Man Killed By Police for Watering Lawn

[FoolKiller]

Spot on 👍.

Timing is of the essence in a matter like this. There is no time for an "idle talk down" when these policemen were looking down at what was supposed to be a "real gun" being aimed at them. IMO, they acted the way they were trained to in this given situation.

Except the court ruled that wasn't what happened. They shot him with shotguns. His hands and the nozzle had no strike marks.

This is ridiculous pardon my french. For every guy shot holding a lawn sprinkler, hundreds of cops will get shot at by people aiming guns at police that maybe aren't clearly visible or don't pass your silly test of "is it a gun-shaped object or a gun?"

And the majority of those cases don't wind up with the suspect dead because the police are supposed to want a dead suspect to be the very last, possible result. Most cops never discharge their firearms in the line of duty. Anyone who knows how to handle a gun knows you don't have your gun drawn unless you intend to use it. These cops, by their own admission, had guns already drawn, and not just their sidearm, but shotguns, which they would have had to take the extra step and thought to grab as they got out of the car. To me, that is the most telling. They were likely in assault mode.

Those familiar with a shotgun know two things. 1) They are not good for long range. 2) They spray outward.

These guys showed up with a weapon best used up close, and that risks hitting a civilian even if you hit your target. The weapon of choice was wreckless in itself.


For those who want to believe the police story without question, why? Not even their own department will do that. They put them on leave and investigate every time a gun is discharged. Deadly force is a last resort and any use is thoroughly questioned. They will cover each other in a bad mistake but they do not want rogue trigger happy cops.

But lets all remember one thing: These cops responded to a call of a guy not acting aggressive and purely the belief that a gun was on his person had them go in way too excitable. No matter what the victim did these cops were wreckless and they screwed up in a very major way. Had they gone in acting like they just needed to check out a report and possibly defuse a situation perhaps the victim would be alive. They went in like they expected a gunfight and they created one.

 

[phillgt2002]

First responder on the phone "Can you tell me what kind of weapon it is?" That's the first mistake made. Why in gods name would you ask a civilian to identify what kind of weapon a person is holding? And the man that called the police is to blame as much as the officers. Totally misinformed.

 

[Monatsende]

Think before you shoot. Not the brightest officers there. How did they pass recruitment test? How were they trained?

I`m not trained and I´m not a police officer. But I wouldn`t get a position directly in front of a possibly armed, drunk person where I could get shot without a warning.

 

[Ibonibo]

They approached with guns at the ready to be in a position to accuraty fire a shotgun, not even a side arm, at the man quicker than they could say, "lower your weapon." Even our own military's rules of engagement require them to identify probable deadly threat when dealing with an unidentified target, often in the form of an actual attack.

This!!

If we can send our youth in hostile areas, war-torn countires and they need to wait to be shot at to retaliate, then why on earth has a police officers more rights to open fire in a peaceful country.


Another topic is the meantality of say what you see promoted by homeland security. Don't take this as an insult: You aware that the nazi's asked for the same thing. Snitch everybody out.
This can lead to very bad tensions inside a country where nobody trusts nobody. That can't be good.
And every call to the police should be taken with a bit of salt. How many people confuse a object for a weapon, a person for a fugitive,... While civil awareness is good, too much ain't. Look at the prank swat calls in LA. Look at all the people having guns in the US. If on every gun sight police get called and enters with the same aggressive stance... you can draw the outcome.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Except the court ruled that wasn't what happened. They shot him with shotguns. His hands and the nozzle had no strike marks.

And the majority of those cases don't wind up with the suspect dead because the police are supposed to want a dead suspect to be the very last, possible result. Most cops never discharge their firearms in the line of duty. Anyone who knows how to handle a gun knows you don't have your gun drawn unless you intend to use it. These cops, by their own admission, had guns already drawn, and not just their sidearm, but shotguns, which they would have had to take the extra step and thought to grab as they got out of the car. To me, that is the most telling. They were likely in assault mode.

Those familiar with a shotgun know two things. 1) They are not good for long range. 2) They spray outward.

These guys showed up with a weapon best used up close, and that risks hitting a civilian even if you hit your target. The weapon of choice was wreckless in itself.


For those who want to believe the police story without question, why? Not even their own department will do that. They put them on leave and investigate every time a gun is discharged. Deadly force is a last resort and any use is thoroughly questioned. They will cover each other in a bad mistake but they do not want rogue trigger happy cops.

But lets all remember one thing: These cops responded to a call of a guy not acting aggressive and purely the belief that a gun was on his person had them go in way too excitable. No matter what the victim did these cops were wreckless and they screwed up in a very major way. Had they gone in acting like they just needed to check out a report and possibly defuse a situation perhaps the victim would be alive. They went in like they expected a gunfight and they created one.

There are so many flaws in your reasoning, it's hard to know where to begin so I won't. All I can say is, if police followed your line of thinking, many more would be shot and killed in the line of duty every year. In the real world you don't have time to think and analyze rules and procedures, you react to the best of your ability based on the situation at hand. Mistakes are made, no one is saying the police are perfect, that's not the goal. But mistakes don't justify what you are advocating, which is basically waiting until you are 100% certain someone is going to fire at you, before even drawing your weapon. Ridiculous.

First responder on the phone "Can you tell me what kind of weapon it is?" That's the first mistake made. Why in gods name would you ask a civilian to identify what kind of weapon a person is holding? And the man that called the police is to blame as much as the officers. Totally misinformed.

So what would you do? Not ask? The 911 operators job is to gather as much intel as possible. If you don't ask and he's carrying a machine gun or a grenade or a jacket full of dynamite, a lot of people could die needlessly. It's the job of the boots on the ground to analyze the data given them and determine a course of action. Final responsibility lies with them.

 

[FoolKiller]

There are so many flaws in your reasoning, it's hard to know where to begin so I won't. All I can say is, if police followed your line of thinking, many more would be shot and killed in the line of duty every year.

Explain that to the NYPD, who credit reduced cops using firearms for reduced cop deaths.
http://nymag.com/news/articles/reasonstoloveny/2010/70079/

Fast-forward to 2010, when there have been only 486 homicides. So far, for the third year in a row, not a single officer has been killed by an assailant. Only two were wounded, compared with 1971, when 47 were hit by bad-guy gunfire.

This is partly because of lower crime rates. But it is also because police are shooting less, and so they get shot at less. This despite the fact there were 6,238 gun arrests in 2009 (the last year when full stats are available). In situations where cops drew a gun and fired, more dogs were killed than humans.

In the real world you don't have time to think and analyze rules and procedures, you react to the best of your ability based on the situation at hand. Mistakes are made, no one is saying the police are perfect, that's not the goal. But mistakes don't justify what you are advocating, which is basically waiting until you are 100% certain someone is going to fire at you, before even drawing your weapon. Ridiculous.

Rules of conduct to prevent innocent deaths among suspects and bystanders are ridiculous? A cop willing to shoot first and ask questions later is a movie thing only, and should be. Dirty Harry fires his gun in one movie more times than any cop will in a year.

Good cops don't want to fire their gun. They don't even want to talk about, or at least they didn't. This is before our 9/11 mentality took hold, but it is important to note the difference between the Hollywood mentality you suggest and reality.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/11/w...don-t-shoot-the-culture-of-cops-and-guns.html

''Dirty Harry has more shootings in a movie's half-hour than the New York City Police Department cop with the most shootings in his entire career,'' said Jack Ryan, a deputy district attorney in Queens who has investigated police shootings for 20 years. ''Cops, at least most of them, don't like to shoot their guns. When I used to walk into a precinct, I could tell who the cop was who had just shot his gun. He looked like he had a terrible disease.''

But if the police are not shooting their guns -- nearly 95 percent of New York City's 38,000 officers have never fired their weapons while fighting crime -- what are they doing with them?

The fact is, by your rationale, every death by police attempt should be successful. Every suspect who waves a gun to hold off the police should be brought down right there, without due process.

That is ridiculous.

There is only one reason a "serve and protect" police officer should intentionally kill a man; when his actions make it so that the only other result is someone else's death.

We give police multiple non-lethal weapons for a reason: to prevent killing suspects unless absolutely necessary.

 

[Keef]

This is ridiculous pardon my french. For every guy shot holding a lawn sprinkler, hundreds of cops will get shot at by people aiming guns at police that maybe aren't clearly visible or don't pass your silly test of "is it a gun-shaped object or a gun?" Decisions of life and death often need to be made in portions of a second and you don't have time to make the judgment in the field. Moral of the story is, don't point anything at a cop that might be construed as a gun, or you will probably get shot.

If I were to react to a person pointing a gun at me and I shoot them in self defense which - without going into detail - is legal...only to find out later that it was a cop and not some crazy dude which was my initial judgement, well, I go to prison.

Cops wouldn't go to prison for that. At most they might get fired.

 

[USARMYCOMBATVET]

Shoot to incapacitate vs. Shoot to Kill in self-defense. Your adrenaline is pumping and you've been informed by dispatch the drunk has a gun. A man points something resembling a weapon at you while approaching him. On average, you have two-tenths of a second to stop him from killing your partner or yourself. GO.

If you believe any rationale along the lines of "I'd think before I shot" then You're:
1)Sorely mistaken and naive
2)Never had a gun/weapon pointed in your direction or been under direct small arms fire of any kind--especially in close quarters.

If I got drunk and aimed anything resembling a weapon at a police officer who'd done nothing but show up at my house, then I'd deserve to die.👎

 

[Danoff]

LA in particular seems to have a large number of innocent people slaughtered by police - and always in the name of protection of the police themselves, not the public at large.

Maybe that's because LA does a bad job of hiring and training police officers, or maybe it's because LA has areas with a lot of violent crime - especially drug-related shootings.

Whatever the reason, a dead police officer who was over-protective of the citizens he was charged to protect and ended up sacrificing his life for it is a MUCH MUCH better scenario for everyone involved (police and civilians) than a dead innocent civilian who was forced to sacrifice their life to protect the people who have been charged with protecting them.

Being a police officer is a dangerous job because you have to put yourself in harms way to protect the innocent. It is not a job where you sacrifice the innocent to CYA.

 

[CodeRedR51]

What happened to all these "non-lethal force" tools that police officers have access to? Bean bag the guy or something first before you decide that he shouldn't live anymore.

 

[Zenith]

What happened to all these "non-lethal force" tools that police officers have access to? Bean bag the guy or something first before you decide that he shouldn't live anymore.

That is... an extremely good point.

They keep bragging about their taser shotguns. This seems like an ideal place to use one.

 

[FoolKiller]

Shoot to incapacitate vs. Shoot to Kill in self-defense. Your adrenaline is pumping and you've been informed by dispatch the drunk has a gun. A man points something resembling a weapon at you while approaching him. On average, you have two-tenths of a second to stop him from killing your partner or yourself. GO.

That would be a fun game if it weren't shown in court that the scenario you present isn't how it happened and the police are at fault. It's already been presented in the thread, but since a lot of people seemed to have missed it, here it is.
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=9054853

After a quick reread, I see the cops were found negligent and guilty of battery.

If you believe any rationale along the lines of "I'd think before I shot" then You're:
1)Sorely mistaken and naive
2)Never had a gun/weapon pointed in your direction or been under direct small arms fire of any kind--especially in close quarters.

Police are supposed to be trained to try to diffuse the situation while putting their lives at risk. It's their job.

When you served in the military, what were the rules of engagement as it regarded the use of deadly force?


Look, I'm not saying these cops committed cold blooded murder, but they went in as if they expected a gun fight and were ready for that and not ready to attempt to diffuse the situation. Stopping to grab shotguns as they left their car says to me they were either hot-headed or scared. Both are bad traits for a police officer.

Whatever the reason, a dead police officer who was over-protective of the citizens he was charged to protect and ended up sacrificing his life for it is a MUCH MUCH better scenario for everyone involved (police and civilians) than a dead innocent civilian who was forced to sacrifice their life to protect the people who have been charged with protecting them.

Being a police officer is a dangerous job because you have to put yourself in harms way to protect the innocent. It is not a job where you sacrifice the innocent to CYA.

This.

 

[Johnnypenso]

That would be a fun game if it weren't shown in court that the scenario you present isn't how it happened and the police are at fault. It's already been presented in the thread, but since a lot of people seemed to have missed it, here it is.
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=9054853

After a quick reread, I see the cops were found negligent and guilty of battery.

The cops were found guilty of nothing. It's a civil trial, not a criminal trial and if the best the have is that he couldn't have been pointing anything at them because his hands weren't riddled with buckshot, I'd say that's pretty slim evidence of any wrongdoing.

I still don't see anyone providing a credible alternative. As a cop you get a call about a drunk guy on a porch with a gun, that's what you've been told. You show up, he's on the porch supposedly in a firing stance pointing the "gun" right at you. What do you do differently in that fraction of a second you think you have to make a decision? If you hesitate and want to talk to the guy, and it is a gun, you could be dead. If you're lucky, it's not a gun or he doesn't shoot. I submit again, that if SOP becomes, "even if someone is pointing a weapon at you and your life is in danger you have to have a friendly chat with the person first", a lot of cops are going to die.

 

[Danoff]

I submit again, that if SOP becomes, "even if someone is pointing a weapon at you and your life is in danger you have to have a friendly chat with the person first", a lot of cops are going to die.

99% of the time that a civilian is murdered by police, the civilian should have shot first. If a man is pointing a gun (not a hose, a gun) at the police and all 10 of the police draw theirs, I would like for them to be yelling "drop the weapon and put your hands in the air" rather than "fire at will".

Civilians, even gun toting civilians, even civilians point a gun at police officers, are not all psychopathic murderers. Many people who hold a gun have no desire to shoot and kill someone - especially a police officer. Their first response should not to be to lay waste to what could be a very troubled or disturbed individual that needs help.

Yes, I realize cops may get shot in the line of duty. That's why it's considered a dangerous job, and why it is supposed to be noble.

Edit:

I think perhaps what is most troubling is the notion that carrying a gun in the presence of police somehow justifies you getting unapologetically murdered on your front lawn. The fact that someone has a gun (not a hose, a gun) does not automatically make them a mindless criminal intent on killing everyone they see. The police response when they see a gun should be that they are standing in the presence of a law abiding citizen who has chosen to practice his right to bear arms - not that they should automatically consider this person a violent disturbed threat to their lives and the lives of everyone around them.

 

[Johnnypenso]

99% of the time that a civilian is murdered by police, the civilian should have shot first. If a man is pointing a gun (not a hose, a gun) at the police and all 10 of the police draw theirs, I would like for them to be yelling "drop the weapon and put your hands in the air" rather than "fire at will".

Civilians, even gun toting civilians, even civilians point a gun at police officers, are not all psychopathic murderers. Many people who hold a gun have no desire to shoot and kill someone - especially a police officer. Their first response should not to be to lay waste to what could be a very troubled or disturbed individual that needs help.

Yes, I realize cops may get shot in the line of duty. That's why it's considered a dangerous job, and why it is supposed to be noble.

Edit:

I think perhaps what is most troubling is the notion that carrying a gun in the presence of police somehow justifies you getting unapologetically murdered on your front lawn. The fact that someone has a gun (not a hose, a gun) does not automatically make them a mindless criminal intent on killing everyone they see. The police response when they see a gun should be that they are standing in the presence of a law abiding citizen who has chosen to practice his right to bear arms - not that they should automatically consider this person a violent disturbed threat to their lives and the lives of everyone around them.

No one said carrying a gun should get you shot, that's a pure distortion. What I said and others is that if you are pointing said gun or gunlike object at a cop, it's no surprise and you won't get my sympathy for getting shot. If he's trouble and needs help and I made a list of 1000 things to do to get it, pointing a gun at a cop would be last on that list.

 

[Danoff]

No one said carrying a gun should get you shot, that's a pure distortion.

It may not be what you said, but it's not a distortion. It's how police behave - especially in Los Angelees, and their behavior moves more in that direction every year it seems.

What I said and others is that if you are pointing said gun or gunlike object at a cop, it's no surprise and you won't get my sympathy for getting shot.

Public enemy #1.

Looks like a gun to me, he'd better not point that at any cops.

Again, if someone is murdered by the police, I'd like to hear that he shot at them rather than that they thought he might have pointed a gunlike object at them and so they were justified in ending his life.

 

[Tornado]

Public enemy #1.

Looks like a gun to me, he'd better not point that at any cops.

 

[Wolfe]

Whatever the reason, a dead police officer who was over-protective of the citizens he was charged to protect and ended up sacrificing his life for it is a MUCH MUCH better scenario for everyone involved (police and civilians) than a dead innocent civilian who was forced to sacrifice their life to protect the people who have been charged with protecting them.

Being a police officer is a dangerous job because you have to put yourself in harms way to protect the innocent. It is not a job where you sacrifice the innocent to CYA.

I think perhaps what is most troubling is the notion that carrying a gun in the presence of police somehow justifies you getting unapologetically murdered on your front lawn. The fact that someone has a gun (not a hose, a gun) does not automatically make them a mindless criminal intent on killing everyone they see. The police response when they see a gun should be that they are standing in the presence of a law abiding citizen who has chosen to practice his right to bear arms - not that they should automatically consider this person a violent disturbed threat to their lives and the lives of everyone around them.

It doesn't get any more straightforward than this, and I agree with many of Keef's comments and others as well.

If he's trouble and needs help and I made a list of 1000 things to do to get it, pointing a gun at a cop would be last on that list.

You seem to not be familiar with mental health patients.

 

[FoolKiller]

The cops were found guilty of nothing. It's a civil trial, not a criminal trial and if the best the have is that he couldn't have been pointing anything at them because his hands weren't riddled with buckshot, I'd say that's pretty slim evidence of any wrongdoing.

Civil trial. Guilty of civil rights violations, to the tune of $6.5 million dollars. If they are guilty of nothing why are they paying out cash to the family?

As for the slimness of evidence, are you aware of how a shotgun works? The man was hit center mass. If he was doing as the police claim his hands/"gun" should have been in the line of fire. Did he lower his "weapon" as they fired?

I still don't see anyone providing a credible alternative.

Lets try, "Sir, lower your weapon or I will be forced to shoot!" or "Put the gun down!"

As a cop you get a call about a drunk guy on a porch with a gun, that's what you've been told. You show up, he's on the porch supposedly in a firing stance pointing the "gun" right at you. What do you do differently in that fraction of a second you think you have to make a decision?

You start by not showing up with shotguns at the ready. Explain to me the reason for that when it is not a standard issue sidearm. You are ignoring that they showed up ready to shoot over powered weapons, and shot him with them twice. TWICE!!! Why twice? Why shotguns? And that was just the shotgun. In the video in the OP the chief at the press conference says, "Two rounds from a shotgun and two..." then gets interrupted by the Zerby's family freaking out. The response to which is to be escorted out the door by another cop.

So, I've answered your 'what would I do' question. Answer mine. Even in your Han Solo style scenario, why is multiple shots from multiple lethal weapons justified? We are talking a minimum of four shots, two from a gun that should never be used in an open public space, from trained officers at a single man without a single word said. Justify that.

If you hesitate and want to talk to the guy, and it is a gun, you could be dead.

And you're a police officer. Your job is to protect at the risk of your life. Your first goal is to preserve life and liberty.

If you're lucky, it's not a gun or he doesn't shoot. I submit again, that if SOP becomes, "even if someone is pointing a weapon at you and your life is in danger you have to have a friendly chat with the person first", a lot of cops are going to die.

If SOP becomes shoot first, Han Solo style, a lot of unnecessary deaths will occur.

The most dangerous thing a cop can do in the line of duty is a traffic stop. Should they approach every traffic stopped vehicle with guns drawn, just in case they need to shoot?

 

[Lock2Lock]

Regardless whether the guy had a gun or not, he knew what he was doing. If you point your hands up in a stance that is commonly used in discharging a firearm, of course you are going to get shot. I hate to sound mean or crule, but he knew exactly what he was doing, he was in no way innocent.

It would have been a different outcome if the guy had the "weapon" at his side, but when you extend your arms like that, it looks exactly like a stance. It is a shame that it happened like that, but it was his own fault plain and simple.

When the police get any call that a supposed firearm is involved, they come with weapons drawn. It is a matter of safety for themselves and others around.

Did the guy even have the hose attached to the sprayer attachment? If not he is even dumber for raising his hands up like that. It's common sense.

Slashfan, you should really read the articles before posting a very misleading title like that.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Looking at the thread title, the video posted and all of the comments and articles so far, it's obvious that there is a whole lot more going on here than what is being presented. To hear the people in the video tell it, the police simply walked up to this guy and shot him dead for no reason at all. However poor the officer's judgement was, there was still an underlying reason for his actions. But it's obvious that certain parties here have an agenda and are skewing the events to suit it. After all, the video is called "Tyranny USA". And just look at the uploader's other videos, claiming Osama bin Laden was a CIA agent, that the Department of Homeland Secrity invaded a Walmart, that drinking water has been spiked with mind-controlling drugs, and claims that the moon landing was staged because spacewalks would be impossible even with today's technology because we cannot properly shield from radiation.

 

[FoolKiller]

Regardless whether the guy had a gun or not, he knew what he was doing. If you point your hands up in a stance that is commonly used in discharging a firearm, of course you are going to get shot. I hate to sound mean or crule, but he knew exactly what he was doing, he was in no way innocent.

The court ruled that the evidence doesn't back up the police claim that he was holding his hands like that.

When the police get any call that a supposed firearm is involved, they come with weapons drawn. It is a matter of safety for themselves and others around.

With shotguns? What gangland do you live in?

Slashfan, you should really read the articles

The article showing the outcome of the trial and the disproval of the stance the man was supposedly holding the "gun" has been posted in this thread twice now.

Irony.

Looking at the thread title, the video posted and all of the comments and articles so far, it's obvious that there is a whole lot more going on here than what is being presented. To hear the people in the video tell it, the police simply walked up to this guy and shot him dead for no reason at all. However poor the officer's judgement was, there was still an underlying reason for his actions. But it's obvious that certain parties here have an agenda and are skewing the events to suit it. After all, the video is called "Tyranny USA". And just look at the uploader's other videos, claiming Osama bin Laden was a CIA agent, that the Department of Homeland Secrity invaded a Walmart, that drinking water has been spiked with mind-controlling drugs, and claims that the moon landing was staged because spacewalks would be impossible even with today's technology because we cannot properly shield from radiation.

While I agree that the thread title is far from accurate and the YouTube poster might be a conspiracy nut, the video is from a real news report at a real California news station. The story presented is what people saw on their news.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Lets try, "Sir, lower your weapon or I will be forced to shoot!" or "Put the gun down!"

It's so easy for you, an armchair Police Chief, sitting at home on your couch eating Dorito's, with perfect 20/20 hindsight to come up with a perfect solution. You're missing the larger point. This guy did not have a gun so in reality there was no danger. What you're suggesting however, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that if someone does have a gun, raises it up to shoot, that the cops should not start shooting, they should have a little chat with him. In spite of a relative handful of incidents of police overzealousness, I believe they are best qualified on the ground, with the gun pointed at them, to decide whether they should shoot or invite him out for beer and pizza and tried to sweet talk him into putting the gun down.

 

[FoolKiller]

It's so easy for you, an armchair Police Chief, sitting at home on your couch eating Dorito's, with perfect 20/20 hindsight to come up with a perfect solution. You're missing the larger point. This guy did not have a gun so in reality there was no danger. What you're suggesting however, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that if someone does have a gun, raises it up to shoot, that the cops should not start shooting, they should have a little chat with him. In spite of a relative handful of incidents of police overzealousness, I believe they are best qualified on the ground, with the gun pointed at them, to decide whether they should shoot or invite him out for beer and pizza and tried to sweet talk him into putting the gun down.

Hyperbole much?

I answered your question with a serious response, based on how police are expected to act, so they don't do things like shoot kids playing with toys, which is what your suggestion would ultimately result in.

This is how these things should go.
http://m.kcra.com/Boy-With-Toy-Gun-...e/-/17404240/12645538/-/10g89h2z/-/index.html

Now, I answered your question, and even responded to your snarky remark. Take your turn at playing armchair police chief and answer my questions I posed to you.

A cop who thinks shoot to kill to cover your ass is the right way to protect and serve shouldn't be a cop.


Oh, and I don't eat Doritos.

 

[Keef]

It's so easy for you, an armchair Police Chief, sitting at home on your couch eating Dorito's, with perfect 20/20 hindsight to come up with a perfect solution. You're missing the larger point. This guy did not have a gun so in reality there was no danger. What you're suggesting however, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that if someone does have a gun, raises it up to shoot, that the cops should not start shooting, they should have a little chat with him. In spite of a relative handful of incidents of police overzealousness, I believe they are best qualified on the ground, with the gun pointed at them, to decide whether they should shoot or invite him out for beer and pizza and tried to sweet talk him into putting the gun down.

In the US police must do everything possible to diffuse the situation without using deadly force. We're not talking about chats here, we're talking about clear and assertive directions to stop a potentially dangerous behavior.

 

[arora]

The cops should have gone home, it's their job to investigate and solve crimes(maybe even arrest someone), not to perpetrate them. If only the day would come when people take things upon themselves.

Responsibility is a scary thing, much easier to rely on a hired squad, especially when you don't even pay the tax to hire them LOL

 

[Lock2Lock]

The court ruled that the evidence doesn't back up the police claim that he was holding his hands like that.

With shotguns? What gangland do you live in?

The article showing the outcome of the trial and the disproval of the stance the man was supposedly holding the "gun" has been posted in this thread twice now.

Just saying. Did they ever say if the guy just had the attachment in his hand or the hose with that attachment attached to it? From everything I can gather, it looks like he just had the attachment, which sure, at a distance can look like a revolver.

Shotguns drawn is uncommon? Not really. It depends on the type of situation, and if they think it will be necessary to bring a shot gun they will. I mean they have both in there cars.

I am just saying from a neutral standpoint, and looking at everything, there was a reason for them shooting the guy.

 

[arora]

Shotguns drawn is uncommon? Not really.

It should be.

there was a reason for them shooting the guy.

Not a very good one.

 

[Lock2Lock]

It should be.

Not a very good one.

They carry both in the cars if my memory serves me correct.

They may for whatever reason felt the need to pull them out. Just saying.

 

[arora]

They carry both in the cars if my memory serves me correct.

They may for whatever reason felt the need to pull them out. Just saying.

Yup, and they have every right to carry them as well, what they don't have a right to do, are things that you or I would be arrested for. Think for a second, or maybe you feel safer now knowing they shot the guy?

​