13 year old boy gunned down by deputies...

[RockofStrength]

I find the situation tragic to be sure, but I still have a hard time blaming someone for firing at anyone who pointed something strongly resembling a real weapon at them. As for the child's age...guess what, young'uns can shoot too. Before someone blows my comment into "cops should shoot at anyone every time they feel threateneded!!!@!@@!" there is a difference between "threatened" and "pointed at with a weapon", and the kid crossed that line. If this were a civilian, no matter how well or poorly trained, I would call it a sad and unfortunate, but logical shoot. I say the same for the officer.

 

[netsecurity]

Police One's announcement of Gelhaus returning to work has some enlightening comments.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152127051424740

You left out this one:

Kaotick Mind I got a ****ing problem with you ignorant ****s thinking laws don't apply to you. Follow the ****ing facts and you'll find the gun was never pointed in his direction. He shouted a command, the kid started turning around and officer ****wad unloaded. The proof is in the autopsy, bullet wounds in the right wrist from an angle that proves he was never facing the officer. Lrn2research instead of blindly watching you're fellow gangsters back!

And...

Victor Dellabarba "The lawsuit states that Gelhaus had a string of reckless incidents dating back to 1995, when he shot himself in the leg during a stop and search involving a teenager. Then a year later, he allegedly pointed his firearm at a woman who was holding her young son, reports the station."


This is who you thugs are applauding.

 

[rambone]

I find the situation tragic to be sure, but I still have a hard time blaming someone for firing at anyone who pointed something strongly resembling a real weapon at them. As for the child's age...guess what, young'uns can shoot too. Before someone blows my comment into "cops should shoot at anyone every time they feel threateneded!!!@!@@!" there is a difference between "threatened" and "pointed at with a weapon", and the kid crossed that line. If this were a civilian, no matter how well or poorly trained, I would call it a sad and unfortunate, but logical shoot. I say the same for the officer.

You're taking the shooter's story as undisputed fact.

The innocent kid, walking home, turned around and pointed his rifle at a cop... says the cop who's freedom depends on people believing that. Maybe that's true. Maybe not. We'll never know.

However, the autopsy shows he was shot in the buttock... in the back.



Andy Lopez Update: Family of Calif. teen shot dead while carrying fake rifle sues county, deputy - CBS News

Casillas said the family had a private autopsy done on Andy's body that called into question Gelhaus' version of events, in which he told investigators he fired after Andy raised the barrel of the rifle toward the deputies, reports the station.

Casillas reportedly said the trajectory of the bullets that struck Andy show the boy did not point the gun at the deputies, and that Gelhaus continued firing even after the first bullet went through Andy's heart, causing him to fall to the ground.

Andy suffered seven gunshot wounds, while at least one other shot missed and struck a nearby home, Casillas said.

Autopsy: Santa Rosa boy shot 7 times | The Press Democrat

During Thursday's autopsy, Dr. Arthur Josselson with the Forensic Medical Group determined one of the fatal bullets entered the right side of Lopez's chest and a second fatal wound was caused by a bullet that entered his right hip, Henry said.

Lopez was also wounded on his right wrist, left bicep, right forearm, right buttocks and right hip, all non-fatal injuries, Henry said. The doctor recovered three bullets from the body.

 

[SteveM4A1]

In light of the autopsy, I would say the chance of this being a logical shoot is small.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Sonoma County District Attorney announces no criminal charges: Sonoma County D.A.: No criminal charges for sheriff's deputy in Andy Lopez shooting | The Press Democrat

 

[Denny347]

Sonoma County District Attorney announces no criminal charges: Sonoma County D.A.: No criminal charges for sheriff's deputy in Andy Lopez shooting | The Press Democrat

It's pretty much what I was figuring.

 

[sopwith21]

Textbook self-defense.

It does not have to be a real gun.

Don't point toy guns at the police. Don't point toy guns at your students. Point guns or toy guns then deadly force should be EXPECTED.

That's fine so long as the rules apply both ways. If a cop dares to point a gun at a citizen - even a toy gun or a taser - deadly force in return should be EXPECTED... right?

 

[sopwith21]

Sonoma County District Attorney announces no criminal charges

Wow. Police cleared after shooting teen in the back. Imagine that.

Didn't see that one coming (sarcasm).

 

[sopwith21]

I still have a hard time blaming someone for firing at anyone who pointed something strongly resembling a real weapon at them.

If an officer points "something strongly resembling a real weapon" in my general direction, do I have your blessing to blow them into next week with a tidal wave of lead from me and my five best friends? Or do your principles only apply to those wearing government costumes?

 

[Indy317]

That's fine so long as the rules apply both ways. If a cop dares to point a gun at a citizen - even a toy gun or a taser - deadly force in return should be EXPECTED... right?

If an officer points "something strongly resembling a real weapon" in my general direction, do I have your blessing to blow them into next week with a tidal wave of lead from me and my five best friends? Or do your principles only apply to those wearing government costumes?

Given these comments, I would have to say your totally against any sort of 'rule of law' and side with the 'there should be no laws' anarchist line of thinking? If you believe there should be at least some laws enforcement by government, then shouldn't the state agents who enforce the more dangerous of those laws be able to put a dangerous person at gunpoint for their safety, or do you feel all police should be disarmed?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

If a cop dares to point a gun at a citizen - even a toy gun or a taser - deadly force in return should be EXPECTED... right?

Why is the cop pointing the gun? Unintentional act? Arrest? Self-defense? Why?

 

[Denny347]

If an officer points "something strongly resembling a real weapon" in my general direction, do I have your blessing to blow them into next week with a tidal wave of lead from me and my five best friends? Or do your principles only apply to those wearing government costumes?

Why would I be pointing a toy gun at you in uniform? If I'm pointing my handgun at you then I have a VERY good reason and it will likely end poorly...for you.

 

[Thor]

I hesitate engaging in this (really old) conversation but self defense works both ways...much as the assumption of guilt should.

.45-70 may be the only government I trust but that just means I need to verify.

If a police officer pulls a weapon on you unprovoked or under some sort of mental duress then of course you can and should defend yourself.

If you point a weapon like object at a policeman expect to be shot in response.

I think we must assume that the person acting like a lunatic with a gun is indeed a lunatic and needs to be stopped before things go bad.

If the kid didn't understand English it's just another reason to make it the official language...helps alleviate a lot of confusion.

 

[Denny347]

That's fine so long as the rules apply both ways. If a cop dares to point a gun at a citizen - even a toy gun or a taser - deadly force in return should be EXPECTED... right?

Don't be mad but NO. Unless the officers are 100% illegal, no. I can arrest you, you cannot arrest me. I can detain you, you cannot detain me. I can point a gun at you, you cannot (with exception to a very narrow window allowed by law) point one back.

 

[Thor]

Don't be mad but NO. Unless the officers are 100% illegal, no. I can arrest you, you cannot arrest me. I can detain you, you cannot detain me. I can point a gun at you, you cannot (with exception to a very narrow window allowed by law) point one back.

And don't be mad...but if you draw on me or my family and I feel that you did so because you've become mentally unstable and are about to kill us for no good reason there will be a response. I've seen too many instances where folks just draw and start shooting because they can.

But it's all contextual, I can't under most circumstances think why you WOULD draw on me...law abiding citizen and what not. In fact in most instances I would imagine that if we both had weapons out they'd be pointed in the same direction.

 

[Denny347]

And don't be mad...but if you draw on me or my family and I feel that you did so because you've become mentally unstable and are about to kill us for no good reason there will be a response. I've seen too many instances where folks just draw and start shooting because they can.

But it's all contextual, I can't under most circumstances think why you WOULD draw on me...law abiding citizen and what not. In fact in most instances I would imagine that if we both had weapons out they'd be pointed in the same direction.

Really? I would imagine it was an exceedingly rare incident but perception is reality I guess. I don't know you but I would think it will likely never happen. All I am saying that I only draw and point when needed so if the person in my sights feels they need to respond to me, it's gonna get messy. It isn't like the movies where there the officer and suspect are standing there pointing their handguns at each other in a standoff. Total movie bull**** that people think is real. If I have my handgun pointed at you and you draw, I fire. If you have your handgun out and I need to draw on you, I find cover and engage if needed.

 

[Thor]

Really? I would imagine it was an exceedingly rare incident but perception is reality I guess. I don't know you but I would think it will likely never happen. All I am saying that I only draw and point when needed so if the person in my sights feels they need to respond to me, it's gonna get messy. It isn't like the movies where there the officer and suspect are standing there pointing their handguns at each other in a standoff. Total movie bull**** that people think is real. If I have my handgun pointed at you and you draw, I fire. If you have your handgun out and I need to draw on you, I find cover and engage if needed.

Likely not, I think we're mostly in violent agreement here.

And while rare, really but never in IN. Just one more reason I'm glad to live here.

 

[ModernGunner]

Well, so much for marijuana (as well as other drugs) being a 'victimless crime'. Be curious to know WHERE the young man got the pot?

It's a tragedy but, apparently, it was a justifiable shooting. Certainly the AK shown in the article looks real enough, especially with the orange tip removed.

Kid high on pot, raises up and points a firearm that has all the appearance of being an actual AK, and gets killed.

The whole "so we can shoot cops if they point a gun at us for any reason" rhetoric is simply too stupid to warrant a response, sorry.

 

[TopDog]

I hesitate engaging in this (really old) conversation but self defense works both ways...much as the assumption of guilt should.

.45-70 may be the only government I trust but that just means I need to verify.

If a police officer pulls a weapon on you unprovoked or under some sort of mental duress then of course you can and should defend yourself.

If you point a weapon like object at a policeman expect to be shot in response.

I think we must assume that the person acting like a lunatic with a gun is indeed a lunatic and needs to be stopped before things go bad.

If the kid didn't understand English it's just another reason to make it the official language...helps alleviate a lot of confusion.

+1

Nuff' said.

 

[1911ly]

Well, so much for marijuana (as well as other drugs) being a 'victimless crime'. Be curious to know WHERE the young man got the pot?

It's a tragedy but, apparently, it was a justifiable shooting. Certainly the AK shown in the article looks real enough, especially with the orange tip removed.

Kid high on pot, raises up and points a firearm that has all the appearance of being an actual AK, and gets killed.

The whole "so we can shoot cops if they point a gun at us for any reason" rhetoric is simply too stupid to warrant a response, sorry.

I would imagine an officer has a really small window in which to determine whether a gun is real or not. Point something that looks like a gun at an officer and you are likely to get shot. I doubt seriously that this kid couldn't understand simple commands like halt, stop or drop. And I seriously doubt this cops goal was to just kill a kid. I'd guess the officer was stopping what he interpreted as a threat.

I can only imagine what goes threw an officers mind in the second before he pulls the trigger. I hope to never be in that situation. And I know I have enough common sense to not to put a officer in a situation that would require him having to make that decision.

Prying the orange indicator off the end of a toy gun and not following directions is the cause of this incident. I guess the boy should have been taught better.