Anonymous Wants Justice For 13 Year Old. Demands Release of Identities of the Cops

Anonymous is calling for this? All Americans should be calling for this.

Have we gone so far down the rabbit hole where we cannot even question the murder of a 13 year old child?

Don't these cops KNOW what toy guns look like.. what ...there is no teaching course so the cops can learn all of the hundreds of real looking toy guns out there. There should be - this should be standard practice for being a cop.

Once again the story changes... Why!

Henry said he couldn't precisely describe the type of replica weapon Lopez carried because investigators did not include the specific make and model in the police report about the incident.

The weapon had already been booked into evidence and, according to police protocol, couldn't be retrieved without an evidentiary reason just to answer questions from the media.

Source

Is this now an acknowledgement that the gun shown to reporters was not the actual toy gun? At this late point are we just now learning that the so called replicate "gun" is not a replicate of the gun this child was carrying?!? And there would be no reason to retrieve it, he certainly could look at it with out removing it from the evidence room.

At a minimum it now appears it certainly wasn't the gun the child was carrying!

So all of you who rushed to condemn Andy based on how real the gun looked, are you surprised to learn a week later the police now claim they don't even know the make and model of the gun, now!

In response to The Press Democrat's request for a copy of the emergency dispatch recordings of the incident, Henry said investigators had not yet reviewed the recordings.

Henry said that after they do, the police department will discuss the request with the Sonoma County District Attorney's Office, which will ultimately decide whether any criminal wrongdoing took place by any party involved in the shooting.

So a week into this case, and the police haven't yet even gotten around to their own official recordings, are even worried about about what they might show. What question they might raise?

This area's Law Enforcement has a long history of excessive use of force! They have paid out millions and millions of dollars, for homicides committed by their Law Enforcement agents. They resist civilian oversight. They resist installing video in their patrol cars, even resist basic voice recording of their officers interactions!

These people have reason to fear their lethally armed Homicidal Law Enforcement agents! Yes one time can be an accident but year after year, officer after officer and at what point does one acknowledge it is something more? That a pattern is emerging? How many more must die? These Homicidal Law Enforcement agents tarnish the good name of all honest Law Enforcement everywhere.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


I get so sick of the "If you don't do what the police say, you deserve to be shot" excuses.

Police no longer have to know the law, and as a result give unlawful orders all the time. As a citizen, if I am not breaking any laws and no one is in danger, I should not be killed simply for failing to obey an order. I shouldn't even have to worry about being tased under those conditions.

The only way this shooting can be called anything short of manslaughter is if we come to find that the kid pointed the pellet gun at the police in an aggressive manner. i highly doubt this is the case.

My friends and I used to run around the neighborhood pointing toy guns at each other. It's normal boyhood behavior, though after some idiot called the police and 8 cops showed up at our door we realized the need to be careful around morons. Of course all along we knew better than to go waving them around at cops.

boncho
I think it's as simple as the police are supposed to be obligated to give their lives for the citizens they protect. There were a few decades where this was the case, and everyone mourned the loss of police life. They were heroes, protectors. They were revered. Because they deserved it.

They get hazard pay for a reason. People were afraid to be police officers because it was dangerous. Now, its more dangerous to be misunderstood by one. Pulling out a cell phone at the wrong time can get you killed.

Spot on. For decades we have been hiring the wrong types into police departments, and training them to be selfish rather than selfless.

By no means am I saying that I myself am up to the job. It is supposed to be something that most men are not cut out for, which was one more reason folks admired them in the past.

reply to post by OpenMindedRealist


The police have the responsibility to assure public safety, do they not? If a concerned citizen calls the police because of a concern, then the police come out to verify that there is not a problem. That's their job and there is such a thing as common courtesy. They do not know who the person holding the weapon is or what that individual's intent is. There was a video not long ago of a man who opened fire on a police officer after being pulled over for speeding. That kind of thing is a reality for the police officers because, when they are called, they frequently don't know what they are getting themselves into. The person can be absolutely insane, regardless of age. How old was Kip Kinkel? Adam Lanza? Dylan Klebold? Eric Harris?

The other night, I was at a local transit center waiting to pick up a friend when a guy talking on his cell phone turned explosive. He was kicking the heck out of everything (thankfully not people) near him and screaming obscenities at the top of his lungs. There was a mom and a little girl present and I whisked them into my car for safety. It was that bad. The police showed up and talked to the guy. I presumed that somebody had reported the guy's behavior but when the police came up to talk to me, I was corrected in that assumption. The explosive guy had actually called 911 himself. While I was shocked and surprised (I really thought for sure another bystander called the police), the police were slightly baffled and bemused by the situation. Considering their response, they encounter that kind of stuff a lot. They didn't even cite the guy for assaulting transit property...

That's our world and it's unfortunate that we are becoming this world where a kid walking through a neighborhood with a pellet gun can be perceived as a threat and 911 gets called. It's terribly unfortunate for that boy, his family, and the police officer that shot him that we have become so paranoid as a society. This isn't about obeying an order without question. It's about being a respectful stranger.

WhiteAlice
reply to post by OpenMindedRealist

 

The police have the responsibility to assure public safety, do they not? If a concerned citizen calls the police because of a concern, then the police come out to verify that there is not a problem. That's their job and there is such a thing as common courtesy. They do not know who the person holding the weapon is or what that individual's intent is. There was a video not long ago of a man who opened fire on a police officer after being pulled over for speeding. That kind of thing is a reality for the police officers because, when they are called, they frequently don't know what they are getting themselves into. The person can be absolutely insane, regardless of age. How old was Kip Kinkel? Adam Lanza? Dylan Klebold? Eric Harris?

The other night, I was at a local transit center waiting to pick up a friend when a guy talking on his cell phone turned explosive. He was kicking the heck out of everything (thankfully not people) near him and screaming obscenities at the top of his lungs. There was a mom and a little girl present and I whisked them into my car for safety. It was that bad. The police showed up and talked to the guy. I presumed that somebody had reported the guy's behavior but when the police came up to talk to me, I was corrected in that assumption. The explosive guy had actually called 911 himself. While I was shocked and surprised (I really thought for sure another bystander called the police), the police were slightly baffled and bemused by the situation. Considering their response, they encounter that kind of stuff a lot. They didn't even cite the guy for assaulting transit property...

That's our world and it's unfortunate that we are becoming this world where a kid walking through a neighborhood with a pellet gun can be perceived as a threat and 911 gets called. It's terribly unfortunate for that boy, his family, and the police officer that shot him that we have become so paranoid as a society. This isn't about obeying an order without question. It's about being a respectful stranger.

Here was an adult not a child. A clearly angry adult, who you claim went explosive. And the cops confronted this angry man that had you scared. Did the cops choose to execute him on the spot? Did they choose to taser him to death? Or how about simply use a taser to subdue him? Did they choose to haul him off to jail? No. You even state they failed to so much as cite the guy. Yes that is common, common all over the world, except where Andy happen to live!

Andy wasn't angry. Andy wasn't explosive! Andy wasn't harming anyone! Andy wasn't even harming anything. The cops weren't called! No one felt threaten. Ten seconds later Andy was dead. Of course this little child was far more threatening than your adult at the transit center.

Andy's crime that cost him his life? He started to turn when called to.

I know which set of cops I'd like ensuring the peace where I live, how about you? Want your cops more like Andy's cops?

reply to post by Dav1d


And where did I ever compare the two events? If your answer was "nowhere", then you would be correct. I never once claimed that the two incidents were directly comparable as they are not. What my explosive dude from the other night illustrates is the kind of erratic behavior that police officers have to confront on a probable daily basis. No more, no less. In that sense, I do not need to retort beyond this as what you have created in your response falls under the definition of a Straw Man.

reply to post by WhiteAlice

You claim it is typical of how unpredictable people can be. I see it as also typical of just how unpredictable cops can be. Shrug...

Didn't think you'd acknowledge which cops you'd prefer. The fact remains Andy was not violent.
Indeed today we learn the other cop was still in the car, hadn't gotten out when the first officer fired. As such it's unlikely he can tell just what Andy was doing just before his partner started shooting.

The justification gets a lot less clear....

reply to post by Dav1d


My approach was pragmatic. If you want a direct comparison between what they most likely perceived the young man with the pellet gun with, then you wouldn't find explosive behavior as being the common theme. In fact, most of the shooters have been devoid of expression and frequently described as "flat". So there's your direct behavioral comparison that you are obviously looking for. My example of Mr. Explosive the other night was to indicate the kind of working atmosphere police have. No more, no less.

Don't presume what my opinion is of police officers. Since you seem so avid for my opinion, I think that the police departments (especially some police departments that are known for having issues such as LAPD or OPD) have issues with some of their officers having significant temper issues or emotional/mental instabilities. I think that there is a culture within police departments that tends to protect other officers as opposed to extracting those who should not be in such a position of power from their forces. I also think that police officers, due to the economic recession, tend to be overworked, which compounds pre-existing issues that police officers have long had in terms of stress management.

And if you want a critical remark about my experience the other night with the police and Mr. Explosive, I will state this: I was the only blonde white woman in a sports car there and they did not talk to anyone else outside of Mr. Explosive that was present. They wanted to know if he had done or said anything to me and me alone even though I was sitting in my car about 6 parking spots down from the dude and there were probably 15 people that were in his immediate area when he went off. I find that really depressing. They should've been asking those questions of the people that weren't sitting in a car and were immediately around the guy. They didn't. Why? Because they weren't blondes with sports cars?

Don't make assumptions about people that you don't know.

What happened to using tazers and #?

How are the cops killing so many people i just dont get it.

reply to post by Dav1d

Should a police officer be held accountable for their actions, or are they unaccountable for their actions?

Obviously, a Police Officer should be held accountable for their actions. Actions that are criminal or negligent. This is not one of those instances. This is a series of events that led to a tragic ending but the blame cannot be laid squarely on the Officer involved.

Do you believe that an officer is better than a citizen?

No. As I said before, if you were out with your family, legally carrying a handgun and someone pointed that thing at you or your family in a threatening manner, I would expect you to shoot them as well.

This so called training officer has long warned against hesitation so yes this mindset played a significant role in what happen that day.

In the line of work of a Police Officer, warning against hesitation in a potentially life threatening situation is good advice. What you are doing is taking his advice out of context. I'm sure he did not advise other officers to "shoot anyone holding anything that is shaped like a weapon immediately." In fact, in the very article your sourced, you can clearly see the officer was saying don't hesitate in an ambush type situation.

If you find yourself in an ambush, in the kill zone, you need to turn on that mean gene.

Source

But back to the topic at hand, this training officer has for many years preached about the need to become what he acknowledges as "mean" and to act without hesitation!

...in a life threatening situation.

Again, you are taking his words out of context. See above.

To shoot first and figure out how to articulate the "why" the justification for the action later. He has long preached about how the "I feared for my safety, and the safety of my partner, and others card" can be played to get out of jail.

You lost me here. I still cannot find where he said this. Please provide a source.

So he's now found himself in such a situation, and surprise surprise he has played his trump card.

No matter how much you claim he played his "trump card," you still cannot dispute the fact that there were witnesses to the incident and it played out the way they said it did. I still see no direct evidence that the officer lied or played his "trump card."

Tell me just how fast can you say, drop your weapon, and then fire 8 times at an unarmed child? Out of 10 very short seconds how long does that give the child to respond? How long does that give the child to live?

Ten seconds is a lifetime if you are dealing with an armed person in a confrontational situation.

Officer Gelhaus was a very outspoken officer, he was a moderator on forums, he was called as an expert witness in firearms, and has a history as an expert witness of giving false witness and seeing assault weapons that are not assault weapons.

What are you talking about? Again, source.

With this information are you now willing to acknowledge that yes this very mindset had something to do with what happen?

No. Any reasonable person would have reacted the same way in the same situation.

I've seen nobody here suggest that he be lynched, what I see here are people pointing out he needs to arrested just like any other person would be under this situation, he shot and killed an unarmed child, he shot 8 times a child that was unarmed ~ a child that he called out to and who is guilty of nothing more than to turn to see what was a matter towards him.

Calling for the officer to be arrested and charged with a crime before an investigation is conducted is just as bad as calling for a lynching. Especially when it can clearly be seen that the officer did not just execute the kid for no reason. There is clearly a reason why he fired at the kid evidenced by the fact he was holding a replica AK47 which looks extremely real. An we can also see that the officer clearly yelled for the kid to drop it before he shot him. Those facts alone, to any reasonable person, would be proof the officer had no criminal intent when firing at the kid.

If there is any justice in Somama County this man will see his day in court, and the Sheriff's department will be questioned as to exactly why they allow this nut job out on the street armed, they and the sheriff will also be held accountable for their actions! Or lack of actions!

Or, everyone can see just how unreasonable you really are.

onequestion
What happened to using tazers and #?

How are the cops killing so many people i just dont get it.

THE SILENCE MUST END!

No more secrets. We demand timely, full disclosure of information in all police killings. These are the names of those who died at the hands of Sonoma County law enforcement, since a 1999 recommendation from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission Advisory Commission for a Civilian Review Board:

1. Philip Medina, 48, January 17, 2000 in custody Sonoma County Sheriff

2. James Curran, 51, March 19, 2000 in custody Sonoma County Sheriff

3. Erin Colleen McDonald, 31, April 20, 2000 shot five times Windsor Police Fuston/Howard

4. Todd Eugene Dieterle, 37, May, 2000 shot seven times SRJC Police

5. Robert Comacho, 35, May 5, 2000 shot Rohnert Park Police

6. Patrick McLoughlin, 19, October 23, 2001 gunfire exchange Petaluma Police

7. Luis Solaro Gonzalez, 23, February 28, 2002 in custody Sonoma County Sheriff

8. Thomas John Connelly, 49, May 8, 2002 in custody Sonoma County Sheriff

9. Serena Roxanne Case, 32, January 16, 2003 in custody Sonoma County Sheriff

10. Keith Thompson Suite, 42, April 8, 2003 injured in custody Sonoma County Sheriff

11. Seth Micha Warde, 22, July 10, 2003 traffic stop CHP

12. Anthony Zakharoff, 49, July 27, 2003 in custody Sonoma County Sheriff

13. Michael W. Behringh, 52, November 18, 2003 in custody Sonoma County Sheriff

14. Joseph A. Peay, 35, September 18, 2004 shot 10 times Sheriff/CHP

15. Kenneth Hugh Duncan, 62, November 11, 2004 shot nine times Sonoma County Sheriff

16. April Hanlon 35, November 25, 2004 gunfire Sonoma County Sheriff

17. Terry Lee Grinner, Jr., 30, January 25, 2005 shot twice Rohnert Park Police

18. Carlos Casillas Fernandez, 31, July 16, 2005 tasered 6x Santa Rosa Police

19. James Anthony DeCosta, 72, October 1, 2005 shot 27 times Petaluma Police

20. James Richard Nace, 42, December 10, 2005 shot Sonoma County Sheriff

21. Moses McDowell, 29, November 6, 2006 in custody Sonoma County Sheriff

22. Haki Thurston, 22, February 23, 2007 shot 27 times Santa Rosa SWAT

23. Jeremiah Chass, 16, March 12, 2007 shot 8 times Sonoma County Sheriff

24. Richard DeSantis, 30, April 9, 2007 shot twice Santa Rosa Police

25. Walter L. Heller, 55, April 22, 2007 tasered twice Petaluma Police

26. Luis Felipe Sanchez, 27, May 4, 2007 shot 21 times Sonoma County Sheriff

27. Richard Lamont Williamson, 54, June 17, 2007 in custody Sonoma County Sheriff

28. Ryan George, 22, July 9, 2007 in custody Sonoma County Sheriff

29. William Townsley, 46, September 24, 2007 in custody Sonoma County Sheriff

30. James Marrufo, 48, December 1, 2007 in custody Sonoma County Sheriff

31. Jesse Hamilton, 24, January 2, 2008 shot Santa Rosa Police

32. Samuel Castillo-Martinez, 36, March 13, 2008 in custody Sonoma County Sheriff

33. Heather Smith-Billings, 31, March 16, 2008 shot Rohnert Park Police

34. Leonardo Pacheco, 39, April 21, 2008 in custody Sonoma County Sheriff

35. Guy James Fernandez, 52, November 9, 2008 stun gun Rohnert Park Police

36. Craig Von Dohlen 37, December 7, 2008 shot Sonoma County Sheriff

37. Nathan B Vaughn, 39, December 20, 2008 tasered 3x Sonoma County Sheriff

38. Jon Gerald Moore, 44, September 18, 2009 in custody Sonoma County Sheriff

39. Teresa Ellen Hagan, 49, January 21, 2010 in custody Sonoma County Sheriff

40. Albert Mike Leday, Jr, 49, June 1, 2010 shot 3x Sonoma County Sheriff Sgt. Mark Fuston

41. Nicodemus Sullivan, 24, October 29, 2010 shot at 42 times Sheriff and CHP

42. Brian Gittings, 44, December 8, 2010 in custody Sonoma County Sheriff

43. William Jackson, 59, April 14, 2011 in custody Sonoma County Sheriff

44. Richard Shreckengaust, 37, February 28, 2013, shot by Sonoma County Sheriff Deputy Brian Parks

45. Urbano Moreno Morales, 48, June 8, 2013, shot by Windsor Police Sheriff Deputies Andrew Cash and Donald Fletcher

46. Christopher Eric Augustin, 37, October 16, 2013, died after being placed in maximum restraint by Santa Rosa Police officers.

47. Andy Lopez, 13, October 22, 2013, shot by two Sonoma County Sheriff Deputies.

2000-2013 Sonoma County Stolen Lives

Source

A very long list there, and this county can kill with tasers just as effectively as with guns.

reply to post by Dav1d

I have yet to read one post here that is calling for this officer lynching! Please provide a link.

Why do you think people want to know the officer's name? So they can write him a harshly worded letter? No! People want the name out there so someone, who is willing to do harm to the officer, can take action against him.

The name should be released after the facts are also released and there is a minimal amount of cool-down time because the issue is so emotionally charged.

California describes the taking of any life as a homicide, what some call a murder in less technical terms.

Homicide is the act of one person dying due to the actions of another. Murder is a criminal charge implying there was criminal intent in the action.

Every murder is a homicide but not every homicide is a murder.

This incident may be classified as a homicide. It is far from murder.

If officer Erick Gelhaus was not an officer he would have been arrested by now, he would not be sitting at home getting a check from the Sheriff's office! Nor if Erick Gelhaus was not an officer would he be getting the kid glove treatment from the Sheriff's office.

If he was not an officer and he was illegally carrying a firearm, obviously a crime would have been committed and he would have been arrested. But we are not dealing with WHAT IFS.

Police Officers are permitted to carry firearms. Police Officers are permitted to use those firearms in circumstances where their lives are in danger. This is a situation where a reasonable person can see why the officer feared for his life.

You love using hind sight to judge the situation. What reasonable people, and people not emotionally involved in the case, judge the situation by is what the officer perceived at the time he fired at the kid.

To any reasonable person, the initial facts point to the officer seeing a person carrying what he reasonably thought was an actual firearm.

For years Erick Gelhaus has preached, and has been permitted to preach by the Sheriff about the need not to hesitate, not to think, but to react!

...in a life threatening situation. Once again, you have taken the advice out of context.

The fact of the matter is, the officer came across a person holding a replica AK47. After looking at what the person was carrying, it is reasonable for the officer to have thought it was real. The officer ordered the person to drop it. They did not do so fast enough and the officer shot. Plain and simple.

If you really have any question as to if these replica weapons look real, ask any convenience store employee who has been robbed with one. Ask any criminal who used one of these replica weapons to rob another person. It works and it happens all the time. And the victims give the criminals the money because...THE WEAPON LOOKS REAL.

Last week we saw the results of that preaching! He has also longed preach about the power of the "I was afraid for my life and the life of others card" that it empowers one to shot, and if one was wrong get out of jail... In the coming months we will see if he was right about that, personally I hope he was just as right about that as he was about don't hesitate.

I certainly hope that we use this event to establish once again that simply because you have a badge you are NOT above the laws! I hope we choose not to establish two classes of people in this country, one for whom the laws apply and one for whom they do not apply.

I also fear that unless the public becomes aware of certain facts, they will be quietly swept under the rug and forgotten in any future trial. Perhaps that fear is unfounded, perhaps not time will tell. What is certain is already Erick Gelhaus past public statements are being hidden, swept away. The more this occurs the easier it becomes for any future prosecution to ignore these facts.

His lack of hesitation directly cost an unarmed child his life. That lack of hesitation has to be examined and I would suggest needs to be put on trial. Do we as a society want to empower a Judge Dredd concept of law enforcement? Where one man gets to become judge, jury, and executioner based on nothing more than a feeling? Where facts are irrelevant and simply don't matter any longer, where the only thing that matters is that a person armed with lethal weapons "claims" to have felt scared?

We must also remember that more and more Law Enforcement is moving to a position where they control all access to everything. Where they and they alone get to be Judge and jury of their actions. Their communications are now often being encrypted, they no long have to fear being overheard. They refuse to release the tapes of this incident that may go to demostrate just how scared or not scared these officers voices sounded. Or even how they may have joked after the fact. The longer they keep them hidden the longer they have to tamper with them.

And yes they do have reasons to tamper with them, a monetary reason to. They well know they have a history of excessive force being used, and judgements against them!

This is much more than just one man, and a tragic event. More than a simple mistake. More than just bad luck. It's about beliefs, and attitude, and how officers are trained in this county. It's about a Constitutional concept that we are all created equal, and that no one is above the law, no one is better than another.

In six months, a year, do we want this officer back on the streets with his lethal weapons, and his less than 10 seconds opportunity to comply or die, looking at your back? Other officers all around our nation are looking at this case, wondering if all they really need to do is claim they were affraid to cover up any mistake. This case is pivotal to know if we all have targets now painted on our back, and the only thing keeping us alive is the mood of any officer that happens to encounter us today, tomorrow. Clearly this thread and others demonstrates that too many in Law Enforcement believe they have a right to commit homicide and chalk it up to being afraid....

I vote this part of your post be moved to the RANT section.

reply to post by Dav1d


While you are trying to play Ace Ventura Pet Detective, you once again forgot to acknowledge this little piece of witness testimony in the very same article.

Henry said a witness interviewed the night of the shooting told police investigators he was driving in front of the sheriff's patrol car and, seeing Lopez with the weapon, shouted out to the teen.

“He yelled at the subject that he should put away the weapon because the cops were behind him,” Henry said. “That occurred immediately before this incident. We spoke to him that night, and there is no reason to believe anything he said wasn't true.”

Your Source

So not only were the police yelling for him to drop the weapon but bystanders as well.

Should police have the Goodyear Blimp circle overhead a few times while they wait for a potentially armed person to drop the weapon just for good measure?

Get real.

reply to post by Dav1d

Of course this little child was far more threatening than your adult at the transit center.

Of course, because know-it-all Dav1d knows exactly what the height and weight of this 13 year old was.

Does Dav1d know that some 13 year olds can be as tall and weigh as much as an adult?

He probably doesn't.

Does Dav1d know that some adults can be short and skinny and look like an adolescent from a distance?

He probably doesn't.

Were not talking about a 5 year old Dav1d. I know, you want us to picture an infant when we think of this incident, but people are smarter than that.

reply to post by onequestion

What happened to using tazers and #?

It is never reasonable to try to use a tazer against someone you believe is wielding a firearm.

How would that make sense?

reply to post by Dav1d

A very long list there, and this county can kill with tasers just as effectively as with guns.

How many of those were totally justified shootings? The shooting of a criminal who was actively trying to kill the officer?

You can't just throw the number out there without pointing out which ones fall into the category of "the criminal tried to kill the officer but the officer came out on top."

And 26 officers were killed by gunfire just this year. So there is another statistic we can throw out there.
Source

reply to post by onequestion


good question! wonder why police even carry their pr24 batons anymore? we had a case out here a few years ago, (sonoma county) where a teen from analy high school was waving a knife. police shot him dead. where was the taser? why couldn't the cops have used the baton to knock it out of his hand? a basic fencing parry would have done the trick. to quick to shoot these days.

October 29, 2013, 7:57 PM

Henry said he couldn't precisely describe the type of replica weapon Lopez carried because investigators did not include the specific make and model in the police report about the incident.

The weapon had already been booked into evidence and, according to police protocol, couldn't be retrieved without an evidentiary reason just to answer questions from the media.

Source

So is this an acknowledgement that the AK47 rifle shown to us the other day was NOT the toy Andy carried? Is the weapon that made this officer so afraid for his life so irrelevant that the briefing officer doesn't even know the make or model? Is the briefing officer so lazy that he needs the toy brought to him, rather than him going to the evidence room?

And the alleged weapon that was justification for the homicide, is so unimportant that it was NOT INCLUDED in the police report?

In response to The Press Democrat's request for a copy of the emergency dispatch recordings of the incident, Henry said investigators had not yet reviewed the recordings.

Henry said that after they do, the police department will discuss the request with the Sonoma County District Attorney's Office, which will ultimately decide whether any criminal wrongdoing took place by any party involved in the shooting.

So now we learn that yesterday they were claiming they hadn't even reviewed the recordings yet...

Like there is no possibility that the recordings might have caught anything they might want to know more about! It's far better to give the officers time to get their story worked out, together!

In just a 10-second span, the deputy behind the wheel told police he pulled from the northbound lane of Moorland Avenue into the oncoming lane, turned the emergency lights on, briefly ”chirped” the siren, and got out of the car behind the cover of the open door, Henry said.

Gelhaus fired eight rounds, striking Lopez seven times. Two shots were fatal, according to the preliminary results of a Thursday autopsy.

Gelhaus later told investigators he “couldn't recall” if he had identified himself as law enforcement at the time, Henry said.

Source

It curious to me just how they claim to know that in just 10 seconds, what they did. After all Henry claims they haven't reviewed the recordings yet. What is however clear is with the other officer doing all of this he couldn't have been watching the suspect, and is unlikely to actually be able to confirm his partners description of the events!

There was no time, the second deputy told investigators, according to Henry.

“By the time he had exited his door and taken cover, at that point Deputy Gelhaus had already engaged the subject, with the commands and with the weapon,” Henry said. “The threat was essentially over.”

Neither the deputies nor the patrol car was equipped with audio or video recording equipment, Henry said.

Source

So Santa Rosa Police Department is allegedly in charge of the investigation, but just when did they take charge of the evidence? We must remember there is a procedure for this kind of incident they have had a lot of practice over the years. Did the sheriff office remove evidence from the crime scene? Wouldn't that be tampering with evidence? And once again I ask what where we shown the other day, as the alleged toy? How long do the suspects get to retain exclusive access to evidence?