The Police Killing of Roger Fortson Shows the Conflict Between the 2nd Amendment and Paranoid Cops
Fortson, a 23-year-old active duty airman, was shot and killed by a Florida sheriff's deputy when he opened the door to his apartment holding a gun at his side.

Hundreds of Air Force service members in dress blue uniforms filed into a Georgia megachurch Friday for the funeral of Roger Fortson, 23, a senior airman who was shot and killed by an Okaloosa County sheriff's deputy earlier this month after he answered the door to his apartment holding a gun at his side.
Fortson's dramatic funeral, which included a video message from Rev. Al Sharpton, was a stark reminder of the deadly incoherence between America's Second Amendment culture and hypervigilant police training and tactics.
Fortson was fatally shot on May 3 after sheriff's deputies arrived at his apartment complex in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, responding to a call about an alleged domestic disturbance.
Body camera footage released by the Okaloosa County Sheriff's Office shows the deputy knocked on Fortson's door and announced himself several times. Fortson eventually opened the door, holding a handgun at his side. The officer said "step back" and began firing. Fortson only had time to raise his empty hand, palm outward. Three to four seconds elapsed between Fortson opening the door and the deputy firing six rounds at him.
Ben Crump, a prominent civil rights attorney who is representing Fortson's family, said in a recent press conference that police went to the wrong door. A radio dispatcher told deputies that the call was "fourth-party information from the front desk at the leasing office," and body camera footage showed an unidentified woman telling deputies she was "not sure" which door the disturbance came from before directing them to Fortson's apartment. Fortson's family says he legally owned the gun, had no criminal record, and was home alone at the time of the incident.
"We've got to call it as it is—Roger died of murder," Rev. Jamal Bryant said at Fortson's funeral. "He died of stone-cold murder. And somebody has got to be held accountable. Roger was better to America than America was to Roger."
The Okaloosa County Sheriff's Office initially framed the fatal shooting as self-defense.
"Hearing sounds of a disturbance, he reacted in self defense after he encountered a 23-year old man armed with a gun and after the deputy had identified himself as law enforcement," a May 4 statement from the Okaloosa County Sheriff's Office read.
The two narratives illustrate a problem Reason has written about time and time again: The government insists that its citizens have a Second Amendment right to own guns and defend their homes with them, but it also insists that it's reasonable for police to respond with deadly force when they're startled by the sight of a gun, or what could be a gun but might be a harmless object, or the knowledge that a gun is nearby, as in the case of Philando Castile.
Last year police in Farmington, New Mexico, fatally shot a man while responding to a domestic disturbance call at the wrong house, after the man showed up at the door holding a gun.
In 2022, Florida resident Corey Marioneaux Jr. was charged with attempted murder of a police officer for shooting a gun at SWAT team officers who had just broken through his front door with a battering ram at 5 a.m. The charges against Marioneaux were later dropped, and an internal review found no wrongdoing on the part of the police either—a simple misunderstanding that could have killed someone.
That same year, a Minneapolis Police Department officer shot and killed 22-year-old Amir Locke during the execution of a no-knock raid. Locke, who was not named in the search warrant, appeared to be asleep under a blanket on a couch. As police entered the room, he put his hand on the barrel of a handgun, and an officer shot him three times.
In 2006, former Reason writer Radley Balko detailed the case of Cory Maye, a Mississippi man sentenced to death for fatally shooting a police officer during a no-knock drug raid.
Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis relentlessly brags about "Free Florida," a supposed refuge from liberal busybodies, where things like owning a gun and not eating vat-grown meat are sacred. The title of his book was in fact The Courage to Be Free. But DeSantis has no courage when it comes to the police. His only priority is giving law enforcement more privileges and insulation from civilian accountability.
Roger Fortson lived in this very same Florida. Now his name will be added to the long list of people who were killed for doing something they were assured was their right as free citizens of the United States.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Were there any assault acorns that fell compelling officers to shoot?
No. But the officer was from the same department.
In watching the video, the officer fired almost immediately upon Fortson opening the door. It was a bad shoot.
Somehow I doubt the cop lovers here agree with you. I haven't looked at the other 20 replies yet but I expect at least 10 excuses.
Going with a gun at your side is inane.
Well, far fewer than I thought showed up. Maybe they are getting tired of defendng the indefensible.
Your citation fell off.
Or maybe you’re full of shit.
I was just too early to the party. Now the cop lovers have arrived and are giving all manner of excuses and defenses. Seems like they are still willing to defend the indefensible, they're just slower on the draw.
Or maybe, some of us can distinguish between cases, such as the one above lumped in with the others where it was the right house, and the guy on the warrant went for a gun
No.
Hardcore bootlickers will never stop defending murderers. In my small town, cops were called to a scene where a 75-year-old grandmother with advanced dementia (yes, the 911 call included that information) was out of control. When the elderly woman was seen holding a kitchen knife, the officers proceed to do what they always do, repeatedly screaming "Drop the fucking knife!" She froze, of course, so they immediately murdered her. Our weak Democratic Attorney General refused to prosecute, perhaps he was afraid of being shot himself.
Politicians are typically afraid of the police unions. They hold a lot of money and their support of a candidate is almost as strong as AIPAC.
Governor Kristi Noem here in South Dakota had to be politically blackmailed to sign off on Constitutional Carry because she dreams of getting back to the Federal level either as Trumps Veep or perhaps a run of her own for President and pissing off the police unions is not a good idea for a run at federal level offices if you want to run as a Republican.
Yeah,your DA may have feared exactly that
or that he would get no cooperation from them when
he needed them to lie for him.
Next stop: DeSantis pardon?
No, because the cop will not be prosecuted.
The victim was active duty military. Maybe the feds could use that to claim jurisdiction? Probably not.
Best part of that video was the officer after hearing acorns on the roof of a car started doing tacticool barrel rolls to get away. Whole thing would be funny if firearms were not involved and his partner who only heard the clown screaming "shots fired" started unloading into a car where a guy was in the back in handcuffs hugging the floor.
"Fox, do a barrel roll!"
Maybe we should make giving the wrong address a felony?
Maybe cops should "be sure" before knocking on doors?
Maybe cops should understand why people do not open their doors?
1) – yes, absolutely.
2) – yes, but you are asking for a miracle here. Perhaps losing QI when this happens solves the issue.
3) some liberty folks promote talking with visiting police through an open window. Will say that an LEO responding to a DV call may try to come through the door with that tactic being used. But much better than opening the door in most situations.
1) Yes, if it's intentional. That's a little weaker than "absolutely". We have to allow for the possibility of innocent error.
2) Yes and it would take a miracle to get right every time. And strongly yes, getting rid of QI would help a lot.
3) Eliminating QI might help here, too, by giving them an incentive to understand the people they're supposed to protect and serve. But ultimately, we have to eliminate the 'warrior mentality' and the entire 'us vs them' culture. We need to demilitarize the police. Start by taking away their paramilitary trappings (dark uniforms, titles, heavy weapons and pretty much everything about SWAT).
Regarding #3) When the Federal Government is giving old military gear to police departents and the cops call themselves by military titles what do you expect? They call everyone who isn't a cop a "civilian" INCLUDING currently serving military. There are more shows on TV about cops than there are shows about The Roman Empire. That is a sickness plain and simple.
1) Even genuinely innocent errors that result in dead bodies ought to be career ending.
For the cop, yes. But "giving the wrong address" is something that witnesses do.
If the witness is so unreliable then maybe the cops need to take that into account and not go to the door wrapped so fucking tight.
People say cops are or should be held to a higher standard.
I'd settle for them being held to any standard.
Derek Chauvin says hi.
The tens of thousands of police who commit unlawful acts on a daily basis think you're cute.
But there is a standard.
That’s so far from reality-based that it qualifies as no more than landfill. Do you even KNOW how many people are shot by cops in law enforcement activities annually? I didn’t think so . . .
Move the goalposts much? I said commit unlawful acts, not killing people.
Like unlawful detainment.
Unlawful searches.
The fictional boilerplate they put in all their reports.
Testilying (what cops jokingly call taking the stand in court).
Arresting someone on false charges that will be dismissed, knowing the process is the punishment. (what cops jokingly call POP or Pissing Off the Police).
Attacking people who record them.
Destroying or planting evidence.
That is all expected and standard police behavior.
Don’t forget speeding whenever they feel like it.
When you have one driving behind you, just do the limit or a tick under. They will usually turn or pass you first opportunity.
Two days a week I drive down a highway that goes back and forth from 2 lanes to divided 4 that’s always crawling with state boys. Several times I’ve had one behind me the whole way it’s 4, only to speed up half a mile before it goes down to 2 and pass everyone.
cite?
I’ve got a standard they should be held to: cop lives DON’T matter. Problem fucking solved.
I don't know, the last time I had to call the cops, they insisted that my intersection didn't exist. The dispatcher was quite wrong about this. Apparently, they believe that my street changes names about 2 blocks further south than where it actually does. (at the city limit)
Like my son always says, Call the cops and then call for a pizza delivery. See who gets there first.
If you're a crime victim and you want the cops to show up, say there's a black person selling drugs or a stray dog. They'll show up quick looking for someone or something to kill.
I've called the cops to my home twice in my life. Both times it was because I had a vehicle broken into and my insurance agent said I needed a police report. I asked if they could just come over and verify windows were broken and shit was missing. They couldn't, the process needed a police report.
Both times they were totally uninterested in "solving" the crime. They blamed me for my van being dressed provacatively I guess. The second time there was a maintenance guy who saw three kids on bicycles riding off to the west with sacks of stuff. Lots of cars got broken into that night. Cops didn't care. Said that eyewitnesses are wrong more often than not. They just wanted to hand me the fucking form and go eat donuts.
A former coworker’s neighbor’s car was burglarized. So the story that I was told goes.
The victim went to the police who did nothing. Then went to the local shops that sell used crap. State law requires id and a signature from sellers. So she found her stuff and the guy who did it, on her own.
She took this to the police. They laughed at her, mocked her, pretended to offer her a job.
Not sure what happened next.
Cool made up story bro.
Wow, cool anecdotal stories. I have one too. Bronco broken into in Orlando a while back. Cops came in the morning, took statement, found the guy (and my radio) within about a week.
Zero mocking, they did their jobs.
Oh wow, they did their job. They made a report. That's pulling teeth right there. Then they followed up on it? Wow. That is an unusual police force you've got there. Investigating crime. Wow. Whenever I've been the victim of a crime they searched me and ran me for warrants. That's it. Then again, it wasn't Orlando.
Poor sarc.
Whenever I’ve been the victim of a crime they searched me and ran me for warrants.
Because you reek of cheap booze.
Some poorly parented girl once keyed my car. Cops tracked the deadbeat dad down and made him pay for the repairs. The cops told me he got the money by cashing in his empties.
Cool story, didn't happen to me or anyone I know for some reason.
You got extremely lucky.
https://www.rubyhome.com/blog/property-crime-stats/
Clearance only means the cops closed the case.
And that only counts the cases where they actually filed a report instead of telling the crime victim that they deserved it.
Even then half the time they lock up the wrong guy.
The point is not that I got my radio back, which as you point out is very rare. I mean does anyone expect the police to go all CSI to find a car stereo? That isn't rational.
The point is that contrary to the anecdote from the folks who apparently have only ever had negative interactions with police, as for myself and literally everyone I know, that has not been the case.
Perhaps there is a reason for the difference?
First off, petty criminals grow up to be worse criminals. They move from stealing your radio to stealing your car. If policing is supposed to "keep the peace" going after petty crooks is exactly what they should be doing.
Secondly, they get a pretty fair paycheck and their departments are well funded. What the fuck else are they supposed to do? Write traffic tickers and eat donuts?
Thirdly, they bitch about how dangerous their jobs are, most of the injuries and deaths are due to being hit by cars while writing tickets. It would be a lot safer to track down petty crooks and intervene before they become more dangerous criminals.
Perhaps there is a reason. What are you not mentioning? Are you a politician? Policeman? Prominent local citizen? Local KKK leader?
The main reason (I am pretty sure, as I am none of those things on your little list) is that I didn't make my story up...
So you do indeed recognize that law enforcement is a requirement; that's a good start.
The whole point of this is to serve as a counterpoint to the cool stories of cops who specifically don't do their jobs, and even less likely 'make fun of' or 'ridicule' people.
Am I saying that literally never happens, of course not. But to infer that is the norm, is a crock of steaming shit.
I mean, that’s a good idea to order your fav food for your last meal, but you could just as easily not call the cops like a normal person concerned for their own self preservation.
"No Knock"warrants should never be issued
Is this “stone cold” murder or a cop losing his shit because a citizen inside his own home had the impudence to answer the door armed?
I realize that police are asked to do a dangerous job in circumstances that may go pear shaped very quickly, but a person holding a gun inside his own residence does not give an officer the justification to empty his weapon in panic.
The thing is, they agreed to do a dangerous job too. No one made them become cops. They expose themselves to the extra dangers that come with that job voluntarily. As such, I would say that police should be expected to tolerate more danger than any ordinary citizen and if anything be held to a higher standard on when use of deadly force is justified.
Exactly!
The cops were really embarased right after the Columbine school shooting. While shots were being fired and people were dying the cops formed a fucking perimiter outside leaning over their cruisers with their pistols and rifles pointed at the school. They did that for something like an hour until well after the two boys had committed suicide. Then when the students came out the cops ran up and demanded they drop everything and raise their hands. Just to add insult to injury. Cops didn't enter the fucking building until it was empty. Then they locked everyone out of the place and chased them off the property. The teachers and students couldn't come back to the property for something like a month. Still they couldn't go in for stuff like drivers licences and car keys. I was there originating keys for the teachers and students steadily for three days along with locksmiths from all over Denver. It was a fucking mess and the cops were part of the problem.
To be fair to the police, they have officer safety drilled into their heads as the most important thing. To the point where they fear for their job if they put their safety at risk. And that's easy being that they very rarely face actual danger in their job. The mostly strut around like peacocks attacking anyone who doesn't ask how long they should stay in the air when ordered to jump.
So that was brand spanking new. They were in a quandary. But they solved it easily enough. The public is everyone else, and they protect the public. So by containing the situation and letting the killers kill, they protect both the public and themselves.
Safety first. I hate that trite line. If we lived by "safety first" we'd never leave the fucking house. Life involves risk. We manage the risk but we have to take that risk if we want to do more than hide under our beds.
When "safety first" is your mantra, and your job is to initiate violence on others, then the mantra is merely an excuse to go into overdrive on anyone who defends themselves. Which is what they do.
Yup. You ain't wrong.
I like to say "safety third".
Exactly. A company has to make a profit and satisfy customers before it can consider safety issues. If it doesn't do the first two it won't have to worry about the third.
Agreed.
I don't think he's excusing the shooting. I think he's criticizing the same, stupid narrative.
Ashli Babbitt was in the Air Force, do we get an article on her "stone cold murder"? Because we got several about the senseless murder of Jordan Neely by a former Marine and the murder of Garrett Foster.
Personally, the part that got me was "hypervigilant police training and tactics". Was he "hypervigilantly trained"? What exactly constitutes "hypervigilantly trained"? Is there really a training program out there that says "Fire shots through the door as it's being opened?" Is the idea that if he'd had less training Fortson would be alive?
Because, once again, it feels like we've got yet another story selected to reinforce the narrative that all animals are equal but some are more equal than others in a BOAF SIDEZ! or bootleggers and baptists fashion.
I agree. Any time a person is authorized to use deadly force with immunity they should be trained to a higher standard than the average person but they are not superhuman. The problem is training and all the money pulled out of departments by the progressives who hate police. There is no money or time for the training officers need like defusing a situation, hand to hand combat that would stop the majority of shootings, shoot houses to teach split second decision making, range time to become better with their sidearms, etc
Where funding is being cut it is because the police unions defended the indefensible and made defending a more popular idea because of that. If the police hadn't formed their Blue Wall every time one fucked up there wouldn't be calls to cut their funding. This is a problem police departments and police unions created. Now they reap as they did sow.
re: "Is this “stone cold” murder or a cop losing his shit"
Distinction without a difference. So, yes...
"Stone cold murder" implies a deliberate, detached, unemotional reaction, not a spasm of terror on seeing a citizen with a gun.
Wanna take a bet on the odds of finding Ashli Babbitt's death referred to as a 'stone-cold murder'?
Can you get the fuck over that?
She was protesting at a federal building with a bunch of hotheads and the capitol police, the most corrupted and fucked up force in the nation, on high alert. Yes, the officer needs to be drawn and quartered for killing an innocent civilian. Will it happen? That's got about as much chance of happening as Vince Foster's murderer, er.. suicide assistant, being found and prosecuted.
Now, moving on from that. Cop shoots innocent man in his own home. Thoughts? Feelings? Ideas?
Why exactly is that something we need to get the fuck over?
You seem to be giving excuses as to why she deserved it; do you allow other people to give excuses as to why other folks got shot by a cop? Like they didn't comply with dropping a gun? So does that deserve getting shot like you are framing Babbit (or do you need me to get the fuck over it?)
The government insists that its citizens have a Second Amendment right to own guns and defend their homes with them, but it also insists that it's reasonable for police to respond with deadly force when they're startled by the sight of a gun
There was an article in Reason a while back where a cop had an armed person held at gunpoint and didn't shoot. The person had not raised their weapon, and the cop was trying to de escalate. Backup arrived and immediately gunned the person down. The cop was fired and blacklisted from law enforcement for risking officer safety and failure to escalate.
The tens of thousands of police who didn’t kill somebody think you’re cute.
They are here to help; they aren't perfect. It's that simple.
They are here to help;
Bullshit. That's the line you've been fed from TV.
Get pulled over and listen to the questions. Cops are looking for a bust, nothing more.
Tens of thousands of illegal aliens don't commit any crimes besides the illegal entry. Yet when one does commit a violent crime they all get painted with that wide brush.
AntiFa throws a protest and only a few of them get violent but we call them criminals collectively.
Why can't we do the same with the police? If anything they are even worse because they are supposedly trained for this kind of thing. They are supposed to remain calm in bad situations, not fly off the handle like an untrained teenager.
Is it illegal to own a plate vest and ballistic shield ?
Restrictions on body armor are really disgusting. Basically the government saying to the peasants, "you need to remain a little bit vulnerable all the time, just in case we need to shoot you some day".
The public is everyone but you. So to protect the public, you can't protect yourself.
Has there ever been a challenge to scotus for one of these laws, I wonder?
Depends on the jurisdiction. Too often, the answer is yes.
Found this. Looks like law abiding citizens can own wear a vest anywhere in the US, felons can’t, and then some state and local governments have other restrictions and sentencing enhancements.
Found this one partially interesting:
“In the city of Topeka, Kansas, it is illegal to possess, carry or wear a bulletproof vest during protests, parades, rallies, assemblies and demonstrations.”
https://www.spartanarmorsystems.com/body-armor-laws-by-state-know-your-rights#h_9105670810351675189147359
"We've got to call it as it is—Roger died of murder," Rev. Jamal Bryant said at Fortson's funeral. "He died of stone-cold murder. And somebody has got to be held accountable. Roger was better to America than America was to Roger."
There is no rational interpretation of the events where Roger's death is murder.
The deputy who shot Roger is not "America". (Autocorrect wanted to use the word "deity", maybe it is smarter than we give it credit)
Bryant's tirade cannot reasonably be expected to improve things.
I can only conclude Rev Bryant is is no way trying to make things better.
How is it not murder? The cop clearly had the intention to use deadly force on him and no self-defense justification.
I'll try to steel man the cop-sucker side of the argument.
Because the Deputy definitely and clearly did identify himself when knocking on the door (watching the video makes it clear-he was loud and clearly enunciated Sheriff's Office after banging on the door), the deputy should therefore believe the only reason someone would approach the door holding a firearm is if they have intent to use it. The deputy therefore has some reasonable belief that holding a gun while answering the door conveys intent to fire even if the gun never moves.
I call bullshit. There's some youtube attorneys who will disagree with me, but literally anyone can shout "Sheriff's Office!" while banging on a door. There was actually a rash of home invasions around Seattle (IIRC) where people shouted "Police!" and pound on a door before they broke in. I couldn't tell from the bodycam but I don't think there was even a peephole for him to peek outside and see a uniformed officer. Even if he had, people can just buy police costumes.
Gun was down, stayed down. He didn't open the door with the muzzle in the officer's face (which I think should be just a standard response to any uninvited guest banging on your door), he didn't act threateningly, so there's nothing other than the mere presence of a firearm which could have provoked a deadly response from the officer.
..nothing other than the mere presence of a firearm which could have provoked a deadly response
Not true. The guy was black.
I don’t have any reason to believe that’s relevant, and it shouldn’t be. The gun could be relevant if it was aimed or otherwise raised, but it wasn’t.
Where have you been? Skin color is the most important thing.
Even if he was sure it was a sheriff he’s still not required to disarm himself in his home.
There is no rational interpretation to call it anything but murder. It was not remeditated but it was intentional and entirely unjustified. If a non-cop did the same thing, it would be manslaughter at a minimum.
It's probably murder about as much as Floyd's killers were murderers.
Was this AF guy dying of a drug OD when the cops showed up?
There is no rational interpretation to call it anything but murder.
The cop's reckless behavior and shitty decision-making resulted in him killing an innocent man, but I do not believe he had malice aforethought.
You can have murder without malice. In some states (I think mine) 1st degree murder is called "murder with malice," meaning there are degrees of murder that are not malice murder.
This is second degree murder. He didn't go there to shoot the guy, but he did, for the reason that the guy opened the door after the officer pounded on his door and told him to open it.
Then there's depraved indifference. I job requirement for most police departments.
I'm pretty sure that's still second degree murder. I suppose it may vary by state.
Manslaughter here too and the cop fired and family compensated.
The cop who shot the guy is certainly a government representative. He gets a paycheck from a government. He goes places and does things serving that government. The cop was on duty and doing what that Government paid him to do. He was wearing a uniform and it's very likey said uniform had an Amercian flag on it.
Was the cop representing Cuba? China? Russia? Iran?
I doubt it. The cop represented a city in a state that is part of the United States of America. Americans by and large support the excesses of law enforcement that we have seen over my lifetime by voting for candidates who are pro law enforcement.
So yes. America; you, me, that guy over there, and the rest of us failed that man by letting cops get away with a lot of shit that has built up to the point where a cop who freaked out and shot a guy in his own home will probably be found not guilty and at worst will wind up moving to another city and getting a job in law enforcement with his record swept under the rug.
We should be fucking embarased by this. We should be demanding the police union be eliminated and police be held to a high standard. That they should be tossed in general population instead of quietly sent to another place to get a new job when the do horrible things like this. They shouldn't be trained like military troops and they shouldn't be armed like military troops. They should never call the people they serve "civilians" like we are some kind of filth they found on the bottom of their shoe.
I didn’t fail anyone. Take that collectivist shit and shove it back up your ass.
Take that cop dick out of your ass.
This doesn’t even make sense retard.
Yes, how dare someone engage in a "tirade" after someone is killed for no good reason by an agent of the state. People who point out that the state is doing horrible things are clearly the problem here.
Would you like some salt for that boot?
I can only conclude Rev Bryant is is no way trying to make things better.
[tilts hand]
If you mean "make things better" as in reduce the number of murders and/or deaths, yes. If you mean "make things better" as in foment unrest that causes more people like Gaige Grosskreutz, Joseph Rosenbaum, Anthony Huber, Garrett Foster, etc., etc., etc. to out themselves in front of a gun barrel, that's more of a judgement call.
When we made the police our keepers rather than our protectors, we put them in an unwinnable position. In order to "fight" drugs, prostitution or gambling, they have to become intrusive. No one is calling 911 because a marijuana cigarette jumped into their mouth and lit itself. There's no body or property damage to weep over when adults engage in consensual behavior that has been made a crime. No-knock raids?!
You're not wrong. That's for sure. The War on "Sin" that the puritanical nut cases in this nation wanted and got has damaged our culture and our realtionship to the law so deeply that we may never really recover and be a nation of truly free people ever again.
The irony of it is the for the first 100 years of The Republic, churches had more influence in society than they have now. They handed over their moral authority to The State, committing the first acts of "majority rule" and virtue signaling all in one fell stroke, giving rise to organized crime and the Federal agencies created to fight it that are tearing at their underpinnings today.
Power attracts the worst of us. Prior to the War of Northern Aggression the power was held in private hands. Churches held sway over groups of people so the power hungry who had no business sense became priests.
After the War of Northern Aggression the Federal Government held the power so the power hungry went to Congress.
Then congress wanted less responsibility so they passed more and more of their power to the president so now the most power hungry and corrupt seek that office.
If we somehow managed to return our government to pre War of Northern Aggression levels of power the power hungry would go back to the private sector.
Cops must me made to walk the streets and even ride the bus with us.Then we won't be afraid of each other.
The world - even the peaceful world - is really in a perpetual state of war.
People die in wars - from conflict, from friendly fire, from self-created errors. There were many errors that led to this death - why did he have a gun in his hand when a police officer had identified himself? Why did he brandish it (as opposed to having it in the hand behind the door)? Why didn't the cop order him to drop it instead of shooting first? Do we have all the facts, or is there more to come out?
Are we not in a justifiably heightened state of alert thanks to the imbecilic illegal immigration policies of the senile cretin infesting the oval office and his satanic minion Mayorkas? Should we not be? And can we balance this mishap rationally against the millions of violent crimes that are deterred annually by armed citizens, and conclude that it's a beneficial tradeoff of costs if we lose a few to save many, many more?
Compared to the evil and seditious violations of our legal system we are witnessing with the totalitarian lawfare underway, is this even at a level that merits our attention? It's a tragedy, yes; but does it rise to the level of the current treacherous destruction of our nation by the Biden RICO conspiracy? I have to think not; our attention belongs elsewhere.
"Are we not in a justifiably heightened state of alert thanks to the imbecilic illegal immigration policies of the senile cretin infesting the oval office"
No. The migrants are here legally and they are much less likely to commit violent crimes than US citizens. They know that commiting a violent felony gets them sent back to Nicaragua or Venezuela to be shot by the government. Most commenters here seem to be okay with that.
Uh, an immigrant who came here illegally is indeed an illegal immigrant. You don't get to wish that away...
Why did he have a gun in his hand when the cop knocked and identified himself as a cop?
Are you a fucking idiot? You can get a cop costume and a fair looking badge from Amazon. People are getting busted for pretending to be cops fairly often. Most just do the traffic stop thing and accept a "bribe" to "forget" the stop happened.
Just because a voice at the door says they are a cop doesn't mean shit. He could have been playing dressup and the asshole could have a crew of goons to each side of the door and pull a home invasion when the door opened. If that was the case what was the guy supposed to do? Run to the fucking safe, run the combo, get the gun out, load it and then defend himself?
Did you miss the part where the guy is an Air Force veteran? Odds are good he's spent time overseas in some shithole our fucking government thinks needs invading. The man could be too tightly wrapped after a deployment to one of those many shitholes. I wouldn't blame him for that.
He was a 23-year-old active duty airman, not a veteran. Don’t know if he got to live long enough for deployment to many “shitholes”.
Quibbling over details.
Maybe you could dial down the moron for a little while
SkyNet was a program written by the US Government. Keep up with the changes to the timeline, moron.
Literally, the cop shot him first, then afterward shouted 'drop the gun'.
Fire, ready, aim.
Straight up murder.
If he'd said the magic words first... Like "stop resisting".
"Why did he brandish it (as opposed to having it in the hand behind the door)?"
It's likely that he's right handed, and that was the hand that was exposed by the opening door. Holding a gun, by the way, is NOT brandishing it.
Sorry but if someone approaches a police officer brandishing a weapon the officer should shoot.
In states where open carry is illegal, anyone can shoot.
This is really important. My synagogue's armed guard needs to be able to open fire on some Nazi walking up to the door with a rifle before the Nazi shoots every Jew in sight.
Apart from the fact that you can't legally shoot anyone just for holding a weapon, was there any evidence he "approached" the deputy at all? The deputy presumably said, "open the door", and he opened the door...
Officer didn't even give him a "Put your hands up!" while another officer was shouting "Freeze! Drop the gun!" to force a panicked reaction.
He did say step back, the guy stepped back and raised his empty hand and was fired upon. Seems like, instead of being cooperative, he should have tried to outdraw the cop-he already had his weapon in hand before the cop even went for his. He might be alive today if he'd tried to fire before the officer could get his side-arm unholstered.
Maybe just shoot through the door in that situation.
The clear result of all of his years of hypervigilant training and tactics.
When a cop says "Drop the gun" or "Put up your hands" or anything like that, they've already committed themselves to assault and battery. It's just magic words that when replayed from a recording device in the king's court absolves them of any wrongdoing.
We live in a feudal society. Costumes are different.
Top cop Joe Biden drone strike murdered those children and aid worker. Maybe he could have a beer summit with the parents of the deceased.
Apart from the fact that you can’t legally shoot anyone just for holding a weapon
You can if you're a cop. Remember that ignorance of the law IS an excuse if you enforce it.
was there any evidence he “approached” the deputy at all?
Kind of have to to open a door, right? Unless it's motorized you need to walk up to it, as in "approach," before opening. This is just another example of their boilerplate lies. They use words like "approach" because they are legal keywords. Like "safety." They're trained to use all the right words to justify their unlawful actions.
Simply holding a gun in one's hand is not brandishing. Mere existence alone is not a threat. It must be combined with some show of intent.
Cops love to charge "Brandishing" because it sounds so mean. Having a gun within 30 feet of you is "Brandishing" to the cops. Which is bullshit of course. Just like they try to throw "Obstructing an Officer" at someone who doens't bend over and grab their fucking ankles. In most places it takes two people intentionally being in between an officer and a person they are trying to arrest to "obstruct" but they still try to scare people with the claim. They also claim you have to provide them with government issued ID when they ask. Fuck that. That's a part of "right to remain silent" but they often will just bust you to fuck with you if you try.
If you are standing still with a knife in your hand within 20 feet of a police officer, they can causally take aim and kill you. Nothing else will happen.
Because standard training says that anyone could be a highly trained and motivated person in peak physical conditioning who can run from 20 feet away with a knife and kill someone with a firearm.
casually, not causally
Which standard training is that?
Tueller Drill
Jeanette Riley, Sandpoint Idaho, 2014
Charliehall is the dumbest fucker alive.
He makes up for it with his boot licking skills though.
But have you met Sarcasmic? Or Cartman Retarded Imperialist? Or Buttplug? Or the Squirrel? Or Kirkland? Or Misek?
As others point out, he was not brandishing.
And being in his own home makes a big difference too.
Fortson’s dramatic funeral, which included a video message from Rev. Al Sharpton…
Didn’t bother reading any further
Yeah, the usual grifters, like Mr. Ben Crump, are attaching like leeches to this one.
Can’t blame them. The shoots they glom into are so rarely bad shoots, it’s a miracle when they find one that actually fits their narrative.
Haha, true.
I just have an almost instinctive reaction to seeing their names pop up because they're so habitually dishonest. It makes me assume the truth is 180 degrees from whatever they're representing that it's almost shocking to see them connected to what looks like an actual case of police murder.
+100
A possible solution: trap doors.
The armed Airman made the mistake of having his weapon visible. I'm a believer in using compact, light 9mm carry guns for home defense. Answer the door with the gun concealed in your pajama pocket or hoodie; you can even keep your hand on it discretely. Weapons should be felt and not seen.
Yeah. People looking to rob you don't generally knock to announce their presence, you don't draw from the drop, and unless the person you invited over expects you to answer gun in hand, it's rather rightly regarded as between a threat and a life-or-death defensive posture.
You clearly don't follow the news of the nation all that well. Crooks have found out that playing at being cops is the best way to commit crimes. Mostly they pull over motorists and allow themselves to be "bribed" but they have expanded to the door knocking method to get the door opened before charging in screaming curses like a swat team.
About 10 years ago there was a kid shot by a deputy because he answered the door while holding a Wii video game controller
There’s been plenty of times police pound on the door in the dead of night and the homeowner opens the door holding a flashlight and gets ventilated.
"The government insists that its citizens have a Second Amendment right to own guns and defend their homes with them"
What? They most certainly do not. How high are you right now?
The airmen should all show up at the station armed.
I bet that'd get some attention.
An air force of one…less
"We've got to call it as it is—Roger died of murder," Rev. Jamal Bryant said
Stick to your bastardized version of the Gospel, Jammy. You clearly know nothing about criminal law.
The two narratives illustrate a problem Reason has written about time and time again: The government insists that its citizens have a Second Amendment right to own guns and defend their homes with them, but it also insists that it's reasonable for police to respond with deadly force when they're startled by the sight of a gun
This is retarded. You straight up contradict yourself: Body camera footage released by the Okaloosa County Sheriff's Office shows the deputy knocked on Fortson's door and announced himself several times.
You might have an argument had it been a no-knock. But BODY CAMERA FOOTAGE showed the reality. Bruh, I sometimes open carry. I usually conceal carry. I almost always have some kind of nasty flirting-the-line-with-illegal blade on me. If I EVER get into a police confrontation, the VERY FIRST THING I SAY, with my hands up and splayed is: "Officer, for your safety and mine, please know that I am legally armed. I will not make any sudden movements. I will comply with all legal directives short of surrendering my weapons. What seems to be the problem?" I don't show up to the party with my gun online, the way you described this goofball did.
And the ONE TIME in my life a cop demanded that I surrender my firearm, I slowly and carefully explained, "I will remain with my hands up for our safety, but I will not surrender my firearm outside of the presence of your commanding officer, your union representative, and my attorney. My attorney can be reached at 123-456-7890. [Side note: how many people here know their attorney's direct line? Because you should.] I'll make no move against you. Feel free to keep your weapon trained on me if it helps us de-escalate. We can wait patiently together." And he did, actually. Kept me there hands against the wheel until his CO (though, not his rep or my attorney) showed up. And I didn't move. Didn't budge.
But it de-escalated everything. And that's the key. When you surprise a cop with a gun, you escalate. When you resist, you escalate. When you fire off invective and become openly agitated, you escalate. None of which necessarily justifies a cop going to lethal force - but why EVER escalate when you can always de-escalate instead.
And, truth be told, that kind of calm, compliant, but collected reaction is usually enough to ease a cop. Not always, and they'll absolutely stay guarded, but so long as you remain in a non-threatening posture that gives them clear view of your hands - they'll dial it down more often than not.
The problem you people have with cops is that you defend people who don't understand (or even care to understand) their rights, or how to live in a modern, civilized, rights-based society. You defend reactionaries. You defend people who speak/act before they think. You defend people who are easily overwhelmed by reflexive emotion instead of people who are capable of rationality. You defend panicky animals who instantly abandon all intelligence and let fight/flight take over. You defend pissy little malcontents who are looking for trouble. Did you know that in law, plaintiff attorneys have even tried to weaponize this? Look it up, it's called "Reptile Theory." And it's pathetic.
The very first survival course I ever took, way back in the day, had the single-best (and oft repeated) lesson I've ever learned for dealing with a crisis situation: Keep your head.
There's going to be a million competing things all at once bouncing around up there, but keep your head. Because the instant you lose that, you're going to quickly lose everything else. (And probably evacuate your bowels.)
Now his name will be added to the long list of people who were killed for doing something they were assured was their right as free citizens of the United States.
Yea, it was his right. But a poorly executed and misunderstood right often ends in poor consequences.
And let's face it, Ceej. We're NOT teaching Americans their rights or understanding them EVEN A LITTLE BIT in this country anymore.
Fuck off, slaver.
Language.
Since you're the language police, does that mean you can shoot Vernon for "improperly" exercising his 1st Amendment right to use foul language?
"Body camera footage released by the Okaloosa County Sheriff’s Office shows the deputy knocked on Fortson’s door and announced himself several times."
And no one would ever falsely claim to be the police, no matter how nefarious their intentions. There are some lines even the most degenerate, hardened criminals will not cross.
Impersonating the cops is a crime and we all know criminals don't do illegal things like having guns.
"You might have an argument had it been a no-knock. But BODY CAMERA FOOTAGE showed the reality. Bruh, I sometimes open carry. I usually conceal carry. I almost always have some kind of nasty flirting-the-line-with-illegal blade on me. If I EVER get into a police confrontation, the VERY FIRST THING I SAY, with my hands up and splayed is: “Officer, for your safety and mine, please know that I am legally armed. I will not make any sudden movements. I will comply with all legal directives short of surrendering my weapons. What seems to be the problem?” I don’t show up to the party with my gun online, the way you described this goofball did."
If you had watched the body cam footage, you would see that Fortson had enough time to say “Offi . . . ” before the deputy started firing.
When you say having your door broken down by a SWAT team at 5AM is a "simple misunderstanding" it becomes hard to find you credible.
I think Fortson was stationed at Hurlburt Field, so maybe his SoCom buddies can fire up a Spectre and orbit the Sheriff's station for a couple of hours.
It would be interesting to see the Venn Diagram of people who criticized Daniel Perry, and defended Daniel Perry, vs the ones here criticizing or defending the cop in Ft Walton
+1
The opposite of people getting shot by cops is not no one gets shot. (And because I know math is hard for some people around here, that means that this cannot be a false dichotomy as there are 3 or more options.)
Fortson's dramatic funeral, which included a video message from Rev. Al Sharpton, was a stark reminder of the deadly incoherence between America's Second Amendment culture and hypervigilant police training and tactics.
I make no excuses for this cop in this case. But is it really surprising that cops would be "hypervigilant" when there are more guns than people in the country?
This is the part of 2nd Amendment culture that is incoherent. The argument seems to go,
"We need guns to protect ourselves."
"Well, with more guns out there amongst the population, there will be more guns available to work their way into the hands of criminals."
"Right, that is why we need more guns!"
There will always be some percentage of lawful gun owners that aren't responsible. There will always be some percentage of lawful gun owners that won't think about whether the person they are selling a gun to is not legally permitted to own one. (In states that allow private sales without background checks, which is most of them.) There will always be some percentage of lawful gun owners that commit crimes with a gun they had legally. (Domestic violence or road rage incidents like the two dads that shot each other's daughters on a highway in Florida.)
There will always be some percentage of lawful gun owners that deal with their depression and despair by turning their guns on themselves. Maybe they would have still committed suicide without a gun, but the gun sure makes an impulsive decision to attempt it very likely to succeed. One study of 269 suicide attempt survivors showed that almost half (48%) had made the decision impulsively. That is just one study, but I noted how none of them (regardless of whether they had planned it in advance or not) had tried using a gun. It would be interesting to know if any of them had a gun and just chose a different method, but it is actually not surprising that none of those survivors had tried to use a gun.
What I want people to take away from my post is that there is a cost to how easy it is for people in the U.S. to obtain a gun. I also want people to realize that it becomes circular to say that people need guns to protect themselves because of how many people with bad intent have guns. The old aphorism, "If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns" is not as clever as it would seem. It is obviously true in a tautological sense, but in practice, where would the outlaws get their guns?
Criminals now get their guns fairly easily because of how easy it is for people that aren't criminals to buy them. Criminals buy them from people that could legally purchase them. They steal them from people that purchased theirs legally. They bought them legally before they committed any crimes with a gun. Of course, they can buy them from other criminals not allowed to own them, but those guns had to enter circulation through legal channels somehow.
I just wonder if any 2nd Amendment advocates around here will face up to this. Or, if they really have fact-based counter-arguments that I haven't thought of. Either way, I'd be interested to find out.
I just wonder if any 2nd Amendment advocates around here will face up to this. Or, if they really have fact-based counter-arguments that I haven’t thought of. Either way, I’d be interested to find out.
Freedom is messy. All of the idiots, criminals, and depressed misusing guns cannot change the simple facts:
Up to 250 million people were disarmed and then murdered by their own governments in the last century alone. Having an armed populace helps with prevention of genocide.
Up to 250 million people were disarmed and then murdered by their own governments in the last century alone.
Again, once again, at our approximate current annual Police-based Democide numbers, our Republic will have to go on for another ~250,000 yrs. to reach this number.
Local Sheriff's Deputy's shooting an innocent person is a problem, but it's not our problem. Centralizing their culpability under greater authority than the county and courts they already answer to doesn't diminish the shootings and only exacerbates your/the other concerns.
Up to 250 million people were disarmed and then murdered by their own governments in the last century alone. Having an armed populace helps with prevention of genocide.
Do you really think that disarming the population was the first hint that their governments were a danger to them?
This is the real problem with this kind of argument. If you protect the rights of the people to choose their government, then that is the best defense against tyranny. Armed resistance to tyranny is the worst way to prevent tyranny from taking hold. That is especially the case when you think about how our country could slide into totalitarian rule. I think that this is more likely than anyone starting by taking away guns from everyone:
We elect people that don't respect our rights, most of all, we elect people that don't respect everyone's equal right to vote. So they start manipulating election rules to give themselves advantages. They don't even need to actually commit fraud, if they can prevent their opponents voters from exercising their voting rights or make their votes count for less. (That is exactly how Jim Crow worked.) Once they get reelected without significant competition, they can start whittling away at all of the rights of their opponents. Their own supporters are happy to go along with this, because they have been convinced that the other side is dangerous and against the 'real' values of the nation. Eventually, it will be the other side that needs to be disarmed. Loyal patriots will get to keep their guns so that they can help the government prevent the traitors from rising up.
If you really want to protect liberty, then you have to focus on making sure that everyone can vote and have their vote counted accurately. And their votes have matter.
they can start whittling away at all of the rights of their opponents. Their own supporters are happy to go along with this, because they have been convinced that the other side is dangerous and against the ‘real’ values of the nation.
That is starting to sound like how so many Dems are not only okay with the lawfare against Trump, J6ers, and other deplorables, but actively encouraging it--to protect democracy. I know you were trying to hint at the threat being those trying to make it harder to vote, but your bias precluded you from seeing the obvious application toward your own side.
Similarly, you argue as though banning guns would somehow eliminate the 350+ million that already exist in this country. Even if it could magically make them go away, which would violate not only the 2nd Amendment, but violate the inalienable right to self defense, guns would still flow into the country from other countries, and people could make guns in this country. Making drugs illegal not only didn't stop drugs from coming into the country, it gave an incentive to criminals to do so to make lots of money. Yes, guns can be scary, especially if the person wielding one is an idiot or criminal. I'd rather take my chances having my own ability at armed self-defense, than rely on police to arrive, at the very best, minutes after the altercation, if not hours later.
Let's apply your gun standard to speech. Everyone is capable of some of the vile, offensive, harmful speech. Nonetheless, it would be worse, for many reasons, if we criminalized bad speech. That wouldn't make the bad speech go away, though. All you would do is make it harder for people to speak out against what they see as abuses by private actors or the government. So the answer to bad speech is more speech where you can articulate how bad the speech of the other person is. The answer to criminals misusing guns is to allow non-criminals to arm themselves, if they so choose. Hold bad actors accountable for their bad actions. Don't punish the good for the actions of the bad.
(From the limited details I know of in this story about the cop shooting the guy who answered his door with a gun (not drawn), I'd want the cop held accountable. He probably will get away with his bad actions, though, unfortunately.)
I know you were trying to hint at the threat being those trying to make it harder to vote, but your bias precluded you from seeing the obvious application toward your own side.
It's interesting that this is what you took from what I wrote. My point here was not to place blame on one side or the other for behaving a certain way. It was to point out that this is a principle that should apply to all sides. And my own bias is my problem. Whether I see the flaws in the side I choose to vote for and otherwise support is something only I can do anything about. Think about how that applies to you, now.
We are all well primed to be skeptical of the other side. You are well primed to be skeptical of and wary of anything Democrats or liberals want to do, right? What we need to work at doing is being skeptical and wary of the ones we support and plan to vote for. They are the ones that can fool us, because all they have to do is get us to fool ourselves. We can fool ourselves far more easily than other people can fool us directly.
I need one example, just one, of a group of people voting themselves into liberty. How soon you forget how government wanted to starve the portion of Americans refusing an experimental drug.
Tyranny ends with bloodshed.
How soon you forget how government wanted to starve the portion of Americans refusing an experimental drug.
Huh? Oh, you must mean COVID vaccines. And by "starve", you mean that some people (like some health care workers) were required to be vaccinated for COVID like they had been for many diseases for many years like Hep B, if they wanted to continue their jobs where they would be exposed to COVID much more than the average person while also being around highly vulnerable patients constantly.
Tyranny ends with bloodshed.
Apparently you think that tyranny is any time government wants you to do something you don't think you should have to do. Good luck finding a tyranny-free utopia.
I need one example, just one, of a group of people voting themselves into liberty.
How about Ohio, which recently voted to establish abortion rights in its state constitution? That increased the liberty of women to have control over their reproductive choices. Or did you only mean liberty that you agree with?
Hep B vax is over 40 years old. There's been a bit of time to measure its effectiveness.
All of those unborn babies in Ohio didn't get a say in their life or deaths.
tyranny is any time government wants you to do something you don’t think you should have to do.
Liberty is the right to do anything you want without violating another's rights. Forcing an experimental drug into someone's body to continue their livelihood is criminal. Killing a human child for convenience is murder. Meeting a show of unjustified force with force does not violate the NAP.
Forcing an experimental drug into someone’s body to continue their livelihood is criminal.
Then what is called when that person puts their patients at risk by not being vaccinated?
Hep B vax is over 40 years old. There’s been a bit of time to measure its effectiveness.
And at one point it was 'experimental' in the same sense that the COVID vaccines were.
Liberty is the right to do anything you want without violating another’s rights.
If it was that simple, people wouldn't argue over government policy so much.
You realize it takes 19th century technology to create automatic firearms?
In June 1883 Hiram Maxim filed his first patent to do with automatic firearms covering semi-automatic and fully automatic Winchester and Martini-Henry rifles as well as an original automatic rifle and blowback- and recoil-operated machine guns, both single and multi-barrelled.
One of the world's first automatic rifles was the Italian Cei-Rigotti. This rifle started out as an 1891 gas-operated conversion of the Vetterli rifle, which received positive approval and was even adopted after further refinements in 1895 for the Royal Italian Navy.
People who can cook meth can be trained to manufacture firearms.
Speaking of cooking meth, when meth was outlawed, only outlaws have meth...where do they get their meth?
You realize it takes 19th century technology to create automatic firearms?
Well, if it's so easy, why doesn't everyone own an Uzi?
People who can cook meth can be trained to manufacture firearms.
Are gunsmiths so common and their skills so easy to learn that you think this is likely to occur? There must be all kinds of such people doing that in countries with highly restrictive gun laws!
"There will always be some percentage of lawful gun owners that deal with their depression and despair by turning their guns on themselves."
People who want to actually end their lives most often use firearms, because they work.
People who want to make some "cry for help" *attempt* suicide using methods far less likely to actually end their life.
People who want to actually end their lives most often use firearms, because they work.
Ah, so people only *really* want to kill themselves if they use a gun, jump off a skyscraper, or some other "no chance in hell I'll live through this" method. I'd be interested to know what psychology expertise and research gives you confidence in that assertion.
"how easy it is for people in the U.S. to obtain a gun. "
Have you ever legally purchased a firearm?
A few, yes. What would you consider to be difficult about buying a gun in the U.S.? Especially in states that don't require background checks for private sales.
Life sucks. Get a helmet.
- Dennis Leary
When you defund the police, you also defund police recruiting and training. What you get are unqualified and under trained officers interacting with an increasingly lawless society which makes them even more paranoid. While not the issue in this case, no-knock warrants should be banned. Someone violently breaks into my home at 5am, I’m grabbing a firearm to protect myself and my family. People interacting with the police need to use common sense. Use the peephole, for Christ’s sake! If you see a cop outside your door, don’t open it with a handgun in your hand. That’s what peepholes are for.
Don't open it at all if you can help it.
Their training is part of the problem.
The hypervigilant training or the regular-vigilant training? If Okaloosa County is sending their deputies through "Hypervigilance: How Shoot People Answering The Door Before Giving Them Time To Respond" training, they should stop doing that.
Otherwise, it seems like dealing with armed and belligerent assholes otherwise is going to have just as much if not more of a conditioning effect and you're going to wind up with luck of the draw as to whether the 2023 Nashville Metro PD, 2017 Las Vegas Metro PD, or the 2022 Uvalde LEO Clusterfuck shows up to neutralize any given shooter.
When you train police like a military, where the enemy is the very people they are supposed to protect, this is the inevitable result. Police are the one with the guns, the protection and the training, yet they are too frightened to perform their duty.
Citizens in their own homes are ALWAYS right in such cases and the police are ALWAYS wrong in such cases! There should be no such thing as “responding to a domestic disturbance” or “welfare” calls in any jurisdiction in America. Police should only respond to a crime in progress in a public place. If they arrive at the scene and find that it is a private residence, they should take no direct action without a search warrant based upon probable cause, and certainly not when there is any possibility of doubt about where the crime might be taking place or who made the report! We are so far away from any reasonable definition of law enforcement and individual rights in this country now that it is unlikely that any semblance of balance or restrained authority will be established any time soon, but a good start would be to start punishing officers who violate their training and their department standard procedures instead of covering up for them.
I would like to read a solid article about police training. Are they taught to be overly suspicious of everyone? Do they go through exercises where they have to make very fast decisions? I don't know, but this would be a great subject.
Who would write it? A pro cop biased person or an anti cop biased person? What would they use as source material? I doubt training methods are standardized across all 50 states. What kind of cop training would they write about? Small town cops? Big City cops? County Sherrif deputies? State Police?
There is just too much variation in the subject matter. One could write a whole book about LEO training and still miss a significant amount of information.
You don't have 2nd Amendment protections if the state can, at will and with impunity, execute you for exercising it.
Quoting the Constitution and Bill of Rights to a cop from your pocket Constitution will just get you shot more.