not sure what to say or make of this, would like to get more details.
LONG BEACH, Calif. -- Police responding to a man-with-a-gun call in an upscale Long Beach neighborhood shot and killed a 35-year-old man sitting on his porch.
Investigators say Douglas Zerby, whose name was released Monday, was shot to death at about 4:40 p.m. Sunday.
A Police Department news release says officers observed a man believed to be armed with a handgun and took cover. While waiting for backup officers, the department says an officer involved shooting occurred and Zerby was killed.
It's not known if a weapon was found.
The man's father Mark Zerby was enraged, confronting investigators and shouting, "You shot a kid. He's unarmed."
Neighbor Gilbert Salas told Fox Television that officers drove up and immediately began shooting. Witnesses say several shots were fired.
Police have refused comment since the sketchy Sunday night news release
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/12/13/325...#ixzz181aXDvfY
not sure what to say or make of this, would like to get more details.
Headline:Long Beach police say officer shoots, killes man
Proofreaders day off.
Need a followup story on this one.
A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.
I'd like more details as well.
I think the family is going to get a big check and the officers a "slap on the wrist".
Somehow "Oops" won't cover it. But the city will...
Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.
So far, it looks like the dead was holding a hose nozzle when he was abruptly terminated
Last edited by CenTex; 12-13-2010 at 08:00 PM.
The words of a tyrant: “I never entertain opposing opinions. I am always right.”
Socialism is just another dirty word for totalitarianism.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." -Patrick Henry
"Golfer loses balls during errant swing at celebrity event"
This is very sad!
It all comes down to training. Or lack of. I feel LEO in general are programed to think of officer safety as the most important thing. This and the fact that we citizens DONT protect ourselves any more. Has created a very dangerous atmosphere. One where innocent people will continue to be gunned down like dogs.
On fri my wife and I had lunch in Long Beach. I was still working so was not UOCing. Three LBPD came in to eat. I asked the three cops if they had received any training on UOC recently. One said yes maybe twice this year. Another said he would NOT recommend UOCing because when cops see a gun they ARE GOING TO DEAL WITH IT and if you make the slightest movement YOUR GOING TO GET SHOT! My wife and I could not believe our ears. Then on Sunday the LBPD guns down an UNARMED man on HIS OWN porch. Very sad. They heard gun and they WERE GOING TO DEAL WITH IT! He moved and THEY SHOT HIM. The cop on fri was telling the truth. Repeating what other officers say and feel.
When will more people wake up. The only way this will change is if we demand massive layoffs of this police state. AND are willing to protect ourselves. The last part is the most important. ITS OUR FAULT! We make others do what we are not willing to do.
Sorry to rant just very upset. In the end the cops will say the cops were in the right. We will never hear the true story one man dead no one will ever think about him agin.
It appears he was holding a WATER NOZZLE.
For another version of the story, check here.
I'm sorry, but bring to bear everything I learned through the gifted program, high school AP classes, college, and post-graduate studies, my conclusion is that:
CA GOOFS YET AGAIN.
Seriously, folks, their agenda no longer has anything to do with 2A rights of self-protection, but rather, CA law rights towards being re-elected, so as to perpetuate their income as well as a retirement income should they hang on long enough to grab onto it.
The underlying, yet overriding issue is that the system of government is at odds with the will of the people.
God. Where are the Mamas and the Poppas when you need them?
OMG! OH YEAH (follow the links)
OCDO, CA LEO, and whoever else is listening, please listen up:
1. CA LEOs are doing the best they can given the rather diverse, and often adverse environments in which they're operating.
2. CA policies towards disarming everyone FAIL as they FAIL to realize 95% of all citizens are law-abiding, while just 5% are law-breaking.
Ok, so let's follow CA logic and strip the 95% of law-abiding citizens of defending themselves in favor of the 5% of those criminals who would take advantage of the rest of us...
Yeah. Case closed. Anyone with any funds in excess of $1 million, please pound sand at the base of Yosemite's Half Dome.
I've been there. A very peaceful place.
As for CA, may they rediscover the rights of Americans. I'd prefer they not have to do so through mankind's expulsory orifices. But...
Has anyone noticed in the video????
The cops claim 6 rounds from a handgun and 2 rounds from a shotgun..
Why then can you clearly see 9 bullet strikes in the wood rails on the porch???
Sorry, won't let me post pic of bullet strikes.
Last edited by WARCHILD; 12-14-2010 at 04:31 AM.
I wish I could say I'm shocked this happened...
An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/
*The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.
OK, so he POINTED this knozzle at the cops. While that may seem less than threatening due to the nature of the object itself, it at least sets this away from mere assassination. The mindset of police training is, that if you point ANYTHING at the cops OR the general public, they may shoot. The object doesn't matter; It's the action. Point a knife, and you'll get shot; point a pipe and you'll get shot.
Several years ago, just some feet away from where I was taken to the asphalt during my slung rifle hike, a mentally different man about 60 years old, well dressed and clean, was standing on the corner at the offramp pointing his cane at cars. I was just caught up in the center of this while I was waiting for the light, and because the cops arrived with lights and sirens. The one cop behind me pulled over and drew a shotgun through his open door, and was drawing bead on the crazy guys every move. It was clearly a cane, but I could tell that the cop was ready to fire regardless. Fortunately for the crazy man, that didn't happen, but open carry or no, don't point anything...anything!
I'm holding off judgment on this.
After reading the thread, my inclination was to think the cops acted precipitously. After reading the news accounts which offer more detail, specifically that neighbors said he was handling a small revolver, that he was drunk, and that he pointed the presumed weapon at one of the officers, I was less convinced that the police reacted badly. Reading more lead to conflicting reports that the police pulled up and started firing and that the took positions of cover and observed the man, waiting for backup.
The first possibility lends credence to the charge that he pointed the presumed gun at one of them. The second makes me wonder why they did not take the opportunity to tell him to drop the gun.
I'll wait for details to be firmed up on this one. I the cops arrive and a drunk immediately points what they reasonably believe to be a gun at them, they are correct to drop him. If they had any time to give him instructions, they should do so before opening fire.
I apply the same standard of self-defense to officer that I would apply to any citizen--or myself. If someone is pointing a gun at me (or if I reasonably believe that he is), I am going to shoot. Period.
The stupidest thing I have ever seen on TV is two bad guys pointing guns at each other at point-blank range, yelling, "Drop it!" and "No, you drop it!!" What's with that BS? First one who fires wins. I'm firing while he attempts to get the word "drop" out. He'll be saying "it" from the ground.
When cops or citizens find themselves with a gun (or what they reasonably believe is a gun) pointed at them, it is not unreasonable that they should fire.
Like I said, though, as far as I am concerned, the jury's out on this one. Heck, the jury still hasn't heard everything yet.
When something might be a gun is justification for an officer to shoot, a citizen in the officers shoes will almost certainly find themselves with much more of a burden to prove they were in fear for their life. Where an Officer may reasonably believe that what they were seeing could have been a gun, a citizen my not be held to the same standard of reason that an officer would.
Last edited by Nevada carrier; 12-14-2010 at 09:11 AM.
The standard that a jury would have to apply would be the same for an officer as for a citizen.
I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.
U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)
Standard for a citizen:
For a police officer:RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.
Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.
It is very clear the standards are different. The same is true in most other states. It is much easier for an officer to justify killing someone than it is for a citizen. Want a real life example?RCW 9A.16.040
Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding.
(1) Homicide or the use of deadly force is justifiable in the following cases:
(a) When a public officer is acting in obedience to the judgment of a competent court; or
(b) When necessarily used by a peace officer to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process, mandate, or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty.
(c) When necessarily used by a peace officer or person acting under the officer's command and in the officer's aid:
(i) To arrest or apprehend a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed, has attempted to commit, is committing, or is attempting to commit a felony;
(ii) To prevent the escape of a person from a federal or state correctional facility or in retaking a person who escapes from such a facility; or
(iii) To prevent the escape of a person from a county or city jail or holding facility if the person has been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a felony; or
(iv) To lawfully suppress a riot if the actor or another participant is armed with a deadly weapon.
(2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1)(c) of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of any crime, the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others. Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a "threat of serious physical harm" are the following:
(a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or
(b) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm.
Under these circumstances deadly force may also be used if necessary to prevent escape from the officer, where, if feasible, some warning is given.
(3) A public officer or peace officer shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such act is justifiable pursuant to this section.
Let me be absolutely clear as context was not considered:
If it comes before a jury that someone felt his life was in danger because of a "gun" being pointed at him and he fired on that person, claiming self-defense, the standard of justification would be the same for both LEO and non-LEO alike: did he reasonably believe that he was facing deadly force?
It just amazes me how some here would demand the above standard for an OCer involved in a shooting, but expect a higher hurdle for the LEO to justify his actions. I am in no way saying that LEOs do not have other justifications under the law. I am saying that they do not have fewer justifications or a lesser ability to justify their actions--as some here seem to be implying.
My point was (and still is) solely that LEOs may use the same justifications available to non-LEOs use when defending themselves from criminal charges due to a shooting.
Last edited by eye95; 12-14-2010 at 03:12 PM.
COMMENT REMOVED BY MODERATOR: No LEO bashing.
This guy was murdered, plain and simple.