Police shoot 13 year old carrying fake rifle.

Xcathdra



Hope this clears up some confusion for some people.

Of course they would never attempt a cover up would they?

Oh wait... Police chief cover up
Oh maybe they can.

Here in the UK we are having lots of police cover ups being exposed right now too.
Its starting to look like the police force here is institutionally corrupt. I doubt its much different in the USA.
They are the protectors of the old mens club, not the man on the street.

People like the sons of mayors... Another cover up of manslaughter

And heres a doozy from the UK, this private investigator had an axe embedded into his head.... he was about to uncover police corruption. Private eye murdered while investigating police corruption

reply to post by OneManArmy


Of course here in the States our police have no duty to protect civilians. Nor are they required to tell civilians the truth. It's acceptable for the police to disseminate lies.

Dav1d
reply to post by OneManArmy

 

Of course here in the States our police have no duty to protect civilians. Nor are they required to tell civilians the truth. It's acceptable for the police to disseminate lies.

Same sh*t, different country.

dear God i am late again:

IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO REMOVE THE ORANGE TIP OF AN IMITATION FIREARM.

PENAL CODE
SECTION 20150-20180




20150. (a) Any person who changes, alters, removes, or obliterates
any coloration or markings that are required by any applicable state
or federal law or regulation, for any imitation firearm, or any
device described in subdivision (b) of Section 16700, in a way that
makes the imitation firearm or device look more like a firearm, is
guilty of a misdemeanor.

lets take a look at the federal law regarding this.

15 USC § 5001 - Penalties for entering into commerce of imitation firearms

(a) Acts prohibited
It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, enter into commerce, ship, transport, or receive any toy, look-alike, or imitation firearm unless such firearm contains, or has affixed to it, a marking approved by the Secretary of Commerce, as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

this regulation only applies to commerce and trade, not ownership. what you do with it on the user-end is your business.

the term transport as it relates to the entire section, as well as its context within the Commerce and Foreign Trade title of the Code of Regulations, is aimed at manufacturers/wholesalers/dealers.

however he did violate this:

12556.
(a) No person may openly display or expose any imitation firearm, as defined in Section 12550, in a public place.
(b) Violation of this section, except as provided in subdivision (c), is an infraction punishable by a fine of one hundred dollars ($100) for the first offense, and three hundred dollars ($300) for a second offense.

California Criminal Law

Infractions

An infraction is a public offense, but arguably not a crime, and is not punishable by imprisonment.[3] Any person convicted of an infraction may only be punished by a fine, removal and/or disqualification from public office. Typically, most infractions are punished with a fine only. Examples of infractions in California are traffic violation such as exceeding the posted speed limit, etc.

what he committed was a public offense, which is not the same as a crime.

he should have received a ticket. not a bullet.

reply to post by LadyLurker


One other violation anyone under the age of 18 is not allowed to posses or buy airsoft or bb guns. There should have been an adult present.

The FBI is planning to launch its own investigation into the shooting this week of Andy Lopez, the 13-year-old Santa Rosa boy killed by a Sonoma County sheriff’s deputy who mistook the BB gun Lopez was holding for an assault rifle.

FBI officials notified command staff for Sheriff Steve Freitas and Santa Rosa Police Chief Tom Schwedhelm of the move Friday.

The federal inquiry would be separate from the law enforcement investigation being led by Santa Rosa police into the deputy-involved shooting. Presumably the FBI’s investigation would look into possible violations of federal law, including Lopez’s civil rights.

Source: www.pressdemocrat.com...

So the FBI feels a need to look at this case...

reply to post by dragonridr


wrong and wrong.

a parent may purchase and give an airsoft gun to their child.

it is illegal to sell an airsoft gun to a minor. Not for a minor to buy. in the event of a transaction to a minor the person breaking the law is the seller.

dragonridr
reply to post by LadyLurker

 

One other violation anyone under the age of 18 is not allowed to posses or buy airsoft or bb guns. There should have been an adult present.

Once again your desire to blame the child is false.

Minimum age for possession: California law prohibits minors from possessing a handgun.3 Exceptions to this prohibition include situations where a parent or legal guardian is present or has consented to the possession.4 In addition, minors may possess handguns when engaged in certain recreational sports, including, but not limited to, competitive shooting; agricultural, ranching, or hunting activities; and any motion picture, television, or video production, or entertainment or theatrical events, the nature of which involves the use of a firearm.5
There is no minimum age to possess rifles and shotguns in California, although federal age restrictions still apply.

Source: smartgunlaws.org...

In reality this child would not have been in violation of California law even if he had a real rifle or a shot gun. But then this toy is not a rife. It is not lethal. It's a toy. And it can be obtain from Amazon...

A federal jury in San Francisco on Thursday found that a Santa Rosa police sergeant violated the civil rights of an unarmed man when he shot him to death outside the man’s home in 2007.

The eight-member jury concluded that the shooting of Richard DeSantis did not have a “legitimate law enforcement purpose” and awarded his family more than $500,000 in damages, plus attorneys’ fees.

“The jury found that the officer violated the constitutional right of an unarmed mental patient,” said family attorney Eric Safire. “This is big stuff.”

The verdict was a blow to city officials, who fully backed the actions of all six officers who responded to the 911 call and spent nearly five years trying to get the lawsuit thrown out.

Police Chief Tom Schwedhelm, who attended the two-week trial, said the shooting was a “tragic situation” but stood by his officers’ conduct.

“I am disappointed with the jury’s verdict and continue to believe all department personnel in this matter acted appropriately,” Schwedhelm said in a statement.
Source: www.watchsonomacounty.com...

A little research shows that this area has a long history of law enforcement executing unarmed citizens and calling it justified! Police Chief Tom Schwedhelm's department by the way is the one investigating this case. $500,000 in damages didn't change this man beliefs, who would care to bet that his opinion will be different this time?

LadyLurker
reply to post by dragonridr

 

wrong and wrong.

a parent may purchase and give an airsoft gun to their child.

it is illegal to sell an airsoft gun to a minor. Not for a minor to buy. in the event of a transaction to a minor the person breaking the law is the seller.

edit on 0pm25130000000Fri, 25 Oct 2013 20:56:56 -0500kAmerica/ChicagoFri, 25 Oct 2013 20:56:56 -0500 by LadyLurker because: (no reason given)

Wrong most states prohibit minors to possess bb guns here are some examples

New Jersey and Rhode Island have reclassified air guns to be treated as firearms when it comes to age and felony considerations. Children (age 18 and under) and other individuals such as ex-convicts are prohibited from possession and/or the purchase of firearms under federal law, but these states have expanded that prohibition to include air guns and rifles.


Massachusets
Section 12B. No minor under the age of eighteen shall have an air rifle or so-called BB gun in his possession while in any place to which the public has a right of access unless he is accompanied by an adult or unless he is the holder of a sporting or hunting license and has on his person a permit from the chief of police of the town in which he resides granting him the right of such possession. No person shall discharge a BB shot, pellet or other object from an air rifle or so-called BB gun into, from or across any street, alley, public way or railroad or railway right of way, and no minor under the age of eighteen shall discharge a BB shot, pellet or other objet specifically mention airsoft like in other states ct from an air rifle or BB gun unless he is accompanied by an adult or is the holder of a sporting or hunting license. Whoever violates this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars, and the air rifle or BB gun or other weapon shall be confiscated. Upon a conviction of a violation of this section the air rifle or BB gun or other weapon shall, by the written authority of the court, be forwarded to the colonel of the state police, who may dispose of said article in the same manner as prescribed in section ten.

florida
790.22 Use of BB guns, air or gas-operated guns, or electric weapons or devices by minor under 16; limitation; possession of firearms by minor under 18 prohibited; penalties.

So it depends on the state if a minor can posses bb guns Now california is unclear when you search west law because they classify bb guns as a weapon banning its possession but under certain conditions but it doesnt ention air soft so you cant be sure. But bb guns have been used in armed robberies and fall under that sentencing according to california supreme court.

reply to post by LadyLurker


You missed the penal code section which applies here, actually.

20170. (a) No person may openly display or expose any imitation
firearm in a public place.

Short and clear on that part with definition to public place.

(b) As used in this section, "public place" means an area open to
the public and includes any of the following:
(1) A street.
(2) A sidewalk.
(3) A bridge.

(Source: California State Penal Code - ca.gov site

The penalty isn't relevant, because the kid could have had an M-60 with a belt clearly in view, Rambo style...and he still would't have deserved to be shot if they didn't see what any reasonably person would determine as a threat. I'd also say of all the states a cop is likely to be held accountable, California tops the list. Although it takes longer than many, sometimes, to get there.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


the penalty is relevant in distinguishing a crime from a public offense.

you've continually lambasted users in this thread for saying the kid committed no crime, which is 100% true.

a crime is punishable by imprisonment, an infraction is not.

the police should have taken more than 10 seconds to consider the possibility that it was not real. Airsoft tournaments are quite popular in that state. and as has already been pointed out, it is not illegal to remove the orange tip. Those 2 factors alone should have put the burden of proof on the officers, but instead they reacted rashly and assumed the worst.

now instead of the miniscule fine he deserved, he got a death sentence.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


i didnt miss anything.

i posted the exact same wording in the paragraph directly above "California Criminal law"

reply to post by dragonridr


those are referring to public places. you simply said "illegal to posses". most minors do not live in public places, therefore the majority of their possession takes place lawfully at home.

furthermore when did 3-4 states become "most states"?

One of the deceptions being repeated here by the officers is they had only a second or even only milliseconds to decide if the threat was real. This is simply less than true, less than honest.

These officers saw the child, and had time to call the child in as a threat. They had time to ask for backup. They had time to stop their vehicle and open the doors and get out of their car. The child was walking, not running, not fleeing. They where behind the child, they decided how close to approach the child. They and they alone where in control, and armed with deadly force.

They could have chosen to wait, for the backup they called for to arrive. They could have chosen to get closer. When they made a choice to intervene the child was not threating anyone. No one was in danger as the child walked. It was an open field and highly unlikely that the child could out run their vehicle. They called the child in because they believe he had a gun. The gun was not something they discovered only after they had stopped the child. So yes they had far far longer than just milliseconds to decide. As it turns out they had the rest of this child's life to decide.

Stop all the immature niggling and nitpicking against this innocent child. I read all of your comments and most of you should be ashamed. The boy was executed by the state. Those who refuse to acknowledge that are in complete denial regarding the conditions under which you live, re: a Nazi inspired POLICE STATE. Actions such as we refer to here are meant to reinforce that very fact. The US government has imposed a POLICE STATE control over your lives. Get it into your heads heads and do something about it instead arguing about nonsense!

Dav1d

The FBI is planning to launch its own investigation into the shooting this week of Andy Lopez, the 13-year-old Santa Rosa boy killed by a Sonoma County sheriff’s deputy who mistook the BB gun Lopez was holding for an assault rifle.

FBI officials notified command staff for Sheriff Steve Freitas and Santa Rosa Police Chief Tom Schwedhelm of the move Friday.

The federal inquiry would be separate from the law enforcement investigation being led by Santa Rosa police into the deputy-involved shooting. Presumably the FBI’s investigation would look into possible violations of federal law, including Lopez’s civil rights.

Source: www.pressdemocrat.com...

So the FBI feels a need to look at this case...

This would be the 42 USC 1983 I pointed out in my last post. The FBI investigation will center on the 4th amendment violation.

Dav1d
One of the deceptions being repeated here by the officers is they had only a second or even only milliseconds to decide if the threat was real. This is simply less than true, less than honest.

At what point did you become a Forensic Expert? A crime scene expert?

You were not present so I am confused how you , as well as many others in this thread, are coming to your conclusions without having an inkling of the law, its application, not to mention the information that has not been released yet.

The "child" had an AK-47 in his possession... The Police told him to drop the gun and he refused to comply. When he turned, the gun was coming up.

Demonizing through ignorance does not work. Ignorance of how the law works does not work. You simply cannot ignore laws you don't agree with / understand.

I am curious how many other Drama experts we can get in this thread, constantly using terms like child and state execution.

I find it sad that a group of people are so willing to engage in the very behavior they take the police to task for.


This entire investigation is going to come down to one point - The standard the US Supreme Court established when it comes to the reviewing of an Officer's use of force.

What did the officer perceive at the moment force was used.

That questions has been asked and answered.. All that is left now is for the professionals to do their job. When the professionals are done then you and the rest can come back and complain. Until then the drama really needs to stop.

Xcathdra


The "child" had an AK-47 in his possession... The Police told him to drop the gun and he refused to comply. When he turned, the gun was coming up.

Here you are guilty of the same thing you are blaming others for.

Where you there to know if the police told him to repeatedly drop the weapon?
Where you there to see him refuse to do so?

No you wasnt, so PLEASE STOP making assertions that are simply an explanation given by police officers that had made the gravest of mistakes.

You are making it blindingly clear to me that you accept the explanations of the police officers that had something to cover up and explain away, while calling anyone else that uses the simple powers of deduction wrong to do so.

If I was you Id be pretty embarrassed right now. Double standards much?

OneManArmy

Xcathdra


The "child" had an AK-47 in his possession... The Police told him to drop the gun and he refused to comply. When he turned, the gun was coming up.

Here you are guilty of the same thing you are blaming others for.

Not at all.. As has been stated numerous times, and ignored by you and others, is you cannot use 20/20 hindsight. That means that the first observation made, a person with an assault rifle, is in fact a person with an assault rifle. the age and air gun status came after the fact, not before. Which means the basis for review falls into the category of an armed person and not a 13 year old with a pellet gun.

Its not a double standard when one party applies the correct laws to the situation.

OneManArmy
Where you there to know if the police told him to repeatedly drop the weapon?
Where you there to see him refuse to do so?

No you wasnt, so PLEASE STOP making assertions that are simply an explanation given by police officers that had made the gravest of mistakes.

Please explain how the officer made "the gravest of mistakes"? I don't recall reading that in any official release, so by all means please link to your source to support your claim. Or are you giving us an example of your double standard?


Case in point your response just below... Cover up... where did that enter in the official releases? Why do you think there is a cover up? Don't you think you are, again, being overly dramatic and introducing terms that are based on anything but reason and logic?

If your answer is no, then you have a problem with your double standards claims.

OneManArmy
You are making it blindingly clear to me that you accept the explanations of the police officers that had something to cover up and explain away, while calling anyone else that uses the simple powers of deduction wrong to do so.

And that blinding issue you have is what is causing you to completely and totally miss my point. If you would open your eyes and ears for a minute and actually read and comprehend what I have been telling you, you might actually understand.

Show me where I stated I accept their explanations... If you did not have such blind hatred towards law enforcement, you might have understood what I said. What I have done is to point out the laws that govern this area. Since you are so hell bent on attacking law enforcement you have failed to comprehend my posts and instead have twisted it into yet another I hate law enforcement accusation at me.

You and others have no clue about the laws in this area. Instead of learning, you use your own personal moral standards in place of those laws. Maybe if you took 2 minutes to educate yourselves you would be more able to understand the processes involved. Educating yourself on the laws and process down not mean you are forced to accept the conclusion. What it does is allows you to understand the system and be better able to make educated opinions and, maybe, possibly, actually push for the change in the system that you think it needs.

You cant fix a problem if you have no idea how it works now can you....

OneManArmy
If I was you Id be pretty embarrassed right now. Double standards much?

edit on 201310America/Chicago10am10amSat, 26 Oct 2013 07:37:45 -05001013 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)

edit on 201310America/Chicago10am10amSat, 26 Oct 2013 07:38:19 -05001013 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)

Why would I be embarrassed? I don't work for their agency... I don't work in their state.... I don't work in their federal appeals circuit... none of their actions / state / local laws / federal appeals rulings affect me.

Which is why I have pointed those very laws out to you guys... So you can understand instead of making wild accusations towards law enforcement.

What you and others are ignoring, or just not familiar with, is how the media reports on these issues. They are so hell bent on getting the story out first that they run their story with partial information. Because of this, they are forced to change how they report the story when new information comes out. That change in information does not automatically mean cover up. What it does mean is the investigation is ongoing, which means the media has to update anytime that info comes out.

The other issues are witnesses. You can have 20 people witness a crime and you will get 20 different answers to the basic questions.

As an example the guy who claims the kid was shot while laying on the ground... The article stated he was inside when he heard the shots, then went to see what was going on. How can that person make the claim if he didn't see it happen?



The only ones who should be embarrassed are the ones who prefer ignorance over education.

Question - How do you expect to make changes and hold law enforcement accountable if you refuse to read the playbook? We live in a society where anyone can access the laws and case laws. Where you an challenge government officials and demand change.

Instead of taking advantage of that system, you want to scream at the sky because its raining. In the end we know that is not going to stop the rain...