The important part begins at 2:55
So far what I gathered, it was a case where the wrong information led the officer to the wrong apartment.
The apartment door had a peephole and I have to wonder if Senior Airman Roger Fortson used it. Being an apartment, probably a rental, it may have been fogger or scratched, but replacements run under $10 at your local Orange or Blue Warehouse.
Or just make the investment on a doorbell camera.
If he had qualms about whomever was on the other side (he armed himself), door should not have been opened at all. Call 911.
I believe mistakes were made by all involved.
The only thing that pisses me off is that Race Baiter Benjami Crump is already sinking his fangs on the case, and he will probably make a good chunk of cash out of this tragedy.
Yikes!
Also, agreed, too little caution on the part of the apartment dweller and a bit too fast on the deputy’s part.
Police shouldn’t kill people simply because they are armed. You have a country where concealed/open carry is more and more permissible and at the same time police who will shoot you because you are open carrying. I don’t see this as all that much different than the killing of the Good Samaritan in Arvada, Colorado (https://www.denverpost.com/2021/06/24/johnny-hurley-arvada-police-shooting/ ). Police should not be trained to kill people just because they are carrying.
I absolutely agree with this sentiment.
.
That said, I think it behooves me to recognize the way the world works as-is, and act accordingly, even though I want it to be different and am willing to work towards that goal. Particularly when it literally could be the difference between life and death.
I’ve seen multiple people incorrectly state it was the wrong apartment. It was not. The woman in the body cam said it was apartment 1401. Plainly visible is the door placard for the apartment, 1401.
That’s not a approval or condemnation of the officer or the victim.
But we need to get our facts correct before we attempt to try this case in either a formal court of law, or the court of public opinion
The default setting is: “See a gun, shoot at the gun.” It is a single-line instruction set; there is no menu option for “find out what’s actually going on” (we could almost certainly get more reasonable performance from robots, assuming Asimov’s Three Laws are incorporated).
Given that the only setting is “see gun, shoot gun,” until that changes the public’s default setting should be “avoid police / maintain barrier between self and police.” Employment of deterrence and analysis equipment (peep hole, door camera, small side window, etc.” is prudent.*
The Benjami Crump Brigade always jumps into action for the shootee, post event; I wonder if his ilk has ever considered action against rental companies for not providing adequate “who’s on the other side of the door” equipment.
* Door cameras, if of sufficient quality and properly aimed are excellent, assuming the resident has the ability to observe happenings outside the door in real time, but in many cases they lack adequate audio communication ability; I remember from days of yore that M-48s and M-60s had a handset on the rear for communication between crew and infantry; a simple directly connected pair of wall-mounted handsets (or reasonable substitute thereof) on each side of the door would suffice: doorbell rings (or knock on door), occupant raises interior handset, presses button, exterior handset buzzes, occupant asks “hello, who is there and what do you want?” Handset positioning would assist in ensuring visitor was in camera range and focus). I’d think some smart industrial designer(s) could gussy it up a bit in a more attractive package and incorporate a video system without much effort (admittedly, in some neighborhoods the operational life might be short, but just because some people die at 15 or 25 is no reason to not open one’s own retirement account, and “failure to maintain equipment” would be another reason for the Benjami Crump Brigade to spring into action).
Yes, but. There are simple low-tech solutions that mostly work (peephole sights), and most residential doors aren’t soundproof – you can yell through them and be heard. I don’t want to give the Crumpster-divers any more fodder.
I’m not sure I want to stand in the center of a door of questionable quality or security, that’s also not bullet resistant, much less bullet proof, looking through a $10 home center peephole. I doubt the cops would shoot through a peephole on general principle, but I wouldn’t trust them not to at this point. Certainly the neighborhood crims would, and a shadow over the peephole confirms that someone is standing in front of it on the other side.
I’l agree that low tech is good, especially if it works; we’ve already see one example – posted by Miguel on this blog, in fact – of cops taping over a doorbell camera, so backup means of determining “who goes there” (tribute to John Campbell’s 1938 sci fi story) could be important.
Cops who respond to the wrong address should lose ALL immunity and should face the same consequences I would face if I randomly hurt or killed an innocent person, from the chief down to the lowest ranking cop involved. Shit like this will keep happening until everyone involved feels the consequences of failure. Get it right!
There’s also “swatting”. Whenever that happens, it should not be dismissed as a “prank” which seems to be common, but rather charged as “attempted murder” which it plainly is.
Definitely mistakes all around. I understand why the cop might be a bit trigger happy (domestic disturbances can lead to shootings) and away from the peep hole (again shootings), but he was too trigger happy it seems.
The victim was also not smart to open the door, especially with a gun in hand after hearing police. I get that sometimes criminals yell the same thing, but he didn’t have to open the door and could yell through it too. Also, he could’ve only cracked the door if he wanted verify its an actual officer.