Police Shoot and Kill Man for Watering Lawn

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

Police officers everywhere are SUPPOSED to be governed by a model wherein they are to follow steps regarding the escalation of deadly force. The reason is to prevent unnecessary escalation of violence and grievous bodily harm.

The posted steps below are similar to those I was to follow:

1. Physical presence --- depending on the totality of the circumstances, a call/situation may require additional officers or an on scene officer may request assistance in order to gain better control of the situation and gain more safety for themself. Depending on the circumstances of the situation: for example, how many people are on scene with the officer - a larger presence may be required. However, if 10 officers arrive at a scene with only a single suspect, the suspect may perceive he is under arrest; as a large police presence can constitute an arrest based on the suspect's perceptions.
2. Verbal commands
3. Empty-hand submission techniques,
4. PPCT - Pressure Point Control Techniques
5. Intermediate Weapons (e.g. baton, pepper spray, Taser, beanbag rounds, Mace (spray), etc.)
6. Lethal force.

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.

The United States Supreme Court, in the case of Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, (1989), held that when engaged in situations where the use of force is necessary to effect an arrest, or to protect an officer's life or that of another, a law enforcement officer must act as other reasonable officers would have acted in a similar, tense, rapidly evolving situation

Link

The prudent thing is to arrive on scene and assess the situation to determine whether or not there is an action or activity occurring which would lead a reasonable person/officer to believe that the use of deadly force is warranted to prevent the afore mentioned grievous bodily harm or death of the officer or another person. I see no indication that this assessment was performed.

This means, that if I were that officer, that short of rolling up on this guy as he was firing at neighbors or my fellow officers there is no cause for implementation of the use of deadly force. None. Instead, I would be required to use my presence to attempt to defuse the situation and determine if, in fact, laws were being broken and there is cause for me to take any action. If I were to determine that there are reasons to escalate, such as laws being broken, then I would use my voice to order the suspect to submit to my authority so that I may apprehend him/her for processing (arrest) and then let the courts sort out the degree of violation. If the suspect were to resist my orders, and I am still sure that a law is being broken, then I am allowed to use my hands to attempt to subdue the suspect (if he actually had a gun and was actually breaking a law or acting in a threatening manner this one would be skipped, obviously). If physical apprehension is not possible I can then escalate to non-lethal implements or tools with which to subdue the suspect; Ie. tasers, baton, etc... Finally, and only in the most extreme circumstances where the situation has escalated to a point where there is an obvious activity which would cause a reasonable person to fear for life and limb of themselves or others, would an actual weapon be drawn and or fired.

You see, it is the job of the PEACE Officers to keep the peace. Not to shoot first and not ask questions later.

While I was not there I see no reason to have approached the suspect (victim) with weapons drawn much less firing those weapons. Even if the residents had reported that he was firing AT them, there is no reason to act as they did. Here is why.

-- Only a complete blithering idiot would walk or run up on a person with a firearm who is actively firing that weapon. Dumb Dumb Dumb. Good way to get yourself shot.

Instead you would find a place to safely dismount your vehicle a distance away from the suspect and then begin to cordon off the area. The only reason to begin firing at this point would be if you were in direct fire yourself or if you saw the suspect attempting to grievously harm another person. Additionally, in a residential neighborhood you don't want to go off half-cocked firing away without knowing what is in the background. Bullets go through walls. You don't know who is behind those walls.

You would then attempt to order the suspect to surrender. You know, like in the movies and stuff. If he does not and he continues to fire yet there is little concern that anyone will be harmed because they are safely removed from the situation then you take cover and let him waste ammo. If he is not directly attempting to harm you, then you only risk greater harm to yourself, fellow peace officers, or bystanders by putting more lead in the air and making a bad situation worse. You already have the upper hand as you outnumber the suspect and outgun him if it comes to that.

If, and only if, the suspect begins to direct fire at a person, do you open fire to subdue the suspect. That's it.

You see, police officers are supposed to PROTECT people. They are there to be the shield between the citizenry and the bad elements within our society. They are supposed to do absolutely everything necessary to prevent loss of life or property. This includes the loss of life of the suspect themselves. You are there to protect. To protect EVERYBODY; even if it is from themselves.

For those of you that will say that the officer also has a home and family he/she wants to return do so he/she must protect himself/herself by firing first so that they may go home at night I say this:

Find another line of work chickensht

If you don't want to do the right thing, to be a protector of life and property, to be the one who cool-headedly puts oneself in harms way to ensure that others may pursue life, liberty and happiness then you need to go into another line of work. Perhaps gardening or training ponies. The badge is not a license to kill or maim or beat or abuse the citizenry because you WANT to be some badass cop like you are in some Bruce Willis movie or something.

Shooting people like this is a chickensht move by chickensht ppl who are to dumb and scared to be authorized to carry a weapon in defense of the public. Plain and simple.

edit on 9-4-2014 by Bakatono because: add source link

edit on 9-4-2014 by Bakatono because: (no reason given)

I find your post very commendable. I wish there were more people in the world like you.

projectvxn
And yet we have a huge group of people in this country that think that giving goons like these cops a monopoly on firearms is a good idea.

I do NOT trust cops. Never will.

As a uniformed soldier I don't even trust the MPs on base.

The kind of mentality it takes to be a cop these days is scary to me.
How they train cops is scary to me. My biggest fear is that one day
one of these morons with a badge is going to try to hurt me or my
family. And on that day I will either be dead or in prison.

I agree , a school friend of mine became a city cop . He was a huge guy but quiet and kind hearted and would not hurt a fly until he became a cop and he completely changed . He became cocky , loud-mouthed and violent . He was "let go" from the city for police brutality , he then went on to be a County sheriffs deputy . That's how it works here , if a city cop breaks the law and are caught , they are given the chance to quit on their own , then they are hired on as county deputies .

He stopped by my house one day as I sat on the porch and told me , and I quote " I need to move to a bigger city , there is not enough crime here ! I need to go somewhere where I have more of a chance to crack some skulls " . I looked at him flabbergasted , NOT ENOUGH CRIME and CRACK SOME SKULLS !!!! That's why I like it here , a DUI , some pills and dope is about the extent of our serious crimes .

He ended being hired on as a policeman in some big city up North . I stopped having contact with him after that conversation so I do not know where nor do I care , I just wanted him away from our neighborhoods .

DestroyDestroyDestroy

Douglas Zerby was finishing up watering his lawn when neighbors, completely brainwashed by the police state, called the cops because they saw Zerby holding what they thought was a gun. It was actually a water hose nozzle.

t

So, here's a guy watering his lawn. His neighbors think that his water hose nozzle is a [snp] gun, so they call the cops. The cops show up and put 12 rounds in him without hesitation.

What the hell is wrong with people these days? Shouldn't cops at least apply some caution before emptying clips into people? Did they not notice that the "gun" was spraying [snip] water and attached to hose? At least the family got something out of it, but, my god, is this stupefyingly horrendous.

Source

edit on 9-4-2014 by elevatedone because: (no reason given)

Mabie he pointed his hose at the cops. And sprayed them with water... because we all know that the cops are allergic to water.

reply to post by crazyewok


I was just WAITING for you to chime in. Typical, let's make this about what they do in Britain and why it's so superior to the US. Get a grip.

reply to post by minusinfinity

Supposedly there were quite a few police. He didn't know the police were there? I doubt they all arrived in one car. Are you trying to tell me the guy had no chance to comply. Not buying it for one second. I've said many times in my previous posts I believe the police used excessive force and didn't need to kill the guy but I think he was partly to blame. He was drunk and high ,look at the autopsy report.

Chances are he didn't,

remember he was under the influence of a number of substances.

So being drunk and high is cause enough to put 12 rounds in that person because hey, maybe the weed and alcohol need a little extra hey?


The guy probably was passed out.

minusinfinity
reply to post by dashen

 

People who fire at officers are what they are.

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.

Well, then you have something to look forward to.

Krazysh0t

minusinfinity
reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy

 

OH NO! The man was high when he was watering his lawn! What a scumbag! Good thing those cops showed up to put him in place. Do you know what valium and marijuana do to you? Being violent and confrontational isn't a side effect of either of those narcotics, not to mention, who cares what was in his system? The cops showed up and gunned the guy down without any warning.

Which begs the question as to whether those police officers had taken any substances having quite the opposite effect. It quite sounds like it based on their behaviour.

strawburry
reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy

 

This is great! Next time I am in America, and some guy on his front lawn pisses me off, I shall call the cops and act like I saw a gun and fearful for my life.

Indeed you should. That's how people commonly behave there. When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Oh, and enjoy your holiday!

Not saying he deserved to be gunned down but he wasn't just out watering his lawn. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by minusinfinity


The police had no idea at the time that he had any of those chemicals in his system...however that doesn't matter one bit.

As for the facts...

“The most important thing is they never announced their presence,” said the family’s attorney attorney, Garo Mardirossian.

“They didn’t give him an opportunity to at least cooperate, to do what the officers wanted him to do,” he continued.

“The first time he realized there were cops there is when they shot him, and that just should not happen in America,” he said.

Valium is legal and so is alcohol...so you think that just because the guy had weed in his system...he deserved to be gunned down in his yard??

HE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THEY WERE THERE UNTIL THEY SHOT HIM TO DEATH!!!

Where did you come up with this....

but he wasn't just out watering his lawn.

How do you know that?? If he wasn't out watering his lawn...what was he doing??

According to the article....he WAS just out watering his lawn.

Seriously....you make me sick. There is no way to defend what these LEO's did.

minusinfinity

thisguyrighthere

minusinfinity
reply to post by Advantage

 

Maybe he was "innocent" then why were the police called?

Wow. Really? REALLY?

I often joke that people like you exist. People who assume you must be guilty if cops are talking to you or that being arrested means your guilty and that all trials are a waste because if you were arrested you're clearly guilty and all defense attorneys are scum because obviously all defendants are guilty.

But to actually know people like you exist?

I just hope you're being sarcastic. Yeah, that's it. You're just being sarcastic. That'll help me sleep.

Enjoy your nightmares and restless sleep. I wasn't being sarcastic.

God help you. Shall I call the police?

reply to post by InhaleExhale



I didn't hear about this until now but watering your lawn while drunk and stoned is pretty much status quo here in California....especially Long Beach.

One question though: was the watergun still attached to the hose? If so, those cops are either completely blind or stupid. If it was off the hose and he was pointing it at them, I can understand their concern.

...but twelve rounds plus buckshot is just ridiculous.

Advantage

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.

Do you read any of the posts here.. or the article you are speaking about?? Your question has been answered... more than once.

I realize youre new, but if you cant read an article in order to discuss it.. youre going to have problems.

I believe that 'minusinfinity' works for the police, or perhaps even is the police chief in the video.

strawburry
reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy

 

Question: How many life threatening guns have water comming out of them?

Just askin.

The police have water guns (ok, they are attached to heavy vehicles) for crowd control. They have a very high water pressure and if you're close they are life threatening.

But I don't believe that anybody would use a heavy vehicle with a water gun attached to it to water his or her lawn. Except for maybe a police. Maybe.

reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy


Wow....asking the man to drop his gun is something that only happens in a movie. After shooting 2 bullits in the man it must have been clear that there was a hose attached to the 'gun'. It is as if policemen are not able to think anymore.. The last few years or so some of these 'murders by police' are just rediculous. Maybe they should try to approach the suspect first and evaluate the situation before shooting to kill.

minusinfinity

Krazysh0t
reply to post by minusinfinity

 

And that reason was explained in the article as well as by several people in this thread already. His neighbors saw him holding a spray nozzle, thought it was a gun, and called the police. Maybe while he was high, he was pretending it was a gun and making gun noises and motions, but that STILL isn't a justifiable reason to call the police.

Honestly?

Fine. He was being foolish.

I wasn't there, I assume nobody posting was there, but I bet the police gave him a chance to drop his "weapon" before they opened fire.

The whole thing is ridiculous.

Already I agreed the police used excessive force. Why not taser the stoner?

Just saying not all police are evil. One person suggested we just open fire on police before they shoot us.

I'm out.

Believe what you wish.

Take care.

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.

projectvxn
reply to post by Agent008

 

Not long ago there was an issue with online hackers and others doing what is called "SWATING". It's when someone makes a frantic call to the police describing a situation that will defintiely get the SWAT team called to your house.

People were doing it to political figures they didn't like I believe.

And you don't even have to be in the country to do it.

This article is a bit more balanced on the topic than most I've seen on the interwebs: www.dailymail.co.uk...

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.

I gotta call BS on this one.

Perhaps you misunderstood. Or perhaps the reason you are having issues in your local area is because some ding-dong is teaching this in your local area.

Do you work at the college or take classes or both?

Sremmos80
reply to post by minusinfinity

 

I bet the police gave him a chance to drop his "weapon" before they opened fire

This reads to me that the cops gave this man a chance to drop what they considered a "weapon" ( see I know what they mean :cheers

before opening fire

Are you ok with cops having that type of mentality? That they can assume anything in some one's hand is a "weapon"?

Indeed.

The police is there to protect society. And society is made up of the police, officials and the largely undefined global elite. The rest is a threat to society.

AngryCymraeg

minusinfinity
Of course not but if you're holding a hose nozzle, a flashlight, a pen, a baby, or a puppy and a cop tells you to drop it while he points a pistol at you then you drop it.

Unfortunately - if you'd bothered to read up on this - they didn't shout anything at all. Not even a "Police!" They just blew this poor sap away.

People always blame the public sector for being inefficient. These police officers were trying to something about it and be efficient, and now they got punished for it.

minusinfinity

Krazysh0t
reply to post by hogstooth

 

Exactly. He was probably either passed out or close to it when thd police arrived on scene. Especially if he was sitting down and slumped over which has been established. In fact it looks like the police showed up, didn't get a response from him and just shot him, because he was probably passed out.

LMAO!!!!!

The only reason I'm replying is because you did make me smile.

Please tell me you're joking.

Do you really think police walk up to unconscious people and shoot them?!?

Absolutely. They shot him because he didn't 'cooperate'. Whatever that means. Perhaps: "yes Sir, I agree to be shot."