Police shoot 13 year old carrying fake rifle.

Reminds me of that movie Extreme Justice and the LAPD's Special Investigation Section. Get on their list and there is no judge or jury just execution.

reply to post by blackthorne


Blackthorne first let me thank you for your service to our country. I appreaceate what you have done.

While surfing the Internet I came across this picture,



I'm told that local law enforcement has taken real guns out to the parks in the area where Andy lived, and allowed children to play with, and point them as can be seen in this picture. Are you aware of this activity?

Again I'm told,

Police Chief Tom Schwedhelm said the event gave officers chance to make non-traditional connections with the community. The goal of the SWAT display was to show people that these are some of the tools the police use to make this community safe, he said.

Perhaps that explains this?





This display of officers overlooking the peaceful protest marches appears to my eyes, geared far more to intimidate than control...
Unless these "peace keepers" feel that firing down into crowds with children is an acceptable way of keeping the peace, and serving the community?


Source

If it is true that the kid was raising the fake gun as if trying to aim on the officers, I can understand why they shot him. Truly a sad incident.

This is why there should be automatic cameras on all police weapons.

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 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.

edit on 30-10-2013 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

re·al1
ˈrē(ə)l/
adjective
1.
[B]actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
"Julius Caesar was a real person"
synonyms: actual, nonfictional, factual, real-life; More
antonyms: imaginary
used to emphasize the significance or seriousness of a situation or circumstance.
"there is a real danger of civil war"
PHILOSOPHY
relating to something as it is, not merely as it may be described or distinguished.
2.
(of a substance or thing) not imitation or artificial; genuine.
"the earring was presumably real gold"
synonyms: genuine, authentic, bona fide; More
sincere, genuine, true, unfeigned, heartfelt, unaffected
antonyms: imaginary, fake, false, feigned
true or actual.
"his real name is James"
synonyms: true, actual More
(of a person or thing) rightly so called; proper.
"he's my idea of a real man"
synonyms: proper, true; More
3.
informal
complete; utter (used for emphasis).
"the tour turned out to be a real disaster"
synonyms: complete, utter, thorough, absolute, total, prize, perfect More
4.
adjusted for changes in the value of money; assessed by purchasing power.
"real incomes had fallen by 30 percent"
5.
LAW
of fixed property (i.e., land and buildings), as distinct from personal property.
"he lost nearly all of his real holdings"
6.
MATHEMATICS
(of a number or quantity) having no imaginary part.
7.
OPTICS
(of an image) of a kind in which the light that forms it actually passes through it; not virtual.
adverbinformal
adverb: real
1.
really; very.

Source

Clearly under the actual meaning of "real" this gun never was real, but rather imagined, or supposed. You can continue to post the same spin countless times, and it will not make an imagined gun real!

Now law enforcement doesn't wear brain monitoring devices that record what law enforcement at any give point in time may or may not be thinking. Indeed this county has a long history of refusing to hold their officers accountable in any meaningful way. They refuse to install dash cameras they refuse to even record what their offers are saying. If they have nothing to hide why this behavior? So what we have here is the word of an officer, against the very real fact that a thirteen year old child is DEAD! That isn't an imagined dead, or even a supposed dead, but rather a real dead! This officer can't say "I'm sorry, I made a mistake" and the child can go back to school next week. We also have the "fact" that this stop was not called into dispatch as a man with a gun, the normal procedure for a man with a gun.

We do know what this officer thought in the past however,



Source for image above

Old saying once a liar always a liar

I really question the wisdom of employing anyone that can't distinguish real from illusionary in law enforcement and refuses to acknowledge when they are mistaken!

Last year I fought an AW case in Sonoma County and won. They tried to get a felony conviction for an off list lower with a bullet button (ten round mag inserted, had to show the officers how to remove it) and other charges for having high cap mags in the vehicle.

I know for a fact that the D.A. and the Sonoma S.O. are familiar with bullet buttons and AW identification because I taught them. It cost me about 7 thousand dollars out of pocket but I won and they dropped all charges. They also returned all of my property.

That S.O. has a guy named Eric Gelhouse (sp?) that was listed as their "Firearms Expert". He looked at my rifle and called it an unregistered AW. That was what started my nightmare. I provided my lawyer and the D.A. with a copy of the DOJ AW ID guide. I had pages relating to my rifle and magazines tabbed, and sentences highlighted. I also provided them with a copy of the Sacramento P.D. training bulletin about AW's and bullet buttons.

Then, right there in front of the judge, in a moment I will never forget as long as I live, the DA stood there and said "Yeah so he had one of those button things on the gun but that doesn't matter he had high cap mags in the vehicle and they would have been easy to load".

That's when they offered me a deal of 1 year probation, no jail time, and they keep the rifle and my Kimber 1911. I said no deal let's please just hurry up and go to trial, then they dropped the charges completely and returned my property.

The point is that I know this particular county SO and DA know about off list lowers, high cap mags and bullet buttons.

I would be happy to do whatever I can to help with this case by testifying and or providing the CGF with any information from my case that might be helpful.

Marc


Source

He goes on to post,

I didn't mean to hijack this thread and I probably shouldn't have come in here blurting out my story like that. I'm still just a little angry I guess.

The main point I was trying to make was that I know for a fact that particular D.A. and that "Expert" named Eric Gelhouse (sp?) with the Sheriff Dept. absolutely do know about bullet buttons and high cap mags. I personally believe that they tried again to destroy another gun owners life knowing that he was innocent. Only they know why but I would assume they are just anti gun and are trying to make gun owners suffer. They obviously could care less about what the law says or whether or not this guy is guilty or innocent. They don't take that into consideration at all. I believe they see it as an opportunity to hurt a gun owner.

That entire ordeal came at a very painful time for me in my life and I was out of steam and cash by the time it was over. Without going into all of the other personal details I'll say that I was in the process of starting my custom rifle building business and all of the money I had was going towards tooling and start up costs. Seven thousand dollars could have made a big difference in that start up experience!

My attorney told me that I'd be wasting my time and money in persuing any lawsuit against the county and that I should just be happy that it ended with the charges being dropped. Then he told me that for an additional 1,500 dollars he could file what he called a "Finding of Factual Innocence" to have the arrest record cleared and all documentation destroyed. I will do that someday but not now as I'm still paying off my business start up costs.

Maslo
If it is true that the kid was raising the fake gun as if trying to aim on the officers, I can understand why they shot him. Truly a sad incident.

This is why there should be automatic cameras on all police weapons.

And that is the real question, was he raising a gun as if to aim. None of the witness describe the child as aiming at the officer. That the child was shot in the butt at that range, strongly suggest the child was shot from behind, that the child in reality was not facing the officer! And logic would argue that the child was not aiming at an officer over his back.

We have a history of law enforcement resisting dash cameras in their vehicles, of resisting their interactions with civilians being recorded. They have established these standards. They do NOT in this area deserve the benefit of any doubt.

It is this officer and this officer word alone, against a dead child.

Interesting editorial,

When 12 Cleveland police officers were involved in a deadly shooting following a high-speed chase in August, the mayor of East Cleveland quickly spoke out, calling it “horrific.”

Last week, when the shooting of a mentally ill man by Dallas police touched off anger in Texas, the mayor spoke up calling a video of the shooting “disturbing,” and pledged to have the issue investigated quickly.

History books are filled with the words of elected officials and leaders — Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, FDR, etc. — who rose up in moments of crisis to galvanize nations and communities.

So where are Santa Rosa's elected city leaders in the wake of one of the most tragic shootings in Sonoma County's history? Nowhere to be seen or heard.

For reasons that defy common sense — and standard practice in most cities — the City Council is under strict orders by City Attorney Caroline Fowler and City Manager Kathy Millison to say nothing about the shooting of 13-year-old Andy Lopez and to refer all questions and requests for media interviews to the Police Department.

At a time when the city most needs a voice, it's been taken for dubious legal reasons.

To make matters worse, city officials made the rash decision to cancel Tuesday's City Council meeting and shut down City Hall because of a protest march that started two blocks away at Old Courthouse Square — and ended peacefully three miles away at the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office.

In doing so, they cited “hostile postings about the city on social media.” Hostile postings? Given the quality of online commentary these days, one hopes this doesn't become the standard for determining when Santa Rosa holds office hours. Or it may be a while before residents see the insides of City Hall again.

What is going on with Santa Rosa's government leaders? Has nobody reminded them that they represent the public — and that the city manager and city attorney report to them?

Too many smart people when they at last see they have done a wrong thing, wrongly believe the answer is to run away and hide. Your city leaders are in charge of the police department. They have authority over it. Your leaders have a long history of refusing civilian oversight of Law Enforcement! Of refusing to install dash cameras, of refusing to record Law Enforcements interaction with the civilian population. Clearly they don't want to exert control over an out of control law enforcement division of city government.

That results in law enforcement policing itself, which has directly lead to the belief it's the child's fault! A thirteen year old child our city leaders assure us is to immature to be held accountable for his/her actions when it comes to business deals, they can't buy cigarettes, they can't marry, they can't drive a car. Yet in less than ten seconds they are somehow mature enough, to take sole responsibility for the wrong belief of an adult that directly resulted in their death, these same leaders would have us believe.

City officials want to hide, and cower behind their walls. City officials want to pay a million here, 1.75 million there, for wrongful deaths of their law enforcement agents. That they believe is far better than to address the real issue. That local law enforcement can't be trusted not to use excessive force. When time after time you choose to ignore the issue, and to cover it up by paying out multimillion dollar settlements you have a problem. A problem that will continue to grow worse.

Albert Einstein said Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. How long will we permit our government leaders to act insane? How much longer will law enforcement be permitted to police itself, when it clearly demonstrates its unwillingness to do just that very thing?

Xcathdra

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..

I disagree, some people are still under the false impression they have any sort of freedom in the good old land of liberty.
The land where a cop can kill an innocent child and his get out of jail free card is to claim "he felt threatened".
Ill tell you something, if I was living in California right now or just visiting my dad there I would feel threatened, on that basis I ask you.. Am I justified in shooting a police officer that I feel threatened by?
EDIT: Or more pertinent a question, are the citizens of Santa Rosa who face this oppression after a few cases of innocents murdered by police officers justified in shooting officers for making them feel threatened?

Xcathdra

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.

edit on 30-10-2013 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

When exactly was this introduced into your national curriculum?
I would assume its common knowledge and all 13 yr old kids are taught this in school as standard?

And to top it off you use a fictional scene from an entertainment tv series to support your point.
And I need an education?

EDIT: If we are going down the road of using entertainment to support an argument I put forward the Keanu Reeves movie "Street Kings" www.imdb.com...
It is about a corrupt undercover element in the police force that sells drugs and murders its rivals.
Or you can go for "Training Day" or any one of tens of movies about police corruption.

Better still you can watch the film based on the biography of Frank Serpico en.wikipedia.org...

Dav1d

Maslo
If it is true that the kid was raising the fake gun as if trying to aim on the officers, I can understand why they shot him. Truly a sad incident.

This is why there should be automatic cameras on all police weapons.

And that is the real question, was he raising a gun as if to aim. None of the witness describe the child as aiming at the officer. That the child was shot in the butt at that range, strongly suggest the child was shot from behind, that the child in reality was not facing the officer! And logic would argue that the child was not aiming at an officer over his back.

We have a history of law enforcement resisting dash cameras in their vehicles, of resisting their interactions with civilians being recorded. They have established these standards. They do NOT in this area deserve the benefit of any doubt.

It is this officer and this officer word alone, against a dead child.

I think every police firearm should have a cam, as well as their vehicle dashboards and their hats.
Of course they dont want it, they will then be accountable to their actions. And no amount of fable telling would get their asses out of the fire. Hell it might even root out the corrupt element in the police force.

reply to post by Dav1d


California law..... not Funk & Wagnell.

Again you cant use your own morals / opinions to replace the laws that govern this.

As for the rest of your post you relly should stop trying to fear monger. They have no bearing on this incident and only serve to derail the thread.

Well it seems that Erick Gelhaus has hired himself a lawyer, Terry Leoni. It would seem that he is not so comfortable talking to his old buddies anymore on his own. It appears that Terry specializes in the defense of peace officers that apparently aren't quite so peaceful.

Education
• B.S., University of California at Santa Barbara
• J.D., McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific
Terry Leoni is a senior associate who works in the firm’s Legal Defense of Peace Officers and Criminal Defense Practice Groups. Terry represents public safety officers in administrative, disciplinary, and criminal defense matters. She has also litigated a wide variety of other matters, including hearings conducted pursuant to the Welfare and Institutions Code, general litigation, and personal injury cases. Terry has vast trial experience, having tried over 20 cases as a prosecutor for the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office. As a District Attorney, she handled cases that ranged from simple misdemeanors to complex felonies.
Terry graduated from the University of California at Santa Barbara, and earned her law degree at the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, where she graduated with distinction.

Source

OneManArmy
When exactly was this introduced into your national curriculum?

California law, not national....

OneManArmy
I would assume its common knowledge and all 13 yr old kids are taught this in school as standard?

Assumptions seem to be the major issue in this thread for some. You guys are the ones stating the kid was intelligent enough to know the difference... Now you want to back pedal and go down the road of how one learns right from wrong...

It starts at home and goes from there..

OneManArmy
And to top it off you use a fictional scene from an entertainment tv series to support your point.

I never stated it was to support my argument. Ive provided all of the info I need to support my position. I included the video because I felt it relevant in terms of rushing to judgment instead of taking a step back and examining everything.

OneManArmy
And I need an education?

Absolutely.

OneManArmy
EDIT: If we are going down the road of using entertainment to support an argument I put forward the Keanu Reeves movie "Street Kings" www.imdb.com...
It is about a corrupt undercover element in the police force that sells drugs and murders its rivals.
Or you can go for "Training Day" or any one of tens of movies about police corruption.

Again, not to support. To demonstrate the message of finding all of the facts first before making a decision.

Xcathdra
reply to post by Dav1d

 

California law..... not Funk & Wagnell.

Again you cant use your own morals / opinions to replace the laws that govern this.

As for the rest of your post you relly should stop trying to fear monger. They have no bearing on this incident and only serve to derail the thread.

Perhaps you are unaware of it, but this forum is most assuredly not a California court room. Are you a moderator here? By what rule that governs this forum do you have any authority here to tell me what I can or can not post?

Always with certain people, when they can no longer find arguments to support their position they turn to personal attacks.

Deny ignorance is what we do.

It's how we think. It's how we talk. It's how we listen.

Ignorance is the social disease of history. Is the evil that men do, the reason history repeats, and the cause of intolerance.

We deny it. it's not welcome here. Within these boundaries, it has no strength.

Here, ignorance is denied.

So just what is more ignorant, to claim a child is armed and dangerous, when all honest men know that he had a toy!

To claim a child was pointing a weapon at an officer, when the child was shot in the ass by that officer?

To claim that a 13 year old child had it coming and was asking to be killed?

To say another members moral beliefs are meaningless here and don't apply, does that create tolerance within our community here? Or is a display of intolerance, of a belief in ones own Superiority?

reply to post by Xcathdra

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.

He didn't have an AK-47. He had a toy gun that looked like one. Why omit and or change what he was carrying if you are so concerned about factual information?

CJ

so whats the deal?

the santa rosa newspaper and time magazine both said that the toy had a transparent center.

yet images that certain members in this thread have plastered all over do not appear to have a transparent center.

are the images weve been shown the same gun or just a similar one?

reply to post by LurkingRelentlessly


He had an airsoft pistol in his pants that was clear he actually had 2 airsoft guns. The press doesnt do a good job of explaining that.

ColoradoJens
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

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.

He didn't have an AK-47. He had a toy gun that looked like one. Why omit and or change what he was carrying if you are so concerned about factual information?

CJ

Since you are catching up.... At the time of the incident the age of the person was not known and the item he was carrying was a real gun at the time.

it was not until afterwards was the age and type of weapon determined. Since 20/20 hindsight cannot be used in reviewing an officers use of force, we have to use the standard set by the Supreme Court - What did the officer perceive when force was used.

when force was used, the perception was a person armed with an assault rifle - AK-47, being carried by a person of unknown age.

Constantly trying to ignore that standard is where the argument fails for some.

Dav1d
Perhaps you are unaware of it, but this forum is most assuredly not a California court room. Are you a moderator here? By what rule that governs this forum do you have any authority here to tell me what I can or can not post?

Being a mod has nothing to do with my responses to you and others. As I stated before, I am not going to just up and leave this thread simply because some people refuse to learn the law and how it applies in this situation. You are certainly free to express your opinion, as I am free to correct you with facts when needed - which I have been doing.

Dav1d
Always with certain people, when they can no longer find arguments to support their position they turn to personal attacks.

edit on 31-10-2013 by Dav1d because: (no reason given)

I agree you do this all the time then cry foul when called out.

Dav1d
So just what is more ignorant, to claim a child is armed and dangerous, when all honest men know that he had a toy!

At what point did you learn the gun was a toy? Secondly under California law a BB / Pellet gun is not classified as a toy. They are subject to the same laws as any other weapon in California. That info was posted some posts back.

Dav1d
To claim a child was pointing a weapon at an officer, when the child was shot in the ass by that officer?

Please link us to where you obtained this information. Or are you relaying to the people in this forum your own personal account of the situation as it unfolded?

Dav1d
To claim that a 13 year old child had it coming and was asking to be killed?

How / when did you learn the age of the suspect?

Dav1d
To say another members moral beliefs are meaningless here and don't apply, does that create tolerance within our community here? Or is a display of intolerance, of a belief in ones own Superiority?

Your moral beliefs are not used when it comes to application of a law. Trying to charge, try and convict a person on moral beliefs instead of actual law is where your argument fails.