View Full Version : LBPD shoot man over perceived threat.
An unfortunate turn of events led police officers to shoot and kill a Long Beach, CA man holding a water nozzle for a garden hose.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20025657-504083.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-us-water-nozzle-shooting,0,3701536.story
RIP
Sometimes it is not so hard to understand why the Brits disarmed their police. :rolleyes:
I HATE this kind of news attention because of all the uneducated comments this will bring. Having been in this situation a few times in my carrier, it is a fraction of a second decision to make and it will cause someone to be injured or killed or an officer to hesitate.
I feel bad for the family's loss of a loved one but let's get real here. Civil action?? Guy with black metal object, under the influence, sitting on a chair.... after a report of a man with a weapon? Police with large guns out (shotguns)..... Do we need to say police? If time and situation permits, it would be a great idea but I'm going home at the end of my shift...... period.
Sorry for the rant....
Guy with black metal object, under the influence, sitting in a vehicle. Police with large guns out (shotguns)..... Do we need to say police? If time and situation permits, it would be a great idea but I'm going home at the end of my shift...... period.
I can understand why you don't like stories like this. However, he was sitting on some stairs on a front stoop. Per the articles he didn't see or hear anything. He was shot 6 times with a handgun and 2 times with a shotgun.
The articles, I know it's the media, made it sound like the cops snuck up on the guy and shot and killed him without uttering a warning. In fact one of the LEOs stated that he could hear the water nozzle "making noises like a firearm" being handled. If you're that close to hear that I would think you'd make your presence known and at least offer a warning or identify the object in his hand.
And I also don't want to turn this into an argument. I respect your opinion, your stance on this and the job you do. Unfortunately someone lost their life due to these officer's mistake.
I will have to say that given the facts, poor training may be a factor in the decision to shoot or not to shoot. What gets me is the media leaves out specific facts so that the anti police comments like "trigger happy cops" and the like begin. I have never shot anyone and I hope I will never have to. Training and situational awareness have stopped me from killing 3 people in my 12 years as a police officer. New officers will be reading about this article and god forbid if this happens to them and they hesitate for that fraction of a second...... We will be attending another LE funeral. Ask yourself what kind of media attention that will get...
Irish, I always look forward to your posts about news that affects the shooting community and I am in no way lashing out at you.
Irish, I always look forward to your posts about news that affects the shooting community and I am in no way lashing out at you.
Thanks, and I enjoy reading your posts. I just thought it would make for interesting discussion. Problem is I know that it often turns into a mudslinging contest and that isn't my intention.
Not to harp on the subject but here the Long Beach’s police chief has admitted that his officers never identified themselves before they shot and killed the man. This is probably the most detailed report on the subject that I've seen.
http://www.scpr.org/news/2010/12/14/long-beach-shooting/
Lack of training seems to be what keeps popping into my head. I just think that the general public like this guy....
"These officers are trained to recognize a gun from a water sprinkler. There is no excuse for what they did. The state needs to arrest these officers and they should be on trial for murder. The citizens of Long Beach should demand nothing less."
...have no clue what it's like to be out there (by yourself) and make a split second life or death decision. I guess when this guy needs help and someone is pointing a metal like object at him, he should call his local crackhead.
Police officers are killed or murdered EVERY DAY. Some are involved in crashes, some are hunted and some are at the wrong place at the wrong time. No matter what kind of human being a police officer is, (I've met my share of bad ones) they are out there doing a service. Good or bad, at one point, all LE made a choice to protect and serve a specific community. I don't believe for a minute that someone would endure the physical and mental training to become a LEO for the sole purpose of hitting the streets and smoking the first fool he gets a chance to train his front sight on.
Like quality firearms training, police work has to be dynamic. It has to flow. (Take complaint, assess problem, fix problem, go home.) All this has to be done smoothly with training and situational awareness and mistakes will be made. When dynamics are interrupted by hesitation on an officer's part due to lawyers, cop haters and maybe even some left wingers...lol, a good person can die.
If I had to armchair quarterback this situation given the articles given to me in this thread, I would say that the police acted quickly, took a tactical position and reacted improperly to a perceived threat. Should they be tried and called murderers? No. Should they be reprimanded? Sure. Should we look up the ladder of the police department administrators and trainers and see where the lack of training is coming from? Absolutely!
but I'm going home at the end of my shift...... period.
Good for you. Protect and serve by putting holes in people 'just in case'.
If a civilian shot a guy holding a hose nozzle, I am sure you would be right over to arrest him and file murder charges.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
:rolleyes:
Good for you. Protect and serve by putting holes in people 'just in case'.
If a civilian shot a guy holding a hose nozzle, I am sure you would be right over to arrest him and file murder charges.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
:rolleyes:
I think you are missing my point. First, if the civilian was legally armed and thought that the hose nozzle was a gun, I would NOT be right over to arrest the guy. Second, my point is training, or lack thereof. Situational awareness is paramount. Did those officers lack situational awareness? YUP! Are they murderers? NOPE! Who really is to blame? I don't know what you do for a living 500 but I sure know that I am not better at your job than you are.
John_Wayne777
12-15-10, 08:29
The news media rarely gets the details of a shooting correct on the first try...or even in the first dozen. Therefore it would be sensible to refrain from getting spun up about a shooting based on details presented in a news story.
In a situation like this the details matter a hell of a lot.
This is probably the most detailed report on the subject that I've seen.
http://www.scpr.org/news/2010/12/14/long-beach-shooting/
There is an eyewitness statement from Mr. Ruilova in the comment block. Based off some of the other remarks that were posted there seems to be more to this story (there always is). I will wait until a more detailed report comes out before I lend any credibility to Mr. Ruilova's statement.
Sometimes it is not so hard to understand why the Brits disarmed their police. :rolleyes:
Good for you. Protect and serve by putting holes in people 'just in case'.
If a civilian shot a guy holding a hose nozzle, I am sure you would be right over to arrest him and file murder charges.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
:rolleyes:
First and last warning. These are isolated incidents and comments like this are out of line.
There is an eyewitness statement from Mr. Ruilova in the comment block. Based off some of the other remarks that were posted there seems to be more to this story (there always is). I will wait until a more detailed report comes out before I lend any credibility to Mr. Ruilova's statement.
I'm sure there will be additional reports and more speculation prior to and even after the official report has been made. I thought it was an interesting case and isn't meant to slander the officers but in fact to generate honest debate and dialogue.
CoryCop - You make some very valid points and that's the reason I like to discuss things such as this. Often times many people don't initially think of all the other circumstances that are involved, and you and other LEOs here at M4C, help provide the professional hindsight that is often needed to better assess different scenarios. Many times that train of thought may be challenged and you'll find citizens critical of the police's actions but I firmly believe that as adults we can discuss incidents such as this from multiple angles and usually come up with a consensus. Stay safe!
The guy had a two handed grip on this hose nozzle and was aiming at officers. The use of force in response was appropriate.
http://media.trb.com/media/photo/2010-12/58253437.jpg
The guy had a two handed grip on this hose nozzle and was aiming at officers. The use of force in response was appropriate.
http://media.trb.com/media/photo/2010-12/58253437.jpg
No. They've admitted that more than likely he didn't even know they were there due to hiding behind bushes/buildings.
parishioner
12-15-10, 13:58
If time and situation permits, it would be a great idea but I'm going home at the end of my shift...... period.
I'll start by saying I respect police officers and understand that they are put in difficult situations on a daily basis without much recognition and appreciation.
Im not trying to agitate or stir the pot but can you appreciate and honestly assess how unsettling and frightening the above quote sounds to a civilian?
Belmont31R
12-15-10, 14:10
No. They've admitted that more than likely he didn't even know they were there due to hiding behind bushes/buildings.
They are giving conflicting information. Earlier the spokesperson said the officers didn't have time to announce their presence (hiding observing the suspect waiting for backup), and that he was pointing it at random objects. Then the chief later said he pointed it at the officers directly with a 2 hand grip.
Kinda a big distinction.....
jklaughrey
12-15-10, 14:26
Having used lethal force on 2 occasions in the line of duty. I will say hesitation will get you dead real quick. You have but a nanosecond to asses a threat and deal with it. Both times the perp had a real "gun", but given the circumstance from what I understand is the guy was also acting subversive in his actions. Hiding and concealing. Weapon or not those types of behaviors are called a "red flag". And yes, I want to go home, I want to take early retirement soon and move into the corporate world. I am tired of having the hair on my neck tingle. Plus my wife would sleep better. Irish, DragonD, and Belmont thanks for the input. Cory keep it cool on the beat my friend. And 500, damn man I like you but please don't bash us LEO's we are for the most part the good guys out there.
John_Wayne777
12-15-10, 14:28
Gentlemen:
Please refrain from engaging in generalized LE bashing. Continuing to do so will have repercussions for your account.
jklaughrey
12-15-10, 14:35
I understand your concerns and the reasoning behind your post. But as you said we are all just people. Why should it be any different that a cop wants to go home safe versus a banker or pizza delivery kid. We all take risk in our chosen profession. LE/MIL and many other jobs are inherently dangerous. Yes, we chose them but we all do our jobs and hope for the best day/shift everyday we work. Going home after shift is a LEO way of saying I want a safe shift and will do my utmost to serve and protect the community and also make sure I am safe in the process the best I can.
Im not trying to agitate or stir the pot but can you appreciate and honestly assess how unsettling and frightening the above quote sounds to a civilian?
I understand your sentiment and am in agreeance.
Going home after shift is a LEO way of saying I want a safe shift and will do my utmost to serve and protect the community and also make sure I am safe in the process the best I can.
The way that comment is typically perceived, I've seen it on numerous occasions, is that an LEO doesn't give a shit about shooting someone even if they only perceive a threat as long as they're safe in the process. How it sounds to me is regardless of a real threat, or a guilty person, they'll put them down without a second thought in order to protect their own safety and have no remorse in doing so.
I'm sure there's a better way of explaining their intentions, and I believe what you wrote is much closer to the truth, but it does give a certain air of arrogance and perceived infallibility. The way you translated it certainly sounds like how anyone of us would feel in your position.
Thanks for your input Jklaughrey and CoryCop as well. Glad to see a good discussion on an event like this rather than just mudsling, MMQB'ing and BS. Take care.
Why should it be any different that a cop wants to go home safe versus a banker or pizza delivery kid. We all take risk in our chosen profession.
One last thought... Apples & oranges in your comparison but I get what you're saying. These other guys don't deal with people, some good & some bad, in the same light as an officer of the law by any stretch of the imagination. The LEO also carries a gun, usually several, and has the power to arrest and shoot people knowing that not only will he have immunity from prosecution, to a degree, but also the law and his union will stand behind him regardless of the facts. I won't bother posting examples at this time but there are numerous incidents that come to mind.
That is why the statement "I'm going home at the end of my shift...... period." doesn't sit well with many citizens. I'm not slinging shit at your or CoryCop, I appreciate your service, and I'm sure you understand where I'm coming from. I'm also not trying to group LEOs under the same umbrella, I'm just explaining how comments are perceived by a lot of people. Stay safe gents.
Good for you. Protect and serve by putting holes in people 'just in case'.
They go on a man with a gun call and:
"As the subject was in a seated position, he used a two-handed pistol-grip hold on an object with his arms fully extended," McDonnell said. "Somebody that is impaired and waving what appears to witnesses and police to be a handgun. That's what the officers were faced with."
Stupid is supposed to hurt. I feel badly for the LEOs put in that position.
jklaughrey
12-15-10, 15:35
Irish, I understand your position on that. It is all good to me. I personally follow what my father said from when he was on the force. "That tin and gun will only buy you about 5 seconds of respect, after that it is all on you and your actions". I live that every day I am at work or off duty. I also use that mindset in my consulting position I have on a "as needed" basis, although with any luck it will permanent and I can turn in my tin in a year. Well full time anyways. There are good, bad, or indifferent in every profession and all people. It is up to the individual how they choose to be perceived, not by the uniform they wear.
PS, for those that don't know Long Beach is a shithole and not a very safe place to be a citizen most times, let alone wearing a target called a badge. Criminal elements in that area and surrounding areas consider killing a cop like an academy award.
CarlosDJackal
12-15-10, 15:42
From the article:
(1) "Long Beach Police Chief Jim McDonnell said officers took positions to observe Zerby, who appeared intoxicated, and believed he had a "tiny six-shooter" as described by a male caller."
ANALYSIS: The responding Officers could have either:
(a) Assumed the witness was mistaken or exaggerating and expect that this is nothing more than a man holding a water hose (I wonder how many cops have been killed in the line of duty because they took this approach?).
(b) Or they can assume that the report was accurate and be in Condition Orange when they get there and expect a man with a gun (I wonder how many Officers survive a lethal encounter because they took this approach?).
IMHO: That's a no brainer. If you don't care about ever seeing your loved ones at the end of your shift, choose option (a).
(2) "Zerby reportedly pointed the black metal-tipped nozzle at one of the officers, and two officers fired a handgun and a shotgun. A total of eight shots were fired - six from a handgun and two from shot guns, said McDonnell."
ANALYSIS: Furtive Movement!!
From dictionary.com: fur·tive
–adjective
1. taken, done, used, etc., surreptitiously or by stealth; secret: a furtive glance.
2. sly; shifty: a furtive manner.
—Synonyms
1. clandestine, covert. 2. underhand, cunning.
The responding Officers could have either:
(a) Assumed the witness was holding a water nozzle that just looked like a gun and let him point it at them (I wonder how many cops have been killed in the line of duty because they took this approach?).
(b) Or they can assume that the man had a gun and was about to take a shot at them (I wonder how many Officers survive a lethal encounter because they took this approach?).
IMHO: Another no brainer. If you would like to increase the chance of widowing your spouse and/or orphaning your child, choose option (a).
(3) "They didn't say 'Put your hands up' or 'Freeze' or anything," Zerby's sister, Eden Marie Biele told The Associated Press Monday. "He was killed in cold blood."
ANALYSIS: The responding Officers could have either:
(a) Assumed the subject had not been aware of their presence was just pointing what looked like a pistol at no one in particular (I wonder how many cops have been killed in the line of duty because they took this approach?).
(b) Or they can assume that the the man had seen them and was about to take a shot at them for whatever reason (I wonder how many Officers survive a lethal encounter because they took this approach?).
IMHO: Pretty redundant, isn't it? If you would like to find out if the bullet-resistant vest you were issued works, choose option (a).
BOTTOM LINE: This is a great example of Cause and Effect: "As the subject was in a seated position, he used a two-handed pistol-grip hold on an object with his arms fully extended," McDonnell said. "Somebody that is impaired and waving what appears to witnesses and police to be a handgun. That's what the officers were faced with."
If you don't want to be mistakenly shot by armed men whose goal is to live long enough to be able to be with their loved ones; don't sit out in the open with what can be construed like a firearm and do something that would force one or more of them to shoot you!! It's just that freaking simple.
The number of rounds fire and the number of Officers who fired is not relevant. Whether or not THEY FEARED FOR THEIR OWN SAFETY AND THE SAFETY OF THOSE AROUND THEM is. JM2CW.
jklaughrey
12-15-10, 15:47
BINGO!, thank you for the in depth and thorough analysis. Sure you're not a litigator?:D
thopkins22
12-15-10, 15:49
The guy had a two handed grip on this hose nozzle and was aiming at officers. The use of force in response was appropriate.
http://media.trb.com/media/photo/2010-12/58253437.jpg
It's certainly a very gun-like hose nozzle. And I think it's fair to say that the officers involved legitimately felt they were in danger and that lethal force was appropriate. I won't presume that they were correct or incorrect since I wasn't there, but I get it.
The only thing that bothers me about the shoot is what would be the response of my local PD/prosecutor if I shot a man holding that and pointing it at me or another human being?
ETA:Clearly it would depend on the officers that arrived and the prosecutor...but I think that's often where the "division" we see in threads like this comes from. There doesn't seem to be a set standard of what will legally get you killed vs. what gets you screamed at for being an idiot. True or not, how people perceive actions is what will last in their memories.
BINGO!, thank you for the in depth and thorough analysis.
Sounded pretty good except this quoted part. We all talk about media and distorting the facts so as not to MMQB and yet statements like this are accepted as fact when it supports the position of the LEO. I'm not trying to be inflammatory but it is a 2 way street. Do we know if this in fact did happen? Absolutely not but since it helps support the officer's case than it must be correct.
The bolded part is just oversimplified in my opinion.
BOTTOM LINE: This is a great example of Cause and Effect: "As the subject was in a seated position, he used a two-handed pistol-grip hold on an object with his arms fully extended," McDonnell said. "Somebody that is impaired and waving what appears to witnesses and police to be a handgun. That's what the officers were faced with."
If you don't want to be mistakenly shot by armed men whose goal is to live long enough to be able to be with their loved ones; don't sit out in the open with what can be construed like a firearm and do something that would force one or more of them to shoot you!! It's just that freaking simple.
The only thing that bothers me about the shoot is what would be the response of my local PD/prosecutor if I shot a man holding that and pointing it at me or another human being?
Steel bracelets and a boyfriend. ;)
I'll start by saying I respect police officers and understand that they are put in difficult situations on a daily basis without much recognition and appreciation.
Im not trying to agitate or stir the pot but can you appreciate and honestly assess how unsettling and frightening the above quote sounds to a civilian?
There is no requirement to wait for deadly force be used before using deadly force to protect yourself or another. You need to have or perceive AOJ it is a triangle and you need all three. Ability, Opportunity & Jeapordy. This is clearly an unfortunate incident we would all like to avoid. With out all of the information making a decision is irresponsible.
Belmont31R
12-15-10, 16:04
So sitting in front of your house with an object that can be confused with a gun is reason enough to shoot someone?
Damn I guess Im lucky enough to have made it through childhood playing with my realistic looking guns almost every day....even used to point them at "objects" including other people.
jklaughrey
12-15-10, 16:05
In the situation you describe. My opinion on that is there was a perceived threat, the individual had to make a threat against you combined with furtive threatening movement. Granted not all LEO/DA's are going to be filled with common sense when making a decision. More than likely you would be arrested/detained for questioning. And dependent on what ADA you get will determine if they file charges or not. Pray you get one who is pro 2A and not a libtard trying to make a name for themselves as being tough on crime and gun toting crazed citizens.
On a note our DA would say good job and tough luck on the deceased for being stupid. Yes, common sense exudes from our Prosecutor's office.
I'll start by saying I respect police officers and understand that they are put in difficult situations on a daily basis without much recognition and appreciation.
Im not trying to agitate or stir the pot but can you appreciate and honestly assess how unsettling and frightening the above quote sounds to a civilian?
Because this is the internet and these are typed and not spoken words, I am telling you now that I am not being cocky or sarcastic when I reply to this.
With that, I will ask you how many jobs do you know of in this country that you have to wear body armor and a firearm to work? I have a responsibility to my community and to my family. I am going to stick around to keep those responsibilities. This does not mean I am going to break the law or infringe on the public's civil rights. This means that I if percieve a threat and it's him or me, I'm not going to hesitate.
jklaughrey
12-15-10, 16:10
Brother we live in troubled times my friend. But I know your mindset on this. I too played with same metallic guns as a child. Nowadays it will get you killed. The mindset of LE has had to change with the ever growing inherent dangers that plague our society more so now than they did in the past. Criminals are more brazen and cavalier in there committing of acts of violence and crime. Believe me I wish we could go back to Sheriff Andy in Mayberry time period. But I am a realist, not a dreamer. Fight fire with fire, react to violence in a violent manner period.
parishioner
12-15-10, 16:17
There is no requirement to wait for deadly force be used before using deadly force to protect yourself or another. You need to have or perceive AOJ it is a triangle and you need all three. Ability, Opportunity & Jeapordy. This is clearly an unfortunate incident we would all like to avoid. With out all of the information making a decision is irresponsible.
Not disagreeing. If the man did in fact point an object that looks like a firearm, whether inadvertently or intentional, I know the result will be officers engaging the suspect with deadly force. I understand officers need to protect themselves.
Littlelebowski
12-15-10, 16:20
Brother we live in troubled times my friend. But I know your mindset on this. I too played with same metallic guns as a child. Nowadays it will get you killed. The mindset of LE has had to change with the ever growing inherent dangers that plague our society more so now than they did in the past. Criminals are more brazen and cavalier in there committing of acts of violence and crime. Believe me I wish we could go back to Sheriff Andy in Mayberry time period. But I am a realist, not a dreamer. Fight fire with fire, react to violence in a violent manner period.
Crime has been on a downhill slope since the 90's.
Belmont31R
12-15-10, 16:23
Brother we live in troubled times my friend. But I know your mindset on this. I too played with same metallic guns as a child. Nowadays it will get you killed. The mindset of LE has had to change with the ever growing inherent dangers that plague our society more so now than they did in the past. Criminals are more brazen and cavalier in there committing of acts of violence and crime. Believe me I wish we could go back to Sheriff Andy in Mayberry time period. But I am a realist, not a dreamer. Fight fire with fire, react to violence in a violent manner period.
I just see it like if I was sitting here, looked out the window, and saw some a kid running with another kid behind him with a "gun", I whip out an AR, and put a controlled pair in the kid with the "gun"....people would pass it off as self defense or defense of a 3rd person? I don't think so.
I played with some pretty realistic looking toys when I was a kid...and you wouldn't be able to tell from a distance. BB gun wars later on, too.
Crime has been on a downhill slope since the 90's.
Not to throw gas on a fire but the LEO KIA rates have been going down for the past 100 years. http://www.mcrkba.org/LEOsKIA.pdf Lots of other info out there if you do a simple Google search.
Being a police officer is not in the top 10 of risky jobs in the U.S. It is true that police officers' jobs
are more dangerous than many – 22.2 officers per 100,000 officers died on the job annually compared
with the national average of 4.0 per 100,000 for all occupations in 2002. The following table shows job
fatality rates (per 100,000 employed) for selected occupations compared to risks for policemen.
Table 1. Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, 2002
Number of deaths per 100,000 employed, Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
(ref. http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/13/pf/dangerousjobs/ )
Timber cutting 117.8
Fishermen 71.1
Airplane Pilots & Navigators 69.8
Structural Metal Workers 58.2
Drivers Sales Workers 37.9
Roofers 37.0
Electrical Power Installers 32.5
Farmers 28.0
Construction laborers 27.7
Truck drivers 25.0
Sworn Police Officers * 22.2
National average: 4.0
EDIT: I know that it's an inherently difficult and dangerous job and I'm not taking anything away from that.
jklaughrey
12-15-10, 16:32
Crime rates are down, deaths of officers are down. But let us look at the bigger picture. Crimes of a violent nature are up, crimes involving assault/battery/robbery are up to a degree. Not to mention statics are fine except when you are, or become a statistic. Personally I choose not to be a number in a database.
Running around with fake guns is scary these days. really hard to tell on some what are real and what aren't!
Either way being a LEO and being put in a situation such as these officers' sucks serious ass. Pretty much damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Agreed, my buddy is a Helo logger. He has lost 9 guys on his crew in 18 months. Not all dead but disabled for life. 4 are dead the others are paralyzed. Sucks.
thopkins22
12-15-10, 16:32
In the situation you describe. My opinion on that is there was a perceived threat, the individual had to make a threat against you combined with furtive threatening movement. Granted not all LEO/DA's are going to be filled with common sense when making a decision. More than likely you would be arrested/detained for questioning. And dependent on what ADA you get will determine if they file charges or not. Pray you get one who is pro 2A and not a libtard trying to make a name for themselves as being tough on crime and gun toting crazed citizens.
On a note our DA would say good job and tough luck on the deceased for being stupid. Yes, common sense exudes from our Prosecutor's office.
Understood, though I believe I would face a different outcome here in Houston. You're quite reasonable...care to go to law school and move to TX to prosecute?:p
Running around with fake guns is scary these days. really hard to tell on some what are real and what aren't!
Either way being a LEO and being put in a situation such as these officers' sucks serious ass. Pretty much damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Absolutely agree 100%. Thanks for being a construtive part of this thread and offering up your opinion and thoughts. See, we can have an LEO thread on M4C without it turning into WWIII :)
jklaughrey
12-15-10, 16:37
I don't have boots big enough to wade through the TX legal system bullshit. Let alone anywhere else. I prefer to have people like me, no love me.
Carlos, you pretty much nailed it.
As for my comment about me going home....period. I am not a man of many words. It is a jargon that is used in the LE community and sometimes I fail to realize that on this forum, there are non LEOs here and just a bunch of fellow gun lover's. With that, I will say that I am not a rogue cop running around looking for a gunfight. I simply am scared to death to become complacent in my job. It will get me killed.
I have question to ask about this incident.... Was there a hose connected to this nozzle???? Was there flowers or grass to water? Not being cocky but I water my lawn and garden at night.
Another point that I want to throw out there is that if this happened to me, don't think for a split second that I wouldn't be an absolute mess about taking a life of another human being that didn't deserve to die.
jklaughrey
12-15-10, 16:42
Irish, appreciate the thoughts.
Cory, brother you will get more words once you become a sgt. My vocabulary has since added even more 4 letter words and colorful metaphors!:sarcastic:
Not to throw gas on a fire but the LEO KIA rates have been going down for the past 100 years. http://www.mcrkba.org/LEOsKIA.pdf Lots of other info out there if you do a simple Google search.
Being a police officer is not in the top 10 of risky jobs in the U.S. It is true that police officers' jobs
are more dangerous than many – 22.2 officers per 100,000 officers died on the job annually compared
with the national average of 4.0 per 100,000 for all occupations in 2002. The following table shows job
fatality rates (per 100,000 employed) for selected occupations compared to risks for policemen.
Table 1. Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, 2002
Number of deaths per 100,000 employed, Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
(ref. http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/13/pf/dangerousjobs/ )
Timber cutting 117.8
Fishermen 71.1
Airplane Pilots & Navigators 69.8
Structural Metal Workers 58.2
Drivers Sales Workers 37.9
Roofers 37.0
Electrical Power Installers 32.5
Farmers 28.0
Construction laborers 27.7
Truck drivers 25.0
Sworn Police Officers * 22.2
National average: 4.0
EDIT: I know that it's an inherently difficult and dangerous job and I'm not taking anything away from that.
Excellent point but........ How many of these deaths are the direct result of another human being intentionally trying to take your life? That's where the problem lies. I totally understand the statistics but it's apples and oranges.
Irish, appreciate the thoughts.
Cory, brother you will get more words once you become a sgt. My vocabulary has since added even more 4 letter words and colorful metaphors!:sarcastic:
I just busted out laughing! Oh how true!
As for my comment about me going home....period. I am not a man of many words. It is a jargon that is used in the LE community and sometimes I fail to realize that on this forum, there are non LEOs here and just a bunch of fellow gun lover's. With that, I will say that I am not a rogue cop running around looking for a gunfight. I simply am scared to death to become complacent in my job. It will get me killed.
I don't doubt you for a minute and I mean that sincerely. I was only trying to discuss how the comment is perceived by a lot of paying customers. I know it's taboo in a lot of threads but I think it's important to discuss the differences of opinion and train of thought between Joe Citizen and our favorite online LEOs. If there is no discussion there can be no understanding.
I have question to ask about this incident.... Was there a hose connected to this nozzle???? Was there flowers or grass to water? Not being cocky but I water my lawn and garden at night.
I don't remember seeing anywhere where there was a hose connected and that's a very valid point. Without the hose it's much harder to distinguish what type of "gun" the man was playing around with.
Another point that I want to throw out there is that if this happened to me, don't think for a split second that I wouldn't be an absolute mess about taking a life of another human being that didn't deserve to die.
Don't think that was my intention, it wasn't. Hand to God, no bullshit, no lie I have these conversations in real life with real life LEOs who happen to be my friends. 2 of those individuals are on this board and will substantiate that it is in fact true that I'm a pain in the ass in real life too :) It has nothing to do with a lack of personal or professional respect but everything to do with trying to gain a better understanding from listening to someone else due to not being able to be in their shoes.
Disagreements don't have to erupt into fights.
Disagreements don't have to erupt into fights.
Beautiful words to live by! Especially on this forum! I never get involved in the bickering on some of the threads. This one just hits home a bit and I feel strongly about how police are precieved by the public that they leave their family's to protect.
Excellent point but........ How many of these deaths are the direct result of another human being intentionally trying to take your life? That's where the problem lies. I totally understand the statistics but it's apples and oranges.
Very valid point. I don't know the numbers, I'm sure they're available, but I'm curious to know how many KIA are due to vehicle accidents, etc.?
parishioner
12-15-10, 17:01
Because this is the internet and these are typed and not spoken words, I am telling you now that I am not being cocky or sarcastic when I reply to this.
With that, I will ask you how many jobs do you know of in this country that you have to wear body armor and a firearm to work? I have a responsibility to my community and to my family. I am going to stick around to keep those responsibilities. This does not mean I am going to break the law or infringe on the public's civil rights. This means that I if percieve a threat and it's him or me, I'm not going to hesitate.
I understand and agree. Your initial comments can be construed as if your right to live supersedes others and that right will be upheld no matter what the cost. Thats what I based my comment on.
I've been in my front yard before drinking a beer and holding what could be "percieved" as a gun. Just this past summer, my neighbor and I were drinking a few brews and hanging out one night when we went to the front of the house and started spraying geckos with a little super soaker water gun. Don't judge. :D We have an obscene amount of the little buggers and its quite entertaining to spray them off the side of the house and gutters.
I guess its just downright uncomfortable to know that someone could have called the police saying two guys are creeping around a house with what looks like a gun and suddenly my life is hanging in the balance based on a perception.
This one just hits home a bit and I feel strongly about how police are precieved by the public that they leave their family's to protect.
I absolutely agree and no one's opinion or mindset will ever change without having honest, open debate about the subject and at times very unfortunate events.
Alpha Sierra
12-15-10, 17:10
The guy had a two handed grip on this hose nozzle and was aiming at officers. The use of force in response was appropriate.
http://media.trb.com/media/photo/2010-12/58253437.jpg
When that standard is applied to us non-badge carrying citizens, then I'll agree with you.
Until then, not so much.
Seems the question is are the police expected by the public to take the risk and make sure.
Much in this case is not known yet but after reading everyone's comments the thing that I would like to know is did they challenge this individual at all...should they have taken the risk to do so???
This one is just bad for everybody involved.
Seems the question is are the police expected by the public to take the risk and make sure.
Much in this case is not known yet but after reading everyone's comments the thing that I would like to know is did they challenge this individual at all...should they have taken the risk to do so???
This one is just bad for everybody involved.
The answer to your first question is YES. With out a doubt. The issue that the public has to realize is that it has to be done in a nanno second. Bullets are effin fast!
Your second question is another valid one. We are trained that if you have the time, announce yourself and what you want the subject to do. There are several reasons for this. If I come running around the corner and the badguy is standing there with a gun at his side and I yell "Police, drop the gun" as loud as I can, the subject will know what I want him to do and maybe a citizen will hear it and report the truth if it goes bad.
If I come running around the corner and the badguy is pointing that gun at me..... too bad, bullets are effin fast!
Don Robison
12-15-10, 18:02
When that standard is applied to us non-badge carrying citizens, then I'll agree with you.
Until then, not so much.
When was the last time the police dispatcher called you at home and told you to respond to a man with a gun because one of your neighbors called it in?
Col. David Grossman in his book "On Killing" talks about death rates declining and he looks at the aggravated assault rate. When you compare civilian and LE deaths across 100 years you need to take into account body armor, speed to a hospital and the enormous improvements in emergency medicine along with medication. The same is true for our war fighters. Medics and medavacs save lives that would not be possible 20 years ago not to mention 100 years ago. That statistic does not take any of this into account.
Would you want to be treated in a hospital 100, 50 or even 20 years ago or a modern trauma center. The advancements in combat medicine are also absolutely amazingly and saving our warriors.
I recommend Grossmans books and cd's to all of you. I've seen him speak several times too he is outstanding.
jklaughrey
12-15-10, 18:20
Umm Chief, I'll take the modern trauma center for 200 please!
PS, Glad you approve Cory. Feel free to borrow and use any of my vocabulary in the future. My wife teaches HS English so it has been spell checked and approved for use.
Belmont31R
12-15-10, 18:20
Col. David Grossman in his book "On Killing" talks about death rates declining and he looks at the aggravated assault rate. When you compare civilian and LE deaths across 100 years you need to take into account body armor, speed to a hospital and the enormous improvements in emergency medicine along with medication. The same is true for our war fighters. Medics and medavacs save lives that would not be possible 20 years ago not to mention 100 years ago. That statistic does not take any of this into account.
Would you want to be treated in a hospital 100, 50 or even 20 years ago or a modern trauma center. The advancements in combat medicine are also absolutely amazingly and saving our warriors.
I recommend Grossmans books and cd's to all of you. I've seen him speak several times too he is outstanding.
Our Barnes and Noble has it here but I got the US Army/USMC counter-insurgency manual instead.
Have to get it one of these days + "War" which is book Restrepo revolves around.
Is civilian use of force judged by the standard of objective reasonableness?
-B
Me too Doc. Imagine what young Medics and Corpsmen are being taught compared to what you and I were taught. The Advancement in weapons, armor, optics hell radios and GPS in the last 20 years is mind boggling.
This shooting will be a good one to follow so we can learn more of what happened. From reading the.posts here the biggest concern I see is why did they close in on him? As cops we often want to get in and fix things when slowing down often helps. This is especially true with suicidal people barricaded alone. In that situation time and distance can be your best choice. It is just so hard not knowing what else was going on. I have lots of questions too.
Two things guide LE use of force; they are SCOTUS rulings. One is Graham v. Connor. The other is Tennessee v. Garner. I recommend the armchair QB's read them.
It comes down to this; was the use of force objectively reasonable, based the information that the officer(s) had at the time of the shooting, second guessing after the fact is not permitted. The actions are judged not by what the average citizen would have done but rather by what another LEO would have done if confronted by the same set of facts. In this case it looked like a gun, the neighbors reported it to be a gun, he manipulated it like a gun; the officer(s) responded appropriately. I can tell you right now how this one will be ruled.
jklaughrey
12-15-10, 19:19
"Good shoot"!
Agreed USMCVET, shit that is out now makes us look like uneducated cavemen.
Too answer BAC, civvies are under a different standard and protocol. They are judged objectively most often by the Prosecutor's office to determine any malfeasance or culpability whether you are a good/bad shoot outcome.
PS, what other LEO's are working xmas this year?
Belmont31R
12-15-10, 19:31
"Good shoot"!
Agreed USMCVET, shit that is out now makes us look like uneducated cavemen.
Too answer BAC, civvies are under a different standard and protocol. They are judged objectively most often by the Prosecutor's office to determine any malfeasance or culpability whether you are a good/bad shoot outcome.
PS, what other LEO's are working xmas this year?
I thought here in the good ole USA laws were supposed to apply equally to everyone. Im not a fan of two sets of rules...one for a gov official, and one for the rest of us.
I may come across as anti-LEO sometimes but its more out of equal protection of the law, and keeping the gov in check. I don't think "officer safety" should be some sort of trump card when it comes to use of force being ok for an LEO but not ok for the average joe. No ones life, at face value, is worth more than anyone elses, and no one if forced to be an LEO.
Of course people do choose to do the job just the same as our military does, and there have been plenty of military members charged even when their actions were in 100% good faith. One case I remember off the top of my head was a sniper team who was surprised by an Iraqi, and opened fired on him inside the building they were using as a hide at the time. Of course they thought he was a threat. There have also been pilots charged when they thought they were firing on the enemy.
jklaughrey
12-15-10, 19:47
You missed the point. We in LE have to jump through other hoops before it goes to DA/Prosecutor. It isn't that there are differing standards, more like differing avenues and chain of command we must follow. We just have more red tape above us before we actually get to that point.
Civilians do not have the authority to search someone else's home when they have probable cause to believe a crime has occurred, nor the authority to seize their person if evidence of the crime is found. Civilians also don't have a duty to act, whereas law enforcement officers do. How big a deal this is was hammered into us constantly at the academy: law enforcement is given powers nobody else in the US has.
I think this is one of those cases where a different set of rules must exist, given the different standards of conduct law enforcement and civilians are held to and judged by. And there are a lot of rules. :eek:
-B
"Good shoot"!
Agreed USMCVET, shit that is out now makes us look like uneducated cavemen.
Too answer BAC, civvies are under a different standard and protocol. They are judged objectively most often by the Prosecutor's office to determine any malfeasance or culpability whether you are a good/bad shoot outcome.
PS, what other LEO's are working xmas this year?
I will be on call Christmas day. We just laid off the guy who was scheduled to work.
I belive the decision on what is reasonable for LE and civies is different state by sate and country by county. Unfortunately personal opinions and adgendas get involved. Look at th Duke Lacrosse B.S. It is should not be that way. When it comes down to it reasonable decisions should be our best defense.
Belmont31R
12-15-10, 19:57
You missed the point. We in LE have to jump through other hoops before it goes to DA/Prosecutor. It isn't that there are differing standards, more like differing avenues and chain of command we must follow. We just have more red tape above us before we actually get to that point.
They should be handled the same way. Equal protection.
In a civil rights sense I don't see it any different than a different legal difference in handling cases between blacks and whites. The legal process should be the same. Not paid leave for 3 months while a "special prosecutor" reviews for months on end when in the same instance a citizen would be handled much differently.
Belmont, we are subject to a different test because our actions have Constitutional implications, yours as a civilian do not. If you are in a shooting the assessment is whether or not you acted in defense, negligence, or malice, of which you will be charged either criminally, civilly, or both. When an LEO is involved in an OIS not only are his or her actions looked at by the same prosecutor that would look at you, Joe Civilian for those same three things but also by his or her department for policy violations, by a separate civilian review board, and federally by the FBI and the United States Attorney's Office for a possible civil rights violation. Belmont, you want an equal playing field for judgement of actions? I'll tell you right now that the field is tilted, and it is tilted towards the civilian.
Belmont31R
12-15-10, 20:03
Civilians do not have the authority to search someone else's home when they have probable cause to believe a crime has occurred, nor the authority to seize their person if evidence of the crime is found. Civilians also don't have a duty to act, whereas law enforcement officers do. How big a deal this is was hammered into us constantly at the academy: law enforcement is given powers nobody else in the US has.
I think this is one of those cases where a different set of rules must exist, given the different standards of conduct law enforcement and civilians are held to and judged by. And there are a lot of rules. :eek:
-B
I am allowed to detain people here.
But Im not really talking about granted authority. Im talking about the separate tracks after a shooting. Unless there is no doubt an LEO is treated much differently by the law than a non-LEO. The legal track is vastly different. That is what I have an issue with.
In this type of case generally the LEO is granted paid leave, and then a determination is made in a much different method than if I were to shoot someone under identical circumstances.
LEO's are civilians, too.
Good for you. Protect and serve by putting holes in people 'just in case'.
If a civilian shot a guy holding a hose nozzle, I am sure you would be right over to arrest him and file murder charges.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
:rolleyes:
You should try to get on with some department as a reserve officer. Just try their job on a parttime biases for some perspective.
When was the last time the police dispatcher called you at home and told you to respond to a man with a gun because one of your neighbors called it in?
That question has about zero to do with the point he was making.
They should be handled the same way. Equal protection.
In a civil rights sense I don't see it any different than a different legal difference in handling cases between blacks and whites. The legal process should be the same. Not paid leave for 3 months while a "special prosecutor" reviews for months on end when in the same instance a citizen would be handled much differently.
Part of the reason for some of the differences in how they are judged vs how the average Joe is judged was brought up by BAC," Civilians also don't have a duty to act, whereas law enforcement officers do."
You should try to get on with some department as a reserve officer. Just try their job on a parttime biases for some perspective.
I was seriously considering this but there's no such thing here in Vegas, I wish there was.
Part of the reason for some of the differences in how they are judged vs how the average Joe is judged was brought up by BAC," Civilians also don't have a duty to act, whereas law enforcement officers do."
This is a bit of a misnomer. There are several court decisions stating that an officer has no duty to act on behalf of a citizen. I'm powering down now so I don't have time to look them up but I would guess someone would chime in with the info. Have a good night and let's keep this thread on track and everyone being civil.
This is a bit of a misnomer. There are several court decisions stating that an officer has no duty to act on behalf of a citizen. I'm powering down now so I don't have time to look them up but I would guess someone would chime in with the info. Have a good night and let's keep this thread on track and everyone being civil.
I think you might be talking about court decisions where LE were held harmless because they failed to protect some one or prevent a crime. Here in VT depending on where you live it might take 30-90 min to get a cop to a serious call. In that case some one may die waiting. LE would not likely have any civil or criminal liability.
If a cop stops to use the bathroom on the way to an assault there would be problems and liability.
jklaughrey
12-15-10, 22:12
Belmont I would love if they only thing I had to deal with was what a civillian would have to be put through. This however is not the case. We as officers' are under more scrutiny than you would ever dream to be. You like your life being looked at by a microscope, join LE/FED. Otherwise be thankful you don't have to be subjected to questioning at any time. We don't have the choice to keep quiet, without losing our jobs in most cases.
Don Robison
12-15-10, 22:14
That question has about zero to do with the point he was making.
It has a lot to do with it. LEOs are paid to interject themselves in other people's problems with no back story/history and little information. As a civilian when you find yourself in a situation it's your problem. It's easy to sit back and Monday morning quarterback the actions of others when A. you weren't there and B. have never been in that type of situation.
The douche bag who found himself shot was holding a pistol shaped water nozzle with two hands pointing it like a gun. They were damned no matter what they did; wait until he shoots someone and they didn't act soon enough, shoot the dumbass before he shoots someone and they acted too soon.
People cheer when a civilian shoots a bad guy whether the bad guy is armed or not just because he's a dirt bag doing dumb things. Those same people want to crucify cops for doing the same thing. Sorry I just get irritated at the hypocrisy.
I'd like to see the rest of the details come out. If they didn't follow their department policy; crucify them. If they are found to have acted within policy; drop it or change the policy.
P.S. This isn't all directed at you; just my rant for the week.
CarlosDJackal
12-15-10, 22:23
So sitting in front of your house with an object that can be confused with a gun is reason enough to shoot someone? ...
Maybe in your warped, anti-LEO world. :rolleyes:
But in the real world, threatening to "shoot" a Police Officer who has been dispatched to check on someone holding a gun is probably going to get you shot. You have to take the totality of the situation.
If this was some 4-year old holding what is obviously a Nerf gun, I would seriously question if anyone even draws their pistol out. But that's hardly what happened.
It really is that simple. Don't do anything that could be construed as a threat and you won't be treated like you are one. I don't know how much simpler anyone can put this - English isn't my first language!! :confused:
devildogljb
12-15-10, 22:29
well i read all the links and if i where one of the officers i would of done the same thing. If they did identify them selves or even if they didnt as i rolled up to the scene and the suspect pointed at me what looks to be a fire arm im going to protect myself and my fellow officer. Granted i wasnt there and im sure no one commenting was so we really cant say for sure. But im curious where was the wife when this all was going on? was she inside did it happen all right in front of her because she seems to be throwing out the cops "murdered" him.
well i read all the links and if i where one of the officers i would of done the same thing. If they did identify them selves or even if they didnt as i rolled up to the scene and the suspect pointed at me what looks to be a fire arm im going to protect myself and my fellow officer. Granted i wasnt there and im sure no one commenting was so we really cant say for sure. But im curious where was the wife when this all was going on? was she inside did it happen all right in front of her because she seems to be throwing out the cops "murdered" him.
FYI, there is no requirement for officers to give warnings prior to using any level of force, there is also no requirement for officers in uniform to identify themselves as police prior to an encounter with the public or before a use of force either. The courts have held that wearing a uniform, driving a marked patrol unit, or displaying a visible badge if in plain clothes to be a sufficient display of "color of authority". The courts have also held that the "I didn't believe they were police" to be an excuse for not submitting to the display of color of authority.
Just FYI. Irrelevant sections omitted:
http://law.justia.com/california/codes/2009/pen/187-199.html
2009 California Penal Code - Section 187-199 :: Chapter 1. Homicide
Share |
California 2009 Code All US State Codes
PENAL CODE
SECTION 187-199
187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.
(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act
that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:
(1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2
(commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division
106 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon's certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a
case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be
death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth,
although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or
more likely than not.
(3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the
mother of the fetus.
(c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the
prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.
188. Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when
there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away
the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable
provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing
show an abandoned and malignant heart.
When it is shown that the killing resulted from the intentional
doing of an act with express or implied malice as defined above, no
other mental state need be shown to establish the mental state of
malice aforethought. Neither an awareness of the obligation to act
within the general body of laws regulating society nor acting despite
such awareness is included within the definition of malice.
...
192. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without
malice. It is of three kinds:
(a) Voluntary--upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
(b) Involuntary--in the commission of an unlawful act, not
amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might
produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and
circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in
the driving of a vehicle.
...
"Gross negligence," as used in this section, shall not be
construed as prohibiting or precluding a charge of murder under
Section 188 upon facts exhibiting wantonness and a conscious
disregard for life to support a finding of implied malice, or upon
facts showing malice, consistent with the holding of the California
Supreme Court in People v. Watson, 30 Cal. 3d 290.
...
195. Homicide is excusable in the following cases:
1. When committed by accident and misfortune, or in doing any
other lawful act by lawful means, with usual and ordinary caution,
and without any unlawful intent.
2. When committed by accident and misfortune, in the heat of
passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden
combat, when no undue advantage is taken, nor any dangerous weapon
used, and when the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.
196. Homicide is justifiable when committed by public officers and
those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, either--
1. In obedience to any judgment of a competent Court; or,
2. When necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance to
the execution of some legal process, or in the discharge of any other
legal duty; or,
3. When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have been
rescued or have escaped, or when necessarily committed in arresting
persons charged with felony, and who are fleeing from justice or
resisting such arrest.
197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.
If the police reasonably believed that he had the ability, opportunity and intent to use lethal force then they should and will be cleared of wrongdoing. If they believed the same, but unreasonably, they will be guilty of manslaughter. The law is clear. I think they will come out of this fine.
Belmont31R
12-16-10, 01:46
Maybe in your warped, anti-LEO world. :rolleyes:
But in the real world, threatening to "shoot" a Police Officer who has been dispatched to check on someone holding a gun is probably going to get you shot. You have to take the totality of the situation.
If this was some 4-year old holding what is obviously a Nerf gun, I would seriously question if anyone even draws their pistol out. But that's hardly what happened.
It really is that simple. Don't do anything that could be construed as a threat and you won't be treated like you are one. I don't know how much simpler anyone can put this - English isn't my first language!! :confused:
Way to remain civil...
If a cop stops to use the bathroom on the way to an assault there would be problems and liability.
The chief might fire the cop, but there would be no civil liability. The police have no duty to protect any particular citizen. This has been litigated thoroughly and there is a famous Washington DC case where two completely egregious failures of the police dept. resulted in 3 girls getting raped repeatedly by some burglars over a 24 hr period. The girls sued. The holding in the case was that the police have a duty to protect the public in general but they have no duty to protect any individual citizen.
The chief might fire the cop, but there would be no civil liability. The police have no duty to protect any particular citizen. This has been litigated thoroughly and there is a famous Washington DC case where two completely egregious failures of the police dept. resulted in 3 girls getting raped repeatedly by some burglars over a 24 hr period. The girls sued. The holding in the case was that the police have a duty to protect the public in general but they have no duty to protect any individual citizen.
I will always give the LEO the benefit of the doubt. They are human and as humans, can and do fu$& up, but it's rare. People watch too much TV, love to arm chair ninja the event, then dial 911 the mili second they feel their own life is in danger.
It's all fun and games to mess the with cops by getting drunk and pointing what looks very much like a gun at armed men approaching you, 'till they light you up thinking they are about to get shot at..... Gene pool, slightly cleaner now. Personally, sounds like he knew exactly what he was doing and did a suicide by cop, which makes him a dead POS if true.
The LEOs just had to kill someone due to stupid behavior by said person, and that sucks. Knowing you killed someone, no matter how legit, who did not turn out to have a gun, must be difficult to deal with.
It's these types of events that confirm why I'm not a cop and (assuming all details we have so far are accurate) my added respect for the job they do.
Crime rates are down, deaths of officers are down. But let us look at the bigger picture. Crimes of a violent nature are up, crimes involving assault/battery/robbery are up to a degree. Not to mention statics are fine except when you are, or become a statistic. Personally I choose not to be a number in a database.
Running around with fake guns is scary these days. really hard to tell on some what are real and what aren't!
Either way being a LEO and being put in a situation such as these officers' sucks serious ass. Pretty much damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Agreed, my buddy is a Helo logger. He has lost 9 guys on his crew in 18 months. Not all dead but disabled for life. 4 are dead the others are paralyzed. Sucks.
no- they're not. the only thing thats up is our awareness and perception. but all the numbers are down, down, down.
i don't remember exact numbers, unfortunately.. but for example, as the murder rate has continued to decline over the last 2 decades, local media reporting on murders has continued to INCREASE. so we hear about more murders today than we did when the murder rate was several TIMES higher than it is right now.
local television news media has made the realization that if you scare people, they'll watch the news more.
jklaughrey
12-16-10, 10:50
Maybe you missed my point or I wasn't clear enough. The violent crimes have become more violent and the prevalence has increased. Most criminals that I have interviewed today and other LEO's I know say that most will commit another felony since they already committed, or are in the process of one. I.E. robbery suspect, committed said act and in an attempt to elude has no problem with car jacking or perhaps murder in an attempt to escape justice. It used to be that criminals wouldn't commit several acts or increase the severity so quickly. This I fear is no longer the case. Granted statistics may show a downward curve of crime occurrence, but that means nothing when in fact you are the victim, offender, or LEO during the offense. Personally I hate stats, they can be skewed this way or that to suit the agenda of the agency compiling said data. I go with my call logs for the week and determine if we had more or less crime that week. My pond, my POV.
A few things bother me about this one. First, we are in America. We shouldn't have to worry about getting shot for sitting on a stoop with a water nozzle, intoxicated or not. I just can’t see this as a man behaving stupidly, or that it’s a case of “stupid should hurt.” He was just a guy sitting and bothering no one.
Second, the officers were going with an identification made by another citizen—apparently they did not take steps to verify that the man was holding a "small six-shooter," they just took it for granted that the person making the call was not mistaken.
Third, if the deceased didn't even know that the police were there, how did he point the gun at them?
I’m weaving out of my lane here, but it seems almost as though they got in position and waited for him to point the thing enough in their direction to open fire. Especially if you compare it to this instance, where a man was pointing a BB gun at various cars and people, including an off-duty officer. The man was arrested, not killed: Man Points Fake Gun at Real Cop (http://tinleypark.patch.com/articles/man-points-fake-gun-at-real-cop). Couldn’t they have gotten out some binoculars and looked at the thing in his hands? Time wasn’t so imperative that they couldn’t get into position, so couldn’t they at least have tried to make sure the person who called this in was in fact correct?
I understand that LEOs have a difficult and dangerous job (that's why they get the big money :)). The constant hyper-awareness must be a drain, and that can lead to mistakes in logic and action. There seems to have been a ball dropped here somewhere, and it led to a tragic outcome. Except now, instead of admitting a mistake, the police are doing their best to turn it into a good shoot. It’s unfortunate that our society is so litigious that we cannot accept an honest mistake (as opposed to a malicious or negligent one), even when it leads to tragedy, but at the same time, a man has to stand up and take responsibility, regardless of the consequences.
What if, instead of waiting on the police, the person who reported the man with a gun had instead gone and shot the man himself, from concealment? Even with the same justifications, I don't think it would be called a good shoot, and the vigilante would likely face a slew of charges.
John_Wayne777
12-16-10, 12:01
Second, the officers were going with an identification made by another citizen—apparently they did not take steps to verify that the man was holding a "small six-shooter," they just took it for granted that the person making the call was not mistaken.
Without having been on scene yourself and with the officers who were involved it would be impossible to make that call.
Without having actually been there it's difficult to know what the officers knew, saw, or did based on news reports. That's why I encourage caution when drawing conclusions before the investigation is complete.
While it is possible that the officers received a 911 MWIAG call, rolled up on scene, observed him for an extended period of time and shot him just in case, I don't think that's a likely chain of events.
A few things bother me about this one. First, we are in America. We shouldn't have to worry about getting shot for sitting on a stoop with a water nozzle, intoxicated or not.
If the reports of his specific behavior are correct, you should worry about being shot if that's how you behave when LEOs are pointing guns at you.
I just can’t see this as a man behaving stupidly, or that it’s a case of “stupid should hurt.”
I don't know what report you are reading, but what I read, that conclusion was easy come by.
Without having been on scene yourself and with the officers who were involved it would be impossible to make that call.
Without having actually been there it's difficult to know what the officers knew, saw, or did based on news reports. That's why I encourage caution when drawing conclusions before the investigation is complete.
While it is possible that the officers received a 911 MWIAG call, rolled up on scene, observed him for an extended period of time and shot him just in case, I don't think that's a likely chain of events.
I was basing that on what the police chief said, as printed in one of the articles:
McDonnell said the officers took positions to observe Zerby, who appeared intoxicated, and believed he had a gun as described by the callers, but focused on setting up containment of the area rather than contacting him.
As officers awaited requested backup units, the man pointed the object at apartments and played with it, causing it to make sounds similar to those of a gun being handled, he said.
The officers "took position and observed" and they "believed he had a gun as described by the callers." He didn't say that they "verified he had a gun as described by the callers."
A man who was breaking no laws (except possibly PI) was shot dead by the police. Even if it was an honest mistake, it's still a mistake. I'm not saying that there's not an explanation as to how something this tragic could occur. But the fact is that an unarmed man who was breaking no laws was killed by police because they made a mistake. I just think that they should own up to it. I can accept honest mistakes, even when they lead to tragedy. But trying to weasel out of it makes it another matter entirely.
If the reports of his specific behavior are correct, you should worry about being shot if that's how you behave when LEOs are pointing guns at you.
He likely didn’t even know the LEOs were there, though that is "unclear."
I don't know what report you are reading, but what I read, that conclusion was easy come by.
A drunk guy was sitting on a stoop with a hose nozzle, one that apparently could be made to sound like a cylinder being closed or a hammer cocked. He likely wasn’t aware that police were there. Then he got shot. I still say this shoot could have been avoided with binoculars. It’s readily apparent that the police, who had time to set up and observe, did not verify that the object in his hand was a gun. That they made a mistake is obvious, and it led to a man's death. Whether it is a justifiable mistake is another matter, but the point I make is that they had time to verify if the man actually held a gun, but they didn't.
He likely didn’t even know the LEOs were there, though that is "unclear."
My understanding is he was quite aware of the LEO being there:
"Zapalski said Douglas Zerby was in a seated position when he extended his arms while holding the gun-like object and pointed it at an officer."
But I'll agree in that, have to wait for more detailed info.
Again, benefit of the doubt goes to the LEOs on the scene.
My understanding is he was quite aware of the LEO being there:
"Zapalski said Douglas Zerby was in a seated position when he extended his arms while holding the gun-like object and pointed it at an officer."
But I'll agree in that, have to wait for more detailed info.
Again, benefit of the doubt goes to the LEOs on the scene.
Long Beach’s police chief has admitted that his officers never identified themselves before they shot and killed a man Sunday. The victim was sitting on a friend’s front porch.
From: Long Beach police chief admits officers never identified themselves to man they shot (http://www.scpr.org/news/2010/12/14/long-beach-shooting/)
From: Long Beach police chief admits officers never identified themselves to man they shot (http://www.scpr.org/news/2010/12/14/long-beach-shooting/)
And from what you posted:
"Before backup arrived, the chief said, Zerby used a two-handed grip on the water nozzle and fully extended his arms toward one of the officers. It’s unclear whether he knew the officer was there."
Sounds to me, he knew they were there, but as we all agreed, more details are needed, or we may never know. As far as identifying themselves, that's a another issue. It's not TV, some times things go as planned/by the book, some times they unfold quickly, and a millisecond later, things go ugly. Then it has to be figured out why, and what - if anything - could/should have been done differently.
Simple tragic accident? Death by cop? Poor judgment on part of the LEOs? Don't know, but I'll give benefit of the doubt the LEOs on the scene 'till something shows a reason not to.
From: Long Beach police chief admits officers never identified themselves to man they shot (http://www.scpr.org/news/2010/12/14/long-beach-shooting/)
Wow, not even told to put his hands up, officers didn't even idientify themeselves; mixed accounts of if the guy pointed the gun directly at police he knew were there or just in the genereal direction, not knowing if they were there... and he got shot 8 times sitting down on his own porch!!!
That doesn't sound like a good shoot to me. That sounds like an effing mess that could have, and should've been avoided.
Sad to say the least. For everyone involved.
My understanding is he was quite aware of the LEO being there.
Not trying to add fuel to the fire but there are differing reports on the matter. Some make it out to be that he's pointing his water pistol at police and some make it out to be pointing it in a general direction of them while not knowing they were present, possibly hiding & observing.
The LEOs on scene are quoted as saying they could hear him playing with the water nozzle and it sounded like he was manipulating a handgun. In my opinion that's pretty damn close and they should've at least ID'ed themselves which they did not. There was no attempt to warn or use verbal commands on the deceased. Was there time? It's all speculation at this point in time.
I think bulbvivid and my opinions are on the same track with this one and that isn't to condemn the officer's or their possibly justifiable actions. Tragically this man lost his life due to some dipshit calling in a MWAG when some numbnut was just goofing around. Obviously I'm sure both officers feel horrible after having shot and killed a man holding a water nozzle.
A man who was breaking no laws (except possibly PI) was shot dead by the police. Even if it was an honest mistake, it's still a mistake. I'm not saying that there's not an explanation as to how something this tragic could occur. But the fact is that an unarmed man who was breaking no laws was killed by police because they made a mistake. I just think that they should own up to it. I can accept honest mistakes, even when they lead to tragedy.
I will always give the LEO the benefit of the doubt. They are human and as humans, can and do fu$& up, but it's rare. People watch too much TV, love to arm chair ninja the event, then dial 911 the mili second they feel their own life is in danger.
It's all fun and games to mess the with cops by getting drunk and pointing what looks very much like a gun at armed men approaching you, 'till they light you up thinking they are about to get shot at..... Gene pool, slightly cleaner now. Personally, sounds like he knew exactly what he was doing and did a suicide by cop, which makes him a dead POS if true.
The LEOs just had to kill someone due to stupid behavior by said person, and that sucks. Knowing you killed someone, no matter how legit, who did not turn out to have a gun, must be difficult to deal with.
It's these types of events that confirm why I'm not a cop and (assuming all details we have so far are accurate) my added respect for the job they do.
I agree with what you said, but the law remains that if the police fail to protect a citizen who calls 911, the police have no civil liability. In the Washington DC case, the girls called 911 and said some men had broken into their house and that the girls were hiding upstairs. The cops came, knocked on the door and left. The girls called 911 again and said the police need to come back because the burglars are in the house and the girls are hiding. The 911 dispatcher did not send the cops back. The girls were found and raped repeatedly for a day. Fortunately they were not murdered. The court held that although the police appear to have screwed up and failed to protect 3 citizens in danger, there is no resulting civil liability.
I am not saying that this is good or bad. It is just the way things are.
I agree with what you said, but the law remains that if the police fail to protect a citizen who calls 911, the police have no civil liability. In the Washington DC case, the girls called 911 and said some men had broken into their house and that the girls were hiding upstairs. The cops came, knocked on the door and left. The girls called 911 again and said the police need to come back because the burglars are in the house and the girls are hiding. The 911 dispatcher did not send the cops back. The girls were found and raped repeatedly for a day. Fortunately they were not murdered. The court held that although the police appear to have screwed up and failed to protect 3 citizens in danger, there is no resulting civil liability.
I am not saying that this is good or bad. It is just the way things are.
Hmmmmm k....And how does any of that apply to this particular event?
Pls refer back to my first post which you quoted from, where the liability issue is first brought up.
Second, the officers were going with an identification made by another citizen—apparently they did not take steps to verify that the man was holding a "small six-shooter," they just took it for granted that the person making the call was not mistaken.
Not to sound cocky, If I didn't initiate the call myself or another officer working with me did, EVERY SINGLE POLICE CALL is from another citizen. Citizens call 911 and information is relayed to the police via radio. That's how it works.
500.... Homicide and murder are two different things. Murder is a crime and homicide MAY not be. If someone points a gun at you and you kill them, you have committed a homicide.
The chief might fire the cop, but there would be no civil liability. The police have no duty to protect any particular citizen. This has been litigated thoroughly and there is a famous Washington DC case where two completely egregious failures of the police dept. resulted in 3 girls getting raped repeatedly by some burglars over a 24 hr period. The girls sued. The holding in the case was that the police have a duty to protect the public in general but they have no duty to protect any individual citizen.
You are comparing apples to oranges here. In the DC case, there is a complaint that the officer's could not find probable cause or reasonable suspicion, for that matter to enter the residence to check on the complaint. If an officer is called to an assault in progress, it is his responsibility to get there as quickly as he/she can safely and investigate. In the DC matter, the officers responded forthwith and did not have enough PC to enter.
A drunk guy was sitting on a stoop with a hose nozzle, one that apparently could be made to sound like a cylinder being closed or a hammer cocked. He likely wasn’t aware that police were there. Then he got shot. I still say this shoot could have been avoided with binoculars. It’s readily apparent that the police, who had time to set up and observe, did not verify that the object in his hand was a gun. That they made a mistake is obvious, and it led to a man's death. Whether it is a justifiable mistake is another matter, but the point I make is that they had time to verify if the man actually held a gun, but they didn't.
I still haven't heard if the guy had the hose attatched to the nozzle. If it wasn't, what were his true intentions?
I HATE this kind of news attention because of all the uneducated comments this will bring. Having been in this situation a few times in my carrier, it is a fraction of a second decision to make and it will cause someone to be injured or killed or an officer to hesitate.
People are too ignorant to understand what you mean. They think that because they post on a gun board, and they "almost drew down on someone one time" that they have a grasp on reality. Oh look, I shot 3 gun with a friend once, I understand reaction times...... No, you really don't.
Guys who have done combat tours understand, and cops who have been there understand, most others don't, and they should be glad.
jklaughrey
12-16-10, 18:36
For Stick, thanks. Some will understand, others...well no sense attempting to educate.
I still haven't heard if the guy had the hose attatched to the nozzle. If it wasn't, what were his true intentions?
A guy who drank too many beers and was shooting his imaginary gun at imaginary targets is definitely a plausible situation. People do stupid shit all the time and I'm sure everybody here's pointed an inanimate object pretending it was a gun at one time or another. I shoot my water nozzle at buzzing backyard bees by the pool all the time, even while drinking beer. Unfortunately, this time someone saw him and called the police and he paid the ultimate price.
Also, understand that most people outside of this forum don't have the tough shit, dumb**** deserved to be shot attitude because they aren't Captain black & white in their observations of the world. I'm often criticized about my lack of compassion and understanding when it comes to things of this nature and most on here making those comments are definitely jaded as opposed to the vast majority of our citizenry.
I still haven't heard if the guy had the hose attatched to the nozzle. If it wasn't, what were his true intentions?
Death by cop.
CarlosDJackal
12-16-10, 19:45
I still haven't heard if the guy had the hose attatched to the nozzle. If it wasn't, what were his true intentions?
Disprove Darwinism? :confused:
You are comparing apples to oranges here. In the DC case, there is a complaint that the officer's could not find probable cause or reasonable suspicion, for that matter to enter the residence to check on the complaint. If an officer is called to an assault in progress, it is his responsibility to get there as quickly as he/she can safely and investigate. In the DC matter, the officers responded forthwith and did not have enough PC to enter.
Yes he did. The residents called 911 and said there were burglars inside and asked for the police. No court would rule that the cops did not have PC to enter. None. The residents then called back when the cops left and asked for them to come back because the burglars were inside. No PC??
People are too ignorant to understand what you mean. They think that because they post on a gun board, and they "almost drew down on someone one time" that they have a grasp on reality. Oh look, I shot 3 gun with a friend once, I understand reaction times...... No, you really don't.
Guys who have done combat tours understand, and cops who have been there understand, most others don't, and they should be glad.
I posted my own shoot/no-shoot situation online once and the internet quarterbacked me right into the ground. Learned a lot that day.
FWIW NOT shooting bothers me still because it was very much a shoot situation and I gambled with my buddies life that the other guy was going to back down and was right... If I had gambled with my life it wouldn't likely bother me.
I posted my own shoot/no-shoot situation online once and the internet quarterbacked me right into the ground. Learned a lot that day.
FWIW NOT shooting bothers me still because it was very much a shoot situation and I gambled with my buddies life that the other guy was going to back down and was right... If I had gambled with my life it wouldn't likely bother me.
I chose not to shoot on one specific incident about 6 years ago and was actually reprimanded for drawing my weapon. That reprimand was lifted VERY quickly the next day.....
People are too ignorant to understand what you mean. They think that because they post on a gun board, and they "almost drew down on someone one time" that they have a grasp on reality. Oh look, I shot 3 gun with a friend once, I understand reaction times...... No, you really don't.
Guys who have done combat tours understand, and cops who have been there understand, most others don't, and they should be glad.
One example.
A few years ago, one of our guys was in a foot pursuit of a fraud suspect through a complex containing multiple stripmall type businesses and parking lots. He was alone. The last radio transmission he made was broken up. It included "northbound" and "truck". We lost radio contact with him. It was unknown exactly which lot he was in due to the lay out of the area. Of note, a few years prior, a forgery suspect had dumped a couple .45 slugs into an officer on a similar call.
I raced to find my friend, as did others. I came into the complex desperately trying to find him. As I round the corner of an "L" shaped stripmall complex and come into the parking lot, motion catches my eye. A red TRUCK with its door open. A male is standing in the door pointing a handgun toward the businesses, unaware of me and my marked patrol car.
4 pounds on a 5 pound trigger....
I exit my car and draw on this kid (19 year old moron). Now, I am, and have always been a gun savy guy. What I seen is a stainless Beretta 92. Split seconds.....
The kid, dumbfounded, thankfully complies as ordered.
http://images.bizrate.com/resize?sq=359&uid=2083916287
This is what he was holding.
Being stupid in a no stupid zone.....
Bad timing for the kid. He had just bought the airsoft and was "trying it out". He had no idea of the police activity in the area.
This could have easily ended very badly for the kid, and me. Imagine the headlines. "Cop shoots kid armed with CLEAR PLASTIC ORANGE TIPPED TOY GUN".
My worst nightmare is being thrust into this scenario. Sometimes you do not have time to ask questions. Sometimes people's own stupidity results in these unfortunate events.
As they say, "play stupid games, win stupid prizes".
You can rob a bank with a finger in a pocket (legally defined as a "facsimile of a weapon"). You can also get shot by police if you point a garden hose nozzle, cell phone or hair brush under certain circumstances. Yes, it sucks. But, under certain circumstances, it happens. The instict to return home to your loved ones is strong.
I abstain from these threads because it just pisses me off. There was a shooting locally that was cleared by the DA that I think was bullshit. I have argued it with co-workers. Sometimes we do **** up. We are not robots. We are human.
This post is brought to you by 4 shots and 3 beers. TGIF.
Two of us almost shot a woman who pulled a .410 pump shotgun on me at a domestic. A third cop grabbed the woman from behind when he saw the .22 pump she was trying to shoot me with.
It turned out to be a pump action...Crossman pellet gun. It was an attempt at suicide by cop. It would have succeed if it wasn't the Fourth of July and there had been one or two of us at the call. When I finally yanked the shotgun out of her hands I realized it was the same kind of BB/pellet gun I grew up with. I spent hundreds of hours with that thing and still did not correctly identify it.
Edit: That was also at 6-8 feet for me and in decent lighting.
People are too ignorant to understand what you mean. They think that because they post on a gun board, and they "almost drew down on someone one time" that they have a grasp on reality. Oh look, I shot 3 gun with a friend once, I understand reaction times...... No, you really don't.
Guys who have done combat tours understand, and cops who have been there understand, most others don't, and they should be glad.
It is worth reading what Stick said again.
This is clearly a sad situation. The dead man was someones son. Brother and father? The cops also have families all of them are suffering as a result of this incident.
John_Wayne777
12-17-10, 07:30
I think this one has gone on long enough.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.