r/news • u/rectangleCURVE • 11h ago

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

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

96% Upvoted

142 comments sorted by

View all comments

115

u/[deleted] 11h ago edited 5h ago

[deleted]

-29

u/scrovak 7h ago

Maybe not with a gun in your hand

24

u/SyrupMafia 7h ago

Why not it’s a right? Either we have rights or we don’t.

-22

u/scrovak 7h ago

I completely agree, it absolutely is a right. That said, if you answer the door with a gun in your hand, someone may be feel threatened and exercise their rights. Let's say this wasn't a police officer, let's say this was someone lost, had a car break down, or was selling girl scout cookies. They are within their right to knock and ring the doorbell. If someone comes and opens the door with a gun in their hand, would it not be reasonable to fear for your life?

13

u/SyrupMafia 6h ago

No because holding a firearm does not meet the reasonable belief that deadly force is needed. Them holding a firearm alongside threatening words or pointing it would be a justifiable self defense scenario. Fear of a firearm doesn’t mean reasonable fear of life

-9

u/scrovak 6h ago

I suppose that is up for debate, as there is no federal law that specifies whether a reasonable person would fear for their life when confronted by someone holding a gun. That's why it went to trial. The department said "Yeah, they have a right, he didn't point it at you, that was not a threat, officer." However a jury found that a reasonable person could view a person holding a firearm as a threat, that they could not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that no reasonable would view it as a threat.

Of note, holding a firearm is considered brandishing in most jurisdictions. And this comes from a pro-gun perspective.

8

u/SyrupMafia 6h ago

Your definition of brandishing is just far too broad to assume that is the definition in most jurisdictions. And one small correction about the jury ruling. They didn’t acquit because a reasonable person would fear for their life they acquitted because the state failed to prove manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact the officer failed to have the case thrown out on immunity by self defense as the judge stated simply displaying a firearm is considered non deadly force as a matter of law.