Man with a gun call ends tragically?

The standard that a jury would have to apply would be the same for an officer as for a citizen.

Nevada carrier said:

I agree with what you are saying, but what stands out to me is that our justice system doesn't apply the same standards to citizens that they apply to police officers.

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.

Click to expand...

He's also missing the point that a much stricter standard is supposed to be applied to LEO's. That is even recognized in Washington's laws, although like you point out the reality of this is sadly not true.

eye95 said:

The standard that a jury would have to apply would be the same for an officer as for a citizen.

Click to expand...

That is incorrect. The standards have a wide variation and the cop has (too much) protection.

I see NavyLT has posted specifics so will leave it at this.

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.

COMMENT REMOVED BY MODERATOR: No LEO bashing.

This guy was murdered, plain and simple.

if the report that the man extended his arm with the thing that "resembled a gun" in his hand towards the cops, it sounds like suicide by police...

And the only reason they get away with having police constitutionally is they are supposed to be held to a higher standard. It constantly amazes me how people don't get that.....LOL.

In the article I read, with the nozzle they showed, if it was held like a gun and pointed at the cops, the cops made the right move. That is several "if"s but this sounds and looks more like either suicide by cop or death by stupidity to me. Anyone that thinks that pointing ANYTHING that even comes close to looking gun like in a gun like grip is asking to be shot by whoever they are pointing the object at be it a cop or me.

NavyLT said:

And I respectfully beg to differ with you. Police can carry guns where we can't. The government gives them special privileges because of their special training and special job choice. The government should hold them to a higher standard.

Let's say, for instance, it was me that shot the guy on the porch because he was holding a water nozzle. If I can convince a jury that I thought I saw it was a gun, because I have no training in weapons recognition, because I have no training in recognizing a dangerous situation, then the shooting should be ruled as justified.

NOW - should a cop be able to use that same reasoning?!? HELL NO. WHY? Because the government trusts them with guns in places that it does not trust me BECAUSE OF THEIR SPECIAL TRAINING! Their privileges that they get extended to them because of their special training also means that their special training should cause them to have more responsibility as well.

+1000

Police officers should NOT be justified in every self-defense shooting that I might be justified in making because the damn government says that police officers are safer to carry guns in schools, in bars, in other states that I am because they are specially trained to not shoot when they ain't supposed to.


This I agree with, EXCEPT, what is determined to be reasonable belief by a "highly trained" police officer should be different that what would be expected to be reasonably believed by Joe Schmoe non-cop.

Additionally, in law, cops generally have more justifications available to them for shooting someone than Joe Schmoe Citizen does. Troy Meade is a prime example. Ruled justified, but not in self-defense by the jury.

Click to expand...

Ditto +1000

There are many different factors that feed into a righteous kill. Time of day, lighting, distance, background information provided to the officer, what is being presented as a weapon or what could be construed as a weapon, and the actions of the person who got shot.

If the a dispatch comes out that a man is on the porch armed with a gun and you arrive on scene with that person pointing something that appears to be a gun, do you wait until he fires at you to respond in kind? Tactically speaking, that is wholly unsound.

Two major case laws determine police use of force. Tennessee versus Garner (1985) created the reasonable officer standard when it comes to using deadly force. An officer can employ deadly force to protect himself or an innocent party, or to seize a fleeing violent felon who is about to elude the police and who constitutes an ongoing threat to the public.

Graham versus Connor (1989) applied the reasonable officer standard to all uses of force, deadly and non deadly. The majority opinion wrote by Chief Justice Rehnquist stated that officers are often forced to make split second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving. Hindsight is 20/20 and what is known by the officer at the time is the criteria to used in judging the legality of the shooting or use of force.

If its a bad shoot, its a bad shoot. If there is evidence to suggest that the officers reasonably believed the the person was armed and was "armed" at their arrival, and then presented an object that could be believed to be a weapon, then its a good shoot.

As eye95 has stated, I will withhold my opinion until all the facts are presented correctly.

NavyLT said:

Guess we need a law that says that water nozzles must be florescent green with bright orange tips so the cops don't mistake them for guns.

Click to expand...

Guess we need a law requiring cops to get their eyesight checked twice a year and will wear eyeglasses at all times to correct that to 20/20 or better.

We need another law holding them fully culpable of negligence should it be a bad shoot and they weren't wearing their eyewear.

As for it being a bad shoot: Yes, it was a bad shoot. "Unarmed man killed by cops for holding water sprayer on his own porch."

That's bad. Very bad.

There is so much that went wrong, here, that I'm going to rip the Long Beach PD officers' actions apart. Hopefully, someone's listening so they can repair their training manuals. Quotes are from this article:

Zerby's sister, Eden Marie Biele, said officers made no attempt to talk to her 35-year-old brother or get his attention before shooting him to death.

"They didn't say 'Put your hands up' or 'Freeze' or anything," Biele told The Associated Press Monday. "He was killed in cold blood."

Click to expand...

Yet they certainly had time to confront the man:

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.

Click to expand...

It was 4:30 pm, 15 minutes before sunset. Civil twilight wasn't for another 42 minutes.

"He never knew there was a problem. Police snuck down the corridor and shot him," Biele said. "He was a drunk sitting on a stoop fumbling with a hose nozzle."

Click to expand...

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."

Click to expand...

Have these police officers ever heard of binoculars? A quick look through a $15 pair of these puppies would have saved an innocent man's life, as would have simply contacting him.

I know a number of law enforcement officers, and they're all bright people. These knuckleheads, however, were either poorly trained, didn't follow their training, or simply sucked at using any common sense whatsoever. As a result, they not only killed a man, but they created a widow and an 8-year-old orphan.

They shot and killed an innocent man in cold blood without having taken any steps to either ascertain the identity of what he was holding, or making contact with him. I sincerely hope their next occupation is as a librarian in the state pen.

WARCHILD said:

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???

MAGIC BULLETS?

Click to expand...

Buck Shot?

mobeewan said:

Buck Shot?

Click to expand...

If they used 00 buck, and we can see 9 holes, that means there are 18 uncounted for. Logic would imply that we could find those missing holes in the perp/victim.

You know what bothers me is how some want to excuse the LEO, I want to put a twist on this would any of us not be in prison, if we shot a guy on his porch with a water nozzle, no matter what we thought he had?

Our country is Topsy turvy on this, the citizen needs way more leeway and the "authorities" much less, that is how it is supposed to be designed, just not carried out nowadays.

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

This is true; however, they have many more 'defenses' than are available to the citizen. That is my point, and fact. It is not that they have less; they have more.

Gunslinger said:

This is true; however, they have many more 'defenses' than are available to the citizen. That is my point, and fact. It is not that they have less; they have more.

Click to expand...

True. I was not addressing them as the defense that would be used in this case would be, "He was pointing something at me that looked like a gun. He was holding it like a gun. I thought it was a gun. I thought he would shoot me, so I shot to stop him from doing that." In such a defense, the standard that would be applied would be the same standard applied for any citizen: reasonable belief.

SVG, gunslinger, +1 for each of your comments.

I spent some time on this one over at Officer.com, and was floored at how unabashedly quick they were to crucify the guy on the porch while mindlessly exonerating their own. Only a couple of LEOs over there were honest enough to say, "yeah, we could have handled this better." The rest just circled the wagons.

I'm glad the family has a good lawyer, and I admire his stance that the main reason they're going forward with the lawsuit is to ensure changes happen within the force to prevent this sort of tragedy from ever happening again.

One comment that really riled me was something along the lines of "you don't know what it's like out there, we're risking out lives every day..." I immediately thought about how risk goes with the territory, not to mention the pay and benefits, and one of the responsibilities required for earning that pay and those benefits is to avoiding shooting innocent civilians.

Is it riskier to take the time to ascertain whether or not a suspect actually has a firearm vs a garden hose? Yes, it is. But that's part of the job description.

Circling the wagons when an LEO kills an innocent civilian, however, is not part of the job description.

quote; I spent some time on this one over at Officer.com





dont talk to the cops!

since9 said:

Circling the wagons when an LEO kills an innocent civilian, however, is not part of the job description.

Click to expand...

This is what is typical, I have tried to file complaints several times you should see how quickly they circle the wagons and start treating you like a criminal without even caring or knowing what your complaint is. Most the time out right refusing you the ability to file the complaint.

I was even told I'd be trespassed from public property and they will arrest me and that they were going to call ahead to city hall and if I went there they'd arrest me. :banghead::banghead:

The job of a police officer just isn't as dangerous as they like to portray it. And many times the danger and lives lost are because the officers put themselves in a bad situation.

eye95 said:

True. I was not addressing them as the defense that would be used in this case would be, "He was pointing something at me that looked like a gun. He was holding it like a gun. I thought it was a gun. I thought he would shoot me, so I shot to stop him from doing that." In such a defense, the standard that would be applied would be the same standard applied for any citizen: reasonable belief.

Click to expand...

Except the armed citizen wouldn't be able to use this defense if they approached a man on his own property with weapons drawn. In such a situation, the armed citizen would be an attacker and the man on the porch would be acting in self defense (If they think I have a gun, maybe they will go away!). The police should be held to a higher standard, if for no other reason, because they spend so much of their time on Other People's Property. They were the aggressor in this situation, and so the burden of proof should be much higher.