National Andrew Branca vs William Kirk critique on shooting event

Koda · May 15, 2024

Attorney Andrew Branca critiques Attorney William Kirks legal analysis of the recent Roger Fortson tragedy. Im aware many people on this forum follow William Kirks channel for his legal coverage of current gun rights, laws etc. relative to the PNW region here.

Ive queued it up to where the good critique begins but its a long video if you want to dive into the details, otherwise the video is long winded and will take over an hour to fully watch to get all the details. If I understand right, the basic premise is Kirk claims he was "Was Executed for Exercising His Constitutional Rights" where Branca takes the position the shooting was justified under Florida law. At the queued up, Kirk position is he was legal to own the gun and not breaking any laws, Brancas response is thats not relevant to Floridas use of force laws. You can watch more from there if needed.

For the sake of discussion, if you had to go thru the system defending yourself, which attorney would you choose?

View: https://www.youtube.com/live/JEf63eHv0ac?si=OaNnMW8PNpMLRbxa&t=1721

Old Dog · May 15, 2024

I've totally gotta side with Bill Kirk on this one. While Branca's point -- that the deputy WAS justified under Florida law to use deadly force -- the reality is that a more seasoned officer could possibly have immediately discerned that Fortson was not a lethal threat to him.

To be honest, over the years, I've started to tune Branca out. 15 - 20 years ago, he made sense. Branca, as has Ayoob, become a facilitator, enabler and "explainer" for bad police shootings.

At some point, and I say this having been on street patrol for several years, cops have to start pausing momentarily to actually read a situation. I saw the handwriting on the wall when the "Tueller Drill" became gospel, didn't matter if the subject was holding a cell phone, a garden trowel or a butter knife -- it was automatically a lethal threat, so double-tap center mass and keep shooting until the threat has stopped twitching.

The laws are already in favor of the law enforcement officer, but unfortunately, the permanent video record will have the last say in the matter.

PiratePast40 · May 16, 2024

Both seem to have some really good points but I found Branca annoying and, at times, petty when unnecessarily attacking Kirk. I'd be afraid that, were he my lawyer, Branca might pizz off the judge or jury enough to sway them to the other side. It seemed that, by attacking Kirk so often, he was covering up a weakness in his arguments.

Caveman Jim · May 16, 2024

Branca who?

Nowadays the mentality of some young PO's is "GUN!!! 21 bangs, a mag reload and then seeing whatever was in the bleeding persons hand, oh chit, it was a phone. Oh bubblegum.

Koda · May 16, 2024

Its interesting to hear the widely different perspectives from two very pro gun/defense lawyers, also interesting to hear the views from the gun community.
I think in order to be fair we should share a link to Kirks video on this in question. Here Kirk suggests that if the law is applied equally it shouldn't turn out good for the officer, but Kirk does not cite any relevant law to learn from why it would turn out bad. Kirk captions his video with " it appears that this officer engaged in conduct that will likely land him in prison. So learn more today and arm yourself with education. " but provided no relevant law or legal analysts in his video. To be fair, he needs to.

View: https://youtu.be/IWepSw11YiA?si=Q0O_FMFyNymXGD4P&t=602

bradsteen · May 16, 2024

Wow. Just lost a lot of respect for Andrew Branca after watching that. The personal attacks were unnecessary, as was his odd obsession with Bill's YouTube fanbase. News flash, Andrew - nobody follows your channel because your videos are over an hour long. Nobody has time for that sh!t.

Yarome · May 17, 2024

I'm siding with Kirk on this one too. There is no doubt that the law is likely to prevent any conviction. Branca's probably right on that point. That's just how the world is spinning these days.

It seems to me that Branca is mistakenly trying to argue that meeting the legal standard of "reasonable" is not determined by a standard of "reasonable minds" of the people, but by what that specific officer felt was "reasonable" at the time. Total BS! I don't doubt he may have likely felt in fear, but his actions where not "reasonable" nor justified. Two separate things but Branca seems to be arguing they are one and the same(?)

He also seems to be pushing the "unknown and unknowable". Seemingly stating that it is a legally justifiable default to assume (in an unknown and unknowable situation) that an imminent threat exists whenever any citizen is in possession of a firearm. Or for that matter... even if an officer "believes" a weapon is present... even if it's only a cellphone or their wallet in their hand. Flatly ignoring that "unknown and unknowable" is just that. It could, and should, just as easily swing in the direction of assuming that a citizen with a firearm in view does not, in and of itself, pose an imminent threat.

By Branca's standard... police would be justified in opening fire on citizens bearing arms in a peaceful protest... so long as that specific officer was willing to swear under oath that they "believed" a citizen with a firearm posed an imminent threat. That's kind of an exaggeration, but it illustrates what a slippery slope it can be when the law is allowed to default against citizens rights and legal standards are reduced to a single individuals perceptions... of which are both "unknown and unknowable" to any other person... If you think about it.

I mean. For all we know, that officer has been itching to see what it feels like to take another persons life and took advantage of the first opportunity he thought he could get away with it to find out.

As @Old Dog stated. An officer with more experience or more measured response would be able to immediately judge that Fortson's demeanor was not aggressive, his firearm was pointed downward and made no attempt to raise his weapon toward the officer before the officer opened fire. He might have likely put him at gun point and issued commands to disarm, but wouldn't have immediately dropped the guy simply on the basis that a firearm was present.

Was it "wise" of Fortson to open the door with his firearm in his hand? Knowing that in todays day and age LEO's are constantly making the news for shooting legal occupants within their own homes first, with no warning, and asking questions later? Yeah... probably not... but he certainly wasn't breaking any laws and losing his life for nothing more than answering his own door was in no way justified.

I fully support the blue line, but I do believe he should be prosecuted for at least negligent homicide. I do know too though that it's not at all a likely outcome.

ETA: I just read some of the comments and they are tearing the guy apart pretty well. GOOD!

I've never heard of the guy before, but not in the least impressed.

Stomper · May 17, 2024

The nature of lawyers is to nitpick, separate, and argue/debate. The art of arguing involves many tactics besides just "articulating the facts".

Oftentimes, striking the "cords of human emotion" detaches the average person from deeper levels (or any level) of rationality and therefore can be manipulated in the direction you want. Why do you think almost ALL politicians were/are lawyers?

It's always done with the end goal of WINNING…. hence the "personal attacks" against Bill.

Lawyers (in general) suck.

WestcoastWes · May 17, 2024

Two youtube stars creating clickbait to get views to get sponsors to make money. Blah blah blah.

That being said, I like Kirk's schtick about 75% of the time, if you separate his argumentum ad obsurd-ism and his catastrophising from facts he gives out good info. Never heard of the other guy.