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

reply to post by Dav1d

I agree that they don't look the same, this photo doesn't have the resolution to show one is clearly plastic.

If a photograph of the replica AK47 cannot show the weapon was "clearly plastic" in your words, how could an officer approaching the person, at distance, in a fluid situation, with the adrenaline and fear from thinking it was an actual weapon BECAUSE IT IS A REPLICA AND MADE TO LOOK REAL, be expected to know it was fake?

The red arrow points to the part of the gun that was broken when it was dropped. The green arrow shows the front sight that is need to aim the gun.

The photo speaks for itself.

So you are saying the front sight was broken off after the kid dropped it. Meaning, after the police shot him? Meaning, the replica AK47 had a front sight on it when the police shot the kid?

Even if it did not have a front sight on it when the police shot him, there is absolutely no way a person would be able to identify that, at distance, in a fluid situation. Also, a real AK47 would still fire even if it were missing this piece.

You have all day to look at that photo and study it and pick out the small differences between the replica and the real thing. The police do not have that luxury.

If you had a conceal carry permit and someone pointed that thing at you or your family in a threatening manner, I would expect you to shoot that person without hesitation. Why are you holding the police to a different standard?

There is NO SUCH THING as a FAKE gun only plastic ones that don't fire bullets. I would never let my kid or any child in my care play with weapons. I will give them a "real" gun and ingrain proper gun safety like is done all over hunting communities. Giving a kid a plastic gun will only confuse them if they ever handle a real one for whatever reason. You guns should be banned and it's reasons like this. And how dumb of you that you think a 13 couldn't have confronted the cops with the plastic rifle. Where is the video of you there? 13 year olds kill people almost daily and I'm 100% positive the cops didn't just blow the kid away and then ask them to put the "weapon" down. No one thinks like that and you're an idiot if you think cops do. NEVER EVER confront someone with anything a knife, bat, gun WITHOUT 100% intent on using it our problem in this country are psychopaths who like to flash weapons to get a stir out of people that's called terrorism and the very thing we try to eliminate in this country. Morals of the story don't give kids toy guns either the real deal or nothing it's hard enough children have trouble what to believe on this planet any more there is no need to confuse them with weapons.

areyouserious2010
reply to post by Dav1d

 

Dav1d
I agree that they don't look the same, this photo doesn't have the resolution to show one is clearly plastic.

areyouserious2010
If a photograph of the replica AK47 cannot show the weapon was "clearly plastic" in your words, how could an officer approaching the person, at distance, in a fluid situation, with the adrenaline and fear from thinking it was an actual weapon BECAUSE IT IS A REPLICA AND MADE TO LOOK REAL, be expected to know it was fake?

How could an officer know it was real? As a professional, he must be held to a higher standard than a civilian. When you are willing to take someone life, you need to be sure.

areyouserious2010
So you are saying the front sight was broken off after the kid dropped it. Meaning, after the police shot him? Meaning, the replica AK47 had a front sight on it when the police shot the kid?

I'm saying the toy was dropped sometime before this killing. When it was dropped it broke. That knowledge that dropping the toy, may have cause the child to hesitate in dropping the friends gun, for fear it would break more.

areyouserious2010
Even if it did not have a front sight on it when the police shot him, there is absolutely no way a person would be able to identify that, at distance, in a fluid situation. Also, a real AK47 would still fire even if it were missing this piece.

Then you are acknowledging that the cop had no valid reason to fire, he couldn't have know the toy was real! Personally I don't cops shooting at people because they are afraid, that is NOT justification enough.

areyouserious2010
You have all day to look at that photo and study it and pick out the small differences between the replica and the real thing. The police do not have that luxury.

A reporter that was there clearly stated that he could see it was plastic. Most of this info is on the main thread about this, you really should review it if you are actually interested.

areyouserious2010
If you had a conceal carry permit and someone pointed that thing at you or your family in a threatening manner, I would expect you to shoot that person without hesitation. Why are you holding the police to a different standard?

This guy claimed to be an expert, he trained officers on when to use force, he practiced for this event. Our police need to be held to a higher standard than what a civilian might or might not do. He also wore armor, that a civilian does not normally have access to.

The child was not a threat, he was NOT pointing his toy at anyone, he was not running away. The cops came up behind him, and started the sequence of events that resulted in his Homicide.

This officer also posted on forums where the topic was how to get away with shooting an unarmed person. The consensus was to claim you feared for your life and others life.

As a society we can not allow it to be acceptable for a law enforcement agent to kill unarmed children simply because they were afraid. That can not be allow to stand, to go unchallenged. If you are not willing to take a bullet, you really shouldn't be in this profession.

areyouserious2010
reply to post by Dav1d

Dav1dThey told the kid to drop it and at least two witness claim Deputy Erick Gelhaus, 48 fired without giving the kid time to drop it.

areyouserious2010
Source?

The cops did not identify themselves as cops!

areyouserious2010First, source?

"Y nosotros nos venimos detras de la patrulla hasta aqui, el estop," Rojas said.

She says they were right behind the patrol car at a stop sign. Rojas saw the deputies turn on their police lights, then drive over to where the teenager was standing in an open lot.
Rojas and Marquez say they heard the deputies yell in english "drop the gun."

"Abrieron la puerta de cada lado y sacaron la pistola y tas, tas," Rojas said.

She says almost immediately, both deputies then opened their doors and shots were fired.

Rojas and Marquez say deputies only yelled once before opening fire.

"Imediatamente le dispararon, no le dieron oportunidad de nada," Marquez said.

She says they fired immediately and didn't give him a chance to do anything.

Early on in this investigation, police compared how similar Lopez's replica assault rifle looks to a real weapon.

They've also explained that the veteran deputy who opened fire believed Lopez was about to point the replica assault rifle at him.

But the description of events these women give is different than what investigators have described.

"Both deputies exited their vehicles, but maintained cover behind their opened doors. One of the deputies shouted at the subject to put the gun down," Santa Rosa Police Department spokesperson Paul Henry said.

These women say the deputies shouted first, then got out of their car and fired.

Another witness we talked to earlier this week describes the same.

Source

There you go...

reply to post by Dav1d

How could an officer know it was real? As a professional, he must be held to a higher standard than a civilian. When you are willing to take someone life, you need to be sure.

Really? Yup, an officer approaches a person he believes to be armed. The person raises the weapon, which could be a toy, towards the officer. The officer must then call "time out" and approach the person. The officer must do a thorough visual inspection of the weapon. If the weapon is not clearly fake through visual inspection, the officer must seize said weapon and test fire it to ensure, even if it is real, it does in fact fire. The officer must then return the weapon to said person, real or not, and call "time in." The officer may or may not take cover before calling "time in" it is the officer's discretion.

You are being totally unreasonable.

I'm saying the toy was dropped sometime before this killing. When it was dropped it broke. That knowledge that dropping the toy, may have cause the child to hesitate in dropping the friends gun, for fear it would break more.

So? It really doesn't matter why he hesitated to drop the weapon. All that matter is that he did which contributed to the tragic events that occurred.

Then you are acknowledging that the cop had no valid reason to fire, he couldn't have know the toy was real! Personally I don't cops shooting at people because they are afraid, that is NOT justification enough.

Far from it. The replica looked real enough for a reasonable person to believe it to be real. That is why it is called a replica, it replicates the real thing.

If the person is displaying a weapon and the officer fears for his life, then they are justified to shoot. Not one or the other.

A reporter that was there clearly stated that he could see it was plastic. Most of this info is on the main thread about this, you really should review it if you are actually interested.

A reporter who had all the time in the world to look at it. A reporter comfortably sitting in a well lit room with no reason to be afraid because a police officer is already telling him the gun was fake.

This has no comparison to the situation the police officers were in at the time of the shooting.

This guy claimed to be an expert, he trained officers on when to use force, he practiced for this event.

Exactly. It goes to show you even an expert in this type of tragic situation could not tell the difference.

He also wore armor, that a civilian does not normally have access to.

Standard issue police body armor will not stop a straight shot from an assault rifle. Even if it would, does that mean the police should give someone the first shot? Of course not.

The child was not a threat, he was NOT pointing his toy at anyone, he was not running away.

How do you know for sure? Were you there? I have not heard any witness testimony that refutes what the officer said. The officer said he was raising the weapon towards him.

The cops came up behind him, and started the sequence of events that resulted in his Homicide.

Is that not what police are paid to do? The police saw a potentially armed person walking around. They stopped to investigate. Unfortunately, a tragic set of events were set in motion.

This officer also posted on forums where the topic was how to get away with shooting an unarmed person. The consensus was to claim you feared for your life and others life.

Whatever the officer posted, he was clearly wrong if he was coaching people on how to get away with shooting an unarmed person. And that could call his testimony into question during investigation. What you are not acknowledging is the fact that there is independent witnesses that said the kid was holding the weapon and the police ordered him to drop it just before the shooting.

As a society we can not allow it to be acceptable for a law enforcement agent to kill unarmed children simply because they were afraid.

He wasn't unarmed. He was holding a replica AK47 which he did not drop after the police told him to. Any reasonable person in the situation would have been afraid.

If you are not willing to take a bullet, you really shouldn't be in this profession.

Are you a police officer? Who are you to make that determination?

No one should be willing to "take a bullet." That is just ridiculous. You sir, with that one statement, have removed all doubt that you are an unreasonable person.

reply to post by Dav1d

These women say the deputies shouted first, then got out of their car and fired.

First, does it make sense that they shouted inside the car then got out and fired?

Second, even if they did shout from the car, they DID shout for him to drop the gun. In fact, they shouted loud enough for these women to hear it in their vehicle so they yelled it loudly and clearly.

Rojas saw the deputies turn on their police lights, then drive over to where the teenager was standing in an open lot.
Rojas and Marquez say they heard the deputies yell in english "drop the gun."

Third, the women say the officers turned the lights on, drove to him and then yelled.

If I were holding a replica weapon, saw a police car, saw it turn its lights on and drive towards me. I would have immediately dropped the gun.

Well think they should release their names. 13 is a special occult number, BBC said at least 13 died in europe from the storms. I believe the culprits of this murder are into a lot more than bullying and being bad cops.

reply to post by Unity_99


The name of the cop who did the firing was revealed by the local paper yesterday. His partner apparently did not discharge his weapon.

Deputy who shot Santa Rosa boy identified

ThePeaceMaker
Looks like my point of view got missed

Put yourself in the coppers shoes you've just shot a 13 year old boy those guys have got to live with the rest their life knowing they shot a kid

Oh, you mean after they high fived each other and laughed? Sure, I am reading into this, maybe they are remorseful, but the cops do not engender my sympathy one bit, and I worked with them for 5 years. I know some really good cops, and I know some really bad ones, and the tests now are not to find the best and brightest, but the ones who won't question authority, won't think, and are thugs.

They probably acted like this:

Miami Police Shot Protester then laugh about it.




Teen Killed by Taser, Cops Laugh & High-Five Each Other




POLICE BRUTALITY Cops Celebrate After Punching & Kicking Restrained Man 12 Times On The Head PSGW



Now, put a Taliban "uniform" on these guys and show them beating and killing people and celebrate and all you cop lovers will scream how sick these people are. Hypocrite much?

GrantedBail
reply to post by boncho

 

You are correct. I misspoke. I could have sworn I read that the gun did a couple of days ago. The gun did not have an orange tip:

Regardless if the gun had a orange tip or not, one does not shoot unless fired upon. Is that not the rules of engagement?

He should be imprisoned for firing said weapon AND charged with first degree manslaughter. He must be made an example of for the rest of those that "protect and serve".

MikhailBakunin
Regardless if the gun had a orange tip or not, one does not shoot unless fired upon. Is that not the rules of engagement?

Of course not.

Any police department that had that as a policy would go through a lot of officers. The apropos term is "imminent danger", not someone actually shooting you.

MikhailBakunin

GrantedBail
reply to post by boncho

 

You are correct. I misspoke. I could have sworn I read that the gun did a couple of days ago. The gun did not have an orange tip:

Regardless if the gun had a orange tip or not, one does not shoot unless fired upon. Is that not the rules of engagement?

He should be imprisoned for firing said weapon AND charged with first degree manslaughter. He must be made an example of for the rest of those that "protect and serve".

No, that is not the rules of engagement. It's not true for defending yourself if you believe your life is threatened whether you are a private citizen or a cop. My problem is the ten seconds. That does not give much time for the kid to get over the shock of what is happening and the cops shooting him. It sounds like trigger happy training to me, and those posters of civilians they use for target practice teach them to shoot us as we are all the enemy.

Interesting note visibly angry people carrying replica guns are walking on the streets of Santa Rosa and guess what? They are not being executed! They are not being killed! The cops have request that they not carry guns on the street, but they don't seem to have any problems telling that they are not real this week. Not one has been killed.... Not one wounded....

I found another "No hesitation target". They seem to be working GREAT!!!! sick

This is sick if you are supporting the actions of the police officers your a sorry sob.

My god wtf is wrong with you people.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

I found another "No hesitation target". They seem to be working GREAT!!!! sick

I also disagree with these "No hesitation targets" as well. There should be some hesitation from an officer if confronted with one of the situations these targets represent. It is only human to have some hesitation in these situations and the training of police officers should not attempt to remove that humanity.

But I doubt these targets had anything to do with the situation the officers found themselves in during the incident in question.

reply to post by onequestion

This is sick if you are supporting the actions of the police officers your a sorry sob.

I have not read one post where someone has SUPPORTED the actions of the police. Some have merely defended the officers from the lynch mob that frequently forms on this very site.

No one is saying the officers did a great thing or a good job.

It was a tragic event for all involved.

It was a string of bad luck and bad decisions that ended the life of this kid.

Based on the facts thus far, some have pointed out that it was not MURDER on the part of the officers, which some have argued for.

areyouserious2010
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

I found another "No hesitation target". They seem to be working GREAT!!!! sick

I also disagree with these "No hesitation targets" as well. There should be some hesitation from an officer if confronted with one of the situations these targets represent. It is only human to have some hesitation in these situations and the training of police officers should not attempt to remove that humanity.

But I doubt these targets had anything to do with the situation the officers found themselves in during the incident in question.

Should a police officer be held accountable for their actions, or are they unaccountable for their actions? Do you believe that an officer is better than a citizen? This so called training officer has long warned against hesitation so yes this mindset played a significant role in what happen that day. It is interesting that in this story, it clearly states that officer Gelhaus is only alleged to have open fire... But the actions of the child are never "alleged" to have happen they are stated as facts! That's pro cop spin in this article, indeed in every article I've read the child's actions are never simply "alleged" to have happen but always have been reported as facts.

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! 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. So he's now found himself in such a situation, and surprise surprise he has played his trump card. Do we hold officer Gelhaus accountable for his past actions? Do we hold his department accountable for the decision to allow officer Gelhaus to remain in the role of a training officer, and to interact with the public while armed?

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?

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. Do we simply ignore these actions? As it appears his department and the sheriff were more than willing to do. He once wrote that taking some kind of action is critical, any kind of action. Or bad things happen, okay he took action and in this case an unarmed child died! In my book a very bad thing happened.

With this information are you now willing to acknowledge that yes this very mindset had something to do with what happen? 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. He shot eight times and killed in less than 10 seconds an unarmed child, while preaching not to hesitate, for many years!

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!

The officer, accompanied by an officer-in-training, thought the teen was armed and radioed for backup. He ordered the boy to drop what he presumed to be a weapon. The object turned out to be a pellet gun, a toy in the shape of an AK-47.

[B]Ten seconds later, Gelhaus allegedly opened fire when he saw Lopez -- his back to the deputies -- begin to turn around with the barrel of the toy gun rising. The officer-in-training did not fire, according to authorities.

In a 2008 article written by Gelhaus for S.W.A.T. Magazine, the officer warned against hesitation in deciding to use a firearm lethally.

"[B]Today is the day you may need to kill someone in order to go home," he wrote. "If you cannot turn on the 'mean gene' for yourself, who will? If you find yourself in an ambush, in the kill zone, you need to turn on that mean gene."

His writings ranged from advice on how to hold and operate firearms to what to do in potentially life-threatening situations.

"Taking some kind of action -- any kind of action -- is critical," he wrote. "If you shut down (physically, psychologically, or both) and stay in the kill zone, bad things will happen to you. You must take some kind of action."

Source

reply to post by GrantedBail


This is what happens when the population has access to real guns and the kids have access to toy guns.

This is also a result of the police needing to carry guns to deal with the large number of gun toting criminals in the USA. You want guns to protect your liberty? It means every criminal will have access to them, and the police will all need to carry guns.

I've noticed the people who are moaning about the police shootings seem to be mainly pro gun. Welcome to the downside.

The difference in the number of police shootings in the USA vs UK should convince everyone why guns in a society help no-one. Our police don't usually carry guns and neither do the citizens. Much safer and more civilized.

areyouserious2010
reply to post by onequestion

 

This is sick if you are supporting the actions of the police officers your a sorry sob.

I have not read one post where someone has SUPPORTED the actions of the police. Some have merely defended the officers from the lynch mob that frequently forms on this very site.

No one is saying the officers did a great thing or a good job.

It was a tragic event for all involved.

It was a string of bad luck and bad decisions that ended the life of this kid.

Based on the facts thus far, some have pointed out that it was not MURDER on the part of the officers, which some have argued for.

I have yet to read one post here that is calling for this officer lynching! Please provide a link. California describes the taking of any life as a homicide, what some call a murder in less technical terms. Clearly this Sheriff's department has acknowledged that Officer Erick Gelhaus took this child's life, that would indicate he committed a homicide. 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.

You claim to only be "defending" officer Erick Gelhaus, but the very definition of "defending" involves "supporting" him. Erick Gelhaus and his actions are linked and that chain can not be unbroken! 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! 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....