Who gets to claim self-defense in shootings? Airman's death sparks debate over race and gun rights | AP News
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A Florida sheriff released body camera video Thursday showing a deputy outside an apartment door and firing immediately when it was opened by U.S. Air Force Senior Airman Roger Fortson carrying a handgun pointed downward. (AP produced by Javier Arciga)
For the past decade, "Stand Your Ground" laws have been invoked time and time again by gun owners who claim self-defense after carrying out shootings. Critics have denounced them as "shoot first" laws that have created a climate of vigilantism in which gun owners operate with impunity in killing largely Black people.
The concept resurfaced again last week following the killing of Senior Airman Roger Fortson in Florida, but the dynamics were different.
This time, the victim was a young Black servicemember who carried his legally owned handgun to the door of his apartment after hearing banging noises that ended up being a sheriff's deputy. The officer — and not Fortson — opened fire within seconds. His supervisors say he acted in self-defense.
Fortson's legal team was quick to remind the world of his Second Amendment rights in a state that helped popularize "Stand Your Ground" laws after the killing of Trayvon Martin more than a decade ago.
"They teach us in law school about the sanctity of the home, in the United States of America, and how that is your safe haven. That is your castle," civil rights attorney Ben Crump said at a press conference with Fortson's relatives last week.
READ MORE NRA kicks off annual meeting as board considers successor to longtime leader Wayne LaPierreArrests of US tourists in Turks and Caicos for carrying ammunition prompt plea from three governorsOver 80,000 Illinois people banned from owning guns still keep them, report shows
"Every one of us, if someone we don't know comes into our house, are going to defend ourselves," Brian Barr, Crump's co-counsel, added. "We have things like Stand Your Ground, the castle doctrine and very strong believers in the Second Amendment in the state of Florida. … He has the right to protect his home."
Fortson's killing sparked a complicated debate about race, gun laws and self-defense — namely, who is typically afforded deference when it comes to the use of guns in self-defense and who is not.
Lauren Krasnoff, president of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers' Miami chapter, said Fortson's race cannot be disentangled from discussion of the case when invoking the castle doctrine and Stand Your Ground.
"I think the point is that the law is being used as both a sword and a shield by law enforcement against Black and brown people," Krasnoff said.
"I don't even know that I'd have to say that the airman was standing his ground," she added. "I think he was just acting lawfully. And if a person is acting lawfully and not committing a forcible felony, then you don't have a right to stand your ground."
Florida's Stand Your Ground law protects individuals from prosecution for homicide if they can prove that they perceived an imminent threat of harm or death to themselves or another person, regardless of whether or not they were in their home. The law does not require someone to retreat if they believe that force will be used against them.
The castle doctrine, a common law principle often associated with such laws, allows a person to use force equal to the force being used against them after attempting to retreat in an attack on their home, said David Weinstein, a criminal defense attorney at Jones Walker LLP in Miami.
"It doesn't matter who's on the other side," Weinstein said.
A sheriff's deputy on May 3 shot Fortson after responding to a call about a domestic disturbance at an apartment complex in Fort Walton Beach. Sheriff's officials say the deputy, whose name and race haven't been released, acted in self-defense.
Body cam footage shows the deputy banged on Fortson's door, paused, then knocked again, yelling that he's from the sheriff's office. Fortson eventually answered the door while holding what appeared to be a gun by his side, pointed at the ground. Within a few seconds, the deputy shoots Fortson six times, only then yelling for him to drop his weapon.
The Florida Department of Law Enforcement is investigating.
Fortson's death quickly drew comparisons to those of other Black people killed in recent years by police in their homes, in circumstances involving officers arriving at the wrong address or responding to service calls with wanton uses of deadly force.
MaCharie Dunbar, an Air Force retiree who serves on the board of the Black Veterans Project, feels Fortson's death surfaces an uncomfortable reality faced by Black Americans who serve their country.
"Many of us are just saddened and angered by the continued unnecessary loss of Black lives at the hands of police," Dunbar said. "And we want to know how many times do police officers have to get it wrong before they do something collectively to get it right?"
The Fortson case also highlighted the dissonance between a Black person's constitutional right to bear arms and law enforcement officers' right to defend themselves against a perceived threat.
"The second amendment afforded Roger the right to own a gun and wield it as protection when he was unsure who was on the other side of his door," Crump said last week.
For Danielle Campbell, the southeast regional director of the National African American Gun Association, what happened to Fortson is the worst-case scenario for Black and brown law-abiding gun owners.
Campbell said she felt Fortson was essentially "murdered in his own home without so much as being given a command" and his death reiterated that for all Black gun owners, "we're just at a high risk, period."
Still, she said striking laws like Stand Your Ground, as Crump has advocated, isn't the answer because they can support gun owners who rightfully discharged their weapons.
"There have been cases where Black and brown people have successfully been able to utilize Stand Your Ground or the castle doctrine to get off," she said. "It's more so that when people of color have interactions with police and they're armed, we're automatically seen as a threat and treated as such."
Some Black Lives Matter activists echoed those sentiments.
Fortson's death is more about how people "see Black and then shoot" than Stand Your Ground laws, said Chelsea Fuller, a communications leader for the Movement for Black Lives, a national coalition of racial justice organizations.
"I don't know how many more research reports have to come out to show there is an innate fear of Blackness in this country," she said.
Fortson, 23, was originally from Georgia and enlisted in the Air Force after graduating from high school. His remains have since been transferred back to Atlanta where he will be eulogized on Friday.
____
AP writer Terry Tang in Phoenix contributed. She and Aaron Morrison are members of AP's Race and Ethnicity team.
AARON MORRISON Morrison runs the Associated Press team covering race and ethnicity in the U.S. and around the world. He previously was a national writer on the AP's race and ethnicity news team.
All are created equal, some are more equal than others.
Tags
Who is online
568 visitors
All are created equal, some more equal than others.
a radio on his hip, a mic on his shoulder, and he can't call dispatch for an address verification. to serve and protect...
One would think.
What address would dispatch have provided, the initial 911 address?
Sadly, not knowing what apartment had the ''noise'' and not taking the time to double-check and verify we have an innocent young black airman Fortson dead. This is beyond a tragedy.
unfortunately, no amount of money that gooberville sheriff's dept is forced to pay will bring their son back. I hope the settlement goes to 8 or 9 figures...
What was the room number given during the initial 911 call?
maybe try calling the sheriff's dept and then let all us know...
They told me that it’s under investigation.
Airman Fortson was within his legal rights and was shot dead without warning by a Florida Sheriff. Now it's said that that Sheriff was within his rights.
If this is the case and both were within their rights, what is the next in the criminal justice system?
From viewing the video, it does definitely show that Fortson had his gun pointed at the ground, opened the door and the policeman shot within seconds of the door being opened. Before anything else was said and before Fortson made any aggressive moves. The officer should stand trial for this.
But in looking, the courts have stated that Florida's Stand Your Ground law does apply to police.
It's behind a stupid paywall so all I could grab was the headline, the rest of it was on the Google page.
And according to this, you cannot claim the Stand Your Ground defense if you shoot an officer while the officer is acting in an official capacity.
But any way you look at it, this shooting was bad and the officer should have to deal with the consequences.
Were the police making a lawful arrest in this case?
That certainly appears to be the case.
Two lives destroyed and the lives of many family members and friends terribly affected. A very sad situation all the way around.
From viewing the video, it doesn't appear that he ever tried to make an arrest. He shot within seconds of the door being opened. Not sure why you asked that. Can you provide your thoughts behind asking that?
Watching the video, within seconds after the door being opened the officer shot five times, and then, after shooting him, he told the victim to drop his gun. By that time the victim was already down and dying. Real bad.
Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law Applies to Police, Too, Court Rules
MIAMI — Police officers in Florida can avail themselves of the state’s “Stand Your Ground” self-defense law, the State Supreme Court ruled Thursday, offering broader immunity to law enforcement officers in a decision that could make it harder to hold police criminally responsible in disputed shootings.
The court said in its ruling that police officers have the same rights as other Florida citizens who win immunity from prosecution under the law.
“It’s a landmark, ground-marking case,” said Eric Schwartzreich, a lawyer for a sheriff’s deputy involved in the fatal shooting of an African-American man, who successfully argued that police officers should not be excluded from the law’s protections. “It’s the first time Stand Your Ground is used in the state of Florida in reference to police. The implications are wide-ranging.”
Legal analysts said the ruling would allow police officers in some cases to avoid jury trials in controversial shootings in which officers believed they were acting in self-defense but might have had other options.
Three Broward County sheriff’s deputies responded and called for Mr. McBean to drop his weapon. But Mr. McBean, who the investigation showed was listening to music with earbuds, apparently did not hear them. Peter A. Peraza, the deputy charged in the case, claimed that Mr. McBean had turned and pointed the weapon at the officers, in the vicinity of children in a swimming pool, so he fired three shots, killing him.
Witnesses said Mr. McBean never pointed the weapon, and the two other officers did not fire their weapons. Two years later, after a New York Times examination of the case, Mr. Peraza was indicted, becoming the first law enforcement officer to be charged in an on-duty killing in Florida in decades.
In court, Mr. Peraza asked for Stand Your Ground protection. He won, but the state appealed.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld the ruling, but because the decision conflicted with a prior appellate ruling, the case went to the Florida Supreme Court.
In that earlier case, in 2012, the Second District Court of Appeal had rejected an officer’s attempt to use the law to avoid trial for stomping on a 63-year-old man. The officer, Juan Caamano, a former police officer in Haines City, south of Orlando, instead went to trial, but was acquitted.
Last year, two Miami police officers successfully invoked Stand Your Ground immunity when they were sued for damages in the beating of a man in a wheelchair.
The 2005 law eliminates a person’s duty to retreat from a dangerous situation and frees them to use deadly force “if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary” to prevent harm or death. It shields people from both criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits. The determination is made by a judge after a hearing, and allows the accused to skip a jury trial altogether.
Stand Your Ground became widely known in 2012, when the police in Sanford, Fla., cited it as the reason that they declined to arrest George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer who killed an unarmed black teenager, Trayvon Martin. Critics say the law makes it too easy to claim self-defense when violence could have been avoided, and, according to some analyses, has skewed in favor of white defendants as applied in Florida.
The key to the case before the Supreme Court was language in the Florida law specifying that it applies to “any person.”
In some previous cases in Florida, courts have ruled that police officers have their own immunity law that protects them from criminal charges in justified shootings.
“Put simply, a law enforcement officer is a ‘person’ whether on duty or off,” the court said.
The court held that law enforcement officers “are eligible to assert Stand Your Ground immunity, even when the use of force occurred in the course of making a lawful arrest,” and are immune from criminal prosecution when the facts warrant it.
Mr. Schwartzreich said the court’s opinion meant that officers could “do their job without fear of indictment or arrest.”
Critics of the law said the decision could be considered a free pass for police officers involved in questionable shootings, and worried that it could disproportionately affect African-Americans and Hispanics. Mr. McBean was black, and Mr. Peraza is Hispanic.
“Police officers already have full immunity to kill us at will. This is an extra bonus on top of that,” said Tifanny Burks, a Black Lives Matter Alliance Broward activist who has been working with Mr. McBean’s family. “It really is a slap in the face — a blatant one at that.”
“Every unscrupulous law enforcement officer in Florida who kills a civilian now in suspicious circumstances will say he feared for his life, and even with eyewitnesses saying otherwise, he walks and can’t be arrested or charged or brought to trial after this decision,” Mr. Schoen said. “It’s an injustice, it really is.”
It seems to me that the question of whether they were making a lawful arrest could make or break any case brought against them, even a criminal one.
Thanks for pasting that out. I saw the headline but I don't subscribe to the New York Times so couldn't get the article.
Well, if they won't change the police standards for stand your ground. . . it's time for informed people to leave the state. Just do it.
Thanks for explaining. While I think one could reasonably come away with the belief that the officer was acting in an official capacity, from my understanding he did not yet have cause to actually arrest anyone. There had been no investigation at this point, the only information the officer had was the initial call to send him there and the information (misinformation) given by the lady in the parking lot. Add to that from the video where the officer shot within seconds of the door being opened and I don't know if that will stick. We'll have to wait for the full investigation (if we ever get any updates on that) and one can also assume that any police investigation will do their best to stand behind 'their man' to protect a fellow officer.
While IMO I believe that the officer should be arrested, I think it's more likely that he will not be arrested and only the city will end up paying the family for the death.
Sadly, I agree.
I couldn't access the NYT article either, but all the information available with video the LEO was in the wong.
The Sheriff deptartment has already said it was a good shooting but hasn't seen if they stepped back on that.
The LEO will walk and the city will pay a large settlement and the the status quo that has been active for decades will move along once again.
This will do nothing to try to mediate and show something to the minority communities. Sadly it's same old same old.
Thanks for posting the NYT article, CB.
The thing to do is ASK for a steep SETTLEMENT in the 100s of millions, because it will be a message to the state that human life is valued as priceless, and yet fixable by signifying high value. These are republicans who SAY WITH THERE LIPS that they hold to a culture of life. So I say make them 'live up' to it.
[deleted][✘]
[✘]
Hard for the deputy and the department to claim self defense when the deputy's life was not in immediate danger.
Agreed. As far as I know, the deputy has not claimed self defense or the use of the Stand-your-ground law. All I posted there was that the courts have ruled that the law is available for both civilians and law enforcement.
Watched the bc video and have a few issues with it. But my opinion is basically the cop fucked up big time and should be charged. It was a bad shoot.
First issue is from the start of the video and knocking on the door, not once did I hear the cop id themselves as LE.
Second issue, tone, volume and tenor of voice commands such as open the door, the voice I heard sounded more angry and disgruntled than a command voice that is taught to police, think of a military drill sgt firm loud and authoritive, not loud angry and peeved.
Third issue no verifying the address either before contact or while making initial contact.
Can't say I'm impressed with the article itself, but that could be because of my understanding of what stand your ground actually means.
SYG does not grant any immunity, all it means is a person has no duty to retreat if faced with force , before the reciprocate with force. And everyone is covered by both the law and doctrine.
My reasons it's a bad shoot, the cop didn't check off all the boxes one would think need to be positively checked off before use of deadly force can reasonably be used. And for me there are only 3 that need checking , in the video only 2 would have been checked if it had been me.
Through out my military firearm training , military police and civilian LE firearm training to include POST certification, the 3 things that have to be present for use of deadly force , capability the person has to be capable, possibility , they have to possibly be able to take an action, the last thing is intent , that's the one thing that had not been positively been checked off,and holding a firearm in ones hand does not prove intent.
First things I noticed when the individual became visible , handgun in right hand , what appears to be a holster on his left hip, and a closer look at the handgun is it is pointed down and there is NO booger hook on the bang switch. There is no positive indication the intent to shoot is present.
If this had happened during a training exersize with the cop in a shoot/don't shoot stress training ( commonly called Hogan's alley), the cop should have been failed and remeidially trained with additional training until he consistently got it correct .
So let the fun begin with the discussion about this post if there is to be any.
It was simply a bad shoot for the reasons you named and many more. Hopefully the so called ''investigation'' will find that it was a bad shoot, but if it's the sheriff's dept that won't happen. .
As I said earlier the deputy will walk and the city will settle, nothing will change. I wish it would be different but after 84 years of being a minority in the US I really don't see it happening.
I will tend to agree, things won't change anytime soon, but as you said my reasons it's a bad shoot are also simply to be combined with those other reasons some other people think are pertinent. I tend to keep it simple, I found it's easier that way.
Now I will put myself in the position of the airman , if it had happened here in the same manner presented I would answer the door in the same manner, but being old school it would have been with my competition 1911a1, cocked , locked , ready to rock in carry condition 1. 1 in the pipe and a full 8 rnd mag.so in this case ild likely be the one getting shot. The only real difference would be my age 62 in 3 days and life experiences and training / practice, safe for me to say , I wouldn't be the only one bleeding, the sec I saw a draw start I would have already have had a round or two in the air, because the opposing individual had already checked the 3 required boxes I needed checked with drawing and pointing, then it's simply an issue of who is faster and more accurate.
A BREAKDOWN of the shooting (in part @ 1:37 in the video below) with an important observation I had not 'clocked' until now:
(May be others had.)
Former police captain breaks down bodycam video of Air Force Airman shooting
Did 'anybody' check it. . . .
The Airman has his gun 'rested' and his other arm up. That 'stance' should have 'triggered' to the officer compliance or 'don't shoot' as it should have been in practiced in officer training.
Bodycam video shows Florida deputy shoot, kill Air Force Airman
Hi Mark, yes, the second time of knocking and before the door opened the deputy Id-ed himself through a closed door. And, it was a single deputy - in the video I shared, we can hear the deputy ask the woman who issued the apartment number to the officer to send any other LEOs up to the apartment on their arrival. But, he is the only one on point at the time of the door/shooting. Of course, police CAM is recording everything.
I heard the id that time. I will blame my 75-80%deafness and bad audio of the other video.
Frankly I would have waited for another deputy, and likely would have said something along the lines of , investigating a noise complaint, not a total lie,done that before myself , it helps defuse things before things start.
Doesn't change my opinion it was not a good shoot.
This does make me wonder if the YouTube video has been cleaned up a little to filter out ambiant background noise, any and all video and audio can be cleaned up or enhanced to a degree.
It was not a 'good' shoot. One more thing. The way I see these shooting is people don't trust their countrymen and countrywomen sufficient enough to police them or to be served by them. That is, we have to get 'closer' as people in this country by seeing each other as 'countrymen/women' drawn together and stitched together as fabric is done. A family of millions. We have to start giving each other the benefit of some doubt (not all benefit of doubt, but more than we have now). We can not accomplish such a monumental feat of familiarization if we pour 'fuel' on our divisions as people and as a country.
We need a fundamental shift whereas we begin to see each other as meaningful, valuable, resources to the whole of the country. Again, we can't get that done if we just chip away at our stable foundation that is taking 'hits' around the clock and 365 days from those who are dividing us as a part of a grift-at-large.
I think we can agree on that point.
Added. As for the one more thing, the country is diverse enough what you suggest won't happen as for coming together, some people simply like their solitude and to be left alone,you can not force someone to associate with anyone they wish not to AND they have the right to choose whatever reason they want to to make that choice.
We could go down a really big rabbit hole here that would be off topic for the current discussion , I'm not going to do that.
I am not asking anyone to be 'exceptional' or overly indulgent in anyone else's life or lifestyle, what I am driving 'home' here is we are 'drawn together' as a nation of diverse peoples on purpose. For those among us who think that our country is 'full' with 300 million plus people that means we are 'sardines' stacked and packed together for LIFE. It's time we started acting like it (again or) once and for all!
I see the rabbit hole (ahead) and am okay if you steer around it.
I think it will turn out to be a bad shoot but am willing to wait for the investigation results before forming my final opinion. If it was a bad shoot for lack of address verification and hasty decision to shoot without giving the airman a chance to comply with instructions to drop the gun, then it may mean race, in this case, was less the issue than the cops, bad decision making.
“…wait for the investigation results…”
And therein lies the problem. Internal investigations are important, but the conflict of interest is apparent.
Every judicial district should have an independent investigative body seated with community stakeholders that is called in when incidents such as this inevitably occur. And in their independence, perhaps the results of the investigations will not only determine an unbiased finding of ultimate responsibility, but more importantly, will also lead to a course of action that will mitigate and minimize future occurrences.
The ongoing investigation is a state investigation, not local. There will be a federal if the Feds think it’s necessary.
“…is a state investigation…”
Which in no way diminishes the point responded to…in fact and function, it only reinforces it..,,particularly in this state at this present time.
We will have to wait to see if the Feds agree with you.
"I think the point is that the law is being used as both a sword and a shield by law enforcement against Black and brown people," Krasnoff said."
I agree that the deputy appeared to be trigger happy and this is really a bad shoot, but I doubt that race had anything to do with it.
oh heavens no, not in the south... /s
Just a few of the recent Blacks killed in vicious, right-wing, cracker Southern cities.
Damn Confederates seem to be everywhere.
Which shows how prevalent it is EVERYWHERE and not just in southern cities and that is an extremely gross under-representation of blacks being killed for being black
The hatred towards Baltimore sickens me
Note how Baltimore is highlighted? That's not by accident.
especially not in Florida! /s
well, at least the klan have standardized uniforms now...
Yep,
Confederates and Confederate sympathizers. Haven't you ever seen the Confederate flag displayed outside the area of the Confederacy?
Sure, California might be the worst example.
California had a significant percentage of pro-Confederate residents during the Civil War. I believe that estimates are up to 20%. Unfortunately, with such large population, there are bound to be a few lunatics today. Look at how many people in California voted for Trump. Whether more Confederate flags get displayed in California than any other location outside the area of the Confederacy, is, of course, mere speculation.
Greg, at the least it is implicit bias. I have seen too many videos where white police officers 'talk' to people with guns in their hands or "all around them." There was no obvious need to shoot this young man within mere seconds of seeing a gun held in a downward pointing state. We have seen enough officer training footage around where training teaches future and present officers to make proper 'snap' judgements depending on the posture of a weapon on another person in determining hostility or not.
Good news for this old thread. The deputy who shot the airman has been fired after the investigation by the Sheriffs office determined that the use of deadly force was not reasonable. What should happen next is that Mr. Duran should be arrested for murder.
Thank you. May this young man rest in peace after receiving some vindication from the agency responsible for the man who killed him. Law enforcement should not be killing innocent people. People who are weak-minded or even power-driven should not be in professions where life and death are decided sometimes in 'quick-time.' The civil case will happen. A large payout will take place as it should. The airman will not receive any of the outcome. Roger Fortson will simply rest (better) in peace—rhetorically-speaking!
I agree a criminal trial should occur. This is a situation primed for looking into the background of this former police officer (and do not let him go to another policing or security outlet/outfit).
And now he should be arrested and charged.
Shortly after this incident, another one in Alaska took place.
Thanks for posting this Snuffy.
That is very good news.
Airman Fortson's family deserves justice.
He should be arrested and charged.
It’s much better and less derisive to let the investigation play out before folks here begin their speculation.
You're too late.