Calif. Police Officers Kill Man Pointing Water Nozzle, Not Gun

By: Naimah Jabali-Nash
Topics: Daily Blotter

This undated photo provided by the family of Douglas Zerby shows Zerby, left, and his then-fiancee Tina. (AP Photo/Family Photo)

LONG BEACH, Calif. (CBS/AP) Long Beach police officers shot and killed a man Sunday when they apparently mistook a pistol-grip water nozzle he was holding, for a gun.

Now family members of the man, 35-year-old Douglas Zerby, are lashing out at the police, saying they made no attempt to contact him before opening fire.

Zerby was gunned down at an apartment building Sunday after two people reported a man with a gun sitting on a backyard porch landing, according to authorities.

Long Beach Police Chief Jim McDonnell said officers took positions to observe Zerby, who appeared intoxicated, and believed he had a "tiny six-shooter" as described by a male caller.

Zerby reportedly pointed the black metal-tipped nozzle at one of the officers, and two officers fired a handgun and a shotgun. A total of eight shots were fired - six from a handgun and two from shot guns, said McDonnell.

"They didn't say 'Put your hands up' or 'Freeze' or anything," Zerby's sister, Eden Marie Biele told The Associated Press Monday. "He was killed in cold blood."

However, police officials say Zerby's behavior prompted the officers' response.

"As the subject was in a seated position, he used a two-handed pistol-grip hold on an object with his arms fully extended," McDonnell said. "Somebody that is impaired and waving what appears to witnesses and police to be a handgun. That's what the officers were faced with."

Both officers involved in the shooting were put on administrative leave.

Zerby's sister said police made the family wait seven hours before confirming that her brother was the man who had been killed, and said that her family is considering legal action.

103 Comments +

Add a Comment

See all 103 Comments


by Mr_Pen December 18, 2010 10:05 PM EST: ok im not sure if everyone has seen the video of the crime scene but here is the link

http://belmontshore.patch.com/articles/scene-of-the-doug-zerby-shooting-440-pm

there are several problems with what the cops said...they claimed to be observing him....my first statement is look how far the window is from the steps....it cant be more than 10' away....second if they where in that house why didn't they try looking out the door located on the left side of the courtyard entrance which would have had a front view of the steps...and third why did they try approaching him from the right side of the court yard and not try and go to the entrance and look straight down the wall facing the stairs...which still would have gave them cover behind the wall....and a straight up view of stairs and Doug...and third Doug if he was in the seated position even if he turn to his right to aim with both his arms extended like the cops said....one i don't think there would be enough room to fully extend his arms out like they said....they could have called out from the window """LBPD Drop you weapon"""or ""LBPD put your hands up""and been perfectly safe from in the house window...or from that door opening or anything...or from the alley way....while still hiding behind the wall ...Lets face it they got the call...that a man had a gun from a person who admit from the 911 call that he didn't know what type of gun it was and that it was possibly a tiny revolver and then the dispatcher asked like a 9 mm or a 45 and he said yes but HE DOESN'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT GUNS....well seems like the police who are supposed to be Professionally trained don't know much about guns either....they should have tried to get a better view or something of what Doug had in his hand...PERIOD...; Reply to this comment


by crypticguise December 18, 2010 1:43 PM EST: These police officers were incredibly INCOMPETENT. The individuals doing the shooting MUST be fired. The police department and the officers are subject to a civil law suit by this man's family.; Reply to this comment

by dwbrzy December 15, 2010 9:00 PM EST

It is NOT illegal to be intoxicated on your own property.

It is NOT illegal to point anything short of a weapon at anyone (with the eception that they ask you to stop).

It is NOT illegal to be intoxicated on your own property and point a water nozzle at people.

It IS illegal to shoot a person 15 times with a shot-gun and a hand-gun when there is no material threat and you have not made any formal communication with the person you are "defending" yourself against.

Our brave men and women of the armed forces are put into such stressful situations that sometimes, they are given the order not to fire unless fired upon (and the military deals with real threats like AK-47's, Body-Bombers and RPG's).

So my question is as follows:
If your military has stricter rules of engagement for operations abroad, why does our local public safety at home have absolutely none?

Now that I have listed reality, I shall spread the blame.

#1 Person most responsible: the individual who made the 911 call without knowing all of the facts.

#2 Person most responsible: the officers who answered the call.

#3 Person most responsible: the man shot.

Now we all know that person #3 is no longer with us, he paid the highest price for this tradgedy and had the smallest responsibility. Person #1 will not be able to be identified (or punished as it is not illegal to make an ill-advised 911 call). But both of the two officers are alive and known. What should happen to them?

Well a criminal charge is very hard to come by and almost impossible. But I believe that the two officers should be removed from the police force.
Because #1: their job description requires that they do their job adequately under stress (enlighten me as to how shooting an un-armed person 15 times, hand-cuffing the person and then waiting an even longer time to call the EMS, is doing your job adequately under stress)
Because #2: in a democratic society, the actions of the government are always held accountable before the actions of the people. NO MATTER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

And that should be the extent of the punshiment to an individual person responsible.

The City of Long Beach should be sued as it is liable for any actions it takes part in that causes bodily injury or even death to any person.

Now the reality is that:
The officers will not be fired, after their two week paid administrative leave, they will return to the force.
The family will sue and win big-time.

So for people out there who hate the government debt and spending (such as myself), consider this: Two officers killed an innocent man (niether of whom have come out to apologize for a single thing they did), they have thus logically proven to be a risk to the public thereafter, and the City of Long Beach will have to pay possibly up to $3-5 million worth of damages to the family.
Now tell me how the officer's actions were "good."

Reply to this comment


by Trindaddy December 16, 2010 5:31 PM EST: Once again, we have here another person who wants to make judgment calls on the officers involved without actually knowing what really took place because they weren't there. I am aware of statements that were made after the fact, nevertheless, you and I weren't there. Why don't you consider this, to imply and or straight out accuse the officers of murder is wrong simply because YOU WERE NOT THERE! There's no way for you to know what their intentions were. Yes they killed a man, but a man who was intoxicated holding what was perceived to be a small caliber handgun who then pointed it at one of the officers. Those are the facts as of now which have been corroborated by witnesses who were there, unlike you.

Have you seen some of the water nozzle handles out there. Many are black with a pistol grip like handle. In a situation involving an intoxicated individual with what appears to be a pistol, it's no wonder the officers reacted the way they did.

Furthermore, the officers are being held accountable. That's why they're on administrative leave. They're being investigated. What more do you want? To string them up?

What about the man? Shouldn't he be held accountable? Was it a responsible thing to go out and get drunk? So drunk that he had to walk instead of drive? So drunk that according to witnesses as well as the officers that this man pointed what appeared to be a pistol? What about the man's family? Shouldn't they be held accountable for enabling this man's drinking problem? I'm sure this isn't the first stupid and irresponsible thing he's done with their knowledge.

Once more, how is it that two officers who shot a man, who they thought had a lethal weapon, a risk to the public? What alternate universe do you live in? Any drunk person is a greater risk to the public. A drunk is not rational. A drunk is not someone you can reason with. Many if not most put their life and the lives of others in danger.

Don't be so quick to judge these guys. I seriously doubt that they planned this. I'm almost 100% sure they're feeling like crap right now. I'm sure they wish right now that it could have turned out differently. Do you really think that they intentionally went looking for someone to kill? That's what you seem to be implying. This guy got himself killed. Consider that.


by dwbrzy December 16, 2010 10:26 PM EST: 1st, Your argument that "I was not there so I am not able to pass judgement." Is not a strong rebuttal, as nor were you there to completely rule out any loss of responsibility. My non-presence at the secene does not give you any further credibility as I doubt you were there to.

2nd Paid administrative leave is more of a "forced vacation." It does not hold the officers accountable to much.

3rd I never accused the officers of intentionally killing the man. Please point out to me where you read that in my post.

4th I did put some blame on Zerby, but as I am sure you are aware, he is not alive to be held accountable.

5th Any person who is given the power to kill people better have a real good reason to do so. You remark that "I am not from this universe" is not professional in an academic debate, it makes it harder for me to take you seriously. People are a danger to the public if they mistakenly shoot someone who is un-armed. Here is my analogy of it. Tell me if you would fly on an airplane with a pilot you knew had crashed his/her last airplane into the side of a mountain and killed their entire crew and passangers. The pilot's defense for keeping his license after the event was "I though the mountain was a cloud." Would you fly with him/her? (this is the same logical argument you are giving the officers, which as in the pilot's case proves that they ARE a danger to the public).

You also failed to show how this action is good for the city of Long Beach as it will have to pay an lot of money in damages for its employee's actions.

Trindaddy, your rebuttal needs some work.


by Soteros December 17, 2010 1:22 AM EST: Forget it Trin , you can't save this one, he's too far gone.


by dwbrzy December 18, 2010 4:05 AM EST: I agree, I am "too far gone." In the right direction. I had used educated, logical arguments that you were un-able to dis-prove. In an attempt to defend your ideas, you just claimed that I am too extreme dispite the fact that you were un-able to counter my claims. I am correct, dispite your opinion. Typical, high school educated police officer, go to (real) school and learn how to debate.


by Soteros December 18, 2010 11:40 AM EST: I just have one question for you, where was this man seated when he was shot?


by hduston December 18, 2010 11:43 AM EST: Trindaddy said:

"What about the man? Shouldn't he be held accountable? Was it a responsible thing to go out and get drunk? So drunk that he had to walk instead of drive? So drunk that according to witnesses as well as the officers that this man pointed what appeared to be a pistol?"

He was. He received the death penalty.


by dwbrzy January 6, 2011 12:24 AM EST: And an interesting press release from the US Department of Justice's Division of Civil Rights. Evidentally, the US Legislature has recognized in the past that law enforcement agencies have been abusive and at time may need the Federal Government to step in to stop and reform the departments practices.

Maybee the LBPD should be required to do the same

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/December/10-crt-1479.html


by HotdeatH March 23, 2011 6:42 PM EDT: Lets be clear here...
Douglas was not sitting on HIS private property. He was on someone else's private property. His "friend's" place that he was at was out of town for several days. He is now a rediculously drunk person sitting in a stranger's back yard waiving around something that looks like a gun. Not the callers responsibility to find out what the object is. Not even the Cops responsibility to find out what the object is.... Zerby made a string of bad choices that day that ended in his life being extinguished. Nobody served him to this point of intoxication... He drank himself to a state that few individuals could even remain breathing. No one to blame here but himself. Its unfortuante that he has now become a meal ticket for the family that had forgotten about him long ago...


by dwbrzy March 24, 2011 3:41 PM EDT: 1st) You are telling me that the officer's jobs are not to verify what exactly are in Mr. Zerby's hands? Please come back with proof of any law enforcement departmental policy in the nation that says that.
By your logic; if an officer is not required to verify what an individual is in posession of, then when an officer approaches an emergency call, then they can deal with the persons involved and just walk away whenever they feel like it, regardless if one of the people involved is actually armed. Because according to you, the officer is not responsible to noticing what a person is carring (even if the person is actually carrying a firearm). There is no logical consistency in that statement.

2nd) I am not in recipt of any evidence as to how much alcohol was in Mr. Zerby's blood at the time of the shooting. Please inform us as to how much he actually was and from what source you got that information from.

3rd) As stated above, irregardless of what he was doing. The officers acted on their own accord and suspicion that Zerby was armed. Because of the fact that he was not, and because of the fact that they proceeded to open fire on him, it is very safe to say that the officers made a bad mistake.
But even in the professional world, mistakes are punishable. If anyone in any other profession messed up half as bad in their job, they would be fired. Why give the officers more leniency?

Should the officers go to jail, no.
Should they be removed from employment with the city of Long Beach, yes.

You had to have read my pilot-crash analogy above. the only logical way for those officers to remain on the force from here out woul be to strip them of their firearms. If not, removed from the force.


by dwbrzy April 21, 2011 5:27 PM EDT: Wow, so stupid the people who defend police officers who shoot un-armed people.

I make multiple posts and they are not only logically superior, but morally right.

I like police officers a lot, just not the ones that shoot innocent, un-armed people multiple times.

Good luck defending that.

Brnign the officers to justice for stuff like man-slaughter or reckless endangerment, their actions warrant it.

Now for the high school educated officers to debate this will be funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Gigolo000 December 15, 2010 8:18 PM EST

I was trained both in the Marine Corps and POST in California. Never in 13 years have I or a partner located an armed suspect and provided ourselves as a target. Any leo will stay behind solid cover, contain the scene and once a perimeter is in place, initiate contact.

The officers claiming the man assumed a two handed combat position as they hid behind cover is ridiculous. We're expected to believe this victim drew down on officers that he didn't even know were present??

Had the victim been shooting up the neighborhood, then the officers would have been justified in killing him...but, killing a man for just sitting on a stairwell, even if he's pointing a "real" weapon, is no justification...none, ZERO! Who's to say he hadn't just been cleaning his pistol and was looking down the shiny barrel, was dry firing, just fooling around. Having a gun is NOT A CRIME!

We need the names and addresses of the shooters and the family and friends MUST follow through on making sure these twerp, wannabe tough guy dirtbag cops hang!

Reply to this comment


by Trindaddy December 16, 2010 5:43 PM EST: The man was not killed "for just sitting on a stairwell." I don't care if you were trained in the Corps or anywhere else. Unless you have been in a real life and death situation then you would know that training incidents and real life ones are completely different. I too was trained in Marine infantry combat. Let me tell you something, I kicked ass in training, but when I was confronted with the real thing it didn't fall into place like in training. If I screwed up by not making the right split decision in training I got chewed out and thrashed for getting myself and my buddies killed. There's no getting chewed out when faced with the real thing, you just get killed by second guessing. My point? These officers had to make that split decision and not second guess if this numb nut had a water nozzle handle. They did what the situation dictated. They did their job. Semper Fi gigolo.

by Soteros December 15, 2010 3:49 PM EST

Angie did you even read this article the police reported that he pointed the object at an officer, "Zerby reportedly pointed the black metal-tipped nozzle at one of the officers, and two officers fired a handgun and a shotgun". My God read before you spout off. The first thing I did before chiming in was google and read all the articles on this episode. Of the five articles two said that he pointed the object at police and the witnesses or the family never refuted this fact. None of the articles said that he never saw any of the officers.
Paul, I guess it's quite acceptable for someone to sit down on the porch of your apartment complex with a gun, this is what the call was about, a man with a gun. The article stated that it appeared that he had a small six shooter in his hand. The witnesses thought this also. Do you think the witnesses and officers thought he was minding his own bussiness. I think it would be my bussiness too if someone with a gun was sitting on my porch. To mind one's bussiness is to be doing something that should be of no concern to others. This was a big concern.
Bob this is exactly what a police officer is trained to do, eliminate a threat as quickly and efficiently as possible. Someone pointing what is perceived to be a gun at an officer will be met with deadly force. If a well trained officer is up against this situation
two different times on any day he would do what he is trained to do. He would be derilect of his duties if he didn't. You people read an article and don"t look at the facts, you put youselves in the situation and perceive what you would do having the information that this was not a real gun, an officer can't afford to do that. A perfect example is when Paul writes that he is glad that I am not a police officer, he has no way of knowing that. Again none of us were there and the best we can do is guess what the people perceived at the time.
These officers did not make a mistake they did what they were trained to do. As for the flare gun it was *******, we called it the assasinator, because it was only good for a few feet.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8601-504083_162-20025657-2.html?assetTypeId=41&blogId=504083&tag=contentBody;commentWrapper#ixzz18DQYXCmk

Reply to this comment


by angieinindy December 15, 2010 5:28 PM EST: Sgt. Dina Zapalski, a spokeswoman for the Long Beach Police Department:

"Douglas Zerby had been sitting on a stoop playing with what appeared to be a weapon and pointing it at objects as if it were a gun. He extended his arms and pointed in the direction of an officer. Police said they did not have time to make their presence known or to tell Zerby to drop the weapon before opening fire because they believed he was a threat."

pointing "in the direction of" is not pointing "at". the rest implies he was not aware of their presence.


by Soteros December 15, 2010 7:16 PM EST: Angie

"As officers awaited requested backup units, the man pointed the object at apartments and played with it, causing it to make sounds similar to those of a gun being handled, he said."

"Zerby pointed it at one of the officers and two officers fired their weapons, a handgun and a shotgun. A total of eight shots were fired - two from shot guns and six from a handgun, McDonnell said."
These are two quotes from an ap report. The article that we are commenting on does mention that he pointed the object at officers.

LA Times: Police officials said the object was actually a pistol-grip water nozzle, and when it was pointed directly at an officer, the officers opened fire, killing Zerby at the scene.

"All this information is preliminary," said Sgt. Dina Zapalski, a spokeswoman for the Long Beach Police Department. "We can't have exact answers on everything within 24 hours."

Different articles are going to quote things differently in whole or in part. I respect the fact that you took the time to look further into this sad situation. My spouting off comment was not called for, please take that as my apology. I'm with you, there needs to be some hard questions about this sad episode. But prejudgements by myself or anyone else won't help.


by dwbrzy December 15, 2010 9:14 PM EST: Not correct, an officer's duties are to do his/her job adequately under stress. Shooting an un-armed person 15 times is NOT doing your job adequately under stress.

You are correct, an officer is trained to take out a threat agressively (now this has lead to much dispute within the legal and law-enforcement sectors as it has been at times a huge failure and furthermore, this agressive police tactic is also responsible for the deaths of at least 2 NYPD officers killed by friendly fire in the last two years).

I understand that the officers have it tough. But the "put-yourself in their shoes remark" is not an argument and I wish I could say the same thing about the victim. The problem is that none of us can put ourselves in the victim's shoes because he is the one that is no longer with us.


by paulrye December 15, 2010 11:43 PM EST: Soteros, I guess it's more acceptable to you to identify with imaginative errors than with reality. The calls made to the police about a man with a gun were an ERROR. It's acceptable to me for someone to sit on the porch of my apartment complex with a water nozzle. It takes quite an imagination to see the cylinder of a small revolver in an object that does not have such a cylinder.

Here's what I mean by minding his own business. He was sitting, not moving. There were no reports he threatened the neighbors verbally or otherwise. "Feeling threatened" is not the same as actually being threatened. The supposed threat of "the gun" was non-existent. There was no gun. Any threat was imagined. How do you construe that as getting into anyone's business? This was a "big concern" only because the people who called the police made errors. Fearful people see things that aren't there. They make mistakes. They see handguns in place of water nozzles, rifles in place of broomsticks, grenades in place of avocados.

If you are going to chide me about saying I'm glad you are not police officer, then at least have the gumption to confirm I was right or wrong or say I was wrong. I still think you are not, however, if I'm wrong, I would be sorry to hear that. Not because I have anything against the police, but because of your tasteless comments.


by Soteros December 16, 2010 1:15 AM EST: Paul, What you mistakenly call "imaginative error" in reality is called perceived threat, this is the benchmark by which this case will be judged. As this case proceeds the Long Beach police dept. will with certainty file a motion for "qualified immunity" by which the court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the person opposing the motion. This means that there is a higher burden of proof upon the Police dept. Have you seen the pictures of the water nozzle? It is not far fetched that it could be mistaken for a gun. Again "Imaginative error" has no meaning in this matter. Oh Superman you, not everybody can be as fearless as you are. Have you ever been to Long Beach or know anything about it. Probably not. Most fears are relative to one's experience, not everyone takes their vacations in the Hamptons. If it doesn't bother you to have a stranger loiter on your porch with what appears to be a gun, thats fine but don't demand that of others. That is why the standard of perceive threat exists. " Fearful people see things that aren't there" that statement is pretty arrogant if you ask me. I find that statement pretty tasteless. As for me being a police officer that has as much to do with this case as you vacationing in the Hamptons.


by paulrye February 5, 2011 12:58 AM EST: Soteros, What you call "perceived threat" is nothing more than the legal term for what I called "imaginative error". It will be part of how the case is judged but it will not necessarily be the benchmark. The perceived threat part will hinge on the question, "Was the perception reasonable under the circumstances?". Even if the jury decides it was, which is entirely speculative at this point, the officers are not necessarily innocent. The benchmark might very well be the answer to the question, "Did the police improperly put themselves into the position where they were forced to respond by reflex to the "perceived threat". In other words, did they follow proper procedure? Were they reckless?

People who buttress their arguments with sarcasm like "Oh Superman you" are not to be taken seriously, so it's somewhat a waste of time to bandy words with you. You are prone to speculate instead of reasoning from facts in evidence. I have no idea who does or does not vacation in the Hamptons or what you think that has to do with this topic. As for me, I live and work in Long Beach where the shooting happened. The mother of the man who was shot to death and I both teach mathematics at the same high school, in Long Beach (downtown). I have relatives in police work and the military. So yes, I would venture to say I've done more than "been to Long Beach". In fact, I live about four or five blocks from where Mr. Zerby was shot. There is no evidence the 911 call came from the residence on which porch Zerby was loitering.

I've seen the photos of the water nozzle and yes it resembles a gun. Yet, I could tell from looking at it, it was not a gun; it was a water nozzle. In my opinion, the officers would have had to be rather distant from Zerby to be unable to identify it as a water nozzle, in which case, they should've kept their distance to be safe and followed correct police procedure to disarm the subject. Instead, they approached him to within an unsafe distance at which point Zerby apparently made an unexpected gesture and they shot him reflexively.

Proper procedure was explained to me by a police sargeant with 20+ years of urban police experience in a large city. He said officers should have kept their distance behind cover and announced themselves by bullhorn. No officer should have approached Zerby until he set his supposed "weapon" down and lied face down on the ground. Even then, only one officer should have approached under cover of another officer with a rifle.

If you have anything further to say that is speculative and is not based on facts in evidence, please keep it to yourself.


by bundye December 15, 2010 12:36 PM EST: Cops, not the citizen, seem to have the right of way in any situation...take action first and ask questions later and don't look to make sure. "cops" are dong more harm than good any more.; Reply to this comment


by Rodeo_Joe December 15, 2010 12:31 PM EST: No pepper-spray, no taser? We live in a POLICE STATE. Fact.

The US has 5% of the world's population, but 25% of the world's locked up.

Everything is Transient. Everything. Even Police States.; Reply to this comment


by boatdoctb December 15, 2010 11:59 AM EST: why would anyone want to be a cop? the pay--doubtful, the risk--again doubtful, the wonderful,educated, intelligent coworkers--HA (what a joke), The real reason is, besides the military (which is honorable service), what other job allows you to 1) carry a gun, 2) beat people up, 3) requires only a GED or equivalent, 4) puts you in a vehicle you can drive at any speed you want, 5) allows one to take a "power trip" over others without any real accountability? Only a cop. 99% of all cops are poorly educated and in the job for the POWER alone. most are arrogant, self rightous a--holes trying to compensate for a short crank. this shooting is just another example of the "shoot first and ask questions later--abuse of authority" mentality. these cops should be fired and prosecuted. anyone that can justify shooting a non-threatening guy with a garden hose is a complete idiot.; Reply to this comment


by dontknowitall December 15, 2010 11:02 AM EST: In 2004 the Marion County Sheriffs Office (Florida) received a phone call to check on an elderly man who lived alone in a local retirement community. Dispatched to the seen was 10 year K-9 veteran Deputy Brian Robert Litz. As Litz walked to the front door the 74 year old resident shot through a picture window and killed Brian. The phone call was initiated by a family member of the elderly man who had neglected to mention mental issues and guns in the house. Brian left behind his wife and 4-year old son.; Reply to this comment


by paulrye December 15, 2010 11:02 AM EST: Several readers have posted the puffed up comment that they would shoot a person under same circumstances as this case. As reported by the police, the officers who shot him were under cover, unannounced, and waiting for backup. If police were under cover, he wasn't even aware of their presence. He was not mobile, and hadn't threatened anyone. If police were not close enough to tell a water nozzle from a gun, then how did they even know he was drunk?

From the officer's perspective, how does this situation differ from a sober person sitting on the back steps of a friend's place, with time on his hands, playing around and re-enacting in his mind a few scenes from a video game he had been playing earlier, unaware he is being watched, and who inadvertently points his prop at someone hiding unseen 50 yards away?

If that is a "life-threatening" situation, then everyone should be very afraid and start hiding in their houses.; Reply to this comment