UPDATED: Seaside police shoot an off-duty federal police officer early Friday

montereycountyweekly.com ^ | 7-17-15 | Nic Coury and Sara Rubin

[smokingfrog]

A 48-year-year old off-duty black federal police officer is still alive after being shot by Seaside Police officers early Friday morning.

Just before 1:30am, officers responded to a call reporting a loud, drunk woman at a house in the 1100 block of Amador Avenue, according to a statement by the Seaside Police Department. Officers gave her a courtesy ride back to her house in the 1200 block of Palm Avenue.

As officers were helping the woman to her door, her husband stepped outside with a gun and officers shot at him. He is Eric Glazier, a federal police lieutenant since 1997 at Naval Support Activity Monterey, the base where Naval Postgraduate School is located.

Seaside police asked District Attorney Dean Flippo to investigate the shooting, as is the SSPD's custom in officer-involved shootings. Flippo agreed, and his investigators arrived on the scene at about 2:30am.

Flippo spoke with members of the media Friday afternoon, but few details are being released at this time.

"He displayed a gun," Flippo said. Investigators aren't sure yet whether the weapon was government-issued or not. They're also not sure whether the man fired his gun, or even pointed it at his wife or the responding Seaside cops.

[DoughtyOne]

Finny, police officers are an extension of the judicial system. Without them, there is no judicial system. They are sworn to uphold the laws of their jurisdiction. They evaluate actions by the public and site them for violations of law, instructing them to appear, or pay fines. If they observe a crime they are authorized to take the citizen into custody to appear before the court. If there is a warrant out for a citizen’s arrest, they are authorized to take that citizen into custody.

Do I think a person should be the “top dog” of their home? Sure I do, with limited exceptions. Being in your home is not the basis for denying an officer the ability to take you into custody if circumstances warrant.

There are statutes on the books. I don’t at all times agree with all of them, but the time to debate their legitimacy is not when an officer comes to your door. That time is when you address the court with an attorney.

Why do I say this? Is it to support a police state, or is it to help FReepers survive a confrontation with police.

Frankly, I’m not suggesting anyone here do anything I wouldn’t be prepared to do myself. I know how to be more safe than if I acted a different way, so I pass it along.

If you want to push your point that you are top dog on your property, by all means walk out in front of a number of police officers with a gun in your hand and yell at them. Wave it around to prove your point.

I can’t stop you. I can only tell you which is best. Do you want to die on your porch, or would you like to live a couple more days to defend your position in front of someone who can listen without a gun being pointed in his direction?

Generally your family will remain at your home, awaiting your safe return. To me that’s more preferential than them having to make calls to arrange for burial services. I guess I would have to be an officer to think this right? /s

[DoughtyOne]

Okay Finny, then you think officers should leave an armed man acting belligerent there and drive away.

If you happen to be a next door neighbor and this guy gets angry enough to fire off a few rounds as the police drive off, who is at fault if one of those rounds enters your home and your daughter head is splattered against her bedroom wall?

The officers cannot simply drive away.

They aren’t safe doing it, and the neighbors aren’t safe if they do it either.

[DoughtyOne]

I agree.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the mention. That may be why the homeowner was on edge too.

This incident is unfortunate.

[DoughtyOne]

As I said to another poster, if you want to prove you’re top dog at your home, just waltz on out there with a gun and yell at the officers. While you’re at it, wave the gun around as you yell at them.

That’ll show em!

I’d prefer you not do that for your own safety, but there’s no reasoning with you, so do as you think best.

Good luck with that.

[DoughtyOne]

This isn’t the topic, but since your brought it up, I’ll address it.

IMO there are too may SWAT teams out there. I believe all SWAT teams should operate out of the Country Sheriff’s Department.

The numbers should be adequate to handle confrontations with known hardened criminals or special assault type crimes, at banks, schools, hospitals, government officers, or even home or business invasions.

Strict guidelines should be devised nationally, by a review board made up of participating SWAT team department heads. Agencies found operating outside the national guidelines would lose accreditation to operate, the department head and others would lose their jobs as warranted.

No knock raids would become a thing of the past. Evidence would have to be submitted and warrants issued to take someone into custody. These operations should be conducted as peacefully as possible.

A waiting game would ensue, but that would be better than an active war zone being declared.

I believe there is clearly an abuse of power going on here. Too many people are dying because officers had the wrong address.

One of the biggest disservices to the public was the program that saw TV cameras rolling as officers execute a breach of homes. Dead wrong!

There would still be SWAT typ situations, but they would be handled differently. No law enforcement agency should every be allowed to destroy evidence. Any department burning a home to the ground and bull-dozing within hours afterwards should see management personnel sent to prison. I realize some fires start because some gas canisters are utilized. Ones that don’t start fires should be the only ones certified for use. Plenty of investigation can take place after a fire is put out. Shell casings remain. Locations of victims can be evaluated. A time-line and progression of events can be assessed.

As for your comments about confronting officers, I agree.

I may not like what an officer is doing, but arguing with them armed or not, will not save my life.

[Finny]

As I said to another poster, if you want to prove you’re top dog at your home, just waltz on out there with a gun and yell at the officers. While you’re at it, wave the gun around as you yell at them.

Really what that is, is suicide by cop. The guy doesn't need to shoot first.

OF COURSE only an idiot would go around waving a gun and yelling at the officers. But EVEN THEN -- who fired the first shot? I call bullshit. If you're gonna be a cop, then be willing to err on the side of avoiding execution, even if it puts your life in danger. If not, get another job.

Compassionate, understanding lawmen are one thing. Scared-bully cops who demand "top dog" status to the point of execution ... need to find another line of work.

Doughty One, your way makes it impossible for people to defend themselves against imposters, EVER. It makes my blood run cold to think that "attitude" and "top dog" are remotely related to justification for cops shooting a guy dead in his own home.

[doorgunner69]

From the article, bolded since you keep adding in colorful things to attempt to bolster your pro-cop shoot first attitude:

""He displayed a gun," Flippo said. Investigators aren't sure yet whether the weapon was government-issued or not. They're also not sure whether the man fired his gun, or even pointed it at his wife or the responding Seaside cops. "

OK, cop, point out where the article says the guy did this:

just waltz on out there with a gun and yell at the officers. While you’re at it, wave the gun around as you yell at them.

Still sounds to me like a guy that heard a commotion, and wisely armed himself not knowing what the hell was going on. Be interesting to know (if lies are not told) if he was given time to do anything before they opened fire. The article definitely does not say he was waving a gun around, which would make anyone nervous.

[DoughtyOne]

As I said to another poster, if you want to prove you’re top dog at your home, just waltz on out there with a gun and yell at the officers. While you’re at it, wave the gun around as you yell at them.

Really what that is, is suicide by cop. The guy doesn't need to shoot first.

I agree.  And I'm not even attributing evil purpose to the private individual.  This can as easily happen by forgetting to think before acting.  Do I like the idea?  Heck no.  It's still reality.  Folks need to think.

OF COURSE only an idiot would go around waving a gun and yelling at the officers.

I agree.  I'm not sure at all that's what happened here.   We will have to wait and see.  The officers may wind up being at fault.  I just want the informaton to come out before I take the officers to task.

But EVEN THEN -- who fired the first shot? I call bullshit. If you're gonna be a cop, then be willing to err on the side of avoiding execution, even if it puts your life in danger. If not, get another job.

Okay, then it's your take that an officer should sacrifice his life to an assailant.  Your opinion is that the assailant should always get one shot, before an officer opens fire.  To you that sounds reasonable.  To the spouse, children, and other family members of the officer, that's preposterous.  If it were your son serving, you wouldn't agree with him having to take one to the face before opening fire.

Compassionate, understanding lawmen are one thing. Scared-bully cops who demand "top dog" status to the point of execution ... need to find another line of work.

I like the idea of a compassionate understanding law-man too, but these and men who act to the best of their abilty to respond to people who are armed to save lives is not muturally exclusive.  If you think a compassionate understanding law-man isn't going to open fire on a brandishing citizen, you're wrong.  

Some guy is standing ten feet from your family, you, you're wife, your three children, he's waving a gun around pointing it at your family?  Are you going to let him fire off a round before you take him out?  Hell no you're not!

Doughty One, your way makes it impossible for people to defend themselves against imposters, EVER.

Nobody ever said every circumstance in life was going to present easy decisions.  Your wife is out for the evening and is involved in a hit and run.  She's had a bit too much to drink, and she is followed by officers to your home.  You hear her outside resisting arrest, and assume she is being treatned unfairly.  You come zipping out the front door expecting to defend her, and all of a sudden you've got a handful of cops with guns on you.  Are they at fault?  Are you at fault?  How quicly you put that gun down will determine if you live or die.  That's just reality.

If your wife is coming to the door with some people, allow it to play out a bit before tipping your hand.  If they try to follow her in you should be postioned to get the drop on them.  By that time you've gained a few seconds to obtain understanding.  You should hear part of a conversation between them, and realize it's not what you feared.  If it turns out to be what you feared, there's not going to be an easy answer no matter what you do.    

It makes my blood run cold to think that "attitude" and "top dog" are remotely related to justification for cops shooting a guy dead in his own home.

Please explain to me how an officer is supposed to serve an arrest warrant at a citizen's home.  Does a man's home suddenly nullify any criminal charges against him?

Think clearly about this.  You know it doesn't.  His rights are not being violated.  He will get due process.  The peaceful arrest is not the end of the line.  You have the right to address your accusers and deny at length charges brought against you.

Do it peacefully.

[Finny]

Okay Finny, then you think officers should leave an armed man acting belligerent there and drive away.

They don't have to drive away, or maybe they should. I'd think they might stick around, depending.

If you happen to be a next door neighbor and this guy gets angry enough to fire off a few rounds as the police drive off, who is at fault if one of those rounds enters your home and your daughter head is splattered against her bedroom wall?

The guy who shot the gun. That's whose fault. Notwithstanding all the legalities of suing the cops. It's quite straightforward.

They aren’t safe doing it, and the neighbors aren’t safe if they do it either.

Now, DoughtyOne, you know that's a total crap shoot as to how "safe" people are when armed cops are around and sense a "top dog" challenge. Way too many innocents or light miscreants end up dead because somebody had the bright idea of calling the cops.

It's the attitude you defend that is so disturbing. I see that they didn't kill the guy in this story, so at least he wasn't shot dead, which is a good thing. And it's not really even about this so much as it was your original words that just are like a red light flashing: I wouldn’t be too quick to dump on the responding officers. This guy may have had a attitude thinking himself to be the top dog on scene. We’ll see how it plays out."

If he was dead, you'd still be thinking the same thing as casually. All I can say is people with that mindset, thinking for a nanosecond that someone who doesn't submit to "top dog" status of civil servants is justification for said servants to shoot or kill that someone ... are better suited to be in the military than as lawmen civil servants among free Americans.

[DoughtyOne]

I come to a thread addressing an officer involved shooting and find folks already piling on. What’s my reaction going to be, defend a guy who has already been absolved by the time I get here, or argue the reverse?

I lay out circumstances that may have come to pass that may make the officers justified. I also state that at the end of the day, the officers may be found to have operated improperly.

That seems reasoned to me.

[PLMerite]

"I searched 1969 Pontiac Lemans and the photo looks pretty close. That one’s pretty rusty."

It's a project car. It's 'got potential.'

[DoughtyOne]

Okay Finny, then you think officers should leave an armed man acting belligerent there and drive away.

They don't have to drive away, or maybe they should. I'd think they might stick around, depending.

The officers will instruct the individual to put the weapon down.  He will put the weapon down or risk being fired on.  If he moved that weapon in just about any direction other than down, he would be making a serious mistake.  I think you know that.

"I did not know you were officers, I am putting the gun down.  I am a law enforcement officer myself."

If you happen to be a next door neighbor and this guy gets angry enough to fire off a few rounds as the police drive off, who is at fault if one of those rounds enters your home and your daughter head is splattered against her bedroom wall?

The guy who shot the gun. That's whose fault. Notwithstanding all the legalities of suing the cops. It's quite straightforward.

You know as well as I do that officers leaving the scene of an individual with a gun prior to that person using the gun to harm others, is going to be grounds for a deacde's worth of legal court cases related to the matter.   The officers, the department, and the city would be exposed to litigation

They aren’t safe doing it, and the neighbors aren’t safe if they do it either.

Now, DoughtyOne, you know that's a total crap shoot as to how "safe" people are when armed cops are around and sense a "top dog" challenge. Way too many innocents or light miscreants end up dead because somebody had the bright idea of calling the cops.

You can try to spin this every which way if you want, but officers cannot simply walk away from a guy with a loaded weapon.  They will disarm the individual and work things out with them.  This guy would be asked to show his badge, and identification.  That's all.  I'm not sure what transpired here, but we will in time.

It's the attitude you defend that is so disturbing. I see that they didn't kill the guy in this story, so at least he wasn't shot dead, which is a good thing. And it's not really even about this so much as it was your original words that just are like a red light flashing:

I wouldn’t be too quick to dump on the responding officers. This guy may have had a attitude thinking himself to be the top dog on scene. We’ll see how it plays out.

I addressed it matter of factly.  What would you prefer?  We will find out in time if the officers were at fault or not.  I think that's a resonable thing to look forward to.  I can see how it could come down against the officers.  I can see how it could some down against the man coming out of his home too.  We'll have to wait and see.  What other choice is there?

If he was dead, you'd still be thinking the same thing as casually.

Yes, that is correct.  I would still be thinking the same thing.  The man's death neither proves his innocence or the officers guilt.  We would still need to wait and see what the investigation reveals.  Why does that bother you?  It's the only rational way to approach this.  

All I can say is people with that mindset, thinking for a nanosecond that someone who doesn't submit to "top dog" status of civil servants is justification for said servants to shoot or kill that someone...

I haven't said there was justification to shoot the man yet.  I have provided scenarios where the guy might have made mistakes leading up to him being shot.  I have also said we may find out in the end that the officers were at fault.

Instead of thinking that makes some sense, you continue to try to use my words to condemn me for not defending the man here.  Why would I.  A number of people have come to defend him.  Why is it so unreasoned to have someone defend the officers as well?  That defense will obviously stop when the officers are show to be at fault, if that happens.  I'm not glad the guy got shot.  I don't know now if it was justified or not.  I just don't like to see officers taken to task before we know the full facts..  

 ...are better suited to be in the military than as lawmen civil servants among free Americans.

You evidently have some kind of pie in the sky mindset that there is no need for police officers, and every citizen of the United States is above having to answer to the judicial system or it's representatives on the streets and in our society.

That is wrong.  Citizens who are taken into custody by the police do not lose their Constitutional Protections.  They get to utilize them to defend against prosecution.

I would rather see someone get that chance than bluster their way into a death spiral because they don't like police officers.

Whether you like it or not, officers are charged with law enforcement.

Communities got togethere, set up a govering body, and appointed people to enforce those codes.  It's not some conspiracy.

If you don't like it, get your friends together, go to the city council, and demand the police department be shut down.  It's your right to do this if you like.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Interesting trivia:

“In early 2014 the Seaside Police Officers Association voted no-confidence in the current Chief of Police Vicki Myers. According to record, there has never been a vote of no-confidence against a Seaside police chief.

“Subsequently, a group named North Seaside Neighborhood Watch took publicly accessible data and created a presentation outlining the rise in crime in the city and related it to ineffective leadership on the part of Chief Myers.

“The group also alleges that Myers intentionally manipulates crime statistics using sub-par reporting methods to bolster city reports, contradicting the actual crime rate of the city. As an example, they cited that Myers counted 28 incidents of shots fired for 2012, whereas the raw data for the emergency call logs shows 115 incidents of shots fired. The discrepancy in the reports has yet to be investigated by the City Manager or City Council.”

[b9]

Odd that there are no updates to this story.
Wonder if we’ll hear from Eric Glazier in the news?

[Finny]

You write words that indicate that in your heart and gut, you believe the term "civil servants" is wrong, that it should be "civil masters." Because THAT is how you view cops -- as MY and OUR masters.

YOU, guys like YOU, cops with mindsets like YOURS, are a big part of the problem. You have a bully-"top dog" mindset and you should be kept far, far away from any job in law enforcement. GO JOIN THE MILITARY, which is where guys like you belong.

[DoughtyOne]

You write words that indicate that in your heart and gut, you believe the term "civil servants" is wrong, that it should be "civil masters." Because THAT is how you view cops -- as MY and OUR masters.

Lets try to think about this logically.

Most of us accept that there are going to be laws we have to comply with.  Those laws are at all levels determined by people we have elected.

The federal government, the state legislature, the city council, these bodies develop the laws we are asked to comply with.  These laws are set up with penalites if we don't comply with them.  How does that work?

Most of us live our lives within the law.  We avoid breaking the laws because most of them are reasoned, and on top of that, we don't want to be assessed the penalty for breaking them.

What is the process should we break the law?

The police are the people who enforce the laws.  That's why their proper title is law enforcement.  They are not servants.  They are not masters.  They are merely people who were hired by municipalities to act on behalf of the municipality and the judicial system to ensure law and order.

The courts interpret the laws of our nation.  They determine what was meant by the legislation or municipal code, if people have in fact broken these laws, and what penalties should be assessed.

The police make observations.  They issues citations.  They take people into custody.  They file reports for the court to review during the trial process.  They offer testimony.

District attornies and their staff also bring charges against members of the public.

At the end of the day, it is the police that must enforce the law.

If people don't show up in court, a police officer has to find, arrest, and deliver an individual to court to face judgement.

If there is not an agencey such as a police force, nobody shows up in court.  From that moment on, there is no such thing as law and order.  People can kill, rape, steal, and do anything else they want without penalty.

On a day to day basis, officers respond to calls for help.  A person with a gun, a spouse beating their spouse, a public fight, a traffic accident, a person setting fires, whatever the case may be, they have to respond.

Yes, when these officers show up, they take charge.  When they do, some people get upset.

Who should be in charge when an officer arrives on scene?  Should the person breaking the law be in charge?  Should one of the neighbors be in charge?  Who is the person on site who has to deal with municiple codes, state, and federal laws every day?  Who is the expert on scene?  It is the police officer.  And the police officer takes charge.

One of the hardest things you have to teach kids, is that as an adult you are never the be all end all of your existence.  You still have to answer to an employer, a landlord, a bill collector, and the judicial system.

You don't one day turn 18 or 21, and all of a sudden are in control of the world.  Some folks never learn this.  It's unfortunate, but true.

Even as adults, we answer to others.  It's a fact of life.  If it makes these people feel any better, even the President of the United States is required by law to answer to other people.  It is a fact of life.

We will always run into situations where someone else is in charge.  We can accept it, or we can make ourselves miserable figthing against reality.

YOU, guys like YOU, cops with mindsets like YOURS, are a big part of the problem.

Police officers show up on scene and take charge.  That is their job.  They are not there in a consulting capacity.  They will ask people questions and try to get to the bottom of what is going on.  They will make determinations and take action.  They will not always get it right, but in short order people will get their day in court and be able to clear things up if need be.  Six months down the road, even if things were done improperly, people will generally have taken care of it and moved on.  They'll forget about it unless they obcess on it.  Life isn't an endless series of perfect moments from birth to death.  The good moments generally far outnumber the bad, but having some things happen we wish woudn't, is just a part of life.

Why do officers project large when on scene?  The answer is, if they don't take charge the scene will get out of hand.  It's best for everyone if officers take control of the scene.  Neighbors must be kept at a distance.  Combating parties must be separated.  Family members must be moved away, so the primary individuals can be addressed.  An officer going in acting timidly will almost immediately be overwhelmed by people refusing to comply with his directives.  This will create a situation where rather than calming things down and returning things to normal, the disturbance will begin again with officers in the mix.  That's not good for anyone on scene.  The officers would be in jeopardy, the people on scene would be in jeopardy, and people and property could be harmed.  Officers do take charge.  Someone needs to.  If the parties on scene could have gotten things under control without the officers, the officers wouldn't be there.  The time for the home owner "Top Dog" has passed.  When officers arrive, he's simply another person on site, equal with others, but subordinate to the officers.

You have a bully-"top dog" mindset and you should be kept far, far away from any job in law enforcement.

You have obviously said this for what you think was a very good reason.  Please link me to a place where I wrote something here that backs up this opinion.  What have I said that was abusive of individual rights?

GO JOIN THE MILITARY, which is where guys like you belong.

You seem to have a very interesting set of perceptions.  Members of the military have to operate under rules of engagement.  They can't indescriminantly kill people.  You believe that police officers do, so it is your belief that those officers should join the military where (you are certain) that type of killing is approved of.  Here you insult not only the police, but also the members of our military.  Is it your take the members of our military just shoot people any old time they like, and that's okay?  That's what you've just implied here.

Look, I'm sure you're a decent person, but I honestly have concern for you.  You are carrying a lot of baggage related to the police.  They are a necessary part of our society.  You need to understand that.  If you keep going like this, you're going to have a deal with officers at some point, and I'm afraid you're going to be your own worst enemy when you do.

[Finny]

The only folks suitable for work as cops or police, are those who are willing to put OTHERS' lives, pride, and ego before their own.

If they're not willing to do that, then they need to find another line of work. A cop that thinks his LIFE is more important than the life of a homeowner/citizen who mistakes the cop for a bad guy, or who just doesn't like the fact that a cop is there at all, and who will shoot that homeowner because he is afraid of the legally-held gun in the homeowner's hand, SHOULD FIND ANOTHER LINE OF WORK. Join the military because the role you seek is that of a soldier, NOT a servant.

It's like the guy who wants to become a commercial fisherman who doesn't want to risk his life at sea. That guy needs to find a different line of work. PERIOD. The same way a pedophile should be kept away from jobs in teaching and child care, bullies/power trippers should be kept away from jobs in law enforcement.

I know PLENTY of cops, retired and active. Some of them are like you, with bad attitudes and bullies at heart, always the "top dogs" because they have badges, dammit. Others are REAL lawmen, who have compassion and who remember at all times that their role is as servant/protector, and only shoot as a last damned resort. Sadly, THOSE cops are either retired or disgusted because they find themselves surrounded by power trippers such as yourself.

[shotgun]

Probably thinks it’s a Cadillac

[Finny]

Look, I'm sure you're a decent person, but I honestly have concern for you. You are carrying a lot of baggage related to the police.

What about the at least FOUR times I can think of when police treated me/mine with compassion, kindness, and wisdom? What about THAT baggage? About which you know ZIP? I tell you what I do know: your words betray you as what I would call a "bully" cop compared to the many "good" cops I ALSO know.

As for " baggate" -- what about your own with regard to the people cops are supposed to serve and protect rather than shoot or harm? As for "baggate" -- when I was 21, one of them ripped his own uniform and LIED to the judge, saying I was the one who tore it. Fortunately for me, the judge was wise to the cop. Otherwise I would be a felon right now. Thanks to that lying cop.

I am sure you are a power-tripping bully who has no place in law enforcement. Whether or not you are a "decent" person is entirely beside the point. What you ARE is someone who thinks civil servants should be civil MASTERS.