Air Force airman fatally shot by police officer

[peenie 1,701]

The police officer was called to an apartment complex because of a disturbance. Unfortunately, the police officer went to the wrong floor and wrong apartment. The police officer knocked on the door but hid himself from the view of the resident. The airman answered the door with gun in hand, but pointed downward. The officer shot him to death. The video is available elsewhere, I won’t post it here.

i really think there is a double standard when it comes to being a gun owner. Carrying a weapon when you’re black is seen as a threat even when it’s not pointed at anyone. 

The boy shot to death in the park carrying a toy gun, the young man shot to death carrying a toy rifle that he picked up in the toy department in Walmart was shot to death, Philando Castillo was shot to death while reaching for his wallet after being asked to show his license and admitting that he had a gun and this man all seen as threats. 

Yet, Rittenhouse and Zimmerman are alive and seen as heroes.

 https://www.foxnews.com/us/air-force-airman-fatally-shot-florida-deputies-breached-wrong-apartment-attorney-says
 

 

[SUXBNME 1,352]

Vid

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/09/us/roger-forston-florida-airman-shot/index.html

 

Looks to me like Suicide by cops....Deputy announces himself and idiot opens the door with a firearm...How fukkin stupid and tragic at the same time. 

ETA - Stupid on the idiot...Tragic because..well...He might still be alive if he wasn't so stupid. 
I wonder what we will find out about his domestic abuse record?  (if there is one)

[peenie 1,701]

1 minute ago, SUXBNME said:

Looks to me like Suicide....Deputy announces himself and idiot opens the door with a firearm...How fukkin stupid and tragic at the same time. 

The officer hid himself and the home owner went to protect himself. He is allowed to have a weapon. What if criminals were knocking to rob him?

[SUXBNME 1,352]

3 minutes ago, peenie said:

The officer hid himself and the home owner went to protect himself. He is allowed to have a weapon. What if criminals were knocking to rob him?

He identified himself as a deputy.  From what little we saw from the vid, this wasn't the first time the Sherrifs dept was call in (allegedly). 

Also, we don't know yet if he was allowed to have a weapon...Or do we?  
Either way even if he didn't believe it was the police at his door and it he thought it could have been a robbery, why the hell did he open the door? 
It will be interesting to see the details as they come out. 

[peenie 1,701]

But the officer shot him first and then shouted at him to drop the gun when the gun was clearly not in his hands. 

I’m not going to argue back and forth. 

I just hope his family gets some sort of relief for their pain and suffering. They raised a good son and yet he still suffered the same fate as a common criminal. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,895]

Bad situation. I can understand questioning it. RIP to the young Airman. Also I’m sure that cop is hurting as well. I would be.  Horrible for all.  

[Fireballer 2,422]

20 minutes ago, SUXBNME said:

He identified himself as a deputy.  From what little we saw from the vid, this wasn't the first time the Sherrifs dept was call in (allegedly). 

Also, we don't know yet if he was allowed to have a weapon...Or do we?  
Either way even if he didn't believe it was the police at his door and it he thought it could have been a robbery, why the hell did he open the door?
It will be interesting to see the details as they come out. 

Hold on, Ben Crump said it was “breached”. Are you lying?

[SUXBNME 1,352]

12 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

Hold on, Ben Crump said it was “breached”. Are you lying?

I dunno...Looking at the vid I poasted, it didn't appear to be breached...Then again, I'm just a stoopid maga white trash fuk . What the hell do I know 

[SUXBNME 1,352]

31 minutes ago, peenie said:

But the officer shot him first and then shouted at him to drop the gun when the gun was clearly not in his hands. 

I’m not going to argue back and forth. 

I just hope his family gets some sort of relief for their pain and suffering. They raised a good son and yet he still suffered the same fate as a common criminal. 

No need to argue back and forth, but the bodycam footage clearly shows that he had the gun in his hand at time he opened the door. 

Speaking of common criminals, (not your daughter)  do you think your daughter is going to vote for Trump this year?  

[TimHauck 1,869]

9 hours ago, SUXBNME said:

  
Either way even if he didn't believe it was the police at his door and it he thought it could have been a robbery, why the hell did he open the door? 
It will be interesting to see the details as they come out. 

Agreed.  @Horseman doesn’t though, he says you should always open the door when someone knocks on it.

[TimHauck 1,869]

9 hours ago, SUXBNME said:

I dunno...Looking at the vid I poasted, it didn't appear to be breached...

Looks to me like the resident opened the door.

I’m confused about the dispute about whether or not they had the right apartment. I would tend to believe the police here, at least that they went to the apartment they were told.   Maybe the alleged “abuse” was on the FaceTime call?

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,643]

Must be racist 

[wiffleball 4,662]

You know what I think we should do is have the cops paired up with mailmen.

 

I mean, how many freaking times in my lifetime do I have to read or hear about some idiot cops going to the wrong door, the wrong house, the wrong building...

Geez, Dominos has a better grasp than idiot cops. I'm surprised these cops even find their way home at night. 

[Mike Honcho 4,105]

26 minutes ago, wiffleball said:

You know what I think we should do is have the cops paired up with mailmen.

 

I mean, how many freaking times in my lifetime do I have to read or hear about some idiot cops going to the wrong door, the wrong house, the wrong building...

Geez, Dominos has a better grasp than idiot cops. I'm surprised these cops even find their way home at night. 

Better not be my mailman, I get my neighbors mail at least once every 2 weeks.  

[peenie 1,701]

I'm grateful for Ring. I'm sure it would've helped this situation. 

[TheNewGirl 1,057]

12 minutes ago, peenie said:

I'm grateful for Ring. I'm sure it would've helped this situation. 

Obama/Biden free Ring's for everyone? Like the Free Obama phones?

[kilroy69 1,020]

15 hours ago, peenie said:

The police officer was called to an apartment complex because of a disturbance. Unfortunately, the police officer went to the wrong floor and wrong apartment. The police officer knocked on the door but hid himself from the view of the resident. The airman answered the door with gun in hand, but pointed downward. The officer shot him to death. The video is available elsewhere, I won’t post it here.

i really think there is a double standard when it comes to being a gun owner. Carrying a weapon when you’re black is seen as a threat even when it’s not pointed at anyone. 

The boy shot to death in the park carrying a toy gun, the young man shot to death carrying a toy rifle that he picked up in the toy department in Walmart was shot to death, Philando Castillo was shot to death while reaching for his wallet after being asked to show his license and admitting that he had a gun and this man all seen as threats. 

Yet, Rittenhouse and Zimmerman are alive and seen as heroes.

 https://www.foxnews.com/us/air-force-airman-fatally-shot-florida-deputies-breached-wrong-apartment-attorney-says
 

 

This is focking absurd and I was just talking to my kid about it the other day. My talk to my kid goes like this. Do not interact with the police unless you have to. They should be helpful. They should be nice. They could just as easy kill you. The police are like the taxman. The smaller amount of time you have to interact with them the less chances something goes wrong. There is NO focking way qualified immunity should come into play when you shot someone  within seconds of him opening his door. 

You see this as a race issue. I see is as a police issue. Kinda hard not to notice that you only listed black people as being killed by stupid decisions by cops. Andy Lopez was gunned down for carrying an airsoft gun  Deven Guilford was shot 7 times and killed by a cop that claimed he was fighting him but nothing was caught on camera . Rylan Wilder was shot when the cops mistook him for a robbery suspect they were chasing. Win Rozario was killed within mins of calling 911 for a mental breakdown.  None of these are black people. The fact that cops KNOW they have qualified immunity allow them to act irresponsible to ALL people. THAT is what you should be worried about. End blanket qualified immunity and this changes. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,895]

People have no idea what qualified immunity is. Please educate yourselves. 

[IGotWorms 3,405]

16 hours ago, peenie said:

The police officer was called to an apartment complex because of a disturbance. Unfortunately, the police officer went to the wrong floor and wrong apartment. The police officer knocked on the door but hid himself from the view of the resident. The airman answered the door with gun in hand, but pointed downward. The officer shot him to death. The video is available elsewhere, I won’t post it here.

i really think there is a double standard when it comes to being a gun owner. Carrying a weapon when you’re black is seen as a threat even when it’s not pointed at anyone. 

The boy shot to death in the park carrying a toy gun, the young man shot to death carrying a toy rifle that he picked up in the toy department in Walmart was shot to death, Philando Castillo was shot to death while reaching for his wallet after being asked to show his license and admitting that he had a gun and this man all seen as threats. 

Yet, Rittenhouse and Zimmerman are alive and seen as heroes.

 https://www.foxnews.com/us/air-force-airman-fatally-shot-florida-deputies-breached-wrong-apartment-attorney-says
 

 

Only by white nationalist types.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of those these days. Thanks, Trump!

[Mike Honcho 4,105]

59 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

People have no idea what qualified immunity is. Please educate yourselves. 

Qualified immunity is the immunity granted to an officer if they violate someone's rights, but those rights are not so well established that EVERYONE would understand they were a violation. 

It's pretty much a made up thing that has no basis in the constitution and really has no business existing. 

It also has nothing to do with what happened here, but hey, when does anything you say have anything to do with the current topic. 

[Fireballer 2,422]

8 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Qualified immunity is the immunity granted to an officer if they violate someone's rights, but those rights are not so well established that EVERYONE would understand they were a violation. 

It has nothing to do with what happened here, but hey, when does anything you say have anything to do with the current topic. 

Do you think there’s a special secret list of rights police can’t violate?  I’d start with the Constitution as an “established” source. Are you saying people don’t know that police have to adhere to constitutional rights or are you saying people dont know what’s in the Constitution?

[Mike Honcho 4,105]

2 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

Do you think there’s a special secret list of rights police can’t violate?  I’d start with the Constitution as an “established” source. Are you saying people don’t know that police have to adhere to constitutional rights or are you saying people dont know what’s in the Constitution?

I rushed my answer, but it's police who get qualified immunity and it allows them to violate people rights, because they aren't established enough to know that the person has that right.

The Police are the ones saying if they don't know what's in the Constituion, then they can't be sued for violating someone's rights. It's a BS thing that was invented in the 60s'.  You know the saying Ignorance of the law is no excuse, well for the police, it actually is an excuse.

From Cornell Law School.

Quote

 

qualified immunity

Qualified immunity is a type of legal immunity that protects a government official from lawsuits alleging that the official violated a plaintiff's rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right. “Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.” See: Pearson v. Callahan.

When determining whether a right was “clearly established,” courts consider whether a hypothetical reasonable official would have known that the defendant’s conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights. Courts conducting this analysis apply the law that was in force at the time of the alleged violation, not the law in effect when the court considers the case.

 

 

Quote

 

The Cato Institute on Ending Qualified Immunity

Qualified immunity is a judicial doctrine that shields public officials, like police officers, from liability when they break the law. Cato’s Project on Criminal Justice chose to make the elimination of qualified immunity one of its top priorities nearly three years ago for the simple reason that civil society is impossible without a well‐functioning criminal justice system.

The doctrine was invented by the Supreme Court in the 1960s, with no basis statutory text, legislative intent, or sound public policy. While established civil rights laws direct that any government official who violates someone’s constitutional rights “shall be liable” to the person they injured, the Supreme Court’s muddling of the law with qualified immunity has allowed police officers to avoid responsibility. Law enforcement officials are now routinely excused from bad behavior—even actions that cause harm or death to innocent victims, and even when they knowingly violate a person’s rights.

Either the Supreme Court or Congress could end qualified immunity, and it would be a major victory for accountability.

 

 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,895]

56 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Qualified immunity is the immunity granted to an officer if they violate someone's rights, but those rights are not so well established that EVERYONE would understand they were a violation. 

It's pretty much a made up thing that has no basis in the constitution and really has no business existing. 

It also has nothing to do with what happened here, but hey, when does anything you say have anything to do with the current topic. 

It was mentioned by another poster in this thread. Your eagerness has once again made you the fool. Also, you don’t know what qualified immunity is. Please educate yourself.  

[Cdub100 3,437]

#1 NEVER open the door for the police unless they have a warrant

#2 I know this is a very hard one for black people to understand, but the police have been granted certain authority over you. Follow their directions and 99.99999% of the time everything will be fine. 

It really is that simple.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,895]

44 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

I rushed my answer, but it's police who get qualified immunity and it allows them to violate people rights, because they aren't established enough to know that the person has that right.

The Police are the ones saying if they don't know what's in the Constituion, then they can't be sued for violating someone's rights. It's a BS thing that was invented in the 60s'.  You know the saying Ignorance of the law is no excuse, well for the police, it actually is an excuse.

From Cornell Law School.

 

 

That’s wrong too. It doesn’t shield them when they break the law.  It shields them from being personally sued for carrying out their duties in good faith.   But it has to be determined they were acting in good faith. It does not provide immunity  from breaking the law.  Seriously, there are cops in prison all over the country. How the Fock do some of you think they got there? 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,895]

Do you people actually believe that cops have not been sued and found liable for violating someone’s civil rights? 

[TimHauck 1,869]

56 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

Do you think there’s a special secret list of rights police can’t violate?  I’d start with the Constitution as an “established” source. Are you saying people don’t know that police have to adhere to constitutional rights or are you saying people dont know what’s in the Constitution?

What do you think will happen to the cop in this scenario based on the information we have?

[Cdub100 3,437]

2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Do you people actually believe that cops have not been sued and found liable for violating someone’s civil rights? 

If the police violate my civil rights. I can sue them in court. At the time of them violating it nothing good comes to fight them at that moment. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,895]

2 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

If the police violate my civil rights. I can sue them in court. At the time of them violating it nothing good comes to fight them at that moment. 

Yes you can. But if it’s determined that the cop wqs acting in good faith, they will be shielded from personal liability. You will get paid by the  city, town etc.   No immunity from criminal liability.  If the DA wants to charge, they charge.  

[Mike Honcho 4,105]

10 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

It was mentioned by another poster in this thread. Your eagerness has once again made you the fool. Also, you don’t know what qualified immunity is. Please educate yourself.  

You are correct, I didn't see that post

6 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

That’s wrong too. It doesn’t shield them when they break the law.  It shields them from being personally sued for carrying out their duties in good faith.   But it has to be determined they were acting in good faith. It does not provide immunity  from breaking the law.  Seriously, there are cops in prison all over the country. How the Fock do some of you think they got there? 

No, it's not wrong, it's pretty on the nose and it essentially what you are saying, minus that I didn't mention the good faith part...but it's still BS.  The cops if they believe they are acting in good faith get to use QI as to not be sued for violating someone's rights...ie, they get to be ignorant of the law that they are charged with enforcing.  

 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,895]

14 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

You are correct, I didn't see that post

No, it's not wrong, it's pretty on the nose and it essentially what you are saying, minus that I didn't mention the good faith part...but it's still BS.  The cops if they believe they are acting in good faith get to use QI as to not be sued for violating someone's rights...ie, they get to be ignorant of the law that they are charged with enforcing.  

 

Ok. Let me give you a scenario: There’s a riot going on. Cop sees what he thinks to be someone armed and acting in a suspicious manner. Do you want the cop held liable if he checks out what’s going on, detains what turns out to be an innocent person? You want the cop in that instance to pay? How about if a cop uses the physical force he was trained in to affect a lawful arrest, and the perp ends up injured? Cop has to pay? If you do, good luck getting a cop to protect and serve. 

[wiffleball 4,662]

4 hours ago, peenie said:

I'm grateful for Ring. I'm sure it would've helped this situation. 

I got The Ring. 

Now there's some creepy little girl chasing my Dog around the house.

[IGotWorms 3,405]

49 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

#1 NEVER open the door for the police unless they have a warrant

#2 I know this is a very hard one for black people to understand, but the police have been granted certain authority over you. Follow their directions and 99.99999% of the time everything will be fine. 

It really is that simple.

#2 is smart but what you don’t understand is a lot of cops think just like you, and assume that all black people are somehow predisposed to unlawful behavior or are otherwise inherently inferior.

So no matter how you act, that is what the cop will assume of you.

Kind of a can’t win scenario, no?

[Fireballer 2,422]

41 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

they get to be ignorant of the law that they are charged with enforcing.  

 

No they don’t.  They’re judged by the reasonable officer test.  If a reasonable officer would know that what they did was wrong, there’s no defense.  

[Mike Honcho 4,105]

23 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Ok. Let me give you a scenario: There’s a riot going on. Cop sees what he thinks to be someone armed and acting in a suspicious manner. Do you want the cop held liable if he checks out what’s going on, detains what turns out to be an innocent person? You want the cop in that instance to pay? How about if a cop uses the physical force he was trained in to affect a lawful arrest, and the perp ends up injured? Cop has to pay? If you do, good luck getting a cop to protect and serve. 

Both of your examples have tons of case law that apply to those situations and are not examples of qualified immunity and where it applies.  

Quote

Qualified immunity is a type of legal immunity that protects a government official from lawsuits alleging that the official violated a plaintiff's rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right. “Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.” See: Pearson v. Callahan.

When determining whether a right was “clearly established,” courts consider whether a hypothetical reasonable official would have known that the defendant’s conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights. Courts conducting this analysis apply the law that was in force at the time of the alleged violation, not the law in effect when the court considers the case.

Jeez, I posted the legal definition from Cornell and you still don't get it and you were a cop. 

[Fireballer 2,422]

49 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

What do you think will happen to the cop in this scenario based on the information we have?

This specific situation, I’m not sure.  I haven’t dug into it past some news blurbs and edited body cam.  My initial lean, if you will, is against the officer.  This is a tough one though.  Most interactions with an armed person don’t occur like this.  There’s usually some type of brandishing, a threat, furtive movement, refusal to obey commands, etc.  

[Mike Honcho 4,105]

5 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

No they don’t.  They’re judged by the reasonable officer test.  If a reasonable officer would know that what they did was wrong, there’s no defense.  

Yes they do, if the "reasonable officer" doesn't understand what they did would be a violation of a person's civil rights, they get to claim qualified immunity. They get to use a defense that they didn't know what they did was illegal.  

This is exactly why it's so controversial and IMO, total BS.

[Fireballer 2,422]

3 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Yes they do, if the "reasonable officer" doesn't understand what they did would be a violation of a person's civil rights, they get to claim qualified immunity. They get to use a defense that they didn't know what they did was illegal.  

This is exactly why it's so controversial and IMO, total BS.

You do know the “reasonable officer” is hypothetical, right? They don’t bring a peer cop into court and pick their brain.  

[Cdub100 3,437]

2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

#2 is smart but what you don’t understand is a lot of cops think just like you, and assume that all black people are somehow predisposed to unlawful behavior or are otherwise inherently inferior.

So no matter how you act, that is what the cop will assume of you.

Kind of a can’t win scenario, no?

Well, because statistically speaking black people are predisposed to unlawful behavior. Any metric you look at in every country in the world proves that. It's not even a discussion. 

Now, I can't fix that. No culture can fix it. They are how they are. 

So, if I'm a black person who isn't part of that very large % predisposed to unlawful behavior. I know how to mind my p's a q's. I will act overtly nice to the police. I will follow instructions as I should. Yes sir, no sir. Hands on the wheel with my papers ready. And if they abuse my civil liberties I sue in court. (BTW this is how I interact with the police)

Instead, the opposite seems to happen because of that predisposition. Answering the door with a gun, fighting with the cops when detained. And yes other races do it too, but everyone knows the predisposition you mentioned above.

 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,895]

22 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Both of your examples have tons of case law that apply to those situations and are not examples of qualified immunity and where it applies.  

Jeez, I posted the legal definition from Cornell and you still don't get it and you were a cop. 

Sure I don’t. And you don’t know what qualified means. If you did you wouldn’t be posting.