Posted on 11/07/2013 5:34:51 AM PST by Uncle Chip
That doesn’t change the fact that the story, as given, doesn’t have enough info to place blame.
I agree with you that we don’t have ALL the facts and therefore we can’t find Gelhaus guilty, to a legal certainty, as of Nov. 7, 2013.
And, as I have commented before on this issue, I pretty much support the cops in terms of giving them “the benefit of the doubt” in the tough situations that they face daily.
Notwithstanding any of the foregoing though, I think we do have enough information to assign preliminary blame for this incident on “policy” of this police department and “training” at this police department in combination with an officer who has a tenuous record.
I for one do not believe that it should be “policy” of a police department to call it “legal” for a cop to open fire like this cop did. Let’s break one second into 1,000 parts. This cop fired at .1000 instead of .7500. Then, incredulously he just kept firing some ten more rounds into the kid! In other words, he appears to have shot a lonnnnngggggg time before he should have even if the kid had been armed which it turned out he was not. And, why did he keep on firing? Ultimately, Gelhaus will be found to have fired too quick but in a “policy” environment that encourages “shoot first” ask questions later.
Finally, a kid is dead that did not a damn thing wrong and that fact we do have today and it can’t be remedied by an apology or money or anything. He’s dead. And, Gelhaus will have to live with his concsience for the rest of his life which some would argue is a fate worse than death. I simply cannot imagine killing a 13 year old completely innocent kid! I think I would want to join him.
Besides that the Cop said the magic words "I was in fear for my life."
Free to empty the gun into a Kid with a toy gun.
“Notwithstanding any of the foregoing though...”
There is no information in the article concerning the ROE of the department in question, so I don’t see how you can blame “the policy”. Even if the jurisdiction has been sued in the past, it’d be like saying that because murder still occurs in the U.S., that murder is “policy” or legal.
Also, I don’t agree that the article makes the case for a “tenuous record”.
It indicates a false report in 96 where the partner got fired and not the officer in question here. So he’s to blame for his partner?
It also indicates that “Last week, area resident Jeff Westbrook came forward to say ...” which is interesting, but nothing about charges filed in that situation.
So, his partner getting busted 17 years ago and someone coming up to talk to a reporter investigating this is hardly what I’d call a tenuous record.
The other blurb in there about a 24 million verdict concerns another case won by the lawyer pressing this one.
There is also nothing in that article concerning 10 rounds fired. I count 2. When it says he continued to fire after the kid dropped, that “continue to fire” could simply be the second shot.
It seems to me this article is deliberately written to arouse anger without revealing the critical facts. If there had been 10 rounds fired, why not mention it?
As far as the tragedy of shooting an innocent 13 year old, I agree, but had this not been an innocent 13 year old, I wouldn’t have as much sympathy.
<>There is also nothing in that article concerning 10 rounds fired. I count 2. When it says he continued to fire after the kid dropped, that “continue to fire” could simply be the second shot.<>
He fired 8 times. 7 rounds hit him in the right side and buttocks. The first shot killed him. The rest were fired while he was on the ground.
You will find the facts in these posts so that there is no excuse for being unaware of the facts.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3088015/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3087714/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3087417/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3087193/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3086698/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3086672/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3086669/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3086671/posts
“there is no excuse for being unaware of the facts.”
Which is why I said:
“Not enough info in the linked story to make a call here, at least for me.”
If you knew this from the start, why didn’t you answer my first question:
“Was the cop just walking by, saw a kid playing w/a toy gun in his yard, told him to drop it and fire? Was he on a robbery call?”
If there’s no excuse for being unaware of the facts, what’s the excuse of the original poster for not providing them?
The article you link to makes it seem more like the cop’s to blame and would have been a better lead for this thread.
But I guess I shouldn’t say that because there may be other facts I may be unaware of...
Because the original poster is just that. He is not the original writer of the article.
Furthermore the poster is limited to posting no more than 300 words.
And he is not here to hold your hand and babysit you.
The poster assumes that the reader is capable of clicking on the link to read the article or clicking on a Keyword like "andy lopez, santa rosa" find background articles and background information.
Commenting without having the facts at hand is a "reflexive act" -- not a conscious effort.
And the commenter is just that too you know. If there is no duty on the part of the poster to provide relevant facts, there is no such duty on the commenter either.
If you want “informed” comments, try starting an “informed” article. You can elaborate on the 300 limit by following your original post with a comment of your own.
I’m not asking for babysitting, only people who can read english:
“Not enough info in the linked story to make a call here, at least for me”
Bye, troll.
Isn't that cozy?
.....the gut thesis of what I wrote was that as of today, we don’t have enough information to conclude to a “legal” certainty that Gelhaus was to blame. You raise several issues that bolster my case on that point.
The report on ten rounds I have definitely heard several times though it could be wrong too. Bottom line, we are going to have to wait for the investigative/prosecutorial process to run it’s course.
Where we differ is on the subject of “policy”, or “policies”. I believe that nation wide the “policy” for running up on a similar scene is that: “if an officer feels threatened he/she is justified to open fire and ask questions later”. If I am right on that, then I also believe that that is the wrong policy. If you support that policy, then you support more “scared” cops, “afraid for their own personal safety” rolling up on similar scenes in the future and just opening fire leaving more dead women kids and old men and the taxpayers stuck with the multi-million dollar bills.
I believe, as I have said previously on FR, that these cops who are scared out of their shoes (usually by their own admission) and there are many, need to go find another job. And, starting immediately, police departments need to realize and admit that not everyone is mentally equipped to be a cop and handle these type situations. We need cops that are not so scared when they encounter this scenario that their judgment goes right out the window and innocent people routinely (seems the rule, not the exception) end up dead. Just “opening fire” like this cop did is the wrong policy evidenced by one dead and innocent kid.
The REAL problem is and we all know it on FR that another “policy” is substantially at fault too and that is “hiring policy”. Cops are not hired because their big strong, tough, mean sum bitches with excellent thinking skills under duress (think Seals). They are hired because of their gender, sexual preference, ethnicity and so on which directly leads to these kind of incidences when you turn these type people loose on the street with a gun and a badge. It’s not a big mystery at all.
Bookmark to your links.
Is there anything happening here??? Has the DA made a decision???
Doesn’t seem so, from what I can find. I’m betting this drags on a long time.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/11/27/18746940.php
According to this page there were three eyewitness accounts. I hadn’t heard that before.
Yep and I’ll bet the DA has not even taken their statements.
Every piece of evidence in this case points to a murder charge and yet the DA is dragging her politically compromised feet.
It sounds like it.
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.