Posted on 07/08/2014 7:08:32 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
Prosecutors said Monday they will not file criminal charges against a Northern California sheriff's deputy who shot and killed a 13-year-old boy carrying a pellet gun he mistook for an assault rifle....
Deputy Erick Gelhaus, 48, fired multiple rounds in response to what he believed was an imminent threat of death, Sonoma County District Attorney Jill Ravitch announced at a news conference.
'While in the lawful performance of his duty, Deputy Gelhaus was faced with a highly unpredictable and rapidly evolving situation,' Ravitch said. 'He believed honestly and reasonably that he was faced with a do-or-die dilemma.'
'While this was an absolute tragedy it was not a criminal act,' Ravitch said.
Gelhaus shot Lopez on October 22 as the teen walked near his home with the pellet gun. The deputy told investigators he believed the gun was real and opened fire out of fear for his life.
At least one witness said he heard the deputy order Lopez to drop the pellet gun before shooting, Ravitch said.
Gelhaus fired eight times, striking the eighth-grader seven times with his department-issued 9 mm handgun.
The district attorney said Gelhaus had 18 rounds in his gun and stopped shooting when he felt the threat had ended....
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Where are you living — in an alternate universe???
What the h do you think the DA was considering doing the last 8 months — deciding the colors for his award ribbons???
Find it yourself —
I have fired AK-47’s as has my team mate here. We looked at the pictures and it took us some time to see the differences. In a stress situation, with the person turned away, as he is turning toward you it can be very easy to misidentify. There is a reason they put orange caps on the ends of those things.
The only thing most people see as a barrel comes into view is the hole, not the rest of the gun.
the facts about his actions speak for themselves. Decent human beings do not shoot down children and then as they lay dying, shoot them multiple times.
I’m stating a fact: the officer isn’t being charged with a crime. You seem to be in disagreement with the fact, so I think you’re the one who needs to do research.
His words of wisdom are here:
Writing under his real name on the forum The Firing Line, Gelhaus wrote under a thread entitled “He’s got a gun! … A bb gun…” that:
“It’s going to come down to YOUR ability to articulate to law enforcement and very likely the Court that you were in fear of death or serious bodily injury. I think we keep coming back to this, articulation — your ability to explain why — will be quite significant.”
His LinkedIn page cites that he worked for Aimpoint, a company that develops sighting technology for firearms. Another regular job for Gelhaus is as a writer for Modern Service Weapons and SWAT Magazine. In 2008, he wrote in SWAT:
“Today is the day you may need to kill someone in order to go home. If you cannot turn into the ‘Mean Gene’ for yourself, who will? If you find yourself in an ambush, in the kill zone, you need to turn on the ‘Mean Gene.’”
http://heavy.com/news/2013/10/erick-gelhaus-andy-lopez-shooting-cop/
I’m stating a fact: the current DA with financial and political and familial connections with the Santa Rosa PD is not charging the officer with a crime.
Just because the DA is not pressing charges at this time does not mean that he didn’t commit a crime or that he won’t be charged in the future by this DA or a different one.
I’ll let you get back to your research now —
So if the DA isn't charging the officer because of your claim of corruption, shouldn't you be able to cite what laws were broken and how that could be proved in court?
and you should be able to find it too —
Start under “Murder” and go from there.
Or isn’t murder a crime in your book???
So how did he violate the murder statute?
These people protect their own.
Vile Scum.
He killed another human being who was committing no crime and was endangering no one.
Wow. Thanks!
He was a walking time bomb. Case closed.
Not “Was” — “Is”.
He went back on active duty last December — less than 2 months after the killing — and has been trolling the streets ever since.
“Decent human beings do not shoot down children “
Yes they do, if that child presents themselves as a threat, which this child sought to do by modifying the replica to look even more real, by dressing in gang colors, and by brandishing the weapon as though it were real.
Read “Handgun Stopping Power” by Marshal and Sanow and you will understand why you put multiple rounds into any perp if your life is threatened.
By your logic Paul Tibbets and anybody else who caused civilian or child casualties is not a decent person or anyone who made an honest mistake, which is what the Lopez incident was.
By the letter of the law and the evidence before us, there was no wrong doing.
“He went back on active duty last December — less than 2 months after the killing — and has been trolling the streets ever since.”
No. He is assigned administrative duties. It has been cited in a few articles.
Were there any reports of shots being fired beforehand by the 13 year old that would make the cop fear for his life? Did the 13 year old fire any shots at the cop? Did the 13 year old have a prior to gun violence that was known by the cop? Did the cop give the kid the benefit of doubt?
Here’s a link to the DA’s 51 page report. I’ve skimmed through it. It includes witness statements, a toxicology report for the deceased, laws concerning replica guns (Andy was breaking the law in that regard.), the laws applicable to the police officer, a legal analysis and conclusion why the officer shouldn’t be charged.
http://sonomacounty.ca.gov/documents/da/2014/andy-lopez-information.pdf
I do not know, and neither does anyone here. The investigators for the police department should have looked into those things, and until I see something different, I will stand by what I said. You go running around a neighborhood with what looks like a real gun, scaring somebody who calls the police, then lifting it toward the police, you will probably get shot.
No one reading this would do that with their weapons, open carry or not. There has to be some common sense when carrying any kind of weapon, especially one which could be mistaken for something really deadly.
Finally, could the cop have acted in a more deliberate manner? Yes, he could have, especially if he was a war veteran. But I was not in his position, hearing what was said on the radio, and being in that neighborhood. Again, if more information comes out, my opinion might change.
Those were pretty basic questions I asked you.
And I answered. I do not know, and neither does anyone here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.