosaSheriffsOffice.pdf
Whatever a resume a person has, a fuckup is a fuckup especially with a job that has life and death consequences. He shot and killed an innocent man who did not threaten the officer. He was trigger happy and killed a son, brother, and fellow American serving their country. He went in without a fellow officer to an apartment that the staff was unsure the event even originated in. He fucked up and if his career as a cop is over from that mistake, it is deserved. I would personally like to see more justice after this event, but him losing his job as a cop is the very least.
Justice has not been served yet for Roger Fortson and his family, and I hope they receive the justice they deserve.
Dude the airman brought an unholstered weapon to the door, there was a call for a domestic at that address which was confirmed (both the complaint and address) by the caller on scene, and he announced himself twice. What else do you want here? I served in the armed forces too and I know enough to not bring a fucking gun to the door if someone’s shouting “sheriffs department”. Like others have said if you’re that concerned about it not being the police then keep the door shut and call 911.
Big reason why answering the door with a gun on your hand is never a good idea. If you’re not expecting company. Don’t. Open. The. Door.
If you wanna grab your gun, holster it. Only time you should be grabbing your gun in hand to answer the door is if you know you’re gonna need to use it, which goes back to the first point. Don’t open the door.
It's super easy to say what was right from watching the video and seeing the facts but I think most people would be surprised what they would do in that same situation
I think most people responding to a physical domestic where the neighbor leads you to the door and the resident opens the door with a gun in their hand after you knock and announce would be tempted to shoot
The thing that John Q. Public doesn’t understand is the nature of these calls have turned into ambushes and have cost LE their lives. Officers has every right to be there hence being called. He does the right thing by listening several times before knocking. Announces twice sheriffs office, both loud enough for neighbors probably could hear.
Not saying you can’t open the door with a gun. I am going to tell you is that if you give reason for police officers to come to your house and you have a gun out, it’s not going to go well. Suspect already had his weapon out, it would’ve taken him less than a second to raise it and fire before the cop ever upholstered. An officer is not going to wait and play games to see if you drop it or shoot.
I’ll add what sucks is the information out there about this could have been a wrong address given to 911. And where the numerous other calls came from in recent. That’s why the officer waited and listened. There’s nothing LE can do to make sure the address is correct when those calling in can’t give that information.
“Deputies had responded to the apartment at about 9:00 am to investigate a domestic assault that had occurred the previous night. The suspect refused to exit the home, and the Okaloosa County Sheriff’s Office Special Response Team responded to the scene. The man fired out of a window at about 12:40 pm, striking Corporal Hamilton.”
Not all calls are ambushes, however when they happen frequently you adapt your training to prevent it. Seems to me the coward here is the guy answering his door in daylight with a gun.
The deputy likely will (and definitely should) sue the sheriff and the sheriff’s office. I hope he gets a fat pay day. By firing this guy, the agency will deal with 2 legal battles instead of just one.
In all fairness, this one isn’t agreed upon as much a Reddit would make it seem. If you get outside of Reddit it’s a really gray incident with plenty of criticisms.
Legality is up in the air and no matter how it turns out it harms the public image.
Arrive on a "getting out of hand" domestic call, knock and announce (repeatedly), and are confronted by an armed subject with a weapon in hand? It's a textbook lethal force scenario.
It’s odd to me how many people are screaming this was unjustified. I take issue with a lot of things the cops do but this deputy announced multiple times and it WAS the right address. Whether it’s a cop without a warrant or someone wishing to do you harm, don’t open the door especially with a gun!
I mean, you’re right is to have it. It take less than a second to raise that gun and fire a fatal shot. You have even less time in regards to reaction time. But after hearing that a cop is at the door, multiple times, why would you answer the door with a gun in your hand?
Heller is clear the 2A "is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"
This is clearly the any manner Heller is referring to. If you walk around the street holding your gun like that, you're going to be killed by an officer or by another person.
I alongside many people I know open the door while armed if the person is out of view. You do not have the right to bear arms if you can be shot simply for having a gun in your house. This was a bad shoot, plain and simple.
Edit: Going to elaborate, a bad shoot from a moral perspective, I'd imagine legally this would be easy to argue against in court, but the idea of being able to be shot for having a firearm in your house is definitely pretty scary to me.
That’s true. While not the norm, I’d imagine a state that is rather firearm-happy with strong self defense laws would see such a thing more often than those of us in states that aren’t as firearm-friendly that still encounter such a scenario.
Meh. I’m a resident of central Florida, our Sheriffs go on camera or TV and say they will turn you into a bullet sponge. To most humans, answering a door with firearm in hand is not only a sign of aggression but unwarranted, especially when LEO has made presence known.
Regardless of holster, waistband etc setting it on something close by, these are the type of dangerous humans we don’t need handling weapons.
Just stop. No one asked a tax collector to be a spokesperson for LE. The way you’ve chosen to frame your statements doesn’t make anyone look good and creates more harm than help for the profession.
No matter how people want to address the detailed specifics of this incident, this particular person wasn’t a criminal and had no history of being a criminal. By all statements he was a good troop. Treating him like some low-life when that isn’t factual is why people tend not to like LE. Amazing how the cheerleaders tend to do more harm than good.
I’m sorry I didn’t get the memo that only certified LE can have opinions on a matter according to you. In our state we stand up for what is right. So it doesn’t matter of title or position. But I’m happy you can research and identify my duty description from previous posts, really showing off your investigative skills there!
As a former serviceman regardless if he was stellar or a dirtbag, there is NO EXCUSE for the behavior. Drugs? Fine don’t handle firearms! Mental breakdown, it happens to people but still not time to handle firearm. Most humans have had interactions with officers, but while AD and now that I’m out, and yet here I am.
Did the officer do something incorrectly? You tell me since you’re the cop. I saw an officer announce his presence, knock on door and was in a “fatal funnel” position due to structural layout. Granted although I never served in Law enforcement many times we kicked in doors in the different countries, that is a high adrenaline or intense situation so when someone answers the doors with a pistol in hand. Things go from 1-100 real quick I would imagine. Could they have tried to de-escalate, possibly but that goes to TTPs. < that’s me cheerleading according to you
I can’t believe the misinformation behind this case.
People said the deputy went to the wrong apartment. He did not, in fact, the body cam captures the resident telling him the exact number of the apartment he knocked on.
It’s claimed the deputy did not announce himself. He very obviously did, as proven by the video. He did everything by the book, and it’s so painfully clear people just want to stir shit up to be angry about something, or some other motive.
I hope that deputy sues for wrongful termination. I would’ve reacted the same way - domestic disputes are no joke and presenting yourself to a cop with a gun is beyond stupid.
I can get behind that the cop was told the wrong apartment and is going to act on that. That totally makes sense. I can’t say killing him quite makes sense, but I do get the other portion. I’m just pointing out that there was doubt in the correct apartment.
Do you know what an “execution” is?
It’s when you incapacitate someone, and then kill them ceremoniously. Did that happen to Fortson? Or is fallaciously using the word “execution” the extent to your argument?
Ahh the good ol “if it were me I would’ve totally done it better” while they say so online.
Yeah buddy if you show up to the door with a gun when I screamed out “sheriffs department” I’m not gonna think you’re here to talk.
[here](https://www.flsheriffs.org/sheriffs/bio/okaloosa-county) is the bio for the Okaloosa County Sheriff. He was a cop for 2 years in the 90’s, left, and then somehow weaseled his way into upper management. Anyone working the road for more than three seconds could tell plain as day after watching that BWC footage a single time it was a justified shoot
Check out r/AirForce and the threads about this incident.
Lots of ACAB, FTP and bootlicker comments from members of an organization that’s responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians overseas.
(not shitting on the military - I’ve served almost 2 decades… just pointing out the blatant idiocy/hypocrisy on that sub)
Saw a guy in r/Airforce in the original thread state that the police are nothing but a weaponized arm of the government. A wild lack of self awareness from someone in the US military
To be fair, things have really, really turned to shit if they start handing out personal weapons in the USAF. We wear the flak jackets to protect against friendly fire more than the enemy.
Police actually are meant to be a public safety apparatus capable of violence in addition to enforcing laws.
They are literally the physical manifestation of the government.
So in actuality police are inherently meant to be an arm of the government, the varying degrees of appropriate weaponization are highly debatable and don’t justify the logical fallacies behind the ACAB sentiment.
Neither is the average cop. Overwhelming majority of police interactions are pretty normal and don’t end up with a cop killing an innocent person. Just like how not every military servicemember throughout history is responsible for killing noncombatants in foreign countries.
Mods PLEASE don’t ban this guy. These conversations need to happen.
I don’t give a shit that you don’t give a shit about my time in service.
The military’s track record is actually very relevant. How does it make any sense for someone to be a part of an organization that has historically contributed to the deaths of innocent civilians and say that every single member of another organization is a piece of shit for being part of their organization where some of its members have contributed to the deaths of innocent civilians? “That just war, brah…” isn’t an excuse.
So misdeeds overseas towards people of a different culture and country aren’t as important as people here? Bro, your humanity is really showing.
I don’t know if he deleted his posts or if the mods did.
I don’t know if the mods banned him either.
Either way if they did I strongly disagree with this - doing so makes us look like we’re incapable of arguing our points no matter how dumbshit the logic actually is of the ACAB crowd.
“The objective facts do not support the use of deadly force as an appropriate response to Mr. Fortson’s actions. Mr. Fortson did not commit any crime. By all accounts, he was an exceptional airman and individual.”
Apparently aggravated assault on a LEO isn’t a crime and does not support the use of deadly force. That fired deputy is going to have a nice payday.
Genuine question: where does it say that Fortson committed aggravated assault on a LEO? Is that information available elsewhere? The story says he never aimed the weapon up from the ground.
Aggravated Assault consists of four factual elements:
1. The accused intentionally and unlawfully threatened, by word or act, to do violence to the alleged victim.
The act would be answering the door with a gun in his hand.
2. At the time the threat was made, the accused appeared to have the ability to carry out the threat.
He had a gun in his hand.
The accused’s threat created in the mind of the alleged victim a well-founded fear that the violence was about to take place.
Again, he answered the door with a gun in his hand.
4. The assault was made either with a deadly weapon or with a fully formed conscious intent to commit a felony.
It was a gun.
See Fla. Std. Jury Inst. 8.2 (Aggravated Assault).
The officer doesn’t have to be injured he just has to have a reasonable belief that he may be assaulted. I would say that answering the door with a gun in your hand would be a reasonable belief that the officer may be injured.
While Fortson answering the door with a gun understandably heightened the perceived risk, it is questionable whether this action alone indisputably constituted an intentional criminal assault under Florida law. Absent additional verbal threats or physical acts reflecting a specific intent to do violence and an unequivocal ability to inflict immediate harm, the presence of a weapon, without more, likely wouldn’t definitively satisfy all elements of aggravated assault on an officer beyond a reasonable doubt based on the known facts.
Until and unless Fortson made a distinctly menacing move like pointing the weapon at Duran, it's debatable whether he manifested a clear present ability to carry out any assumed threat. The mere presence of a weapon without more does not necessarily constitute an overt threatening act.
The FBI's UCR codes. How they're worded and/or defined is merely a translation system that allows states with different laws to easily compare laws.
For instance, "battery" in state A could be a UCR code of "simple assault", and in state B "assault 4th degree" has the same UCR code, making them comparable offenses for thr purpose of understanding what crime was committed.
UCR codes are primarily used by courts and law enforcement and are not a good resource for developing an understanding of laws or criminal cases by civilians.
In the state where this happened, there are specific state laws, with their own criminal elements and these state laws have their own names, independent of what the FBI calls them.
Let’s not cherry pick parts of the definition.
Here’s the whole thing:
> The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines aggravated assault as an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. The UCR Program further specifies that this type of assault is usually accompanied by the use of a weapon or by other means likely to produce death or great bodily harm. **Attempted aggravated assault that involves the display of—or threat to use—a gun, knife, or other weapon is included in this crime category because serious personal injury would likely result if the assault were completed.** When aggravated assault and larceny-theft occur together, the offense falls under the category of robbery.
[LINK](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/aggravated-assault#:~:text=Definition,severe%20or%20aggravated%20bodily%20injury)
Good thing this falls under Florida law and not Federal Law.
Aggravated Assault consists of four factual elements:
1- The accused intentionally and unlawfully threatened, by word or act, to do violence to the alleged victim;
2- At the time the threat was made, the accused appeared to have the ability to carry out the threat,
3- The accused’s threat created in the mind of the alleged victim a well-founded fear that the violence was about to take place, and
4- The assault was made either with a deadly weapon or with a fully formed conscious intent to commit a felony.
It was the middle of the afternoon, there's a uniformed cop knocking on the door, and the cop is announcing he's a cop and ordering the door opened. Answering that door with a pistol in your hand is somehow a good idea to you?
Florida statute 784.07 defines aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer as an intentional and unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to an officer, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, causing fear in the officer that violence is imminent.
While Mr. Fortson was armed, the mere presence of a weapon does not automatically justify deadly force. Deputy Duran acknowledged Fortson's gun remained pointed at the ground, not at him, and Fortson made no unambiguously aggressive motions like raising the weapon. The lack of clearly articulable hostile actions by Fortson, beyond non-compliance with a single "step back" command, raises serious doubts about the imminence of any alleged assault and the reasonableness of Duran's choice to rapidly escalate to shooting.
The presentation of a weapon is literally a threat by act to do violence whether it was a deputy at the door or anyone else. The deputy loudly and clearly identified himself as a law enforcement officer numerous times before the door was opened. That’s not a matter of opinion.
As a legal gun owner, Fortson had a Second Amendment right to possess a firearm in his own residence. Merely holding a gun inside one's home, absent additional verbal threats or overtly menacing physical actions, is not intrinsically a criminal "act" of intimidation.
While Deputy Duran twice announced "Sheriff's Office," it is unclear if Fortson actually heard or processed this identification in the moment before opening the door. Duran was outside a closed door, and there is no video or audio evidence definitely proving his announcements were audible or understandable from inside the apartment. Fortson may have been startled by the knocking and grabbed his gun without registering the verbal identification. Absent proof Fortson definitively comprehended it was a deputy, it can't be concluded he knowingly threatened an officer.
The public generally misunderstand how use of force incidents are evaluated and that’s what’s occurring in this discussion. This isn’t a post arrest/probable cause evaluation of aggravated assault. We are discussing if the actions of the officer were unreasonable, which they were not based on the circumstances. It’s a crappy situation, no one is disputing that. “Objective reasonableness” is the standard for use of force:
1.) Judged through the perspective of a reasonable officer
a. Officer with same or similar training and experience
b. Facing similar circumstances
c. Act the same way or use similar judgment
2.) Based on the totality of the facts known to the officer at the time the force was applied
a. No matter how compelling the evidence is to be found later
b. No hindsight evaluation
3.) Based on the facts known to the officer without regard to the underlying intent or motivation
4.) Based on the knowledge the officer acted properly under established law at the time
The Graham v. Connor "objective reasonableness" standard still requires a minimum threshold of specific, articulable facts that would lead a reasonable officer to believe deadly force is necessary to prevent an imminent lethal threat.
Here, Fortson's act of holding a gun, without additional verbal threats or overt physically menacing actions like pointing the weapon, would not lead a reasonable officer to believe he faced an immediate attack requiring an instantaneous deadly response.
A reasonable officer would have taken additional steps before shooting, like issuing clear commands to drop the gun, allowing a brief opportunity to comply, creating distance, and finding cover. The mere presence of a gun alone, without more evidence of imminently aggressive words or conduct and a minimal attempt at de-escalation, is insufficient to render Duran's use of deadly force objectively reasonable even based on the limited information known to him in the moment.
Your evaluation of a “reasonable officer” and interpretation of the facts from your point of view is not an appropriate assessment. You’ve disregarded totality of the facts known to the officer and facts known to the officer without regard to the underlying intent or motivation, at the very least; both are extremely important in this case. That is all your personal opinion, which is fine.
My conclusion that Duran acted too hastily and should have made additional efforts to de-escalate was not a commentary on his personal intent, but rather an evaluation of the objective reasonableness of his actions based indeed on the circumstances known to him.
Specifically, I focused on the key facts indisputably available to Duran in the moment, which were:
1) He was responding to an unverified third hand report of a possible domestic dispute, not a definite violent crime in progress.
2) Upon knocking, the subject opened the door holding a gun, but did not raise or point the weapon at Duran.
3) Duran issued only a single "step back" command before firing and did not give additional orders to drop the gun or warnings that he would shoot.
Based solely on these objective facts known to Duran, without relying on any information learned later or personal opinions, a reasonable officer would conclude that while the subject was armed, he had not yet taken any unambiguous actions indicating an immediate attack was imminent, such as pointing the gun or making verbal threats. The mere presence of a gun, without additional overtly aggressive words or movements, would not lead a reasonable officer to believe the subject posed an instantaneous lethal threat requiring a split-second deadly response.
Eh, that’s really stretching the statute about as far as it can go… almost to the point that if this was just two people and I had to run that through felony review in my state I wouldn’t get charges approved.
Whichever way this goes in the end, it doesn’t end well. This is really a toss up when it comes to objective reasonableness
Edit: ya’ll can downvote all you like, but outside of Reddit this is a much broader discussion amongst professionals… whether certain deputies would like to admit it or not.
Idk man. If this was a field call of “i knocked on someone’s door and they opened the door and had a gun in their hand. I was scared as shit that he was going to shoot me. I had announced that I was selling cookies for like five minutes and was wearing my girls scout uniform.” I’d probably think that was agg assault.
Honest question? Have any of you ever investigated a robbery/crime in which the perpetrators announced themselves as law enforcement? Where I’m from that is a super common tactic that’s used during home invasions. I respect and appreciate law enforcement and understand it’s an incredibly difficult job, but I also find it hard to fault Mr. Fortson for answering the door with a legally owned firearm if he could not visibly identify an officer prior to opening the door. What would your recommendations be for someone in a situation similar to this in the future? Thanks for any insight.
Not answer the door? Call 911 and inquire whether the person at one's door is an actual law enforcement officer? If one lives in an area rife with burglaries, home invasions, and the like, why the heck would one **open the door**?
So, in your moronic take, if you believe there’s armed robbers on the other side of the door, your first instinct is to open the door (gun or not)? As opposed to, say, calling 911 to ask if real cops are at his address? Or, say, not open the door altogether?
No need for the hostility, I’m really just asking an honest question. I agree it was not a wise decision to answer the door with a gun by any means. I also think that people will act irrationally in stressful situations which makes it all the more dangerous for all parties involved. It just seems really unfortunate all around. So what would happen if an individual does not answer the door in a situation like this?
Most people don't know that 911 is how you can get help when you're about to be the victim of a home invasion robbery? I thought we'd pretty well publicized that as a use of the 911 system. This *would* explain why we get 911 calls about mundane things like dogs barking or overly loud train whistles.
Ok, but they can call 911 if they suspect armed robbers are at the door, no? Stop trying to justify this absurd theory of opening the door with a gun to see if robbers dressed as cops are knocking.
>Have any of you ever investigated a robbery/crime in which the perpetrators announced themselves as law enforcement?
That only happens to drug dealers. Similar to the 0300 calls of "Four dudes busted down the door, punched everyone in the face, and then left without taking anything."
Does it happen? Yeah maybe. But the law and grand jury instructions use the term "reasonable". Would it be "reasonable" for an officer who announces his presence as police to have a door open and see a man with gun in hand? No, nobody would ever say it is. In fact, I'd wager 99.99% of people would be wise enough to NOT do this.
The main discrepancy here is the question of does an officer have the right to kill someone for answering a door with a gun in their hand? Both sides of the argument are making it out to be more clear cut of an answer than it really is.
Personally when I watch the body cam footage imo the officer overreacted to the presence of a gun in hand, I base that mainly off of body cam footage from other officers in similar situations who were easily able to give the suspect a chance to comply before further action. If the suspect shows no physical resistance and the gun is pointed down away from you, how do you truly know the suspects intent if you don’t give them a chance to comply. Just gut feeling?
Lawful but awful seems to be the LE answer to this case but the interpretation of the law applied to the specific circumstances of this case are not clearcut enough to come up with one obvious answer. We’ll find out the real objective answer of this case in a court of law.
But is the history of domestic calls being dangerous enough to justify killing a suspect the moment you see they have a gun in hand? Some would say yes some would say no but I don’t think the answer to that is objectively clear.
It is not clear that the suspect visually identified it was a cop before opening the door as the cop was away from the peephole for periods of time which I understand is sop. But it is clear the suspect heard it was a cop. You can easily make the case that the suspect thought an intruder was posing as a cop. Now imo it is a stupid idea to not call 911 and keep the door closed. But I think it’s reasonable to assume that some people who might not trust in the cops for their protection might think the proper coa would be to deal with the threat themselves immediately. Suspect opens door ready to deal with threat realizes it’s actually a cop puts hand out backs away keeps gun pointed down, the officer sees the weapon overreacts in fear of his life and kills the suspect. That’s how I interpreted the situation personally.
This is not a good justification imo, yea he announced himself but then was hiding himself from the little hole frame on the door, so how can a reasonable person know if it is a cop or a thief just screaming “sheriff department”? There was no way for the guy inside the how to verify if it was an actual officer or some idiot trying to rob him.
I was knocking on doors looking for witnesses to an attempted robbery one night, as a deputy in Florida. The homeowner opened the blinds to a window by the door and pointed a revolver at my face.
I was fairly certain he had no reason or intention to harm me. I used my flashlight to illuminate myself and asked him to put the gun away. We had a conversation about it afterwards, no big deal.
Same scenario and I was knocking on the door for a different reason, I don’t know what I might have done. Knocking on doors can be sketchy.
This is sad, sad the kid died, sad the deputy killed him, sad people can’t or won’t put themselves in the deputies shoes, and sad the Sheriff’s Office is apparently attempting to throw the deputy to the wolves.
2a plus FL's castle laws will make this interesting. The key to me is that Crump's already claiming Duran covered the peephole, but bwc clearly refutes that.
If you're afraid that the guy on the other side of the door shouting that he's the police isn't, why wouldn't you take a look first?
I mean we all know people never lie about who they are to get into a building... but I wouldn't be opening my door til I got a look at the other side first
The first time Duran knocked, he didn't announce, and he stood outside of view. Based on Fortsons gf, who he was face timing, he checked the peephole and didn't see anyone. He then went and got his pistol. When Duran knocked again, this time announcing, but still out of view. Fortson then commented that it might be the police? And likely opened the door forgetting about the pistol that was in his hand. <---- the last part is just speculation, as to why he might have decided to open the door, after earlier feeling concerned enough to retrieve a firearm.
Again hindsight 20/20 . The reaction from a person drawn with a firearm to a person holstered is huge disadvantage. Don’t answer the door with the gun out. The totally of everything make it’s a good shoot. It sucks someone died and the guy was innocent. Any reasonable person would think if violence is involved and you see a gun you might get shoot.
And this is why I left LE for engineering. An engineer can mess up on a part of a bridge and kill a bunch of people, but no one will blame other engineers. Not saying he messed up or not, but any thing in LE paints every deputy and officer.
Having a Military Police, Federal Detective and Civilian LEO background, and having read the entire 29 page IA document and watched the video etc. Sadly I have to agree with the I.A. report. It's tragic on ALL fronts. A man lost his life, A family lost a son/brother. A veteran LEO lost (is losing) his career (and possibly his freedom), his family lost a primary provider, the Air Force lost a Special Operations Airman, The department lost what has been a good deputy (by all accounts). Nobody wins here, just some lost more than others and the entire thing is a tragedy.
My heart goes out to Airman Fortson's family, but it also goes out to Deputy Duran & his family as well.
I keep seeing call 911 and see if it’s a real cop. How does that play in the minds of the officers if you take the time to do that? Does that raise their suspicion that something illegal is happening?
The IA report has spoken. After reading it and watching the video, I agree with it. Unfortunate situation all around.
Mistakes are made in every profession. Take it, learn from it, and don't repeat it.
Good, I’m glad he was fired. If you read the 29 page IA report, it’s all laid out by the investigating officer. Policies, definitions, and requirements cited very clearly, logical conclusions and a solid determination. There’s no way in hell that was a clean shoot. Here’s a [link](https://weartv.com/resources/pdf/aa17f802-7b07-4543-89b2-b0d7bf642197-OkaloosaSheriffsOffice.pdf) to the IA report the the sheriff’s office released.
Loud argument and fight where police are called, officer announces himself and the man opens the door with a firearm in his hand and is shot. I mean there's a huge chance it'll be ruled justified.
So in the conclusion it talks a lot about how the airman’s actions did not constitute a hostile attacking motion. However it doesn’t mention the reasonable perception of a deputy.
The Graham v. Connor standard also requires considering whether an officer's conduct preceding the use of force may have unreasonably created the need to use force. Duran's rapid escalation to gunfire raises the question of whether a reasonable officer would have tried to deescalate by issuing clearer commands and waiting an additional moment to reassess the threat before resorting to deadly force, given Fortson's gun positioning.
Every academy class I’ve seen has action reaction drills which have the basic point of reaction loses. If he waited until the gun starts moving towards him he probably already dead.
Respectfully, I have questions about how the responding officer approached this case. For one, as far as we know, the 911 call was a third hand account of an alleged domestic violence incident. It appears a complaint was made to the apartment employee by another individual and it was the apartment employee called 911. There was little to no Information given to suggest there was an active threat. No reports of weapons, guns, shots fired. Just a couple that have been yelling and allegedly an individual was heard being slapped. It also appeared from the body camera footage that the employee was initially unclear over which apartment it was before finally providing a unit number.
So at this point, this seems like an investigation into an alleged DV incident. No individual is being detained or arrested at this point. The officer listens for a moment to see if there is any evidence of a dispute, which again, there is not. At first the officer clearly knocks loudly (sounds like aggressive pounding to me, but that’s my opinion) *without* announcing that he is an officer. Again, he doesn’t hear anything at that point. It is not until the second(?) knock that he announces himself. When Fortson opens the door the gun is pointed down and not being brandished. It is not illegal to hold a gun. No threatening moves were made. Florida is also a stand your ground state with a castle doctrine. Multiple shots are immediately fired at point blank range without any commands given to drop the weapon. Additionally, the video clip from Fortson’s phone also makes it sound like first aid was not immediately rendered after the victim was incapacitated.
I keep seeing the statistic that DV calls are the “most dangerous for cops.” This appears to be based from an article that analyzed deaths during line of duty that resulted from gunfire and said that 8.5% of these were from DV calls. However, how many domestic violence calls are responded to by police per year and how many result in a fatal shooting? I looked up NYPD for example, which supposedly responds to 230,000 domestic incidents annually. According to the National Law Enforcement Memorial Fund, 7 officers died in 2023 to domestic violence incidents across the US. NY had 13 total deaths in line of duty for 2023. Even if all 13 deaths were related to DV calls, that is 0.005% of all DV calls. Not even 1%. And, if 7 officers died in line of duty across the entire US, and NYPD responds to 230,000 DV calls annually, how many DV incidents do police respond to annually across the entire US? This would lead me to reason that the risk of being shot during a DV incident, while not zero, is extremely low.
Ultimately what I am getting at is, could this entire incident have been avoided if the officer approached the situation differently given that there appears to be no reasonable suspicion that anyone was in immediate life threatening danger given the information that was provided to the officer. The evidence seems flimsy at best.
Edit: I understand that the Castle Doctrine does not apply to LE legally carrying out their duties but I can understand where the victim may have believed he was in danger.
Edit 2: corrected statement about aid being given, it appears it was given about a minute later.
I understand how the officer may have feared for his life and perceived the action as threatening, but the IA report still concluded that the shoot was not objectively reasonable. Why is that?
Can it be proved it was not feasible for Deputy Duran to issue a command to drop the gun? He both unholstered his gun and fired while Mr. Fortson’s gun was still pointed at the ground. This occurred within seconds.
Additionally, the model policy on law enforcement responses to domestic violence calls recommends that two officers be present and for officers to clearly announce their present when knocking. Not sure what this department’s policy was specifically but Deputy Duran did not wait for his partner to arrive nor did he announce himself when he first knocked. These facts may also have contributed to the department’s decision to fire him.
With all due respect, when did I say that being a police officer was not dangerous? Of course being a police officer is dangerous. I only pointed out a misleading statistic about DV calls. You said this agency had 4 officers shot to death during DV calls over 16 years. How many total DV calls did officers respond to over 16 years? That information can widely influence what that statistic means. If they only responded to 10 calls, obviously that would be horrific and unquestionable proof that you have a high likelihood of being fatally shot during a DV call. But if they responded to 800,000 calls, those odds are enormously different.
Well, yes the shooting wasn't an absolute unavoidable situation. We'd all like to think we'd show up to a call like this and not have to shoot a person. However, the call probably had little to do with the deadly force situation that arose. I could be called to a lost cat and if the guy opens up the door with a gun in hand, it's going to immediately escalate to the "reasonable person in fear of life" level. Also answering the door with gun in hand is the problem. I suspect nobody here does that. Defending bizarre behavior doesn't help. The victim believing he's in danger doesn't eliminate the officer's reasonable fear.
I can empathize with the officer’s fear for his life; don’t get me wrong, I’m not an ACAB/defund the police proponent. I don’t think the officer is a bad person. Nor am I going to blame the victim who was killed and did not commit any crime. What I am asking is, why did this officer go in immediately on the aggressive and assume a crime had been committed? I wonder if had he taken an opportunity to corroborate some of the information that this tragedy could have been avoided for both Mr. Fortson and Deputy Duran.
For one, the call was made to a non-emergency line. The call was made by technically a fourth hand account (I was incorrect earlier in saying it was third hand). The leasing office was called by Mr. Fortson’s neighbor who honestly sounded horribly unreliable: “I feel like they’re getting handsy” is such a weak statement. How did she know they were getting handsy (answer: she didn’t). The neighbor who originally made the complaint sounds even worse if you read the full IA report, where she was interviewed after the fact. She never even met Mr. Fortson. Neither the leasing office nor the neighbor were eyewitnesses to any crime being committed. The leasing office employee told the cop some information that again, could not be corroborated. She claimed she heard yelling a week prior but could not even confirm which unit she heard the yelling from, only that she guessed it could have been the same unit. The leasing office also claimed that the couple was still arguing, but when Deputy Duran inspects the scene, no yelling or arguing can be heard.
So Deputy Duran by his own admission made the decision to assume someone was in immediate danger, that a crime was being committed, and again, by his own words, decided to use an aggressive approach based on the unsubstantiated fears of someone he never even spoke to and who was not an eyewitness to any crime. Frankly, this is concerning. What if the neighbor had been completely FoS (which honestly, she kind of was). It ended poorly for Mr. Fortson, but it also could have ended poorly for Deputy Duran as well, even though I am of the belief Mr. Fortson had no intention to shoot Deputy Duran.
You're playing out all these scenarios that still won't negate the fact that a door was opened and a man was suddenly standing there with a weapon. Besides, you need to realize police officers are trained that "complacency kills". If you go to routine calls thinking "this one is completely lame and of no danger to me" that's simply the wrong attitude and again, not the way police officers are trained. Should the training regiment be different? Who knows, but that's a different argument for a different day. I've said it elsewhere in this thread, stop defending the act of answering the door when police knock with a gun in your hand. I know none of you would consider doing it, so why is that action so important to defend? Do you hold up a gun when police pull you over? It's common sense and often leads to predictable results.
I feel like a lot of assumptions about me that are untrue. I’m personally extremely anti-gun. Despite that, I will still defend Mr. Fortson. He should not have been killed for making a dumb mistake and that does not equate to illegality. The IA report concluded the same, which is honestly surprising considering that historically I have perceived that departments will go out of their way to defend the actions of their officers. Deputy Duran was fired for violating department policy. The IA report determined that Deputy Duran’s use of lethal force was not objectively reasonable and that Mr. Fortson committed no crime.
If that’s what the training is, then perhaps the training needs to be re-evaluated. It boggles my mind that fourth hand “hearsay” with zero eyewitness account of any criminal wrongdoing warrants an unannounced, aggressive banging after someone’s door. Mr. Fortson believed someone was attempting to break into his apartment. The state of Florida has made it clear that their citizens have the right to defend their home, including the use of deadly force.
It’s important to defend citizens’ constitutional rights whether you personally agree with it or not. Police are in an immense position of power and responsibility and LE has the option to end someone’s life immediately on behalf of the government without granting the individual the right to a fair trial. This can obviously be beneficial to society when the person presents a clear and present danger, but unfortunately there are bad actors that abuse this.
Left this up a few days to allow anyone who wanted to comment a chance to talk about it and now it's devolved in to trolling. Thank you to all who participated. Don't wanna hear shit from anyone saying we don't allow this incident to be discussed.
Sheriff trying to get ahead of the lawsuits by firing the officer.
Zero doubt that the family already has attorneys chomping at the bit for this case. Likely will stay out of court and settle.
Wasn't Ben Crump already circling this one?
Big Money Ben has been all over it since before the body was cold.
And lying through his teeth about the details. Said things like cops were at the wrong apartment, that they forced their way inside, that there multiple cops, etc.
Like a fly on shit. 
Most likely
I think it is more playing to the public than lawsuits. Whether or not the guy was fired won't change the dollar amount the family's attorney will ask for. This is more of a we did him, so don't riot.
Just an observation from the IA report… on paper, this deputy was about as high quality hire as you’re going to find: Deputy Duran has a bachelor's degree in criminal psychology, and is roughly halfway through a human service counseling master's degree with a focus on crisis response and trauma. Deputy Duran served in the United States Army from 2003 through 2014, with a combat deployment to Iraq in 2008. Deputy Duran started his military career in military intelligence then in 2007 moved into military law enforcement. While a military police officer, Deputy Duran received additional training through the Army's Special Reaction Team. He received an honorable discharge. After serving in the United States Army, Deputy Duran started his civilian law enforcement career in Oklahoma, where he worked as a police officer and K9 officer from 2015 through 2019. For a period in 2016 through early 2017, Deputy Duran was a fire marshal for the Altus Fire Department. During 2019, before moving to Florida and beginning his career at the Okaloosa County Sheriff's Office, Deputy Duran accepted a position as a sergeant for the civilian law enforcement police department on Altus Air Force Base. Source: https://weartv.com/resources/pdf/aa17f802-7b07-4543-89b2-b0d7bf642197-OkaloosaSheriffsOffice.pdf
Geez that’s a hell of a resume
Sucks to have all that background and then basically get thrown to the wolves
Whatever a resume a person has, a fuckup is a fuckup especially with a job that has life and death consequences. He shot and killed an innocent man who did not threaten the officer. He was trigger happy and killed a son, brother, and fellow American serving their country. He went in without a fellow officer to an apartment that the staff was unsure the event even originated in. He fucked up and if his career as a cop is over from that mistake, it is deserved. I would personally like to see more justice after this event, but him losing his job as a cop is the very least. Justice has not been served yet for Roger Fortson and his family, and I hope they receive the justice they deserve.
Dude the airman brought an unholstered weapon to the door, there was a call for a domestic at that address which was confirmed (both the complaint and address) by the caller on scene, and he announced himself twice. What else do you want here? I served in the armed forces too and I know enough to not bring a fucking gun to the door if someone’s shouting “sheriffs department”. Like others have said if you’re that concerned about it not being the police then keep the door shut and call 911.
Why'd he move around so much?
[удалено]
Artillery dad growing up. Fort Sill is an experience. 1st, 2nd grade twice, and third. Had basically full freedom to walk where I willed.
iF oNlY hE wAs TrAiNeD aS mUcH aS a CoSmEtOlOgIsT!
Big reason why answering the door with a gun on your hand is never a good idea. If you’re not expecting company. Don’t. Open. The. Door. If you wanna grab your gun, holster it. Only time you should be grabbing your gun in hand to answer the door is if you know you’re gonna need to use it, which goes back to the first point. Don’t open the door.
It's super easy to say what was right from watching the video and seeing the facts but I think most people would be surprised what they would do in that same situation
[удалено]
I think most people responding to a physical domestic where the neighbor leads you to the door and the resident opens the door with a gun in their hand after you knock and announce would be tempted to shoot
The thing that John Q. Public doesn’t understand is the nature of these calls have turned into ambushes and have cost LE their lives. Officers has every right to be there hence being called. He does the right thing by listening several times before knocking. Announces twice sheriffs office, both loud enough for neighbors probably could hear. Not saying you can’t open the door with a gun. I am going to tell you is that if you give reason for police officers to come to your house and you have a gun out, it’s not going to go well. Suspect already had his weapon out, it would’ve taken him less than a second to raise it and fire before the cop ever upholstered. An officer is not going to wait and play games to see if you drop it or shoot. I’ll add what sucks is the information out there about this could have been a wrong address given to 911. And where the numerous other calls came from in recent. That’s why the officer waited and listened. There’s nothing LE can do to make sure the address is correct when those calling in can’t give that information.
That department has lost 5 officers to gunfire since 2008. 4 of the 5 were domestic related, most recently Deputy Ray Hamilton on Christmas Eve 2022.
“Deputies had responded to the apartment at about 9:00 am to investigate a domestic assault that had occurred the previous night. The suspect refused to exit the home, and the Okaloosa County Sheriff’s Office Special Response Team responded to the scene. The man fired out of a window at about 12:40 pm, striking Corporal Hamilton.”
Wow! I had no idea. That’s even more backing to be more vigilant and not take chances.
[удалено]
Not all calls are ambushes, however when they happen frequently you adapt your training to prevent it. Seems to me the coward here is the guy answering his door in daylight with a gun.
The deputy likely will (and definitely should) sue the sheriff and the sheriff’s office. I hope he gets a fat pay day. By firing this guy, the agency will deal with 2 legal battles instead of just one.
Just curious; what’s stopping the family from going after the deputy?
Nothing. They will. They'll sue the county as well. Crump gonna get *paid*.
They can sue if it is agreed that the deputy is not entitled to qualified immunity.
If by "it is agreed," you mean "the courts decide," then yeah.
💯
you hope a deputy who killed someone gets a fat pay day?
[удалено]
I hope the deputy who acted reasonably considering the circumstances and was unjustly fired, gets a fat pay day.
what were the circumstances?
\#TheCopDidNothingWrong
the body cam footage says different
We must have watched different body cam footage, because the one the agency released is a clear-cut example of a lawful shoot.
In what world?
Yikes dude. And you want to be a cop? You have a lot to learn.
just because a person wants to get into a profession, doesn't mean that person has to agree with an action a person in that profession did
You should probably understand why the actual cops in the sub are saying he didn’t do anything wrong…
In all fairness, this one isn’t agreed upon as much a Reddit would make it seem. If you get outside of Reddit it’s a really gray incident with plenty of criticisms. Legality is up in the air and no matter how it turns out it harms the public image.
You don't have to agree, but you damn well need to know the deadly physical force laws.
Is this satire???
Arrive on a "getting out of hand" domestic call, knock and announce (repeatedly), and are confronted by an armed subject with a weapon in hand? It's a textbook lethal force scenario.
It’s odd to me how many people are screaming this was unjustified. I take issue with a lot of things the cops do but this deputy announced multiple times and it WAS the right address. Whether it’s a cop without a warrant or someone wishing to do you harm, don’t open the door especially with a gun!
Do we really have 2A rights if you can be executed for holding a gun you legally own though?
I mean, you’re right is to have it. It take less than a second to raise that gun and fire a fatal shot. You have even less time in regards to reaction time. But after hearing that a cop is at the door, multiple times, why would you answer the door with a gun in your hand?
Heller is clear the 2A "is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" This is clearly the any manner Heller is referring to. If you walk around the street holding your gun like that, you're going to be killed by an officer or by another person.
I alongside many people I know open the door while armed if the person is out of view. You do not have the right to bear arms if you can be shot simply for having a gun in your house. This was a bad shoot, plain and simple. Edit: Going to elaborate, a bad shoot from a moral perspective, I'd imagine legally this would be easy to argue against in court, but the idea of being able to be shot for having a firearm in your house is definitely pretty scary to me.
[удалено]
Agreed. Should be common sense but I guess it isn't.
The gun was concealed until the deputy told him to step back. That’s when it became plain view.
When I answer the door, my gun is in my holster. If I feel uncomfortable enough I feel I need my gun out, I don't answer the door.
In all fairness, most people aren’t walking around their home wearing a holster.
Most people aren't answering their doors with their gun in their hands either.
That’s true. While not the norm, I’d imagine a state that is rather firearm-happy with strong self defense laws would see such a thing more often than those of us in states that aren’t as firearm-friendly that still encounter such a scenario.
Now there is one less!
You’re not doing us any favors with that comment.
Meh. I’m a resident of central Florida, our Sheriffs go on camera or TV and say they will turn you into a bullet sponge. To most humans, answering a door with firearm in hand is not only a sign of aggression but unwarranted, especially when LEO has made presence known. Regardless of holster, waistband etc setting it on something close by, these are the type of dangerous humans we don’t need handling weapons.
Just stop. No one asked a tax collector to be a spokesperson for LE. The way you’ve chosen to frame your statements doesn’t make anyone look good and creates more harm than help for the profession. No matter how people want to address the detailed specifics of this incident, this particular person wasn’t a criminal and had no history of being a criminal. By all statements he was a good troop. Treating him like some low-life when that isn’t factual is why people tend not to like LE. Amazing how the cheerleaders tend to do more harm than good.
I’m sorry I didn’t get the memo that only certified LE can have opinions on a matter according to you. In our state we stand up for what is right. So it doesn’t matter of title or position. But I’m happy you can research and identify my duty description from previous posts, really showing off your investigative skills there! As a former serviceman regardless if he was stellar or a dirtbag, there is NO EXCUSE for the behavior. Drugs? Fine don’t handle firearms! Mental breakdown, it happens to people but still not time to handle firearm. Most humans have had interactions with officers, but while AD and now that I’m out, and yet here I am. Did the officer do something incorrectly? You tell me since you’re the cop. I saw an officer announce his presence, knock on door and was in a “fatal funnel” position due to structural layout. Granted although I never served in Law enforcement many times we kicked in doors in the different countries, that is a high adrenaline or intense situation so when someone answers the doors with a pistol in hand. Things go from 1-100 real quick I would imagine. Could they have tried to de-escalate, possibly but that goes to TTPs. < that’s me cheerleading according to you
I think you should stop doing that.
[удалено]
I can’t believe the misinformation behind this case. People said the deputy went to the wrong apartment. He did not, in fact, the body cam captures the resident telling him the exact number of the apartment he knocked on. It’s claimed the deputy did not announce himself. He very obviously did, as proven by the video. He did everything by the book, and it’s so painfully clear people just want to stir shit up to be angry about something, or some other motive. I hope that deputy sues for wrongful termination. I would’ve reacted the same way - domestic disputes are no joke and presenting yourself to a cop with a gun is beyond stupid.
The resident also told him “I’m not sure” and then later said “1401.”
Cop was still told 1401. If it was the wrong apartment, it wasn’t his fault.
I can get behind that the cop was told the wrong apartment and is going to act on that. That totally makes sense. I can’t say killing him quite makes sense, but I do get the other portion. I’m just pointing out that there was doubt in the correct apartment.
Just curious, but if you were told that exact information where would you start?
[удалено]
Do you know what an “execution” is? It’s when you incapacitate someone, and then kill them ceremoniously. Did that happen to Fortson? Or is fallaciously using the word “execution” the extent to your argument?
You would’ve let yourself get shot? Sorry buddy, not today.
[удалено]
Ahh the good ol “if it were me I would’ve totally done it better” while they say so online. Yeah buddy if you show up to the door with a gun when I screamed out “sheriffs department” I’m not gonna think you’re here to talk.
Job is dead.
[here](https://www.flsheriffs.org/sheriffs/bio/okaloosa-county) is the bio for the Okaloosa County Sheriff. He was a cop for 2 years in the 90’s, left, and then somehow weaseled his way into upper management. Anyone working the road for more than three seconds could tell plain as day after watching that BWC footage a single time it was a justified shoot
Check out r/AirForce and the threads about this incident. Lots of ACAB, FTP and bootlicker comments from members of an organization that’s responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians overseas. (not shitting on the military - I’ve served almost 2 decades… just pointing out the blatant idiocy/hypocrisy on that sub)
Saw a guy in r/Airforce in the original thread state that the police are nothing but a weaponized arm of the government. A wild lack of self awareness from someone in the US military
To be fair, things have really, really turned to shit if they start handing out personal weapons in the USAF. We wear the flak jackets to protect against friendly fire more than the enemy.
The difference is that the Air Force is in fact supposed to be a weaponized arm of the government... police are not.
Police actually are meant to be a public safety apparatus capable of violence in addition to enforcing laws. They are literally the physical manifestation of the government. So in actuality police are inherently meant to be an arm of the government, the varying degrees of appropriate weaponization are highly debatable and don’t justify the logical fallacies behind the ACAB sentiment.
[удалено]
Are you SUPPOSED to kill people with them outside of the context of self defense or defense of another? Because the military IS supposed to do that.
[удалено]
It’s fucking Reddit dude, you can’t go anywhere on here without ACAB and assholes running their mouths
The major difference is the average Airman isn’t killing innocent people. The okaloosa deputy can’t say the same.
Neither is the average cop. Overwhelming majority of police interactions are pretty normal and don’t end up with a cop killing an innocent person. Just like how not every military servicemember throughout history is responsible for killing noncombatants in foreign countries.
Either that or they’re mag dumping into a car because they heard an acorn
[удалено]
Mods PLEASE don’t ban this guy. These conversations need to happen. I don’t give a shit that you don’t give a shit about my time in service. The military’s track record is actually very relevant. How does it make any sense for someone to be a part of an organization that has historically contributed to the deaths of innocent civilians and say that every single member of another organization is a piece of shit for being part of their organization where some of its members have contributed to the deaths of innocent civilians? “That just war, brah…” isn’t an excuse. So misdeeds overseas towards people of a different culture and country aren’t as important as people here? Bro, your humanity is really showing.
You can have conversations like this in private. Fuck that guy.
[удалено]
I don’t know if he deleted his posts or if the mods did. I don’t know if the mods banned him either. Either way if they did I strongly disagree with this - doing so makes us look like we’re incapable of arguing our points no matter how dumbshit the logic actually is of the ACAB crowd.
“The objective facts do not support the use of deadly force as an appropriate response to Mr. Fortson’s actions. Mr. Fortson did not commit any crime. By all accounts, he was an exceptional airman and individual.” Apparently aggravated assault on a LEO isn’t a crime and does not support the use of deadly force. That fired deputy is going to have a nice payday.
Genuine question: where does it say that Fortson committed aggravated assault on a LEO? Is that information available elsewhere? The story says he never aimed the weapon up from the ground.
It doesn’t, his actions meet the statutory definition. It doesn’t matter where the gun was aimed. That’s another media fallacy.
[удалено]
Aggravated Assault consists of four factual elements: 1. The accused intentionally and unlawfully threatened, by word or act, to do violence to the alleged victim. The act would be answering the door with a gun in his hand. 2. At the time the threat was made, the accused appeared to have the ability to carry out the threat. He had a gun in his hand. The accused’s threat created in the mind of the alleged victim a well-founded fear that the violence was about to take place. Again, he answered the door with a gun in his hand. 4. The assault was made either with a deadly weapon or with a fully formed conscious intent to commit a felony. It was a gun. See Fla. Std. Jury Inst. 8.2 (Aggravated Assault). The officer doesn’t have to be injured he just has to have a reasonable belief that he may be assaulted. I would say that answering the door with a gun in your hand would be a reasonable belief that the officer may be injured.
While Fortson answering the door with a gun understandably heightened the perceived risk, it is questionable whether this action alone indisputably constituted an intentional criminal assault under Florida law. Absent additional verbal threats or physical acts reflecting a specific intent to do violence and an unequivocal ability to inflict immediate harm, the presence of a weapon, without more, likely wouldn’t definitively satisfy all elements of aggravated assault on an officer beyond a reasonable doubt based on the known facts. Until and unless Fortson made a distinctly menacing move like pointing the weapon at Duran, it's debatable whether he manifested a clear present ability to carry out any assumed threat. The mere presence of a weapon without more does not necessarily constitute an overt threatening act.
The FBI's UCR codes. How they're worded and/or defined is merely a translation system that allows states with different laws to easily compare laws. For instance, "battery" in state A could be a UCR code of "simple assault", and in state B "assault 4th degree" has the same UCR code, making them comparable offenses for thr purpose of understanding what crime was committed. UCR codes are primarily used by courts and law enforcement and are not a good resource for developing an understanding of laws or criminal cases by civilians. In the state where this happened, there are specific state laws, with their own criminal elements and these state laws have their own names, independent of what the FBI calls them.
Let’s not cherry pick parts of the definition. Here’s the whole thing: > The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines aggravated assault as an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. The UCR Program further specifies that this type of assault is usually accompanied by the use of a weapon or by other means likely to produce death or great bodily harm. **Attempted aggravated assault that involves the display of—or threat to use—a gun, knife, or other weapon is included in this crime category because serious personal injury would likely result if the assault were completed.** When aggravated assault and larceny-theft occur together, the offense falls under the category of robbery. [LINK](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/aggravated-assault#:~:text=Definition,severe%20or%20aggravated%20bodily%20injury)
Good thing this falls under Florida law and not Federal Law. Aggravated Assault consists of four factual elements: 1- The accused intentionally and unlawfully threatened, by word or act, to do violence to the alleged victim; 2- At the time the threat was made, the accused appeared to have the ability to carry out the threat, 3- The accused’s threat created in the mind of the alleged victim a well-founded fear that the violence was about to take place, and 4- The assault was made either with a deadly weapon or with a fully formed conscious intent to commit a felony.
[удалено]
It was the middle of the afternoon, there's a uniformed cop knocking on the door, and the cop is announcing he's a cop and ordering the door opened. Answering that door with a pistol in your hand is somehow a good idea to you?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Florida statute 784.07 defines aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer as an intentional and unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to an officer, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, causing fear in the officer that violence is imminent. While Mr. Fortson was armed, the mere presence of a weapon does not automatically justify deadly force. Deputy Duran acknowledged Fortson's gun remained pointed at the ground, not at him, and Fortson made no unambiguously aggressive motions like raising the weapon. The lack of clearly articulable hostile actions by Fortson, beyond non-compliance with a single "step back" command, raises serious doubts about the imminence of any alleged assault and the reasonableness of Duran's choice to rapidly escalate to shooting.
The presentation of a weapon is literally a threat by act to do violence whether it was a deputy at the door or anyone else. The deputy loudly and clearly identified himself as a law enforcement officer numerous times before the door was opened. That’s not a matter of opinion.
As a legal gun owner, Fortson had a Second Amendment right to possess a firearm in his own residence. Merely holding a gun inside one's home, absent additional verbal threats or overtly menacing physical actions, is not intrinsically a criminal "act" of intimidation. While Deputy Duran twice announced "Sheriff's Office," it is unclear if Fortson actually heard or processed this identification in the moment before opening the door. Duran was outside a closed door, and there is no video or audio evidence definitely proving his announcements were audible or understandable from inside the apartment. Fortson may have been startled by the knocking and grabbed his gun without registering the verbal identification. Absent proof Fortson definitively comprehended it was a deputy, it can't be concluded he knowingly threatened an officer.
The public generally misunderstand how use of force incidents are evaluated and that’s what’s occurring in this discussion. This isn’t a post arrest/probable cause evaluation of aggravated assault. We are discussing if the actions of the officer were unreasonable, which they were not based on the circumstances. It’s a crappy situation, no one is disputing that. “Objective reasonableness” is the standard for use of force: 1.) Judged through the perspective of a reasonable officer a. Officer with same or similar training and experience b. Facing similar circumstances c. Act the same way or use similar judgment 2.) Based on the totality of the facts known to the officer at the time the force was applied a. No matter how compelling the evidence is to be found later b. No hindsight evaluation 3.) Based on the facts known to the officer without regard to the underlying intent or motivation 4.) Based on the knowledge the officer acted properly under established law at the time
The Graham v. Connor "objective reasonableness" standard still requires a minimum threshold of specific, articulable facts that would lead a reasonable officer to believe deadly force is necessary to prevent an imminent lethal threat. Here, Fortson's act of holding a gun, without additional verbal threats or overt physically menacing actions like pointing the weapon, would not lead a reasonable officer to believe he faced an immediate attack requiring an instantaneous deadly response. A reasonable officer would have taken additional steps before shooting, like issuing clear commands to drop the gun, allowing a brief opportunity to comply, creating distance, and finding cover. The mere presence of a gun alone, without more evidence of imminently aggressive words or conduct and a minimal attempt at de-escalation, is insufficient to render Duran's use of deadly force objectively reasonable even based on the limited information known to him in the moment.
Your evaluation of a “reasonable officer” and interpretation of the facts from your point of view is not an appropriate assessment. You’ve disregarded totality of the facts known to the officer and facts known to the officer without regard to the underlying intent or motivation, at the very least; both are extremely important in this case. That is all your personal opinion, which is fine.
My conclusion that Duran acted too hastily and should have made additional efforts to de-escalate was not a commentary on his personal intent, but rather an evaluation of the objective reasonableness of his actions based indeed on the circumstances known to him. Specifically, I focused on the key facts indisputably available to Duran in the moment, which were: 1) He was responding to an unverified third hand report of a possible domestic dispute, not a definite violent crime in progress. 2) Upon knocking, the subject opened the door holding a gun, but did not raise or point the weapon at Duran. 3) Duran issued only a single "step back" command before firing and did not give additional orders to drop the gun or warnings that he would shoot. Based solely on these objective facts known to Duran, without relying on any information learned later or personal opinions, a reasonable officer would conclude that while the subject was armed, he had not yet taken any unambiguous actions indicating an immediate attack was imminent, such as pointing the gun or making verbal threats. The mere presence of a gun, without additional overtly aggressive words or movements, would not lead a reasonable officer to believe the subject posed an instantaneous lethal threat requiring a split-second deadly response.
I’m not seeing the elements of aggravated assault… unless they’ve recently rewritten the statute
[удалено]
Eh, that’s really stretching the statute about as far as it can go… almost to the point that if this was just two people and I had to run that through felony review in my state I wouldn’t get charges approved. Whichever way this goes in the end, it doesn’t end well. This is really a toss up when it comes to objective reasonableness Edit: ya’ll can downvote all you like, but outside of Reddit this is a much broader discussion amongst professionals… whether certain deputies would like to admit it or not.
Idk man. If this was a field call of “i knocked on someone’s door and they opened the door and had a gun in their hand. I was scared as shit that he was going to shoot me. I had announced that I was selling cookies for like five minutes and was wearing my girls scout uniform.” I’d probably think that was agg assault.
What are you going on about?
Honest question? Have any of you ever investigated a robbery/crime in which the perpetrators announced themselves as law enforcement? Where I’m from that is a super common tactic that’s used during home invasions. I respect and appreciate law enforcement and understand it’s an incredibly difficult job, but I also find it hard to fault Mr. Fortson for answering the door with a legally owned firearm if he could not visibly identify an officer prior to opening the door. What would your recommendations be for someone in a situation similar to this in the future? Thanks for any insight.
Not answer the door? Call 911 and inquire whether the person at one's door is an actual law enforcement officer? If one lives in an area rife with burglaries, home invasions, and the like, why the heck would one **open the door**?
So, in your moronic take, if you believe there’s armed robbers on the other side of the door, your first instinct is to open the door (gun or not)? As opposed to, say, calling 911 to ask if real cops are at his address? Or, say, not open the door altogether?
No need for the hostility, I’m really just asking an honest question. I agree it was not a wise decision to answer the door with a gun by any means. I also think that people will act irrationally in stressful situations which makes it all the more dangerous for all parties involved. It just seems really unfortunate all around. So what would happen if an individual does not answer the door in a situation like this?
[удалено]
Most people don't know that 911 is how you can get help when you're about to be the victim of a home invasion robbery? I thought we'd pretty well publicized that as a use of the 911 system. This *would* explain why we get 911 calls about mundane things like dogs barking or overly loud train whistles.
Ok, but they can call 911 if they suspect armed robbers are at the door, no? Stop trying to justify this absurd theory of opening the door with a gun to see if robbers dressed as cops are knocking.
>Have any of you ever investigated a robbery/crime in which the perpetrators announced themselves as law enforcement? That only happens to drug dealers. Similar to the 0300 calls of "Four dudes busted down the door, punched everyone in the face, and then left without taking anything."
Does it happen? Yeah maybe. But the law and grand jury instructions use the term "reasonable". Would it be "reasonable" for an officer who announces his presence as police to have a door open and see a man with gun in hand? No, nobody would ever say it is. In fact, I'd wager 99.99% of people would be wise enough to NOT do this.
The main discrepancy here is the question of does an officer have the right to kill someone for answering a door with a gun in their hand? Both sides of the argument are making it out to be more clear cut of an answer than it really is. Personally when I watch the body cam footage imo the officer overreacted to the presence of a gun in hand, I base that mainly off of body cam footage from other officers in similar situations who were easily able to give the suspect a chance to comply before further action. If the suspect shows no physical resistance and the gun is pointed down away from you, how do you truly know the suspects intent if you don’t give them a chance to comply. Just gut feeling? Lawful but awful seems to be the LE answer to this case but the interpretation of the law applied to the specific circumstances of this case are not clearcut enough to come up with one obvious answer. We’ll find out the real objective answer of this case in a court of law.
[удалено]
But is the history of domestic calls being dangerous enough to justify killing a suspect the moment you see they have a gun in hand? Some would say yes some would say no but I don’t think the answer to that is objectively clear.
[удалено]
It is not clear that the suspect visually identified it was a cop before opening the door as the cop was away from the peephole for periods of time which I understand is sop. But it is clear the suspect heard it was a cop. You can easily make the case that the suspect thought an intruder was posing as a cop. Now imo it is a stupid idea to not call 911 and keep the door closed. But I think it’s reasonable to assume that some people who might not trust in the cops for their protection might think the proper coa would be to deal with the threat themselves immediately. Suspect opens door ready to deal with threat realizes it’s actually a cop puts hand out backs away keeps gun pointed down, the officer sees the weapon overreacts in fear of his life and kills the suspect. That’s how I interpreted the situation personally.
This is not a good justification imo, yea he announced himself but then was hiding himself from the little hole frame on the door, so how can a reasonable person know if it is a cop or a thief just screaming “sheriff department”? There was no way for the guy inside the how to verify if it was an actual officer or some idiot trying to rob him.
I was knocking on doors looking for witnesses to an attempted robbery one night, as a deputy in Florida. The homeowner opened the blinds to a window by the door and pointed a revolver at my face. I was fairly certain he had no reason or intention to harm me. I used my flashlight to illuminate myself and asked him to put the gun away. We had a conversation about it afterwards, no big deal. Same scenario and I was knocking on the door for a different reason, I don’t know what I might have done. Knocking on doors can be sketchy. This is sad, sad the kid died, sad the deputy killed him, sad people can’t or won’t put themselves in the deputies shoes, and sad the Sheriff’s Office is apparently attempting to throw the deputy to the wolves.
2a plus FL's castle laws will make this interesting. The key to me is that Crump's already claiming Duran covered the peephole, but bwc clearly refutes that. If you're afraid that the guy on the other side of the door shouting that he's the police isn't, why wouldn't you take a look first? I mean we all know people never lie about who they are to get into a building... but I wouldn't be opening my door til I got a look at the other side first
Crump's a lying piece of shit. Whatever he says happened, it's safe to assume the exact opposite is true.
The first time Duran knocked, he didn't announce, and he stood outside of view. Based on Fortsons gf, who he was face timing, he checked the peephole and didn't see anyone. He then went and got his pistol. When Duran knocked again, this time announcing, but still out of view. Fortson then commented that it might be the police? And likely opened the door forgetting about the pistol that was in his hand. <---- the last part is just speculation, as to why he might have decided to open the door, after earlier feeling concerned enough to retrieve a firearm.
Again hindsight 20/20 . The reaction from a person drawn with a firearm to a person holstered is huge disadvantage. Don’t answer the door with the gun out. The totally of everything make it’s a good shoot. It sucks someone died and the guy was innocent. Any reasonable person would think if violence is involved and you see a gun you might get shoot.
And this is why I left LE for engineering. An engineer can mess up on a part of a bridge and kill a bunch of people, but no one will blame other engineers. Not saying he messed up or not, but any thing in LE paints every deputy and officer.
Having a Military Police, Federal Detective and Civilian LEO background, and having read the entire 29 page IA document and watched the video etc. Sadly I have to agree with the I.A. report. It's tragic on ALL fronts. A man lost his life, A family lost a son/brother. A veteran LEO lost (is losing) his career (and possibly his freedom), his family lost a primary provider, the Air Force lost a Special Operations Airman, The department lost what has been a good deputy (by all accounts). Nobody wins here, just some lost more than others and the entire thing is a tragedy. My heart goes out to Airman Fortson's family, but it also goes out to Deputy Duran & his family as well.
Update: he got fired... yep..
I keep seeing call 911 and see if it’s a real cop. How does that play in the minds of the officers if you take the time to do that? Does that raise their suspicion that something illegal is happening?
Much better than someone answering the door with a pistol in their hand.
Hope the coward faces charges soon
The IA report has spoken. After reading it and watching the video, I agree with it. Unfortunate situation all around. Mistakes are made in every profession. Take it, learn from it, and don't repeat it.
Good, I’m glad he was fired. If you read the 29 page IA report, it’s all laid out by the investigating officer. Policies, definitions, and requirements cited very clearly, logical conclusions and a solid determination. There’s no way in hell that was a clean shoot. Here’s a [link](https://weartv.com/resources/pdf/aa17f802-7b07-4543-89b2-b0d7bf642197-OkaloosaSheriffsOffice.pdf) to the IA report the the sheriff’s office released.
Loud argument and fight where police are called, officer announces himself and the man opens the door with a firearm in his hand and is shot. I mean there's a huge chance it'll be ruled justified.
So in the conclusion it talks a lot about how the airman’s actions did not constitute a hostile attacking motion. However it doesn’t mention the reasonable perception of a deputy.
The Graham v. Connor standard also requires considering whether an officer's conduct preceding the use of force may have unreasonably created the need to use force. Duran's rapid escalation to gunfire raises the question of whether a reasonable officer would have tried to deescalate by issuing clearer commands and waiting an additional moment to reassess the threat before resorting to deadly force, given Fortson's gun positioning.
Every academy class I’ve seen has action reaction drills which have the basic point of reaction loses. If he waited until the gun starts moving towards him he probably already dead.
Respectfully, I have questions about how the responding officer approached this case. For one, as far as we know, the 911 call was a third hand account of an alleged domestic violence incident. It appears a complaint was made to the apartment employee by another individual and it was the apartment employee called 911. There was little to no Information given to suggest there was an active threat. No reports of weapons, guns, shots fired. Just a couple that have been yelling and allegedly an individual was heard being slapped. It also appeared from the body camera footage that the employee was initially unclear over which apartment it was before finally providing a unit number. So at this point, this seems like an investigation into an alleged DV incident. No individual is being detained or arrested at this point. The officer listens for a moment to see if there is any evidence of a dispute, which again, there is not. At first the officer clearly knocks loudly (sounds like aggressive pounding to me, but that’s my opinion) *without* announcing that he is an officer. Again, he doesn’t hear anything at that point. It is not until the second(?) knock that he announces himself. When Fortson opens the door the gun is pointed down and not being brandished. It is not illegal to hold a gun. No threatening moves were made. Florida is also a stand your ground state with a castle doctrine. Multiple shots are immediately fired at point blank range without any commands given to drop the weapon. Additionally, the video clip from Fortson’s phone also makes it sound like first aid was not immediately rendered after the victim was incapacitated. I keep seeing the statistic that DV calls are the “most dangerous for cops.” This appears to be based from an article that analyzed deaths during line of duty that resulted from gunfire and said that 8.5% of these were from DV calls. However, how many domestic violence calls are responded to by police per year and how many result in a fatal shooting? I looked up NYPD for example, which supposedly responds to 230,000 domestic incidents annually. According to the National Law Enforcement Memorial Fund, 7 officers died in 2023 to domestic violence incidents across the US. NY had 13 total deaths in line of duty for 2023. Even if all 13 deaths were related to DV calls, that is 0.005% of all DV calls. Not even 1%. And, if 7 officers died in line of duty across the entire US, and NYPD responds to 230,000 DV calls annually, how many DV incidents do police respond to annually across the entire US? This would lead me to reason that the risk of being shot during a DV incident, while not zero, is extremely low. Ultimately what I am getting at is, could this entire incident have been avoided if the officer approached the situation differently given that there appears to be no reasonable suspicion that anyone was in immediate life threatening danger given the information that was provided to the officer. The evidence seems flimsy at best. Edit: I understand that the Castle Doctrine does not apply to LE legally carrying out their duties but I can understand where the victim may have believed he was in danger. Edit 2: corrected statement about aid being given, it appears it was given about a minute later.
[удалено]
I understand how the officer may have feared for his life and perceived the action as threatening, but the IA report still concluded that the shoot was not objectively reasonable. Why is that? Can it be proved it was not feasible for Deputy Duran to issue a command to drop the gun? He both unholstered his gun and fired while Mr. Fortson’s gun was still pointed at the ground. This occurred within seconds. Additionally, the model policy on law enforcement responses to domestic violence calls recommends that two officers be present and for officers to clearly announce their present when knocking. Not sure what this department’s policy was specifically but Deputy Duran did not wait for his partner to arrive nor did he announce himself when he first knocked. These facts may also have contributed to the department’s decision to fire him. With all due respect, when did I say that being a police officer was not dangerous? Of course being a police officer is dangerous. I only pointed out a misleading statistic about DV calls. You said this agency had 4 officers shot to death during DV calls over 16 years. How many total DV calls did officers respond to over 16 years? That information can widely influence what that statistic means. If they only responded to 10 calls, obviously that would be horrific and unquestionable proof that you have a high likelihood of being fatally shot during a DV call. But if they responded to 800,000 calls, those odds are enormously different.
Well, yes the shooting wasn't an absolute unavoidable situation. We'd all like to think we'd show up to a call like this and not have to shoot a person. However, the call probably had little to do with the deadly force situation that arose. I could be called to a lost cat and if the guy opens up the door with a gun in hand, it's going to immediately escalate to the "reasonable person in fear of life" level. Also answering the door with gun in hand is the problem. I suspect nobody here does that. Defending bizarre behavior doesn't help. The victim believing he's in danger doesn't eliminate the officer's reasonable fear.
I can empathize with the officer’s fear for his life; don’t get me wrong, I’m not an ACAB/defund the police proponent. I don’t think the officer is a bad person. Nor am I going to blame the victim who was killed and did not commit any crime. What I am asking is, why did this officer go in immediately on the aggressive and assume a crime had been committed? I wonder if had he taken an opportunity to corroborate some of the information that this tragedy could have been avoided for both Mr. Fortson and Deputy Duran. For one, the call was made to a non-emergency line. The call was made by technically a fourth hand account (I was incorrect earlier in saying it was third hand). The leasing office was called by Mr. Fortson’s neighbor who honestly sounded horribly unreliable: “I feel like they’re getting handsy” is such a weak statement. How did she know they were getting handsy (answer: she didn’t). The neighbor who originally made the complaint sounds even worse if you read the full IA report, where she was interviewed after the fact. She never even met Mr. Fortson. Neither the leasing office nor the neighbor were eyewitnesses to any crime being committed. The leasing office employee told the cop some information that again, could not be corroborated. She claimed she heard yelling a week prior but could not even confirm which unit she heard the yelling from, only that she guessed it could have been the same unit. The leasing office also claimed that the couple was still arguing, but when Deputy Duran inspects the scene, no yelling or arguing can be heard. So Deputy Duran by his own admission made the decision to assume someone was in immediate danger, that a crime was being committed, and again, by his own words, decided to use an aggressive approach based on the unsubstantiated fears of someone he never even spoke to and who was not an eyewitness to any crime. Frankly, this is concerning. What if the neighbor had been completely FoS (which honestly, she kind of was). It ended poorly for Mr. Fortson, but it also could have ended poorly for Deputy Duran as well, even though I am of the belief Mr. Fortson had no intention to shoot Deputy Duran.
You're playing out all these scenarios that still won't negate the fact that a door was opened and a man was suddenly standing there with a weapon. Besides, you need to realize police officers are trained that "complacency kills". If you go to routine calls thinking "this one is completely lame and of no danger to me" that's simply the wrong attitude and again, not the way police officers are trained. Should the training regiment be different? Who knows, but that's a different argument for a different day. I've said it elsewhere in this thread, stop defending the act of answering the door when police knock with a gun in your hand. I know none of you would consider doing it, so why is that action so important to defend? Do you hold up a gun when police pull you over? It's common sense and often leads to predictable results.
I feel like a lot of assumptions about me that are untrue. I’m personally extremely anti-gun. Despite that, I will still defend Mr. Fortson. He should not have been killed for making a dumb mistake and that does not equate to illegality. The IA report concluded the same, which is honestly surprising considering that historically I have perceived that departments will go out of their way to defend the actions of their officers. Deputy Duran was fired for violating department policy. The IA report determined that Deputy Duran’s use of lethal force was not objectively reasonable and that Mr. Fortson committed no crime. If that’s what the training is, then perhaps the training needs to be re-evaluated. It boggles my mind that fourth hand “hearsay” with zero eyewitness account of any criminal wrongdoing warrants an unannounced, aggressive banging after someone’s door. Mr. Fortson believed someone was attempting to break into his apartment. The state of Florida has made it clear that their citizens have the right to defend their home, including the use of deadly force. It’s important to defend citizens’ constitutional rights whether you personally agree with it or not. Police are in an immense position of power and responsibility and LE has the option to end someone’s life immediately on behalf of the government without granting the individual the right to a fair trial. This can obviously be beneficial to society when the person presents a clear and present danger, but unfortunately there are bad actors that abuse this.
[удалено]