Police shoot 13 year old carrying fake rifle.

OneManArmy

dragonridr

What you make no sense and showing a severe lack of how a democracy works. Of course a police officer can use his own testimony as a defense so can anyone else in any criminal prosecution. Its called testimony and when your accused of a criminal act you get to tell your side of the story unless you live in a country where your presumed guilty then the state just puts on evidence of your guilt and your sentenced. So i think i prefer being able to defend your actions just a little better then punishment all ready being decided and the proceeding a formality.Unfortunately i see there are alot of people on here that think someone is guilty until proven Innocent funny these same people are claiming the governments all powerful taking away rights.Then want to take away the rights of the officer involved you really cant have it both ways.

Democracy = 2 wolves and a sheep voting for dinner.
What has democracy got to do with any of this?
This is a freedom vs oppression argument.
This is a racial profiling argument, its about civil liberties vs police liberties.
Its about police operating procedure. Its about the constitution and the bill of rights.

Democracy has NOTHING to do with it.

Sometimes things are open and shut, a boy lying dead armed only with toy guns is pretty open and shut IMO.
Call me crazy.

Glad i dont live in a country your in control of. Because theres no such thing as an open and shut case unless you live in a communist country of maybe a fascist state. As far as racial profiling i love it when people start screaming racial profiling really? So you some how magically know that the officer hated Hispanics? And as far as the constitution you apparently want to take away the constitution from the officer and remove all his rights. And i see your opinion on democracy and the peoples rights so id have to say people like you are alot scarier then that you rail against.

Democracies arent perfect but they are the best we have to attempt to protect everyones rights.As you so clearly show do process is important especially in light that being human we let emotions get involved.In this case the officer will go through due process guilt or innocence will be determined and actions taken.Me personally i wouldnt want it any other way it appears you on the other hand have tried and convicted him on emotion. Can circumstances lead to an accidental death of course they can. Could the officer have made a mistake that caused the shooting of course. So what happens depends solely on the information. Do to the fact the officer couldnt hit the broad side of a barn if reports are true tells me there was alot of fear involved. He was to busy hiding behind the vehicle to take aim i suspect this officer will indeed be in trouble for endangerment you just dont randomly pop off rounds.But the issue with the child is entirely different did he have a reasonable suspicion the boy was a threat to the community? This is what the question is and the answer to this will either put him in jail for manslaughter or this is just a tragic accident.

dragonridr

OneManArmy

dragonridr

What you make no sense and showing a severe lack of how a democracy works. Of course a police officer can use his own testimony as a defense so can anyone else in any criminal prosecution. Its called testimony and when your accused of a criminal act you get to tell your side of the story unless you live in a country where your presumed guilty then the state just puts on evidence of your guilt and your sentenced. So i think i prefer being able to defend your actions just a little better then punishment all ready being decided and the proceeding a formality.Unfortunately i see there are alot of people on here that think someone is guilty until proven Innocent funny these same people are claiming the governments all powerful taking away rights.Then want to take away the rights of the officer involved you really cant have it both ways.

Democracy = 2 wolves and a sheep voting for dinner.
What has democracy got to do with any of this?
This is a freedom vs oppression argument.
This is a racial profiling argument, its about civil liberties vs police liberties.
Its about police operating procedure. Its about the constitution and the bill of rights.

Democracy has NOTHING to do with it.

Sometimes things are open and shut, a boy lying dead armed only with toy guns is pretty open and shut IMO.
Call me crazy.

Glad i dont live in a country your in control of. Because theres no such thing as an open and shut case unless you live in a communist country of maybe a fascist state. As far as racial profiling i love it when people start screaming racial profiling really? So you some how magically know that the officer hated Hispanics? And as far as the constitution you apparently want to take away the constitution from the officer and remove all his rights. And i see your opinion on democracy and the peoples rights so id have to say people like you are alot scarier then that you rail against.

Democracies arent perfect but they are the best we have to attempt to protect everyones rights.As you so clearly show do process is important especially in light that being human we let emotions get involved.In this case the officer will go through due process guilt or innocence will be determined and actions taken.Me personally i wouldnt want it any other way it appears you on the other hand have tried and convicted him on emotion. Can circumstances lead to an accidental death of course they can. Could the officer have made a mistake that caused the shooting of course. So what happens depends solely on the information. Do to the fact the officer couldnt hit the broad side of a barn if reports are true tells me there was alot of fear involved. He was to busy hiding behind the vehicle to take aim i suspect this officer will indeed be in trouble for endangerment you just dont randomly pop off rounds.But the issue with the child is entirely different did he have a reasonable suspicion the boy was a threat to the community? This is what the question is and the answer to this will either put him in jail for manslaughter or this is just a tragic accident.

My interpretation of the current facts is that the officer made a fatal assumption which proved fatal for the boy who is dead. Do I think the officer went out that day with the sole intention of killing an innocent boy? I VERY MUCH DOUBT IT.
What I think far more likely is that the officer let his imagination get the better of him, which is where the fault lies.
Now killing a person by accident is manslaughter. There is no get out clause for taking a life by mistake. Not for the citizens and certainly not for the police.

The racial profiling could very well be a motivating factor as to what led the officers mind to start creating fantasy scenarios in HIS OWN HEAD which lead to his opening fire and shooting all over the place.

All of the above is my OPINION, based on very limited information. I am not a lawyer nor enforcer of the law, Im a citizen sharing my opinion on a public forum. Expressing my thoughts and disgust not only at this case, but the way in which people are quick to accept it as a role of law enforcement to be judge, jury and executioner based on the perceived fears that they conjure in their OWN HEADS. Abandoning due process and any rule of law. Thats where the problem lies for me. I hope thats clearer now.

IMO...

unless there's a independent investigation and actually eyewitness..

it's a PhyOp..

reply to post by OneManArm ichy

OneManArmy AMEN - well stated.

Just a reminder, because in the "heat of battle" we tend to lose sight of the fact that this was indeed a murder. What gives me (or anyone else ) the right to make such a harsh assessment? The firing of eight (8) rounds, (fired off is less that 10 secs.) seven of which went into the frail body of a young boy, and if that's not a sure sign of an "intent to kill" I don't know what is; mind you, his actions were not meant to quell a perceived threat; not intended to disable a perceived threat; not carried out with the idea of disarming the perceived threat, but to fire indiscriminately, on target, eight times with the "intent to kill" the perceived threat - a 13 year old boy w/a toy gun. Remember too that age and mental state were trumped by the fact that the boy "turned around" in such a manner as to threaten the lives of two deputies to such a degree that they were in mortal danger - in fear for their lives!

Judging from the set of comments below its looks like all the boy did to warrant his EXECUTION was to turn around to see who was hollering at him. He obviously couldn't see them because the cowardly cops were in hiding - crouched down behind the doors of the, first un-marked, then marked patrol car with a chirp for a siren to warn, or not to warn him, or to identify themselves to him as police officers. They were obviously cowering in fear of a 13 year old kid. Is that standard behavior for police officers these days?

13-Year-Old With Pellet Gun Shot 7 Times by Police

A preliminary autopsy report released Thursday said Andy Lopez was shot seven times, and the two fatal wounds were in his right hip and the right side of his chest.

A Sonoma County sheriff's deputy twice told the boy to drop the weapon, but he instead raised it in the deputy's direction, police said at a news conference Wednesday.

"The deputy's mindset was that he was fearful that he was going to be shot," said Santa Rosa police Lt. Paul Henry, whose agency is investigating the shooting.

Police said two deputies were riding in a marked patrol vehicle and were in uniforms when they spotted Andy in a hooded sweatshirt and shorts at 3:14 p.m. Tuesday. His back was turned toward the deputies, and they did not realize he was a boy.

A witness reported seeing the patrol car's overhead emergency lights turn on and hearing the chirp of a siren, police said. One of the deputies twice ordered Andy to drop the weapon, according to a witness, police said.

The teen was about 20 or 30 feet away from the deputies with his back toward them when he began turning around with what one deputy described as the barrel of the rifle rising up and turning in his direction, police said.

Assistant Sheriff Lorenzo Duenas told the Press Democrat that the deputy who shot the teen is a 24-year veteran and his partner, who did not fire his weapon, is a new hire.

The unmarked car and no siren is debatable...

Police said two deputies were riding in a marked patrol vehicle and were in uniforms...

A witness reported seeing the patrol car's overhead emergency lights turn on and hearing the chirp of a siren, police said.

roadgravel
The unmarked car and no siren is debatable...

Police said two deputies were riding in a marked patrol vehicle and were in uniforms...

A witness reported seeing the patrol car's overhead emergency lights turn on and hearing the chirp of a siren, police said.

Oh yea right the siren was a CHIRP so lets please not nitpick the four different versions of 'marked not marked' etc., that I have read so far.........I personally don't care all that much about such incidentals primarily because, in situations such as these the police are notorious for creating (and feeding the press) with as many confusing versions as possible. They also have a way of lying like hell on their many and varied police reports (just for a single incident,) so as to cover their asses and to protect their own. These facts are well known and are indisputable..........so please lets just concentrate on the main elements of the event itself OK? Thank you.....

ATTENTION!!!

Stick to the topic at hand at cut the personal jabs and petty back an forth.


Mod Note: ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

reply to post by XionZap

I appalled by the way this went down. I would think a single chirp from a siren isn't much. I'm just pointing out details that seem beyond reasonable doubt as true. A witness knew it was a police unit.

What gets me the most is that if the initial part is truly as mistake, shooting the person when down multiple times is not. No way they can say he was a continued threat which some here want to pile on as acceptable behavior.

OneManArmy
Sorry im one of the unwashed masses. Your contempt for us "citizens" is highly apparent.

Again you are wrong...

OneManArmy
All I have been doing is refuting your information and the way you are using it.

Actually you are not..

OneManArmy
Because I think the execution of an innocent child is wrong, I need education?

Shot to stop the threat and yes you do.

OneManArmy
Im getting that feeling of wanting to be sick again.

I would suggest a trip to the ER then.

OneManArmy
I ask you.. Is it a requirement for all jury members to be schooled in law for 2 years before deciding a suspects fate in a court of law?

Of course not because a person who is accused of a crime is judged by his peers. However, A person who wishes to be a prosecutor / defense attorney is required to have schooling. In the rare instances where a person chooses to represent themselves in court, they are usually given a court appointed attorney to assist / observe.

OneManArmy
Im only scared that a self confessed "man of the law" can defend illegal actions by police officers. Using their own testimony as PROOF. While at the same time declaring to the world how things are supposed to be done.

Yup - based on my experience and training... Whats yours?

OneManArmy
Im 38 years old. You should stop trying to blind people with bullsh*t.

Only BS to those who refuse to research the topic.


Any other personal attacks or can we get back to the topic?

The suspect was armed and refused to comply with commands.. Regardless of your personal opinion he followed protocol.

edit on 27-10-2013 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

ETA - Since a second poster invoked this -
reply to post by Bedlam

XionZap
You have no way of knowing what are the motivations on the part of the FBI as pertains to their decision to inject themselves into the case, or if they are even considering invoking a IV Amendment violation.
There are more than likely at least a dozen legitimate reasons why they (the FBI) might have chosen to do so, not the least of which would have fallen into the violation of one's "Civil Rights" category of racial and/or ethnic profiling leading to outright discrimination against a particular individual, which you failed to include in your highly presumptive take on the situation.

This was obviously a decision made at the highest echelon of the Department of Justice, namely AG Holder himself, and he surely had been prompted to do so by none other than the president of the United States. As stated - this is no ordinary case and from the looks of it the president sees it as a top priority because of the absolutely heinous nature of the crimes committed against this young man in particular, and against society as a whole.
----------------------------------------
AND: you totally ignored my earlier posting that pointed to the rarity of an intrusion such as this on the part of the FBI. AND you also ignored the comments respecting the fact that the: the FBI called it "a civil rights-type of case" insofar as you were very insistent that you knew that it was a IV Amendment "inquiry by default." I'll tell you straight up that there is nothing in the record (so far) that would serve as a back-up to your presumptive claims based on what you implied was a kind of an "inside track" sort of info.

"

(Newser) – Investigations into the fatal shooting of 13-year-old Andy Lopez by a sheriff’s deputy in Santa Rosa, Calif., have stepped up a notch, with the FBI now launching its own probe. This is a rare move by the agency, notes the the Press Democrat—the last time it investigated a shooting by a local officer was 1997. Santa Rosa police will still continue their own investigation of the incident, in which the deputy apparently fired eight rounds at the eighth-grader after spotting him holding a BB gun. A spokesman for the FBI called it "a civil rights-type of case" and says the agency will look at the "incident itself (and) the deputies' response." Both the local sheriff and police chief say they welcome the investigation, and will cooperate fully.

edit on 27-10-2013 by XionZap because: (no reason given)

As a matter of fact I do know why the FBI is involved - to investigate the possible civil rights violation by the deputy.

The criminal investigation is a state matter and the FBI has no jurisdiction because federal law was not broken.

A little thing called separate sovereigns.

FBI to investigate Andy Lopez shooting

The FBI is launching 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 is separate from the investigation led by Santa Rosa police into the deputy-involved shooting.

A spokesman in the FBI's San Francisco office called the agency's inquiry a “shooting review,” looking into the “incident itself (and) the deputies' response.”

“We're going to look into the facts of that,” said Peter Lee, a public affairs specialist with the bureau. “It's a civil rights-type of case.”

See underlined part above.

As for New Orleans - The FBI investigated the civil rights violations.

Danziger Bridge Shootings Update: Judge overturns convictions, grants new trial to ex-NOLA officers

(CBS/AP) - A judge has ordered that, due to "grotesque prosecutorial misconduct," five former New Orleans police officers who were convicted of civil rights violations in the fatal shooting of two unarmed people in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina will get a new trial.

A "Civil Rights Investigation" stems from The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically 42 USC 1983 - which empowers the federal government to investigate possible civil rights violations committed by individuals acting under the color of law.

So yes, the FBI is ONLY investigating the civil rights violation.

What else do ya got?

Xcathdra
So yes, the FBI is ONLY investigating the civil rights violation.

What else do ya got?

18 USC 1951, otherwise known as the Hobbs Act, through which the FBI can prosecute local LEOs for corruption. And do.

eta: there's an officer in the Baltimore PD who's facing Hobbs Act charges for filing false reports along with some other charges. I take it that's pretty unusual, but it's apparently in their scope. And when they get through with that guy, they're widening the scope to cover the entire BPD. So it is possible for the FBI to act outside of a civil rights violation. I'm not saying it's germane to this particular situation, but my impression is that Sonoma County has a history of this sort of thing that's maybe above the national average. And I suspect also, with sufficient national heat on him, the local prosecutor *might* be a bit less worried about FOP and more about losing his job to a pissed off electorate.

reply to post by Bedlam


As for the corruption incident one needs to look at exactly what type of corruption it was and did the act of corruption by the officer violate another persons civil rights? Another piece of law at he Federal level that works iwht what you are saying are RICOH statutes (organized crime and raketeering).

The Federal Government is not empowered to enforce state law no more than States can enforce Federal law (im referring to law enforcement / prosecutors).

This is the part that trips people up -
The FBI, in this case and NOLA, is not investigating the officer for murder. What they are doing is investigating the officer for the 4th amendment violation when they shot and killed a person.

Those prosecutions and convictions, civil rights violations, does not ask whether the officer committed murder. What it does is ask if the officers actions violated the persons civil rights (shooting / killing is a 4th amendment issue).

So while the FBI is involved, its solely for the civil rights violation, not the violation of state / local law or departmental operating guidelines.

This is what I was explaining with regards to how these investigations work and why they are complex when compared to a civilian use of deadly force.

iv'e come to the conclusion, all cops are bad and this is why, has anyone ever seen a so called "good cop" turn in a bad cop ever????????? anywhere??????????????????? no you probably haven't because it doesn't happen, there for all cops are scum and this is being shown everyday.

can anyone show us evidence of these good cops doing anything about the bad cops, besides joining them in the spoils??

fire them all, they are scum.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Hobbs Act violations by LEOs aren't civil rights issues. It has to do with consistent false reports, taking bribes, running crime rings out of the PD, shake downs of citizens and the like. Right now, there's an officer going down at BPD for false reports, Kendell Richburg. They dug up enough crap that they're going to go through BPD with a fine-toothed comb now.

Again, not that it's germane with Lopez, although if the cops ended up filing false reports and have consistently been doing so when they go through the records, it might come up at that point.

The gun that some here claim Andy Lopez carried was not the near $200 replica that some claim, but was in fact the cheap plastic toy version that can be had from Amazon for $35.45 now Andy's father tells us the gun was "dropped" and it broke. Looking at the picture we can kind of see that the end of the barrel is missing. It's curious that this section of the picture is darker than the rest of the picture. Was there a desire by the Sheriff's department to hide or obscure this fact?

Another curious thing is why Andy was stopped to begin with. Now some will claim that was because the cops spotted the gun! But if that is indeed the reason, why did the officers fail to tell dispatch that they where stopping an armed man? This is so common that there is an ACPO code for this very event 10-32, man with gun. Yet law enforcement reported this as nothing more than a suspicious person, why? Why not share that you are stopping a man with an AK47, because you fear that he is about to commit mass murder in an empty field?

How about this scenario you see a young child wearing a hoodie and you decide to hassle him. You believe he is harmless just a child that you can give a hard time to. You call him to come to you, and as the child listens to you and turns in your direction you see the toy AK47 and shoot him by mistake. But then you realize what you have done, and decide to eliminate the problem you shoot him again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again. A total of eight times. When you are train to shoot in three round burst, at the center mass. But you shoot eight times, because you want him silenced.

That fits with the facts we have been told, a witness heard a shot, a pause and then more shots as he fell to the ground and was on the ground...

“First I heard a single siren and within seconds I heard seven shots go off, sounded like a nail gun, is what I thought it was,” said Brian Zastrow, a resident on Horizon Way. “After that I heard multiple sirens.”
Source

A witness also reports that you shot Andy while he was laying on the ground...

You need him dead, so there is only your story of what happen. One one version...

That might also explain why once EMS arrived Law Enforcement prevented them for treating Andy as soon as they arrived. Because Law Enforcement need little Andy dead.

Lets look at those two guns again.


I've added a red arrow to show where Andy's toy was missing the front of the barrel and the front sight. Compare that to the green arrow. I'm sure you can see the difference. In fact it is so different that I question if in a real AK47 the gun would even function this way. A AK47 uses a principle called gas blowback to strip the chambered round, cock the hammer and load the next round. This is accomplished by tapping a small bit of the gases expelling the bullet to drive a cylinder backwards. Without the rest of the barrel and the forward sight assembly I question if there would be enough pressure long enough for this to function.

Without the forward sight this gun could NOT be aimed accurately. An expert would notice that there is no front sight. An expert would know there is no way to aim this gun accurately at any thing or one. It takes both a rear and forward sight to target anything. Without that you can not be sure what you are pointing at.

LittleBlackEagle
iv'e come to the conclusion, all cops are bad and this is why, has anyone ever seen a so called "good cop" turn in a bad cop ever????????? anywhere??????????????????? no you probably haven't because it doesn't happen, there for all cops are scum and this is being shown everyday.

can anyone show us evidence of these good cops doing anything about the bad cops, besides joining them in the spoils??

fire them all, they are scum.

I disagree with you cops do not turn in bad cops, I'll grant you it doesn't happen often but it does happen. You can find a story here about four cops who did

Dav1d

LittleBlackEagle
iv'e come to the conclusion, all cops are bad and this is why, has anyone ever seen a so called "good cop" turn in a bad cop ever????????? anywhere??????????????????? no you probably haven't because it doesn't happen, there for all cops are scum and this is being shown everyday.

can anyone show us evidence of these good cops doing anything about the bad cops, besides joining them in the spoils??

fire them all, they are scum.

I disagree with you cops do not turn in bad cops, I'll grant you it doesn't happen often but it does happen.

everyone's entitled to their opinion, unless the cops show up to shoot you for it. or you call them for a burglar and they shoot you, suspicious person call, they shoot you or your kids, maybe your dog. quit making excuses for these scum bags, they are lower than the trash they haul in, after they steal from them and beat them down.

LittleBlackEagle

Dav1d

LittleBlackEagle
iv'e come to the conclusion, all cops are bad and this is why, has anyone ever seen a so called "good cop" turn in a bad cop ever????????? anywhere??????????????????? no you probably haven't because it doesn't happen, there for all cops are scum and this is being shown everyday.

can anyone show us evidence of these good cops doing anything about the bad cops, besides joining them in the spoils??

fire them all, they are scum.

I disagree with you cops do not turn in bad cops, I'll grant you it doesn't happen often but it does happen.

everyone's entitled to their opinion, unless the cops show up to shoot you for it. or you call them for a burglar and they shoot you, suspicious person call, they shoot you or your kids, maybe your dog. quit making excuses for these scum bags, they are lower than the trash they haul in, after they steal from them and beat them down.

I'm not making excuses, just acknowledging that not all cops are bad, it is my experience that absolutes are seldom correct. And I offered a link in my post that give an example of four cops. I suggest that makes more than just an opinion....

[url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread978241/pg1]> And here is another example.

reply to post by Dav1d


yes four cops oh boy lets jump for joy the constitution has been restored. four cops out of hundreds of cases of police brutality everyday, most un reported, that's really reassuring i tell ya.


cops need to have their blue shield of death removed, no more immunity from any prosecution, personal responsibility and accountability, strangely the same thing that needs to be done to all govt. employees and elected scum bags. they all hide behind their govt. ID while committing crime after crime. lock them all up and start from scratch.