Police shoot 13 year old carrying fake rifle.

That's right, pigs. Have fun in hell. That is where you are headed.

It may be fun to wield power behind a gun and a badge now, but you are EVEN LOWER than the scum in Washington. You are supposed to be the "salt of the Earth", the good guys that protect us from the dregs of society.

Instead you have become a clan of EFFING COWARDS that hide behind that GODAMN badge and "regulate" as you see fit.

I will spit in your damn face if you give me half a reason.
And that is no "internet tough guy talk"...real ish.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I don't know what world you live in but there are 13 year old kids carrying REAL guns and robbing, committing murder and raping people all the time. If the rifle looked real and they couldn't tell the difference they had a right to protect themselves.

I know it's fashionable to beat up on cops now days but sometimes they are in the right.

mwood
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

I don't know what world you live in but there are 13 year old kids carrying REAL guns and robbing, committing murder and raping people all the time. If the rifle looked real and they couldn't tell the difference they had a right to protect themselves.

I know it's fashionable to beat up on cops now days but sometimes they are in the right.

Yeah, we aren't talking Sub-Sahara Africa here, bud. We are talking the Grand-Ole US of A.
It takes overwhelming populace opposition to keep the pigs in check.

If I had walked up on this scene I would have raised on these scum-bags and placed them under citizen's arrest. If they decided not to turn themselves in and turned on me instead I would have shot them both.

JayinAR
I will spit in your damn face if you give me half a reason.
And that is no "internet tough guy talk"...real ish.

Just make sure you are not the first person to cry when the cops respond to you with force.
Oh and film it the next time you plan on spitting in a cops face.

Restricted
reply to post by Dav1d

 

When I was young, kids didn't murder people.

Yes, they did. They didn't shoot up schools but they did indeed murder and rape/sexually assault other kids. It has happened since we appeared here on earth.

One of the issues now is people are simply afraid of everything. There have always been monster children/adults who do these things but then as it is now, there is a tiny minority who do. We simply have bought into the terror/fear hype.

CJ

reply to post by ColoradoJens


I grew up in the 60's and 70's. Not once did I ever hear of a kid shooting anyone. It just didn't happen. We were taught how to properly deal with our emotions then.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Dav1d

 

Do you honestly believe this was a summary execution? Do you think the cops said to each other or thought to themselves, this kid had to die ...so they made it happen, regardless of his actions?

I simply added the fact that contrary to a very strong statement made, this is, in fact, in violation of California law. The cops were in their rights to stop and question someone walking down the street with a gun.

If it's real, it's an open carry issue and I believe laws vary, if it's still legal there now at all. (I seem to recall a big push to outlaw it after some of the empty pistol protests). If it's fake, at a min., it's a citation if not a booking. Him? I'd guess his parents would have been picking him up ...if whatever we don't know, hadn't happened.

When we know what precipitated the gunfire, we'll know it all for this, eh?

edit on 23-10-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

California doesn't have a stand your ground law! It does have a castle doctrine however,

Aggressors are not eligible for this -- you must be defending, not striking first. You, as a reasonable person, would have to believe the danger is imminent and not a threat at some time in the future. Also, you had to have believed that deadly force was necessary, and you had to have used just enough force to defend yourself. However, a defendant does not have to be correct about having actually been in danger. A jury can acquit if they think the defendant reasonably believed that mortal danger was truly there.

Read more here;blogs.kqed.org...

For a "normal" citizen of California the rules appear to be higher than for their police. Notice the part about just using enough force to defend yourself. Who were the aggressors here? Who were pointing the guns here? Who shot first? In my world not obeying is not aggression, and it certainly does rise to the level of imminent threat.

reply to post by Dav1d


Stand your ground and/or castle doctrine has absolutely no application to what happened here. Neither relates to armed deputies lawfully stopping someone who is breaking the law on a public street.

Whatever happened between that point and the next point the eyewitness is there to relate seeing, after the shooting, is a mystery that no one ...no one anywhere... on this thread, knows or can do more than guess at.

If that's changed and solid information is now being reported, I'd stand corrected and would sure like to know.

Outside of that, right or wrong boils down to what a dash cam may or may not have caught of actions no one else seems to have been eye ball to for an account. The facts as they are known just don't seem to support assumptions or presumptions of cops executing someone on a public street here.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Yet the child is dead.
The child was unarmed.
These are the facts!

If a dashcam video exist, it can be tampered with. It certainly wasn't released at once.

Clearly there are many LEOs that don't have an issue with this killing. That in itself should be a problem. Any officer that believes a Misdemeanor is justification for the killing of a child should be terminated in my opinion.

reply to post by opethPA


Oh, you think I am being dramatic. Thats cute.

The more adept here know I am truthfully serious.

Even our LEO knows how damn serious I am.

Funnily enough I am lime that 1% who doesn't give a DAMN what you think.

And I don't care who you are

I am "that dude" who is a "homegrown terrorist". Believe it or not but I am dead damn serious

JayinAR
reply to post by opethPA

 

Oh, you think I am being dramatic. Thats cute.

The more adept here know I am truthfully serious.

I am "that dude" who is a "homegrown terrorist". Believe it or not but I am dead damn serious

So noted.

Restricted
reply to post by ColoradoJens

 

I grew up in the 60's and 70's. Not once did I ever hear of a kid shooting anyone. It just didn't happen. We were taught how to properly deal with our emotions then.

Again, kids didn't use guns in your childhood era to kill others. They used knives, bricks, bats, threw other kids down wells, etc. I don't know the "we" you refer to as "we" teach our kids how to deal with their emotions. People were just as sick in the 60's and 70's as they are today.

CJ

opethPA


and if that was a real gun, is it any less dangerous because a kid has it in his hands?

Again I say..this is a no win situation that is easy to question from behind a monitor.

If the cops hesitated for a minute he wouldn't be dead, and if it was a real gun then the cops could still fire.


I'll tell you what... I'm not firing on a kid unless he fires first. Clear the road, get something between you and him, but I'm not firing first in this situation. Our cops have turned into....shoot at any sign of disobedience to their orders....

Guns been around a long time and they were not like this in the past, and we had as many, more guns then today.

Here is the gun -




Foxnews< br />

The replica gun resembled an AK-47 with a black magazine cartridge and brown butt, according to a photograph released by the sheriff's office. Deputies would only learn after the shooting that it was a replica, according to O'Leary. It was not clear whether it could fire projectiles such as pellets or BBs.

These 'brave' officers shot this 13 year old SEVEN TIMES with a .40 or .45 caliber round. FROM COVER.

Why? He wasn't a threat. They shot him SEVEN times because he disrespected their authority and didn't immediately comply.

Cowards and evil men, all of them.

reply to post by Dav1d

If a dashcam video exist, it can be tampered with. It certainly wasn't released at once.

So, what you're saying is that because they didn't immediately hand over the film of a kid being shot to death in an ongoing investigation (if their cars were pointed properly and the cameras were running), you may not accept what comes out later as legitimate...no matter what it shows?

How did we make such a fast leap to tampered evidence? I'm a little lost here unless the intent is to seek ways of making it the sole fault of the Sheriff's Office. They did stop someone on the street who was in violation of the law...carrying what appears in the picture to be a cheap, 3rd world production AK-47 rifle.

Clearly there are many LEOs that don't have an issue with this killing.

If you mean the Police/Law Enforcement who have posted in this thread, I haven't seen any say this was Okay with them or acceptable in any way. I've also seen none suggest this is an open/shut case based on the very incomplete information we have to work with from the story so far.

Any officer that believes a Misdemeanor is justification for the killing of a child should be terminated in my opinion.

If you find a law enforcement officer we can point to who actually believes shooting someone for a misdemeanor is okay, I'll agree entirely that they have *NO* business as a meter maid or mall security guard, let alone a cop. On the other hand, if they stop someone on a possible misdemeanor and believe it's become a life/death situation, they aren't shooting someone for a misdemeanor anymore. They're reacting to immediate deadly threat as they perceive it.

Is that what happened? No one knows, for some key missing detail at this very early stage of a major case like this.

It's informative to notice how this story is changing, originally reported as,

This afternoon at 3:00PM, two Sonoma County Deputies were patrolling in the area of Mooreland Ave. and West Robles Ave., Santa Rosa. At that time they observed a male subject walking with what appeared to be some type of a rifle. They immediately called for an emergency response from other deputies and officers that were in the area. The two deputies repeatedly ordered the subject to drop the rifle and at some point immediately thereafter, the deputies fired several rounds from their handguns at the subject striking him several times. The subject fell to the ground and landed on top of the rifle he was carrying.

Source: local.nixle.com...

Does anyone else wonder why an event that occour at 3:00pm has an image of a gun taken clearly many hours later.... Did it take time for the cops to find an AK-47?

And the latest is the cops now claim the child pointed the gun at them....

When a citizen is questioned and doesn't tell a consistent story what happens?