No criminal charges for Erick Gelhaus for Andy Lopez shooting

The PD reported that District Attorney Jill Ravitch announced that the county will not file criminal charges against Erick Gelhaus for shooting Andy Lopez. Here's the video of the press conference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdlonoFL0rA

It's worth a watch.

The "report to the public" is here.

The case turns on the question of whether office Gelhaus acted "reasonably" for someone involved in the incident as it was unfolding, not with 20-20 hindsight.

In my opinion, there is a range of actions that could be judged as "reasonable". It seems to me that officer Gelhaus's reaction is on the edge of what might be considered reasonable. He had reason to believe that his life and those around him were in jeopardy by the 5' 3" "man" that carried what appeared to be a AK-47.

On the other hand, I think many other officers would have acted with more restraint, which would been more "reasonable".

So I suppose I can accept this decision, though uncomfortably, in that officer Gelhaus acted "reasonably" however he did exhibit very poor, and lethal, judgement. While his judgement was tragically incorrect, I could accept that it was not "unreasonable" enough to judge it to be criminal.

However, as I said, it is on the edge of reasonableness , and given that, I think it may have been more appropriate if a jury was asked to decide, rather that the D.A.

I'm also concerned about the politics of this case. I wonder if it was ordinary citizen that was acting in self-defense in the same circumstances, would charges not be pressed? Or what if the person who was mistakenly shot in self defense was white and the shooter is brown? Or what if it was the police officer who was mistakenly shot? Would the DA still not press charges?

What is warranted though, in my opinion, is some type of restorative justice, on both an behalf of officer's Gelhous and the Sheriff's Dept to acknowledge the grave miscalculation that took Andy's life and whatever else that can be done to help Andy's family and community heal.

Furthermore, Officer Gelhaus should be prohibited from accessing any form of lethal force both as part of the his employment or personal life. Should he remain part of the sheriff department, he should be prohibited from any role where his demonstrated lack of judgement and restraint could cause further harm.

What do you think?

I listened to the entire thing.

The timing is itself suspicious- right after the election. For Ravitch apparently shooting down a 13 year old with minimal warning and minimal care is business as usual. A tragedy, but you know,, those things happen. Lots of cheap words about tragedy- but no consequences for the cop who shot him down.

If a private citizen had done the same they would be in the slammer. Barry is right.

She talked at length about her 'team' of investigators. Anonymous investigators apparently. We have a lot of experience in this country of cops never finding cops guilty no matter how vile their actions. Like beating up a great grandmother in LA recently.https://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...ol-beat-woman/

That is the context Ravitch seems unable to grasp, assuming she conducted an honest investigation. The more sunlight the better.

Ravitch avoided a crucial fact that would have given her investigation credibility, though I admit I may have I missed it. Did any of her 'team' ever find against a cop? Or do they have long records of covering up or 'not seeing' crimes by those in uniform? This is pretty relevant in trusting their work.

Gelhaus by Ravitch's own testimony riddled the boy even after he was hit and going down. Eight shots. Ravitch tells us that eventually they discovered the "subject was in medical distress." My god what kind of fools does this woman think we are? Shoot someone many times and you wait to see if he is in "medical distress?" He was falling to the ground when many of those shots hit him.

The kid was walking in an unthreatening manner, holding the fake gun with its barrel pointed down. Cops arrive. About a minute later he was dead. Sounds like trigger happy action to me. When explicitly asked Ravitch avoided giving a clear answer to the time between when they saw the kid and when they shot him, referring to an earlier comment she gave in military time not easily translateable into our way of talking. This is at best the language of obfuscation.

She admitted witness testimony was ambiguous, with different witness reports. The report chose those that supported Gelhaus. Maybe they were right, but given the context of what happened this seems to me a jury issue, not an in house issue.

Contrast this with the Bundy situation and the murderers that were allowed to leave the ranch with their guns unimpeded despite being active in threatening others. And then they killed. But then they were not brown.

Yes the case has ambiguities. Toy guns like that should be illegal. It is hard if not impossible to tell the difference at a distance. And on the other side there is Gelhaus's apparent rush to kill. These are ambiguities a jury should decide. Barry is right about that. An in-house investigation is not the way unless the investigators have brought charges against other cops in the past and so have earned some public credibility, and apparently Ravitch will not even release their names.

But I imagine our tax money paid them, whoever they are.

Cops frequently get away with murder and then exoneration by other cops these days.
https://www.policestateusa.com/2013/...house-on-fire/
https://www.policestateusa.com/2014/howard-bowe/
https://abcnews.go.com/US/arizona-sw...ry?id=13842029
and an overview https://www.cato.org/raidmap

If Ravitch is truly a decent prosecutor she would trust the citizens of Sonoma County to make that decision rather than leaving it to an in house investigation that releases its findings after her re-election. At a minimum she would shine as much light as possible on all involved. It stinks.

I regret voting for a politician who it now seems delayed her decision so as to get the liberal vote before crapping all over it. I will not make that mistake again.

Barry is right on one other issue. Gelhaus should have a desk job for the rest of his benighted life if he continues to plague Somona County with his residence here. A desk job without a gun. He has lost all reasonable confidence in his judgement and mental capacity as a police officer outside of a desk. After all, he described a 5'2" kid as a man. With judgment that bad why trust him on other issues?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

The PD reported that District Attorney Jill Ravitch announced that the county will not file criminal charges against Erick Gelhaus for shooting Andy Lopez. Here's the video of the press conference: ...

---

It's becoming more and more apparent that the police dept, et al, "protects and serves" the predators within, who main and kill innocent citizens, based on their skewed perception of what constitutes a dangerous situation, especially when it's obvious that those innocent citizens are profiled by color.

Can this be taken to a higher court? If I were Gelhous, I'd be afraid to be seen on the streets. There are those who would sacrifice their life willingly to see justice done.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Gus diZerega:

I listened to the entire thing.

The timing is itself suspicious- right after the election. For Ravitch apparently shooting down a 13 year old with minimal warning and minimal care is business as usual. A tragedy, but you know,, those things happen. Lots of cheap words about tragedy- but no consequences for the cop who shot him down...

---

It will be interesting to see what happens to Gelhous, since he's been found "innocent" of criminal activity. Maybe, back to the beat as usual? I wonder what he wants? And I wonder how he "feels" about himself when he looks in the mirror. Maybe, his feelings are blocked, to protect his ego. The ego that will fight to the death of anyone in it's way.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

The PD reported that District Attorney Jill Ravitch announced that the county will not file criminal charges against Erick Gelhaus for shooting Andy Lopez. Here's the video of the press conference: ...

---

gee, ms. ravitch...how very interesting that you WAITED to see how the elections turned out before coming to a decision on this ....you are rapidly becoming almost as distasteful as passalaqua...

the SRPD's reputation has been questionable for years---and, most of their practices of late, repeatedly remain unpunished.....

once again, nice work sonoma county...

This was always a case with much corruption from the get-go...and how one Law Enforcement agency, can possibly, without bias or prejudice, do a fair investigation, simply falls on it's face when it comes to logic...and that is why so many have asked for an investigation by those outside of here, namely the FBI and DOJ...requested by many prominent attorneys, and civic leaders....

Jill Ravitch was not the person who was ever going to be smart enough, or brave enough to indict Gelhaus because she was always a part of the problem...and would never be that DA who will find a police officer culpable, and that is sad because this was a blatant miscarriage of Justice...but it is not over....there is much work to do...corruption in this county runs deep...but eventually, there Justice will prevail....

peace

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

The PD reported that District Attorney Jill Ravitch announced that the county will not file criminal charges against Erick Gelhaus for shooting Andy Lopez. Here's the video of the press conference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdlonoFL0rA

It's worth a watch.

The "report to the public" is here...

---

I'm wondering if there will be any courageous investigative journalists willing to take this on with a passion, and not only get justice, but some changes in the law. This is my fantasy, for what it's worth.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by beshiva:

This was always a case with much corruption from the get-go...and how one Law Enforcement agency, can possibly, without bias or prejudice, do a fair investigation, simply falls on it's face when it comes to logic...and that is why so many have asked for an investigation by those outside of here, namely the FBI and DOJ...requested by many prominent attorneys, and civic leaders....

---

awe...in gratitude to this post...also, it's pretty right-on...What a difference this all could have made for this county, if this DA would have done her JOB.!!...apparently, she ended this press conference with the same props that the Police showed us eight months ago..the very day after....the GUNS!! and Gelhaus was the expert!! the man who knew the difference between a fake gun and a real gun...apparently NOT!!

Also, reasonable, should include, apparent and obvious..before you Kill someone....it's perfectly fine to just say, you FEARED for your life, as long as you wear a uniform...how sad is THAT!!..To add insult to injury she goes on to trash Andy Lopez by implying being under the influence (maybe) of marijuana.....as IF that gives a cop the right to gun you down!!.....

Ravitch is pathetic...for she knows that she could have charged him with involuntary manslaughter, and let a jury decide...because Gelhaus operated in a reckless manner, without circumspection.. she could have worked a bit harder but, she let us all down...so much for the "safety" issue she campaigned on....now we have Gelhaus in our midst...how "SAFE" is That!!??

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Gus diZerega:

I listened to the entire thing.

The timing is itself suspicious- right after the election. For Ravitch apparently shooting down a 13 year old with minimal warning and minimal care is business as usual. A tragedy, but you know,, those things happen. Lots of cheap words about tragedy- but no consequences for the cop who shot him down.

If a private citizen had done the same they would be in the slammer. Barry is right.

She talked at length about her 'team' of investigators. Anonymous investigators apparently. We have a lot of experience in this country of cops never finding cops guilty no matter how vile their actions. Like beating up a great grandmother in LA recently.https://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...ol-beat-woman/ ...

---

unfortunately a jury would decide in the favor of the deputy. the selection process favors those that the system works for and hold fear. ravitch knows this better than you and i and would still have to work with law enforcement leaders after a failed effort.

hopefully frietas will keep gelhaus in the armory where he can oil official killing machines instead of training others and using them himself. he is a dangerous man. to depend on our current system of law enforcement for safety and justice is an uninformed choice. call 911 at the risk of greater harm than not.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by beshiva:

awe...in gratitude to this post...also, it's pretty right-on...What a difference this all could have made for this county, if this DA would have done her JOB.!!...apparently, she ended this press conference with the same props that the Police showed us eight months ago..the very day after....the GUNS!! and Gelhaus was the expert!! the man who knew the difference between a fake gun and a real gun...apparently NOT!! ...

---

First time I have commented anywhere on the Andy Lopez shooting by the police. I didn't have all the facts, so did not feel I had enough information to have an opinion. I did wonder why so many shots were fired at this kid. Now that it has come out that Andy may have responded in a combative manner, influenced by the fact that he was probably under the influence of pot; I still don't condone the officer's actions, but I am beginning to understand it.

I don't believe it warrants a criminal charge. I do think the officer over reacted, and used very bad judgement. I hope he will be suspended and put on probation, unpaid, for say, six months, with the proviso that he take some training that would be given other officers as well, so that they might be able to identify such behavior such as Andy's as confused and non-responsive, rather than warranting violent action. I commend Jill Ravitch for her careful deliberations and I hope I'm not going to be the target of a :shitstorm: for not recommending more extreme sanctions.
Cheers to all. Helen Shane

First time I have commented on the Andy Lopez shooting also. Just yesterday I saw the photograph of the two guns, the real AK47 and the 'toy' AK47....I'm wondering why it is okay to make and sell a 'toy' gun which looks so much like the real thing? Isn't that just an invitation to a disaster like we had with Andy Lopez? What is the purpose of having such a look-alike gun anyway?

Regulations, I believe, have become more and more necessary because people are less and less accountable for their actions.....It was surely a tragedy for Andy Lopez, but let's not forget that the presence of that look-alike gun (manufactured and marketed and sold) was a big contributor to the problem.

Helen- No flame or dumping, but in several decades of knowing people who smoked pot, and using it myself quite regularly at one time, I have never noticed people became more aggressive on it. usually the contrary. In fact that is one of what seems to me clear evasions and mudslinging by those defending Gelhaus that signals to me they are seeking to justify what cannot be justified. Otherwise why bring up something that most of us know is likely to work in the opposite direction?

Have you ever been stoned?

I would like to know whether those unnamed people she cited as her team of outside investigators had ever found a cop guilty of violent misbehavior. We read about such misbehavior, all too often lethal, and the gteat lengths too many police and their unions go to excuse it. I am bothered by Ravitch's unwillingness to give us any reaql details about her 'team.'

I am sorry, I did not see the actions of a principled investigator when I watched her testimony. She was even unwilling to answer a reporter's question about the time between first seeing the kid and when he was killed. I think because the extreme rapidity between the time of seeing him and of killing him piushed against her decision that it was a tragedy but Gelhaus was innocent of any wrong doing.

Yes, as I said in my initial post, the gun made the issue ambiguous. They should be outlawed. But ambiguity is just why a jury trial on a charge of manslaughter or some similar charge was warranted.

I voted for her. I cannot at present imagine doing so again.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dustyg:

First time I have commented anywhere on the Andy Lopez shooting by the police. I didn't have all the facts, so did not feel I had enough information to have an opinion. I did wonder why so many shots were fired at this kid. Now that it has come out that Andy may have responded in a combative manner, influenced by the fact that he was probably under the influence of pot; I still don't condone the officer's actions, but I am beginning to understand it. I don't believe it warrants a criminal charge. I do think the officer over reacted, and used very bad judgement. I hope he will be suspended and put on probation, unpaid, for say, six months, with the proviso that he take some training that would be given other officers as well, so that they might be able to identify such behavior such as Andy's as confused and non-responsive, rather than warranting violent action. I commend Jill Ravitch for her careful deliberations and I hope I'm not going to be the target of a :shitstorm: for not recommending more extreme sanctions.
Cheers to all. Helen Shane

---

you are right shane...you don't have all the facts...and for many many people they do have the facts, and Jill Ravitch's trashing of Andy's character and the mention of being under the influence of marijuana is especially egregious...she tries to imply that he was responsible for his death..(As if any "reasonable" person passing him, should kill him) Eric Gelhaus is the rogue cop here, Eric Gelhaus acted without due caution and circumspection!! bad judgement is an understatement...he was the one who stood behind the door of a 3000lb vehicle to take "expert" aim at a child and fired...Andy died with the first shot....the rest (6 more shots)were for good measure..

Eric Gelhaus was back to work within 2 months!!, Fact...Andy did NOT have intent..that is clear...Fact!
I believe, Jill Ravitch is a coward, there was no deliberations!...she was Never going to indict a deputy of Sheriff Freitas, they are best of friends..

If you knew anything at all you would know that Gelhaus spoke of "how to explain away" the possiblility of killing a child...he wrote for many Swat team magazines, and police forums. and he thought, and believed and spoke of going to work was a "contact sport"...Gelhaus had on his Facebook, before he purged it, swatstika symbols and he WAS a fanatic with guns....so, let's not paint this guy as just "doing his job"...there was no job to do that day, except to realize that a boy was walking through a field that kids played with air rifles in All the Time...that is Fact!!

So, very bad judgment can mean you "pay" for your mistake, it can mean you may not have acted out of malice but you committed "involuntary manslaughter" Sometimes when you have bad judgment you pay with consequences...at least for most of us that's the case!!

peace
beshiva

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Helen Shane:

First time I have commented anywhere on the Andy Lopez shooting by the police. I didn't have all the facts, so did not feel I had enough information to have an opinion. I did wonder why so many shots were fired at this kid. Now that it has come out that Andy may have responded in a combative manner, influenced by the fact that he was probably under the influence of pot; I still don't condone the officer's actions, but I am beginning to understand it...

---

Barry - Thank you very much for this post.

So many important questions were not asked, some of which were not appropriate in this particular criminal inquiry.

For example:

Why didn't the deputy fire at the suspect's legs, to disable him without killing him?

Why should deputies carry lethal weapons at all? Why not carry non-lethal weapons that will temporarily disable a suspect without killing him or her?

Why aren't the manufacturer and the seller of the "toy" gun being prosecuted criminally?

Why are deputies hired who have such comprehensive military training?

Will Deputy Gelhaus resume his regular duties? (I think he should be followed and observed if he is on parol.)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

The PD reported that District Attorney Jill Ravitch announced that the county will not file criminal charges against Erick Gelhaus for shooting Andy Lopez. Here's the video of the press conference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdlonoFL0rA

It's worth a watch.

The "report to the public" is here.

The case turns on the question of whether office Gelhaus acted "reasonably" for someone involved in the incident as it was unfolding, not with 20-20 hindsight...

---

I watched the video of Ratvich's press conference. She is a pro, I have respect for her, she twice offered condolences to the Lopez family. I heard how Andy was warned to drop the gun moments before the police arrived, and previously the fact that he had some problems in school, etc. I never heard anything that justifies taking his life.

I just read Sheriff Freitas' commentary in yesterday's Sonoma West Times. I acknowledge him for making a statement, and I know that he's been conciliatory on some immigrant issues. At the end of his statement, which was mostly a defense of local law enforcement, he said "we will not condone any acts of vandalism or violence as a form of expression. We will take enforcement actions to remove those responsible."

The only parties that are allowed to be violent are those in power, like Gelhaus, Ratvich, and Freitas.

The fact remains that a 13 year old boy with a toy guy was killed by Officer Gelhaus. There should be some kind of penalty against Gelhaus for taking Andy's life. There has been none. Gelhaus' errors will cost the City millions of dollars, as a result of lawsuits arising out of this, and all the government time taken up by this.

It's simply a case of those in power being unwilling to admit a mistake was made, that there was no justification for killing Andy.

I would like to read some more on Gelhaus' swastikas on his Facebook page. How did you learn about this? This would be very indicting indeed of his character. A racist and anti-semite in the police force is unacceptable and he should be drummed out just because of that. A racist should never be on any law enforcement agency of any kind.

If this is true (about Gelhaus' swastikas), it could further explain his going into a predominantly Latino neighborhood with the same mentality as if he was back in Iraq, when he was serving there. After all, according to Gelhaus, law enforcement is a "sport." After all, Middle Eastern people and many Latinos have darker skin. A uniformed racist could reason: "Why not blow 'em away? If 'they' don't like what happened to Lopez then they should go back to their country of origin." This dovetails very nicely with American conservatives' intransigent attitudes towards immigration in general, illegal or otherwise. After all, it is also law enforcement's duty to detain and deport illegal immigrants.

Maybe Gelhaus is suffering from PTSD? Maybe Gelhaus saw an "enemy" weapon and it was just muscle memory from his Iraq War days as an experienced combat veteran. It also explains much of the unnecessary slaughter that took place in Iraq at the hands of the US Military. Now we are starting to get something of that right here at home. Wow! The implications are horrifying.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by beshiva:

If you knew anything at all you would know that Gelhaus spoke of "how to explain away" the possiblility of killing a child...he wrote for many Swat team magazines, and police forums. and he thought, and believed and spoke of going to work was a "contact sport"...Gelhaus had on his Facebook, before he purged it, swatstika symbols and he WAS a fanatic with guns....so, let's not paint this guy as just "doing his job"...there was no job to do that day, except to realize that a boy was walking through a field that kids played with air rifles in All the Time...that is Fact!!

---

Jill Ravitch is a coward, who lacks integrity. If Andy Lopez had been the son of a political figure in Sonoma County you bet Gelhaus would have been charged, and serving time by now. Ravitch waited until she was re-elected, but we the people elected her back into office. Justice won't prevail soon enough we got what we deserve by allowing her back in office. I'm just as guilty as the next, because I didn't vote..

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by beshiva:

...Jill Ravitch was not the person who was ever going to be smart enough, or brave enough to indict Gelhaus because she was always a part of the problem...and would never be that DA who will find a police officer culpable, and that is sad because this was a blatant miscarriage of Justice...but it is not over....there is much work to do...corruption in this county runs deep...but eventually, there Justice will prevail...

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POD28ozUTeg#t=184

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

unfortunately a jury would decide in the favor of the deputy. the selection process favors those that the system works for and hold fear. ravitch knows this better than you and i and would still have to work with law enforcement leaders after a failed effort.

hopefully frietas will keep gelhaus in the armory ... he is a dangerous man.

---

for better or worse, we have a justice system. The system was set up to create this kind of situation. Several people posted about that in the days after the shooting - the problem is the militarization of the police and the acceptance of policies that help ensure their safety at the risk of this kind of mistake. Gelhaus made no secret of the way he went about his job and the rules he would use. The system that found (and finds) that acceptible is the problem; you can wish the people (like Ravitch) in position to do so would work to change the system, but what makes anyone think that they would have done so? Realize, changes would result in more dead cops and fewer dead civilians. There's no way around that. So an advocate who's being honest needs to admit that it's a tradeoff that our society insists on making.

different police strategies exist in other nations, they have fewer dead cops and citizens. or more. there are a lot of forms and ways to facilitate safety and justice. like all bureaucracies, our law enforcement tries to justify an ever growing budget with scare tactics that you seem to have bought into.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

for better or worse, we have a justice system. ...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

different police strategies exist in other nations, they have fewer dead cops and citizens. or more. there are a lot of forms and ways to facilitate safety and justice. like all bureaucracies, our law enforcement tries to justify an ever growing budget with scare tactics that you seem to have bought into.

---

I'm not exposed enough to law enforcement's "scare tactics" for them to have a lot of influence on me. I've just been around a while and been exposed to a variety of my neighbors - that's where I draw my conclusions. I stick to my observation: in our culture, with all the tolerance for violence, proliferation of weaponry, and tradition of extreme individualistic behavior, there will continue to be deadly results in confrontations between the police and citizens, more often than in most of the world. Of course the main goal is to minimize that, and of course with better training fewer encounters will degrade to that. I'm not dismissing the need for changes along those lines and the benefits to be gained there.
What I am saying, though, it along with the easy-to-agree-on changes to public policy, we do need to acknowledge that we are asking/insisting that the law enforcement community accept a higher risk in order to avoid tragedies like this one. It's not fair to pretend that this will not increase the danger to police officers. They're already accepting risk so this isn't a fundamental change. I think it's disrespectful to the LEO community to pretend we're not asking them to expose themselves to increased danger, though.

We went to the demonstration today, and wished there were more people there! *(we estimated 250, PD said 200). Some fine moments and good speeches. The San Francisco Chronicle has had some excellent, thoughtful and provocative articles about this situation. *I don't feel drawn to making Gelhaus a jailbird, but he should be off the force, for good.*

Peter (Podfish), I strongly disagree. Here's why:

1. Gelhaus in particular is a loose cannon, literally.
Law enforcement personnel and others quickly and discreetly took down many websites where Gelhaus (an admired "expert" on dangerous situations like these) had publicly asserted that "law enforcement is a sport." Furthermore, Gelhaus was a widely known (within the law enforcement community) to be a very strong advocate of using "proactive" force and "emptying the clip." That is exactly what Gelhaus did with Andy Lopez, right in front of the rookie he was supposed to be training.

It is law enforcement's duty to protect the public, not kill children just because they are Latinos living in poor neighborhoods.

2. All police candidates (Gelhaus, poster child example) need an exhaustive psychological evaluation, far better than what they have now. This should consist of, at the very least, 12, one-hour visits with a licensed therapist who is specialized in assessing the mental health of police candidates. There needs to be a comprehensive lie detector test done with hundreds of questions, IF that is not done already.

Gelhaus may have had a flashback from his combat days and then his muscle memory took over when he thought he saw a Kalashnikov.

3. Accountability.
Whenever there is police brutality, especially with an unwarranted death, the officers involved should be held accountable. Ravitch not only did not do her job, she consciously and deliberately shirked her duties and let Gelhaus walk. Now we have a police officer who is a basket case, ready to re-apply the same methods he used with Andy because Ravitch said it was justified. Gelhaus, a sheriff's deputy, is going to be back at work on the streets of not only Santa Rosa but all of the unincorporated areas of Sonoma County.

There is a killer on the loose and no one is safe. Gelhaus needs to be permanently kicked off the force asap and prohibited from working for any law enforcement agency, even private security companies. I wonder how many children Gelhaus killed when he was overseas.

4. Remuneration.
Law enforcement does a lot for you and me and they should be extremely well paid for the dangerous work that they do. But law enforcement personnel, like Gelhaus, who have demonstrated a reckless and dangerous attitude BEFORE he killed an American child are not impacted by high salary. Officers like Gelhaus who show signs of reckless and dangerous attitudes like his "law enforcement is sport" and "empty the clip" should be terminated IMMEDIATELY.

5. Training.
There needs to be a far more exhaustive training program than there is now.
Whatever cop school is doing now it is obviously not enough. Law enforcement training needs to be longer, more in depth, more expensive, and must include some college education as well, at the very least an AA degree but probably a BA.

Our lives are in their hands, the hands of law enforcement. Our lives and the lives of our family, friends, and neighbors are worth doubling or tripling the overall budget for law enforcement. It's not that the police are stupid, they're not; they are good, honest, hard-working people who are willing to take the bullet for you and me. But you wouldn't have someone who is not a physicist trying to build a nuclear bomb. Or someone who is not a surgeon to do a life-saving operation. The same goes for the safety of our communities. And yes, if we need to increase law enforcement salaries substantially then let's do it. They deserve it and so do we.

For many positions in law enforcement nothing higher than a high school diploma is required. That has to stop yesterday! And we can respect all "legacy" law enforcement personnel by keeping them but making sure that all new recruits follow a far longer, more rigorous, more expensive, training and education process.

Podfish, these points are not asking the police and others to increase their own risk. They have to do with adequately screening and training candidates before and during their critically important service to the community. Their job is too important to leave in the hands of the wrong people, people like Gelhaus.

I feel that two of the most important points are not being emphasized enough.

1. The toy gun Andy was carrying was not a suddenly appearing good replica. Gelhaus is guilty because he failed to exercise the trust he was being paid for to know the difference.

2. Andy did not instigate any threatening situation, Gelhaus did.

For over 50 years there have been 1000's and 1000's of replica toy guns on the street with or without the orange tip.

I don't like it either, but it's a long established, accepted societal fact of toy-hood, not something suddenly new and confusing to deal with. Too late to declare they shouldn't exist, use it as an excuse and basically say "sorry we killed a kid, oops."

WE PAY law enforcement to know the difference between a toy and a real gun. For Ravitch to display the similarity in the two guns as if it showed any excuse was ludicrous. Gelhaus has seen 1000's of them both before.

We are also paying law enforcement to know the difference between a threatening situation or not, and especially not create one where there isn't one!!

Andy was not waving, pointing or making any obvious threatening action. Gelhaus disturbed the peace and created an unstable, chaotic, threatening situation by HIS sudden, surprising appearance, commands and demands out of the blue to Andy - a sudden appearance of a threat that would have surprised anyone totally innocent minding their own business in an open field and very expectedly and justifiably possibly trigger some movement of defensiveness that should have been read as such.

THE POLICE CANNOT BE OUT OF THE BLUE BULLIES AND THEN BLAME AN INNOCENT FOR HOW THEY REACTED, LET ALONE BE EXCUSED FOR THE DAMAGE THEY CAUSE THAT IS PURELY A CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR OWN UNPROVOKED BULLYING.

Read this friends:
https://www.sfgate.com/default/artic...of-5614736.php

I was surprised and disappointed in Ravitch when I read this….in my view, when you bring in an "independent expert" who is neither, one who has ALWAYS found justification for killer cops, you are not serving the public that elected you--or using our tax dollars wisely. Jill Ravitch campaigned on the slogan, "Keeping You Safe" Do any of us feel safer now that Gelhaus has been found innocent of all wrong doing?

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...4_14-34-21.png
Expert witness in toy-gun case has history of siding with police

07-11) 17:15 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- Called on to investigate the fatal shooting of a toy-gun carrying 13-year-old boy by a sheriff's deputy, Sonoma County District Attorney Jill Ravitch chose a consultant she described as "an independent, outside expert on human performance in high-stress encounters, such as officer-involved shootings."

One quality of William Lewinski that Ravitch didn't mention was his reliability to side with police.

Lewinski, whose website describes him as "one of the nation's foremost authorities on reaction times and shooting dynamics," divides his time between training police officers, researching their conduct and testifying on their behalf, usually to dispute accusations of wrongful shootings.

Since 1990, he has testified for police in more than 75 cases in the United States and several in Canada and Great Britain. The Police Firearms Officers Association in Britain honored him in 2009 with its first life-member award for his "commitment to firearms officers in the U.K.," particularly two he helped to exonerate of murder charges.

One courtroom adversary, Pasadena attorneyJohn C. Burton, who has clashed with Lewinski in two police-shooting cases, describes him as "an uncredentialed police expert who will say whatever they need to justify the situation."

(click to continue)

Seems to me Ravitch has lost all right to be respected or trusted as a DA. And if the police keep Gelhaus on the force there is also need for new leadership in the department.

Over time political systems get corrupt and ingrown, and occasionally a thorough house cleaning is in order. This seems to be one of those times.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Peacetown Jonathan:

Read this friends:
https://www.sfgate.com/default/artic...of-5614736.php

I was surprised and disappointed in Ravitch when I read this….

---

As the old saying goes, "Kick the bums out!"

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Gus diZerega:

Seems to me Ravitch has lost all right to be respected or trusted as a DA. And if the police keep Gelhaus on the force there is also need for new leadership in the department.

Over time political systems get corrupt and ingrown, and occasionally a thorough house cleaning is in order. This seems to be one of those times.

---

Ravitch has been exposed as an apologist for police criminality or a coward. Either way, she is unsuited for the position she holds. Her manipulation of voters into supporting her by holding off on her decision till after the election adds to her moral collapse. It suggests she thought being honest might cost her the election, therefore be dishonest.

We can likely get a recall of this tool onto the ballot. But what are the chances of her actually being recalled?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:

As the old saying goes, "Kick the bums out!"

---

recall of ravitch as likely as recall of carillo.
not that there's parity between their acts, merely the shared political degeneration and our lack of ability to bring justice/public sentiment for integrity to bear.

yes, the more we pay attention, the more we notice that the local politicians are largely not working for the people.
nor state, nor federal.

not the congress (millionaires or on their way. maybe 3 to 5 actually decent and good).
not the executive branch (ever).
not judicial (local, state OR supreme court - very rare exceptions. ex: # of jailed banksters).
not the appointed agencies (FDA, FCC, NRC, etc.)
not the 'fifth estate' media (owned/controlled).

(transnationals / bohemian club crowd .1% run the governments to take care of crowd control and global resource /labor trade which is their business, their fortunes.)

seamless. really bad.
(do make a case for the contrary - i'd love to be informed otherwise.)

yet can't roll over, need to keep the ball in play.
well 'd everything and keep the love*light burning, onwards, jude

educate / organize / mobilize

dream / communicate / dance

breath / touch / smile

imagine / see / manifest

keep me posted.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Gus diZerega:

Ravitch has been exposed as an apologist for police criminality or a coward. Either way, she is unsuited for the position she holds. Her manipulation of voters into supporting her by holding off on her decision till after the election adds to her moral collapse. It suggests she thought being honest might cost her the election, therefore be dishonest.

We can likely get a recall of this tool onto the ballot. But what are the chances of her actually being recalled?

---

Add Ravitch to the growing list of establishment tools needing to go to the scrap heap.

Most unfortunately recalling an incumbent takes the functional equivalent of a case of dynamite and, most importantly, a demonstrably BETTER replacement on the ballot along with the recall question.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Gus diZerega:

Ravitch has been exposed as an apologist for police criminality or a coward. Either way, she is unsuited for the position she holds. Her manipulation of voters into supporting her by holding off on her decision till after the election adds to her moral collapse. It suggests she thought being honest might cost her the election, therefore be dishonest.

We can likely get a recall of this tool onto the ballot. But what are the chances of her actually being recalled?

---