Police shoot 13 year old carrying fake rifle.

page: 30
29
<< 27  28  29   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 10:01 AM
link   



Gelhaus' involvement in the shooting also sparked another Santa Rosa resident to speak out about his encounter with the deputy two months ago that left him rattled and in the midst of filing a complaint with the Sheriff's Office.

“In the moment I was scared to death. Later, I said, 'What the heck is going on?'” Jeff Westbrook, 57, of Santa Rosa said.

Gelhaus had pulled Westbrook over on his way to work at about 8:30 a.m. Aug. 21 on Highway 101 south of Cotati.

Gelhaus walked up to the passenger door, slipping on the steep hill. Westbrook asked the deputy if he should make more room on the roadside for him and when he put his BMW into neutral, Gelhaus pulled out his gun, according to Westbrook.

“He's screaming and he's ballistic — 'Turn off your vehicle' — I go, 'Sir, it is off,'” Westbrook said. “He jumped to an extreme situation in no time at all.”

Westbrook said that moments later he faced Gelhaus' gun again outside the car when Gelhaus asked if he had any weapons and Westbrook pulled up his shirt to show he had none.

Westbrook said he had exchanged several emails with a sheriff's sergeant since the encounter, the most recent just days before the Oct. 22 shooting. The sergeant told Westbrook that Gelhaus had pulled him over because his BMW matched the description of a car deputies were searching for, Westbrook said.

“I don't know if there's anything I could have done,” Westbrook said. “I have a very remorseful feeling, I feel like I should have been more aggressive with my complaint.”

Source



Here is another person, who fears this lethally armed homicidal deputy, that is all to willing to draw on unarmed civilians. Another citizen complains about his willingness to draw on him, and the Sheriff's office does exactly what? Did they give the deputy in question his e-mail address? Is that how a Sheriff's office should investigate an incident of this nature? A complaint against an officer?




posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Looks like we've got more smoke blowing by Law Enforcement as they come together to protect one of their own...



An FBI spokesman insists the agency is conducting an independent investigation “to determine the facts to see if a federal crime was committed.”

We’re doing a separate, independent investigation,” said spokesman Peter Lee. “It is separate from what everyone else is doing.

But he refused multiple queries to describe what exactly agents would be doing in Sonoma County — or whether they would be truly autonomous or working side-by-side with local police or even conducting their own interviews with the deputies involved and witnesses.

Source



Yet now we learn that....



The FBI is not conducting a full, independent investigation into the death of a teenage boy who was shot by a sheriff’s deputy last week, but instead offering local police “support,” several local law enforcement leaders said this week.

...But this week, after agents met with Santa Rosa police officials and District Attorney Jill Ravitch, the bureau’s intentions appear less clear.

Both Ravitch and Schwedhelm understood the agents to mean there would not be a separate FBI criminal investigation paralleling Santa Rosa’s inquiry.



So what will it be, is the FBI investigating this case on its own independently or is it indeed just supporting law enforcement?




Gelhaus told investigators that he and his partner drove up behind Lopez and ordered him to drop the gun. As Lopez turned to face deputies, the barrel of his airsoft gun rose in their direction, police said. Gelhaus shot Lopez seven times. He later told police that he feared for his and others’ safety.

A second deputy riding with Gelhaus hasn’t been identified. Investigators said he did not fire his weapon.

Source



It goes on to inform us that...




“I met with a representative of the FBI and he said his role was to ‘provide support to his law enforcement partners during the investigation’ into the incident,” Ravitch said Wednesday. The Monday meeting was attended by two FBI agents, Ravitch and her chief investigator, Brian Davis.

Schwedhelm said two members of his command staff met with the FBI on Tuesday and received the same message.

Schwedhelm said he didn’t know of any plans for FBI agents to interview witnesses, interview the deputies involved, subpoena documents or examine records.



Well that sounds a lot like a white wash job to me... The FBI will NOT INTERVIEW THE DEPUTIES INVOLVED, and perhaps more important hasn't already interviewed then yet! They gotten a lawyer and have had more than enough time to rehearse their lines.



“My understanding is simply that they’re here for support but not actively engaged in an investigation,” Ravitch said. “The only investigations currently occurring are the sheriff’s review for their own internal affairs and the criminal investigation being conducted by the Santa Rosa Police Department.

Source


Another child that simply doesn't matter, in a community where if your skin color isn't a certain color you have no voice!



Last Friday, Lee said the agency had initiated a “shooting review” into the “incident itself (and) the deputies’ response.”

“We’re going to look into the facts of that,” he said Friday. “It’s a civil-rights type of case.”


Well it looks like we now know who pulls the FBI strings in this area. Can't help comparing this case to the death of Trayvon Martin, and the actions of the President when skin color actually happens to matter to him!





Last year, Moreno Becerra & Casillas won a $24 million jury verdict against the Los Angeles Police Department in the shooting of a 13-year-old boy who was playing cops and robbers with an airsoft gun

The boy, Rohayent Gomez, was left paralyzed after Officer Victor Abarca fired a single shot to the boy’s clavicle during the encounter.

Source




posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Xcathdra

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



Then maybe you should follow your own advice, because you repeatedly keep making the assertions that its the boys fault for being shot. Stop being a hypocrite, and as you skipped the question before I will ask again...

Are the residents of Sonoma County, justifiably threatened by an oppressive police force, justified in shooting police officers armed with real guns and a proven propensity to use them?

It would be interesting to hear from you how the naked 11 yr old autistic girl got herself tasered, Im interested to hear how she threatened the police officers by simply ignoring their commands.

There is no need to condescendingly insinuate that im stupid, at least I recognise that there is always room for education.
Whereas you wont even recognise excessive force.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   



The attorney representing the family of Andy Lopez, the 13-year-old Santa Rosa boy who was shot and killed last week by a Sonoma County sheriff's deputy, claims that the sheriff's office “encourages” the use of deadly force even when there is no threat to public safety.

In a tort claim filed in Sonoma County on Thursday, attorney Arnold Casillas claims that “The use of force described herein by the involved deputies was condoned by the sheriff's department. The sheriff's department's training encourages deputies to prematurely shoot suspects who pose no threat or danger to deputies or the public at large.”

The tort claim is a precursor to any future legal action against the county that would seek money damages. Casillas said Friday morning that he plans to file a federal civil rights lawsuit later this afternoon in San Francisco.

The legal action comes less than two weeks after Lopez's shooting and before local law enforcement officials have completed their investigations. The Santa Rosa Police Department is doing a criminal investigation of the shooting, while the sheriff's office is conducting its own internal affairs review.

We really have very little confidence in the investigation that the City of Santa Rosa is doing,” Casillas said, adding that he's interviewed several “witnesses” that as of earlier this week had yet to be interviewed by police.

The tort claim alleges Lopez's wrongful death was caused by the deputies, including Deputy Erick Gelhaus, a 24-year veteran with the sheriff's office. It also claims that the sheriff's office has “failed to develop and implement policies procedures and training regarding the use of deadly force and proper tactics for pedestrian stops.




Well attorney Arnold Casillas seems to see things much as has been describe here. That Deputy Gelhaus is a symptom of a much deeper rot/problem.



The deputies have had prior incidents of excessive force and the Sheriff's Department failed to take reasonable measures to re-train the deputies, properly discipline the deputies or to terminate their employment with the sheriff's department.


What does the sheriff have to say?




Sonoma County Counsel Bruce Goldstein was not immediately available to comment or respond to questions about the claims. Sheriff Steve Freitas could not be reached for comment.

Gelhaus shot Lopez while the boy was walking next to a grassy lot at Moorland and West Robles avenues. Gelhaus told police officials that he mistook the BB gun Lopez was carrying for a real AK-47 assault rifle.



Well like normal the Sheriff seems to be in hiding, just like Santa Rosa officials were last week.

Now there is more than one witness that claims...



But Casillas, a partner with the law firm of Moreno Becerra & Casillas, said Friday that he has interviewed several witnesses who say Gelhaus fired his weapon before the boy had time to figure out what was happening.

He shot a 13-year-old kid who was doing what a kid is expected to do,” Casillas said. “This isn't a hardened criminal. This is a 13-year-old kid. You call out to him, what is he going to do? He's going to turn around.

[url=http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20131101/articles/131109983?title=Lopez-attorney:-Sheriff-'encourages'-use-of-deadly-force#page=2]Source[/ur l]

edit on 1-11-2013 by Dav1d because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Dav1d


Well attorney Arnold Casillas seems to see things much as has been describe here. That Deputy Gelhaus is a symptom of a much deeper rot/problem.



And I would assume that attorney Casillas has all the "education" he needs.
edit on 201311America/Chicago11pm11pmFri, 01 Nov 2013 16:38:18 -05001113 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   

OneManArmy

Dav1d


Well attorney Arnold Casillas seems to see things much as has been describe here. That Deputy Gelhaus is a symptom of a much deeper rot/problem.



And I would assume that attorney Casillas has all the "education" he needs.
edit on 201311America/Chicago11pm11pmFri, 01 Nov 2013 16:38:18 -05001113 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)


I suspect later tonight we will get bombarded with a lot of irrelevant federal laws that don't apply, and we will hear once again that all that matters is what the deputy thought at the time.

That once again he will ignore that the officers failed to report this as a man with a gun, and chose to simply report it as a suspicious person. Kind of makes a reasonable person ask why they decided to hassle a child? Clearly a reasonable person in fear of their life, would choose to inform those who are coming to help them what they face? A man with a gun.

A truly damning piece of evidence is the report of the "honest" man who stated he told the kid to drop his gun.

Clearly this man was NOT out to break the law! He wasn't hoping to help a mass killer! This "untrained" in guns individual had no issue in quickly telling that this was indeed a child with just a toy! He to was in a car, just ahead of the cops. It is also very apparent whom this man feared! It wasn't the child, but the police! He tried to warn the child about the cops! But there simply wasn't enough time, for the child to process everything. Indeed it's all too possible that the child simply thought it was this same guy when the cops failed to identify themselves and shouted fro him to drop the gun.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Dav1d


Clearly this man was NOT out to break the law! He wasn't hoping to help a mass killer! This "untrained" in guns individual had no issue in quickly telling that this was indeed a child with just a toy! He to was in a car, just ahead of the cops. It is also very apparent whom this man feared! It wasn't the child, but the police! He tried to warn the child about the cops! But there simply wasn't enough time, for the child to process everything. Indeed it's all too possible that the child simply thought it was this same guy when the cops failed to identify themselves and shouted fro him to drop the gun.



Exactly the scenario I had deduced from the very beginning. Im no Sherlock Holmes, this is no great achievement on my part, because quite frankly the evidence speaks for itself. Its plain as day.
And this is why I got angry when people started to justify this execution. Pure staggered disbelief on my part.

Keep up the good work!!



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Xcathdra

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.
edit on 1-11-2013 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


Had the child threatened anyone with the gun? Had there been a robbery with an AK-47 in the area? Had shots been reported to the police at any time? Why would the officer kill the kid, even if he had an AK-47? What did the cop expect when he yelled "police!" The kid turned, obviously carrying the fake gun in his hands. That was it. That is apparently all that is needed to shoot someone. No threatening gestures. No robbery. No shooting off rounds somewhere. No nothing other than responding to a command/statement.

CJ



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 06:17 PM
link   

ColoradoJens

Xcathdra

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.
edit on 1-11-2013 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


Had the child threatened anyone with the gun? Had there been a robbery with an AK-47 in the area? Had shots been reported to the police at any time? Why would the officer kill the kid, even if he had an AK-47? What did the cop expect when he yelled "police!" The kid turned, obviously carrying the fake gun in his hands. That was it. That is apparently all that is needed to shoot someone. No threatening gestures. No robbery. No shooting off rounds somewhere. No nothing other than responding to a command/statement.

CJ


Technically the cop doesn't claimed to have yelled "police" nor do any of the witness claim he did. At best he yelled drop the gun, and shot while the kid still had his back to the officer.

But that's acceptable if you are a "real" member of law enforcement, all that matters is what the cop thought when he shot.....



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   
In another example of just how much things smell in Sonoma County I give you this story about another government official in Sonoma county and just how prosecution doesn't quite work there.




Prosecutors filed a single misdemeanor charge of peeking Thursday against Sonoma County Supervisor Efren Carrillo, rejecting a more serious felony allegation stemming from his July arrest outside a woman's home that could have led to his removal from office.

The 32-year-old 5th District supervisor is expected to be arraigned on the charge today in Santa Rosa in the courtroom of Superior Court Judge Gary Medvigy. The document alleges that Carrillo wandered onto the woman's property and peeked in her door and window while she was home.

The misdemeanor falls within the disorderly conduct section of the state's penal code, a section that also includes offenses such as soliciting prostitution and public drunkenness. A conviction calls for a possible jail sentence but it is likely that someone without a criminal record would be ordered to participate in a rehabilitative program.

Carrillo had faced the possibility of a more serious felony burglary charge. Arresting officers accused him of trying to break into the apartment and detectives said it appeared he intended to commit some type of sexual assault, pointing to a torn bedroom screen and other evidence.

State law requires officeholders to step down if convicted of a felony.

Rosanne Darling, the woman's attorney, said her client was relieved after numerous prosecution delays that Carrillo was being charged with a crime. But she expressed disappointment that the Attorney General's Office didn't file a more serious allegation.

"The charge seems inadequate for what she had to go through that night," Darling said.

Source



So a supervisor is found in his underwear, a woman's screen is torn, and he gets a pat, a great example of the power certain groups have in this corrupt county.



The charging document was signed by Cody Hunt, a special prosecutor for the state attorney general. Hunt did not return calls Thursday. A spokesman for the attorney general did not immediately comment.





Clearly the normal response by government officials when attempts are made to question their actions they go into hiding....




The charge comes as Carrillo has gradually resumed a broader, more public role representing his west county district, which has been roiled by the fatal shooting last week of 13-year-old Andy Lopez by a sheriff's deputy.

Carrillo, a son of Mexican immigrants, and until his arrest a rising star in the state Democratic Party, has re-emerged as a prominent face of the Latino community in the shooting's aftermath.



Now do you begin to see a connection here?
We've got a rising star in the democratic party who just happens to get caught in his underwear at a torn screen on a window, watching a woman....

Prosecution plays around and drags the case out, long enough till they can distract the locals with a child killing....

The FBI sees that this could be race related and makes an announcement that they are going to be looking into the case...

But that never happens, they just offer support to their local brothers. Who called them off? Who ordered them away? Or where they never serious to begin with?

Now Carrillo gets to put in an appearance and say a few words, and in the blink of an eye he becomes acceptable to the community once again. They forget about him in his underwear, in a woman's home.

If I was writing a plot they would never accept it.

But that is exactly what you want if you are planning a crime. When you are "sure" you know exactly the right words to say, to get out of jail free. And you have a history of posting that on the Internet. When you are sure of your ability to kill, to murder and get away with it. When you're doing something that is just to ridiculous to believe....

Yep something smells in Sonoma County and it smells clear over here....

There is rot there and it runs deep! Do appearances matter? Anyone checking bank accounts?

The world is watching....

Smile!




Officers responding to a pair of early morning 911 calls from the woman found Carrillo nearby in just his socks and underwear and carrying a cellphone.

The woman's bedroom window screen was torn, police said. She told investigators she awoke to the sound of rustling blinds and saw a man, later identified as Carrillo, standing outside the _

edit on 1-11-2013 by Dav1d because: (no reason given)



new topics
top topics
 
29
<< 27  28  29   >>

log in

join