13 year old boy gunned down by deputies...

[phylodog]

How is the evidence the evidence? I don't know how to respond to this?

It boils down to prejudice. Had this been a citizen defending themselves there are many who would take their statements at face value and consider it done. Since it was LE there are some willing to take their statements as fact and consider it done. Between the two you will find the law which is designed to exclude prejudice in favor of truth and justice. May not be perfect but it's what we've got and I've not seen a better alternative.

 

[schafe]

What? Is everyone listening to Alex Jones now?

How is the evidence the evidence? I don't know how to respond to this? Is this sarcasm?



I am stunned. So evidence does not matter? We ignore the rule of law?

If you have a bias against the police, fine, but tell me how the police are not telling the truth. You are making the accusation, you may cross exam now.

BTW, it does not matter if the boy raised the rifle or not, it matters what the reasonable person would perceive.

Now I'm stunned, Kirk! 88 is referring to simple lying...purjury in the sworn context. I can't imagine you truly believe any good investigation of these kinds of incidents be based on the assumption that anyone is incapable of lying. Sure, a LEOs testimony is weighty, but not beyond investigation, right? (eg. D. Bisard case)
Maybe another trip to the coffee maker this morning?

 

[HoughMade]

Who said anything about not investigating?

 

[Lunati]

This will get interesting!

 

[schafe]

Who said anything about not investigating?

Nobody, including me! As a matter of fact, my post assumes an investigation.

 

[netsecurity]

Sure they saw a child with a gun on the street, and went in for a closer inspection, no problem. But why did they ASSUME it was real and instantly engage him? Why didn't they observe, since no one seemed to be threatened by the kid. Why didn't they take note of his body language? Was he pulling the trigger and making sounds with his mouth (pew pew)? Why didn't they take the time?

Secondly, using their powers of observation, shouldn't they have been able to identify a toy gun? Even if the orange tip was missing, shouldn't they have taken a second to identify the weapon, considering it was a 13 year old child carrying it playfully, and no shots had been fired?

This is just terrible police work. It's disgusting. Kirk, I agree with you most always, but not this time. If the kid was Mexican there is another reason to suspect that he doesn't understand your commands, and another reason to hold your fire. In this case, it was the cops imagination that spun out of control.

 

[Destro]

Sure they saw a child with a gun on the street, and went in for a closer inspection, no problem. But why did they ASSUME it was real and instantly engage him? Why didn't they observe, since no one seemed to be threatened by the kid. Why didn't they take note of his body language? Was he pulling the trigger and making sounds with his mouth (pew pew)? Why didn't they take the time?

Secondly, using their powers of observation, shouldn't they have been able to identify a toy gun? Even if the orange tip was missing, shouldn't they have taken a second to identify the weapon, considering it was a 13 year old child carrying it playfully, and no shots had been fired?

This is just terrible police work. It's disgusting. Kirk, I agree with you most always, but not this time. If the kid was Mexican there is another reason to suspect that he doesn't understand your commands, and another reason to hold your fire. In this case, it was the cops imagination that spun out of control.

Do you have any evidence that law enforcement did not attempt what you have stated?

 

[Lunati]

Do you have any evidence that law enforcement did not attempt what you have stated?

I'm on board with netsecurity, if you would have read the article a witness states that they heard sirens and about 7 seconds later heard shots fired. Doesn't seem like much time to "observe."

 

[Kirk Freeman]

. I can't imagine you truly believe any good investigation of these kinds of incidents be based on the assumption that anyone is incapable of lying.

Yes, there will be an investigation. We shall see if there is evidence to the contrary. HOWEVER, everything that I have read has screamed clean shoot.

If there is evidence that the police are lying, please bring it forward.

Secondly, using their powers of observation, shouldn't they have been able to identify a toy gun? Even if the orange tip was missing, shouldn't they have taken a second to identify the weapon, considering it was a 13 year old child carrying it playfully, and no shots had been fired?

I cannot imagine holding the police, or armed DNHB to that standard.

If someone is pointing a gun at you, you don't have a second.

The police, or anyone else, do not have to wait until the shooting starts in order to exercise lawful self-defense.

This is just terrible police work. It's disgusting. Kirk, I agree with you most always, but not this time. If the kid was Mexican there is another reason to suspect that he doesn't understand your commands, and another reason to hold your fire. In this case, it was the cops imagination that spun out of control.

Police work? No, this is self-defense which applies regardless of the job that they are doing.

Does not understand your commands? So, he sees you in a police uniform and yelling and his response is to point the AK at you and you do . . . what exactly?

One does not need to "hold his fire" if someone is pointing or about to point a gun at another. Where are these Martian rules of self-defense being grafted on to the law???

BTW, who is saying that the officers do not shout commands in Spanish? Heck, even the coppers on INGO know basic commands in Spanish.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Doesn't seem like much time to "observe."

Seven seconds not much time? It is an eon!

 

[schafe]

Yes, there will be an investigation. We shall see if there is evidence to the contrary. HOWEVER, everything that I have read has screamed clean shoot.

If there is evidence that the police are lying, please bring it forward.

I didn't mean to imply that their was any. As I understand the situation, I believe it was a good shoot.
But Ignoring the possibility of anyone lying in this investigation is folly.
I believe this is the basis of 88GT's remarks

 

[LarryC]

Sometimes the police are wrong and deserve criticism, to be sued or fired or criminal prosecution.

All the time MSN will lie to you.

From ABC News that I linked to:

Santa Rosa police said Wednesday that the deputies were on patrol Tuesday when they spotted the boy with the gun and repeatedly asked him to lower it. Instead, he raised it in their direction.

The rules of self-defense that apply to us apply to the police.

You need not know that it is a real gun. You need not wait until you are shot to defend yourself. The age of the lunatic pointing the gun at you does not matter.

Only in the Mad Hatter world of Alex Jones do these Martian rules of self-defense apply.

I'll call the police for stepping out of bounds, s**t fire, it is my job. But I will also defend the rule of law. The rule of law allows the officers to defend themselves.

Clean shoot. Textbook self-defense.

In this case I have to agree with you 100% (I do usually agree with your postings as they are well thought out and concise). The "gun" was NOT a TOY gun according to the article - instead it was a Pellet gun. A "Toy" gun does have an orange tip and is visually recognizable as a toy. While a pellet gun is not. If I were faced with a young man pointing a "gun" at me, I don't think I have to determine if it is a "pellet" or some caliber that may kill me before defending myself. Most everyone here would fire if this happened. And 99% of us would say it was a reasonable justified action if it were just an armed citizen that did this. I also hold the police to a higher standard as they have backup, training and communication citizens don't have - but I don't expect them to allow people to shoot them anymore than I expect a citizen to allow being shot before responding.

 

[ATM]

Seven seconds not much time? It is an eon!

It may seem like an eon if a kid is pointing an AK at you

...but it is a pretty short seven seconds if you [STRIKE]are[/STRIKE] were a kid just carrying a pellet gun down your street while being observed.

 

[LarryC]

I am sad the boy got shoot. I am not supporting or condeming anyone. That would be an incident that only an eye witness could judge.

One think that hag changed in my lifetime is that "real" firearms used to be easily discernable from toy firearms. Now with so many polymer firearms of every shape and size, the plastic toy guns do not look much different. The first FN 5.7 I ever saw didn't look real to me. If I had seen it on the sidwalk, I would have figured it was a kids toy. I know they shoot and function well. This factor HAS to make being a Peace officer more complicated during a stress situation.

I don't agree that the current toys look more realistic. All "toy" guns today have an Orange tip on the barrel. The gun the "boy" had was NOT A TOY according to the news article - it was a "PELLET" gun - these are not toys nor are they equipped with a orange tip. When I was a young boy about 60 years ago the Hopalong Cassidy and Gene Autry Style cap guns (along with many other brands / styles) were very realistic. No attempt was made at that time to make any visual difference - in most cases from 10 foot away the average person could not discern between a toy revolver or a 38 police special. Some of the BB rifles also were made to look very similar to a Winchester 30-30.

 

[BogWalker]

All I have to say is that's a pretty realistic looking toy gun. Do I know if the shooting was justified or not? No, I wasn't there, and by the way this has panned out the only people who truly do know were the LEOs on scene.

 

[ATM]

...Most everyone here would fire if this happened...

That's the same "if" I brought up.

 

[LarryC]

That's the same "if" I brought up.

So if this happened in your neighborhood, and a young man pointed the gun in the picture at you, would you shoot? And would you expect others to say you were lying about what happened? In most cases like this there is no witnesses or camera's covering the event. Would you expect to spend the rest of your life in jail? If I were on the Jury and this did come to a trial, I would certainly believe the two Police Officers with no other evidence being presented (just as I would believe you). I don't feel I have a bias toward or against police, sometimes they are wrong (they are human beings - just like the rest of the citizens). But in this case with no other evidence to the contrary, I would definitely side with the police.

I raised 6 children - five were boys and all had many toy guns - all were also taught how they were to be used and all were taught to respect and obey LEO's. I didn't nor do I now think any were ever in danger from any police officers. I am sure this action will be thoroughly investigated, and unless some contrary evidence is obtained, it will be considered a justified shooting.

 

[Glock19]

while carrying a "replica" plastic ak-47

Calif. Sheriff's deputies shoot, kill 13-year-old

doesn't say anywhere that he pointed it at them... just that they repeatedly told him to drop it and then opened fire...

Second paragraph...
Sonoma County sheriff's deputies had repeatedly asked the boy, Andy Lopez, to drop the weapon, but instead he raised it in their direction, police said at a news conference Wednesday.


I dont see a red tip or anything identifying it as a toy in the pic either. If the story is true then most people would have shot.

 

[BE Mike]

Sure they saw a child with a gun on the street, and went in for a closer inspection, no problem. But why did they ASSUME it was real and instantly engage him? Why didn't they observe, since no one seemed to be threatened by the kid. Why didn't they take note of his body language? Was he pulling the trigger and making sounds with his mouth (pew pew)? Why didn't they take the time?

Secondly, using their powers of observation, shouldn't they have been able to identify a toy gun? Even if the orange tip was missing, shouldn't they have taken a second to identify the weapon, considering it was a 13 year old child carrying it playfully, and no shots had been fired?

This is just terrible police work. It's disgusting. Kirk, I agree with you most always, but not this time. If the kid was Mexican there is another reason to suspect that he doesn't understand your commands, and another reason to hold your fire. In this case, it was the cops imagination that spun out of control.

In the real world a rifle is much more of a threat than a knife or handgun. One doesn't have to wait for shots to be fired to recognize a threat as life threatening and take action. Your comments are no more than Monday morning quarterbacking. Unless you have the training and experience to back up your conclusions, they have no worth. FYI, 13 year-olds can just as deadly as adults. You can bet your bottom dollar that these officers are extremely upset about this incident.

 

[ATM]

...In most cases like this there is no witnesses or camera's covering the event...

And that's why the surviving party's version generally stands whether it really happened that way or not, despite any skepticism.

However, sometimes they don't know about a video or witness and fabricated justifications are exposed, so we know it tends to happen.

If.