Police Shoot and Kill Man for Watering Lawn

reply to post by Sremmos80


according to the story, he pointed it at the LEOs, so they opened fire.

If it was a real firearm and the LEO was killed because he hesitated, what would you say then?

reply to post by minusinfinity


minusinfiity is simply saying....
the guy was trashed...so no telling what was going on in his head...and well never know now that he is dead
the police did use to much force...
we dont know the entire story...

and no we dont know that he was slouched down in a chair never knowing the cops were there...the coroner said it was a possibility...

its an f'd up situation that we will never know what really happened....

Wow what a sad case this was. I feel even if he had a gun in his yard it shouldn't be a problem as long as he wasn't shooting it or pointing it at anyone.
These so called good cops better start stepping up and demanding something be done because it is placing their lives at risk more and more.
Once again the cops should be very happy I'm not a family member.

reply to post by HomerinNC


Even if he did point something at the officers, they had been waiting for 15 minutes without announcing their presence or issuing any sort of warning. They waited for 15 minutes for a reason to shoot... And they were hiding under cover. Basically, according to the whole story from multiple sources: the police arrived on scene, hid and took cover, observed him for 15 minutes, and fired before uttering a word. How is that not criminal? If you were watering your lawn and police were hiding in a neighbors house, do you think after 15 minutes the nozzle could eventually point towards a person or a window (where at least one officer shot from)?

according to the story, he pointed it at the LEOs, so they opened fire. If it was a real firearm and the LEO was killed because he hesitated, what would you say then?

An LEO who has an IQ so low he cannot tell a water hose from a pistol needs a different job.

reply to post by TonyBravada


I didnt know they were waiting for 15 mins, if thats the fact, in that 15 mins they should have been able to see if it was a firearm or not

HomerinNC
reply to post by Sremmos80

 

according to the story, he pointed it at the LEOs, so they opened fire.

If it was a real firearm and the LEO was killed because he hesitated, what would you say then?

How about you pin that one for when that actually happens?
Hard to say what I would say then, would need a lot more info about what happened

But to address the fact that he pointed it at them.
I think that comes from the cops, and that is such a generic think to say, that he pointed it in their direction, that was the word that was used BTW.
Are we sure that wasn't him coming to that police were yelling at him? Could he have simply been turning, with hose in hand, to face the police to see who they were?
Family says there was no announcement, he could have been turning just to water a different section of the grass. Booze,Benzo and Bud? He could have easily been in his own word enjoying his time on this little rock we call earth.
These cops were in NO danger but the ones the created subconsciously by guessing and assuming, great police tactics i might add

We know he didn't have a gun, cops shouldn't be allowed to assume that he does have one.

Again, this man was not under arrest and was not harming anyone. He did not have any reason to drop what was in his hands outside of the cops just wanting him to.

And to have it all end in a death? A simple call by a mistaken neighbor and the cops KILL a man? And we are to say, well the cops thought they were in danger and there was a 1% chance that really was a gun so we had to shoot him twelve times
I know in the marines they taught us a failure drill was 2 to the chest and 1 to the head. Later taught one to the pelvic region
That is the fundamental kill shot for marines, men taught to kill, not serve and protect on one man. That is what they practice when they go to the range.
Cops are taught to shot to stop if possible, or at least my old man was in the Border Patrol. Maybe they changed things since then...
Why are cops shooting one unarmed man 12 times?

Now that people have learned to not call the cops for help they get to worry that the neighbors will.

Its the guy's own fault... He should of had a orange tip on his hose nozzle.....

A water cooled pistol - did it shoot 10,000 to 20,000 rounds a minute?

minusinfinity
reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy

 

Okay I did a quick search and discovered that this happened in 2010. Why are you posting this four years after it happened?

The family of a man fatally shot by Long Beach police in 2010 was awarded $6.5 million in damages by a federal jury on Thursday.

ktla.com...

Could it be your source looks for anything in the news only to make people angry with the government?

The police were wrong but....

He had a blood-alcohol level of 0.42% and had Valium and THC in his system at the time of his death.

Not saying he deserved to be gunned down but he wasn't just out watering his lawn.

Get the whole story before you jump 2 conclusions.

Last time I checked, cannabis is legal in CA for medicinal use. He probably had a script for the Valium as well. Oh, and alcohol is also legal. This VICTIM did nothing to warrant such a heinous demise at the hands of thugs paid for by public tax dollars.

Anyhow, sounds like YOU are "jumping to conclusions" as the family of the murdered man was awarded 6.5 million...I HIGHLY doubt if he, the victim, was at ALL culpable for a crime, his family wouldn't be receiving a dime.

But, if you have some sort of insider information as to what he REALLY was doing, if he wasn't watering his lawn, PLEASE, enlighten us!

I have a hunch you're probably one of those Nosey Neighbor types who would call the law whenever you see fit...

Your post is disrespectful and is full of what is WRONG in this country.

reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy


I live in the area and one of my friend's really good friends who,s house we were over for a UFC fight mentioned how all he wanted to do was unload a clip on a guy who recently the week before had put a gun to his head in an attempted Suicide. He wanted the gunman to turn it on them so he could get the kill. All cops, well a good 90% are psychopaths. Bloodthirsty ones. Vampire concept in the collective consciousness of mankind.

HomerinNC
reply to post by Sremmos80

 

according to the story, he pointed it at the LEOs, so they opened fire.

If it was a real firearm and the LEO was killed because he hesitated, what would you say then?

Sorry, but if a BUNCH of cops cannot tell the difference between an actual fire arm and a freaking hose, then Jesus, this country is far worse off than I thought...

The cops shot the man 12 times for being armed with a garden hose. I have a pistol grip thingy like that on my hose. Should I go out and get a bright orange colored one (made in China, no less) so I don't get shot when out doing my yard work?

reply to post by HomerinNC


I would say that they shouldn't have been running up on a guy with guns drawn who was open carrying a legal firearm on his own property. That is what I would say.

Uh, Constitution people! Sheesh.

Even if it were a gun there is nothing illegal about him sitting in his yard holding it. If he were threatening people with it that would be different. However, it was not a gun, and he was not threatening anyone.

If I were to walk out in my yard with a pistola there is absolutely nothing illegal about that. Nothing, at, all.

And, let's just say, hypothetically, that it was a gun. Why must you insinuate that if he were to be legally carrying a firearm in his own yard that this means he would, without a doubt, shoot whomever happens upon him? Does the fact that someone may have a gun make them mad crazy murderers who sit in their lawns waiting for passers-by to take pot shots at?

The whole premise of your argument is completely asinine.

roadgravel

according to the story, he pointed it at the LEOs, so they opened fire. If it was a real firearm and the LEO was killed because he hesitated, what would you say then?

An LEO who has an IQ so low he cannot tell a water hose from a pistol needs a different job.

Some police departments in the US actually have IQ limits. If applicants score too high, they are turned down.

reply to post by projectvxn

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

Wise. MPs grow up to be cops.

One day, when you get a chance, ask around and find out why the MPs were stripped of their badges. LOL

reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy


Unfortunately, this is a true story. This kind of thing is irresponsible. The police officers involved in illegal acts like this should be tried for murder, not keep their jobs.

HomerinNC
reply to post by Sremmos80

 

according to the story, he pointed it at the LEOs, so they opened fire.

If it was a real firearm and the LEO was killed because he hesitated, what would you say then?

Instead, the officers put 12 rounds (including shotgun rounds) into a man holding a water nozzle without even giving a warning. There are many ways to issue a verbal warning before lethal confrontation.

We are talking about a real murder here of an innocent man with no real accountability for it to the officers as far as I know.

In case you didn't notice, these kinds of crimes by police are on the rise as they are not held accountable to their own laws.

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.

minusinfinity
reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy

 

The police were wrong but....

He had a blood-alcohol level of 0.42% and had Valium and THC in his system at the time of his death.

Not saying he deserved to be gunned down but he wasn't just out watering his lawn.

Get the whole story before you jump 2 conclusions.

I honestly can't believe you cited the levels of Valium and THC, you are actually
telling us he may have been half asleep.

What were the steroid and coc aine levels of the police who shot an innocent man?
Oh they won't have been tested but who knows?

if it was they had that much THC and valium in there system
they wouldn't have been shooting anyone.
maybe YOU should get the whole story before jumping to conclusions.

Also, do you realise which part of the website you are in and what it means?

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.

Sit back, watch as the guy gets pwned by cops with the IQ of a cabbage.

Great way to clean up the neighbourhood.


I walk, the cops walk, bad neighbour carried out.

Great way to get away with murder, by getting the stupid cops to do it for you, they're much better at covering it up than I would be

Victim: GET OF MY LAWN!
Me: O RLY!

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

hahah thats funny s#it and true.