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

[rambone]

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.

+1. That made this story lose a lot of credibility when I read it. The only moving part it has is the plastic trigger. No slide, no hammer, nothing that would explain what they claim they heard. Seems a little too convenient.

 

[finity]

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.

I'm going to make a bold stand here & say that the above paragraph is a bunch of pure hogwash.

The police did not stay back to "remain a non-factor". They stayed back because they were more concerned with making a perimeter than try to make contact with the guy while waiting for all the reinforcements they called in. This in no way says to me they were trying to be a non-factor.

They called in the helicopter because they didn't want the guy getting away when they finally decided to make initial contact with him. It had nothing to do with getting a better view of the situation.

They made many assumptions & just because you say it isn't so doesn't make it that way. The guy was neither carrying a gun nor behaving illegally aside from being drunk in public. He wasn't even being unruly. He was just sitting on the steps waiting for his friend playing around with a watyer nozzle. As of right now were not even sure if he WAS legally drunk. We only know he had been drinking. So that's another assumption.

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?

Because the drunk guy's only real crime was that he had been drinking & went to his buddies house. For that he was killed. the cops are probably never going to see any legal action. I'm not NECESSARILY saying they should but it's very rare when a cop is held accountable for their actions. When it comes to having to make a general choice as to who I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to I'm not choosing the agents of the state. Now, I will give the BOD to different parties depending on the situation, but for general purposes we have to hold "the state" (& its agents) to WAY HIGHER scrutiny than "the people".

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?

I don't think you understand the "freedom" that most here stand up for. It's freedom from government interference. I realize there are different standards of acceptable interference but when you feel that the police should be given more leeway than the general population in their actions then that's not the kind of "freedom" we need more of.

You don't get that the police are agents of the state. If the true tryranny ever comes it will be the police that will be the ones who will be carrying it out. If we allow them to continue to just "get away with stuff" now then it will be harder to keep them in check later.

Disclaimer: I in no way mean any disrespect for any one LEO here or anywhere. I know that the bad ones are a minority. I speak here in generalities & philosophy. If you do your job in an honorable way then I have just as much respect for you as I would anybody else...but not necessarily any more.

I feel the same way about the people in the military & I was one for 10 years.

 

[Dredd]

 

[finity]

After reading just a few of the highlights of your posts in different threads here, I think I can say with confidence that YOU are the kind of JBT state agent that I am talking about in my above posts. That is if you really are a cop.

It does my heart good to see your REP indicator bleeding so badly, though. It tells me that there are a lot of people on both ends of the spectrum who think your kind of "policing" is just downright dangerous.

I'm an admitted commie-pinko-hippie-liberal (OK, I only admitted to being liberal & being somewhat hippie - if I still had hair - but a lot of others here helped me with the commie-pinko part - I'm not really a communist) and I have even been called a traitor to the US on this very board & my REP is still way in the green. What does that tell you about your views even on a conservative gun forum?

On a positive note, that is a pretty cool picture, though.

 

[machete]

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.

00,000,000

anyone who dont agree with that got no business being a cop or an american...

 

[sloaba01]

Its easy to sit back now and break down every move the officers made, but those officers did not have the luxury of time on their side. Action is faster than reaction, he could have gotten a shot off at officers, had it been a gun, before officers could have returned fire. None of us can put the blame on anyone because none of us were there.

 

[machete]

Its easy to sit back now and break down every move the officers made, but those officers did not have the luxury of time on their side. Action is faster than reaction, he could have gotten a shot off at officers, had it been a gun, before officers could have returned fire. None of us can put the blame on anyone because none of us were there.

all that was discredited in the first 16 pages of this thread...

i see you have 4 posts,,,did you read all 16 pages before posting???

 

[clgustaveson]

I'm going to make a bold stand here & say that the above paragraph is a bunch of pure hogwash.

The police did not stay back to "remain a non-factor". They stayed back because they were more concerned with making a perimeter than try to make contact with the guy while waiting for all the reinforcements they called in. This in no way says to me they were trying to be a non-factor.

They called in the helicopter because they didn't want the guy getting away when they finally decided to make initial contact with him. It had nothing to do with getting a better view of the situation.

They made many assumptions & just because you say it isn't so doesn't make it that way. The guy was neither carrying a gun nor behaving illegally aside from being drunk in public. He wasn't even being unruly. He was just sitting on the steps waiting for his friend playing around with a watyer nozzle. As of right now were not even sure if he WAS legally drunk. We only know he had been drinking. So that's another assumption.



Because the drunk guy's only real crime was that he had been drinking & went to his buddies house. For that he was killed. the cops are probably never going to see any legal action. I'm not NECESSARILY saying they should but it's very rare when a cop is held accountable for their actions. When it comes to having to make a general choice as to who I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to I'm not choosing the agents of the state. Now, I will give the BOD to different parties depending on the situation, but for general purposes we have to hold "the state" (& its agents) to WAY HIGHER scrutiny than "the people".



I don't think you understand the "freedom" that most here stand up for. It's freedom from government interference. I realize there are different standards of acceptable interference but when you feel that the police should be given more leeway than the general population in their actions then that's not the kind of "freedom" we need more of.

You don't get that the police are agents of the state. If the true tryranny ever comes it will be the police that will be the ones who will be carrying it out. If we allow them to continue to just "get away with stuff" now then it will be harder to keep them in check later.

Disclaimer: I in no way mean any disrespect for any one LEO here or anywhere. I know that the bad ones are a minority. I speak here in generalities & philosophy. If you do your job in an honorable way then I have just as much respect for you as I would anybody else...but not necessarily any more.

I feel the same way about the people in the military & I was one for 10 years.

I can't just let this post go without response.

You butchered my comments and took them entirely out of context.

The point I am making here is that there is not enough evidence to suggest they did anything wrong based on the facts we have. If you demand the presumption of innocence (which is something I certainly am a staunch believer in) then you shouldn't make the claims and the assumptions you are making.

The amount of time the officers were on scene has nothing to do with their decision to use deadly force. I don't disagree that the officers did something strange by not making contact but it is not reasonable to assume they were doing so maliciously.

You are making assumptions about their actions and behaviors but demand they not fire without absolute proof! IMHO you are firing without absolute proof.

Nobody is trying reason away the situation, this is not a soft topic by any means, but if you always assume the worst of an officer then you have no leg to stand on when they actually do something wrong. The police do not represent oppression of the state, the county sheriff is the last standing hope of freedom in this country.

I realize we have sharply different views on this one topic, but it is just as detrimental for you to assume the worst of the officers as it is for anyone else to assume the best.

There is not one detail given thus far tha would indicate malicious intent from those officers, yet you assume so by declaring their statements as lies.

I would also much rather 10 LEOs die at the hands of bgs than one innocent person at the hands of a Leo. The problem here is that it is completely guesswork here. The man either pointed the hose nozzle at them and made them **** themselves and shoot or the officers just blasted him as source of entertainment... I doubt the second is the case but it could be true I suppose.

Your assumptions are just as dangerous as theirs, however their assumptions were founded in something and yours are not.

 

[finity]

The point I am making here is that there is not enough evidence to suggest they did anything wrong based on the facts we have. If you demand the presumption of innocence (which is something I certainly am a staunch believer in) then you shouldn't make the claims and the assumptions you are making.

I demand the presumption of innocence for a private individual, not necessarily state actors who hold the power of life & death in their hands within a system that bends over backwards to make them not PERSONALLY liable for their actions.

We should hold their feet to the fire EVERY SINGLE TIME a person dies or is injured until they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were justified in their actions. It is the same standard that is used when someone is put on trial for a crime they may have committed. The state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty. Those requirements are held against the state because the state has so much power over the individual that abuses could (& still do) easily happen.

The amount of time the officers were on scene has nothing to do with their decision to use deadly force. I don't disagree that the officers did something strange by not making contact but it is not reasonable to assume they were doing so maliciously.

I don't claim they were doing so maliciously. I claim they did so negligently. I didn't say it was murder. I said that the officers actions (or lack thereof) directly caused them to be put in a position to "have to" fire on the guy who was doing nothing more illegal than possibly being drunk in public.

Negligent homicide is still a crime. If I did the same thing as those officers I would certainly be charged & I would expect nothing less. I don't have the right to hang around someone with a "gun" who doesn't know I'm there waiting for the moment they might point the thing at me & then try to use that as a justification for killing him.

You are making assumptions about their actions and behaviors but demand they not fire without absolute proof! IMHO you are firing without absolute proof.

No, I'm asking questions of the authorities about why they took the actions they did causing the death of an innocent citizen.

We as US citizens (no, as human beings) have the responsibilty to ask those questions & the authority to demand & expect answers.

I really don't care how embarrassed or uncomfortable or however it makes those in charge feel, either. Or how "hard it makes their job". If they don't like the scrutiny that comes with accepting a job as a state agent then don't take the job. Nobody is forcing the cops to be cops.

The police do not represent oppression of the state,

Excuse me while I LOL... .

You can't be serious! Who exactly do you think will enforce the rules of some future tyrannical regime? Look back at every dictatorial/oppressive/tyrannical regime throughtout history & who do you see carrying out the atrocities against "the people"? The police forces & the military that's who. It's not like Obama, Pelosi, Boehner, Bush, McCain or Palin are going to take to the streets themselves to arrest all the "subversives" & the "terrorists".

the county sheriff is the last standing hope of freedom in this country.

Why exactly do you say that?

Because they are an elected official so they answer directly to the people?

I really am interested in the answer as I'm not sure how they are that much different from regular state or city police in their legal standing.

Your assumptions are just as dangerous as theirs, however their assumptions were founded in something and yours are not.

That's the thing. I'm not making assumptions. I'm asking questions. I expect answers. I'm sure none will be given. I'm sure that the most we will ever hear is that the officers acted IAW the dept's policies. There will most likely never be a full public hearing on the event. There almost never is. An innocent guy is dead & the cops will wake up tomorrow (figuratively) & go on about their business as if nothing ever happened. That's WAY more dangerous to your freedom than any assumption I could ever make.

Change only takes place when the people DEMAND changes in police conduct. Changes can only occur when the actions of the police against citizens are fully & publicly investigated. NOBODY benefits by anybody making excuses & saying "Eh, we did our best ".

 

[clgustaveson]

I demand the presumption of innocence for a private individual, not necessarily state actors who hold the power of life & death in their hands within a system that bends over backwards to make them not PERSONALLY liable for their actions.

We should hold their feet to the fire EVERY SINGLE TIME a person dies or is injured until they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were justified in their actions. It is the same standard that is used when someone is put on trial for a crime they may have committed. The state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty. Those requirements are held against the state because the state has so much power over the individual that abuses could (& still do) easily happen.



I don't claim they were doing so maliciously. I claim they did so negligently. I didn't say it was murder. I said that the officers actions (or lack thereof) directly caused them to be put in a position to "have to" fire on the guy who was doing nothing more illegal than possibly being drunk in public.

Negligent homicide is still a crime. If I did the same thing as those officers I would certainly be charged & I would expect nothing less. I don't have the right to hang around someone with a "gun" who doesn't know I'm there waiting for the moment they might point the thing at me & then try to use that as a justification for killing him.



No, I'm asking questions of the authorities about why they took the actions they did causing the death of an innocent citizen.

We as US citizens (no, as human beings) have the responsibilty to ask those questions & the authority to demand & expect answers.

I really don't care how embarrassed or uncomfortable or however it makes those in charge feel, either. Or how "hard it makes their job". If they don't like the scrutiny that comes with accepting a job as a state agent then don't take the job. Nobody is forcing the cops to be cops.



Excuse me while I LOL... .

You can't be serious! Who exactly do you think will enforce the rules of some future tyrannical regime? Look back at every dictatorial/oppressive/tyrannical regime throughtout history & who do you see carrying out the atrocities against "the people"? The police forces & the military that's who. It's not like Obama, Pelosi, Boehner, Bush, McCain or Palin are going to take to the streets themselves to arrest all the "subversives" & the "terrorists".



Why exactly do you say that?

Because they are an elected official so they answer directly to the people?

I really am interested in the answer as I'm not sure how they are that much different from regular state or city police in their legal standing.



That's the thing. I'm not making assumptions. I'm asking questions. I expect answers. I'm sure none will be given. I'm sure that the most we will ever hear is that the officers acted IAW the dept's policies. There will most likely never be a full public hearing on the event. There almost never is. An innocent guy is dead & the cops will wake up tomorrow (figuratively) & go on about their business as if nothing ever happened. That's WAY more dangerous to your freedom than any assumption I could ever make.

Change only takes place when the people DEMAND changes in police conduct. Changes can only occur when the actions of the police against citizens are fully & publicly investigated. NOBODY benefits by anybody making excuses & saying "Eh, we did our best ".

No, you are not declaring negligence, please understand how I arrive at this conclusion is not as simple as you are taking it.

The suggestion that anyone would be able to discern a hose nozzle from a gun, and then suggesting they shot him in lieu of this is suggesting malicious intent. You also make the claim that these police officers were calling in air visual so they could "catch" the guy.

It is my belief and the belief of many that officers should stay out of situations as much as possible. I believe that by making a presence they are being too intrusive.

You cannot suggest that they "must have known" something and then suggest it was only negligence. That severely damages your credit with me.

Yes, officers and any person that is given authority should be held to a higher standard than the general public. The problem with this situation is, the information the officers have stated would and should give them the just reason to act in the defense of themselves and those around them; however, you claim they are just protecting themselves. It is a lose lose situation when held to your standard, they have no way to prove their story.

As I stated before, if you assume the worst of every officer first, then you have no leg to stand on when one does something wrong. The officers here are just a victim of your seriously flawed view of local governments.

We are defined by our laws in this country, initially there were no police, the general public would take turns enforcing the law and then sometimes a posse comitatus would form. Would you hold these same individuals guilty until proven innocent as well? The police are a local establishment provided to offer protection from violation of the law, not to offer oppression under the law.

The county sheriff is the last hope of freedom, not simply because they are elected (which is a major role) but because they have the power to say no. The problem with law enforcement is the big boys club (and most local offices), they receive federal funding and have a certain suggestion to meet quotas to justify that funding which makes them a parody of the very oath they took.

Law enforcements task is not to enforce the law, but to protect the liberties and rights of citizens. There is a major flaw in that system and also a major flaw in the people's view of law enforcement IMO. The sheriff has the ability to be that for the citizens, protecting us from local and federal criminals.

Now, am I just spouting off about liberties and justice for no reason? No, there is a serious flaw in the mentality of most officers but that mentality is also flawed in the eyes of the people. Officers not designed to enforce jack squat, they are here to protect the liberties and rights of the citizens.

Example? Mack vs U.S. found that the sheriff and the police are the final word in how they protect our liberties.

The oath the sheriff takes is not to enforce the law, but to protect and defend the constitution, similar to the president. The office of the president has been tarnished by a progressive mentality (not stopping at liberal because I see the need for true liberals) but we still should find hope in that a president can and should protect the rights and liberties of the people.

Granted the sheriff is the "enforcement" part of the executive branch, the executive branch is not designed to crack skulls and harm the citizens, it is designed to protect the rights of the citizens. The constitution is not a document of infringing legislature but a document of negative liberties of the government, the executive branch is charged with protecting that. Law enforcement is charged with protecting that as well, not to impose laws.

Now that I have rambled on about the theory of law enforcement (which is my informal understanding as my area of study is psychology not criminal justice) I want to point out, that even when there is a president in office that is abusing the authority given to him we still know the true roll and the integrity that the holder of that office has. Why should law enforcement officers be any different? Why should they be viewed with such scrutiny at all?

The paradigm shift is not the result of over zealous officers, but overreaching government.

The officers actions IMO are still justified unless found otherwise.

 

[MeAndMyXD]

If somone would have pointed a hose nozzle at a regular armed citizen and they shot and killed that person and they used the excuse of I thought he had a gun they would be in jail needing legal representation practicaly ruining their life.


But since its a cop its okay that they werent sure of what they saw and shot first. LEOs are supposed to be trained for these situations this should have never happened.

 

[grizman]

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

YouTube - Woman Threatens Cops with Cell Phone

Understood, but these two properly identified what she had in her hands quickly on the move with their Adrenalin pumping in the dark! Why couldn't the officers in Cali do that in broad day light during the 10 minute wait on back up?

 

[Trevlan]

A guy sat on his friend's porch. A neighbor called the police on him and reported that he had a gun. The police arrived, and shot him without any verbal commands or warning. The object turned out to be a hose nozzle. After the fact, they claimed he pointed it at them. Very sad.

Another MWAG call that worked out as they are designed to.


YouTube - Long Beach Police shoot man for watering friends lawn

There are some situations that you need to have been there in order to pass judgement. Not saying that all police are good guys, but the majority of them are.

Imagine this: "We have a 417 in your area. Please check it out." "10-4."
Police arrive to the sceen, before they identify themselves, the man raises his water hose and points it at the police.

If i'm sitting on my front porch and police pull up to my house, I don't need them to identify themselves. I know who they are. Why would I even move if they are approaching me with guns drawn? I believe that's the procedure when on a call for someone bandishing a weapon. (Maybe a real police officer can confirm or deny.)

The officer's safety is his primary concern. In a split second, a garden hose nozzle, looks like a .357 revolver. Would you take the risk and not fire, if you are responding to a call about a firearm?

The media, is a dangerous tool. They can manipulate words, and leave out details. Does anyone know if the man had priors? Was he drunk? Did he raise his "hose" to wet the police?

This is what I gather from seeing this post. The police arrive on the scene and opened fire on an unarmed person and killed him. Is that truly how it went down? If that's the case, everytime the police come to my house, I'll open fire on them, and we'll all be even.

 

[Trevlan]

Damn, what a mess. Once critical detail that we are all forgetting is that the police were on a call because of a complaint. The neighbor made the same mistake the police did. If the police are liable, so should the caller.

So what's the resolution? Ban all firearms from the US? Before guns there were swords, before swords, rocks. We need to education about firearms. We need education on judgement. Nothing else. If I wanted to kill my woman and kids, a fork would be just as deadly.

And police are held accountable for their actions. Look up the case about Amadu Dialo and the NYPD where they shot at him 40 something times and hit him 19 times. All he had was a wallet.

What a mess. This, arizona, all these 'Gun mishaps' deter the progression of a right we were given to begin with. The right to bear arms... It's a damn shame.

 

[indykid]

From the guy's point of view. I have had a few drinks, sitting here waiting for my buddy to come home. I am playing with a hose nozzle. A cop yells to drop the gun. I am holding a spray nozzle. The cop yells to drop the gun, but I am holding a spray nozzle. I am dead before I hear the shot. But officer, you said drop the gun, but it's a spray nozzle.

 

[Trevlan]

From the guy's point of view. I have had a few drinks, sitting here waiting for my buddy to come home. I am playing with a hose nozzle. A cop yells to drop the gun. I am holding a spray nozzle. The cop yells to drop the gun, but I am holding a spray nozzle. I am dead before I hear the shot. But officer, you said drop the gun, but it's a spray nozzle.

It was a grave misunderstanding. That's all it was. Not an assasination. If any lesson should be learned from this, it's to cooperate with authorities. Drop whatever is in your hands and raise them.

 

[rambone]

Imagine this: "We have a 417 in your area. Please check it out." "10-4."

Does that mean a guy was seen bearing arms?

Police arrive to the sceen, before they identify themselves, the man raises his water hose and points it at the police.

The whole thread has debated why the cops hid on the property for 10 minutes without identifying themselves or announcing their presence. Gotta catch up on this discussion.

 

[mrjarrell]

Well, the killers got off scott free and the taxpayers just got a bill for $6.5 million. Doesn't help the family of the deceased, but in these times it's sadly the best we can hope for. Justice is just a word.

Police Shoot and Kill Man for Watering Lawn, Family Awarded 6.5 Million | The Free Thought Project

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Sad that it happened but I am glad the family was compensated.

Thanks for the update, Mr. J.

 

[sloughfoot]

Sad story for sure.

I had a return, unhappy, customer one night at the Police desk. It sure looked to me like he had a gun in his hand as he came through the front door of the Police Station. I drew my pistol and was holding it out of sight as he approached. Turned out it was a cell phone. I tried real hard to hide the gun as we transacted. It was close by but I did not re-holster until he could not see me doing it.

It is a dangerous world and there are always consequences even though you think you are right.

Nothing is ever as it seems but you always have to be ready. Not paranoid, just ready.