Shooting of man holding water nozzle angers family

[Fangs]

I think what some people are trying to say is that if the police had never shown up, this man would still be alive, and no one else's life would have been put in danger.

In this instance the LEOs' presence made it worse.

[RPB]

I'd prefer police not ignore all "man waiving a gun around recklessly" calls though .... better late than never.
Yeah, I open carry in my holster daily in my yard, but I don't waive anything around nor point anything at anyone.
I also don't live in Commiefornia, and my neighbors are used to seeing me ... really skimpy on details in that story too, perhaps his neighbors knew the guy was a nut ... perhaps a prior criminal history (or prior calls relating to)of nuttiness/danger to himself ...

The nut that killed officer Jeff Ginn had prior history/calls at that address ... Jeff didn't snap that that's where he was going though and apparently neither did the dispatcher or anyone else... until just a little bit later.
(Jeff was investigating smoke he thought was coming from the house, concern for welfare call. The nut was angry because he just got a letter from the city to mow his lawn or be fined. He was angry at the City, Jeff was a city police officer ... (He might have thought he was about to get a ticket for not mowing, I think he was off his medications..) The gun battle actually occurred in the yard, but the nut had even cut multiple holes in the sheetrock walls to enable him to shoot/see from room to room too, in case he needed to. I'm actually referring to him as "the nut" not out of disrespect, but out of respect for the nut's family, in case they "Google" his name and this post won't show up.... They suffered a loss too.)

[Purplehood]

I think what some people are trying to say is that if the police had never shown up, this man would still be alive, and no one else's life would have been put in danger.

In this instance the LEOs' presence made it worse.

Quit calling the Police.

[Fangs]

I love how I can count on you guys to consistently take my posts to ridiculous extremes. I'm not advocating that LEOs ignore "man with a gun" calls, nor that everyone should just keep it to themselves when they see a drunk guy playing with something they perceive to be a gun.

All I said was that, had the police not been summoned, this drunk guy would have lived on to sober up and have another beer at a later date. I thought "in this instance" meant something in English.

But since I'm being looked at to solve the world's problems, here's my shot at it:

The LEOs could set up a perimeter, keep a relatively safe distance and/or use cover, take a chill pill while they keep an eye on the guy so they can drop him if he does start shooting. Someone could pull out their nifty binoculars or after more than 5 minutes of observation they could figure out that he's just a drunk guy playing G.I. Joe with his toy.

A simple, "Hey man, is that a real gun?" Yelled from a good distance or from around a corner could have done a lot of good.

Next time I'm drinking and killing imaginary zombies with a spray nozzle, I hope it's these guys who show up:

http://blutube.policeone.com/Media/5997 ... mans-hand/

No, I don't expect them to shoot the nozzle out of my hand, but rolling up in their patrol vehicle and chilling behind it until they figure out that it isn't Rambo time would make me feel special.

[Purplehood]

I love how I can count on you guys to consistently take my posts to ridiculous extremes. I'm not advocating that LEOs ignore "man with a gun" calls, nor that everyone should just keep it to themselves when they see a drunk guy playing with something they perceive to be a gun.

All I said was that, had the police not been summoned, this drunk guy would have lived on to sober up and have another beer at a later date. I thought "in this instance" meant something in English.

But since I'm being looked at to solve the world's problems, here's my shot at it:

The LEOs could set up a perimeter, keep a relatively safe distance and/or use cover, take a chill pill while they keep an eye on the guy so they can drop him if he does start shooting. Someone could pull out their nifty binoculars or after more than 5 minutes of observation they could figure out that he's just a drunk guy playing G.I. Joe with his toy.

A simple, "Hey man, is that a real gun?" Yelled from a good distance or from around a corner could have done a lot of good.

Next time I'm drinking and killing imaginary zombies with a spray nozzle, I hope it's these guys who show up:

http://blutube.policeone.com/Media/5997 ... mans-hand/

No, I don't expect them to shoot the nozzle out of my hand, but rolling up in their patrol vehicle and chilling behind it until they figure out that it isn't Rambo time would make me feel special.

Fangs. I don't mean to come across as picking on you. But I have to ask, why would a Police Officer ever ask, "Hey man, is that a real gun?" Would you expect an answer such as, "Nah, I was just joshing you"?

We are all guilty of being arm-chair quarterbacks, myself included. I think what many of us are trying to get across is that the Police had a really unfortunate situation develop and it came out bad. But from our after-the-fact viewpoint, it simply looked like an avoidable train-wreck.

[Fangs]

Pretty much anything yelled from cover would have been better than what ended up happening. "Drop it!" "Police, get on the ground!" "Dude, what are you doing?!" "Hey buddy, you're scaring the locals!" "Having fun?" "We think you have a gun and we're going to kill you!" Anything, seriously, pick one.

No, I wasn't there. I wasn't all hyped up on adrenaline thinking I was going into a situation that could turn deadly in milliseconds. The officers had a lot going on, and they were fed incorrect information about the nature of the encounter.

I believe it came down to a split second "shoot/don't shoot" decision due to poor tactics/training/whatever. It didn't have to go there, and it never would have if the LEOs weren't there or handled the situation better. How long would you have to watch the guy before you saw him pulling the trigger with no resulting bang? It's not like there had been any shots fired, the guy wasn't actively chasing people down. I doubt it was a situation where there wasn't a corner within a couple hundred feet they could stand behind and initiate a dialog with the suspect.

Some part of me just wants to believe that LEOs would generally give someone a chance before killing them based on assumptions. They have vests, they have rifles, why, oh, why would they feel a need to put themselves in a situation where it comes down to one side saying he pointed something at them, and the other side being permanently silenced.

I don't think anything someone says on a forum could ever really bother me, but I do tend to get more sarcastic with my responses the more people misconstrue my posts. It's also quite possible that I live in my own fantasy world where I expect LEOs to take life and death decisions seriously, for everyone involved.

I'd also like these guys at my drunken-imaginary-zombie-killing-rampage:
http://www.kens5.com/news/slideshows/Gu ... 02292.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Fangs]

I found the video interesting:

http://belmontshore.patch.com/articles/ ... ing-440-pm

[gigag04]

I'm going to respond, but I don't want to come across as being a jerk. I'll preface my replies with this: I am asking these questions because I feel like your opinion is very strong, and we have very little info to work with. I cannot form such a strong opinion due to the lack of information. As I said though, I fully respect your opinion and, to an extent your questioning. It keeps civil servants accountable and on their toes.

I believe it came down to a split second "shoot/don't shoot" decision due to poor tactics/training/whatever.

Are you familiar with their training tactics? Do have first hand knowledge on how departments commonly respond to man with a gun call. Can you differentiate it from an active shooter call.

It didn't have to go there, and it never would have if the LEOs weren't there or handled the situation better.

How can you be so sure? Were you there to witness it, or are you relaying on third, fourth, or more hand information?

How long would you have to watch the guy before you saw him pulling the trigger with no resulting bang?

LEOs are generally not in the habit of watching people pull triggers with innocents around. The standard training and response to such a call would generally require action prior to subjects pulling any triggers.

It's not like there had been any shots fired, the guy wasn't actively chasing people down.

It is my opinion that this comment discounts the fact the officers had a reasonable belief that the subject had a handgun. If they reasonably believed he did, then there is no requirement to wait for him to start shooting before taking action.

I doubt it was a situation where there wasn't a corner within a couple hundred feet they could stand behind and initiate a dialog with the suspect.

Doubt as you will, but you were not there. Nor was I. Have you responded to man with a gun calls? Would you count on your ability to step from cover, during your discussion, and make a surgical shot at distance, under combat stress, if things escalated and you needed to? Perhaps the officers were holding what they had until more units arrived and they could clamp down the scene - and MAYBE the subject made that fatal furtive movement prior to everything getting setup. I say maybe because, like you, I was not there.

Some part of me just wants to believe that LEOs would generally give someone a chance before killing them based on assumptions. They have vests, they have rifles, why, oh, why would they feel a need to put themselves in a situation where it comes down to one side saying he pointed something at them, and the other side being permanently silenced.

Every self defense shooting operates on an assumption that deadly force is necessary to prevent a reasonable, imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death. Once that criterion is met, be it an LEO, armed citizen, or a member of the military, can act. The fact that responders are better armed, and protected, does not mean that they have to take incoming fire before acting.

It's also quite possible that I live in my own fantasy world where I expect LEOs to take life and death decisions seriously, for everyone involved.

I would hope that anyone in the position to make life/death decisions would take them seriously. Do you have evidence that responding officers treated this situation lightly? If not, why hint that you feel they didn't? Nobody walks away from something like this easily.

The issue here is not how the officers responded, where they stood, or what they were wearing. In my opinion it comes down to whether the officers had a reasonable belief the subject was armed. If man had in fact had a gun, the shooting would've been perfectly clean. In this situation, I personally believe the officers were fully convinced the man was armed due to the totality of the information they had at that time. They responded to an awful, stressful situation, with bad intel. They swore to protect the public so instead of hanging out hundreds of feet away, they came right to the heart of the matter, perceived an IMMEDIATE threat, and did what they had to, based on the info they had access to at time.

Is it terrible, yes. Were they ultimately wrong in what they knew, yes. Did they act reasonably based on what they had at the time....I say they did - but I qualify this opinion with the fact that I don't feel I have enough information to be sure in it.


Good discussion IMO.

[Fangs]

I'll run through your questions, gigag, though I'm sure you knew the answer to some of them as you typed them. I enjoy healthy debate, and I'll be the first to admit that my first post on this topic was just a statement made with 20/20 hindsight. Some assumptions others made based on my post was just a little silly, possibly tongue-in-cheek.

I believe it came down to a split second "shoot/don't shoot" decision due to poor tactics/training/whatever.

Are you familiar with their training tactics? Do have first hand knowledge on how departments commonly respond to man with a gun call. Can you differentiate it from an active shooter call.

No, no, probably. From what I've read after Googling the the victim's name, their tactics involved setting up a containment perimeter and calling in back-up. So far, so good. The reason I would prefer to assume that it came down to a split second decision is that anything else would mean he was specifically set up to be killed, which I don't think is the case. The LEOs' containment perimeter was obviously too close or poorly thought out if they didn't approach him and he forced them to fire by "taking aim". Shots having been fired by the suspect would mean he's already endangering people and he has a real weapon. Some drunk guy sitting cross-legged making gun noises would be a slightly lower threat, with serious potential.

It didn't have to go there, and it never would have if the LEOs weren't there or handled the situation better.

How can you be so sure? Were you there to witness it, or are you relaying on third, fourth, or more hand information?

We can all sit here after the fact and see he didn't have a gun. As with this whole thread, it's all 3rd or 4th hand info, but the fact is that the man is dead because of how the officers handled the situation. I'm not saying it was brilliant to be waving a gun-like object around, but that minus the police officers, still wouldn't have gotten anyone killed. The concerned neighbor did the right thing to call it in, the officers did the right thing to show up. After that is where it went wrong.

How long would you have to watch the guy before you saw him pulling the trigger with no resulting bang?

LEOs are generally not in the habit of watching people pull triggers with innocents around. The standard training and response to such a call would generally require action prior to subjects pulling any triggers.

Everything I've read says that the officers were there for 10 to 15 minutes before the shooting. What kind of drunk practices trigger safety? After that amount of time, even if they couldn't figure out that it wasn't a gun, they should have at least been able to tell that there wasn't a round in the chamber. This gives you several options knowing that the obviously intoxicated guy with slowed reaction time, would at minimum have to detect your approach, rack a round into the chamber, and then think about causing mayhem.

It's not like there had been any shots fired, the guy wasn't actively chasing people down.

It is my opinion that this comment discounts the fact the officers had a reasonable belief that the subject had a handgun. If they reasonably believed he did, then there is no requirement to wait for him to start shooting before taking action.

The 10-15 minutes spent observing him kinda puts a kink in this question too. They obviously didn't see him as an immediate threat if they spent that amount of time hanging out. They obviously weren't observing very closely if they thought he was an immediate threat when he pointed the "gun" at them which he'd been harmlessly firing at buildings.

I doubt it was a situation where there wasn't a corner within a couple hundred feet they could stand behind and initiate a dialog with the suspect.

Doubt as you will, but you were not there. Nor was I. Have you responded to man with a gun calls? Would you count on your ability to step from cover, during your discussion, and make a surgical shot at distance, under combat stress, if things escalated and you needed to? Perhaps the officers were holding what they had until more units arrived and they could clamp down the scene - and MAYBE the subject made that fatal furtive movement prior to everything getting setup. I say maybe because, like you, I was not there.

http://belmontshore.patch.com/articles/ ... ing-440-pm The video at this link gives you a pretty good feel for the layout of the building. How hard would it have been to have one officer with a rifle keep an eye on the guy while another officer talks to him from a different location? You are right about his furtive move taking place before everything was set up (as reported in the news), that's basically the department's reasoning, "We weren't ready yet." I counter that they should have hung back a bit more until they were set up and ready to talk. There's plenty of brick structures in that video, and from the looks of it, the officers could have just as easily stayed in cover and started talking instead of shooting when he pointed the object at them.

Some part of me just wants to believe that LEOs would generally give someone a chance before killing them based on assumptions. They have vests, they have rifles, why, oh, why would they feel a need to put themselves in a situation where it comes down to one side saying he pointed something at them, and the other side being permanently silenced.

Every self defense shooting operates on an assumption that deadly force is necessary to prevent a reasonable, imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death. Once that criterion is met, be it an LEO, armed citizen, or a member of the military, can act. The fact that responders are better armed, and protected, does not mean that they have to take incoming fire before acting.

I agree that they shouldn't have to take incoming fire, but I believe they had more than enough time to figure out that this guy wasn't about to go on a killing spree. I'm also not convinced that they had to shoot back as opposed to staying safe behind cover until they got everything set up.

It's also quite possible that I live in my own fantasy world where I expect LEOs to take life and death decisions seriously, for everyone involved.

I would hope that anyone in the position to make life/death decisions would take them seriously. Do you have evidence that responding officers treated this situation lightly? If not, why hint that you feel they didn't? Nobody walks away from something like this easily.

To me, the dead guy with his spray nozzle is evidence that the responding officers messed up. Was it a difficult situation? Sure. No one can really say for sure if there was a "right" solution to this, though looking back there definitely was a better way to do it, with the possibility of no one being killed. I guess it just disappoints me that the officers didn't plan for "what if he does something before back-up gets here" with something other than "blast him with the shotgun".

The issue here is not how the officers responded, where they stood, or what they were wearing. In my opinion it comes down to whether the officers had a reasonable belief the subject was armed. If man had in fact had a gun, the shooting would've been perfectly clean. In this situation, I personally believe the officers were fully convinced the man was armed due to the totality of the information they had at that time. They responded to an awful, stressful situation, with bad intel. They swore to protect the public so instead of hanging out hundreds of feet away, they came right to the heart of the matter, perceived an IMMEDIATE threat, and did what they had to, based on the info they had access to at time.

Is it terrible, yes. Were they ultimately wrong in what they knew, yes. Did they act reasonably based on what they had at the time....I say they did - but I qualify this opinion with the fact that I don't feel I have enough information to be sure in it.

I agree with you that their actions would have been justifiable IF he had a real gun.
Where we disagree is that I believe:
- There was enough evidence available on the scene for them to realize it wasn't a real gun, or at least not ready to fire, had they considered the possibility.
- They didn't have to shoot, ducking behind legitimate cover was a viable option.
- Once he noticed them, they really could have started talking instead of shooting. Talking would have been a good idea at any point along the way.

These are some of the articles I read on the shooting:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... dmits.html
http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_16885718
http://www.lbpost.com/news/ryan/10795

[lookingin]

unfortunate, yes, but im(humble)o, this man is not dead because police did/did not do anything - he is dead because of his own irresponsible decisions.

[baldeagle]

I'm going to respond, but I don't want to come across as being a jerk. I'll preface my replies with this: I am asking these questions because I feel like your opinion is very strong, and we have very little info to work with. I cannot form such a strong opinion due to the lack of information. As I said though, I fully respect your opinion and, to an extent your questioning. It keeps civil servants accountable and on their toes.

I respect you, and I know better than to think you would be trying to be a jerk. I believe you are giving your honest opinion based on your knowledge of doctrine, tactics and training as a police officer. And I believe you are a good officer.

And that is precisely what I have a problem with. And I hope you know that I'm not trying to be a jerk nor am I anti-police.

It's not like there had been any shots fired, the guy wasn't actively chasing people down.

It is my opinion that this comment discounts the fact the officers had a reasonable belief that the subject had a handgun. If they reasonably believed he did, then there is no requirement to wait for him to start shooting before taking action.

This bothers me tremendously. I can understand this doctrine if other lives are at risk, but the only lives at risk in this situation where those of the officers, and they chose to put themselves in that position.

I do not believe the first option of a police officer should be to take action that escalates the possibility that shots will have to be fired. That is certainly not the first duty of a CHL holder. Our responsibility is to de-escalate, escape, defuse. If all of that fails and we have no other option then we use deadly force. Why should the police be any different? (Yes, I obviously know they cannot try to escape, they have to contain or capture.)

I doubt it was a situation where there wasn't a corner within a couple hundred feet they could stand behind and initiate a dialog with the suspect.

Doubt as you will, but you were not there. Nor was I. Have you responded to man with a gun calls? Would you count on your ability to step from cover, during your discussion, and make a surgical shot at distance, under combat stress, if things escalated and you needed to? Perhaps the officers were holding what they had until more units arrived and they could clamp down the scene - and MAYBE the subject made that fatal furtive movement prior to everything getting setup. I say maybe because, like you, I was not there.

Look, we all know we weren't there, and we all know we're dealing with imperfect information. But Fangs' point is still valid. If the police hadn't showed up and shot the man, he would still be alive today. Just because a citizen makes a foolhardy decision does not justify his death. The police have some culpability as well. Before we excuse them with a wave of "they thought he had a gun", we need to know what other options they had and why they selected exposed positions that put them at risk so they had to fire when he pointed the water nozzle at them.

Every self defense shooting operates on an assumption that deadly force is necessary to prevent a reasonable, imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death. Once that criterion is met, be it an LEO, armed citizen, or a member of the military, can act. The fact that responders are better armed, and protected, does not mean that they have to take incoming fire before acting.

You're leaving something out. For deadly force to be necessary to prevent a reasonable, imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death you have to be in the position where those criteria are met. As a CHL holder, if I can get away from the threat, that's what I'm going to do. As a police officer, your responsibility is to contain the threat not confront it unless there are no other options. I believe, based on what little information we have, that the police had other options.

I could certainly be wrong, and we won't know unless and until more information is forthcoming. But I don't want my police to be aggressors, and it certainly seems like these guys were.

The issue here is not how the officers responded, where they stood, or what they were wearing. In my opinion it comes down to whether the officers had a reasonable belief the subject was armed. If man had in fact had a gun, the shooting would've been perfectly clean. In this situation, I personally believe the officers were fully convinced the man was armed due to the totality of the information they had at that time. They responded to an awful, stressful situation, with bad intel. They swore to protect the public so instead of hanging out hundreds of feet away, they came right to the heart of the matter, perceived an IMMEDIATE threat, and did what they had to, based on the info they had access to at time.

And with this I totally disagree. It's too aggressive. Contain first. Attack only if there are no other options. That's how hostage situations are handled. But apparently police doctrine for a man with a gun and no hostage is to kill the second you see a "furtive" move.

[gigag04]

I appreciate your comments, sirs. I respectfully disagree, but I can why y'all feel the way you do about it.

I think with more info many of us would find ourselves like minded on the issue, and probably somewhere in between our opposing viewpoints.

[Purplehood]

I am guessing that I would not have made a good LEO. Based on my perception of what happened I would probably have gone with "stop the threat".

[gigag04]

Bump

http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=67494" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[K.Mooneyham]

I guess after reading through some of this I only have one thing to ask: if the LEOs were there for 10-15 minutes, why wouldn't they at least take the 30 seconds to bullhorn the guy with a "This is the police. Get on the ground, now!" or some similar command, then open fire if he didn't comply? Is that just something that is made up for TV?