Connect with us

News

Two men killed while pointing guns at the ground. Should police have waited?

Published

on

Two men killed while pointing guns at the ground. Should police have waited?

U.S. Airman Roger Fortson answers the door of his apartment on May 3, 2024, as captured by the body camera of the Okaloosa County sheriff’s deputy responding to a report of a domestic disturbance. A split second later, the deputy fired at Fortson, killing him.

Okaloosa County Sheriff’s Office/Okaloosa County Sheriff’s Office


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Okaloosa County Sheriff’s Office/Okaloosa County Sheriff’s Office

The shootings of two men on opposite ends of the country this month have refocused attention on deadly force standards for police — and how officers should respond to the sight of a gun. In both cases, the men were fatally shot within moments, even as they held their weapons pointed down.

On May 3, “fourth-person” reports of a domestic disturbance at an apartment complex in Okaloosa County, Florida, brought a sheriff’s deputy to the front door of 23-year-old U.S. Airman Roger Fortson, who was alone in his apartment. The deputy’s body camera video shows him pausing to listen at Fortson’s closed door, then knocking, waiting, knocking and again and calling out, “Sheriff’s office, open the door!”

The door opens and Fortson comes into view: a slender African-American man dressed in jeans and standing barefoot on the tiles of his entryway. His left hand is coming up in an open-palm gesture; his right hand is holding a pistol. It’s held loosely, pointed at the floor. In the second it takes him to open the door, the deputy says, “Step back,” unholsters and draws his gun, and fatally shoots Fortson.

Advertisement

“It wasn’t a good exchange, he never fired a weapon or anything,” says Benjamin Crump, an attorney. who represents Fortson’s family and appeared at the funeral. “He respected authority,” he says of Fortson.

The Okaloosa Sheriff’s Office initially called the shooting “self-defense,” but the case is now under investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

Ten days later, another man holding a gun pointed down was shot and killed by police during a domestic disturbance call, this time in Anchorage, Alaska. The morning after the shooting, Police Chief Bianca Cross said the man, Kristopher Handy, had “raised the long gun towards officers,” but a video released later by one of Handy’s neighbors appears to contradict that. It shows Handy outside the apartment building, walking toward officers with an apparent long gun held roughly parallel with his legs. Like Fortson, Handy was shot within moments of facing the police.

The Anchorage Police Department is investigating; Handy’s family is calling for the release of body camera videos of the incident.

Still image from YouTube video of the shooting of Kristopher Handy by Anchorage police on May 13, 2024

Kristopher Handy faces police during a domestic distburbance call in Anchorage, Alaska, moments before being shot. This image comes from a video recorded by a neighbor, who says Handy never pointed the long gun he was holding

Virginia Miller/YouTube

Advertisement


hide caption

toggle caption

Virginia Miller/YouTube

Advertisement

The recent deaths have renewed questions about whether police are allowed to shoot someone who’s armed, but not pointing the weapon.

“There is no hard and fast rule as it relates to that,” says Rodney Bryant, a 34-year veteran of the Atlanta Police Department, former chief, and now president of the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives.

“Sometimes you may have a person that’s not pointing that still may pose a significant threat to law enforcement officers,” Bryant says. “But… you can have a very similar situation and it’s clear the person is not a threat.”

No Hard And Fast Rule

What complicates matters for police is the science of human reaction times. At Washington State University, Stephen James runs a lab that studies this by running subjects — including police officers — through simulations. Those studies have demonstrated a two-to-three-second disadvantage for officers who wait to have a weapon pointed at them.

“There’s no way a human can see the weapon coming up, make a decision about whether or not it’s a threat, then decide to press the trigger and then the electrical signal has to go from the brain down the nervous system into the finger,” James says. “If you have to wait for all of that, the other person will get a shot off first.”

Advertisement

Because of this lag, James says officers across the nation are trained that “action will beat reaction.”

But he says that’s not an excuse to preemptively shoot anyone holding a gun.

James also takes part in state-mandated reviews of police shootings, and he says police have to keep the law in mind, especially the1989 U.S. Supreme Court case Graham v. Connor, requiring an officer’s decision to shoot to be judged by a “reasonableness” standard.

“When we look at the totality of the circumstances, is the individual acting in a threatening manner? Are they being compliant or are they being defiant?” Even the location of the person could end up determining whether a shooting is justified.

“[In] the case in Florida, it was within the threshold of his own home. And that is absolutely protected by the Second Amendment as long as he could legally hold the firearm,” James says. “It’s very different when you’re out in public … and we don’t allow open carry of guns in schools, for example.”

Advertisement

“It’s hard to train for this,” says Chief Bryant. He says he’s seen some departments that emphasize the research showing the time disadvantage for officers who wait; others emphasize the need to back up and de-escalate a potential confrontation, if there’s time.

What he has seen over three decades in policing, he says, is that officers are facing this situation more often, especially as states have legalized open carry. And it can take time for an officer to understand what’s happening.

“I’m arriving on the scene, and the person that’s taking the gun from one person — from the volatile person — is there intervening, and I pull up and they have the gun,” Bryant says. “I don’t know who’s who, but I challenge that person as well [to drop the gun],” he says.

“When you have the proliferation of weaponry that we’ve seen, you just encounter it more,” he says. “Seeing the gun will be very common, and we have to be prepared for that on both sides.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Tech reversal pushes US megacaps into correction territory

Published

on

Tech reversal pushes US megacaps into correction territory

Stay informed with free updates

Four of the so-called Magnificent Seven technology stocks that have powered the US market rally for the past nine months ended the week in correction territory, having fallen by more than 10 per cent from recent peaks. 

Another two — Microsoft and Amazon — are close to the double-digit falls that define a correction. Investors are looking ahead to further tech earnings updates next week amid worries about punchy valuations and the risks that returns from vast artificial intelligence-related spending may not live up to early hopes.

Nvidia and Tesla are each down 17 per cent from their recent peaks while Meta and Google parent Alphabet have fallen 14 per cent and 12 per cent. Apple is the best performer in the group, having lost just 7 per cent while Microsoft and Amazon have slid about 9 per cent each.

Advertisement

On Wednesday Alphabet sparked a wider market sell-off when, despite it reporting solid quarterly operating numbers, its shares fell more than 5 per cent on concerns about AI-related investments. Its $13bn quarterly capital expenditure was almost double the levels of a year ago.

“For a long time investors were really sold on the premise that AI investment in and of itself — spending money — is good,” said Max Gokhman, a senior vice-president at Franklin Templeton Investment Solutions. “What we’re seeing now is . . . investors saying, ‘Hold up a sec, what are the productivity gains here, when do you expect to see them?’”

Alphabet’s fall helped drag the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite to its worst one-day decline in 18 months on Wednesday, down 3.6 per cent. The index ended the week down 2.1 per cent.

Microsoft, Meta, Apple and Amazon earnings next week may set up a fresh test of investor faith in the AI narrative that has been a crucial driver of market gains.

“Expectations are high and valuations for the Mag Seven aren’t cheap. We’re also closer to the point when we see some decelerations in earnings from them as a group — from the beneficiaries of AI in general,” said Josh Nelson, head of US equity at T Rowe Price. 

Advertisement

Investors this week also showed they were prepared to punish companies that missed expectations, with Tesla losing 12 per cent on Wednesday after slowing sales and its own AI spending shrank profits more than expected. And Ford shares tumbled 18 per cent on Thursday when its profits fell short, hurt by unexpectedly high warranty costs.

On average, companies that missed expectations had seen their shares drop 3.3 per cent in the days surrounding their earnings, according to data from FactSet, more than the five-year average of 2.3 per cent.

Companies that beat expectations saw on average no gains in their share price, FactSet reported.

“The trend of misses getting punished more than beats get rewarded is getting a little bit more significant,” said Liz Ann Sonders, chief investment strategist at Charles Schwab. “There is uncertainty and skittishness with regard to just how fast the market, driven by those names ran, without the commensurate improvement in their forward earnings prospects.”

Sonders also pointed to the fact that the earnings season under way had coincided with a “rotation” among investors taking profits in the biggest tech names in favour of backing smaller companies that were more likely to see big benefits if the Federal Reserve begins to cut interest rates in September.

Advertisement

This week, the Russell 2000 index of small-cap stocks added 3.5 per cent while the blue-chip S&P 500 fell 0.8 per cent.

Continue Reading

News

Boar's Head recalls 200,000 pounds of deli meat linked to a Listeria outbreak

Published

on

Boar's Head recalls 200,000 pounds of deli meat linked to a Listeria outbreak

An electron microscope image of a Listeria monocytogenes bacterium, which has been linked to an outbreak spread through deli meat. Boar’s Head recalled meat on Friday, after two deaths and 33 hospitalizations linked to Listeria.

Elizabeth White/AP/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Elizabeth White/AP/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Boar’s Head is recalling more than 200,000 pounds of deli meat that could be contaminated with listeria, the Food Safety and Inspection Service announced Friday.

The recall includes all Liverwurst products, as well as a variety of other meats listed in the FSIS announcement. The CDC has identified 34 cases of Listeria from deli meat across 13 states, including two people who died as of Thursday. The statement also said there had been 33 hospitalizations.

The CDC warns that the number of infections is likely higher, since some people may not be tested. It can also take three to four weeks for a sick individual to be linked to an outbreak.

Advertisement

Listeria is a foodborne bacterial illness, which affects about 1,600 people in the U.S. each year, including 260 deaths. While it can lead to serious complications for at-risk individuals, most recover with antibiotics. Its symptoms typically include fever, muscle aches and drowsiness,

The CDC says people who are pregnant, aged 65 or older, or have weakened immune systems are most at risk. It suggests that at-risk individuals heat any sliced deli meat to an internal temperature of 165°F.

The investigation from the CDC and FSIS is ongoing. This is not the first listeria outbreak of the summer, as more than 60 ice cream products were previously recalled during an outbreak in June.

Continue Reading

News

US charges short seller Andrew Left with fraud

Published

on

US charges short seller Andrew Left with fraud

Stay informed with free updates

A federal grand jury in Los Angeles has charged prominent short seller Andrew Left with more than a dozen counts of fraud, alleging that he made profits of at least $16mn from “a long-running market manipulation scheme”, according to a statement from the Department of Justice.

The DoJ added: “Left knowingly exploited his ability to move stock prices by targeting stocks popular with retail investors and posting recommendations on social media to manipulate the market and make fast, easy money.”

The grand jury indictment charged him with 17 counts of securities fraud, one count of engaging in a securities fraud scheme and one count of making false statements to federal investigators.

Advertisement

The indictment alleged that Left, who has a high profile on social media, publicly claimed that companies’ share prices were too high or low, often with a recommended target price and “an explicit or implicit representation about Citron’s trading position”. This, the DoJ said, “created the false pretence that Left’s economic incentives aligned with his public recommendation”.

Left prepared to quickly close positions after publishing his comments, taking profits on price moves he had caused, according to the indictment.

It also accused Left of presenting himself as independent and concealing Citron’s links with a hedge fund by fabricating invoices and wiring payments through a third party.

If convicted, Left could face decades in prison. Each securities fraud count carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, while the securities fraud scheme and false statements counts each carry a maximum prison term of 25 years and five years, respectively.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission has also filed a separate civil fraud case against Left and his firm Citron Research, claiming the founder made $20mn from a “multi-year scheme to defraud followers.” Left declined to comment on the DoJ and SEC charges.

Advertisement

“Andrew Left took advantage of his readers. He built their trust and induced them to trade on false pretences so that he could quickly reverse direction and profit from the price moves following his reports,” said Kate Zoladz, regional director of the SEC’s Los Angeles office. “We uncovered these alleged bait-and-switch tactics, which netted Left and his firm $20mn in ill-gotten profits, and we intend to hold Left and his firm accountable for their actions.”   

The practice of betting that a company’s share price will go down has long been controversial — opponents say it gives traders incentives to spread misinformation, while supporters argue that it improves price discovery and holds management accountable. Last year the SEC adopted new rules that require investors to disclose short positions more quickly and fully.

Left has been most vocal recently in his scepticism over GameStop, the ailing video games retailer. In May it raised $3bn selling new shares following a surge in its price driven by the reappearance of Roaring Kitty — whose real name is Keith Gill — who was instrumental in the 2021 meme stock mania that had sent its value rocketing.

Left told followers in mid-June that Citron had closed its short position on the stock not because he had changed his views but because of GameStop’s newly-strengthened balance sheet.

In 2016, Left received a five-year “cold shoulder” ban from regulators in Hong Kong — a landmark ruling for the city — temporarily barring him from its markets after he was found culpable of misconduct related to a research report he published on Chinese property developer China Evergrande.

Advertisement

Additional reporting by Stefania Palma in Washington and Brooke Masters in New York

Continue Reading

Trending