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: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jaynkeel
 


Only 2 officers were present according to the article, and were waiting for backup. 2 Officers is not enough to attempt to employ less than lethal munitions. If the officer who has his gun out is shot and killed, the other officer is done as well, sine the time to transition to a duty weapon would not be fast enough before more shots came at him.

Almost all officers are issued body armor. However, the false beleif by some call them bullet proof vests, and this is not the case. There are levels o body armor, and each level is specific to a type of bullet (highpowered rifle, 40, 9, .22, .25, 10).

Almost all officers are contunally trained for these situations, but again training does not alawys mimick real life. When in training, we take it seriously, but know in the back of our heads there is no real dnager to us, because this is training. So the fear and adrenaline dumps are not present.

When confronted with the a person pointing a possible gun at you, you have absolutely no idea how you are going to respond.

We do not rise to the occasion, we fall back to our level of training.

People are putting way to much emphasis on the hindsight argument in this case. Let the investigations run its course.




posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Gakus
 


I don't think he even knew they were there(the LEO's). He was drunk, waiting for a friend, playing with a garden hose mouthpiece, and they didn't identify themselves.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoeSignal
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I wouldn't even be in the line of fire. That must have been their biggest mistake. Like one other poster said, one officer holds the line of sight, while the other talks/commands the perp down. If the perp is acting erratic and points at the officer in sight, the other one shoots. And not 8 times. Maybe one or two times. And I know, I wasn't there and it's easy to be clever now, but seriously...


People watch to much tv.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I would also like to say, I think you sound like a great cop, this is not directed at you as a cop at all. But just because a person is holding what seems to be a lethal weapon, you can't justify it. He didn't have a weapon, he wasn't told to stop what he was doing, he could just as easily had been holding a burrito in tinfoil. That is exactly why there is an investigation going on now, otherwise the case would be closed, wouldn't you agree?



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by janon
 


This is always my complaint against the media. The purpose of the media is to mind the peoples business, and to challenege Government on their behalf, to keep us honest. Its a balance between bringing a story to the general public that puts a spolight on Police actions, vs the lack of information because its a criminal investigation.

These have to go through the process, which means Ia and the courts, not the media. The media will report what they can get, including statments by witnesses, which are not always accurate and are based on perception of what they think they saw, verses what occured.

example:
Dash cam footage #1


Dash cam footage #2


The first one was released to the public, which caused issues because of media reporting. The second footage was then released, which changed it all. Including the publics perception of the incindent, and how at times what they see is not always what happened.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


1 on 1 is a dual. Two against one changes the whole situation nobody can deny that. I am not so much angry with the leo's but at their supposed training. I hold cops to a high degree of respect, ask anyone of them that lives around me. But in situations like this where there appears to be a lot of holes and what if's being played out, I think the departments need to reassess their approach. Shoot first and ask questions later is a bad public image to stand behind and justice is never served in that situation, I hope the family does the right thing and makes a stand to get the procedures changed.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   
I HATE Law Enforcement



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoeSignal
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I would also like to say, I think you sound like a great cop, this is not directed at you as a cop at all. But just because a person is holding what seems to be a lethal weapon, you can't justify it. He didn't have a weapon, he wasn't told to stop what he was doing, he could just as easily had been holding a burrito in tinfoil. That is exactly why there is an investigation going on now, otherwise the case would be closed, wouldn't you agree?


I appriciate the compliment. Respectfully though, we can take action. I have arrived on scenes like this, and my duty weapon was out and at the ready. That is usually enough, mixed with verbal commands to gain some type of control. This does not always work, because the person who is now seeing some cops with weapons out, but not pointed at them, dont always think rationally from that point, since they are now also going through the fight or flight response.

Audiotory exclusion, tunnel vision - These are why cops yell loud, verbal, reptetitive commands. It allows the person we are dealing at to hear us, and not be able to confuse what we are saying to him since we are repeating it. It allows people who are in the area to also hear our commands, exhibiting identification of authority and that there is a verbal engagement to avoid misunderstanding.

This is not always possible, and is completely dependant upon the situation.


These officers called for backup, had weapons out, but were not confronting this person. These officers did not, as some have portrayed, show up and start shooting. They followed procedure, wanting more officers present to attempt a peaceful end to the situation. The moment this person made the motions, the situation changed, and the officers had to take another avenue, since ime was now a problem in terms of backup.

Even if this guy pointed a gun in the air and started firing, there is always a possibility of him killing someone. What goes up, must come down, and there are confirmed cases of people being killed in this matter. If this guy started squeezing off rounds in a random manner, aiming at no one in particular, its still deadly force.

Our goal is the end it peacefully and get people the help they need. This is not always how these events happen though.

Lets wait for the investigation to come out so we can see the Officers side of the story in its entirety.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoeSignal
reply to post by Gakus
 


I don't think he even knew they were there(the LEO's). He was drunk, waiting for a friend, playing with a garden hose mouthpiece, and they didn't identify themselves.


Actually he did know they were there according to the article. It states the Officers only fired when this guy pointed the nozzle with 2 hands, like a gun. He pointed it directly at one of the officers, which is why they discharged their weapons.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaynkeel
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


1 on 1 is a dual. Two against one changes the whole situation nobody can deny that. I am not so much angry with the leo's but at their supposed training. I hold cops to a high degree of respect, ask anyone of them that lives around me. But in situations like this where there appears to be a lot of holes and what if's being played out, I think the departments need to reassess their approach. Shoot first and ask questions later is a bad public image to stand behind and justice is never served in that situation, I hope the family does the right thing and makes a stand to get the procedures changed.


The officers did follow their trainging though. They did not make contact and called for backup. It was not until the guy made the 2 handed point with the item, pointing it directly at one of the officers, did they fire their weapon.

Lets let the investigations go and see what comes out when they are done.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 




Lets wait for the investigation to come out so we can see the Officers side of the story in its entirety.


I agree...

The situation is complex, and whether or not he knew they were officers, we will never know, because we can't ask him.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaynkeel
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


1 on 1 is a dual. Two against one changes the whole situation nobody can deny that. I am not so much angry with the leo's but at their supposed training. I hold cops to a high degree of respect, ask anyone of them that lives around me. But in situations like this where there appears to be a lot of holes and what if's being played out, I think the departments need to reassess their approach. Shoot first and ask questions later is a bad public image to stand behind and justice is never served in that situation, I hope the family does the right thing and makes a stand to get the procedures changed.


Its not a duel, and Law Enforcement will always have the advatage to be blunt about it. The only manner in which less than lethal methods can be employed is when their is enough officers to adequately protect the officer with the less than lethal device. Until that happens, the goal is to protect any innocent person in the area and to get them out of the line of sight.

Our secondary priority is to keep an eye on the guy we were called for, and try to obtain as much info as possible in order to end the situation peacefully and without loss of life.The procedures Law Enforcement use are based on case law as well as supreme court rulings. So getting something changed usually involves court actions.

We do not have all of the informtion as to what the officers actually did, so lets wait and see what comes from the invesitigations.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
.....wait for the investgation....????????? we all know the outcome, what a joke, and to think they were once called Peace Officers



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Yes I remember those videos well. The first is still used against police from time to time. Even thought that one video doesn't show the whole story, people pass judgment because of it still today. I don't know the answer because I believe the public needs to be kept informed about what is going on in their communities but at the same time, once it's out there, there isn't anything anyone can do to stop it misinforming people. In this incident, the police were justified because the guy was threatening them after they were clearly identified to the subject.

So we have one blatantly bias article and we are all vilifying or defending these officers based on it. How can we know? I think it would be more intellectually beneficial to discuss the policies than this one incident.

I, personally, feel that police should not shoot first, ask questions later under any circumstances. They take the risk of losing their lives when the take the job. They know that. It may sound evil or malice of me but I believe the risk of accidentally killing a citizen is much more destructive than putting an officer at risk making sure what they are shooting at is a real threat. There are more things that someone could be holding than there are guns. It doesn't seem civilized to accidentally kill someone just because they had 'something' in their hands.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoeSignal
reply to post by Xcathdra
 




Lets wait for the investigation to come out so we can see the Officers side of the story in its entirety.


I agree...

The situation is complex, and whether or not he knew they were officers, we will never know, because we can't ask him.


Law Enforcement agencies use whats called a use of force, or subject resitance control, depending on where you live. Its the "guide" in terms of what happens when badguy does A, we use B, he uses F, we use G.

Most people do not realize this but when an officer shows up on scene, any scene, the are technically using a use of force.

Officer Presence - Uniform / marked patrol vehicle - These are non verbal use of force, and satisfy Supreme Court requirements for most situations we are involved in (executing search warrants are a bit different).

We do know law enforcement was on scene. The guy pointed this item at officers in a manner that emulated holding a gun. Why would you do this to people you dont know? Even if someone was walking down the street and this occured, he could be justified under law, if he has a weapon, to use the weapon if he felt his life was in immidiate danger.

I understand the viewpoint you guys are coming from, so please dont take my counter arguments as ignoring that. I am maintaining that how non law enforcement perceives this is based on hindsight, and personal opinion in terms of how people "think" the law works, how their rights work and how things should be done.

Lets wait for the invstigations to be finished so we can see waht the officers side of the story is.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by JoeSignal
reply to post by Gakus
 


I don't think he even knew they were there(the LEO's). He was drunk, waiting for a friend, playing with a garden hose mouthpiece, and they didn't identify themselves.


Actually he did know they were there according to the article. It states the Officers only fired when this guy pointed the nozzle with 2 hands, like a gun. He pointed it directly at one of the officers, which is why they discharged their weapons.


It actually doesn't say that exactly which is the problem. It says he pointed the garden nozzle at an officer but then says he didn't know the officers were even there. So which is it? Was he really sitting on his friends stoop waiting for someone to maybe call the police and the police might come so he could point a garden nozzle at him or was he drunk pretending the nozzle was a gun much like my 6 year old would do and the police over reacted? We don't know.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   
perhaps they should carry bionoculars so they can actually see what they are shooting at, this is not some isolated incident, these types of incidents happen all the time.
edit on 15-12-2010 by laughsalot because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by janon
 


Again all valid and fair points. LEO's run into the issue of not being able to get their side of the story out there when it occurs. So we have to let the media do there thing, no matter how wrong they can be, without correcting them until the investigations are done and overwith.

I would like to see people pressure media to run followups when they run a story that is incorrrect or using "Facts" that they got on their own. So while the article appears biased, its only that way because we cannot give out all the details on our side of the fence. Its irritating but its the price we pay for living in a democratic society.

Policies, procedures, standard operating guidlines, State Law, Local Law, Federal Law in addition to case law and court rulings. Its one reason we go through as much training as we can, so we can keep up with all the current changes.

If a State Supreme court rules against law enforcement, its creates a precedent to all agencies in the state. If it is appealed to the federal level and they uphold the ruling, its now applied to all states within that federal circuit. If it goes to the Supreme Court and its upheld, its now applied to all jursidictions in the US and territories.

From state level to US Supreme court could be years. So you have varying rulings for varying jurisdicitons.

I dont believe I am defending the officers, but tying to explain their actions based on law and experience. Its entirely possible these officers were in the wrong, but we were not there, and all we have is the media report, which creates the 20/20 hindsight arguments people are giving in this thread.

We need to wait for the investigations to be done to get the full story.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by janon
 



"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."

Zerby pointed it at one of the officers and two officers fired their weapons, a handgun and a shotgun. A total of eight shots were fired — two from shot guns and six from a handgun, McDonnell said.


Also, a few other things to note. The information regarding the no attempt to contact is coming from family, and the story does not state if they witnessed this first hand. He was at a buddys house because he was intoxicated and didnt want to drive home. Kind of curious where these family members where and how they got their information.

The article states the guy pointed the nozle at apartemtns, and manipulated it where it sounded like a gun.


The Long Beach officers were dispatched to an apartment building after two people reported a man with a gun sitting on a backyard porch landing, McDonnell said. In an excerpt of a 911 call played for reporters, a male caller said the man appeared to have a "tiny six-shooter."

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.

Both officers were placed on administrative leave, a standard move after a police shooting.


Tragic yes, but we do not have all of the facts. The article is based off of family accounts, but does not state if they were present to witness, or heard it from others. The family is the one quoted saying he didnt know the officers were even there.

We are getting half of the story from greiving family members, and during the holiday season. The other information I would liek to know is if the officers have ever dealt with this person before, or are familiar with him if he has a criminal record. If these 2 officers knew this person from personal interactions, that also changes the manner in which the situation is handled.

Lets wait and see the invesstigation results.






edit on 15-12-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-12-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-12-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I think you and I are both on the same page as far as this incident goes.

Although we differ on policies, I don't have anything more to add that I haven't already said. Good day, sir

edit on 15-12-2010 by janon because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join