Posted on 07/11/2014 11:34:04 PM PDT by Rabin
Sonoma County Sheriff's Deputy Erick Gelhaus shouted then shot (dead 13-year-old Andy Lopez on October 22, 2013), Eric fired eight rounds. The hit / miss order can never be known. What is known is that Andy had failed to orange tip the bb-gun and that he never returned fire. Forensic indicate the 73 lb. perp took three 44 hollow points in the back and right side (falling?) plus four horizontals, head , neck lower...
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
The criticism is that the cops didn’t give the kid a chance to try and obey a lawfully given order. The cops gave the order and basically started unloading their weapons within a couple of seconds after the order. I’ve been yelled at by cops and I can tell you that it can take a second or two to process what you are being told to do, especially if you didn’t see the cops beforehand.
If the kid had raised the gun, apparently with the intent to fire, I wouldn’t be criticizing the cops. However, the kid knew he only had a pellet gun so it’s unlikely that he would have done that.
I agree with you. Cops are being trained as if our cities and towns are war zones and civilians are the enemies.
If cops can talk a gun-wielding mass murderer into surrendering, then why not negotiate with a 13-year-old who is not suspected of any crime?
* * *
We’re on the same wavelength!! I read that and thought the exact same thing. Also, another incident occurred some months earlier in Fountaingrove, a swanky area not too far from the more rural neighborhood where Lopez was shot. A man had actually fired shots and was threatening people, but the police took several hours and talked him down. Story here: http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20131010/articles/131019998
Now, two different sets of cops were involved. But the Santa Rosa cops took the time to make it all come out the best they could. Deputy Jumpy, in the Sheriff’s dept, just wanted a kill, if you ask me. (The other deputy did not fire any shots.) And this isn’t the first time the Sheriff’s dept. has had unnecessary kills. Oh, and just to make it all cozy, the D.A. and the Sheriff are apparently BFF’s. She was the introductory speaker at a big fundraiser for him. So she’s clearly, like, completely unbiased.
An AK round will not be stopped by a car door, so you have no cover, and can take less chances, if you are a cop facing an AK.
Witness #4 stated that he drove by the kid moments before and warned the kid about the police coming up behind him, and told the kid to throw the rifle away. The kid paid no attention.
Can’t wait to see if it’s a real AK when you have no cover.
The cops were behind their cruiser doors when they gave the order. Few people are so good a shot that they can shoot accurately just by turning around and cocking their weapon.
So the police should shoot on sight any armed civilian?
The cop is guilty of murder in reality even if the “justice system” lets cops off.
This is an article about the “unbiased” “scientist” the D.A.’s office used to justify this shooting:
http://www.citypages.com/2010-04-28/news/bill-lewinski-defends-cops-accused-of-excessive-force/
Bill Lewinski defends cops accused of excessive force
There are no 11 round .44 pistols on the market.
Given the report, the evidence, and the witnesses, no grand jury would indict, and no trial jury would convict, imo.
Well, no one was shot in the back this case.
Well, you go ahead and wait then, I wouldn’t. You can certainly make your own decision.
“There are no 11 round .44 pistols on the market.”
I think that was a joke regarding the original post.
There were no .44 caliber pistols involved in the story.
My guess is that the Daily Mail article was corrected.
So it’s ok to kill anyone carrying an ak? What about an ar? What about a deer rifle?
“Isn’t it curious.....”
We need “Like” and “Share” buttons for posts like yours.
These are my exact sentiments, and I’m sure there are many others who think the same way. But more people need to get the message; the cops’ ROE and the military’s ROE are backwards.
Sorry. I understand now.
Given the report, the evidence, and the witnesses, no grand jury would indict, and no trial jury would convict, imo.
* * *
You may well be right. However, it’s my contention that the D.A. should have turned the whole thing over to another agency (as she was asked to, but refused) given her well-known cozy relationship with local LEOs, specifically the Sheriff.
There was a time when officers put the safety of the public before their own. It was considered part of the job.
Not anymore.
Consider what would happen to you if you were the one who killed this kid because you thought he “had a gun”?
Why are you held to a higher standard than the police?
I bet you believe all those reports that the Obama administration puts out about how they investigate themselves and find nothing wrong,too.
Seriously? You would murder a child in cold blood rather than wait to find out if he was actually a threat? At least it's okay with you that Jonty30 wouldn't stoop to that level. This is not the difference between butter pecan and strawberry ice cream. All choices are not valid.
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.