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

[clgustaveson]

On a scale of ugly...it's a Hi-Point.

Yeah! A Hi- Point looks as close to a gun as that does.

 

[rambone]

What if the neighbor saw the "supposed" trespasser in his neighbor's yard, who was "supposedly" armed, picked up a gun and went over and shot him? Is the mere perception of seeing an armed person enough cause to draw on them?

 

[dross]

What if the neighbor saw the "supposed" trespasser in his neighbor's yard, who was "supposedly" armed, picked up a gun and went over and shot him? Is the mere perception of seeing an armed person enough cause to draw on them?

What if the neighbor saw a "supposed" trespasser and went over to talk to him, and the guy used a two-handed grip to raise and point an object at the neighbor that looked like a gun? So the neighbor draws his own gun and shoots the guy.

I'd still call it self-defense.

 

[rambone]

What if the neighbor saw a "supposed" trespasser and went over to talk to him, and the guy used a two-handed grip to raise and point an object at the neighbor that looked like a gun? So the neighbor draws his own gun and shoots the guy.

I'd still call it self-defense.

If that part is true -- then do I agree. It just seems so weird. Was he at an IPSC match earlier? Who would do that? Did they really hear "gun like noises" from him, or is that just a convenient addition to the story after the fact? We'll never know, unfortunately. The only thing left to debate is if it is practical for police to hide for 5-10 minutes before announcing their presence. That technique clearly leaves room for error.

 

[machete]

That picture is of the actual hose nozzle... now here is a tiny six shooter:

Now, you can judge the situation how you want to but I think with a concealing two handed pistol grip it is likely even you would think it was a gun when handled as a gun would be handled.

that looks nothing like a gun,,,and it looks really small,,,why isnt there a quarter for scale???

 

[dross]

If that part is true -- then do I agree. It just seems so weird. Was he at an IPSC match earlier? Who would do that? Did they really hear "gun like noises" from him, or is that just a convenient addition to the story after the fact? We'll never know, unfortunately. The only thing left to debate is if it is practical for police to hide for 5-10 minutes before announcing their presence. That technique clearly leaves room for error.

That's why I think we have to wait and see what comes out of this. If the only witnesses were the cops, we have to believe them.

Just because they sometimes lie, it's wrong to assume they do without justification. I think we must extend this benefit of the doubt to them.

This is why I feel justified in being so hard on them when they clearly do wrong. You can't justify coming down hard on them when they do wrong, and then not support them when there is no evidence they did wrong, only suspicion.

As to waiting the ten minutes, who knows what that was about. That sounds like a training issue, and I don't know enough to know whether that was a good idea or not.

 

[rambone]

As to waiting the ten minutes, who knows what that was about. That sounds like a training issue, and I don't know enough to know whether that was a good idea or not.

Yeah, I think there were several training issues involved here. Imagine if cops deployed a helicopter to one of INGO's frequent MWAG calls. The word-of-the-day with this this situation is overkill.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

As to waiting the ten minutes, who knows what that was about. That sounds like a training issue, and I don't know enough to know whether that was a good idea or not.

There are a lot of layers to this onion, but the problem in this matter is in the training, not in any violation of the criminal law here.

 

[machete]

HAHA whats it called godfreys law? Nobody was comparing anyone to hitler or a Nazi, in fact I was doing quite the opposite.

 

[finity]

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...

Yep.

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

There. IFIFY.

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?

Because the police are the “trained professionals” & have the state-backed power of life & death. Even people just like you will give the police the BOD. Very rarely does the benefit of the doubt AUTOMATICALLY go to the non-LEO. Most often the prosecutor will send a questionable shoot to a jury – after the requisite arrest, incarceration, bail, attorneys fees, etc.

The system is designed to be on the side of the police. Aided & abetted by people like you.

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,

That’s true but the last I heard the penalty for trespassing or public intoxication wasn’t the death penalty. Don’t try to act like the police can do whatever they want & justify it by stating that “well, he was a criminal so he deserved whatever he got”. The 8A says otherwise…unless you don’t happen to agree with that particular Amendment.

I am not going to err on his side at all.

Great. Just what we need. Another LEO wanna-be who holds even the smallest violator in contempt.

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?

Way more proof than an untrained member of the public in a highly anti-gun state saying that they think they have a “six-shooter thingy”. But that’s just me.

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.

So, you’ll be a cop with a “shoot first & ask questions later” mindset?

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.

There were several safer alternatives offered right here on this forum by fairly untrained non-LEO’s. Just because the LEO’s failed to think of them doesn’t mean they didn’t exist. Poor training? Maybe. Poor judgment? Yes.

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.

There you go with that “shoot first…” mentality.

Announcing LE presence is a good way to try to keep a “non-threat” from turning into “someone dead for no reason at all”.

Trespassing is a misdemeanor. It doesn’t make any difference if the trespasser has a gun or another weapon if they aren’t threatening anybody with it. Approaching with guns drawn & not even attempting to communicate with the “trespasser” was just irresponsible.

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.

& neither is a guy just standing/sitting on a porch even if they have a gun until a threat of the use of the gun is communicated. Until then attempting to talk to the guy is the correct thing to do.

You think they don’t? You need to look out your window into the real world sometime. How many times has a LEO been convicted of a crime when a non-LEO would have easily been convicted of the same crime under similar circumstances? Rarely.

Do you have a legal authority to shoot someone who is fleeing just because you THINK they MIGHT be a danger to you or someone else? No. A cop does by law, though.

Like I said, the system bends over backwards to accommodate & give the BOD to the police.

I’ve said this before: I don’t want to see anybody dead or injured but I would much rather see 10 cops dead at the hands of BG’s than 1 innocent person killed at the hands of overzealous cops. The cops volunteered to be in that situation. The innocent guy didn’t. The cops are backed by the power & authority of the state. The innocent guy is completely on his own. The system will believe the cops over the innocent guy almost every time (if he happens to be lucky enough to live) without some pretty overwhelming evidence.

If a cop dies because he’s being cautious enough to be sure the guy needs shot before he mistakenly kills an innocent person then so be it. If they don’t like the requirements then quit. We expect our soldiers to put their lives on the line everyday to protect innocent people. Sometimes they get killed because they have to do what they have to do. If troop safety was the biggest concern we would NEVER win a battle.

Both cops & soldiers are representatives of the states power over its citizens. Once they put their safety as the overarching priority over everything else it’s very easy to justify ANY action as necessary for “officer safety”. We see it all the time.

If you make the choice to be a drunk in public with a hose nozzle, you live or die with the end result.

Really? You really think it’s reasonable for a person to be killed for being “drunk in public with a hose nozzle” & it doesn’t AT LEAST make you raise an eyebrow?

we need personal responsbility in our actions, and this one is the falls on the head of the perp. He wants to play with guns in public and scare people then what does he expect. dont drink and you will go farther in life

No. He wanted to play with a garden hose nozzle in public. The “public” got scared for no reason & now the guy is dead. The police didn’t try to investigate.

He walked there drunk. He didn't just magically appear on his friends porch. What did he do between the bar and porch? Obviously he got the attention of a few people. like I said I know the area WELL.

Likely he had already broken laws, like public intoxication and stealing the damn hose nozzle. If not, why did he carry a pistol like hose nozzle to and from the bar, in Long Beach noless? Do you really beleive he carried it and owned it?

So what? Walking in public after drinking is not grounds for the death penalty. Stealing a garden hose nozzle is not grounds for the death penalty. Who cares why he was walking around with it & playing with it?

If I was carrying around a gun shaped lighter it doesn’t mean the cops can just sneak up on me & shoot me without saying a word. And if I’m drunk it doesn’t make it any more justifiable. I don’t care how many non-gun people I happen to scare (you know, the ones who describe a “revolver” as “a six shooter kind – I think” ). If I’m not actually threatening them the police don’t have the required probable cause to think that I am an imminent threat to anybody to justify use of deadly force.

You WANT it to be "man shot while sitting on a porch and minding his own business".

It WAS that. The guy was sitting on someone’s porch (his friend’s, not just some random strangers) minding his own business playing with a hose nozzle…until some idiot got involved & called the cops because he was scared of a guy sitting on a porch playing with a hose nozzle. Then the police didn’t have the common sense to verify that the guy was, in fact, a threat to ANYBODY instead of some guy just sitting on a porch playing with a hose nozzle. All of this because of the unreasonable fear of “guns” & putting officer safety as more important than anything, even the lives of potentially innocent victims.

Oh yeah. I forgot. He was drunk. That justifies everything.

Would just like to point out that the police are not required to give any verbal commands to a person who is suspected to have a weapon before they shoot.

Most agencies have a policy that states "Verbal commands are encouraged when, possible to do so without endangering the public or other officers." However, they are not required before deadly force is used.

Try this:

IC 35-41-3-3
Use of force relating to arrest or escape
Sec. 3. (a) A person other than a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force against another person to effect an arrest or prevent the other person's escape if:
(1) a felony has been committed; and
(2) there is probable cause to believe the other person committed that felony.
However, such a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under section 2 of this chapter.
(b) A law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force if the officer reasonably believes that the force is necessary to effect a lawful arrest. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that that deadly force is necessary:
(A) to prevent the commission of a forcible felony; or
(B) to effect an arrest of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.

Please note section 3(b)(2).

The police are required by law to give a warning before using deadly force. The IC unfortunately does use the weasel words “if feasible” but I’m fairly sure that the law isn’t intended to be just a suggestion. I think it’s a good assumption that the law is a requirement but includes the common sense to allow an exemption in extreme/rare circumstances.

Just because a department flouts the law & doesn’t require its officers to follow the law every time doesn’t mean the law isn’t the law.

They did make a decision... probably VERY rapidly.

I’m not sure what your definition of the word “rapidly” is (especially the “very” kind) but if they were on the scene for several minutes (up to 10 minutes) then I wouldn’t consider that a “very rapid” decision.

 

[clgustaveson]

Yep.



There. IFIFY.




Because the police are the “trained professionals” & have the state-backed power of life & death. Even people just like you will give the police the BOD. Very rarely does the benefit of the doubt AUTOMATICALLY go to the non-LEO. Most often the prosecutor will send a questionable shoot to a jury – after the requisite arrest, incarceration, bail, attorneys fees, etc.

The system is designed to be on the side of the police. Aided & abetted by people like you.



That’s true but the last I heard the penalty for trespassing or public intoxication wasn’t the death penalty. Don’t try to act like the police can do whatever they want & justify it by stating that “well, he was a criminal so he deserved whatever he got”. The 8A says otherwise…unless you don’t happen to agree with that particular Amendment.



Great. Just what we need. Another LEO wanna-be who holds even the smallest violator in contempt.



Way more proof than an untrained member of the public in a highly anti-gun state saying that they think they have a “six-shooter thingy”. But that’s just me.



So, you’ll be a cop with a “shoot first & ask questions later” mindset?



There were several safer alternatives offered right here on this forum by fairly untrained non-LEO’s. Just because the LEO’s failed to think of them doesn’t mean they didn’t exist. Poor training? Maybe. Poor judgment? Yes.




There you go with that “shoot first…” mentality.

Announcing LE presence is a good way to try to keep a “non-threat” from turning into “someone dead for no reason at all”.

Trespassing is a misdemeanor. It doesn’t make any difference if the trespasser has a gun or another weapon if they aren’t threatening anybody with it. Approaching with guns drawn & not even attempting to communicate with the “trespasser” was just irresponsible.



& neither is a guy just standing/sitting on a porch even if they have a gun until a threat of the use of the gun is communicated. Until then attempting to talk to the guy is the correct thing to do.




You think they don’t? You need to look out your window into the real world sometime. How many times has a LEO been convicted of a crime when a non-LEO would have easily been convicted of the same crime under similar circumstances? Rarely.

Do you have a legal authority to shoot someone who is fleeing just because you THINK they MIGHT be a danger to you or someone else? No. A cop does by law, though.

Like I said, the system bends over backwards to accommodate & give the BOD to the police.

I’ve said this before: I don’t want to see anybody dead or injured but I would much rather see 10 cops dead at the hands of BG’s than 1 innocent person killed at the hands of overzealous cops. The cops volunteered to be in that situation. The innocent guy didn’t. The cops are backed by the power & authority of the state. The innocent guy is completely on his own. The system will believe the cops over the innocent guy almost every time (if he happens to be lucky enough to live) without some pretty overwhelming evidence.

If a cop dies because he’s being cautious enough to be sure the guy needs shot before he mistakenly kills an innocent person then so be it. If they don’t like the requirements then quit. We expect our soldiers to put their lives on the line everyday to protect innocent people. Sometimes they get killed because they have to do what they have to do. If troop safety was the biggest concern we would NEVER win a battle.

Both cops & soldiers are representatives of the states power over its citizens. Once they put their safety as the overarching priority over everything else it’s very easy to justify ANY action as necessary for “officer safety”. We see it all the time.




Really? You really think it’s reasonable for a person to be killed for being “drunk in public with a hose nozzle” & it doesn’t AT LEAST make you raise an eyebrow?




No. He wanted to play with a garden hose nozzle in public. The “public” got scared for no reason & now the guy is dead. The police didn’t try to investigate.



So what? Walking in public after drinking is not grounds for the death penalty. Stealing a garden hose nozzle is not grounds for the death penalty. Who cares why he was walking around with it & playing with it?

If I was carrying around a gun shaped lighter it doesn’t mean the cops can just sneak up on me & shoot me without saying a word. And if I’m drunk it doesn’t make it any more justifiable. I don’t care how many non-gun people I happen to scare (you know, the ones who describe a “revolver” as “a six shooter kind – I think” ). If I’m not actually threatening them the police don’t have the required probable cause to think that I am an imminent threat to anybody to justify use of deadly force.



It WAS that. The guy was sitting on someone’s porch (his friend’s, not just some random strangers) minding his own business playing with a hose nozzle…until some idiot got involved & called the cops because he was scared of a guy sitting on a porch playing with a hose nozzle. Then the police didn’t have the common sense to verify that the guy was, in fact, a threat to ANYBODY instead of some guy just sitting on a porch playing with a hose nozzle. All of this because of the unreasonable fear of “guns” & putting officer safety as more important than anything, even the lives of potentially innocent victims.

Oh yeah. I forgot. He was drunk. That justifies everything.



Try this:

[/size]
Please note section 3(b)(2).

The police are required by law to give a warning before using deadly force. The IC unfortunately does use the weasel words “if feasible” but I’m fairly sure that the law isn’t intended to be just a suggestion. I think it’s a good assumption that the law is a requirement but includes the common sense to allow an exemption in extreme/rare circumstances.

Just because a department flouts the law & doesn’t require its officers to follow the law every time doesn’t mean the law isn’t the law.



I’m not sure what your definition of the word “rapidly” is (especially the “very” kind) but if they were on the scene for several minutes (up to 10 minutes) then I wouldn’t consider that a “very rapid” decision.

Im not gonna weed through all your post, Ill just reply based on what I read.

Being on scene for 10 minutes does not mean they were on scene making a decision for 10 minutes. Their response to his action is what was rapid.

What is evident is these officers did not feel they were able to get any closer to determine what was going on, so they called for backup and a birds eye view. During their wait for their support, they were faced with the need to make a quick decision.

No, their cognition about the gun is not an assumption, it is not based on other details, it is based on the call stating the gun had been seen and identified. The police did not assume anything at all, an assumption is an extrapelation of data, they used visible evidence of what was seen and conveyed to them. No assumption was made.

You say that he was killed for trespassing or public intox, this is not the case. He died because of his actions while doing those things. He was by all accounts of those present acting as if it was a gun, there was no way for those there to verify it was not a gun, so he was shot.

As you so kindly posted the IC states that you must give warning if feasible. They did not sit on scene for 10 minutes with the intent to destroy this guy, the action was likely a split second decision when the man raised the gun in their direction, making it not feasible.

The moral of the story is not that police are stupid or not responsible, the moral of the story is that if you are going to act like you have a gun, have a gun.

If this man were to do this to any one of us, and we could not identify that it was not, in fact a gun, we would have done the same thing. Let's say for instance your neighbor has an object that you can determine was not a gun, and was behaving as if he was going to shoot you and his motions made it appear to be a gun... you would probably protect yourself.

The problem in this situation is not that they shot him, it is that most believe they killed a man knowing it was not a gun. This is hard to believe.

The other problem was the amount of time on scene without making their presence known, yes it is odd but it likely had nothing to do with the decision to shoot.

These officers would most likely be justified in their decision based on the IC you posted.

 

[rambone]

The other problem was the amount of time on scene without making their presence known, yes it is odd but it likely had nothing to do with the decision to shoot.

These officers would most likely be justified in their decision based on the IC you posted.

Ten minutes seems like a feasible amount of time to do so. Nobody has shown why it was not feasible.


You're on a porch, minding your own business. You have a pistol that you carry every day. You realize that you are being ambushed. You listen to multiple unidentified strangers stalking you from around the corner. They are making "gun-like noises" as you listen to them for what feels like forever. They emerge... have guns drawn... one guy has a ****ing shotgun... BOOM. You open fire without knowledge of who you were shooting at.

One officer down, you are a "cop killer" and going to prison for life. One glaring double-standard. You have never dreamed of attacking an officer in your entire life. What the hell were these clowns trying to do to you?? You were just waiting for a damn ride!!


There was no reason to play games and not ID themselves. Use lights, sirens, and the damn megaphones. The technique that they chose to use has limitless room for fatal error, on both sides of the coin.

 

[clgustaveson]

Wait! The code is that you must give notice if force is to be used. They did not plan to use force they did not need to give notice, in fac there was no reason for them to use force.

They ended up using force out of reaction.

10 minutes has nothing to do with the use of force at all.

Personally I believe the officers should have made their presence clear, but there may have been other circumstances that made them choose to not do so. I don't like to speculate but one such reason could be that they were not completely aware of the situation (indicates by the request for a birds eye view).

 

[finity]

Im not gonna weed through all your post, Ill just reply based on what I read.

Being on scene for 10 minutes does not mean they were on scene making a decision for 10 minutes. Their response to his action is what was rapid.

What is evident is these officers did not feel they were able to get any closer to determine what was going on, so they called for backup and a birds eye view. During their wait for their support, they were faced with the need to make a quick decision.

So they couldn't get close enough to be able to tell if he had a gun or what was really going on but they could see him well enough that they were able to see right away that he raised it & pointed it at them in a two handed grip?

Face it, the cops put themselves in a position to have to shoot an innocent person because they didn't try to make any contact with him. They just waited around. I'm sure if anybody wants to willfully think that someone has a weapon & they wait long enough the other person is eventually going to do SOMETHING they can claim LOOKED like was threatening toward them.

He wasn't just sitting there & suddenly raise it toward the officers. He had been moving it around & "playing" with it since the cops got there 10 - 15 MINUTES EARLER.

And what the heck does "making sounds like a gun being handled" mean? They "thought" it was a revolver. My revolver doesn't make any noises when I handle it. Does anybody elses here? If it does then you better get it worked on because something is loose. It sounds like it was one more thing the cops made up in their head to justify killing the guy with a nozzle in his hand.

Oh wait, maybe they saw the guy point it & heard him say "pew, pew, pew". It WAS a "small six shooter...maybe". That's what those guns sound like when they're handled.

No, their cognition about the gun is not an assumption, it is not based on other details, it is based on the call stating the gun had been seen and identified. The police did not assume anything at all, an assumption is an extrapelation of data, they used visible evidence of what was seen and conveyed to them. No assumption was made.

No. They supposedly couldn't "see" anything.

An assumption is not just extrapolation of data as you assume.

as·sump·tion (

-s

mp

sh

n)
n. 1. The act of taking to or upon oneself: assumption of an obligation.
2. The act of taking possession or asserting a claim: assumption of command.
3. The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.
4. Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption.
5. Presumption; arrogance.
6. Logic A minor premise.
7. Assumption a. Christianity The taking up of the Virgin Mary into heaven in body and soul after her death.
b. A feast celebrating this event.
c. August 15, the day on which this feast is observed.

see #4.

The cops accepted the report as true without trying to get any proof whatsoever. They assumed the report was correct. They assumed the guy had a gun based on the report they assumed was correct. They assumed that he knew they were there (when they gave him no reason to know that by telling him they were there). They assumed that he was pointing a "gun" that they assumed he had based on a report they assumed was correct.

There were a lot of assumptions being made & a guy wound up dead because of it.

You say that he was killed for trespassing or public intox, this is not the case. He died because of his actions while doing those things. He was by all accounts of those present acting as if it was a gun, there was no way for those there to verify it was not a gun, so he was shot.

First, he was not trespassing. That was another assumption made by the police even if it was based on an erroneous report. Maybe that would have been a good reason to make contact with the guy, just to see if he really was trespassing or not.

Second the actions he was taking while intoxicated were completely legal. It is not illegal to pretend you have a gun & to play with it. If the cops would have followed the law & gave a warning before they killed him (just to let him know they were even there in the first place) he could have let them know that he didn't really have a gun & was "just playin' around".

If I'm sitting on my deck with my unloaded gun out & "admiring" it (or cleaning it) while drinking a beer (which I've done) & some idiot calls the cops to report me as a trespasser with a gun, can the cops just walk up & shoot me if I don't know they're there & I happen to make a movement that looks like I might be pointing it at them. I certainly hope that your answer is no.

As you so kindly posted the IC states that you must give warning if feasible. They did not sit on scene for 10 minutes with the intent to destroy this guy, the action was likely a split second decision when the man raised the gun in their direction, making it not feasible.

Holy crap! What exactly do you consider "feasible"? It sounds like you will use any excuse to try to justify the cops skirting the law. If it's not feasible to give a warning within 10-15 minutes then there really is no real point to the law.

Of course they intended on destroying him for those 10-15 minutes they were there before they killed him. They already had their guns out & pointed & ready to shoot him if he made "one false move". Unfortunately, they gave him plenty of opportunity to finally make that move they needed to justify firing on him.

The moral of the story is not that police are stupid or not responsible, the moral of the story is that if you are going to act like you have a gun, have a gun.

I guess in a strange kind of way that does make sense. At least if you get shot, it'll make the police feel better knowing they didn't shoot you for a nozzle.

I think we need to make just acting like we have a gun illegal. No more blue guns, no more wooden rubber band guns, no more paintball guns. I say outlaw all kids pretending to have guns, too. No more little billy sticking his finger out & saying "bang". The world sure will be a lot safer place if we get rid of all the pretend guns in the world.

If this man were to do this to any one of us, and we could not identify that it was not, in fact a gun, we would have done the same thing. Let's say for instance your neighbor has an object that you can determine was not a gun, and was behaving as if he was going to shoot you and his motions made it appear to be a gun... you would probably protect yourself.

If my neighbor had a "gun" & he didn't know I was there & he just happened to move the "gun" in my direction & I shot him for it I should go to prison. For nothing else other than just being stupid (kidding).

Do you really think that there wouldn't be at least some questions along the lines of:

"were you sure it was a gun?"

"How did you know?"

"What made you think he was intentionally pointing it at you?"

"Did he say anything that made you think he was threatening you?"

"Were you aware of any reason that he had to make you think he was threatening you?"

"Have you had any trouble with him in the past?"

You hopefully see where I'm going with this. The prosecutor is going to want to see that your actions were reasonable. Not just some "If you point a hose nozzle at me in winter you aren't walking away" kind of crap. You can't just shoot somebody who you think is pointing something that might (or might not) be a "gun" in your general direction. Your actions have to be "reasonable".

If I stood around surreptitiously for 10-15 minutes watching my neighbor play with his "gun" & then finally decide to kill him because he happens to point it in my direction, I'm pretty sure I'm going to jail.

The problem in this situation is not that they shot him, it is that most believe they killed a man knowing it was not a gun. This is hard to believe.

No. The problem that most have with it is that they didn't really make any effort to ascertain the facts before they killed an innocent guy even though they had up to 15 minutes to do so. That's irresponsible.

The other problem was the amount of time on scene without making their presence known, yes it is odd but it likely had nothing to do with the decision to shoot.

The decision to shoot was a direct result of them not taking prudent actions to ascertain the facts before they put themselves in a position to "have to" fire on the guy.

Go to any gun store & hang out non-chalantly behind some display racks around the gun counter. Using your logic you would probably be justified in killing someone at least once a day because it looked like they were going to point a gun at you.

 

[finity]

Wait! The code is that you must give notice if force is to be used. They did not plan to use force they did not need to give notice, in fac there was no reason for them to use force.

They ended up using force out of reaction.

10 minutes has nothing to do with the use of force at all.

Personally I believe the officers should have made their presence clear, but there may have been other circumstances that made them choose to not do so. I don't like to speculate but one such reason could be that they were not completely aware of the situation (indicates by the request for a birds eye view).

I say again: Holy crap!

You will make a darn fine cop.

Why don't you at least try to figure out the intent of the law before you try to find ways around it.

Again: If you think that the only time that a cop is going to have to give a warning before using deadly force is in the split-second before the force is to be used thereby negating the feasibility for a cop to EVER give a warning then why even have the law in the first place?

 

[jeremy]

I really miss when LEO viewed themselves as Peace Officers instead of Law Enforcers...

 

[grizman]

I really miss when LEO viewed themselves as Peace Officers instead of Law Enforcers...

The good ole days! When police officers knew the meaning of duty and honor, honesty and weren't out to prove they had "The Power".

 

[grizman]

Next time give your daughters a shot of adrenaline and have the neighbors call them and tell them your drunk with a gun...

Would you like to explain your intent with this comment? Sounds like you wish me harm! Or you were... Leave the children out of your sarcastic comments IT IS NOT THE WAY MEN CONDUCT THEMSELVES!

Quite the mentality you have for someone wishing to become a LEO. Good luck with the psych exam! Your gonna need it!

 

[clgustaveson]

I really miss when LEO viewed themselves as Peace Officers instead of Law Enforcers...

As I bow out of the discussion I will second this.

The point that is being missed here is the police were attempting to remain a non-factor in the situation. If the man was legally carrying a gun or was not behaving illegally there would be no reason for a response from them. If this is what they were doing I give them kudos, they requested arial visual because they could not identify the details of the situation under the current conditions. They did not make assumptions they reacted based on information given to them.

You cannot always assume the officers are in the wrong, if you make these kind of judgements without all the information then what happens when the LEOs are truly in the wrong?

Whether you are a Leo or a civilian you are (should be) given the benefit of the doubt. Why is the drunk man who did violate the law given that at the minimum in this situation but the officers are crucified?

This is a very illogical double standard for a group of people that stand up for freedom and demand proof! If you feel that proof is required before the officers can protect themselves, why do you not demand more details before making such rash statements and judgements?

Shame on you, keepers of the truth, shame on you for being so quick to assume the worst of someone with no evidence.

With that, I bow out.

God bless!

 

[clgustaveson]

Would you like to explain your intent with this comment? Sounds like you wish me harm! Or you were... Leave the children out of your sarcastic comments IT IS NOT THE WAY MEN CONDUCT THEMSELVES!

Quite the mentality you have for someone wishing to become a LEO. Good luck with the psych exam! Your gonna need it!

You are completely missing the relevance. I was explaining the lack of semitry in the story you gave. Never under any circumstance would I feel it would be necessary to actually do this. Also my statement does not in any way even suggest anyone harm you, I'm not sure how you gathered that.