Airman Roger Fortson Fatally Shot by Deputy: Legal Analysis by Attorneys Marc Victor and Rachel Moss
October 22, 2024
The fatal shooting of Airman Roger Fortson by a sheriff’s deputy has sparked public debate. Deputy Eddie Duran, who shot and killed Mr. Fortson after he answered his door while holding a firearm, has been charged with manslaughter. The primary question is whether a person can be shot for holding a gun in their own home. Criminal defense attorneys Marc J. Victor and Rachel Moss provide a detailed legal analysis, offering insights after closely reviewing the video footage and applying relevant law.
“The victim here who by all accounts is a really honorable person. This guy is Air Force . . . seems like he’s a good dad, pictures with his kids there, and he’s got a gun for sure.”
– Attorney Victor
Background and Video Analysis
Deputy Duran responded to a call about an escalating domestic dispute at an apartment complex. Bodycam footage shows the deputy knocking on the door without initially identifying himself, a tactic he reportedly used to gauge the occupant’s reaction, though this is not standard protocol. He later announced, “Sheriff’s Office.” Mr. Fortson opened the door holding a gun, and almost instantaneously, Deputy Duran fired multiple shots.
“It’s definitely tough to watch.”
– Attorney Moss
Legal Standards
The key legal issue is not whether Mr. Fortson was able to answer the door holding a firearm legally. Instead, the determinant issue is whether Deputy Duran perceived Mr. Fortson as an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury, and was justified in using deadly force as a result. According to the attorneys, the deputy faces manslaughter with a firearm charges. The department’s internal review also deemed the shooting unjustified and classified it as excessive force.
“In a criminal case, the question is always going to be, can the prosecutor . . . prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that the deputy at the time he fired those shots, didn’t at least reasonably believe that he was at an imminent risk of death or serious bodily injury.’”
– Attorney Victor
The legal analysis hinges on two standards: the officer’s subjective belief, whether he felt in danger, and objective reasonableness, and whether a reasonable person in the same situation would have likewise perceived a threat. In this case, Deputy Duran responded to a domestic violence call and had been told the situation was escalating, with a history of prior incidents. This likely primed him to expect hostility.
A key point of contention is why Mr. Fortson opened the door holding a firearm even though he was within his legal rights. He made no verbal threats, did not brandish the weapon, and kept it pointed down. The attorneys suggest Mr. Forson was attempting to de-escalate, including raising a hand in a non-threatening manner.
Good Shoot or Bad Shoot
Both attorneys characterize the shooting as unjustified, noting that Mr. Fortson made no overtly threatening or aggressive move. Attorney Moss argues that equating the act of opening a door with a firearm to an imminent threat sets a dangerous precedent. The defense may contend that Deputy Duran feared for his life, given the context of a volatile call of domestic violence and Mr. Fortson’s decision to answer the door armed, even though he knew there were law enforcement at the door. Still, Mr. Fortson’s girlfriend stated that he did not know it was law enforcement at the door. Legally, the officer’s perception holds more weight than this discrepancy, but it could influence a jury.
The attorneys believe that the officer is likely to be convicted of manslaughter. However, they agree it would be a compelling case to defend if Deputy Duran were their client. They would argue that the officer’s immediate call to emergency medical services demonstrates a lack of malicious intent. Additionally, they would contend that, given the nature of the domestic violence call, the officer may have perceived an imminent threat against him or someone else inside the residence. Mr. Fortson holding a firearm could reasonably have led the deputy to react in a split-second decision under high stress.
“I think the officer will be convicted of manslaughter, even as I say it would be a fun one to defend. Even as I say, I think there are some defensible points here.”
– Attorney Victor
Attorneys Closing Thoughts
The attorneys caution against making blanket generalizations about law enforcement. They emphasize that most police interactions are lawful and professional, and that officers frequently face dangerous situations requiring quick decisions. They argue that denying Deputy Duran bail is unjust, asserting that every individual is entitled to the presumption of innocence as long as they do not pose a flight risk and are not a threat to society. The attorneys hope for a fair trial and appropriate sentencing focused on rehabilitation rather than excessive punishment, given the deputy’s history and unlikelihood of continuing his law enforcement career.
“Everybody, no matter who you are . . . no matter how heinous the accusation is, everybody in the United States is entitled to a presumption of innocence.”
– Attorney Victor
The attorneys acknowledged that, despite the issues they discussed, this case is still highly defensible. Attorneys For Freedom Law Firm is solely dedicated to representing individuals involved in self-defense incidents through our Attorneys On Retainer Program (AOR). To learn more about how The AOR Program can protect you, please call 866-404-5112 or email us.
