Police Shoot and Kill Man for Watering Lawn

This is obviously a disturbing story. The fact that this doesn't happen every day indicates to me that the police did not follow normal procedure in dealing with this incident.

Neighbors mistook what the victim was holding for a gun. The pistol grip style nozzle that some hoses are equipped with could look like a gun when detached from the hose.

It seems like this might have been a case where an intelligent police dispatcher or 911 operator might have saved a life by simply asking if the person seen holding "the gun" was acting in a threatening way. He was simply sitting on a porch as I understand it. I'm assuming gun ownership is legal in California.

People are seen by others holding things that might look like guns (toy guns for example, to name just one category of lookalikes) every day. They aren't shot by the police, no questions asked. This sounds like a training failure to me. The court was right to award significant damages.

This sounds like a perfect storm of people suffering from brain cramps.

ipsedixit
This is obviously a disturbing story. The fact that this doesn't happen every day indicates to me that the police did not follow normal procedure in dealing with this incident.

It does happen every day. They're just good at covering it up, and you only hear about the ones they can't hide easily.

minusinfinity
Why would you be in a situation where police would feel the need to shoot at you?

Never in my life have I experienced a time where I was taking cover from police gunfire.

I've had groups of officers throw down on me twice. Luckily they didn't shoot me either time and didn't feel the need to cover their tracks. But it can happen quite easily. All it takes is a bit of misunderstanding or thinking you're someone else they're after.

reply to post by Domo1

I'm not trying to absolve the cops here. I'm trying to point out that ATS members are complete morons when cops are involved. I'm saying the guy wasn't watering his lawn on his own property, even though a TON of people think that's what he was doing in this thread. Go through the thread. I did.

I'm pointing out how quick ATS members make complete asses of themselves. The replies show that. 'He was watering his lawn'. No, he wasn't.

Well excuse me for reading the source linked in the OP. Which clearly states that he was watering his lawn. Later on more accurate facts were discovered. It turns out he was at a friends apartment, on the porch, possibly attempting to water something(grass, plants, flowers, who knows). Wow! Big difference. So you are accusing people of being complete asses for the crime of using the link in the OP. Admittedly I, along with many others, could have dug deeper for more concrete facts. These more concrete facts still point to the man holding a watering nozzle on a porch. Sheesh. The difference in fact borders on trivial.

On another note you declared this earlier:

I've lived in apartments and was pretty aware of who lived there. Seeing a stranger walking around with a hose attachment (would be hard to tell the difference between one and a gun if not within 30 feet) would certainly have resulted in me calling the cops.

It seems you and the person that called 911 have something in common. This is the kind of behavior I was referring to in my first reply on this thread. Calling down the heavy hand of the police because you see a stranger carrying something. The horror! I'm sorry for the sarcasm but I do not understand this mindset. Also, how would you feel if you were the person that called 911 in this case?

(General question directed at no one) What ever happened to respecting the privacy of other people and minding ones own business? The man would most likely still be breathing if no one had dialed 911.

Fear of the unknown strikes again!

minusinfinity
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

No.

I'm saying someone called the police.

Do you think a cop drove by, saw the guy watering his lawn, called in back up then shot the guy twelve times?

Why because he was using too much water?!?

There was a reason.

Period.

yes, there was a reason. But would there ever be a legitimatre reason to put 12 bullet holes in someone. What if you were told that your father got 12 bullet holes put in him while simply watering the lawn? You see what i'm saying? This man was murdered for no GOOD reason.

reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy


Not sure if this has been said, but even if he was drunk and high, he was still just watering his lawn and supposedly ignoring the police presence. Since he was DOING nothing wrong, but watering his lawn, why would he have to show ID or answer to the police? I'm just confused because if this is the case, I don't think him being drunk and high matters.

I think the fact that so many shots are fired in such cases is indicative of a twisted mentality by these officers. I mean 12 rounds, really? Under no circumstances are that many rounds ever necessary, well possibly in very isolated cases, but not involving a single person standing on his lawn. But that is not even the point, or the issue, considering the shooting itself is just inhumanity at its worst, and this goes to show the state of the police in the USA. Happens all the time, and there are constantly threads about it on ATS. NOTHING is being done to quell such occurrences apparently.

I agree with the poster who stated it might just be safer to shoot at the police before they shoot at you.

JiggyPotamus
I think the fact that so many shots are fired in such cases is indicative of a twisted mentality by these officers. I mean 12 rounds, really? Under no circumstances are that many rounds ever necessary, well possibly in very isolated cases, but not involving a single person standing on his lawn. But that is not even the point, or the issue, considering the shooting itself is just inhumanity at its worst, and this goes to show the state of the police in the USA. Happens all the time, and there are constantly threads about it on ATS. NOTHING is being done to quell such occurrences apparently.

I agree with the poster who stated it might just be safer to shoot at the police before they shoot at you.

Actually, if you're going to shoot that many rounds are necessary if that's what the clip holds. The training is, and should be: If you have to use your weapon, use it. Shoot center mass, and don't stop shooting until the suspect is down. It's the same for civilians.

It makes complete sense for a safety point of view, and has been the philosophy for many decades. The entire problem isn't with the application of force when it's used but with the standards of using force in the first place.

Aazadan

Bakatono
As a former "LEO" (as they are called now) I will post the following:

I can appreciate what you're saying but your information is out of date. The college I work at has a law enforcement program and very often between classes I will sit outside their rooms and listen in, because I want to know what the cops are being taught these days.

Escalation of force isn't really a concept anymore. Instead what's taught is overwhelming force. If a suspect is handcuffed and unarmed, keep a weapon pointed at them, and shoot if they so much as twitch. If the suspect has something that can be used as a weapon, shoot them (usually with a tazer). It's better to shoot a suspect that can potentially injure an officer than to see an officer harmed.

...

That is modern day use of force guidelines. If soldiers acted in warzones like cops act on our streets each and every day, the soldiers would be given the harshest military punishments possible. Taking off a bicycle helmet to talk to an officer counts as brandishing a weapon against them these days

Additionally, there is a "reasonableness standard" wherein the actions of the officer must be in accordance of the actions of other "reasonable" officers. Meaning that the situation is such that any reasonable person/officer would have acted in a similar manner. When applied to "deadly force" this means that a reasonable person/officer would have viewed the situation and felt it necessary to utilize deadly force to prevent grievous harm or loss of life to the officer or to another person.

That standard has been twisted, these days that means: Did the cops take every step possible, including shooting the suspect to prevent harm from coming to an officer.

If this is true then it is truly sad. I suspected as much which is why I quote "LEO". The change in terminology from "peace officer" to "enforcement officer" may seem minor but words matter as they set the goal, the strategy. Just look at speeches before sporting events or the language used when headed to war.

It is my suspicion, and your post pretty much confirms it, that "LEOs" are taught that they are above the law and that everyone is a "perp". Guilty until proven guilty. The "blue wall" that has always been talked about appears to be stronger than ever. In my day we were petrified of being accused of abuse because the mere accusal was enough to warrant an investigation, suspension and possibly termination. These days there are egregious violations being committed by "LEOs" (just search youtube or these forums) and the "blue wall" always backs them up no matter what happened, presence of video, whatever. 80 year old shot in their home, a wanna-be movie producer shot just yesterday in W Hollywood while HELPING victims (no, he shouldn't have been shot for running out of a building where something nefarious may have been going on until it was KNOWN that he was going to do harm).

We used to be protectors and advisers and confidants. I remember doing things when I was younger and getting picked up by the police and instead of beating me senseless or shooting me they educated me on the stupidity of my actions and took me home. I will always remember the kind old officer Edvy who sat on the end of a couch in my home and discussed how wrong it was for me to be drinking hard alcohol at 14 and that the person who sold it to me was actually a bad person, not a cool one. I was decently alcohol poisoned. He was not angry, he didn't beat me, he was kind and fatherly. I respect that man to this day and he probably had something to do with my becoming a Peace officer.

However, in my day I saw things going south. I saw younger officers who were in it for the rush. They wanted, itched, to get into fights and "take people down". They would apprehend someone for even the slightest infraction; escalating the situation themselves to give themselves an excuse to abuse a person when a simple comment or warning would suffice.

I remember being on patrol one time when a Navy ship was in. There were a couple drunk squids walking out of a bar carrying a buddy. The buddy obviously had way too much to drink and vomited his drink on the sidewalk as they were carrying him along. My partner wanted to get them. To take them down, take them in. "Public intoxication" he said with glee and made a bee-line for them. It was headed to a bad conclusion, probably a beating, an arrest or 3, and the end of 3 military careers.

Instead I intervened and stopped the situation. The two other guys obviously were taking care of their buddy and were returning him to the ship. They apologized for his drunkenness. I gave them a stern warning (I had to be a bit more stern than I needed to be to attempt to defuse my partner, being cool was not in his nature) and then I let them go. My partner paced and cussed and couldn't BELIEVE I "let them get away." It was insane.

Shortly after that I was given a verbal "counseling" session by a superior for my apparent lack of intention to arrest anyone, give tickets and so on. He would point out officers who had more arrests than I and more tickets and so on as if that is a good thing. It was then I decided this wasn't the line of work I wanted to be in anymore. That was damn near 20 years ago I suppose.

Today I give the LEOs a wide berth. They are not friendly nor trustworthy and I don't converse with them, wave, nod, look, or walk near them. No reason to ever draw attention to ones self lest they decide you are doing something wrong because you blinked funny while looking at them or waved in an offensive manner.

(yes there are few examples of good ones; more bad; but a few good ones, God bless them)

Truly sad indeed.

Couple what you said they are being trained with the near military gear they wear and drive these days and the future looks dim.

ChaoticOrder
Wait... I thought owning a gun was legal in the US? So what if he had a damn gun on his own property? So let me get this straight... merely holding a firearm whilst standing on ones own property is enough for the police to get called in?

Actually, owning a gun and carrying around in the open while walking down the street or getting Chipotle isn't even illegal. It doesn't have to be on his property. Open carry is legal, well, in most places I believe it still is. Never know in Kalifornia or NY. Anyhow, carrying a firearm is not illegal even on the street or elsewhere. There are establishments which can ban them, it is their right as it is their establishment, but carrying one around is not illegal regardless of whether or not your are on your own property.

I would not, however, recommend wandering around someone else's property with a firearm. That could get you shot. Probably by the owner of that property in many states.

Aazadan
It is legal to own a gun in the US, though a few areas have effectively outlawed them with local laws. However, the cops don't care about the legality of a weapon. To them if you have a gun, even if it's in your own property (for which you can still get a brandishing charge) you have a deadly weapon that can be used against them.

Exactly.

Not long ago I was woken at 3 am. There was a mad bashing on my front door. My dogs were going nuts. I am not talking about knocking. It was a bashing. Kicking, ramming, house-shaking bashing of the front door. I had no idea what was going on and it was wee early in the morn. So, I grab my .40 and head to investigate. I get off to the side of my door, flip on a light, and yell "Who's there?!?".

Answer: ______ Police

Oh boy

My response: "Just a second"

Walk to the back of the house, put the pistol in a drawer, go back, crack the door.

Me: "What can I do for you?"

LEO: "You're garage is open" (stern faced, peon you look on the LEO)

Me: "thanks, I will close it"

LEO: "you should"

Me: "thanks"

Now, some may think he is just "helping". However, I don't believe my leaving my garage door open is a crime and the need to kick the holy hell out of my door at 3am is a little excessive. I also have a doorbell.

Now, were I not more cool-headed this could have ended poorly. Think Oscar Pistorius. I could have assumed it was a bad person and shot through the door (which you should never do, never shoot without identifying your target first), I could have opened it with my pistola and been shot, and everything in between. I doubt the LEO was as cool-headed as I.

So, I check my garage door each night now. Don't care to talk to a LEO anyhow, much less a pissy one at 3am giving me a ration of s**t for leaving my garage door open, on my property. Thanks, but no thanks.

Now, if he had rung the doorbell and been actually a little bit cordial, as if he actually cared, and was a human being, I probably wouldn't have such an impression of the incident. However, he was a tool. Bored, power drunk, 3 am, I am going to bash this guys door down with this excuse...

spooky24
I have the final report from the District Attorney's Office and they were justified in protecting themselves.

What really happened-and what underground internet sites claim to have happened is completely different.

The District Attorney's Office is appealing the monetary award.

Post it or you're full of it

(caveat: still working my way through the thread so if you posted it subsequent to this post I apologize in advance for saying you are full of it, it still probably isn't justified though)

ETA: You didn't post it thus you are full of it.

moniker

Police elsewhere in the civilised world go through a lot of psychology training. How to talk to people. How to recognise what state people are in. It used to be the same in America some 20+ years ago, but perhaps not any longer.

There is no accident that the police in the UK is not carrying guns. In fact, the officials recently wanted to change the rules so that they should carry guns on a regular basis, but almost everyone in the police force voted against as they didn't want to appear threatening. They prefer to talk people down rather than gunning them down. And they are rather good at it.

Couldn't agree more. I have talked people down on a number of occasions.

You see, once you draw a weapon the escalation of the situation just went from something that may be problematic to a life or death situation. No one reacts well to having a gun pointed at them. No one. You don't know what they will do. They may run away, fall to the ground, run at you, start doing jumping jacks. Who knows. Adrenaline takes over and people go bonkers when they know they are within an inch of their life. You NEVER draw your weapon unless there is absolutely NO CHOICE.

I only had to draw mine once.

once.

And this person was approaching me and was suspected of actually just committing a heinous murder.

He is still alive today; in jail, but alive.

The only reason I drew my weapon is that a suspected murderer who was suspected to be armed was actively approaching me. In this situation I followed all steps. I was there, I used my voice, I gave orders (there were no tazers back then), but I could not risk his either having a weapon or taking mine if I were to try to physically subdue him so I skipped that step. If he kept approaching he probably would have been shot. However, with weapon drawn and ready (good grip, pointed in his direction but at a down angle, ready to raise and fire if needed) I ordered him to get on the ground. He did. He was apprehended, tried and convicted.

reply to post by My_Reality

So you are accusing people of being complete asses for the crime of using the link in the OP.

Yes. I've done it too and felt like a complete ass afterwards. ATS has some of the worst confirmation bias I have ever seen on a website, especially when a topic involves the police. How did the following snippet (first paragraph) not tip you off to look for another source?

Douglas Zerby was finishing up watering his lawn when neighbors, completely brainwashed by the police state, called the cops

Admittedly I, along with many others, could have dug deeper for more concrete facts. These more concrete facts still point to the man holding a watering nozzle on a porch. Sheesh. The difference in fact borders on trivial.

It's not at all trivial. He was not on his own property, he was at an apartment complex where I'm (forgive me for going out on a limb here) thinking not everyone knew who he was. He also didn't have a hose attached... Visualize the two scenarios. My point here is that claiming a man was gunned down in his front yard while actively watering his lawn is a LOT different from a man walking around/sitting around at an apartment complex with just the hose nozzle. It's a title meant to elicit an emotional response and get you all angry. Now I'm not saying you and I shouldn't be angry, because it sounds like the cops were complete morons and screwed up big time.

It seems you and the person that called 911 have something in common. This is the kind of behavior I was referring to in my first reply on this thread. Calling down the heavy hand of the police because you see a stranger carrying something. The horror! I'm sorry for the sarcasm but I do not understand this mindset. Also, how would you feel if you were the person that called 911 in this case?

What kind of person doesn't call the cops in a situation like this? You may not understand the mindset because you haven't had crappy people traipsing through your parking lot selling drugs, breaking windows etc. It's not fun. The person that called 911 is in no way responsible for the police messing up. Will concede that I would feel bad, but I would know it wasn't my fault. The sarcasm is fine, it was well delivered.

(General question directed at no one) What ever happened to respecting the privacy of other people and minding ones own business? The man would most likely still be breathing if no one had dialed 911.

Fear of the unknown strikes again!

Oh I don't know, perhaps all the shootings that happen? I respect people's privacy and don't call the cops for no reason, but I'm not going to avoid calling the cops to protect someone's rights if I'm worried that person is walking around with a gun. Near my home. And I've never seen them before. I'm not calling the cops on any of my condo neighbors. I know them. I wouldn't care if I saw someone walking up the steps with their AR. I will call the cops if I see a stranger walking around with what I think is a gun. I'm not going to go introduce myself first and make sure.

fgiordano
reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy

 

Not sure if this has been said, but even if he was drunk and high, he was still just watering his lawn and supposedly ignoring the police presence. Since he was DOING nothing wrong, but watering his lawn, why would he have to show ID or answer to the police? I'm just confused because if this is the case, I don't think him being drunk and high matters.

You're right, it doesn't matter. If he was indeed behaving in a very passive fashion, the police had no reason to shoot him.

People think that being inebriated justifies getting shot 12 times.

reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy

People think that being inebriated justifies getting shot 12 times.

Who thinks that?

reply to post by Domo1


Posters who are justifying his death by alluding to him being drunk and high; social conditioning teaching people to think that those who practice self displacement through the use of substances are bad people. If he was not being aggressive, let alone responsive, what possible justification is there for shooting him?

Domo1
reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy

 

People think that being inebriated justifies getting shot 12 times.

Who thinks that?

Have you been ignoring the thread?

Problem here is that law enforcement are recruiting so called 13teeners (a.k.a. killer cops), and law enforcement is only going to get more violent as older officers leave the force and more and more of these 13teeners join. What is going to happen in a near future is that A: citizens will not call the police B: citizens will start shooting these killer cops themselves when ever possible, in fact, the older officers might start doing it themselves too, just to protect themselves out in the field. No. I am not joking. Not one bit. I am dead serious.

Law enforcement are hiring the WRONG people and this will end with disaster in the end unless they quickly revert this.