Cops 'shot 13-year-old boy carrying toy rifle' only 10 SECONDS after first spotting him

dailymail.co.uk ^ | , 26 October 2013 | DAVID MCCORMACK, ASSOCIATED PRESS REPORTER and RYAN GORMAN

[moonshinner_09]

Cops took no more than 10 seconds to fire six or seven shots into the body of dying teenager Andy Lopez after seeing him with a toy pellet gun. Mr Lopez was spotted by deputies on Tuesday afternoon in Santa Rosa, California, carrying the toy rifle, which they mistakenly thought was a real assault weapon. The time that elapsed between when officers reported the sighting to dispatch and then reported shots fired was only 10 seconds. Hundreds of local residents marched on Wednesday night to remember the popular teen and protest at the senseless shooting. They chanted 'We need justice' as they questioned how the deputies could mistake a pellet gun for an assault rifle.According to a police statement, Lopez was twice instructed to put down his weapon, officers opened fire after he failed to comply - only 10 seconds later. Sixteen seconds later, the cops radioed for medical assistance. Ethan Oliver, who lives across the street, told KTVU.com that the deputies continued to shoot at the boy, even after he had fallen to the ground. Oliver said he went outside after hearing two gun shots and by that time Lopez was already on the ground. ‘Then the cops went at it again and unloaded like six to seven shots,’ he said.When asked if he meant that the deputy shot Lopez while he was on the ground, Oliver said, ‘Yeah. Exactly what I saw.’ Authorities haven't responded to his claims, but it raises the possibility that Lopez was still alive when he hit the ground after the first two shots were fired.

[rdcbn]

The fact is the cops didn't think, they shot first.
A 13 year old with basically a toy gun.

There is no justification.

It turns out AK-47s with a sawed off barrel are all the rage with the teen aged gangster spray and pray who are committing a lot of the gangland drug related murders .

Let me ask for those statistics, how many people in this country have been shot by an AK-47? Must be thousands and thousands....

---

I will wait for the facts to become public before forming an opinion either way. Looks like a hard case with exceptional circumstances.

In answer to your question on the number of AK used in homicides, the number is less that 25 in a year when there were around 14,500 homicides- less than the number of people who were killed by being struck by lightning in the same time frame.

Use of rifles of any kind in killings (or any other crime for that matter) is very, very rare and many more people are killed with knives or bare fists than are killed by rifles.

[GeronL]

SO this rampant all the rage gang weapon is not so rampant.

[Gene Eric]

Paraphrasing? You gave an opinion based on fragments of the story.

Here are three fragments from the article, not paraphrased, but verbatim and certainly not sympathetic to the message you’re conveying:

“police took no more than 10 seconds to open fire on Lopez after seeing him with a toy pellet gun.”

“According to police, two Sonoma County deputies were on patrol at 3 p.m. when they observed the boy walking with what they believed to be a rifle”

“They claim Lopez was about 20 to 30 feet from them”

[Tarantulas]

Just wanted to pass on what our local rag related: that the two deputies were a trainer and a trainee. The trainer did all the shooting; the trainee, none.

Discussion is always better when we have all of the facts. The fact that only one deputy fired is very important. This article says the same thing:

A deputy ordered the teen to drop the gun. As Lopez turned, the barrel of his BB gun pointed toward the officers, according to investigators. The senior deputy fired eight shots at the boy, hitting him seven times, police said.

The other deputy, also a veteran law enforcement officer but new to the Sheriff's Office, faced the same split-second decision and chose not to fire.

Here is an excellent article that talks about what I've always heard called "sympathetic fire" but they call "reflex fire:"

When an officer joins a fire fight in progress, the justification for firing cannot be simply that other officers were shooting, too. Each officer must be able to show that his or her shooting was reasonable, under the Fourth Amendment.

The justification may be, for example, self-defense or defense of fellow officers or others, or to prevent the escape of a dangerous suspect, or to stop the flight of a minor offender whose evasive actions are threatening the public safety. Targeting another with deadly force must be a reaction to articulable, perceived danger - not merely a conditioned reflex to the sound of gunfire.

The bold text is very important. The training of every law enforcement officer in the country for the past 20 years has included the Supreme Court case of Tennessee v. Garner. In that case, a Memphis police officer fired at a fleeing burglary suspect, a legal action at that time under Tennessee state law. The single shot killed the 15 year old suspect, his father sued the city, and SCOTUS ruled as follows:

Notwithstanding probable cause to seize a suspect, an officer may not always do so by killing him. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead.

SCOTUS defined the circumstances under which deadly force would be considered unconstitutional, and more importantly, established the circumstances under which deadly force could be used. The latter is now a part of law enforcement training for every officer in the US.

Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given.

Initial training and annual "shoot/don't shoot" decision-making requalification requires a law enforcement officer to be able to articulate the reason why he fired. The officer needs to be able to explain to the trainer during training (or to the investigation board or to a jury of his peers after an actual shooting) the reason for every time he pulls the trigger. The deputy who fired said that Lopez turned and pointed the gun at him. But the other deputy didn't fire. This says to me that in the second deputy's mind, there was no "articulable, perceived danger." You can be sure that the training about Tennessee v. Garner was part of the split second decision he made. None of us were there, so we don't know why, but the reason why only one deputy fired will be a very important part of this investigation. Maybe his view was blocked or he didn't see the gun...or he realized it was a toy. Let's wait and see what his reasoning was before we string them both up in the court of public opinion.

This article from a local NBC TV station has some valuable links and other information not included in the original linked article. In addition to this statement from the Santa Rosa Police Department (note that Lopez was not shot in the back as some folks here have been saying), the following eyewitness statement is significant:

Ismael Mondragon told NBC Bay Area that he saw Andy moments before he was killed with the gun in his hand. Mondragon said he warned the boy to get rid of such a real-looking weapon.

"I saw him with that rifle in his left hand," Mondgragon said. "And I said, 'Throw that thing away, the police are right behind you.' "

If this statement is true, then Lopez knew that the deputies were behind him. We will never know why he didn't do the smart thing and put the gun down right then, but he made a bad decision by continuing to carry it. Now one of the comments in the NBC TV story says this:

The parents and family want to blame the police, but they are the ones who gave him the gun as replica retailers do not sell to persons under 18 years old.

Is this true in California? Finally, page one of the Press Democrat article (surprisingly even-handed for an MSM source) has a photo gallery with clearer photos of the Airsoft gun compared to a real AK-47:

From a distance of 3-4 feet away, you can kind of see from the side view that the Airsoft gun has some parts that are translucent. From a distance of 20-30 feet, I'm not sure those parts would be visible in the split second when the muzzle is pointing at you and you're trying to decide whether you're about to be shot.

[Tarantulas]

Wonderful post, and thank you for taking the time to write it. As I understand it, the body count in Chicago is actually higher than in Afghanistan. I don’t know what the casualty numbers are in Santa Rosa, but from what some people here are saying, it’s no urban paradise.

[Gene Eric]

>> The fact is the cops didn’t think, they shot first.
>> A 13 year old with basically a toy gun.

Apparently, the cops in their cruiser approached the kid within 30 feet. Maybe their shades were too dark, or the Sun was in their eyes.

We deserve better LEOs. Triple the pay, no pensions, no immunity, 130+ IQ, and a degree in Constitutional law. And there will be fewer stories like this one.

[Gene Eric]

>> but I was and continue to be very offended by the comments that these officers were blood thirsty psychopaths bent on killing poor children

Your hyperbole demonstrates your ignorance.

[rdcbn]

SO this rampant all the rage gang weapon is not so rampant.

---

The stats speak for themselves - rifles of all types are very, very rarely used to commit crimes of any type.

I think the issue here is that the police responded to a weapons call and saw a person dressed to fit the gang banger profile carrying a replica of an AK-47 with a sawed off barrel that was indistinguishable under the circumstances from a real, functional sawed off barrel AK , the mere possession of which is a felony with a 10 year prison sentence.

They made a snap, on the spot decision based on this scenario.

This type of sawed off barrel AK is a big time status symbol in the gangster subculture, which may have been the reason the young man may have modified his pellet gun to look exactly like the real thing.

That’s a fact.

In this case, he may have unfortunately done too good of job making his toy look like the real deal.

That’s tragic for all concerned.

[GeronL]

the mere possession of which is a felony with a 10 year prison sentence.

A snap decision that 10 years wasn't good enough for them

[rdcbn]

>> but I was and continue to be very offended by the comments that these officers were blood thirsty psychopaths bent on killing poor children

Your hyperbole demonstrates your ignorance.

---

Read the threads.

I think I accurately captured the content and the hyperbole conveyed by those comments.

[zeestephen]

Sorry, boys.

I like the Police.

I like being protected.

When I grew up, the Police would kick your ass for misbehaving.

If you told your Dad, your Dad would kick your ass a second time for getting in trouble with the Cops.

If you don’t like Cops, don’t break the law.

Simple solution to a simple problem.

[Gene Eric]

Your adoration for the police is irrelevant. I don’t hate cops, but that’s not relevant either.

I guess you’re done with the “paraphrasing”. Like I said, you sound like an idiot, not to say you are.

[Popman]

We deserve better LEOs.

Yes, we do

Triple the pay, no pensions, no immunity, 130+ IQ, and a degree in Constitutional law.

LOL...are you kidding...right ?

We seemed to have lots of LEO in the not to distance past who were average people, lots of vets, who were called to serve their community by policing based on the idea of "serve and protect"

You don't need a 130 IQ nor a degree in Constitutional law...to do that...

I don't really understand the underlining cause of what happened to almost every major police dept in this country, they are no longer police officers, but rather agents of revenue and para military jack booted thugs...

[driftdiver]

Was it an AK47?

A key test of the training is if their decisions under stress are correct.

[driftdiver]

“Anyone who thinks the world is just the same as it was fifty years ago is delusional. The same applies to anyone who thinks policing is the same now as it was back then.”

You’re right, the overall violent crime rate is lower now.

[driftdiver]

So open carry warrants the death penalty?

[Uncle Chip]

And if Andy Lopez was your son, shot and killed while carrying a toy gun, something for which there is no law against, how would you feel then???

[driftdiver]

“Our police officers are dealing with situations on the street that are every bit as bad as our troops had to deal with in Iraq and in some of our cities the body count is actually higher than it was in Iraq. “

Its people killing other people and all the cops do is the paperwork. They do enjoy ROE significantly weaker then the troops though.

[gitmo]

Another resounding success for Zero Tolerance policies.

[doorgunner69]

These guns are not toys, they are serious weapons that arms manufactures have spent many years and many millions of development dollars to develop into the most effective weapons possible.

Is that you, Diane Fineswine?