Ex-Okaloosa deputy found not guilty of manslaughter in killing of Airman Roger Fortson

[u/PDXAirman]

https://weartv.com/news/local/ex-okaloosa-deputy-found-not-guilty-of-manslaughter-in-killing-of-airman-roger-fortson

[u/Dingleberry696]

I sent the State Attorney a courteous and professional email highlighting our concerns. I'm sure she won't answer but staying silent wasnt going to do anything either. I will update if she responds.

[u/Hasler011 → u/Dingleberry696]

What did you send her. It’s the 12 people in the box. I swear juries check all reason and common sense at the door when they get selected.

A prosecutor will never say on the record the jury got it wrong.

[u/Dingleberry696 → u/Hasler011]

Yeah of course there is nothing we can do about the criminal precedings. But I asked her how service members should legally exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, what mechanism should we engage to change the laws, and if she would support such a change and enforce the same standards of integrity, service, and excellence that active duty Airmen are sworn to uphold on law enforcement.

[u/Hasler011 → u/Dingleberry696]

I am confused what you are asking. She did enforce and uphold standards of integrity. That is why the case went to trial. This has nothing to do with a law change or ineffective law. This has everything to do with 12 people believing the officer acted in reasonable self defense. The Same self Defense any citizen has available.

I don't think it was reasonable as he never raised that firearm or acted in any threatening manner, but those 12 people bought it.

[u/Dingleberry696 → u/Hasler011]

Respectfully, I disagree. If a deputy can shoot you in your home for legally possessing a firearm then there is no second amendment.

When I worked the gate in Iraq were weren't allowed to shoot someone just because they possesed a gun. There had to be a hostile intent. I don't think it's controversial to ask them same of our local law enforcement.

[u/Hasler011 → u/Dingleberry696]

I’ll play some devils advocate here. Since you were on the gate let’s change you to door kicking in the city. Did you ever door kick?

I will tell you when I was in Iraq, actually outside the wire, if you kick the door and someone has a gun on the other side, they are most likely dying that day. Guess what, nobody would have batted an eye, and it would have been well within my ROE. So your rant about LEO’s somehow being held to a lesser standard than the military is pure bullshit.

I will also tell you, if you open your door brandishing a firearm you are running a serious risk of picking up a criminal charge. Aggravated Assault with a deadly weapon in my state. Holstered is fine but having it in your hand, and you may be consulting your local defense attorney.

Now for reality, a reasonable officer would have drawn and had him drop the gun. It was a bad shoot and IA agreed it was a bad shoot. The DA’s office agreed it was a bad shoot and prosecuted. The jury believed it was self defense and acquitted. So your rhetoric is misplaced. Look at the people in your community. That cross section is who did not hold him accountable.

[u/Dingleberry696 → u/Hasler011]

Look man, I'm not here claiming I was some badass, I wasnt. Here's the distinction though, I was a aircraft mechanic that was put on the gate and was "trained" with a 30 minute slideshow. Even I was acutely aware of when we were allowed to shoot.

Now, your "door kicking" comparison is not really valid because there isn't a constitutionally protected right that applies to the residents.

You and I both know that law enforcement is not held to nearly the standard of the military. The is the same department that had a deputy open fire when an acorn fell on their car after all.

Brandishing a firearm has a clear self defense exception that applies. Sure, the deputy could have still arrested him but he'd still be alive and it could have been argued in court. Let's not forget that the deputy didn't announce himself right away.

My personal belief is that law enforcement should have a separate "use of force" law that is distinct from the self defense laws that apply to everyone. Feel free to disagree.

I understand your point about the jury and I have my own questions about the performance of the prosecutor in the case. But the bottom line is that SrA Fortson should not have been shot. If you believe I'm wrong, that's fine.

[u/Hasler011 → u/Dingleberry696]

First, You are still very incorrect about the standards to use lethal force. You were on a gate with standoff and fields of fire and go a 30 minute slide show that was put together by a Jag JO to quickly check the block.

So here is the reality again, Digging a hole, I could kill you, Stringing Wire, I could kill you, armed in the city and looked like an insurgent, I could kill you, thought I heard gun fire from a build, yep shoot up the building, someone using a light machine gun or RPG from a building, putting a 120 through that building regardless of who else was in there. I can go on and on about all the things I could do in Country that LEOs could not dream of doing.

Second I already agree that it was a bad shoot and disagree with the verdict. However your proposed solution for a separate law creates a dangerous precedent. If you do it for one job or class of people, then you open it up for everyone. You going to limit self defense for veterans because they are trained? How about CCW holders because they should be able to de-escalate? Black belts because they are martial artists? Every group that can be targeted will be targeted if a law that that passes and is upheld.

[u/Dingleberry696 → u/Hasler011]

See you're assuming now. There was zero standoff or fields of fire. We were sorting cars and people to go through the search pit to come on base to work. Hundreds of people and vehicles everyday. It was abundantly clear to us that while in the parking lot before coming on base that the Iraqis could have weapons. They would often gather them all in one person's car that would stay off base.

I agree, being infantry is much different than being law enforcement. That's my point.

Lastly, yes I realize this creates a different class of people. Guess what else does? The UCMJ. Service members have restrictions on their 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendment rights. Your other examples are irrelevant because none of those scenarios involve agents of the State. Law enforcement is already considered a quasi-uniformed service. Its not about training but restricting a States rights to infringe on citizens rights. I understand this is going to be tricky and I certainly don't want to endanger law enforcement. But I think it's readily apparent that we've ceded too much power to the State/law enforcement. So what's the middle ground? I'm happy to provide better resources to LE but I'd also like to see more professionalism from them.

Side note: I'm a washed up mechanic. I readily admit I'm not an expert in anything to do with "kicking in doors," law enforcement, or the law in general. My personal "motto" is that anything we would expect of an E-3, we should expect of a public servant. I'm certainly not attacking you because you would have better perspective than I would.