Shooting of man holding water nozzle angers family

[baldeagle]

Pretty much no info but it reads like a clean shoot.

If a person reasonably believed the guy to be holding a gun, there is no need to enter the use of force continum down low and give verbal commands. You CAN if you have time, distance, cover, but sure don't have to.

The comments on the article are troubling, as always.

OK. The officers clearly would have a reasonable belief that the guy had a gun, but when they arrived on the scene they made the decision to observe and not engage until additional assets were on scene. Given that choice, why would they not then stay behind cover and observe long enough to realize they were looking at a water nozzle. Look at the picture. Does that look like a gun to you? Now imagine someone gripping it like a gun. Probably you would only see the tip of the nozzle, but that tip looks quite different from any gun that I'm familiar with. Why not take the time to be sure?

I am bothered by the militaristic attitude that police have adopted. When they hear "man with a gun" they automatically assume the worst and prepare for battle. Then when they shoot unarmed people, they respond with "You shouldn't point things at officers". While the answer is true, it is unsatisfactory. Do the police not have a responsibility to be as certain as they can before taking a life? Do not we CHL holders have that same responsibility? Yes, being confronted by a weapon is a life-threatening situation, but these officers had all the advantages. They had the element of surprise, and they had the ability to retreat behind cover. They chose instead to take a position that put them at risk if it was a gun (and they believed it was!) and they chose to shoot when confronted.

Put yourself in their shoes. Would you have taken a position that exposed you to his line of fire? I sure wouldn't have. Especially not when I knew additional assets were on the way.

It bothers me when you say it reads like a clean shoot. The fact that he didn't have a gun tells me it is not a clean shoot. It might be excusable, but I wouldn't call it clean.

[Purplehood]

Pretty much no info but it reads like a clean shoot.

If a person reasonably believed the guy to be holding a gun, there is no need to enter the use of force continum down low and give verbal commands. You CAN if you have time, distance, cover, but sure don't have to.

The comments on the article are troubling, as always.

OK. The officers clearly would have a reasonable belief that the guy had a gun, but when they arrived on the scene they made the decision to observe and not engage until additional assets were on scene. Given that choice, why would they not then stay behind cover and observe long enough to realize they were looking at a water nozzle. Look at the picture. Does that look like a gun to you? Now imagine someone gripping it like a gun. Probably you would only see the tip of the nozzle, but that tip looks quite different from any gun that I'm familiar with. Why not take the time to be sure?

I am bothered by the militaristic attitude that police have adopted. When they hear "man with a gun" they automatically assume the worst and prepare for battle. Then when they shoot unarmed people, they respond with "You shouldn't point things at officers". While the answer is true, it is unsatisfactory. Do the police not have a responsibility to be as certain as they can before taking a life? Do not we CHL holders have that same responsibility? Yes, being confronted by a weapon is a life-threatening situation, but these officers had all the advantages. They had the element of surprise, and they had the ability to retreat behind cover. They chose instead to take a position that put them at risk if it was a gun (and they believed it was!) and they chose to shoot when confronted.

Put yourself in their shoes. Would you have taken a position that exposed you to his line of fire? I sure wouldn't have. Especially not when I knew additional assets were on the way.

It bothers me when you say it reads like a clean shoot. The fact that he didn't have a gun tells me it is not a clean shoot. It might be excusable, but I wouldn't call it clean.

I believe you made a good point about putting yourself in their shoes.

Despite being in positions of cover and/or concealment, they may have determined that action was required immediately in order to prevent the "perps" possible attempts to attack unsuspecting bystanders. Anything might have triggered this.
Based on what little that I have to go on, it looks like one of two things to me:
- stupid drunk
- suicide by cop

[Purplehood]

Do the police not have a responsibility to be as certain as they can before taking a life?

Without being shot & killed themselves, sure.

We did some informal tests on a range in Cape Town back in the 80s and we found that, at normal speed and at further than 10 yards, it was impossible to see if the guy was holding a pistol or something else - the hands were just too quick, so 95% of the time we hit the buzzer (to simulate a shot at him) if his arm came up and pointed at us.

Try it yourself sometime, it's an absolutely frightening exercise when done totally cold with no warm-ups - as it would be in real life.

Was it tragic? Heck, yes - but those excoriating the cops have obviously never experienced anything like that for themselves.

BINGO. You shoot first or you get hit first if it appears that you or any bystanders are in danger (as an LEO, not necessarily as a CHL).

[baldeagle]

Do the police not have a responsibility to be as certain as they can before taking a life?

Without being shot & killed themselves, sure.

We did some informal tests on a range in Cape Town back in the 80s and we found that, at normal speed and at further than 10 yards, it was impossible to see if the guy was holding a pistol or something else - the hands were just too quick, so 95% of the time we hit the buzzer (to simulate a shot at him) if his arm came up and pointed at us.

Try it yourself sometime; it's an absolutely frightening exercise when done totally cold with no warm-ups - as it would be in real life.

I have done it online. To say that it's difficult is an understatement. To do it perfectly is almost impossible. And I would think that in real life the pressure is enormous, because your life really could be on the line.

Was it tragic? Heck, yes - but those excoriating the cops have obviously never experienced anything like that for themselves.

I hope you're not putting me in that group. The reason I'm struggling with this one is because I believe the officers had options but chose the wrong ones.

[Oldgringo]

On TV and in the movies, all of the cops always loudly yell, "Drop the Weapon, Drop it NOW!" They do it from cover, too.

At the risk of being contentious (heaven forbid), none of us were there and none of us saw what the LEO's saw. Certainly none of us know what was going through their Kalifornia minds anymore than we know what the guys in Las Vegas were thinking when they gunned down the guy at Costco.

I'm not sure what I would have done, but I wouldn't be standing out in the open on a "Man With Gun" call and I do think that I'd be able to pick out a hose nozzle in a line-up. Speaking of which, at what distance was this misguided soul drilled? If they were close enough to shoot him with a handgun, don't you think they were close enough to see the deceased's weapon? What's that smell?

[TxRVer]

Just another example of why the sheeple of this country need to get over the 'guns are bad' mindset. Without that fear the neighbors might have looked closer and realized the drunk was holding something other than a gun. They could have just called 911 and reported a drunk acting stupid.

[Katygunnut]

Does it bother anyone else that this guy was on his own property when he was shot? I know that he was on a porch, so not like he was completely inside his own house, but it still seems like the bystanders and others could stay a reasonable distance away with relative ease. It just seems to me that the standard should be a little higher before you shoot someone who is on their own property and by definition is contained to one place / not pursuing others such that they could reasonably get away to a safe distance.

I also agree with the idiocy of the people who called in that he had a gun without taking the effort to actually check this out for themselves.

Edited to add that apparently this was his friend's property (yard or "stoop" depending on the specific account). I don't know that this changes the fact that the threat level is still lower than if the guy was walking through the neighborhood pointing an apparent gun at folks.

[Oldgringo]

Does it bother anyone else that this guy was on his own property when he was shot? I know that he was on a porch, so not like he was completely inside his own house, but it still seems like the bystanders and others could stay a reasonable distance away with relative ease. It just seems to me that the standard should be a little higher before you shoot someone who is on their own property and by definition is contained to one place / not pursuing others such that they could reasonably get away to a safe distance.

I also agree with the idiocy of the people who called in that he had a gun without taking the effort to actually check this out for themselves.

Edited to add that apparently this was his friend's property (yard or "stoop" depending on the specific account). I don't know that this changes the fact that the threat level is still lower than if the guy was walking through the neighborhood pointing an apparent gun at folks.

...if the guy was going through the neighborhood pointing his nozzle at folks.

There, I fixed that for you.

[Purplehood]

Does it bother anyone else that this guy was on his own property when he was shot? I know that he was on a porch, so not like he was completely inside his own house, but it still seems like the bystanders and others could stay a reasonable distance away with relative ease. It just seems to me that the standard should be a little higher before you shoot someone who is on their own property and by definition is contained to one place / not pursuing others such that they could reasonably get away to a safe distance.

I also agree with the idiocy of the people who called in that he had a gun without taking the effort to actually check this out for themselves.

Edited to add that apparently this was his friend's property (yard or "stoop" depending on the specific account). I don't know that this changes the fact that the threat level is still lower than if the guy was walking through the neighborhood pointing an apparent gun at folks.

Not to quibble, but if a guy is apparently holding a gun in a threatening manner, how is the threat level dropped in any manner simply because of the identity of the property-owner?

[gigag04]

The reason I'm struggling with this one is because I believe the officers had options but chose the wrong ones.

Based on what? The article posted? I don't feel like that is near enough info to judge their actions. As you can see in my original reply, I said "no info" first.

You have mentioned a few times in this post to "put yourself in their shoes." Well, that's really easy for me...I almost shot someone in January last year that was fleeing from a home invasion robbery because they made a furtive movement. I have done shoot/no shoot training, in live fire capacity - I'm not an expert, or even good, when compared to many out there. I do have an appreciation for what it is like to balance to totality of factors when responding to call like that.

Some of the people commenting (on the newspaper's site) think that cops should line up on the chopping block just because they put a badge on...that's stupid. I'm not willing to sacrifice the well being of my family over someone's stupidity...if it comes down to me going home, or giving them another millisecond of pointing something shiny at me, I'm taking the shot. I hope you guys would too.

[Oldgringo]

The bottom line of this post and all of the other renactments and/or hypothetical situations debated on this forum is that none of the debaters were there. Ergo, none of us know what the real actors saw and none of us know what we play actors would have done had we been there.

It's kinda' like Tennessee's loss to Maryland in the Music City Bowl. Had I been the U.T. coach, Maryland wouldn't have been able to tie the game with one (1) second left on the clock.

[baldeagle]

The reason I'm struggling with this one is because I believe the officers had options but chose the wrong ones.

Based on what? The article posted?

No, based on the article that I linked to earlier. The article states that he was on the "backyard porch" of an apartment. It also states that the officers took positions where they could setup a "containment area" around him while they waited for backup to arrive. He fired no shots. No one's life was in danger. When he pointed the water nozzle at them, they shot him.

This raises numerous questions for me. Why didn't they get behind cover? Why didn't they simply retreat behind the walls of the apartment? Why did they chose to escalate a situation where no one was in danger by placing themselves in a position where they would be forced to fire if he pointed the water nozzle at them?

What bothers me about this situation is that it so closely parallels Erik Scott's shooting. The officers had false information that they believed to be true. Rather than find a way to verify the veracity of the report, they took it at face value and assumed the worst. The end result was a man dead who should not have been killed.

[Purplehood]

The reason I'm struggling with this one is because I believe the officers had options but chose the wrong ones.

Based on what? The article posted?

No, based on the article that I linked to earlier. The article states that he was on the "backyard porch" of an apartment. It also states that the officers took positions where they could setup a "containment area" around him while they waited for backup to arrive. He fired no shots. No one's life was in danger. When he pointed the water nozzle at them, they shot him.

This raises numerous questions for me. Why didn't they get behind cover? Why didn't they simply retreat behind the walls of the apartment? Why did they chose to escalate a situation where no one was in danger by placing themselves in a position where they would be forced to fire if he pointed the water nozzle at them?

What bothers me about this situation is that it so closely parallels Erik Scott's shooting. The officers had false information that they believed to be true. Rather than find a way to verify the veracity of the report, they took it at face value and assumed the worst. The end result was a man dead who should not have been killed.

And the Police are alive today, after a tragic shooting of a possible shooter. I don't see any comparison to the Erik Scott shooting, but that is simply my opinion.