Man Killed By Police for Watering Lawn

[Lock2Lock]

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

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckPDxGb2bbk">YouTube Link</a>

No I don't feel safer that they shot him. I am not one of those people that just hope the guy gets shot. No, it's not that at all. Just saying when I had looked at this situation from every stand point, if he did raise his hands, then he knew what he was doing. Not saying he deserved it, just saying he was putting himself at the risk of being shot.

Now that it is clear that he didn't, the police officers were in the wrong.

 

[FoolKiller]

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.

A lot of items can look like a gun, including toys. That doesn't justify 13-year-olds and drunken men being killed.

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 have seen local police (and by that, I mean in all four cities I have lived in) pull out their shotguns once. That was when they were searching for a cougar in a residential neighborhood. And then they were back up to the animal control officer with a tranquilizer gun.

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

You know what, there is no full details of even the police report.

<TO GOOGLE>

Full description of the events, as described by the chief, from here.

'This is a very unfortunate set of circumstances and leaves the family to deal with it here,' Chief McDonnell said, offering his condolences to the Zerby family.

The officers were dispatched to an apartment building at 4.40pm after two people reported a man with a gun sitting on a backyard porch landing, he said.
In an excerpt of one 911 emergency phone call played for reporters, a male caller said the suspect appeared to have a 'tiny six-shooter'.

Chief McDonnell said the officers took positions to observe Mr Zerby, who appeared intoxicated. They believed he had a gun as described by the callers, but focused on setting up containment of the area rather than contacting him, he said.

The officers requested other officers, a helicopter, a police dogs team and a mental evaluation team, the chief said.

As those units were responding, 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.

'As the subject was in a seated position, he used a two-handed pistol-grip hold on an object with his arms fully extended,' Chief 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.'

When Mr Zerby pointed it at one of the officers, both policemen fired their weapons, a handgun and a shotgun.

I will amend my previous statements. The police didn't go in half-cocked and trigger happy. They took time to prepare a full-scale tactical assault. While taking observation positions, radioing for backup, choppers, dogs, and mental health specialists they never once thought to just ask the guy, via bullhorn, to lower his weapon and talk to them.


So, lets correct everything for everyone. The police didn't go in all gung-ho and they were not suddenly and unexpectedly met with a "gun" in their face. They had time, witnessed him playing with the object in his hands, and never said a word to him. But now the presence of the shotgun makes more sense. They probably got it while setting up and radioing in.

Maybe policy is to wait for backup. Fine. Do it from a safe distance or position if you fear that he might shoot you.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

And yet the police still manage to fail identifying the actual object in question ... and killed the man.

As those units were responding, 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.

It must be real loud or at least the police were close enough to hear it and confirm the object held by the man as dangerous. Now I wished the officers who shot him had a binocular

 

[Maccer_42]

Full description of the events, as described by the chief, from here.

'This is a very unfortunate set of circumstances and leaves the family to deal with it here,' Chief McDonnell said, offering his condolences to the Zerby family.

The officers were dispatched to an apartment building at 4.40pm after two people reported a man with a gun sitting on a backyard porch landing, he said.
In an excerpt of one 911 emergency phone call played for reporters, a male caller said the suspect appeared to have a 'tiny six-shooter'.

Chief McDonnell said the officers took positions to observe Mr Zerby, who appeared intoxicated. They believed he had a gun as described by the callers, but focused on setting up containment of the area rather than contacting him, he said.

The officers requested other officers, a helicopter, a police dogs team and a mental evaluation team, the chief said.

As those units were responding, 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.

'As the subject was in a seated position, he used a two-handed pistol-grip hold on an object with his arms fully extended,' Chief 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.'

When Mr Zerby pointed it at one of the officers, both policemen fired their weapons, a handgun and a shotgun.

I don't see how any of that statement from the police chief can be believed especially when it ends with "When Mr Zerby pointed it at one of the officers, both policemen fired their weapons, a handgun and a shotgun."

Which conflicts with this statement ""And part of the proof is pretty simple, because the shots from the shotgun struck Douglass right in the chest and they killed him," he said. "And if he were holding the nozzle...the water nozzle would have been shot, his hands would have been shot, and they were completely pristine, there was no damage to them."
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=9054853

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

So, could the man was trying to raise his hands ? instead of pointing water nozzle to the police officers. It was a buckshot right ?

 

[arora]

They sure spend a lot of resources to murder a man, and then have the gall to stand in front of the tv cameras like some sort of movie star to save their own skin.



"it looked like a toy and sounded like a toy also, so we shot him for being drunk and playing with a toy" Great.

 

[Danoff]

However poor the officer's judgement was, there was still an underlying reason for his actions.

Yes, but we're not satisfied with those reasons.

What you're suggesting however, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that if they think someone does have a gun, and it appears as though the person raises it up to shoot, that the cops should not start shooting, they should have a little chat with him.

FTFY

Yes, that is what cops should do. They should issue clear instructions quickly and decisively for the person to put the supposed weapon down and raise his hands. If the person refuses, and continues to pose a threat, only then can they use deadly force.

If at all possible, the civilian needs to be the one firing the first shot. That way they know it was a gun, and they know the person intended to fire it.

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.

Totally unacceptable. Firearms are legal. I personally own 5 of them. Police should not show up with guns drawn unless they receive information that someone has been harmed, or is attempting a violent crime (such as breaking down a door to harm the person inside).

A while back there was a 911 tape of a lady who was hiding in her bedroom while a man she knew broke down her door to get to her and attack her. She knew he was there to attack her and told the 911 operator that. He was breaking into her home and she told the 911 operator that. In that scenario the cops can show up with guns drawn.

They didn't, by the way. The cops took too long to get there, so while she was on the phone with 911 the man broke into her bedroom (you could hear it on the tape) and she killed him with her personal firearm.

The point is, there are cases where cops can enter a situation with guns drawn. The fact that a neighbor saw someone they didn't recognize and thought there might have been a firearm (which is not a crime) is not a good enough reason.

 

[Zenith]

Identifying your target is universally taught as the single most important aspect in shooting. Binoculars or a rifle scope could have been used to take a closer look at the man and see what he was holding. It's very easy to throw away a stranger's life and say "Eh, he had it coming," but personally I would like police officers to increase safety, not decrease it.

Don't forget that if the police had not gotten involved in this situation, there would have been no danger and no death.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Identifying your target is universally taught as the single most important aspect in shooting. Binoculars or a rifle scope could have been used to take a closer look at the man and see what he was holding. It's very easy to throw away a stranger's life and say "Eh, he had it coming," but personally I would like police officers to increase safety, not decrease it.

Don't forget that if the police had not gotten involved in this situation, there would have been no danger and no death.

And if it turned out he really had a gun and they didn't get involved, lots of people might have died. Looking at every situation in the glow of perfect hindsight is so easy. The call was for a "drunken man with a gun", they have no choice but to get involved. It turned out not to be a gun but there was no way to know that before they got there was there?

 

[Keef]

Binoculars or a rifle scope could have been used to take a closer look at the man and see what he was holding.

Word?





The idea of studying, diffusing, and disarming is not a new one. We have the technology.