Police shoot 13 year old carrying fake rifle.

jimmyx

OneManArmy

jimmyx

OneManArmy

jimmyx
why would any "kid" be carrying around at 3:15 pm, an exact replica of an AK in the first place???...to parents, demand that your kid never carry a gun out in public openly displayed, you WILL BE STOPPED, and you WILL BE IN DANGER OF BEING SHOT by police...friggin' morons, no common sense, this is 100% the fault of the parents...hey, maybe next time some parent will let their "kid" wear a fake suicide vest out in public, with fake satchels of explosives and wires coming out of it...that would be fun right??...again, friggin morons

Ive heard it all now, now its the parents fault. SMH.

did you see the picture of the gun?...looks real to me...exact same color of the barrel and the stock, same shape, same size...have you heard about any school shootings recently?? tell me...how did they end? how many boys his age have you seen, openly carrying in the middle of the afternoon, an exact replica of an AK down the street? what would you think if you saw this guy walking right past your house with one of these, as your own kids were out front...would you just smile at him and say howdy?

edit on 25-10-2013 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)

It wouldnt be a replica if it didnt look like the real thing.

I would have challenged him on what the hell he thought he was doing with what looked like an assault rifle?
Sure I would have had my guns sights trained on him, I would have at least given him a chance to respond, and if he responded aggressively I would have shot to maim, I wouldnt have unleashed my clip into his back.
But hey its the parents fault right?

he was ordered to drop the rifle, he didn't, that WAS his chance to respond. this isn't no TV cop show, there is no running dialog scripted out, to carry on some type of conversation, this is real life, crap happens in milliseconds. a cop that sees someone carrying a rife in public, has to assume his own life is in danger, and maybe other people in this area. the kid got one chance...."DROP THE RIFLE"... he didn't, now he's dead

So says the cop that killed him.(and he would obviously not have his career to protect /sarcasm)

The fact that things happen in milliseconds is entirely the problem. I dunno know about you, but I call that trigger happy. If the kid was given any real amount of time to respond then he would not be dead. But he is dead, which proves no reasonable amount of time was afforded the poor lad.

blackthorne
reply to post by jimmyx

 

maybe the kid was just going to a friend's, or coming back from a friend's house where they were going to shoot at targets? you, know, having fun like normal boys that age usually do?

ten seconds? "drop the weapon! drop the weapon!"

kid is thinking- "huh? what? is that me they are yelling at? i am not doing anything wrong at all! this is a pellet gun!" kid turns to see who is yelling at him and see what is going on. that is ten seconds. while i see and understand the cops position, the cop who fired was way to trigger happy.

or....maybe the kid just got done shooting his parents or other people, and wanted to go out fighting, so he didn't drop the gun....hindsight is great

Dav1d

OneManArmy

Dav1d


The office certainly appears to have made some significant assumptions, and those assumptions proved to be wrong. Those assumptions directly lead to the killing of a child. The actions of law enforcement officers must be reasonable, in this case I suggest they are far from reasonable. I suggest that if it had been George Zimmerman he would be back in jail, not home in bed. Being a member of law enforcement doesn't make one above the law! As much as some in law enforcement would like to pretend that it does! Being an officer doesn't yet invest in you the powers of judge and jury. You don't have an Inherent right to summarily execute anyone you fear.

Sums it up right about exactly, I dont need to have been there to see this fact.
The boys death is all the proof I need.

Once you reach this point the next question becomes as an officer, is he responsible for his assumptions? Or as an officer and as a society do we give our officers a get out of jail free card? Do we make those with power over us responsible for their actions?

Of course we do, we should hold officers to a higher moral standard than we do "normal" citizens.
They have the training and the position of trust that "normal" citizens dont possess. But time and time again they commit these gross acts of misconduct and get a paid holiday for their troubles.

jimmyx

. the kid got one chance...."DROP THE RIFLE"... he didn't, now he's dead

Exactly 10 short seconds "DROP THE RIFLE" bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang,....

And O by the way we are the police....

jimmyx

blackthorne
reply to post by jimmyx

 

maybe the kid was just going to a friend's, or coming back from a friend's house where they were going to shoot at targets? you, know, having fun like normal boys that age usually do?

ten seconds? "drop the weapon! drop the weapon!"

kid is thinking- "huh? what? is that me they are yelling at? i am not doing anything wrong at all! this is a pellet gun!" kid turns to see who is yelling at him and see what is going on. that is ten seconds. while i see and understand the cops position, the cop who fired was way to trigger happy.

or....maybe the kid just got done shooting his parents or other people, and wanted to go out fighting, so he didn't drop the gun....hindsight is great

Did the police receive ANY reports of such an incident?

No they didnt because its an entirely hypothetical fantasy invented by you to justify a criminal "mistake" by an over assuming police officer.

OneManArmy

jimmyx

OneManArmy

jimmyx
why would any "kid" be carrying around at 3:15 pm, an exact replica of an AK in the first place???...to parents, demand that your kid never carry a gun out in public openly displayed, you WILL BE STOPPED, and you WILL BE IN DANGER OF BEING SHOT by police...friggin' morons, no common sense, this is 100% the fault of the parents...hey, maybe next time some parent will let their "kid" wear a fake suicide vest out in public, with fake satchels of explosives and wires coming out of it...that would be fun right??...again, friggin morons

Ive heard it all now, now its the parents fault. SMH.

did you see the picture of the gun?...looks real to me...exact same color of the barrel and the stock, same shape, same size...have you heard about any school shootings recently?? tell me...how did they end? how many boys his age have you seen, openly carrying in the middle of the afternoon, an exact replica of an AK down the street? what would you think if you saw this guy walking right past your house with one of these, as your own kids were out front...would you just smile at him and say howdy?

edit on 25-10-2013 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)

It wouldnt be a replica if it didnt look like the real thing.

I would have challenged him on what the hell he thought he was doing with what looked like an assault rifle?
Sure I would have had my guns sights trained on him, I would have at least given him a chance to respond, and if he responded aggressively(turning around does not constitute aggression) I would have shot to maim, I wouldnt have unleashed my clip into his back.
But hey its the parents fault right?

edit on 201310America/Chicago10pm10pmFri, 25 Oct 2013 13:10:33 -05001013 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)

You never shoot to maim thats funny if you discharge a firearm to remove a threat its 3 in the chest.As far as what the officer saw as a threat he would have acted for 1 of 3 reasons. First he didnt like him just wanted to kill him id say this is unlikely. The police officer had little or no training and panicked when the boy faced him. Probably most likely or the third option becomes the boy turned it in to a game like he played with his friends not realizing the officer wasnt playing a game. Take your pick bottom line is no one wanted it to happen that i can guarantee.

OneManArmy

Dav1d

OneManArmy

Dav1d


The office certainly appears to have made some significant assumptions, and those assumptions proved to be wrong. Those assumptions directly lead to the killing of a child. The actions of law enforcement officers must be reasonable, in this case I suggest they are far from reasonable. I suggest that if it had been George Zimmerman he would be back in jail, not home in bed. Being a member of law enforcement doesn't make one above the law! As much as some in law enforcement would like to pretend that it does! Being an officer doesn't yet invest in you the powers of judge and jury. You don't have an Inherent right to summarily execute anyone you fear.

Sums it up right about exactly, I dont need to have been there to see this fact.
The boys death is all the proof I need.

Once you reach this point the next question becomes as an officer, is he responsible for his assumptions? Or as an officer and as a society do we give our officers a get out of jail free card? Do we make those with power over us responsible for their actions?

Of course we do, we should hold officers to a higher moral standard than we do "normal" citizens.
They have the training and the position of trust that "normal" citizens dont possess. But time and time again they commit these gross acts of misconduct and get a paid holiday for their troubles.

Odd seems you have all ready convicted the officer where you there? So you believe all cops are evil just trying to wait for the opportunity to kill people and according to you we give them a vacation. What a warped world you live in.

Are we discussing a 13yo kid with a toy gun walking down a street in an US neighborhood or a 30 yo Taliban fighter in a war zone. I can certainly allow for 10 or 15 seconds of confusion and misunderstand in the mind of the kid.

It would seem he missed the elementary school class on "You and the Police - Dos and Don'ts" and "If you play with toy guns". They have those classes now, don't they.

OneManArmy

jimmyx

OneManArmy

jimmyx

OneManArmy

jimmyx
why would any "kid" be carrying around at 3:15 pm, an exact replica of an AK in the first place???...to parents, demand that your kid never carry a gun out in public openly displayed, you WILL BE STOPPED, and you WILL BE IN DANGER OF BEING SHOT by police...friggin' morons, no common sense, this is 100% the fault of the parents...hey, maybe next time some parent will let their "kid" wear a fake suicide vest out in public, with fake satchels of explosives and wires coming out of it...that would be fun right??...again, friggin morons

Ive heard it all now, now its the parents fault. SMH.

did you see the picture of the gun?...looks real to me...exact same color of the barrel and the stock, same shape, same size...have you heard about any school shootings recently?? tell me...how did they end? how many boys his age have you seen, openly carrying in the middle of the afternoon, an exact replica of an AK down the street? what would you think if you saw this guy walking right past your house with one of these, as your own kids were out front...would you just smile at him and say howdy?

edit on 25-10-2013 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)

It wouldnt be a replica if it didnt look like the real thing.

I would have challenged him on what the hell he thought he was doing with what looked like an assault rifle?
Sure I would have had my guns sights trained on him, I would have at least given him a chance to respond, and if he responded aggressively I would have shot to maim, I wouldnt have unleashed my clip into his back.
But hey its the parents fault right?

he was ordered to drop the rifle, he didn't, that WAS his chance to respond. this isn't no TV cop show, there is no running dialog scripted out, to carry on some type of conversation, this is real life, crap happens in milliseconds. a cop that sees someone carrying a rife in public, has to assume his own life is in danger, and maybe other people in this area. the kid got one chance...."DROP THE RIFLE"... he didn't, now he's dead

So says the cop that killed him.(and he would obviously not have his career to protect /sarcasm)

The fact that things happen in milliseconds is entirely the problem. I dunno know about you, but I call that trigger happy. If the kid was given any real amount of time to respond then he would not be dead. But he is dead, which proves no reasonable amount of time was afforded the poor lad.

Well depends on his reaction when asked to drop the weapon most people with the police yelling at them through a loud speaker would comply. now the question becomes why didnt he? Did the officer not tell him to drop the rifle i find that unlikely. Did the 13 year old think it was a joke? possibly but im sure they will figure out exactly what happened and dont think the FBI wont be involved since this made the news. Ifthe officer is guilty of gross negligence or even its proved his conduct led to the child's unnecessary death homicide. If it was an accident do to the circumstances then he did his job. We dont know what happened wait for them to finish before you convict him.

dragonridr


Odd seems you have all ready convicted the officer where you there? So you believe all cops are evil just trying to wait for the opportunity to kill people and according to you we give them a vacation. What a warped world you live in.

The boy is dead, he had a toy gun... the officer has convicted himself.
And yes its a truly warped world I live in, where cops become criminals and many citizens think thats OK and justified.
Suspension with pay during an investigation(cover up) only to be resolved of all charges is a paid vacation.
What a blinkered world you are living in.

If it was an accident do to the circumstances then he did his job.

That's a frightening thought.

dragonridr

Well depends on his reaction when asked to drop the weapon most people with the police yelling at them through a loud speaker would comply. now the question becomes why didnt he?

What loud speaker? I like how in your zeal to lay blame on anyone but the officers, you create facts that simply no one else has acknowledge!

Two officers, both on the scene. Only one officer feels so threaten that he feels a need to unload his duty weapon into the child. You claim normal procedure is three shots, this child didn't receive three shots, or even double that, the current story is he was shot at at least eight times! That at least one shot entered his right buttocks which strongly suggested he was shot while his back was to the officers.

Perhaps that explains why the office assumed he had a rifle, why he assumed he was an adult. Because he didn't wait to actually find out. After all the child did have a hoody.

OneManArmy

dragonridr


Odd seems you have all ready convicted the officer where you there? So you believe all cops are evil just trying to wait for the opportunity to kill people and according to you we give them a vacation. What a warped world you live in.

The boy is dead, he had a toy gun... the officer has convicted himself.
And yes its a truly warped world I live in, where cops become criminals and many citizens think thats OK and justified.
Suspension with pay during an investigation(cover up) only to be resolved of all charges is a paid vacation.
What a blinkered world you are living in.

If its shown he acted appropriately given the circumstances its appropriate. And me personally i would not want an officer on the streets under investigation for shooting would you? Not until the circumstances are confirmed and he shows to be mentally capably of performing his duties. Bottom line accidents can happen and do was this an accident or was the officer negligent i dont know the answer to that and neither do you. So put the cynicism away and wait for the facts.Because i understand people let emotions take over but until all the facts are known your just muddying the water with beliefs showing a bias to say the least.

I find it funny how many psychics we have here on ATS who all seem to know exactly what happened.Apparently we have several people here that need to contact the police because they saw what happened. If you have a problem with police this isnt proof your right this could just be a tragic accident. If the officer screwed up badly again doesnt prove the police are evil just proves one man used bad judgement. But let me ask you this does any one believe the officer wanted to kill the boy i dont.

dragonridr

OneManArmy

dragonridr


Odd seems you have all ready convicted the officer where you there? So you believe all cops are evil just trying to wait for the opportunity to kill people and according to you we give them a vacation. What a warped world you live in.

The boy is dead, he had a toy gun... the officer has convicted himself.
And yes its a truly warped world I live in, where cops become criminals and many citizens think thats OK and justified.
Suspension with pay during an investigation(cover up) only to be resolved of all charges is a paid vacation.
What a blinkered world you are living in.

If its shown he acted appropriately given the circumstances its appropriate. And me personally i would want an officer on the streets under investigation for shooting would you? Not until the circumstances are confirmed and he shows to be mentally capably of performing his duties. Bottom line accidents can happen and do was this an accident or was the officer negligent i dont know the answer to that and neither do you. So put the cynicism away and wait for the facts.Because i understand people let emotions take over but until all the facts are known your just muddying the water with beliefs showing a bias to say the least.

If I shot a child, I would expect at best to be behind bars, until I had my day in court! If not executed by the police outright. I'd not expect to be allowed to work on my story. I'd not expect to have my friends intimidating any witness. I'd not expect the police to be spinning the story to my benefit!

But then I don't think I'm better than the rest...

There was a witness who stated the boy was shot several times as he laid on the ground. The toy rifle was reported under his body. That does seem to indicate that he was shot additional times when he was not a threat. Was the initial shot the one that killed him or did those later shots lead to his death. Hope that is revealed by the investigation.

dragonridr

I find it funny how many psychics we have here on ATS who all seem to know exactly what happened.Apparently we have several people here that need to contact the police because they saw what happened. If you have a problem with police this isnt proof your right this could just be a tragic accident. If the officer screwed up badly again doesnt prove the police are evil just proves one man used bad judgement. But let me ask you this does any one believe the officer wanted to kill the boy i dont.

edit on 10/25/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

Yes if it was just one man making a bad judgement then your argument would be valid.
The point is that this is a recurring theme. Its become all too common to just call it one man making a bad judgement call. Its many men making lots of bad judgement calls. I blame the police procedure, its far too overly aggressive, and tensions become high, when tensions are high people are jumpy and people die.
Its become the norm to be man handled by police officers for just being a suspect or in the wrong place at the wrong time. Innocent people are suffering as a result of SWAT type or military style tactics.

The police clothing has become oppressive, their methods and their attitudes have become oppressive, and they become more disconnected from the society they are supposed to protect. Its time to call time on the oppression, before its too late, I fear its already too late, but better late than never.

Officers need to be taken to account for their actions NOT just like you and me, but with more scrutiny than you and me because of the position of trust that they must uphold.

Every "mistake" brings the whole police force into disrepute and affects how society interacts with them and how they interact with society. We have gone so far down this path already its time to say wait a minute, this needs to be fixed now.

Dav1d
I'd suggest that case law applies here, it is also very interesting that thoes who claim LEO status don't link to this...

However, the mere fact alone that a person possesses a deadly weapons does not justify the used of deadly force. (Harris v. Roderick (9th Cir. 1997) 126 F.3rd 1189, 1202.)

See also Curnow v. Ridgecrest Police (9th Cir. 1991) 952 F.2nd 321, 324-325; holding that deadly force was unreasonable where the suspect possessed a gun but was not pointing it at the officers and was not facing the officers when they shot.
Source: www.legalupdateonline.com...

So Harris v. Roderick establishes that "possession" of an actual (real) deadly weapon does NOT JUSTIFY the use of deadly force.

And Curnow v. Ridgecrest would seem to establish that BOTH POINTING AND FACING the officers are required. Here the officers acknowledge that the child was only bringing the gun up, and was turning in their direction, and the fact that the child was shot in the right buttocks suggest the child was NOT facing the officers... That he was shot from behind.

And in Tennessee vs Garner the Supreme Court ruled an officer can use deadly force on a fleeing felon if that person presents an imminent risk to the public at Large.

Pointing a gun at an officer, regardless if its real or not, meets the felony requirement.

As for your "observation" about how the kid was shot, please take some time to educate yourself in this area.

A person who is shot while moving, as in this case the kid was turning around, can result in bullets entering the body in areas that were not targeted. The body twists, exposing different areas.

Wait for the coroner report before speculating.

* - Can police shoot a person who has been shot and is already on the ground? YES

If the person who was shot goes down, and is still moving / manipulating a weapon, presenting a continued threat to the officer, the threat is not stopped.


@ other posters comments...

The officer who discharged his weapon is a 24 year veteran of the Sheriffs Department.

Investigations in Officer involved Shootings -

If a civilian kills a person, its a criminal investigation. Miranda is involved.

If an Officer kills a person it becomes way more complex.

First there is a criminal investigation - This is usually done by 1 or 2 independent law enforcement agencies. When those agencies complete their investigation it is fowarded to the PA for review.

The Prosecuting Attornys Office does their investigation using there own investigators.

Next is Internal Affairs - This investigation expores whether the Officer is within departmental policy. If its determined he is not, then the agency / city can disassociate themselves from the officer. This places the bulk of liability on the officer. It also ends civil immunity, opening up the officers personal life for civil law suits.

Federal Investigation - When an officer shoots a person, that person is being seized under the 4th amendment. In this area we use 42 USC 1983 (civilil rights violation).

Miranda applies to Law Enforcement.
Garrity Warning applies to Law Enforcement.
However since we are in a chain of command where senior officers / command staff can give orders, we can be ordered to answer questions about what occurred during the IA portion.

While information obtained in Garrity cannot be used in criminal prosecution, it can be used in the IA portion. An officer who refuses to answers questions after Garrity can be presumed guilty for the IA investigation. The reason for this is the higher standard applied to law enforcement.

Why is info not being released?

Its a criminal investigation. Contrry to popular belief Police reports are not a matter of public record while the situation is ongoing. Generally a PCA will be given to the media which contained a brief overview of charges, and only if the officer is being charged.

This is the reason why law enforcement investigations are long and drawn out. You can run into lots of legal issues when multiple agencies are ivestigating - anywhere from obstruction, evidence tampering, witness tampering, etc etc etc.

Hope this clears up some confusion for some people.

Hollywood Myth vs. Fact - Law Enforcement A good video that can answer, or at least explain, some of the questions / accusations raised in this thread.

reply to post by blackthorne


REPEAT........Story of the EXECUTED CHILD from RT, which Is the best unbiased news channel in the business, therefore you will be reading from a far more credible source than anything you'll find on western MSM

XionZap
California kid shooting: 13yo with replica assault rifle was shot 7 times in 10 seconds

..........October 25, 2013

Opening paragraphs:

The shooting death of a 13-year-old California boy believed to be carrying an assault rifle unfolded in no more than 10 seconds, police said. Andy Lopez Cruz, who was later found to be carrying a plastic replica, was struck by seven bullets. In that time, a total of eight rounds were fired by one of the two sheriff’s deputies who confronted the teen, with two of the wounds – one in the right side of his chest and the second in his right hip – proving fatal.
Lt. Paul Henry, of the Santa Rosa Police Department, told the San Francisco Chronicle that Cruz was also shot in his right wrist, left biceps, right forearm, right buttocks and right hip.

It took another 16 seconds for the deputies to call for medical assistance, according to a timeline of events released by police investigating the fatal shooting in Santa Rosa on Tuesday, Reuters reports.
At approximately 3pm Tuesday, a 24-year-old deputy of the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office and a rookie deputy he was training spotted Andy, donning a blue hoodie and shorts, walking on Moorland Avenue with what they believed was an assault rifle in his left hand. Police say the deputies – who have not yet been officially identified – got out of their squad car and took cover behind the open doors. The senior deputy twice shouted, “Put the gun down,” before Cruz turned to his right, the Sheriff’s Office said.

Police said the boy ignored two calls to put down the weapon, instead turning toward the senior deputy with the rifle barrel “rising up and turning in his direction.” The deputy is then said to have opened fire out of fear for his life, being unable to tell whether his target was a child from where he was standing. The eighth grader died at the scene. A toy handgun was also was found tucked in his pants. The rookie deputy, who was hired last month, did not fire any shots, the Chronicle cites Assistant Sheriff Lorenzo Duenas as saying. That deputy had served 11 years with another police agency, said Duenas, who declined to identify that agency.

Four seconds after the shooting, the two officers radioed for assistance from other deputies. Another six seconds elapsed before they notified dispatchers that shots had been fired. Police had previously said the deputies called for backup the moment they noticed what appeared to be a military-style rifle. The officers involved in the shooting have both been placed on administrative leave, in accordance in usual procedure in such cases. The incident is being investigated by the Santa Rosa Police Department and other law enforcement agencies.

The shooting has sparked outrage in the community and beyond, with Andy’s family and friends accusing the deputy who opened fire of overreacting to a situation which did not require the use of deadly force.The death has prompted calls in Santa Rosa for the creation of civilian review boards to examine such incidents. “People have to do something,” Elbert Howard, a founding member of the Police Accountability Clinic and Helpline of Sonoma County, told Reuters. “He’s a child, and he had a toy. I see that as an overreaction to shoot him down.” An advisory panel of the US Civil Rights Commission urged Sonoma County to create civilian-review boards in 2000 in the wake of eight fatal officer-involved shootings in less than three years. The panel’s recommendation, however, was disregarded.

Up to 200 mourners gathered Thursday around a makeshift memorial consisting of flowers, balloons, teddy bears and pictures of the boy at the site of the shooting. Some held candles and signs that said: “What a tragedy, what a travesty.” Friends and family have described Cruz as personable and well-liked in the neighborhood.

Residents say the diverse neighborhood does not have a particularly high rate of crime, with people feeling safe allowing their children to play in the streets. “A lot of people say this is not a great neighborhood, but we’ve never had any problems,” Sam Hin, a mother who works in human resources at a skilled nursing facility, told the Press Democrat. “It’s our home. It’s what we’re used to.” But Shannon Peavler, an in-home support provider whose mother lives on Moorland Avenue, told the daily deputies “come into the neighborhood thinking it’s a bad neighborhood, so they treat people that way.”

This article was posted: Friday, October 25, 2013 at 2:54 pm

Xcathdra

Dav1d
I'd suggest that case law applies here, it is also very interesting that thoes who claim LEO status don't link to this...

However, the mere fact alone that a person possesses a deadly weapons does not justify the used of deadly force. (Harris v. Roderick (9th Cir. 1997) 126 F.3rd 1189, 1202.)

See also Curnow v. Ridgecrest Police (9th Cir. 1991) 952 F.2nd 321, 324-325; holding that deadly force was unreasonable where the suspect possessed a gun but was not pointing it at the officers and was not facing the officers when they shot.
Source: www.legalupdateonline.com...

So Harris v. Roderick establishes that "possession" of an actual (real) deadly weapon does NOT JUSTIFY the use of deadly force.

And Curnow v. Ridgecrest would seem to establish that BOTH POINTING AND FACING the officers are required. Here the officers acknowledge that the child was only bringing the gun up, and was turning in their direction, and the fact that the child was shot in the right buttocks suggest the child was NOT facing the officers... That he was shot from behind.

And in Tennessee vs Garner the Supreme Court ruled an officer can use deadly force on a fleeing felon if that person presents an imminent risk to the public at Large.

As for your "observation" about how the kid was shot, please take some time to educate yourself in this area.

A person who is shot while moving, as in this case the kid was turning around, can result in bullets entering the body in areas that were not targeted. The body twists, exposing different areas.

Wait for the coroner report before speculating.

I'm not speculating, the preliminary coroner report states he was shot in the right buttock and that it was an entry wound. I'm not sure about your buttocks but mine like most I'm familiar with are not on my front.

The police department statement shows that the child was not "fleeing" and do you have any evidence the child was a "felon"? The possesion of a toy gun is not a felony yet even in California The child was yelled at, and quite reasonably turn to see who was yelling at him. And for this he was execute.

Is it reasonable force, to execute a child for having a toy gun?

Do you want an officer on patrol that knows he has a right to execute a child, because he is afraid of a child? Clearly this officer did not know this child was a felon, as he didn't even know he was a child, or who he was. What he would have most likely known from behind is he had a hoody on.

At the very least this officer lacked the good sense that his partner showed, a partner who was new to the job. The fact that his partner held his fire, is significant. It goes directly to just how reasonable his fear actually was. One his partner didn't share.