Shooting of man holding water nozzle angers family

reply to post by crimvelvet


The law right now as dictated by the supreme court in Graham vs Connor in part states that

The Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" inquiry is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation. Pp. 490 U. S. 396-397.

Deadly force is judged under the fourth amendment because it is a siezure of a person. The force is judged by the information and circumstances known to the officer at the time that the force is used.

reply to post by ANOMALY502


I sure as heck hope they check those officers for steroids!

N.J. doctor supplied steroids to hundreds of law enforcement officers, firefighters, page 1 www.abovetopsecret.com...

ROID RAGE

Roid rage is a term given to people who act in very aggressive or hostile manner after taking large doses, usually on a regular basis, of anabolic steroids, sometimes nicknamed as roids. In recent times, several prominent murders and brutal attacks have been linked to roid rage, which might suggest a person is less responsible for committing a crime. This is not always an adequate defense given that people who take anabolic steroids tend to do so willingly. Further, roid rage resulting in violent behavior may be a little more complex than it is generally portrayed in the media.
www.wisegeek.com...

Situations like this are very unfortunate and gives a bad name for all police officers. The story was written to make it sound like the officers were in the wrong without giving enough information to correctly make that assessment.

I, personally, cannot imagine any situation in which shooting at someone without determining if they were actually a threat would be justified. From the sounds of it, the guy didn't even know the police were there. If I were to perceive something that I thought was a threat and acted only later to learn I was mistaken, I would still be criminally liable. No amount of citing court cases would change my mind. I believe that police officers are citizens first and should be held accountable as such.

When I read the story, I was imagining the guy sitting under a porch at the front door of an apartment building playing with a garden hose then the police coordinating around the corner and opening fire in unison. The article implied it was like some kind of firing squad. The problem is that the story doesn't give enough information to correctly make that assumption.

Now you may say I'm completely wrong and have a thousand reasons for it but it doesn't change the fact that I'm not alone and this story will have an effect on how police are perceived by the public.

Who was at fault? I don't know. I wasn't there and we don't have a complete story.

reply to post by janon


If you read the article it says at least two neighbors called Police because it looked like he was waving a gun around, and then he pointed it at the Officers (which means he saw they were there) holding it like a pistol. anything else I say would just be speculation but the basic facts say he wasn't watering the lawn, and it wasn't just the Police who thought they were dealing with an armed threat.

Originally posted by ANOMALY502
reply to post by janon

 

If you read the article it says at least two neighbors called Police because it looked like he was waving a gun around, and then he pointed it at the Officers (which means he saw they were there) holding it like a pistol. anything else I say would just be speculation but the basic facts say he wasn't watering the lawn, and it wasn't just the Police who thought they were dealing with an armed threat.

That doesn't matter to me. It wasn't a gun and the cops didn't bother to check. Who cares what the neighbors said.

I'd also like to point out that you missed my point completely.

I remember the old days.
when if you DID have a gun.
they would talk you down.
and try very hard to NOT shoot you.

now? no one cares.
and they know it.
so shoot first then ask questions.
this will only stop when a 5 year old is shot with a toy gun.
maybe not. just turn a blind eye.

Originally posted by buddha
I remember the old days.
when if you DID have a gun.
they would talk you down.
and try very hard to NOT shoot you.

now? no one cares.
and they know it.
so shoot first then ask questions.
this will only stop when a 5 year old is shot with a toy gun.
maybe not. just turn a blind eye.

The police have become more like military and less like public servants in the last 30 or so years. It is just a symptom of the systemic problem in our country and the world as a whole.

To Protect and Serve (ourselves)

I call b/s on all their reasonings. They could have very well blown out a kneecap or something and at that point determined if he was still a hostile threat. Then they could've taken a more life threating action.

The police will get off, tragic as it was, because they "believed" that they were in imminent danger. The phone call to the police indicated a "man pointing a gun" so they assumed that it was a gun and when he assumed a double hand firing stance (vs holding it down to his side) they had to make a split second decision. Tragic. Ask him to drop the "weapon" and risk getting shot where your vest didnt protect or "shoot first and ask questions later." I only ask that if they were told that he had a gun why didnt they exit from their squad car and take cover and yell at the man to "drop the weapon" before he had a change to aim that dangerous water nozzle at them? He was drunk and may have been mentally ill. How many times have police complied when people "commit suicide by police?" Many times it is for brandishing (threatening) them with a steak knife from 10 yds away! What I fear will happen with some juiced up (steroids) policeman is that he will shoot a kid for pointing a plastic (orange tipped) toy gun....

reply to post by ANOMALY502


Only to the extent of using deadly force on an indivudual who is fleeing from a scene. Tennesse Vs. Gardner established the rule a fleeing felon cannot be shot in the back unless the person is presenting an imminent danger to the public at large and no other option is availavble at that exact moment.

To the rest the term you are looking for is justifiable homicide. Ive tried to explain how this works, and some of you dont seem to care so thats fine. Let the IA investigation as well as the criminal investigation takes its course to see where it goes. As I stated you are only getting one half of the story. There is information that cannot be released by Law Enfrocement until the investigations are done.

Which means ther eis information we are not getting to fill in some of the other pieces of the puzzle. The sneaking up on the guy comment was from a family member, not LAw Enforcement. The witnesses on scene also said the guy appeared to have a weapon.

The only reason you guys know this is a garden nozzle and not a wepaon is because of the hindsight argument. The media is telling you what the guy had. As I have said until you are in a position like the officers, you have absolutely no idea how this works.

Originally posted by jaynkeel
I call b/s on all their reasonings. They could have very well blown out a kneecap or something and at that point determined if he was still a hostile threat. Then they could've taken a more life threating action.

Uhm no they could not have done that. We are prohibited from attempting to "wound" a person intentionally. When deadly force is used, its to stop the threat.

We are not allowed to give warning shots either.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Well that issue needs to be changed in my opinion. And I'm willing to bet a lot of others too.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Im not trying to argue with anyone about this because its pointless, every one has their own opinion. I am merely pointing out the perspective of the Police Officer and the parameters in which we have to work under. The court cases I pointed out have direct bearing on departments use of force policies including deadly force.
Could some other tactics have been used, probably, there are an infinite number of possibilities on how to manage a situation, and one cannot be expected to pick the perfect plan, only one that is objectively reasonable, and fits into the parameters of there departments rules and regulations. As to this particular situation nobody has all the facts yet.

reply to post by buddha

Originally posted by buddha
this will only stop when a 5 year old is shot with a toy gun. maybe not. just turn a blind eye.

Saddest thing is, in this day and age, it wouldn't stop there. They would just blame the parents for buying the kid a toy gun, end of story. That is how the system works today.

Originally posted by janon

Originally posted by ANOMALY502
reply to post by janon

 

If you read the article it says at least two neighbors called Police because it looked like he was waving a gun around, and then he pointed it at the Officers (which means he saw they were there) holding it like a pistol. anything else I say would just be speculation but the basic facts say he wasn't watering the lawn, and it wasn't just the Police who thought they were dealing with an armed threat.

That doesn't matter to me. It wasn't a gun and the cops didn't bother to check. Who cares what the neighbors said.

I'd also like to point out that you missed my point completely.

Actually its the critical piece of information to this. Its what the officers perceived at the exact moment force was used. The nozzle was not attached to a hose, so there is no telling what the guy had in his hand. Also people are assuming that it "didnt" look like a gun because of the color.

Please do some research on weapons and the possibilities available for custom modification of firearms while also checking into non traditional firearms. There is a reason the officers acted in the manner they did.

People are judging this situation based on personal opinions without adequate understandinf of how the law works or court rulings that govern this area.

Cell phone gun - If you were a cop and someone pointed a cell phone at you would you shoot?


Blade gun - If you were a cop and someone pointed a knife at you would you shoot?


Zip gun - Brass color - If you were a cop and someone pointed this at you, would you shoot?


Disguised guns from history


People truely do not have an adequate understanding of what exactly law enforcement faces on a daily basis in their jobs. Until people research the law and understand court cases and established procedures, you are going to continue to make wrong assumptions on this topic.

This is truely one of those topics where the ignorance is bliss argument is more dangerous than you think.

Turtle Gun
Real guns made to look like toys
Golden color gun (spray nozzle mistake)
Zip / palm / hidden gun
Hidden knife in key
Zip gun made from a crucifix
Gunknife

So yeah.. our job is not exactly as black and white as people perceive it as. If you were a cop, and responded to reports of a man with a gun, and you cannot make out what the guy has, and he points something at you (imagine one of the items above) what would you do? Would you shoot or no?

The above does not even cover toy guns that look like real guns. Toy guys are suppose to have a bright color attach to it, usually the end of the barrel, to differentiate it from a real gun. A Black permanent marker can solve that, makin the gun look real.

If someone were to point a toy gun at a cop, and get shot, are the cops still "cowards" for not identifying it as a plastic gun?

See my point now?

Originally posted by jaynkeel
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Well that issue needs to be changed in my opinion. And I'm willing to bet a lot of others too.

Then you need to place yourself into a situation where you are responding to reports of a man weilding a weapon. You arrive on scene and the guy sees you and points an object at you and you are unsure of what he is pointing.

Based on your logic the Officer dies everytime. Either for spending time to attempt to figure out what the guy has, or by wasting ammunition trying to shoot a small target.

The target is moving as well. You are amped up, which means you loose fine motor control, going back to muscle memory and training.

Center mass is the target, not a woulding shot, leg shot, arm shot etc. The shooting is to stop the threat, not would or kill.

Originally posted by ANOMALY502
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Im not trying to argue with anyone about this because its pointless, every one has their own opinion. I am merely pointing out the perspective of the Police Officer and the parameters in which we have to work under. The court cases I pointed out have direct bearing on departments use of force policies including deadly force.
Could some other tactics have been used, probably, there are an infinite number of possibilities on how to manage a situation, and one cannot be expected to pick the perfect plan, only one that is objectively reasonable, and fits into the parameters of there departments rules and regulations. As to this particular situation nobody has all the facts yet.

I agree and im not trying to argue with anyone. I am trying to educate people on how this incident works. Absent the understading of our training, court cases, and non traditional weapons, the perception is way off by people who view this as black and white.

People can make suggestions all they want based on opinion, but until they are standing there staring down a guy who is pointing an object at them, where they are forced to shoot or run the risk of being killed themselves.The arguments given are based off of lack of understanding, training and law, in addition to the benefeit of 20/20 hindsight and monday morning quarterbacking.

Let the investigation run its course and go from there.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Your response to this thread indicates that you have been trained well. To a T', actually. It amazes me why you have the need to defend this situation when faults obviously has been made. It's not like this is an actual "cop-bashing" thread, otherwise I would be right there with you, not all cops are bad. I know we don't know the whole story, but still, we have the general idea of a panicky situation, wouldn't you agree?

I am not talking about 20/20 hindsight here, just pick out the actual information in this article and conclude. Drunk man w/garden hose mouthpiece, front yard, police officers w/ real guns. I could understand if they had shouted repeatedly "put the gun down", "SIR, what are you doing?", or "get down on the ground NOW", and he THEN pointed at them with his garden hose pistol. But they didn't. They just shot him 8 times. You can not justify that either way.

Just for laughs, humor me and answer this: In this situation, who was it they served and protected? What a joke.
I am not a wide supporter of jails, especially in the private sector, and I seriously doubt these LEO's will ever see one from the inside. On the other hand I hope, in the deepest chambers of my heart, that they will have a nagging feeling in their stomach for the rest of their days.

reply to post by Xcathdra

but any person who has 5 officers pointing a gun at them should know to drop the rake. Instead he made a movement towards an officer, resulting in the shots being fired.

I've been in a fair amount of agreement over most of the things you have said. However, I don't see how in the world you could ever justify killing a guy because he came at you with a rake. There are other options. Did those police officers not have pepper spray? Maybe the deaf mute was as fast as Usain Bolt so he could rush over and whack someone before they had a chance. Probably would hurt pretty bad to get hit in the head with a rake, highly doubt it would kill you though. However, the deaf mute is DEAD and wielding a rake does not justify that.

Furthermore, these are trained officers which makes it worse. I'm quite confident that if a stranger came at me with a rake, 90%+ of the time I will end up with the rake in my hand and the other guy on the ground, and I am NOT a trained fighter in any way, shape or form. One shot of pepper spray and the guy would have been on the ground, hit him with a taser, tackle him even, but kill him? Too far.

I can agree with what you're saying about this particular case, though for some reason I get a feeling that you seem to have that cop gang mentality and would stick up for your fellow officers no matter what, as in the above rake case.

Originally posted by JoeSignal
reply to post by buddha

 

Originally posted by buddha
this will only stop when a 5 year old is shot with a toy gun. maybe not. just turn a blind eye.

Saddest thing is, in this day and age, it wouldn't stop there. They would just blame the parents for buying the kid a toy gun, end of story. That is how the system works today.

edit on 15/12/10 by JoeSignal because: (no reason given)

14 year old shoots classmates
10 year old shoots another 10 year old
11 year old facing felony gun charges
6 year old shoots classmate

Because of the Columbine incident, the manner in which law enforcement deals with active shooter situations has changed. In addition to traiing using adult active shooters, the training I went through also inluded a twist. While clearing the school with another officer, we were confrtoned with a 8 year old boy who was armed and was the active shooter.