police murder man in my town protests and demonstrations

[Chaos Descending]

Sometimes really unfortunate things happen. That's the real world.

Sometimes when a situation is developing, the best possible outcome is still a bad outcome.

That's the real world.

I'm sorry this guy is dead.

I'm sorry he was acting drunk in public and playing with something that looked like a gun, and acting like it was a gun.

I'm sorry his neighbor called the cops and told them that a drunken dude with a gun was hanging around the neighborhood.

Everything I can find on this case makes it look like the cops did what they were trained to do.

1. Show up on scene and access the intial threat.
2. Looks like a guy with a gun? Check.
3. Call in backup.
4. Wait for backup.
5. Set up containment.
6. Challenge the suspe- HOLY SHIT HE'S RAISING HIS GUN AT ME!
7. Neutralize the threat.

Unfortunate. Very sad. It's just a shitty situation. It's absolutely right that we feel bad for the guy who needlessly lost his life and for his family.

But what could be done better?

 

[Miss Chicken]

He wasn't in public. he was on private property, in a courtyard.

The 'gun' was very small. Police photos make it look a lot larger than it was.

The man who made the 911 phone call said that the 'gun' was a tiny six shooter but also admitted he knew very little about guns.

Even if the police actions are explainable to some degree they are all still based on misinterpretation of a man's innocent actions. It was this misinterpretation that got Zerby killed. Zerby is still 0% responsible.

 

[clint g]

That video does nothing but corroborate what I've been saying all this time...

the coroner himself says the wound pattern is in line with what the cops said happen. I mean, did you even watch the video yourself? in that very video the chief said exactly what I mentioned in my post. Now it's is absolutely true that we will never know what Zerby was thinking but you know what? That isn't the officers fault. They thought he was going to murder them. Is it tragic? Yes it is. Was it avoidable? Only if he didn't point a potential weapon at the police. Sadly, he did. The cops interpreted it as a threat and they reacted according to the threat and common sense.

He wasn't in public. he was on private property, in a courtyard.

The 'gun' was very small. Police photos make it look a lot larger than it was.

The man who made the 911 phone call said that the 'gun' was a tiny six shooter but also admitted he knew very little about guns.

The hose could easily look like a snub 38 if seen from the right angle

http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&gcx=w&ix=c2&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=snub+38

Which doesn't change anything. A small gun kills just like a large one.

 

[Chaos Descending]

He wasn't in public. he was on private property, in a courtyard.

That doesn't really change anything. The fact is he was visible to the public. In a lot of jurisdictions you are guilty of public drunkenness even if you are on private property if your antics are observable from the street, neighbors houses etc., for example, if you're sitting on a front porch of a house with a small yard and no fence.

The 'gun' was very small. Police photos make it look a lot larger than it was.

Wholly irrelevant. A small gun can kill just as well as a big gun.

The man who made the 911 phone call said that the 'gun' was a tiny six shooter but also admitted he knew very little about guns.

Not really helpful, as he wasn't unsure about whether it was a gun or not, just what type of gun.

Even if the police actions are explainable to some degree they are all still based on misinterpretation of a man's innocent actions. It was this misinterpretation that got Zerby killed. Zerby is still 0% responsible.

Just because Zerby is "0% responsible" (which is arguable), doesn't mean the Police are responsible either.

Here's the key to this dilemma: Would a different group of people (assumed to be average, reasonable people) with the same facts going in have done anything different?

 

[Miss Chicken]

I am not denying that Zerby raised his arms, I am not denying that
the police thought that he was aiming at them. What I am saying is that the police misinterpreted Mr Zerby's actions and it was that misinterpretation that caused his death.

Mt Zerby's is 0% responsible for his own death. It wasn't against the law for him to sit on his friend's steps waiting for his friend to come home. It isn't against the law to play with a garden nozzle. He didn't disobey any lawful command (because none was given).

The police need to stop blaming Mr Zerby and admit that their procedures and mistakes were responsible for the death. This doesn't
mean that they have to admit to criminal responsibilty, but they should admit that Mr Zerby's son certainly should fully compensated by the authorities as his father was not fault at all.

 

[clint g]

Let me as you this question, what do YOU think is a better way of handling it, cause I can assure you just about every department does it the way Long Beach does it.

I can assure you this though, based on previous events such as this the family will get money from the city.

 

[Miss Chicken]

If an innocent person is killed it is time for the police to review their procedures to see what went wrong and to see if there might have been be better way to handle such a situation in the future.

And you still haven't explain to me why the police should try to put any blame on the victim at all if it is in truth a horrible mistake.

 

[clint g]

If an innocent person is killed it is time for the police to review their procedures to see what went wrong and to see if there might have been be better way to handle such a situation in the future.

What makes you think they haven't? They do it this way for a reason. You cordon off the area so that innocent bystanders don't get hurt. You try to keep an eye on the guy to see what he does and where he goes while hiding at the same time. You do this so you don't provoke a response. You call for backup so that if things go south you have help. They did the right things. Sadly, the guy pointed what they thought was a gun at them. What did you expect them to do, wait and take a risk that he shoot them? What if it was a gun? You wan't the cop to just sit and wait for a bullet to go through his head? Contrary to popular belief, the police are under no obligation to die for anyone. Their first priority is to go home alive, just like anyone else. The police officers took the only logical action they had. Please give me an alternative. Once you do that, then forward it to all the police departments in the country, because I'm sure you know more about police tactics then they do.

And you still haven't explain to me why the police should try to put any blame on the victim at all if it is in truth a horrible mistake.

They're not really blaming him so much as saying the officers in question weren't at fault.

If you ask me, no one is really at fault. The cops simply reacted to what they believed to be a hostile action. It's sad, but shit happens.

 

[CaptainStoner]

pointing a gun-like object at the police does not = 0% responsibility for what happens next

 

[clint g]

pointing a gun-like object at the police does not = 0% responsibility for what happens next

What would you like to see happen?

 

[Miss Chicken]

One of the things that they should have done is to have removed handcuffs off a dying man because they should have realised that the nozzle was not a gun. They have never explained why their kept him cuffed. If it was police procedure than that procedure is wrong. At that time he was certainly not a threat.

Secondly the police chief almost immediately staRted to blame Zerby for his own death. It was very unprofessional for the chief to do this before any investigation had been concluded. In the end the chief had to change his story from Zerby was responsible to it was a tragic accident.

Once again I have never said that police acted criminally only that misinterpreted Mr Zerby's actions and that it was that misinterpretation that led to Mr Zerby's death. I can't see what is so hard with agreeing with that statement.

 

[Miss Chicken]

pointing a gun-like object at the police does not = 0% responsibility for what happens next

It does if that person has no idea that the police were there. He was not breaking any law by playing with a hose nozzle and there is nil proof that he knowingly and willingly pointed it at anyone.

 

[CaptainStoner]

pointing a gun-like object at the police does not = 0% responsibility for what happens next

What would you like to see happen?

I don't think you understand what I just said.

 

[CaptainStoner]

pointing a gun-like object at the police does not = 0% responsibility for what happens next

It does if that person has no idea that the police were there. He was not breaking any law by playing with a hose nozzle and there is nil proof that he knowingly and willingly pointed it at anyone.

I agree that this man should have been given a command to drop whatever it was. But he's not 0% responsible for what happened if he pointed it at the police.

 

[clint g]

One of the things that they should have done is to have removed handcuffs off a dying man because they should have realised that the nozzle was not a gun. They have never explained why their kept him cuffed. If it was police procedure than that procedure is wrong. At that time he was certainly not a threat.

It's procedure because a Police Officer can not legally pronounce someone dead. A Police Officer is not allowed to un-cuff someone until an EMT at least comes to the scene and says they are dead. It's stupid I know but it is what it is.

Secondly the police chief almost immediately stated to blame Zerby for his own death. It was very unprofessional for the chief to do this before any investigation had been concluded. In the end the chief had to change his story from Zerby was responsible to it was a tragic accident.

Once again I have never said that police acted criminally only that misinterpreted Mr Zerby's actions and that it was that misinterpretation that led to Mr Zerby's death. I can't see what is so hard with agreeing with that statement.

going by your very first response (when you quoted me) it seemed like your intent was to show that the cops did something wrong, which is a notion I disagree with

Tell that to the family of the guy who was shot dead by police because he was sitting on his friend's porch playing with a hose nozzle.

It seemed as if you were implying a level of incompetence. You then went on to state that they didn't follow procedure, which wasn't true and added to my belief that you were making the accusation that the police were in the wrong. If this isn't the case and this is what you really meant

Once again I have never said that police acted criminally only that misinterpreted Mr Zerby's actions and that it was that misinterpretation that led to Mr Zerby's death.

as opposed to this

To me this suggests that the officers concerned had improper training or had reacting wrongly to the situation despite their training.

or this

am sure that the majority of policemen could have handled the Zerby case batter than the two policemen did. Their poor treatment of the situation, especially their failure to follow proper procedure, means that they should not be policemen. Their mistakes were made before Zerby ever innocently raised his arms.

(which is especially not true since they did exactly what they are supposed to do...go figure)

then we are more in line than I first thought. I'm still curious what you think is the better way to approach this. They responded in a textbook manner that attempted to resolve all threats to themselves and others. What could they have done differently that wouldn't have put themselves or others at risk if he DID have a gun?

 

[Miss Chicken]

Maybe the textbook needs to be changed if following it can led to the death of innocent people (and Mr Zerby is certainly not the first to die when the police have been in error).

It is possible for the police to act wrongly in a situation but not act criminally.

It is possible that other policemen could have been in exactly the same situation and not misinterpret the situation. It is possible that other policemen might have taken better cover and therefore not felt threatened. It is possible that another policeman who was only a short distance from the victim (12 feet according to the lawyer, 23 feet according to the police) could have made a better identification of what Mr Zerby had in his hand.

 

[clint g]

If the cops violated protocol like you said, and killed this guy it very quickly becomes manslaughter.

It is possible that other policemen could have been in exactly the same situation and not misinterpret the situation. It is possible that other policemen might have taken better cover and therefore not felt threatened. It is possible that another policeman who was only a short distance from the victim (12 feet according to the lawyer, 23 feet according to the police) could have made a better identification of what Mr Zerby had in his hand.

All easily said from the comfort of a desk behind a computer months after the fact.

 

[Miss Chicken]

Breaking protocol/procedure isn't neccessarily a criminal offence, it could only mean internal discipline or retraining being needed, or dismissal from the force.

 

[clint g]

Breaking protocol/procedure isn't neccessarily a criminal offence, it could only mean internal discipline or retraining being needed.

No, not over here. If you break protocol and kill someone chances are you're going to wind up like this guy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant#Preliminary_hearing

There's a whole host of laws that cover wrongfully killing someone. At a bare minimum the officers themselves will suffer civil lawsuits and since they failed to follow protocol, they would't be covered by the city (something many departments call indemnification). By failing to follow protocol, there are many negative things that could happen to these officers that they don't deserve.

 

[Miss Chicken]

I have nothing against police being hit with civil suits if their actions are negligent.

For example, no charges were ever laid against Ian Birk after he shot John T Williams dead and Birk was far more guilty than the police in the Zerby case.

Williams' family did sue the city and won 1.5 million suit but I don't think they sued Birk himself.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/files/2011/02/Firearms-review-board-report.pdf