Outrage over the murder of Andy Lopez seems to have run its media course. And a short course it was. A few days.
Even while the gunblogosphere was spreading the news that a California sheriff’s deputy had assassinated a 13-year-old boy for walking down the street with an Airsoft gun, the story was already being dismissed. One of the more conservative gunbloggers sniffed (I paraphrase), “Too bad. But after all, he refused to obey a police command.”
Carl-Bear Bussjaeger blew that notion away with his terrible, moving, “10 Seconds to Die.” That poor kid, just minding his own business, was cut down before he even had a chance to comprehend what was demanded of him, what was happening to him.
Where has the outrage gone?
—–
The Deep Thought blog I didn’t manage to write last week was going to be about the state slowly delegitimizing itself through its bizarre combination of cruelty, ineptitude, self-righteousness, and self-pity. I was going to talk about puppycides, extra-judicial capital punishment (like that dealt to Andy Lopez by Sonoma County Deputy Sheriff Erick Gelhaus), and the pampering of thugs (as exemplified by the $38,000 settlement paid to Keystone Kampus Kop, John Pike for all the “suffering” he endured after methodically pepperspraying non-violent students).
I probably won’t get back to that topic, at least for a while. But the fate of Andy Lopez, and the way his story faded from the MSM, the Twitterverse, and the blogosphere with record speed weighs on me.
How quickly any one of us could be a page 27 story with the line “the subject was engaged and the threat was neutralized.” (The official line on little Andy Lopez.)
Conveniently for those California deputies, their squad car had no video or audio recording devices and apparently no bystanders were quick enough to lift their smartphones.
But Lopez’s murder reminded me of one that a Seattle cop committed in 2010. Here’s the video of brave policeman Ian Birk “engaging the subject and neutralizing the threat.” As Carl-Bear urges, think about what you’d do in the victim’s shoes. Could you give the cop what he wanted in time to avoid being shot in the back? Could you even understand that it was you he was barking at in the time given?
The ending of the Seattle story was typical. Birk left his job, even though the official investigation found that he had acted “in good faith and without malice.” City taxpayers forked over a $1.5 million settlement, punished for something they didn’t do. But neither the county prosecutor nor the feds brought any charges partly because Birk would have been able to make the legal argument that Seattle police training was at fault. And wouldn’t that have been embarrassing?
Something like that will probably happen now in Sonoma County.
And cops will go on blowing citizens away with impugnity. Until they day they’re made to pay real consequences.
Seattle – a Democrat toilet bowel that continues to back-up and provide such fine offerings as Gill Kerlikowski, Norm Rice, Gary Lock and so many more. All members of the Washington, D.C. scum pond now. I used to wish for the state of California to fall into the ocean. Now, I wish for the entire left coast to go that way…sorry, Claire and sorry also to much of Oregon.
I’ve wondered about these shootings. We know enough to stay alert when walking the street to avoid suspicious characters; but when cops are the characters to avoid… HOW TO DO IT, when they come after you?
In the John T. Williams case the attorney stated that now the police could continue to “do their job.” So what was the job that Birk was hired to do? Is there a law in Seattle that no one can carry a knife? (Re woodcarvers, they have their own recognizable profile — you can tell what he was doing by his action and concentration.)
And *how many cops does it take to recognize a dead man?* They all (I counted 10) waited to advance together. Did they think he was faking the entire time he was lying there?
Im going to guess that the issue of the lack of media outrage over Andy Lopez could be a combination of several things. Just guessing based on reading the article.
1. Police shootings of anything and everything are so common place that unless it is an african american being killed by a white cop, the media does not care.
2. As long as the local city councils, county supervisors, and police unions are democrat controlled the media will hardly care.
3. The child was hispanic in what I would guess is a largely hispanic area, shot by hispanic officers. Media looks at that as brown on brown violence similar to gang shootings and does not really care.
4. No way for the media or local political machine to gain from outrage so there is none.
5. Since Andy Lopez is hispanic the normal race-mongers (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton etc) have not even noticed.
6. Since it does not involve a large city they are trying to take political control of then La Raza does not care.
So, the only people that really care are those that have never stopped caring about police violence, murder, the police state that is upon us etc. Those very people maligned and hated by the media.
Claire,
Yes, the DA is quoted as saying in his statement not to pursue charges, “the officer acted, ‘in good faith and without malice.’”
But, (quoting from the link you provided)
An internal Seattle Police Department firearms board determined, “The officer did not have probable cause to believe the suspect if not apprehended posed a threat of serious harm to the officer or a threat of physical harm to others.” Additionally the board decided, “The actions of the officer contributed to the need to fire.” The firearms panel was critical of the fact that in the seven seconds between the time Birk exited the car and the shooting, Officer Birk closed to within ten feet of the suspect and failed to identify himself as a police officer. Birk was in full uniform and had parked his squad with his lights on, before approaching on foot.
The firearms board unanimously concluded Officer Ian Birk’s shooting of Williams was “unjustified.”
Birk resigned in February after Chief John Diaz stated in a press conference, “His decision to use deadly force did not conform to department policy.” (end quote)
In our circles, it’s fairly well known that “police officer” does not make the top ten (or even top twenty) most dangerous jobs lists; what with being beaten out by high risk jobs like roofer, fisherman, and convenience store clerk.
But cops do make the top ten on another list…
(I doubt that most of Claire’s readers will be terribly surprised by the other rankings.)
This was a tragic incident both for the teen who was shot and died and for the Peace Officer who shot the teen. It’s a different world we live in today as compared to the ’50’s and ’60’s. We use to take our hunting rifles to school in the back of our pick-up trucks, especially at opening day of deer season (if we were in school then and not “sick”). We spent many hours on the city streets playing cops and robbers and cowboys an Indians with realistic looking cap guns as we were growing up without any problems with the local Police. There are many young kids out there today who are gang members, killers, and sociopaths. The gang shootings in the area the teen was shot have been increasing at a dramatic rate. Gun shots are frequent in that area so carrying what looks like a real gun in a gang infested neighborhood is an open invitation to have the Police do a stop and search.
A person carrying what looks like an AK-47, which no police body armor without sapi plates can stop, is superior in firepower to anything the deputies were carrying. There were at least two commands to drop the rifle which were not complied with; the person started to turn the muzzle around toward the deputies and they had less that two seconds in which to make a life or death decision. Why didn’t the deputies recognize that the gun was a replica and not the real thing? One reason was that the colored cap used to signify a replica firearm was missing. Why did the teen remove the cap? Only he can tell you. With replica guns that look like real guns, and real guns looking like toy guns the officer today has 1 1/2 -2 seconds to make a decision on what action to take, http://www.policeone.com/officer-safety/articles/6557441-halloween-toy-guns-and-officer-safety/?source=newsletter%2F%2F
Some say the teen was just a kid who was a “good boy”. Unfortunately our society has bred many “good boys” into killers. Recently a 14 year old teen in Massachusetts beat his teacher to death; a young student in Arizona shot and killed a teacher and two others before killing himself; an 11 year old took a handgun with 400 rounds of ammunition to his school along with an assortment of knives and was stopped before he could do what he planned; and lest we forget there were many “good boys” who have been involved in school shootings over the past few years (the cause of which is the subject of another discussion). So age, or apparent age, is not a determinant as to whether a person is dangerous.
Finally we have the deputy who did the shooting. Was he a new officer without the background and knowledge that age and experience bring? No, Deputy Gelhaus has been on the job for 24 years. He is a master firearms instructor and trainer in the use of force and the law. He has been an Adjunct Instructor for many years at Gunsite, one of the premier firearms training academies in the world. And he has been a member of the Armed Services and has fought in the mid-east. So Deputy Gelhaus was not some trigger happy officer. He has been trained in how to make a judgement call and he did. If the AK-47 had been real there might well have been a different outcome to the shooting.
If the AK-47 had been real there might well have been a different outcome to the shooting.
If.
And if pig had wings and ice skates, they could do touch and goes in Hell now that it’s frozen over.
It wasn’t real. The boy wasn’t facing the Gelhaus. He wasn’t threatening anyone; he didn’t have time to do anything wrong.
Really, Blue? It’s all that different these days? Like you say, back in the ’60s kids used to carry toy (and sometimes real) guns. Now kids carry toy guns. Huh. That part doesn’t seem so different.
Of course, I was never shot from behind while carrying a toy gun back in the ’60s, so I guess something changed.
So how did you do in the test? Did you successfully obey the random, arbitrary, surprise order given by your friend from behind inside 4 seconds? Or did you “die”?
You — and the cops — say the kid was ordered to drop the “gun” twice. Given that the sheriff’s department says all this happened in less than ten seconds from the time the deputy keyed his mic to call in the report, were those “orders” an unintelligible “dropitdropitblamblamblamblamblamblamblamblam“? Heck, his partner didn’t have time to get out of the vehicle to support an action he knew about, but you think some unsuspecting kid should catch on quicker?
They say the deputy feared for his life…because some kids was walking away from him until he started screaming at the boy. Turning is terrifying. If you’re a psychopathic bully and coward.
True, open carrying a long arm — which the kid wasn’t doing — in the wrong area (quick! without looking it up, which areas are legal and which aren’t?) is a criminal offense. A misdemeanor. Not even a low level felony.
So tell me, Blue; when was the last time some young kid walking away from you with an open carried AK-pattern rifle suddenly turned around and shot at you, quite unprovoked? Oddly enough, that’s never happened to me; not even when I lived the in Chicago and LA areas. On the other hand, I have had a fellow cop do that to me with a shotgun. And a revolver. And…
So you tell us all about Gelhaus’ great training and experience… which somehow failed to to prevent him shooting a boy with a toy, from behind, in a matter of seconds (counting in the single digits!) for what he wrongly perceived as a possible misdemeanor. You expect sane people to find that reassuring?
But the real lesson the authorities want us peasants to learn is: Obey; unthinkingly, unquestioningly, instantly. No matter what, no matter who gives the order. Don’t stop to wonder if the master giving the order is your master. Or a mugger. Just obey. And remember that they are your masters now.
[Bear said it better, but I’ll post this anyway.]
“If the AK-47 had been real there might well have been a different outcome to the shooting.”
But it wasn’t.
Sorry, Glacier-Blue, but I can’t arrive at the same conclusion. It’s precisely because he was a veteran that he should have known how to evaluate the situation better.
You (and the media) have said that the boy turned toward the officer with rifle in hand. If that’s the direction the call came from, then he would have turned that way; it’s a natural response to see who’s calling, and he didn’t have time to process the order, or to know who was calling, before realizing he should lay the rifle down.
While cops do put themselves in danger, not all situations are dangerous, and they are obliged to know the difference. It’s a part of their job. It SHOULD be a part of their training (but obviously isn’t these days).
In medicine, every “emergency” is not life-or-death-threatening, often the “emergency” is a product of the patient’s immediate and unskilled evaluation. So it is in the cop’s world — and it’s becoming too apparent that many cops are afraid of “emergencies”, are afraid for their lives, and do not know how to evaluate a given situation. Frankly, I think anyone so fearful that they can’t do their job _correctly_ should get out of the business.
Hmmmmm…..I’m off to class in Seattle this week.
I wonder if it’d be okay for me to ignore all the traffic laws, so long as I do it “in good faith and without malice.”
It never ceases to amaze me that there are always people in this world who believe they are omniscient and godlike in their pronouncement of the evil or righteousness of a shooting. People who were not at the scene of the shooting, who don’t live anywhere near the scene of the shooting, and who don’t know the parties involved, are always talking as if they know what happened and who the guilty party was. It’s easy to play the Monday morning quarterback and even make grand statements on non-facts. And when the facts don’t suit your theory, the easiest avenue to take is to make ad hominem attacks on those who are not in lock step with your explanation of how things should be.
Society appears to be producing a small contingent of violent criminals who are ready to take on authority figures. There are gang members who are desperate not to return to prison and who will engage police officers. In 2011, 73% of the shooting deaths of officers were the result of ambush or surprise attacks. It is unfortunate that the teen died but he should not have been out on the streets in a gang area with a replica of an powerful rifle. Then there are those who say that the deputies should have waited until the person turned, aimed his rifle and fired before making a response. Because by then everyone would know that the rifle was real and the person was a killer. There was a witness who preceded the deputies who told the teen to drop his rifle, that the police were right behind him. But that was ignored by the teen.
As I stated earlier, it is unfortunate that the teen was shot and killed, but a great deal of the blame lies on his shoulders for carrying a replica firearm on the streets. The teens parents also bear some responsibility for allowing their kid to have a replica firearm and for roaming the streets with it, we are no longer in the ’50’s. We also don’t take responsibility for our actions anymore…we learn from our fearless leader, it’s always “the other guy”.
It never ceases to amaze me that there are some people still in this world that think killing an unarmed child is wrong. I wish there were more people like that in this world. A child walking down the street with a toy is not asking to be murdered. The burden of the murder is on the killer, unfortunately this killer is protected by the police and politicians.
It never ceases to amaze me that there are people in this world that can justify killing an unarmed child. It is never OK to kill an unarmed child. Saying, oops, do over, is not good enough.
uh Hello, Glacier-Blue,
The boy was shot in the back!
Let me repeat:
HE — WAS — SHOT — IN — THE — BACK!
Go lick some of your buddies badges. You are disgusting to make excuses for this type of (ever increasing) event.
It never ceases to amaze me that boys in blue (you are or were a cop, right?) will always run to the defense of their “brothers” no matter how egregious their actions.
What I want to know is when are you and your ilk going to show the same concern for the citizen’s right to “go home safely to their families” as you so show for your own? They do pay your bloated salary for the privilege of your “protection”!
Two questions, Glacier-Blue. First, did you try the test Carl-Bear proposed, and if so what was your result? Second, if an armed and well-trained, but non-uniformed, non-badged citizen had shot Andy Lopez under the same circumstances, what do you think the legal consequences might be?
Seems to me the safest play is to avoid the police under any and all circumstances. After all, most of us will react as normal humans react to stimuli (for example, a shouted “Hey you!” elicits our attention), and police in most metro (and many non-metro) areas unfortunately seem attuned to react to almost everything as if their lives are in immediate mortal danger.
So, if we stay the hell away from the cops, we are unlikely to make one of those innocent moves that gets us killed, and the unfortunate over-amped police officer is spared that 1 second of “OMG is this guy trying to kill me or blam-blam-blam-blam-blam-blam-blam-blam-blam-blam-blam-blam-blam-blam-blam-blam-blam.”
Yes, for the uninitiated, the cop was carrying a Glock 17.
A preface: I have written often of my disgust with this growing police state we’ve got. Public servants dressed up as soldiers, who much too often absolutely annihilate the Constitutions and the rights of citizens. When you train for a war, you want to apply your training. We see this way too often with the full-assault-mode no-knocks and the unlawful detentions these ego maniacs inflict.
That being said, with the evidence that’s been released to date, that is not what happened here.
First, the boy was not shot in the back. When he was approached by the deputies, he had his back to the officers.
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Santa-Rosa-Boy-Shot-7-Times-Autopsy-229183821.html
A total of eight rounds were fired, according to a statement put out Thursday by Santa Rosa Police Lt. Paul Henry, whose department is investigating the death. Seven hit the boy, and two were deemed fatal: One to the chest and the second to the hip. Other bullet wounds were found on his right wrist, left bicep, right forearm, right buttocks and hip.
He also ignored advice to not carry the replica around as he was. From the same news report –
Many in town, including Andy’s parents, are insisting that Andy was the type of boy who would listen to police. But other witnesses also said they heard police order the boy to drop his weapon.
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.’ ”
Perhaps evidence will surface that puts another spin on this, but I know that if someone were swinging around with an AK47 in my direction, I would be shooting well before the barrel was pointed at my chest.
One last thought: If this boy had been carrying a real, loaded AK47 (plus the pistol he had in his waistband), and the officer had done the exact same thing – especially considering the Sparks, NV shooting only a few days earlier – they’d be having a parade for the guy. The age of the shooter is irrelevant. It’s the actions that matter.
Glacier-Blue: Since you like 2011…
173 officers died in the line of duty in 2011; 68 by gunfire. That would make it 50 officers dead by “ambush or surprise attacks.”
Or does it? According to the FBI: “19 officers were killed during ambushes (14 during unprovoked attacks and five due to entrapment/premeditation situations).”
50. Or maybe 19. Out of… 765,000 to 900,000 officers, making the odds anywhere from 1:47,368 to 1:15,300 of an officer getting ambushed and killed.
I’ve got better odds of winning a decent payout on a scratch-off lotto ticket. Hardly seems worth killing a boy from behind on the.. off chance that it was an ambush. And it’s not like cops are minimum wagers getting by without pensions, health insurance, union protection, special legal protections, and the like. They do get all that. They get paid to take (almost nonexistent!) chances in a job that doesn’t make the top ten most dangerous list.
Except… Gelhaus wasn’t ambushed. Andy Lopez was the one ambushed. Gee, you must have missed that part of the police report.
No, I don’t have godlike omniscient powers. But I’ve got decades of military, LE, and private security experience in which I never once had to kill a 13 year old boy; I always found a way to avoiding killing anyone (even the time the guy raided the prison at 3AM). I can read. I’m going by the department’s own statements, and the preliminary coroner’s report: Gelhaus killed an unarmed 13 year old boy from behind 10 seconds after he and his partner radioed in that they were going to “investigate” a possible armed person. When — even if the boy had had a real gun — the alleged offense would have been a misdemeanor. It wasn’t real. There was no crime. Gelhaus’ own partner didn’t shoot.
“There was a witness who preceded the deputies who told the teen to drop his rifle, that the police were right behind him. But that was ignored by the teen.”
So far, the only claim of a corroborating witness that I’ve found came from the department. They didn’t name the witness, and the person doesn’t appear to have come forward publicly. But since we know the coroner found at least two lethal bullet entry wounds in the kid’s side, we can make a pretty good guess that Andy was responding to a shout from behind to drop something he didn’t have have.
So tell me about your test results, Blue. When your bud jumped out of nowhere behind and screamed nonsensical orders about something you didn’t possess — something you didn’t do — did you impossibly comply (how does one drop what one doesn’t have?) within 4 seconds? Or did you “die”?
It wasn’t “unfortunate” that the teen was killed. It was murder.
(And I love the “replica firearm” argument. That’s so… convenient when you’ve gunned down an innocent victim. Both ways. Realistic replica gun? “Gee, it looked so real, I piddled my pants.” Colored plastic gun? “Gee, I was sure the perp painted a real gun like that so I’d think it was real, and I piddled my pants.” Officers in the Memphis Police Department actually pointed out the risk of of camouflaged real firearms when objecting to the proposed “realistic toy ban” in TN many years ago.)
Darnit… I keep forgetting that moderation restriction on hyperlinks.
Claire! Help! [grin]
Heck, so long as I’m getting dumped into moderation for links…
I guess we should just be glad the boy didn’t have a Deadly Assault Pen. The deputy’s dry cleaning bill would have been terrible (the stench of urine lingers, I hear. Right, Blue?).
Claire I have no clue about the test Bear was referring to. In answer to your second question I never would have taken deadly action against a person who was not a deadly threat to me or my family, so the incident wouldn’t have happened. However, if the teen had what I thought was a lethal weapon and he threaten me by turning the muzzle toward me, I wouldn’t hesitate to stop his action. I believe I could justify the shooting to the DA, but it would be very costly to me in a civil court.
Blue, the “test” to which we’re referring is the link Claire posted as the point of the first part of her post.
Do try to keep up.
I hope you aren’t so unobservant in deadly force encounters.
The part that rankles is that to often in current society people are being killed by police officers for crimes, that if committed, would be misdemeanors. No state in the union has capital punishment for misdemeanors. The police traditionally did not get to try, convict and execute suspects.
It is within the bounds of logic that when the kid was challenged he simply turned to show the officers that he was carrying a toy. Carrying a toy is not a crime a person should not be killed for it.
If I were the parents or friends of the child, I would post signs all over town simply saying, Officer Gelhaus killed my son for carrying a toy. I would hound him with the deed he did.
It looks like the hounding has already started. I don’t know enough about this site to know how objective they are. http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Safety/articles/6554715-Cop-who-fatally-shot-boy-armed-with-replica-threatened/?source=newsletter&nlid=6555378
Right now I’m personally not beyond the point of knowing I wasn’t actually there and knowing you really can get shot really quickly, so I don’t know what I would have done.
Part of the problem is the insane environment of prohibition (of anything). In a rational, armed and polite society, anyone of any age with a slung rifle or holstered handgun would be unremarkable, and mostly ignored except for polite inquiry into health and family if they spoke in passing. But if there was a real threat to anyone, those around it would deal with it, one way or another.
What we have instead is a presumption of guilt or evil intent simply in the presence of a gun (or other weapon), a presumption that a 13 year old with a “gun” is up to no good. There is a serious lack of training and discipline for youngsters who, among many other things, carry a weapon in an inappropriate manner because they don’t know any better.
This incident simply cannot be taken out of the context of the seriously warped “laws” and LEO types that have too often made self defense tools in the hands of ordinary people automatically a source of terror and an excuse for summary execution. It can’t be taken out of the context of a large sub-culture of young people who ARE up to no good, willing to harm or kill others, and who don’t care about a polite society.
When some people are given power over others (especially without any responsibility for consequences), tryanny – and murder – is the inevitable result.
Police are almost always given this power… but so are criminals when their intended victims are rendered helpless.
[But the fate of Andy Lopez, and the way his story faded from the MSM, the Twitterverse, and the blogosphere with record speed weighs on me.]
Look at the bright side. Without the Internet, that story wouldn’t have hit the national news at all. (Note: that comment was intended to be somewhat ironic.)
[Could you give the cop what he wanted in time to avoid being shot in the back?]
People will respond to the incentives out there. Eventually when any shouted threat leaves a cop’s mouth, people will either hit the deck immediately, or slap leather and try to “neutralize the threat”. Cops won’t be happy until we all prostrate ourselves at even the mere appearance of one of their fellow goons in the vicinity.
[Some say the teen was just a kid who was a “good boy”. Unfortunately our society has bred many “good boys” into killers.]
This is the gun-banner rationale in a nutshell. People “might” harm others with guns, so they must be disarmed to prevent that. Where does that “logic” end? People might hurt others with automobiles…
Maybe cops should just shoot on sight every kid they see, particularly those dark brown ones. After all they “might” be concealing some handgun to kill others with.
The cop killed an unarmed kid. Rationalize and justify all you want; there is something rotten when this happens with no consequences to speak of.
[One last thought: If this boy had been carrying a real, loaded AK47 (plus the pistol he had in his waistband), and the officer had done the exact same thing – especially considering the Sparks, NV shooting only a few days earlier – they’d be having a parade for the guy.]
So, carrying a real gun calls for a immediate death sentence without even a trial? Now that’s a nice responsible way of looking at RKBA.
You might be right, they might be having a parade. It’s not like people in governments, even local governments, have never done anything despicable. In fact it’s almost certain this particular local government WILL do something despicable concerning this tragedy.
I wonder if they’d be having a parade if one of us peons did the same thing, even assuming the “AK47” was real?
[If I were the parents or friends of the child, I would post signs all over town…]
Not me. Instead, I’d be at war.
So, carrying a real gun calls for a immediate death sentence without even a trial? Now that’s a nice responsible way of looking at RKBA.
No. He wasn’t merely carrying a gun. He pointed it at another human being, and that human being acted to defend himself.
But you knew that. The ACTIONS of the boy are what caused this.
If pointing a gun at another human being warranted immediate execution, then there would be bodies stacked 10 deep at shooting ranges across this country.
I’ll repeat, for the slow learners I’ll type slowly and carefully. The boy that was killed was not carrying a gun. He was carrying a toy. Carrying toys is not illegal and not worthy of a death sentence.
Chief Instructor: “No. He wasn’t merely carrying a gun. He pointed it at another human being, and that human being acted to defend himself.”
Let’s fsk that:
He wasn’t
merelycarrying a gun.He was carrying a toy.
He didn’t point
editnot-a-gun at another human beingThe reports say Gelhaus claimed that Lopez began to turn the muzzle in his general direction. The initial coroner’s report said that the two lethal shots entered the boy’s side, suggesting that he was only turning to see who was yelling.
I’ll allow — pending lab verification — that Gelhaus is biologically/genetically human. Psychologically? Morally? Meh; not so much.
and that human being
acted to defend himselfpanicked.He “defended” himself against a boy with a toy whom Gelhaus’ own initial version of events say wasn’t facing him.
Again — by the cops’ account to the media –from the time the deputies keyed the mic to report a contact to the time that they called in again to report shots fired with the kid down, shot seven times was 10 seconds. Allowing time for the cops to talk (reporting over radio, screaming incoherently for the boy to drop something he didn’t have), Andy Lopez appears to have had roughly 4 seconds to 1) hear Gelhaus’ order, 2) comprehend the order, 3) realize that the nonsensical order to drop something he didn’t have was directed at him, 4) begin to turn to see who the screaming fucking idiot was, and 5)
drop the gun he didn’t havedie.4 seconds. Asuming the deputy talks real fast.
Take the test, Chiefie. Then tell me about the “ACTIONS of the boy” that forced that poor pants’ piddling po-po to execute a kid for an incorrect assumption that he’d committed a mere misdemeanor.
I’ve had real guns — actual for-real machines guns, even — pointed at me. And yet, somehow, I’ve never been forced to kill a single person for that (I will admit that I came close to killing that Turkish soldier, though). I’ve had a smart-ass point a fairly realistic toy handgun at me; I didn’t kill him either (bruises don’t count).
And I somehow survived those encounters unwounded myself.
Claire, you know the story of the Washington State trooper who was ambushed late at night while he was writing up paper work on an impounded car. It was in your neck of the woods and just a couple of years ago. Let me tell you why I think it happened and how it relates to this shooting.
That state trooper was the nicest guy you could ever know. He had driven a school bus along with other side jobs before getting on full time with the state. Even then he continued to work with his father in their excavating business. He would go to work at 4:00 in the afternoon and work a full shift, then was up at 5:00 in the morning and out to work on a backhoe or bobcat, or driving a dump truck until the next shift. 14 & 16 hour days were common for him. Supporting his family and community were number one. He always had a smile or joke. Everyone was his friend, and they responded to his trust. He got it from his upbringing and family.
His father was a Native American, member of the Chinook Tribe who worked full time well into his 70’s. He also had children almost grown that he was caring for. As I recall, he was still living in a double wide in Naselle, WA next to the excavating business when he was shot.
An ex-bounty hunter ambushed him, but only after approaching him, gaining his confidence, and then pretending to leave. Two bullets to the head. One behind the ear splintered into pieces that are still lodged in the skull. He was left for dead but by some miracle survived. He will never be the same. The trust is gone.
That is the country we are living in, for better or worse. As a policeman you will die if you trust people. The cop in Santa Rosa didn’t take a chance.
Bear, I didn’t get a chance to play your game, but you could have at least made it more closely follow what actually happened. Like the FACT that a man, noted above in my first post, told the boy the police were coming up behind him. Like the FACT that multiple non-police witnesses said that the police “chirped” their siren upon approach. The boy had MULTIPLE sources of information indicate to him that it was the police behind him.
What I find, amusing? is your continued reliance that the boy was not carrying a real gun. Did you see the photos of the toy gun right next to a real AK47? Virtually indistinguishable. Any reasonable person would conclude the gun the boy held was real.
I would love to hear the specifics of these instances where you had guns pointed at you. Why would you allow someone to point a gun at you? You must be leaving something out of the thrilling, nail-biting saga.
What I would really like is to hear how you would have acted differently in this situation. You’re a deputy. Your dispatch center receives a call from a concerned citizen about a “suspicious person”. You see this person, chirp them, and they swing a gun in your direction.
Go.
Old Printer,
Eloquently written. I believe I’ve met the officer you wrote about. Definitely a nice guy to talk with (but just as definitely an ardent drug warrior). As to this part:
“That is the country we are living in, for better or worse. As a policeman you will die if you trust people. The cop in Santa Rosa didn’t take a chance.”
It’s certainly true that the cop in Santa Rosa didn’t take a chance. Or give one.
Unfortunately it’s equally true that if cops around the country feel free to gun down people (and their pets) at will, then I’d have to turn your statement around and say, “As a citizen you may die if you trust cops.”
A sad state of affairs all around. Thing is, the country we’re living in is no more violent than it was 50 or 60 years ago, and violent crime has been decreasing for years. Police officers are at no more risk than they once were. The major change is that they’ve just been trained and equipped to regard us all as the enemy.
(Note: to avoid going to moderation, I didn’t include the links for the quotes I found. You can find them with simple searches on ” any lopez”, “andy lopez winesses”, and andy lopez coroner”.)
Chiefie, let’s talk about the “AK-47” the boy was “carrying”.
Open carrying a rifle in a municipal area in California is a misdemeanor. Open carrying a toy isn’t even that, no matter how “real” it looks. I’m fairly sure that even in California, there’s no death penalty on the books for misdemeanors.
If the boy had so many reasons to “know” that the police were behind him and specifically after him, why did he have to turn after Gelhaus started yelling? And is chirping a siren a free ticket to execute someone there now (officially, I mean; we know the practical real answer).
As for “allowing” people to point guns at me… wrong again, dumbass. I didn’y allow. I just found a way to stop it without killing anyone.
No, I’m not “leaving” [sic] a “thrilling, nail-biting saga.” I just spent decades in the military, LE, private security, and as an armed private citizen. Sometimes in some unpleasant areas.
What would I do in your scenario, or what would I do in the Lopez scenario? Because you’re describing different situations. What I see in multiple reports is not that the deputies were responding to an armed suspicious call, but that “two sheriff’s deputies patrolling in the area of Moorland and West Robles avenues observed Lopez walking with what sheriff’s officials said appeared to be some type of rifle.” The “rifle” was a small, vaguely AK-shaped toy with a silver barrel, no front sight, and red-colored plastic on the receiver.
Now, reports do say that other residents in the area heard the siren, but: “First I heard a single siren and within seconds I heard seven shots go off.” (emphasis added-cb) Still seems to be a serious issue with not giving the kid sufficient time to process things. Remember, it was the cops themselves who said “10 seconds elapsed between the time the deputies reported a “suspicious person” and then reported shots fired to dispatchers.”
Let’s look at few more things the police say:
“One of the deputies saw what appeared to be an assault rifle similar to an AK-47 in the teen’s left hand.”
Since the vast majority of humans are right-handed, that already suggests that Lopez wasn’t prepped to shoot anyone.
“The teen was about 20 or 30 feet away from the deputies with his back toward them when he began turning around with what one deputy described as the barrel of the rifle rising up and turning in his direction, police said.”
Back to them. “Weapon” held in left hand. 20-30 feet away. Just began to turn. And yes, again we see, “The timeline released by Santa Rosa police says those shots were fired within 10 seconds of the deputies’ first report of a suspicious person.” (emphasis added-cb)
The police say a deputy “yelled twice “drop the gun.””
To a kid who didn’t have a gun. When/if you take the test, I hope your friend yells, “drop the Zarathutran damnthing!” and whaps you upside the head with a 2×4 when you fail to produce and drop the nasty-tempered critter.
If that’s what the cop yelled. In another report police Lt.Paul Henry claims, “A witness in the area reported that he heard the deputy shout two times, ‘Put the gun down, put the gun down.'”Department.
Except… other witnesses: “Rojas and Marquez say deputies only yelled once before opening fire.”
According the initial coroner’s report, “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.”
So…Back to deputies. Toy in left hand. Deputy yells. Boy turns to right and is struck in the right side.
“After telling Lopez to move away from the rifle, deputies approached the unresponsive teen as he lay on the ground and handcuffed him before administering first aid and calling for medical assistance, O’Leary said.
Damn kid still wasn’t complying. They should have shot him a few more times, right, Chief?
Uh oh. Maybe they did: “Ethan Oliver says he witnessed officers fire shots into Andy Lopez after the teen had fallen to the ground. Oliver lives across the street from the field where the shooting took place in Santa Rosa, Calif. He says he walked outside after hearing two gun shots and saw Lopez already on the ground. “Then the cops went at it again and unloaded like 6 to 7 shots,” Oliver said. KTVU asked him “if he meant that the deputy shot Lopez while he was on the ground.” And Oliver stuck to his claim, stating that was “exactly what I saw.“” (emphasis added-cb)
From another report: “Last week, witness Ethan Oliver said officers continued to shoot Lopez after he dropped to the ground. An autopsy report released today seems to confirm Oliver’s claim. “
That last analysis came from the reporter, so I’ll take it with a large grain of salt.
Something else to keep an eye on (from yet another report): “Witnesses in Santa Rosa are noting the gun had an orange tip on it indicating it was a toy and that no one had called the police to complain.” (emphasis added-cb)
A tip that seems to have disappeared in the staged briefing photos. (And note that the cops weren’t responding to a complaint, chief.)
What would I have done? Approached with caution, addressed the kid who might be committing a simple misdemeanor, and given him to time to reply. I’d probably do that from cover. Depends on several things not addressed in media reports.
But so much for reality. Let’s talk about your pretend scenario in which you’re responding to a call about an armed suspicious person who “swings a gun in your direction” as soon as he hears your siren. Too bad that wasn’t — according to the police — the situation that Gelhaus was in. Because then his actions might well have been justified. And I wouldn’t be writing all these critical analyses. In that imaginary scenario — which, again, bears no resemblance to the Lopez shooting — I, too, might have opened fire. Or not; see previous comments re:having guns pointed at me.
Claire –
The major change is that they’ve just been trained and equipped to regard us all as the enemy.
I agree with you. And it is a very sad state of affairs.
After I first read about this shooting, I sent an email to Smith & Wesson. One of the inventions I’d been toying with might have ended this debate, along with hundreds of others.
Here’s hoping S&W decides to run with it before the next one.
During a security briefing after a workplace shooting, the asst. security manager (a former SWAT sniper) stated that BS line about doing whatever was necessary to go home after his shift. While still feeling disgusted by that comment, the security manager said to me an hour later, “there are no bad shoots, only bad reports.”. Also former LEO.
THIS is the true mentality of the wannabe’ warriors. Anything can be justified,as long as “officer safety” is assured. These fools never think that if they want to be perfectly safe at work, they should do a job more fitting to their fear… maybe a pastry chef.
How long until ‘civilians’ start punishing the ‘law enforcement’ people that the law enforcement system won’t? This won’t be me, and is not a threat, but how long until someone(s) seize someone like Gelhaus and his family, if he has one, ties him and his wife to a chair, puts a large caliber weapon to the back of his childrens’ heads, and blows their brains and faces off all over Gelhaus and his wife? Maybe leaves them tied to their chairs, suspends their childrens corpses over their heads to drip their, blood and entrails all over them for a few hours before being found and released?
That would and should drive him to suicide. Not as any sort of revenge or punishment, but as a lesson to the close to 1mm other ‘peace officers’ that just because your buddies on the force, and the prosecutors office, won’t charge or prosecute you, there are some things more important than coming home at the end of your shift, like NOT MURDERING INNOCENT CHILDREN!
Is there anything short of that which can reach through the ‘officer safety trumps your right to not be executed for non-crimes’ BS from the likes of chief and mr. blue?
Claire,
“Second, if an armed and well-trained, but non-uniformed, non-badged citizen had shot Andy Lopez under the same circumstances, what do you think the legal consequences might be?”
Me?
I’m trying to be careful not to say anything on the internet I wouldn’t want read out loud in a courtroom (to a jury carefully selected for their ignorance on self defense and use of force) if I ever, god forbid, shoot somebody who it turns out was sticking me up with an airsoft gun.
I am also drily amused at the cross-enrollment in “People Enraged At The Media’s Treatment Of Zimmerman” and “People Ready To Crucify Gelhaus”.
Tam — Um sticking somebody up with an Airsoft gun? Heck, sticking somebody up with anything deserves … yeah.
But walking down the street minding your own business with an Arisoft gun??? Big difference!
Also big difference between shooting somebody who’s got you on the ground pounding you with his fists and shooting somebody just because you have a badge and every looks-like-he’s-armed citizen is your enemy.
[That is the country we are living in, for better or worse. As a policeman you will die if you trust people. The cop in Santa Rosa didn’t take a chance.]
Nice story. The bottom line seems to be, a cop should shoot anyone who causes even a whiff of suspicion, just because that person MIGHT cause the cop trouble. Oh, and the cop should get off with no consequences.
You may prefer to live in such a police state, but that is repugnant to me. If that is where we are at, we need a revolution tomorrow.
The cop in Santa Rosa stuck his nose in someone else’s business. That is the problem. No one was needing any of his so-called “help”. A reasonable cop would have included in his calculations that there are such things as toys that look like guns, and that kids might be carrying toys, and that city kids might not know a thing about muzzle discipline, or even worry about it if he knew about muzzle discipline since he had a toy rather than a gun. A reasonable cop, knowing the nature of police work is to insert oneself into uncertain situations, would resolve to “man up” and make some allowances to avoid such tragedies (not that the risk of doing so is very large); if he can’t manage that he needs to change his line of work.
What do you think the chances are this cop is not now thinking he should have handled this differently? If so, is he right now, or was he right when he killed the kid?
Perhaps we ought to extend the teaching of Cooper’s 4 rules to airsoft guns and anything else that might be construed in the dark, as a gun. How about brooms? Pieces of pipe? Teach your kids, folks; otherwise they risk summary execution. “How to survive in Amerikkka.”
Well said…
Bear, I’m not going to comment on most of your post, as it’s just rehashing the stuff we’ve already discussed. We disagree, so be it.
I will be very interested to see what happens with the, “standing over the body and shooting” report. Could be a game-changer if substantiated. I wonder if this was just a guy popping off, or if that was part of a crime report given to the police. If it’s the latter, forensics should be able to tell the story based upon bullet entry angle and GSR on the clothing.
“No Way”: I’m in the middle of a post that discusses the topic of Color Of Authority and Abuse of Power – not just by the police, but by all government officials. The police/government need to start “policing” their own, or citizens will take care of it themselves.
We’re already seeing this happen with incidents like what just happened at LAX with the TSA, with Christopher Dorner down in Big Bear and many others. Me thinks this trend will continue…
That is the most disgusting and disturbing thing I’ve ever seen.
Shooting the guy was bad enough. But after he was clearly down, and enough time had elapsed for that gaggle of police to show up, they still let him bleed out on the sidewalk. I never heard a call for an ambulance. Even after the “suspect” was cuffed, they did not render any aid.
What kind of inhuman monsters are we training in our police academies these days?
I’m not taking the side of the Santa Rosa cop. From the published reports it appears that he was trigger happy. What I will say is that we don’t know how bad the neighborhood is & what may have driven the 13 y/o to carry a replica of an AK-47 (you can call it a toy if you insist, but then why did the kid remove the yellow or orange toy band?).
And like most of you I believe the police are becoming militarized. The end result will be a full blown fascist police state if we aren’t there already.
An article well worth reading on this shooting appeared at the left-wing blog, dailykos. You may be surprised by the author’s insight, especially coming from that side of the political spectrum.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/27/1251012/-Police-shoot-boy-with-toy-rifle-He-had-seconds-to-comply#
Excellent link, Old Printer.
Great observation on the cult of compliance and a well-argued piece. Mindless compliance is a “virtue” only in a police state.
A few last random observations:
Bear in mind that eye witness accounts are notoriously sloppy. I’ve seen party games based on that. Too bad the cops didn’t have dash video. Or a killcam.
In the case of the allegation that the cop shot the kid after he was down, I’d like to know when that accusation was first made: Immediately, before this became a media circus? Or did the guy come up with the story later to get his 15 minutes of fame? It happens. (For the record, I think Gelhaus is a trigger-happy coward — based on this incident and some of his writing — but I’m taking the alleged cold-blooded execution with a large grain of salt.)
Chief, we can agree to disagree… but my position is based on reports. Your position is based on an imaginary shootout that doesn’t even match what the cops are claiming. If new facts/reports come out, my position could change based on that. Your position will probably change — if it changes at all — based on random neuron firing induced by quantum uncertainty.
OP, witnesses and neighbors have said that the toy gun did have the colored tip. If you’ll do a good web search, you’ll find a somewhat similar case in which the police showed the toy gun without a tip at a press conference (the same story about how realistic it was), but when folks went through the original crime scene photos, the toy did have one. The cops then claimed it must have fallen off in the evidence room. The one crime scene photo I found doesn’t seem to show a tip, but that quality is bad enough that it might be there.
As for what “drives” a kid to carry an AK replica… Fun. I used to sell a lot of realistic pattern airsoft guns when I worked in sporting goods (yes, chiefie, I’ve done that, too; I was — also — a writer: a ridiculously diverse background is required for writer resumes). As far back as the dark Ages when I was a kid, manufacturers made, and kids played with, toys based on real firearms. If the cops haven’t figured that out after the better part of century, then there’s an even bigger problem.
“Tam — Um sticking somebody up with an Airsoft gun? Heck, sticking somebody up with anything deserves … yeah.
But walking down the street minding your own business with an Arisoft gun??? Big difference!”
I’m sure the prosecution won’t care when I’m in the dock, hence my reluctance to give them ammunition.
“Miss K., you said in this post at backwoodshome.com on the 8th of Octember 2013 that you’d NEVER go off half-cocked and… I quote here… ‘murder an innocent child holding a plastic toy gun…’…”
Incidentally, Claire, I’ve known Erick via the internet for over a dozen years; in all that time I’ve never had any reason to think that he’s the monster he’s being painted as by the gun-hating media.
I’d like to think that I’d give you the same benefit of the doubt, no matter what cross they were trying to nail you to.
As Todd G wrote here: “They can spin it however they want, but a guy with decades on the force, Iraq vet, FTO, FI, RM, many-times UOF expert… I mean, if there’s one guy in your department you want making a shoot/no-shoot decision, it’s this guy. As Tam said, if anything, identifying him as someone with this level of training and experience (not to mention being someone so many folks here know personally) essentially guarantees this was a legit shoot.“
… when I was a kid, manufacturers made, and kids played with, toys based on real firearms. If the cops haven’t figured that out…
The cops have figured out that teenagers, even innocent looking ones, can be killers. Stories you don’t hear about like the 13 year old boy in Joplin, MO who took a MAC-90 to his school back in 2006, but when he tried to do a Columbine the gun jammed, those and others are known to police who keep up on it. Even the Columbine killers were 17 & 18 year olds. In case you’ve forgotten, here is a list of their weapons, including bombs:
Dylan —
9mm rounds fired:
outside the school: 3, inside the school: 31, library: 21
(total 55)
Shotgun rounds fired:
outside the school: 2, inside the school: 4, library: 6
(total 12)
Total rounds fired: 67
Eric —
9mm rounds fired:
outside the school: 47, inside the school: 36, library: 13
(total 96)
Shotgun rounds fired:
inside the school: 4, Library: 21
(total 25)
Total rounds fired: 121
Bomb Tally:
48 — Carbon Dioxide bombs
27 — Pipe bombs
11 — 1.5 gallon propane bombs
7 — gas or napalm bombs
2 — 20 pound propane bombs
I used to be a law and order republican, and support for the police was hardwired into that view. But things happened to me and my family, and I started paying attention to what cops were doing all over the country. As Claire said, they are being trained to look upon everyone as a potential suspect – an enemy. I no longer believe in the myth of the Good Cop. They are ALL the enemy as far as I’m concerned. I teach my children and grandchildren that cops are their enemy too. I’d just as soon kill them as not, and when I hear of one being killed “in the line of duty” I cheer. There’s a storm coming and I don’t look forward to it. But one aspect of it does appeal to me: It means PAYBACK time!
Tam, no worries. I do understand why you didn’t say what you’d do in an Airsoft stickup. If that didn’t come across in my response, mea culpa. I apologize.
As to the fact that you and a lot of others know Andy Lopez’s killer online (and I understand he’s written for S.W.A.T. also), that doesn’t mean a lot. And the fact that he’s an Iraq vet might even lean against him if it means he’s got extra training in the “citizen as enemy” mentality.
I hope a jury gives him the benefit of the doubt, but from everything I’ve read, I can’t. Doesn’t really matter what I do or don’t do, because I have no power over him and no power to stop what so many cops and entire police departments around this nation are turning into.
That local department should turn the investegation over to another department. The evidence then gathered should be turned over to the grand jury for them to decide if an indictment is warranted. We should not hold our breath.
Granted this is from a lawsuit and is therefore one-sided. But if verified it’s damning against Gelhaus. Certainly makes him look like one of David Codrea’s “only ones”:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57610985-504083/andy-lopez-update-family-of-calif-teen-shot-dead-while-carrying-fake-rifle-sues-county-deputy/
Also, although this bumper sticker (http://hiphopandpolitics.com/2013/10/30/meet-deputy-erick-gelhaus-shot-13-year-old-andy-lopez/) has been removed from the PhotoBucket page supposedly belonging to Gelhaus, it’s hardly the sort of thing that inspires a belief that Gelhaus’s goal is to “protect and serve.”
Again, that’s with the caveat that the report at that link is accurate.
CORRECTION: The bumper sticker is still there; I just wasn’t seeing it on my browser because of all the security features. And it does appear to be Erick Gelhaus’s page:
http://s165.photobucket.com/user/egelhaus/media/coexist-sticker-lg.jpg.html?sort=3&o=30
Old Printer, oddly enough, I don’t see a single airsoft gun — with or without an orange muzzle tip — in the Columbine arsenal. Are you claiming that an adult (18 years old) gunning his way into a school (remember, they went in shooting, shooting first) with real, unlawfully obtained guns, is the same thing as a 13 year old walking down the street with a toy in his left hand, harming no one?
Since I haven’t seen anything in the news about you being shot down while trying to kill toy-toting tots and adult open-carriers, I assume you don’t live in New Hampshire, where toys and open carry are quite popular. And oddly enough, we have one of the lowest crime rates in the country.
You can spin all the “but what if the flying porkers’ toys were real you’d be singing a different tune” fantasies you want. But it doesn’t change the facts that 1) it was a toy, and 2) reported forensics, eyewitnesses, and the police reports don’t support the notion that the kid presented a threat.
In my personal “thrilling, nail-biting saga” (gee, I always thought my life was kinda boring) that Blue and Chief find so entertaining, I have managed to disarm people with real guns and realistic toys without killing them. I’m pretty sure I’ve mentioned that. But I’m just a guy — not a cop anymore — who gets his training on his own; not a SWAT-writing Iraq combat vet with an alleged extensive history of firearms abuse and a dubious “co-exist” bumpersticker.
Matt – the shooter was a Sonoma County Sheriff. The lead investigation is being conducted by Santa Rosa PD. The FBI is also conducting its own investigation, although from news accounts, it’s unclear whether they have investigators active, or whether they’re reviewing SRPD’s findings.
Bear, I basically agree with you. What I was pointing out here is that you can’t compare the kids of today with our past. It is gone for good, unfortunately. The fact remains that teenagers are capable of horrendous crimes. I blame the glorifying of ghetto culture by the entertainment industry. I have law enforcement in my family. And let me tell you, I wouldn’t want their jobs. The toll it can take isn’t worth it.
Gelhaus looks like a bad cop, which if true is nothing new. I lived in Richmond & Oakland, California during the Huey Newton/Black Panther days. I know first hand about corrupt cops. And that is all I will say.
This is sad in so many ways. It also shows the decline of masculinity and common sense in the United States. I’m sure they all have an opinion on whether the ‘Redskins’ should change their name though….because that is what they are told to think about, not the overthrow of our nation. Really so pathetic. May this poor man rest in Christ’s peace.