June 2024. Blues Vol 40 No.6

GUEST COMENTARY police

GUEST COMENTARY police law news Daniel Carr Officer Involved: Roger Fortson This case hit my radar a few days ago when Ben Crump gave several interviews to mainstream media. He laid out a series of awful circumstances that results in an Officer-Involved-Shooting (OIS) - that left a 23-year-old man dead. Within a few hours of hearing his version of the events I posted a story on Tik Tok and Instagram and cautioned people to not believe anything that Crump says - without independent evidence to back it up. In response I received multiple messages calling me a “racist”. Today, the video was released and proved that Ben Crump again had lied about an OIS. INVOLVED This case involved the Okaloosa County Sheriff’s Office in Florida and a young man named Roger Fortson. Mr. Fortson was airman in the U.S. Air Force and had been living in off-base housing. THE CLAIM Ben Crump made three major claims about this case: 1. The police responded to the “wrong” apartment. 2. The police did not announce their presence 3. The police forced entry into the residence. THE BODY CAM VIDEO As of this afternoon the body cam video had not been released and people across social media continued to parrot the lies of 24 The Blues - June ‘24 Ben Crump. It was then that I was sent the body cam video from a source. The body cam footage was playing on a police computer and had been recorded by a cell phone. I checked Google and X and realized that I was watching body cam footage of this incident that had not been made public yet. I posted the video on my X and YouTube platforms. Ten minutes later Ben Crump and others posted the same footage and it all went viral. WHAT HAPPENED The apartment complex manager called police and reported a “domestic disturbance” involving a man and a woman at the complex. A deputy responded to the apartment and knocked on the door. The deputy then yelled, “Sheriff’s Office!” multiple times in between knocking. Eventually the door was opened by Mr. Fortson - who was holding a gun in his right hand. The deputy then fired his weapon at Mr. Fortson multiple times - killing him. ANALYSIS This call was in reference to a domestic disturbance - one of the most statistically dangerous calls for police officers to respond to. The deputy yelled “Sheriff’s Office!” multiple times. It would be reasonable for the deputy to believe that the occupants of the apartment heard him and knew that he was law enforcement. When Mr. Fortson opened the door holding the gun - what should the deputy have thought in the moment? A reasonable police officer would think: This guy knows that I am a police officer yet he answered the door holding a gun anyway. That is an overt deadly threat. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight - we know that Mr. Fortson was a U.S. airman and likely had no ill intent toward the deputy. But, that is not relevant. The relevant issue is - what would

a reasonable police officer have done in the moment given the information that they knew at the time? Any reasonable police officer would perceive this as a deadly threat and responding with deadly force would be objectively reasonable. This is a legal police shooting. One of many headlines after Crump’s media tour. THE CRITICISM The release of the video has only intensified the criticism and vitriol towards the deputy. And aside from me and a few honest allies - there is no one calling out Crump for his blatant lies about the facts of the case. It will be forgotten and his next grift will be met with unquestioned cult-like loyalty from his followers and the mainstream media. The biggest concern is that people want to know why the deputy fired his weapon - when Mr. Fortson was holding the gun at his side. The assertion is that since the gun was not pointed at the officer - that there was not a deadly threat. The time is takes for a person holding a gun at their side to firing a round at a target is about 1/4 of a second. A person holding a gun in this position would be able to fire several rounds at the police officer - before the officer could respond. The difference between a gun held at the side and pointed at a target is 1/4 of a second. Since no human can react that quickly - those two positions should be viewed as nearly the same in reality. If a police officer waits until the gun is pointed at them - it is too late - they have already been shot. And there is no law, policy, or training that requires police officers to wait that long. FINAL THOUGHTS Mr. Fortson was not a career criminal. From all available information - he was a good person who dedicated his life to serving his country. That is noble and honorable. The reason that he answered the door while holding the gun is most likely a momentary lapse in judgment or that he just did not hear the announcement from the deputy. Those factors do matter - as to ignore them would be to deny the humanity present in this case. But, that should not affect the legal analysis. The actions of the deputy were objectively reasonable in the moment - given the totality of the circumstances. The deputies actions should be reviewed and judged based on the facts of the case - not on how honorable of a person Mr. Fortson was. The Blues - June ‘24 25