It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Shooting of man holding water nozzle angers family

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Shooting of man holding water nozzle angers family


news.yahoo.com

LONG BEACH, Calif. – Angry relatives of a man shot to death by police who apparently mistook a pistol-grip water nozzle he held for a gun are lashing out at officers, saying they made no effort to contact him before opening fire.

However, police officials say Douglas Zerby's behavior prompted the officers' response.

"As the subject was in a seated position, he used a two-handed pistol-grip hold on an object with his arms fully extended," Long Beach Police Chief Jim McDonnell said. "Somebody that is impaired and waving what appears to witnesses and police to be a handgun. That's w
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Ahh man, this is really a heartbreaking event.

Poor guy.

Talk about being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and being the epitome of a victim of circumstance.

Total case of mistaken object, not only by the cops, but by the 911 caller as well, and the guy got gunned down for nothing.

I can't believe that NO ONE tried to at least TALK to the guy and ASK him if he had a gun before it came to this finality though!

What a tragedy.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   
I find it hard to believe that no officers contacted him, and that they just crept up on him and shot him, and I am far from a hardcore LEO supporter.
This just seems way out of sorts.

If what the story reads is the whole story, then I hope these officers are charged with manslaughter, as well as a whole list of other crimes.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Very sad.

IMO though, he was holding that gun full arm extent, the cops did not know whether it was real or not, and for their own safety they needed to fire.

What if they were trying to talk to him and he did have a real gun and fired and killed one of the officers? Just a very bad mistake, but they did what they needed too do I believe.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by capgirl
 


Tragic, for the greiving family who just lost a member, and the officer who has to deal with the aftermath of this. Its very difficult, a lot more than what people think, responding to a cal like this. Anything now days can be used as a weapon.

Its not an excuse, but to clarify to those who are curious, the officers actions can only be viewed in terms of what he perceived at the exact moment the use of force occured. The courts will not allow the hindsight 20/20 or the what if arguments.

Its a judgment call in terms of how the officer perceives a threat, and action taken, even in daylight. Until you are standing there with someone pointing an object at you, and you dont know exactly what that object is, how do you react? If you attempt to talk, and the person has a weapon, its possible you or your partner are dead. If you take action out of the imminent threat perceived, and not engange in conversation, its possible you find out the guy had a garden spray nozzle, or he was holding a weapon.

Its a very difficult decision to make, and until you are placed into this type of situation, you will have absolutely no idea how you will react.

What we are getting right now is the media account based on statements. I would like to see the Internal Affairs Investigation results, in addition to the use of force / criminal investigation results before passing judgement on this situation.

It is tragic though.. for both sides for very different reasons.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I agree. I was actually thinking that just a few minutes ago after posting my first comment. I wanted to leave another one along the same lines as yours, but I am very bad with words and my thoughts would just jumble up..notmake sense. but i do agree.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   


"As the subject was in a seated position, he used a two-handed pistol-grip hold on an object with his arms fully extended," Long Beach Police Chief Jim McDonnell said. "Somebody that is impaired and waving what appears to witnesses and police to be a handgun.


That says it all, the LEO's did right



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Was he watering his garden and doing it like that to make it more fun? Sounds kinda stupied to stand like that and just wave with something pistol-like, tho the police could have used a taser/bean bags instead of a killing shot, tho they did wrong by going directly to B without doing A of some sort.

Still feel really sorry for the family!



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by svante
 


Honestly, if you saw someone in a 2 handed pistol carry, holding what looked like a weapon, possibly aimed at you or your partner, you wouldnt hesitate to stop him? Theyre not going to mull over it, they have to make split, life or death decisions and I think they made the right one



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 




Its a judgment call in terms of how the officer perceives a threat, and action taken, even in daylight. Until you are standing there with someone pointing an object at you, and you dont know exactly what that object is, how do you react?


I, you, and capgirl make that judgment call every day. As we walk down the Street, into the bank, through a Walmart, etc. We have to decide if that person next to us is holding a gun, a wallet, or a water bottle.

And if someone I don't know comes to me and informs me "that guy over there is pointing a gun at you" and I respond by simply shooting him, without verifying the actual threat, I'm going to jail.

Like I said in my last post, I find it hard to believe there was no contact, but that they engaged with shotguns would indicate they were close up (unless slug).

From article:


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.


So, no contact, no verification of a weapon, yet time to wait for backup requests, while:



Police snuck down the corridor and shot him,


If, if, this is all true, then these guys need to be prosecuted.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by svante
 


Bean bag rounds and Tasers are classified as less than lethal, and most SOP (standard operating procedures / Policiy n Procedures) dont call for that type of use in a fluid situation. Any time less than lethal methods are employed, its generally required it be supported by cover from someone who has lethal means available and ready (duty weapon).

The use of those methods will be determined by the arriving officers on scene, based on their perceptions, the enviornment, location, bystanders, proximity of backup, behavior / actions of the person who is "armed" etc.

Lots of factors to consider for a situation than can be overwith in less than a second upon their arrival.

When we are dispatched to any type of weapons calls, our agency pretty much assumes a lethal force is present, and upon arrival we go de-escalte if possible. The reason for this is you generally will not have time to go from a Taser / Bean bag round less than lethal into a lethal encounter where you must drop / reholster the weapon you have, while attempting to draw your duty weapon.

The courts allow officers to use a level of force that is generally 1 level higher than the encounter. The Courts also are very clear that the least amount of force must be used to gain control of the situation, and if an encounter starts, its expected of officers to gain control and de-escalte the situation as quickly and safely as possible.

Bean bag rounds, Taser cartridges are just like bullets. They are man made, and can fail when you least expect it.
edit on 14-12-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Oaktree
 


I do this job on a daily basis and I can tell you yes, if someone came up to me and told me a person has a gun, I would be notifing dispatch and going to see whats going on. The officers in this case arrived and attempted to set up a containment zone, which tells me they perceived a threat, and wanted more people present to assist.

We do our best to size up a situation before taking action, but this is not always possible.

When this person made the movements he did with the object, the question the officers are asking themselves is:

A - What is he doing
B - What is he pointing it at
C - Where is his attention at (himself, the item, a house, a group of people, a car?
D - If this person moves from his location, do I take the shot or no?
E - If this person starts to walk towards a house, group of people, apartments, do I take the shot?

As I said before, hindsight is 20/20. The officers on scene have no idea what this guy has in his hand, what his mental state is, his intentions. If the guys appears intoxicated or ALOC (altered level of conscious) and appears to be in one area, then yeah these officers did their job by attempting to contain, observeing the individual, while remaining out of sight so as not to set this guy off on the off chance he is suffering from a mental / drug / substance induced altered state.

Simply walking up to make contact with this setup is dangerous. If he sees you coming and he runs, then what? Do you shoot or run after him?

Contrary to popular belief Police Officers are not required to give any verbal commands if the situation is severe enough. However we are all trained to give loud clear repetative verbal commands when dealing with these situations because of audio / visual exclusion of the person we are dealing with, and to notifiy anyone in range of our authority and our actions, as well as to serve as a warning to stay back from the situation.

As I said, let the IA investigation as well as the criminal inveztigation go through the paces. We are only getting one side of the story. We cannot speak to the media about our actions, so the majority of the time you are getting a story the media pieced together from witnesses who describe whatt ehy saw, but not understand what happened.
edit on 14-12-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   
I guess now I need to add body armor to my car cashing kit. I don't suppose there was any mention of the names of these courageous officers? We should all know the names of the brave men and women who protect us from getting wet.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   
It's so hard to hit a person with a pistol, if the cops managed to shoot him they really should have been close enough to see exactly what he was holding, unless of course the opened fire with a rifle or a shotgun.

If you aren't close enough to tell if it is a handgun or a hose nozzle, you probably aren't in any danger of being hit anyway. These LEOs were cowards, in this instance. Why can the military function under the ROEs "DO NOT FIRE UNLESS FIRED UPON" and LEO's cannot? If you are afraid of getting shot, then you must not be allowed to carry a firearm! Your pussy ass is only going to shoot somebody who meant no harm to you whatsoever, or was incapable of it. I feel that most of the cops I have met, in a sane society, would never be allowed to carry a firearm on them 24/7. Of course I can say the same thing about non LEO gun owners I've met lol.

In conclusion, guns are dangerous. Stay away from people who have/carry them if you don't want to get shot, otherwise.. mistakes happen and somehow the worst people tend to have the most power, so watch out!



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Darce
 


Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

The military rules of Engagement are one of the reason we have Posse Commitatus - Look it up if you arent familiar with it. The military also has term called collateral damage, which is accepted under international law as a result of armed conflict. The sole purpose of the military when deployed is to kill the enemy.

Civilian Law Enforcement does not have such a loose rule of engagement. The term collateral damage is not acceptible. LEO's do not shoot to kill, we shoot to stop the threat.

If you want to judge us thats fine, but you really should maybe educate yourself as to how the law works before calling us names. Absent that the only pussy present would be you, in terms of not knowing the law, what your rights are, the authority of Law Enforcement in that type of situation, situational awareness, officer safety, bystander safety, suspect safety, relayed information from those who called 911, in addition to allowing the Internal Affairs investigation, as well as the criminal investigation to run its course.

I would guess your attitude towards law enforceme4nt is because you got "harrased" a lot by them for what I woul suppose is no reason at all because they are all crooked and have nothing better to do than go after an upstanding member of society like yourself who does nothing wrong?

Correct me if im off base please.

Call us what you want, it does not matter to us. We are called worse by better on a daily basis.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 




The officers on scene have no idea what this guy has in his hand, what his mental state is, his intentions. If the guys appears intoxicated or ALOC (altered level of conscious) and appears to be in one area, then yeah these officers did their job by attempting to contain, observeing the individual, while remaining out of sight so as not to set this guy off on the off chance he is suffering from a mental / drug / substance induced altered state.


If they have no idea what this guy has in his hand, how can shooting be justified?



Simply walking up to make contact with this setup is dangerous.


I was not implying anyone walk right up, but contact, even commands, from a covered position seems reasonable, no?



Contrary to popular belief Police Officers are not required to give any verbal commands if the situation is severe enough. However we are all trained to give loud clear repetative verbal commands when dealing with these situations because of audio / visual exclusion of the person we are dealing with, and to notifiy anyone in range of our authority and our actions, as well as to serve as a warning to stay back from the situation.


According to the article, and the police chief, no verbal commands were given.
Do you believe that a person sitting on a porch stoop with an unidentified item in his hands presents a severe enough situation in which no commands need to be given?

If so, 99% of all America is at risk of being shot, for the safety of an officer or his partner.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
I guess now I need to add body armor to my car cashing kit. I don't suppose there was any mention of the names of these courageous officers? We should all know the names of the brave men and women who protect us from getting wet.


Dont forget to add that cops also protect you from people who make cell phones calls as well.




posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Oaktree
If they have no idea what this guy has in his hand, how can shooting be justified?


If I am not mistaken the 911 center was receiving calls of a man with a weapon. In this case, the assumption is going to be a man with a weapon.


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


Including this part above. When he pointed it at the officer, the decision was made. People would be surprised how hard it is to identify what is in a persons hnd from a distance. People are assuming, based of the article with full knowledge that he had a water nozzle. The Officers did not have that infomration, and attempts to verify what the person has means you have to expose yourself to look.

A judgement call.



Originally posted by Oaktree
I was not implying anyone walk right up, but contact, even commands, from a covered position seems reasonable, no?


Again it depends on whats going on. The call was the guy was armed. The first officers on scene could not verify that the guy had something other than a gun. They also reported the weird behavior of the guy. IF the guy was suicideal / homocidal, drawing attention to yourself and your location escalates the situation. By creating a perimiter and waiting for other officers to arrive (and I am assuming they had a negotiator en route as well) They can watch the individual without forrcing a confrontation, which is in line with what the courts want.

The moment they identify themselves, they give this guy potential targets, or worse, he runs either into a house, or towards bystanders, and you go from a man with a gun to a hostae situation.


Originally posted by Oaktree
According to the article, and the police chief, no verbal commands were given.
Do you believe that a person sitting on a porch stoop with an unidentified item in his hands presents a severe enough situation in which no commands need to be given?


When that person points that item at the officers, verbal commands can be given, but itsw being given as the officers are pulling the trigger. Our job is dangerous by its requirements. We are not required to be shot, which would occur if we are required to identify ourselves verbally. The Uniform, and marked patrol vehicles, are in the first 2 stages of use of force. The presence alone is enough, under law, to identify who we are.


Zerby pointed it at one of the officers and two officers fired their weapons, a handgun and a shotgun.


This action above, alone, is justification enough for defense of self, other officers, and anyone near by, regardless if the person has a gun, a cell phone, his wallet or a water nozzle. No one, even bystanders who called, knew what he had in his hand. They all thought he had a gun, and nowhere in the article does it say this was attached to a hose of any type either, which means it was seperate, and harder to identify / verify what it is.


Originally posted by Oaktree
If so, 99% of all America is at risk of being shot, for the safety of an officer or his partner.


And 99.9% of the time, we are able to give loud clear reptetitive verbal commands to those we are dealing with. The incident oabove made the news because of the situation and circumstances. I guarantee you, that was not the only incident that occured in the United States where a person pointed an object at an officer and were shot and killed with no dialogue.

Is it tragic? yes.

Is it a judgment call? absolutely.

Should we wait for the investigations to be finished and submitted to the prosecuting attorny to determine if charges are filed against the officers? Absolutely?

Why? Because its an ongoing criminal investigation that will determine of its a justifiable homocide or not.Because its an ongoing criminal investigation, the Officers cannot givce their complete side of the story to the media. I can gurantee the Chief is not giving all of the events either. Let the invesigations run their course and see what else comes out.

Also, as a side note, the family is the one saying the Police snuck up on this guy and shot him. This is in contradiction to the Officers statements, so lets let the ivnestigation run its course.
edit on 14-12-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   
X, you sound like a tough guy, can you tell that I am not? For the record, I wasn’t calling anyone specific a pussy, just anyone who is afraid of getting shot. Harsh, I know.

Guns kill people! What do you think happens when you accidentally load a 20GA shell into the barrel of a 12GA shotgun, followed by a 12GA shell? It happens and I think you’d be lucky if it didn’t kill you. Also, ever heard of a “squib load”? A bullet lodged in your .357 snub-nose barrel must make one heck of a bang in your face when you try and send a properly loaded cartridge down after it. Guns kill people and are extremely, extremely dangerous, no matter how careful you are. Sears fail, firing pins drop, ammo gets loaded incorrectly, and retards own guns. If you are afraid of getting shot, stay away from guns, because that’s what they do best.
Now, my argument is about carrying a gun and getting paid to use it when you’re afraid of getting shot. Isn’t that like a hypochondriac doctor, or a pilot who’s afraid of heights etc..

My point isn’t about how cops do their job, it’s who’s doing their job. LEO’s should not include people who are afraid of getting shot. It just leads to the unnecessary application of deadly force.

As for your personal attacks, you couldn’t be more correct. We both know how this world works



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   
I think it was uncalled for to shoot the guy.
They shot a deaf guy over hear, with a rake in his hand raking the lawn, Put the rake down or we will shoot, Huh, What? Pow Pow Pow. Hear Ha, Ha ,Ha

They shot this other guy with a Knife, the guy was about 30 feet away but the officer did say the knife had a very llong blade.

You don't know that guy could of had that noozle hooked up to the Hot Water, was the hose Red, Red means danger Hot.
edit on 15-12-2010 by googolplex because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join