Many posts there thinking that it couldn't have been that "simple", for lack of a better word, were correct.
I leave it to others to add keywords to this post.
Oops, that should be “Bakersfield grandfather” not “SF grandfather”. A sloppy error on my part.
Cops are out of control. There’s no reason they couldn’t have just walked up and talked to the man.
Cops need to clean up their act.
Obviously a tragic scenario and one that should have had a better outcome.
Any encounter in the dark raises concerns, any report of possible weapon raises concerns and, deny it as the MSM tries, the current spate of police ambushes has got to weigh heavy here.
Anyone who has gone through the “Shoot / No Shoot” training can tell of the difficulty in making split-second LIFE-DEATH decisions. Yet even the best of these cannot cover all scenarios AND there is a very real difference between a test and real life.
The facts we know are probably insufficient to put ourselves in the place of the victim or police. Knowing (after the fact) that the victim had dementia is fact unknown to the police but an unknown is how was the victim dressed? Could they tell by outward appearance his age or was he wearing something like a hoodie that leaves an appearance that could range in all ages?
While this sounds like I am only taking the police side, I am also troubled by a near emptying of the magazine by the shooter. Seven shots sounds a lot like a panicked action and that is NOT a desired encounter outcome!
FWIW, I wonder if the woman and boyfriend know the family of the victim. There’s going to be a civil suit, and if I were the coos, I’d want to make sure this wasn’t a set up, with the elderly gentleman a victim in more ways than one.
That was one very afraid cop. He had the advantage of driving up on the guy and most likely was using his patrol vehicle for cover. As he crouched behind the hood of his car aiming his weapon at the guy, he would’ve started yelling “Let me see your hands!!!” over and over. When 73 year old man, who obviously was confused, didn’t comply, the cop then became even more scared and figured the best thing to do was to shoot the 73 year old seven times.
Maybe the police officers were vampires, ever think of that?
If the cop is not a Christian....
Sounds cold, but I'll be wary if I get a large crucifix for a Christmas present.
Gallows humor...sorry.
Here we go again.
The cops are the ones knowingly carrying a deadly weapon.
The cops are the ones in charge.
The cops decide who lives or dies.
The cops are public servants, or are they?
The cops have a duty to not shoot to preserve their lives. IMHO.
That would insure you are not a public servant.
The shoot would be for public safety.
Was anyone else in harms way?
Were the cops positioned so as to place themselves in harms way?
If so, bad positioning.
How long were the cops on scene before the shoot?
IMHO there needs to be much more processing going on before a gun is even drawn or we will continue to have unwarranted death by cop.
The public is at risk rather than the other way around.
A sane person might be moved to respond appropriately to every demand of a screaming cop who thinks every situation is life or death for them.
Not everyone is that sane, and so everyone is at risk unless you do precisely what they ask, and even then the risk is high for anyone in their sphere of influence. That needs to change. The higher risk should always be on the public servant.
When asked by the dispatcher about the gun, the man said, "It looked like a revolver."
Then: "The resident felt that Mr. Serna had a firearm, however he did not see one," Martin said. "But by Mr. Serna's body language, he surmised Mr. Serna had a firearm."
Something doesn't add up.
That cop must have continued shooting the guy after he was laying on the ground, dead...