Police shoot 13 year old carrying fake rifle.

reply to post by Dav1d


and it just keeps getting better! the second deputy never even got out of the cruiser.


pressdemocrat.com...


also, some one made an interesting observation that i will relate. i live a mile away from where this happened. not the best of neighborhoods. what this person observed was this. roughly two weeks ago, same city, there was a standoff in an area called fountaingrove. one of the three high money neighborhoods. in this standoff, a man had shot at the police. in this case, the police waited him out until he surrendered. now, compare the two. this man, a white man, actually shot at the police. they laid siege for hours until he surrendered. this kid was given just seconds to process that some one maybe was yelling at him to drop his toy before he was shot.

blackthorne
reply to post by Dav1d

 

and it just keeps getting better! the second deputy never even got out of the cruiser.


pressdemocrat.com...


also, some one made an interesting observation that i will relate. i live a mile away from where this happened. not the best of neighborhoods. what this person observed was this. roughly two weeks ago, same city, there was a standoff in an area called fountaingrove. one of the three high money neighborhoods. in this standoff, a man had shot at the police. in this case, the police waited him out until he surrendered. now, compare the two. this man, a white man, actually shot at the police. they laid siege for hours until he surrendered. this kid was given just seconds to process that some one maybe was yelling at him to drop his toy before he was shot.

Try again.. From your own source...

As Lopez turned toward the deputies, Gelhaus fired, but his partner did not.

Santa Rosa Police Lt. Paul Henry on Tuesday discussed for the first time the statements of the deputy who did not shoot at Lopez, details that began shedding light on a lingering question for many in the community following the fatal shooting: Why did only Deputy Gelhaus open fire?

There was no time, the second deputy told investigators, according to Henry.

“By the time he had exited his door and taken cover, at that point Deputy Gelhaus had already engaged the subject, with the commands and with the weapon,” Henry said. “The threat was essentially over.”

So yes, he did exit the vehicle.


@ The poster who stated the suspect never turned towards the officers - Again the info in the link above says he did turn.

Dav1d
You Xcathdra told us just last week it was a crime for a child to have a replicate gun in public, a crime so severe that it justified the homicide of the child!

He was not shot because he was holding a replica gun.. He was shot because at the time the gun was real and the suspect refused to drop the weapon. That occurred as he was turning towards the deputy.

We can go round and round but it will not change the fact that at the time of the shooting the deputies did not have the information you have.

again, 20/20 hindsight is not a factor.

reply to post by Xcathdra


honestly, i am not far from your position either. i was an m.p. for the navy for 4 years. i understand why the deputy shot. the only issue i have is that ten seconds was not enough time for the kid to hear the order, process if it was in fact him that they were yelling to drop the weapon. remember, we are dealing with a 13 year old, who at the time, was not committing a crime when this happened. he was more than likely confused as to what the heck was going on.

Xcathdra

Dav1d
You Xcathdra told us just last week it was a crime for a child to have a replicate gun in public, a crime so severe that it justified the homicide of the child!

He was not shot because he was holding a replica gun.. He was shot because at the time the good was real and the suspect refused to drop the weapon. That occurred as he was turning towards the deputy.

We can go round and round but it will not change the fact that at the time of the shooting the deputies did not have the information you have.

again, 20/20 hindsight is not a factor.

Yes we can go around and around forever and you will NEVER see that what happened here is a problem.
Blind denial is not truth.

OneManArmy
Yes we can go around and around forever and you will NEVER see that what happened here is a problem.
Blind denial is not truth.

And the theme of this site is deny ignorance, not embrace it.

The problem could have been avoided had the kid not been walking down the street with a damn gun that looks real.
The problem could have been avoided had the kid listened to the witness who told him to quit carrying it because of the police.
The problem could have been avoided had the kid dropped the gun.
The problem could gave been avoided had the kid not turned around.
The problem could have been avoided had the kid not started to raise the gun up.

In the end the reason for the death was because all option above were ignored.

Totality of circumstances - what did the officer perceive at the moment force was used.

Let the investigation run its course..

blackthorne
remember, we are dealing with a 13 year old, who at the time, was not committing a crime when this happened. he was more than likely confused as to what the heck was going on.

Are you sure?

2008 Dangerous Weapons Control Act - PDF File

In California, the law considers Airsoft weapons to be both BB devices and imitation firearms under the 2008 Dangerous Weapons Control Law, therefore all the portions of the law that apply to BB guns or imitation firearms also apply to Airsoft weapons.

Section 12550 -

ARTICLE 1. BB DEVICES AND IMITATION FIREARMS
12550. As used in this article, the following definitions apply:

(a)"BB device" is defined in subdivision (g) of Section 12001.

(b)"Firearm" is defined in subdivision (b) of Section 12001.

(c) "Imitation firearm" means any BB device, toy gun, replica of a firearm, or other device that is so substantially similar in coloration and overall appearance to an existing firearm as to lead a reasonable person to perceive that the device is a firearm.

Emphasis added by me to make my point...

Section 12553 -

12553. Any person who changes, alters, removes, or obliterates any coloration or markings that are required for by any applicable state or federal law or regulation, for any imitation firearm, or device described in subdivision (c) of Section 12555, in any way that makes the imitation firearm or device look more like a firearm is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Section 12556 -

12556. (a) No person may openly display or expose any imitation firearm, as defined in Section 12550, in a public place.

Section 12556 (e) -

(e)For purposes of this section, the term "public place" means an area open to the public and includes streets, sidewalks, bridges, alleys, plazas, parks, driveways, front yards, parking lots, automobiles, whether moving or not, and buildings open to the general public, including those that serve food or drink, or provide entertainment, and the doorways and entrances to buildings or dwellings.

Let me ask - Did the 13 year old violate any of the above? The answer to that question has bearing on this case and the actions taken because of it.

As I have stated many times these issues are very complex and take time to sort out and investigate.

This seems relevant: The West Wing - Undecideds - A Latino Police officer shoots and kills a black teenager.

reply to post by Xcathdra


You are right. There are so many laws on the books we commit an average of seven of them a day. Of course a thirteen year old has not had enough time in his/her life to realize yet carrying a bb gun is a potential death sentence.

I guess carrying a firearm out in public is reason to kill people now. I thought with gun laws in this country you could open carry. I guess because it is an illegal weapon it is ok to shoot first and ask questions later.

CJ

reply to post by ColoradoJens


He was shot because he turned towards the officer and started to raise the gun. The age and type of gun is not relevant to the review of the use of force.

If you don't like the laws, then why not change them?

reply to post by Xcathdra


Raised the gun towards the officers or raised the gun upward as in he was trying to put his hands up implying surrender?
Quite frankly, I don't believe a lot of what these vile pigs in uniform say - there are the few who truly do their job and do it well, however, the ones in these particular events are whom I'm referring to. I live in the bay area where this occurred and the officer was asked what "protocol" he was following and he replied with "I don't recall" -- something along those lines anyway - I'll try to find a link (if there is one) to the video, it was on the afternoon local news today ..anyway, if you don't "recall" then you shouldn't be a cop in the first place! pathetic excuse -- well perhaps the judge can't "recall" the proper punishment for you and will sentence you to life in prison for man slaughter -- This is definitely a horrible situation with an even more horrific outcome. My thoughts go out to the family affected.

~Sovereign

Xcathdra
He was shot because he turned towards the officer and started to raise the gun.

He was not a criminal, and he knew he didn't have a real gun, why would he do that?
That sounds an awful lot like a cop covering his butt after a bad shoot that he knows he's in trouble over.

On the other hand, why would any parent allow their kid to own, and publicly carry, an air-soft gun in today’s climate?

Xcathdra
reply to post by ColoradoJens

 

He was shot because he turned towards the officer and started to raise the gun. The age and type of gun is not relevant to the review of the use of force.

If you don't like the laws, then why not change them?

I can't personally change laws unless I become a law maker. Doesn't mean I have to like them. When someone yells at you when walking down the street do you expect to be shot to death if you turn around?

CJ

reply to post by ColoradoJens

There are laws that relate to carrying fake guns, as Xcathdra mentioned. They exist because people have historically used fake guns to commit crime as they are easy to gain access to. Even a civilian shooting another civilian who was “brandishing” what they honestly believe to be a real gun can be legal. “Brandishing” in most states is a felony and the police treat it exactly like a real firearm. All that is required is the “belief” that it is real.

In this instance though, it was a kid, he was in a field, common sense should have told johnny law, “hey this may be a kid playing guns, maybe I shouldn't be too hot on the trigger here”...

reply to post by defcon5


Yes, I know that there are laws against this. There are also laws that allow you to carry guns openly. I recall a video of two teens walking around a town with a rifle looking for a confrontation with police to prove it was legal. The cop stopped them, checked them out and left. He didn't yell at them then shoot them when they turned around.

CJ

reply to post by ColoradoJens

A lot of those laws depend on the state.
Usually for “brandishing” you must be using it in a “threatening manner”, like pointing it at someone.

defcon5
reply to post by ColoradoJens

 

There are laws that relate to carrying fake guns, as Xcathdra mentioned. They exist because people have historically used fake guns to commit crime as they are easy to gain access to. Even a civilian shooting another civilian who was “brandishing” what they honestly believe to be a real gun can be legal. “Brandishing” in most states is a felony and the police treat it exactly like a real firearm. All that is required is the “belief” that it is real.

In this instance though, it was a kid, he was in a field, common sense should have told johnny law, “hey this may be a kid playing guns, maybe I shouldn't be too hot on the trigger here”...

edit on 10/30/2013 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)

Problem is kids kill people now a days time has changed. Wasnt it just a couple of days prior to this a 13 year old killed his teacher. and two others with a pistol. You know this would put every law enforcement officer in the country on high alert for copy cats. I dont know if they were briefed there but its very likely because everyone knows that you can have a kid that decides he wants to do the same. There are certain things you look for like not being in classes when hes supposed to be. Any unusual behavior such as avoiding police or teachers. So who knows this might have played a role maybe they were on the look out for any potential children going on a school shooting. See when people think kids we think well they wouldnt do anything but guess what kids kill people welcome to the brave new world.

SovereignEve
..anyway, if you don't "recall" then you shouldn't be a cop in the first place! pathetic excuse --

For starters any person involved in a traumatic event will have issues remembering every single detail right away. In general a person will remember more of the finer details anywhere between 24 and 72 hours after the incident (biological process when it comes to memory).

Secondly its not in the officer's interest to immediately begin speaking about the event. As I and others have pointed out the officer is being accused of committing a crime. Whether or not that action is justified is the reason for the investigation. Anything he states can be used against him.

There are currently 4 investigations ongoing by 4 different agencies...

So before we pass judgment we should probably understand how this process works.

defcon5

Xcathdra
He was shot because he turned towards the officer and started to raise the gun.

He was not a criminal, and he knew he didn't have a real gun, why would he do that?
That sounds an awful lot like a cop covering his butt after a bad shoot that he knows he's in trouble over.

On the other hand, why would any parent allow their kid to own, and publicly carry, an air-soft gun in today’s climate?

The Officer did not know the kids age and did not know the gun was not real. Again, both issues are irrelevant based on the standards. Secondly the suspect did commit a crime - several actually based on California Law, which is what allowed the deputies to make contact in the first place.

Absent reasonable suspicion / probable cause, contact is nothing more than voluntary.

A person does not have to be shot at in order to fear for their own or someone else's life and defend themselves. The action can be justification. In the judicial system the term is called Inchoate. It is a standard established where a persons actions are taken into account to determine a crime.

A type of crime completed by taking a punishable step towards the commission of another crime. The basic inchoate offenses are attempt, solicitation, and conspiracy.

The crime allegedly intended is called the target offense. Except for conspiracy, inchoate offenses merge into the target crime. This means that if the defendant is prosecuted for the target crime, attempt and solicitation cannot be charged as well. However, both conspiracy to commit a crime and the crime itself may be charged.

If a person breaks into your residence with the intent on stealing something, and you catch him coming through the window, the question becomes can the person be charged with 1st burglary if he in fact was not able to steal anything. The attempt itself is enough to argue the intent of the suspect.

In this case the act of raising the weapon, coupled with the gun looking real, can be interpreted as an "attempt" to fire at the officer, which is a crime. Even pointing a gun without pulling the trigger can be a crime. Totality of circumstances coupled with what the officer perceived at the moment force was used. Take into account California law when it comes to BB / Pellet guns.....

ColoradoJens
I can't personally change laws unless I become a law maker. Doesn't mean I have to like them.

Actually you can personally change laws. Its called being involved in government at all levels. Talking to your reps and letting them know what you think on topics. Almost ALL government entities that can legislate have options in place for citizens to introduce bills / modify etc etc etc.

ColoradoJens
When someone yells at you when walking down the street do you expect to be shot to death if you turn around?
CJ

For starters I would not be walking down the street holding an AK-47 in the manner the suspect was. The thing was not slung over his shoulder, it was in his hand.

If I were holding a rifle that looks like an AK-47 and I turn and start to raise the weapon yes, I expect to be shot. I would be seen as an immediate threat to the public under State and Federal Laws / rulings.

Constantly trying to leave out the fact he had an AK-47 in his hand when he turns does not make it so. I really wish people would stop trying to omit information or come up with hypotheticals that are not even comparable.

ColoradoJens
reply to post by defcon5

 

Yes, I know that there are laws against this. There are also laws that allow you to carry guns openly. I recall a video of two teens walking around a town with a rifle looking for a confrontation with police to prove it was legal. The cop stopped them, checked them out and left. He didn't yell at them then shoot them when they turned around.

CJ

There are essentially 2 types of laws - Federal Law and State Law.

A Law in California is not valid in New York. A crime in one state is not a crime in a second state. At the federal level if an appeals circuit makes a ruling, it applies to all state in that circuit but not the others.

Just because open carry is lawful in Missouri does not mean its lawful in California. As we see, California law makes it a criminal offense. We cannot impose personal opinions / different state laws to a situation they are not compatible with.