Police Shoot and Kill Man for Watering Lawn

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?

If you used that concept in every situation you could get away with murder for anything........Well if you're a cop.

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?

You were just driving along, when a LEO pulls you over, takes you out of your car, and beats you on the side of the road (this happened to me). What if I had been a child smuggler and the random detention and subsequent beating was the only way to save some children?

You're presenting an absolutely ridiculous justification.

Acting on what if's rather than facts is how you get these types of situations. What if you're a terrorist? Maybe you need to be waterboarded just so the authorities can be sure you're innocent.

Another thing disturbing is how on youtube all these racists are saying that all white people should be killed. There was this one guy Carlos, who is Hispanic, He was calling for all white people, Jews and their so-called "house Blacks" to be executed.

What the neanderthal minded reject Carlos did not take enough time to read was the fact that one of the officers involved was Hispanic, just like him. LMAO! No, You can't fix stupid my friends. ~$heopleNation

reply to post by minusinfinity


Last time I checked Valium is a prescribed drug all across the world....do you know that he was not prescribed Valium by a doctor for a legitimate illness ? THC or Marijuana possession is a misdemeanor in California which most cops write a ticket for if that...not illegal to have it in your system what so ever. Just because the guy was watering his lawn with drugs in his system....your going to say that he wasn't just watering his lawn ?

As for why the story is posted now....its because the system fought four years against paying the mans family for shooting him in cold blood so that's the story that a jury awarded him the money recently...cant you read ?

It seems to me that anyone that carries a weapon whether for personal defense or for public security reasons like a police officer has a responsibility to ensure that they are truly in danger from someone before they fire 12 rounds into them...perhaps a non lethal solution like communication would have been in order.

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 have personally been assaulted by cops in my town twice. The first time I was "driving suspiciously" and the cop pulled me over, had me goto the back of his car, and then beat me. He left without charging me with anything since I didn't fight back. The other time, a team invaded the house I lived in while I was sleeping, murdered my dog, then put me face down in a pool of my dogs blood with a gun to my head and told me that if I moved they would kill me. Later on they identified themselves as police, stole my property, damaged the house, and left when they eventually didn't find any drugs they were looking for.

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.

reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy


A lot of these cops just want to kill someone, this is why they become cops to start with'

It's just like they found out a lot of guys that become fire firemen are pyromaniacs, they are obsessed with fire, what a better way to be around fire. They also found these are the guys that start a lot of the fires, as they found out in Cal, as it was the head fire investigator whom was stating the Major fires.

Perverts, become Boy Scout leaders, some not all, but it happens. I mean not all of them are perverts, but a lot are.

If you want to kill some one and not go to jail, most times, become a cop.

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?

You have got to be kidding , if he had a gun and pointed said gun at LEO it would be justified of course but he had a Water Hose nozzle for the love of god. Are you saying it's acceptable what occurred ? I just don't see what point you are trying to make

minusinfinity
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

Sorry but I find that hard to believe.

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.

There are always two sides.

So, do we know what was in the bloodstream of the cops?
In Kentucky if there is a car accident involving a fatality, the driver MUST submit to blood tests immediately. I'm not aware of any such law that pertains to cops who shoot people but perhaps it is time that we start advocating for such laws.
Drunk and high aren't against the law if you are in your own yard minding your own business as this man was. Even in whacky California, watering your lawn isn't a capital offense---yet.

Shot 12 times? Wouldn't it have been ironic had some of the shots gone astray and hit the complaining neighbor?

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?

Ah, yes. The "He was coming right for us" defense.

Among many sad aspects to this, is that the courts decided the cops were at fault, $6.5 million dollars at fault, and yet the cops themselves receive no penalty at all.

Why not garnish $500 bucks a week of their wages, for each cop? Nope. Do they take it out of the police retirement fund? Nope. Out of their highwayman theft fund (civil forfeiture)? Nope. The cops themselves and the cop system in town - pay nothing. The taxpayers pay. And no one who's at fault gets the very slightest wrist slap. Because cop.

This ought to come out of the cops' pockets that are involved. They ought to have to forfeit a significant part of their pay for the rest of their lives, even though that won't make a dent. The cops as a group ought to have to pay, and that won't happen either. They skip out scotfree and we pay for their #ups. When did that become acceptable?

No feedback, no change.

reply to post by diggindirt

Drunk and high aren't against the law if you are in your own yard minding your own business as this man was.

This is starting to irritate me. He was not in his own yard. He was visiting an apartment complex and walking around/slumped over with a hose attachment (and no hose).

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.

I am so tired of these BS thread titles 'Someone killed for _____' where the _______ is some mundane activity to elicit an emotional response from the reader. 'Man arrested for dancing', 'Man beaten for jaywalking' etc. The guy wasn't shot for watering his lawn. He wasn't watering anything. He was shot because the cops mistook a hose attachment for a gun.

I think the police were absolute morons with the way they handled the situation, but ATS just makes me cringe.

I'm not doubting the cops screwed up, but I would sure like to see a video before I start pretending I know what actually happened.

Bedlam
Among many sad aspects to this, is that the courts decided the cops were at fault, $6.5 million dollars at fault, and yet the cops themselves receive no penalty at all.

Why not garnish $500 bucks a week of their wages, for each cop? Nope. Do they take it out of the police retirement fund? Nope. Out of their highwayman theft fund (civil forfeiture)? Nope. The cops themselves and the cop system in town - pay nothing. The taxpayers pay. And no one who's at fault gets the very slightest wrist slap. Because cop.

This ought to come out of the cops' pockets that are involved. They ought to have to forfeit a significant part of their pay for the rest of their lives, even though that won't make a dent. The cops as a group ought to have to pay, and that won't happen either. They skip out scotfree and we pay for their #ups. When did that become acceptable?

Actually if you check some of the sources on the settlement each officer is paying $5,000 to the family... A tiny pittance but it is something.

TonyBravada

Actually if you check some of the sources on the settlement each officer is paying $5,000 to the family... A tiny pittance but it is something.

A couple of thousand a month for the rest of their lives would be a nice start.

I'm also just fine on stocks. Like the sort they lock you in, and the "civilians" get to hit you with tomatoes, with a sign over your head that says "I am an incompetent dumbass, and I'm still roaming the streets with a gun, and the police union thinks I am just fine that way"

They shot him because he watered his lawn, or because his weird-looking hose nozzle looked like a gun? WHICH?

Kromlech
They shot him because he watered his lawn, or because his weird-looking hose nozzle looked like a gun? WHICH?

Does it matter which? They were covertly observing him for quite some time. If they can't figure out what he's doing, then maybe they shouldn't be cops? How difficult is it to use some binoculars and look at the object? Or perhaps just walk up to him and ask what's going on.

Why focus on creating an adrenaline rush fueled takedown?

Domo1
reply to post by diggindirt

 

Drunk and high aren't against the law if you are in your own yard minding your own business as this man was.

This is starting to irritate me. He was not in his own yard. He was visiting an apartment complex and walking around/slumped over with a hose attachment (and no hose).

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.

I am so tired of these BS thread titles 'Someone killed for _____' where the _______ is some mundane activity to elicit an emotional response from the reader. 'Man arrested for dancing', 'Man beaten for jaywalking' etc. The guy wasn't shot for watering his lawn. He wasn't watering anything. He was shot because the cops mistook a hose attachment for a gun.

I think the police were absolute morons with the way they handled the situation, but ATS just makes me cringe.

I'm not doubting the cops screwed up, but I would sure like to see a video before I start pretending I know what actually happened.

So, he was visiting a friend, sitting on the steps in front of the friend's place with his arms at his side according to the autopsy report. The cops arrived and after watching him for 15 minutes couldn't determine whether he had a weapon.
Those cops aren't morons---they are criminals. I would love to see this case presented to a grand jury for criminal charges.
I think the jury got the facts without a video and made a fine decision.

reply to post by minusinfinity


Are you kidding?

Your post suggests that the fact he'd had a smoke, taken some valium and had a drink somehow mitigates being shot to death by police while watering your garden.

Are you a LEO by any chance?

Double post deleted

a pistol grip hose nozzle is usually green or orange, that i've seen. or maybe an old brass one.

never see that color on a real fire arm.

cops were way out of line.

reply to post by diggindirt

So, he was visiting a friend, sitting on the steps in front of the friend's place with his arms at his side according to the autopsy report. The cops arrived and after watching him for 15 minutes couldn't determine whether he had a weapon.

The Zerby case began in December 2010 when Ortiz and Shurtleff responded to a 911 call reporting a man with a "small six-shooter" in an Ocean Boulevard courtyard.

Within eight minutes of the call, Zerby was dead.

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.

I'm completely in favor of having these cops tried again, but you argue with me because you only read that I think the cops are innocent (and I don't). This is my whole point. You believe the narrative automatically if it supports your position. No critical thought. The guy was watering his lawn. I bring up that he wasn't, and suddenly I'm pro killing the guy.