Man seen with a hose nozzle, shot without warning by police

[Timjoebillybob]

No, it isn't.

I'll take your word on that since you do have experience in the field. But don't most LEOs tell a person to drop the weapon before it's pointed at them? If they have time of course. Isn't that trained?

I'm not talking about a guy jumps up and points a handgun or draws a knife and starts running at them. Yes I agree shoot no warnings, there is no time. But approaching a person with a weapon not at ready I thought they were supposed to give commands, but I may be wrong, I know very little of LEO training.

To have cops, you must give them the benefit of the doubt. It's a simple as that. They are forced to make difficult judgments in split seconds, sometimes when their lives or another's is on the line.

Why didn't they say drop the gun before the backup arrived? Because backup hadn't arrived. Then, if the guy pointed the gun shaped object, there was no time to say drop the gun. Which of you would tell someone to drop it before shooting them if you honestly thought they were about to shoot you?

Unless I hear different evidence, this is a tragedy for sure, but not one that is the cops' fault.

I'd say you have to give LEO the same as you would a normal non-LEO citizen.

And I would say they had backup, there were two of them and one of him. Better odds than I expect to happen to me.

For myself I wouldn't be responding to a call like that since I'm not LEO But in a case of two against one, and they have the jump on him, I'd draw point and yell. Before he had a chance to bring it up. Not sneak around and call in the choppa.

Add in the fact that there was an pig(yes I used the term, and no I don't mean Pride, Integrity, Guts, I mean pig and this is the first time on this forum I've ever used that term. I think probably the first time in 15-20 or more years), I believe it was in L.A. that posted on his facebook page that he craved to put an OCer down on the ground and if they twitched shoot them in the back. Yes a slight exaggeration but not much of one...

Then add in what I've heard from officers in CA, albiet a small but vocal minority. But those are the ones that I've seen post or heard. And the non LEOs from the L.A. area. Well.....

Watch this video and maybe some can understand what the officers saw...

YouTube - Woman Threatens Cops with Cell Phone

In this video I wouldn't of faulted the officers at all. But this video and and what is being discussed is pretty much apples and oranges. In the video the police get into a car chase and the person jumps out with something in their hands, pointing it at them. Reasonable to believe it's a gun and they are going to shoot.

Responding to a possible man with a gun sitting on a porch, not so much. I'll take their word that he raised it up and even that it was pointing at them. But it could of been he was showing it to them. IMO rather than form a perimeter for a person peaceable sitting on a porch with a possible firearm. They should of had one of the responding officer sit back and take aim and the other have a firearm at ready at least and yell for the person to drop it. That is at the most.

Frank if you would answer I'm curious. In a similar situation involving a non-LEO shooter what would you do as an Officer? For instance let's say I'm walking down the street and this person points a hose nozzle at me while he's sitting on his porch, I draw and shoot. What am I going to be facing? Would you give me the same benefit of a doubt as you would give these officers? Let's just say (not true but let's assume ) I'm a normal honest citizen with nothing more than a parking ticket on my record.
Are you just going to take it as a fact that he pointed it at me and I had reasonable belief that I was threatened enough to shoot and call it a day? Or am I going to be taking a ride?

I'm not trying to put you on the spot here. From your postings and such I think you are a very good LEO. And one heck of a person and I would be glad to buy you a beer or a coffee. But I am interested in your answer and also in making you think.

 

[Denny347]

Just food for thought. You do realize that if I have my gun pointed at a person with their gun down at their side, they will be able to shoot at me before I am able to react. We did this scenereo with several people during our combatives instructors class. In EVERY instance, reaction is slower than action. I was astounded because I had always believed that if I had my handgun pointed at a person with a gun down at their side that I would always react faster when the opposite is true. I am not advocating shooting everyone that has a gun at their side but it should figure into SOME scenereos and how I should react.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Talked to an LPD office this morning at the coffee shop and he brought up an valid point which is: what if the decedent did not allow the officers time to identify themselves by say reacting in the way he did?

Given what we know at this point (which is not much) that fact may make all the difference in the world. I am inclined to wait and see however I believe this tragic case makes a life lesson for all of INGO and and the horrific consequences involved.

 

[fnpfan]

Drunk, hanging out outside someone else's house at night... and he raised a small, pistol-gripped object up and aimed like it was a gun. At police officers.

Does the family have a right to be angry? Maybe. None of them were there, so they don't really know what actually happened.

Had I been walking down that street and he pointed that thing at me, would I have likely thought he was trying to shoot me? Probably. And I probably would have responded the same way the officers did.

This situation sucks, but you have to look at it from the other side before passing judgment.

i think the water comming out of the end of his "gun" would have been a red flag for me.

 

[jeremy]

jeremy, do you mean by the UCMJ or by . . . extrajudiciary rules? Sorry, not tracking.

Take your pick Kirk...
Under UCMJ, the best that could be hoped for is hard labor. The other end is execution.
Extrajudiciary... That can be a lot more tricky depending on Treaties and agreements with the Host Country that the inccident was involved in...

The incident is beyond tragic. I belive this manifests the hyperaggression that police are being taught. This is a training problem.

Guy sitting on the stairs with a possible gun?

A drunk guy who was sitting on his buddy's steps playing with a water hose nozzle...

Yep I see how this could be a threat...


New development this morning...

Family of slain Long Beach man outraged over police shooting, plans to file suit [Updated] | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times

 

[Pocketman]

Talked to an LPD office this morning at the coffee shop and he brought up an valid point which is: what if the decedent did not allow the officers time to identify themselves by say reacting in the way he did?

Given what we know at this point (which is not much) that fact may make all the difference in the world. I am inclined to wait and see however I believe this tragic case makes a life lesson for all of INGO and and the horrific consequences involved.

The LPD officer has a valid point, one which I envisioned myself. However, reports I read yesterday said the officers had been on the scene 10 minutes before the shooting. Los Angeles Times article: "The officers had a position of cover and were observing the suspect while other officers were en route," said Sgt. Dina Zapalski, a spokeswoman for the Long Beach Police Department.

Not wanting to second guess those on the scene, but this does not add up IMO. A position of cover, waiting for backup. No verbal exchange. I'm guessing the officers were in plain sight, so the officers may have assumed the decedent knew the police were there?

Another one of those wait and see situations. We need to let the system take its course.

 

[clgustaveson]

In these situations I tend err on the side of the law enforcement officers. These men and women are given the tools to react to situation like this and are expected to make decisions in split seconds.

I do find it a bit odd; however, if they were on the scene for over 10 minutes and no attempt was made to communicate with the subject. If this is truly the case, it would sound as if the officers sat silent to help determine what exactly the subject had and when they "heard gun noises" they reacted as they should. I have been in similar situations, sitting under cover listening waiting for a sign that danger was an actual threat, as soon as I felt it was my reaction was much different.

If they were on scene for 10 minutes then I think the mistake made was sitting and waiting. When you do this you open yourself up for absurd hypothesi that just cause you to react, and possibly in ways that arre unwarranted. IF your listening for gun sounds then something that may normally not be, might sound as such.

Hindsight bias is also a problem on our part, we say the man had a hose nosle because we know this. We can say we would react a different way but that is because our perception of the situation is painted by that knowledge. It is also very dificult to remove that knowledge when reviewing the situation.

Lastly, cognitive dissonance can play a role in post situation justification. A man died, there is a lot of emotional stimulation that takes place and these police officers are more likely to internally justify the death than to worry about external reasons. If the death was somewhat sparatic and it was dificult to justify, I would suggest every little sound and noise would cognitively be played as potential justification for the mental stability. I think it is far more likely they are justifying their actions for themselves rather than for some "survival mode".

Bottom line, I feel like it was reasonable result to the situation but it could have been handled differently if time weren't allowed to become such a large metric.

 

[.40caltrucker]

i think the water comming out of the end of his "gun" would have been a red flag for me.

It's hard to get water to come out a hose nozzle when there isn't a hose hooked to it.

 

[yotewacker]

A cop is not required to say anything before he shoots. If he does, it's a courtesy.

 

[rambone]

Family of slain Long Beach man outraged over police shooting, plans to file suit [Updated] | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times

The police department, which has a history of frequent officer-involved shootings, had no new information Tuesday morning.

Well, well, well.

 

[machete]

In these situations I tend err on the side of the law enforcement officers.

i hear this sort of logic a little too much so im going to set the record straight

---erring--- is saying that 150 divided by 45 = 33.3333 instead of 3.3333333,,,forgetting to move the decimal point...

when you say denver is in maine or that the capitol of indiana is richmond that aint an error or a doubt,,,thats just wrong... just cause someone says something does not automatically make it credible or automatically add doubt to facts...

if your radio disappeared and you kid said that a magic unicorn flew in and took it away you wouldnt throw up your hands and say benefit of the doubt,,,no,,,the story has to make sense before the story can add doubt

so no,,,no side is entitled to the benefit of the doubt thats just an excuse for not thinking it through

in this case shooting a guy with a garden hose requires a really good explanation from the gov not ---erring on the side of--- or ---benefit of the doubt---

a good first rule of government is --- dont shoot guys with garden hoses

when the government does shoot guys with garden hoses the burden is on it to show how its justified...we cant ever let them off this requirement to show why it needed to shoot a guy with a garden hose...

a lot of us here carry guns,,,and we need to make sure that the standard is set WAYYYYYY WAYYYYYYY WAYYYYYYY higher than ---erring on the side of--- or ---benefit of the doubt---because were all at serious risk if the bar is that low

with a bar that low youve just erased the second amendment where the rubber hits the road,,,because one side gets to shoot another---AND--- get benefit of the doubt when they do it---AND---get to say ---YOU WERENT THERE--- as if not being there is a magical potion that washes away all criticsm

the PEOPLE will only hear ---cop shoots man with a gun--- on the news and let it go,,,and say you shouldnt have guns around cops.... that will be it,,,one dead gun owner and nothing anyone can do about it because the cop got the benefit of the doubt and we werent there... thats pretty scary if you ask me,,,i need a LOT more accountability from my government...

we need to make sure that the law gives the CITIZEN the benefit of the doubt and puts a very heavy burden of proof on the cops so that its a very very big deal when anyone especially a gun owner gets shot....

the burden of proof is always on the government to show it is right,,,not benefit of the doubt on the people to presume the government is right... when you mix up this way of doing things,,,youve just said sayonara to a free country...

 

[clgustaveson]

i hear this sort of logic a little too much so im going to set the record straight

---erring--- is saying that 150 divided by 45 = 33.3333 instead of 3.3333333,,,forgetting to move the decimal point...

when you say denver is in maine or that the capitol of indiana is richmond that aint an error or a doubt,,,thats just wrong... just cause someone says something does not automatically make it credible or automatically add doubt to facts...

Forgetting to move the decimal point is wrong. In fact it is just as wrong as saying that Denver is capitol of Maine. Those have nothing to do with the logic "you hate".

if your radio disappeared and you kid said that a magic unicorn flew in and took it away you wouldnt throw up your hands and say benefit of the doubt,,,no,,,the story has to make sense before the story can add doubt

so no,,,no side is entitled to the benefit of the doubt thats just an excuse for not thinking it through

Why is your radio dissappearing your kid's fault in the first place? This story has no semitry with the article or situation at all.

You sound like a rambling lunatic.

in this case shooting a guy with a garden hose requires a really good explanation from the gov not ---erring on the side of--- or ---benefit of the doubt---

a good first rule of government is --- dont shoot guys with garden hoses

You are operating with the knowledge that the item was a water hose, the officers were operating with the knowledge there was a drunk man trespassing with a gun...

Hindsight is 20/20 I cant stress enough the relevance of this particular bias. It is extremely dificult to remove this knowledge from your mind while reviewing the situation.

when the government does shoot guys with garden hoses the burden is on it to show how its justified...we cant ever let them off this requirement to show why it needed to shoot a guy with a garden hose...

a lot of us here carry guns,,,and we need to make sure that the standard is set WAYYYYYY WAYYYYYYYWAYYYYYYY higher than ---erring on the side of--- or ---benefit of the doubt---because were all at serious risk if the bar is that low

There doesn't even need to be a discussion of the bar at all. Proof is proof and bias is bias. Whether the man had a gun or not the officers reacted based on their perception of the situation, which was painted by the citizens call. The fault is truly on the citizen that called, why can that guy get away with thinking it's a gun but the police cant?

If I were in the same situation I would err on the side of safety. People can't just go around breaking laws acting like idiots. The man that was shot was breaking the law, I am not going to err on his side at all.

with a bar that low youve just erased the second amendment where the rubber hits the road,,,because one side gets to shoot another---AND--- get benefit of the doubt when they do it---AND---get to say ---YOU WERENT THERE--- as if not being there is a magical potion that washes away all criticsm

the PEOPLE will only hear ---cop shoots man with a gun--- on the news and let it go,,,and say you shouldnt have guns around cops.... that will be it,,,one dead gun owner and nothing anyone can do about it because the cop got the benefit of the doubt and we werent there... thats pretty scary if you ask me,,,i need a LOT more accountability from my government...

we need to make sure that the law gives the CITIZEN the benefit of the doubt and puts a very heavy burden of proof on the cops so that its a very very big deal when anyone especially a gun owner gets shot....

the burden of proof is always on the government to show it is right,,,not benefit of the doubt on the people to presume the government is right... when you mix up this way of doing things,,,youve just said sayonara to a free country...

No, there is no bar here. This man was trespassing, aparently with a deadly weapon. There are witnesses that he was trespassing, and there is evidently a member of the public that thought this was a gun. What more proof do you need?

I sure as hell am not going to approach the situation broad face when someone else even thinks it is a gun. And yes, I am going to be extremely cautious. My perception of sounds, and movements of that individual WILL be painted by the "fact" they have a gun.

This isn't a matter of right and wrong, its a matter of the LEOs reacting to a situation of someone breaking the law with a weapon. After they discover it wasn't a weapon, you better believe they felt pretty bad.

BUT how else should they have gone about it? There is almost no safe alternative. What if it had been a gun? This thread would be pointless.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The officers had a position of cover and were observing the suspect while other officers were en route," said Sgt. Dina Zapalski, a spokeswoman for the Long Beach Police Department.

As the officer said this morning, what if "cover" is not cover?

Say it's really concealment, like a decorative fence or some goofy apartment stuff, and the decedent twists around with the old IPSC triangle hold?

BUT how else should they have gone about it?

However, my original question still haunts me. Since your back there long enough to order Chinese food, why not announce your presence? Are you afraid that the guy will run off? Afraid he will barricade himself in the apartment?

Seems to me, and I am a nobody and never had to shoot anyone, that a bad conversation is better than a good gunfight.

 

[clgustaveson]

As the officer said this morning, what if "cover" is not cover?

Say it's really concealment, like a decorative fence or some goofy apartment stuff, and the decedent twists around with the old IPSC triangle hold?

However, my original question still haunts me. Since your back there long enough to order Chinese food, why not announce your presence? Are you afraid that the guy will run off? Afraid he will barricade himself in the apartment?

Seems to me, and I am a nobody and never had to shoot anyone, that a bad conversation is better than a good gunfight.

I think it's a valid point but there is a trespassing man with a gun. IMO announcing LE presence is a good way to escalate a non-threat into something bad for the people in the house.

 

[machete]

After they discover it wasn't a weapon, you better believe they felt pretty bad.

when the government kills someone for a garden hose the penalty is supposed to be a LOT higher than feeling bad....



i feel bad when i forget to call someone on their birthday...

What if it had been a gun?

is barbara eden around to turn a water hose into a gun????

 

[clgustaveson]

when the government kills someone for a garden hose the penalty is supposed to be a LOT higher than feeling bad....



i feel bad when i forget to call someone on their birthday...



is barbara eden around to turn a water hose into a gun????

So your saying that when the police respond to a call "man trespassing with a gun" they aren't supposed to treat the item as a gun?

You are just plumb dumb if you go into that situation without being extremely cautious.

It's not like the police responded to a call about a man walking down the street with a gun... this was a man that was violating someones rights that potentially had a gun.

YOU CANNOT place the same level of knowledge on the police officers involved in the situation. They were primed with the knowledge it was a gun.

Afterward you can sit back and laugh at the dumb cop for knowing it was a hose nosle but I wouldn't get close enough to find out if I feared it was a gun.

If you would, then have at it, I'd rather be alive.

 

[elaw555]

What jumps out at me the most in this article is the nearly paramilitary decision making process of the police with regards to sneaking up on him.

If visual contact was established the officers could easily have seen that he was not an "active shooter". Where was the need to send a force of officers sneaking up on him instead of having one ready while verbal contact is made. This isn't a Call of Duty video game.

As others have said and as has been seen in other jurisdictions, the mental change in police officers from lawmen to paramilitary is the issue behind the problem. I have no idea how to fix that though.

 

[machete]

So your saying that when the police respond to a call "man trespassing with a gun" they aren't supposed to treat the item as a gun?

arent police supposed to verify facts??? isnt that what jack webb always did??? isnt that what police are supposed to do first???

since when do police just take whetever someone tells them as gospel truth???

if that were the case why do they need breathalyzers??? they could just ask the guy if hes drunk and take his answer

lol

i can call in any neighbor for using a hedgeclipper and since it looks like a submachine gun and makes noise they get taken out by a fire team and i can buy their house when it goes on the market...

i can call in any landscaping crew as a terrorist cell... they got lots of hoses and hedgeclippers and weed whackers that look like flamethrowers plus some wear uniforms that look might make them invading armies

i got this other neighbor who mists her plants...thats just a gun with a drum mag...take her out too

 

[clgustaveson]

arent police supposed to verify facts??? isnt that what jack webb always did??? isnt that what police are supposed to do first???

since when do police just take whetever someone tells them as gospel truth???

if that were the case why do they need breathalyzers??? they could just ask the guy if hes drunk and take his answer

lol

Your analogies have no semitry... a stopped and surrendered drunk driver advising he is not drunk is not a viable leathal threat to the officer. Facts should be verified, but situations cannot be compromised while doing so.

i can call in any neighbor for using a hedgeclipper and since it looks like a submachine gun and makes noise they get taken out by a fire team and i can buy their house when it goes on the market...

i can call in any landscaping crew as a terrorist cell... they got lots of hoses and hedgeclippers and weed whackers that look like flamethrowers plus some wear uniforms that look might make them invading armies

i got this other neighbor who mists her plants...thats just a gun with a drum mag...take her out too

You're right, you can. The difference between those scenarios and this one is that the man was trespassing with alleged gun. There is a sharp difference between a man walking around with an AK47 (this is legal) and entering someone elses property with an AK47.

Clearly the legal violation was not the weapon, the metric that the man was unwelcomed on someone elses property with a weapon makes the situation something entirely different.

In this situation the police should have JUST AS MUCH freedom as private citizen. We, as well as, the police should procede with extreme caution and use force when resisting force is percevied.

I would not risk my life to prove the person "has" a gun, my perception of them having one is enough for me to treat them as they do. If the person acts like they have a gun, I will also treat them as they do.

There is no reason whatsoever for an officer to behave as though someone doesn't have a gun, when they are told they do and the person acts as if they do. It is not illegal for someone to have a gun.

The cry of those calling foul sounds oddly similar to the BSU case and the drunken charger.

If the police cannot trust the dispatch then where are we left?

 

[rambone]

I think it's a valid point but there is a trespassing man with a gun. IMO announcing LE presence is a good way to escalate a non-threat into something bad for the people in the house.

Without ever speaking to the homeowners, all we have is a report that somebody thinks that there is a trespasser. In this case, they thought wrong. The cops acted way too presumptively on a bunch of loose guesses from the nitwit next-door.

What jumps out at me the most in this article is the nearly paramilitary decision making process of the police with regards to sneaking up on him.

They just asked themselves, "What would Jack Bauer do?"