Very unfortunate that the deputy over reacted to the situation.
It seems to me, if they fired him, maybe they have enough to prosecute him too.
Wrongful death is now in play.
You have to wonder if the neighbor SWATted the vic because of some personal beef. If so, she hit the jackpot, outcome-wise. Sociopathic, but leaves her unmarked.
Never answer a door to a cop with a gun visible. Lots of people get shot that way.
Yet, these law enforcement agencies NEVER do what my local sheriff's department does: call on the phone first to see what's happening. Ninety-five percent of the time they know who lives there. If you're LE, a phone number is easy to obtain.
Maybe it's a different scenario because I live on a large farm, and there are several buildings on the property. But, even though I have a "No Trespassing" sign on the front gate, they still come through, but they never proceed that last 200 feet up my driveway to my door without trying to call me or honking the horn first to see if I'm home or try to locate me. I've never shown any animosity to local LE, and I personally know half of them anyway. But still, this is what they do.
Now, if I'm the one who called them, it's a whole different ball game.
The airman is still dead. What of the deputy? What is his “punishment”?
[A little messy but pertinent points are here]
This case requires us to decide what constitutional standard governs a free citizen’s claimthat law enforcement officials used excessive force in the course of making an arrest,investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of his person. We hold that such claims are properlyanalyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard, rather thanunder a substantive due process standard. (Graham v. Conner , 1989, p. 388)The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective ofa reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. (Grahamv. Conner , 1989, p. 396)The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officersare often forced to make split-second judgments — in circumstances that are tense,uncertain, and rapidly evolving — about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. (Graham v. Conner , 1989, p. 396 & 397)Conclusion: Deputy Eddie Duran was dispatched to a physical disturbance in progress. He was dispatched to319 Racetrack Road Northwest apartment 1401 by means of radio and CAD on his MCT. Hewas instructed to meet the leasing agent, , who had called the OCSO non-emergency line to report the disturbance in apartment 1401 on behalf of the neighbor,who resided in apartment
OCSO Administrative Investigation, IA 2024-012 Page27 of29 Deputy Duran met in the parking lot. As they were walking towards the elevator,recounted an incident she heard a few weeks prior. She heard a male voiceyelling at someone followed by what she perceived as the sound of a slap. toldDeputy Duran she was not sure where that incident occurred, but it was near apartment 1401, andshe thought given the current complaint, it may have been related. Deputy Duran asked for theapartment number of the current call, and twice stated 1401.Deputy Duran knew backup deputies were responding, and he asked to wait forthem downstairs and direct them to the apartment. Deputy Duran, concerned that physicalviolence was occurring, did not wait for backup, but rather went to the apartment directly toaddress the disturbance.When Deputy Duran approached the door to apartment 1401, he listened for sounds of adisturbance. He did not hear any. He then knocked on the door and chose not to announce his presence. He was listening for a response. After the first knock Deputy Duran said he heard,“Something to the effect of, it’s the fucking police.” Deputy Duran did not say that withcertainty, but rather on multiple occasions during his interview qualified what he heard with the phrase “something to the effect of.” Despite not knowing with certainty what he heard, DeputyDuran said he was certain Mr. Fortson knew he (Duran) was law enforcement. As Deputy Duranhad not yet announced Sheriff’s Office, I asked how Mr. Fortson knew he (Duran) was lawenforcement, and Deputy Duran did not know. Mr. Fortson did not have any cameras that couldhave given him a view of who was outside his door. Roughly eight seconds after the first knock,and before Deputy Duran heard Mr. Fortson, Deputy Duran crossed in front of the door and its peephole. Deputy Duran did not at any time cover the peephole.Deputy Duran then knocked on the door a second time and announced, “Sheriff’s Office, openthe door.” He knocked on the door a third time and again announced, “Sheriff’s Office, open thedoor.” Mr. Fortson opened the door, and Deputy Duran thought Mr. Fortson was movingforward which caused Deputy Duran to command, “Step back.” Deputy Duran said Mr. Fortsonthen took another slight step forward. This was the only resistance Deputy Duran said heencountered from Mr. Fortson. Deputy Duran also described Mr. Fortson as having adiscontented, non-inquisitive stare.Deputy Duran said he saw Mr. Fortson’s firearm as he (Duran) finished saying step back. Hesaid Mr. Fortson’s elbow was slightly canted. Deputy Duran demonstrated Mr. Fortson’shand/gun position when he (Duran) first saw the firearm. It was a position which had the firearm pointing down with a slight angle forward. He then demonstrated a hip-shooting position whichhad the firearm pointing forward and he said it was not that. Deputy Duran described seeing thewhite U shape in the rear sight of the firearm when he first saw the firearm. To see the rear faceof the rear sight sufficiently enough to make out the markings, the firearm would have to have asignificant downward pointing angle.Deputy Duran stated he felt he was going to be shot, and that his best course of action was to actfirst, not react. Deputy Duran drew his agency issued firearm and shot Mr. Fortson multipletimes. Roughly sixteen seconds after first shooting, Deputy Duran called for EMS over theradio. Recognizing Mr. Fortson was losing a significant amount of blood, Deputy Duran made a
OCSO Administrative Investigation, IA 2024-012 Page28 of29 second call for EMS roughly twenty-four seconds later asking for them to expedite theirresponse.When back up deputies arrived, they and Deputy Duran quickly cleared the apartment ensuringthere was no one else in the apartment that could have been in need of help, or who could have posed a threat. Approximately a minute and a half after shots were fired, deputies beganadministering aid to Mr. Fortson.The objective facts presented to Deputy Duran were the following:• He was dispatched to an in progress physical disturbance in an apartment.• He received second-hand information from the leasing agent about the current incident,and she relayed an incident from weeks prior that happened in the area of the apartmenthe was responding to.• He listened for sounds of a disturbance at the apartment door and did not hear any.• He knocked without announcing his presence and listened for a response. Four timesDeputy Duran qualified what he believed Mr. Fortson said by saying, “Something to theeffect of.” When describing what he heard, Deputy Duran said, “Something to the effectof, it’s the fucking police.”• He knocked two more times, and announced his presence both of those times.• When the door opened, Deputy Duran said Mr. Fortson was moving towards him.Deputy Duran said, “Step back,” and Deputy Duran said he (Fortson) took another slightstep forward.• He described seeing aggression and anger in Mr. Fortson’s eyes. Deputy Duran further described Mr. Fortson as having a discontented, non-inquisitive stare.• Deputy Duran saw Mr. Fortson had a firearm in his hand with his (Fortson) elbow slightly canted. He described the firearm as not pointing at him (Duran). The firearm was pointed at the ground sufficiently enough for Deputy Duran to have clearly seen the rear face of the rear sight. Okaloosa County Sheriff’s Office General Order 04.01 – Response to Resistance section F.2.d.states, “Deadly force resistance is a subject’s hostile, attacking movements with or without a weapon that create a reasonable perception by the officer that the subject intends to cause and has the capability of causing death or great bodily harm to the officer or others.”
The objective facts as discovered in this administrative investigation do not show Mr. Fortson made hostile,attacking movements, and therefore, the objective facts do not support the use of deadly force as an appropriate response to Mr. Fortson’s actions. Deputy Eddie Duran’s use of deadly force was not objectively reasonable