Posted on 10/26/2013 1:04:01 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Then tell me what this sentence means:
“They’ve also explained that the veteran deputy who opened fire believed Lopez was about to point the replica assault rifle at him.”
What exactly do the words "believed Lopez was about to point ..." mean in the English language.
I’d say it means you’re relying on third hand information to form your opinion.
I’m also fairly certain the command “drop the gun” doesn’t mean “turn around and point it at me” either.
What I quoted was the article which came from the police.
What are you relying on??? the same flawed imagination the cop used???
I’m also fairly certain the command “drop the gun” doesn’t mean “turn around and point it at me” either.
Where did I miss the command "Don't turn around" and where does it say in any report that the gun was pointed at him???
No, you're relying on a reporter's written interpretation of what a police spokesman says the deputy involved said, and using it to form your opinion.
Can you think of any reason why a member of the SF area media would try to cast a negative light on the police involved by mischaracterizing their statement?
Why not wait until the investigation is completed before making a judgment?
Please check Post 204 for information and links to the facts of the case. There is a lot of official information out there and a lot of BS and speculation and outright falsehoods. The story was on the NBC Nightly News (including the quote referenced earlier from Ismael Mondragon), and even those guys did a better job of discussing it than some of the people in this thread. One great example is "he was shot in the back." No, he was not shot in the back according to the preliminary autopsy reports:
There were seven apparent entry wounds discovered in the body. Two of the wounds were determined to be fatal wounds. One of the bullets that resulted in a fatal wound entered the right side of his chest. The second fatal wound was caused by a bullet entering the right hip. There were non-fatal wounds on his right wrist, left bicep, right forearm, right buttocks and right hip. Three bullets were recovered in the body.
Does anyone see any entry wounds "in the back" on that autopsy report? I didn't either. That information may have come from this sentence in the original linked article:
Police also revealed that Lopez had his back to the deputies, so they didn't realize he was so young. He was wearing a hooded sweatshirt and shorts.
Another piece of BS being propagated here is those ten seconds. It's even posted in the very title of the thread, that supposedly Lopez was shot ten seconds after he was spotted. It is not necessarily a lie, since a lie means "stating something that you know to be untrue." But it's BS. Here's the timeline, from the same Santa Rosa PD official update page:
The timeline for this incident is as follows:
- 1514:15 hrs - Sonoma County Sheriff’s Dispatch created an incident of a suspicious person in the area of Moorland Ave. and West Robles Ave.
- 1514:19 hrs - The Deputies call for emergency assistance from other Deputies in the area
- 1514:25 hrs - The Deputies notify dispatch that shots have been fired
- 1514:41 hrs - Emergency medical advised to respond to the scene
The word "Incident" is copspeak, standard terminology for dispatchers. Each Incident is numbered, and every radio call from the cops in the field is logged, along with the time that it happened. The fact that there are minutes and seconds beside each radio call suggests that the information is being recorded on a computer, maybe using a Computer Aided Dispatch system. When a radio call comes in, the dispatcher will acknowledge it and then type the information into the computer. In this case, the dispatcher typed in the information and then hit "Enter" or whatever key is used to start a new Incident. The time of 1514 hours and 15 seconds is the time when the dispatcher created the Incident after typing in the information about "suspicious person spotted near the area of Moorland Avenue and West Robles Avenue. How long do you think typing that information took? We won't know until later, but suffice it to say that at least a few seconds elapsed between the time of the first radio call and the time that the dispatcher finished typing the information and hit "Enter." Each of those four entries is not the time of the radio call, but the time that the information was entered into the computer. We will know more as the investigation progresses, but one thing we do know is that any police agency of any size records the audio from their radio system along with a time stamp. So at some point we will hear the "dramatic audio" from the event and we will learn the exact elapsed time between the radio calls. So far, every MSM account I've read that talks about ten seconds, including the original linked article from the Daily Mail in the UK, has gotten this wrong.
Please, let's not propagate BS and then argue about it as though it were factual.
<>Why not wait until the investigation is completed before making a judgment?<>
You mean like this autopsy the results of which were reported accurately by the media and cited by me:
https://local.nixle.com/alert/5081815/
It’s even worse than first reported.
Let's say there is a 7 second delay between call-in and entry into the computer. Wouldn't that 7 second delay apply to all the times on the dispatcher's log? I don't get how this would increase the 10 seconds time period between report of sighting and report of shooting.
Am I reading that timeline correctly that Lopez was actually shot 6 seconds NOT 10 seconds after the police dispatch???
- 1514:15 hrs - Sonoma County Sheriff’s Dispatch created an incident of a suspicious person in the area of Moorland Ave. and West Robles Ave.
- 1514:19 hrs - The Deputies call for emergency assistance from other Deputies in the area
- 1514:25 hrs - The Deputies notify dispatch that shots have been fired
- 1514:41 hrs - Emergency medical advised to respond to the scene
The bullet to the right buttocks --
Is that the front right buttocks or the back right buttocks???
Which police department are you a member?
That timeline has now changed.
Instead of 10 seconds between the initial dispatch and the report of gunshots fired, it is now 6 seconds.
https://local.nixle.com/alert/5081815/
**2) Police took cover behind an open car door. An AK-47 will penetrate a car door—sometimes both doors—and almost every other part of a car body.
No big deal, but I’ve tested that. No full rounds penetrated both doors and no or round fragments penetrated the engine block (obviously) or the tail end of the vehicle.
Like the BS you have been feeding us here.
And now you're accusing the police of propagating BS by claiming that they posted a falacious timeline of the incident on their website???
Who do you think you're dealing with here -- Democrat voters???
That is an excellent point, something I hadn't considered. What struck me about the timeline was that the first item was about the creation of the incident in response to a radio call from the deputies, and the other three items were just about radio calls from the deputies. The computer would take a certain amount of time to open a new incident number, and then all subsequent calls from that patrol car would be logged under that incident until it was over. Using my Sheriff's Office radio codes, the log might look something like this, if the deputy's ID was 340K:
1514:15 340K 647A [suspicious person] MOORLAND/W ROBLES
1514:19 340K 905 [urgent assistance needed]
1514:25 340K 998 [deputy involved in shooting]
1514:41 340K NEED AMBULANCE [there's no radio code for this]
So it seems to me that it would take a few seconds more to type in the street names and have the computer create the incident than it would to type in the three-digit radio codes. I will be interested to see if I'm right when the actual radio log comes out.
Nope. They reported spotting him sometime prior to 1514:15, and reported the shooting at 1514:25.
Other entry wounds were documented in the right side of his chest and the right hip. If a person is standing with the right side of his chest and his right hip facing you, is the right buttock also visible?
Look at the date and time at the top of the article. That is the same article with the same timeline that was posted on Thursday October 24th, 2013 at 05:05 p.m. PDT. It hasn't changed since then. Please don't start making up more rumors.
When they spotted him is irrelevant.
The dispatch was made at 1514:19 -- 4 seconds later.
So within 6 seconds he opens the door, pulls his weapon, and fires 8 shots hitting his target 7 times.
When did he tell him to drop his weapon -- while he's shooting at him???
It's for instances like this that they coined the phrase "shooting him down like a dog."
So he was shot right hip, right buttock, right chest ....
Which means he was shot while he was in the process of turning around leading with the right side.
It's a little tough to point, aim, much less fire an AK47 or any rifle while turning like that, especially if he is right handed.
Am I on the right track 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.