Police with guns play with them with kids--Aug. 30, 2011 PD article

First the police display their weapons to the children, as documented by this Aug. 30, 2011, article in the PD. The photo, which did not forward, is unbelievable, about how the police teach our children to be violent. Then when a 13-year-old gets a toy gun, they see him, and 10 seconds later kill him. What is wrong with this picture?

Notice the comment by Councilmember Wysocky below: “It bothers me that he's reaching for that gun like it's a toy,” Wysocky said. That comment foreshadowed the killing of Andy Lopez. So this is not the first time we have had what is called a "kids-guns controversy" in the extra letters section below, only this time it was deadly.

Santa Rosa City Council gets earful over SWAT weapons display
A Santa Rosa SWAT team display during a South Park community event has sparked strong debate. (Attila Nagy)
By KEVIN McCALLUM
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT, August 30, 2011, 6:00 AM
Related Links
Santa Rosa gang-prevention event returns, minus gun display
Santa Rosa councilwoman: Public treated disrespectfully at meetings

PD Editorial: Aftermath of the kids-guns hubbub
Letter of the Day: Teaching gun safety

GUEST OPINION: Santa Rosa police mishandled weapons display

EXTRA LETTERS: Readers respond to kids-guns controversy in Santa Rosa

Letter of the Day: Guns aren’t the issue

Santa Rosa mayor defends kids handling SWAT weapons

Police allow children to handle guns at Santa Rosa festival

A Santa Rosa City Council review Tuesday night of Gang Prevention Week turned into a referendum on gun control and safety as residents gave the councilmembers an earful about a SWAT display that allowed children to handle automatic weapons.

Critics of the event, some wearing “Guns Are Not Toys” stickers, questioned the wisdom of the police display, which became publicized after photos circulated showing children handling an M-16- style rifle and other weapons.
Elaine Holtz, a member of the city Community Advisory Board who worked a booth at the event, said there was no gun safety education going on that she could see. She said she “absolutely stunned” when she saw the officer place the weapon into the hands of a child.

“I said ‘Wait a minute this is not what this event is about,' ” she said.

Others defended the event, some blasting the media for not reporting the positive elements of the community event in the city's troubled South Park neighborhood.

Police Chief Tom Schwedhelm said the event gave officers chance to make “non-traditional connections with the community.” The goal of the SWAT display was to show people that “these are some of the tools the police use to make this community safe,” he said.

But Julie Combs said she felt the police had “confused community policing with irresponsible gun handling.” She noted that the parents of the children involved were never asked for their consent, and that little gun safety education took place at the event.

“Let's stop pretending this was a well thought out special program,” Combs said.

Others backed the police presence at the South Park Day and Night Festival in Martin Luther King Jr. Park, which in addition to the SWAT display included a K-9 demonstration and other displays.

Brad Connors, who represents the police officers union, said “someone with an agenda” took a photo “that they knew would be inflammatory” and The Press Democrat “fanned the flames.”

He said council members were wrong to suggest the community outreach somehow “desensitized” children to violence. He said there are 15 police officers with SWAT training, many have families and none would ever do anything to harm children.

“These officers have been vilified in the press over the past three weeks for doing nothing more than trying to build positive relationships with the youth of our community,” Conners said.

Several council members lamented that the media attention on the gun issue had taken the focus off of the work done by many of the young people who helped organize the event. Several suggested the Mayor's Gang Prevention Task Force “rethink” the SWAT display for future years, but the council took no formal action on the issue.

Councilman Scott Bartley said he was “taken aback” by the photo when he saw it in the paper. But he called it “truly unfortunate” that the police chief and others involved in the festival were put “on the defensive” by the publicity about the event.

Because the gun debate had become a “distraction” from all the good work done during Gang Prevention Week, Bartley suggested future SWAT display be changed in the future.

“The reality is we should not do this again,” Bartley said, to a round of applause.

John Sawyer agreed, saying it was “sad the positive nature of this program was buried in the negative press.”
Since it had become clear the display “stepped on some sensitivities,” Sawyer said he assumed the issue would be “revisited” for future events. But he hoped that this “one glitch” wouldn't reduce the energy put into future events.

“The community needs it and they want it and I fully expect them to get it because they deserve it,” Sawyer said.
Councilman Gary Wysocky said it was “unsettling” to see not only the photo of the young boy aiming the rifle, but another one of a younger boy reaching for a different weapon.

“It bothers me that he's reaching for that gun like it's a toy,” Wysocky said.

Schwedhelm explained that the young boy was reaching for a “sage gun,” which is a “less-than-lethal” weapon. Such weapons also are known as riot guns.

The chief said he wasn't going to second guess the judgment of the officer based on a snapshot. It's entirely possible at the moment that image was taken, the officer told the boy not to touch the gun, Schwedhelm said.

Pressed by Wysocky to say how young is too young to begin gun education, the chief said he wasn't an expert and he would leave that decision up to the adult in charge.

“If they are feeling that it's an appropriate age, sure,” Schwedhelm said.

Wysocky, citing the impact of violent movies and video games on children youngsters, said he disagreed.
“The educator in me says that's a little too young,” Wysocky said.

Having read this article - well - I don't even know where to begin. This just sickens me...

the problem is the law enforcement strategy chosen by our society. the officer who killed was a 24yr vet entrusted with training new hires. law enforcement personnel are selected for slow thinking and trained to fear and kill quickly. what would be a reasonable assumption when chance encountering a young hispanic male mid afternoon in roseland with what looks like an ak 47? a kid with a toy gun? or a cop killer with military amo? our head sheriff says the second assumption is reasonable.

thankfully after citizen feedback and substantial payout our cops now call a mental health crisis team instead of gunning down people experiencing psychotic breaks. this is an important public process, thanks for facilitating shepherd in wacco land. i know from volunteering at the jail that inmate death is often the direct result of criminal justice policy which excludes staff accountability. our own small town police chief, jeff weaver, hides behind policy and confidentiality when challenged. the young hispanic male killed by a veteran officer, clearly a distraught lover threatening suicide by cop, justified and backed up of course by srpd, was a no choice action according to weaver. this is the same man who shut down the skate park when citizens attempted to educate youth about their rights. the current county sheriff shows the same lack of courage.

Discussing this with my friend yesterday, he pointed out that toy guns should have some bright orange parts on it. This would be a simple way to avoid these senseless tragedies.

"Simple" ? Since when was life in the 21st century "simple?" The only real solution, if we would protect our children, is to outlaw these imitation assault weapons and sue the corporations that manufacture and profit from them. Otherwise, they are in training to become users of these weapons. "Bright orange parts on them" is not enough.

How do you feel about the killing of a 13-year-old child, merely for having one of these imitation assault weapons? Your "should" is not enough, in my humble opinion. The tragedy was not "senseless." It reveals the increasingly violent nature of our American society.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by BobHeisler:

Discussing this with my friend yesterday, he pointed out that toy guns should have some bright orange parts on it. This would be a simple way to avoid these senseless tragedies.

---

Good idea - in theory. Unfortunately, I could see some nut job with the real deal and a spray can of day-glo orange...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by BobHeisler:

Discussing this with my friend yesterday, he pointed out that toy guns should have some bright orange parts on it. This would be a simple way to avoid these senseless tragedies.

---

Well then, it's quite obvious the Sheriffs Dept., is protecting one of their own.
When considering the validity of making the assumption that a young child would have an actual rifle. As opposed to the greater likelihood of a child carrying a toy rifle a few days before Halloween!
Along with the fact that all toy rifles have a bright orange cap on the tip on the barrel!
It doesn't make any sense that anyone could condone this killing...
In our troubled society, law enforcement should be required to have a video camera monitoring their actions at all times. Because now all that we have to go by is the word of these murderous officers, against a dead young child.
It just doesn't make any sense that these officers would kill this kid.
Shouldn't law enforcement only use non-lethal weapons in the first place? Tranquilizer guns could be effective and non deadly...
To think of the injustice of the actions of these Sheriff officers though.
They couldn't differentiate between a real, or toy weapon? Indiscriminate of any rational insight they opened fire on a young boy?
Upon shooting at this child, these officers didn't fire a warning shot. They truly aimed to kill the young boy. Upon shooting this child once, these officers didn't stop to investigate. No... They shot the boy a grand total of seven times!
It seems to me like law enforcement is an evil and corrupt entity that does a lot more harm than good.

We need citizen review boards to review all officer involved shootings and an immediate change in the departments standard operating procedures. This wrong rush to judgement happens way too often and never contributes to civility or respect for law enforcement. These cops must be disarmed, period.

There's a history of Santa Rosa police and Sonoma County Sheriffs shooting to kill when people are mentally ill, minority, homeless and the like. Recently a wealthy white man was having a conflict with his wife, locked her out of the house, the neighbors called the police, he escaped out the back with some sort of weapon. The police gave him all night to calm down and turn over the weapon. When it is the other people, it is follow orders immediately or be shot dead. Mentally ill people and children especially can't be expected to follow orders as police might expect. Barrie

Why should police and sheriff's deputies routinely carry lethal weapons at all?
Why can't they use tazers, rubber bullets, stun guns etc., except for extreme situations?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shepherd:

How do you feel about the killing of a 13-year-old child, merely for having one of these imitation assault weapons?

---

This kid was not killed "merely for having one of these imitation assault weapons", as you put it. That's ludicrous. What do you think happened--the cop said "He's carrying an imitation assault weapon; let's kill him?" It seems pretty clear that the cops thought the weapon was, or might be, real, and also thought their lives were in imminent danger.

Of course this was a terrible tragedy and, as more facts are established, it may be determined that the cops didn't follow proper procedure and indeed are culpable. But let's not allow our feelings of horror, sadness, outrage, etc. to distort our thinking or our rhetoric. I've seen people in this discussion talk as if they think the cops should somehow have known that the weapon wasn't a real one, that they should have known the kid was only 13, that a 13-year-old with a gun is somehow less dangerous than an adult with one, and that if someone appears to be raising a gun at you there's some better way of dealing with that than to shoot them in self-defense. It's easy for "armchair generals" and "Monday morning quarterbacks" to self-righteously judge others on the basis of information we have that they didn't have when they made their fateful choices. It takes bigger people to sit with uncertainty and ambiguity and feel our feelings of horror without turning into a lynch mob.

Quote:

---

The tragedy was not "senseless." It reveals the increasingly violent nature of our American society.

---

This is a common misconception. The last I knew, incidence of most or all violent crimes has been decreasing for the last several decades. In other words, society is becoming less, not more, violent. It may look otherwise because the corporate media, and especially "news" shows, have been maximizing ratings by emphasizing sensationalistic stuff like violence more than they used to. As they purportedly say in the newsrooms, "If it bleeds, it leads". It has been suggested by some that this is also motivated by the ruling class's desire to divide and conquer the rest of us by making us fearful of each other. Let's try not to fall for that.

Witnesses recount deputy fatally shooting Santa Rosa teen
https://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?se...bay&id=9302840

The Sheriff officers in question could have simply asked the kid, if the gun was "real?"
Those officers were in no imminent danger, they were not in harms way whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by eric:

The Sheriff officers in question could have simply asked the kid, if the gun was "real?"

---

If you were a cop in that situation and the guy said the gun, which looked quite realistic, wasn't real, would you stake your life on believing him?

Quote:

---

Those officers were in no imminent danger, they were not in harms way whatsoever.

---

Of course we know that now. Are you unclear on the fact that the cops in that situation had no way of knowing it then? Their only recourse was to get the kid to drop the gun so they could examine it and assure their (and other people's) safety. According to the accounts I read, they ordered him to drop the gun and he didn't do so. If this is true, doesn't the kid have some responsibility in creating a dangerous, ultimately deadly, situation? It looks to me like these cops were afraid for their lives--and the lives of others around them, given the highly publicized mass shootings we all hear about. A little empathy might be in order.

I recently received my property tax bill for the coming year. Why should I fork over $2,000 for Sonoma County to continue to shoot people who don't need to be shot? Maybe if enough of us organized a short term tax boycott it would get their attention. Barrie (not Wacco Barry)

Eye-witness ordinary unarmed citizen, not fearing for his life, had no trouble discerning it was a toy gun:

Commentary #60 in PD article: https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...cles/131029886

Sherry Condren-Lopez · Billing Rep at HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT AND BILLING

I live on West Robles. My husband was leaving the house at @ 3 pm Tues was at
the 4 way stop at Moorland and West Robles. The boy Andy Lopez was crossing
west robles at the time. My husband had to wait for him to cross the road before
pulling out. He said he did not think anything of the fact that the boy was carrying a
TOY GUN. My husband said he could tell it was a TOY GUN.

Reply · October 23 at 1:41am

It is important that another person who saw Andy Lopez was able to see that it was a toy gun. I hope that your husband is stepping forward with his experience. Barrie

Andy's family could probably use that information as testimony for their case...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Runningbare:

Eye-witness ordinary unarmed citizen, not fearing for his life, had no trouble discerning it was a toy gun:...

---

Barrie:

I think you nailed it. As Alexander Haig (Nixon era) said, "Let 'em protest as long as they pay their taxes." The chance that we will someday cut off that very fluid spigot keeps the empire builders up at night.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barrie:

I recently received my property tax bill for the coming year. Why should I fork over $2,000 for Sonoma County to continue to shoot people who don't need to be shot? Maybe if enough of us organized a short term tax boycott it would get their attention. Barrie (not Wacco Barry)

---

Unless I've missed some new information my understanding is that 7 rounds were fired without a single miss - how many times does a suspect need to be shot before a trained cop is capable of taking control of the situation? Do you think it took 7 shots to drop Andy? Would you concede that 7 rounds was a bit excessive under the circumstances? I also recall reading that Gelhaus was the only one shooting - did his partner somehow not feel as threatened and if so why not? Was there a difference in the perception of the circumstances by each of the deputies or was it a difference in the personal style of each of the men on how to best secure a potentially dangerous situation and apprehend a suspect? Considering the 'shoot to kill, ask questions later' profile of Gelhaus that is now surfacing I can't help but wonder if we might be dealing with someone who is a little over-anxious to kill.........but that's just me.

Regarding Andy's culpability in his death - when Andy was ordered to "drop the weapon", which is the account that I read, it is possible that in Andy's mind it did not register that he had a "weapon" because in fact, whether it looked real or not, Andy was carrying a toy. Beyond that point - do we accept that it is appropriate police protocol to fire 7 rounds into a suspect if they do not immediately obey an order? Who are the police really there to protect - themselves or the public? Bottom line - a 13 year kid is dead.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

...According to the accounts I read, they ordered him to drop the gun and he didn't do so. If this is true, doesn't the kid have some responsibility in creating a dangerous, ultimately deadly, situation? It looks to me like these cops were afraid for their lives--and the lives of others around them, given the highly publicized mass shootings we all hear about. A little empathy might be in order.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

Unless I've missed some new information my understanding is that 7 rounds were fired without a single miss - how many times does a suspect need to be shot before a trained cop is capable of taking control of the situation?

---

I've been wondering that myself!

Quote:

---

Do you think it took 7 shots to drop Andy?

---

I doubt it, though I'm guessing that the intention was not just to drop him, but to incapacitate him to a high degree of certainty so he couldn't shoot anyone, which is very different.

Quote:

---

Would you concede that 7 rounds was a bit excessive under the circumstances?

---

It would certainly seem so, but I lack both the training and the experience to make that judgment with much certainty, especially since I wasn't there. I assume the same is true of you and everyone else who is engaged in these discussions.

Quote:

---

I also recall reading that Gelhaus was the only one shooting - did his partner somehow not feel as threatened and if so why not? Was there a difference in the perception of the circumstances by each of the deputies or was it a difference in the personal style of each of the men on how to best secure a potentially dangerous situation and apprehend a suspect?

---

Excellent questions which I too have been wondering about.

Quote:

---

Considering the 'shoot to kill, ask questions later' profile of Gelhaus that is now surfacing I can't help but wonder if we might be dealing with someone who is a little over-anxious to kill...

---

And I too have been wondering that. Of course, "shoot to kill, ask questions later" is, on rare occasions, the best course of action. How that may apply to this situation is not clear to me at this point.

Quote:

---

Regarding Andy's culpability in his death - when Andy was ordered to "drop the weapon", which is the account that I read, it is possible that in Andy's mind it did not register that he had a "weapon" because in fact, whether it looked real or not, Andy was carrying a toy.

---

Certainly that is one possible scenario.

Quote:

---

Beyond that point - do we accept that it is appropriate police protocol to fire 7 rounds into a suspect if they do not immediately obey an order?

---

Odd as it sounds, in some rare situations, that probably is the best response. If such an extreme intervention had taken place in the early stages of any of a number of mass shootings that have plagued our world (Columbine, etc. ad nauseam), lives would have been saved. If these cops thought the kid had a real assault rifle, they may have been concerned about the possibility of just such a scenario.

Quote:

---

Who are the police really there to protect - themselves or the public?

---

Both, of course. Note that if the cops had been primarily interested in protecting themselves, they'd have driven away without confronting the kid. It seems evident to me that their intervening with the kid was due to concern about his possibly being a threat to the public. And, if cops don't protect themselves, they're easily dispatched by killers who can then go after the public unimpeded. Not to mention everyone's basic right to self-defense, including cops who, after all, are people too.

Quote:

---

Bottom line - a 13 year kid is dead.

---

Well, duh. And can't we respond more constructively than waving the bloody shirt?

Please know that I'm not taking sides in this discussion. I don't know enough about exactly what happened, or why, to take a strong position re: anyone's degree of culpability. I don't think anyone in this discussion does, though that doesn't stop most folks from hollering for blood. I'm just arguing for rationality, nuance, fairness, empathy, recognition of our lack of info, giving the benefit of the doubt, and presuming innocence until guilt is proved. We don't need to conduct a trial in this forum, and don't have all the information necessary to do it right. Can we express our feelings of horror, sadness, and even anger without rushing to judgment?

I'm going to talk to the Peace and Justice Center about organizing a property tax boycott. I would want to know all the legal ramifications, however my concept is to have people who want the county to do what the federal Civil Rights Commission recommended back in '98 to turn in their taxes together in a large bundle. The message that would go with the bundle is, we are supporting this county & we want to stop supporting the Criminal Justice System until they institute the civilian revue committee and other recommended measures. There have been WAAAY to many people killed by law inforcement in Sonoma County. Being mentally ill, a teenager, or a minority shouldn't be a death penalty offence.

Barrie

This terrible incident, and the community's response was covered by All Things Considered on NPR last night, including Efren's voice being broadcast nationwide saying a rather curious bit.

The first sentence is the kind of coverage I'd like to see Sonoma County get, rather than the most unfortunate info that follows. The comments following the article (reposted below) on the NPR site are worth a read, too.

Barry

https://media.npr.org/chrome/news/npr-home.png
Police, Community Relations Strained After Teen's Death

https://www.npr.org/2013/10/30/24189...er-teens-death

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...1_12-58-32.png

Sonoma County, Calif., is probably best known for its good wine, green sensibilities and otherwise healthy and peaceful living. But that peace was shattered last week when a county sheriff's deputy shot and killed a young teenager carrying a toy gun.

Thirteen-year-old Andy Lopez was walking through an open field near his home in semi-rural southwest Santa Rosa on Oct. 22 when he was spotted by two sheriff's deputies. Lopez was carrying a plastic pellet gun, a toy replica of an AK-47. It did not have an orange tip on the barrel to indicate that it was a toy, as required by federal law.

The deputies yelled for Andy to drop the weapon, says Santa Rosa Police Lieutenant Paul Henry.

"As the subject was turning toward him, the barrel of the assault rifle was rising up and turning in his direction," Henry says. "The deputy feared for his safety, the safety of his partner and the safety of the community members in the area."

Deputy Erick Gelhaus fired eight shots, striking Andy seven times. The other deputy, a trainee whose name has not been released, never left the patrol car and did not discharge his weapon. An investigation is pending.

The killing has sparked near-daily protests and vigils in the mostly Latino neighborhood. A protest on Tuesday was the largest so far, with several hundred angry, but otherwise peaceful, demonstrators demanding a transparent investigation into Andy's death.

The protest was dominated by high school and college students. It also attracted a lot of mothers, such as Catarina Gudino, who brought her 13-year-old son to the protest.

"I have a lot of hate, and it's hurtful. It could have been my son," she says. "I can't even imagine losing a child. And especially the way he died, he didn't have a chance, there's no chance at all. They were shooting to kill."

Gudino says there's a history of tense relations between police and the Latino community in southwest Santa Rosa, tensions that seem to have eased recently.

Sonoma County Supervisor Efren Carrillo says the healing process can't begin too soon.

"A tragic event occurred. We all bear the responsibility," Carrillo says. "If we're going to point the finger we ought to be pointing it at ourselves as a community, so this doesn't happen again and we need to start building from that."

Carrillo says he's looking for a way to start a public discussion about police and community relations, as well as the prevalence of replica guns.

Meanwhile, the FBI has begun its own investigation to determine whether there were any federal civil rights violations in the shooting.

Howabout if the kid looked like he was dangerous?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

If you were a cop in that situation and the guy said the gun, which looked quite realistic, wasn't real, would you stake your life on believing him?


Of course we know that now. Are you unclear on the fact that the cops in that situation had no way of knowing it then? Their only recourse was to get the kid to drop the gun so they could examine it and assure their (and other people's) safety. According to the accounts I read, they ordered him to drop the gun and he didn't do so. If this is true, doesn't the kid have some responsibility in creating a dangerous, ultimately deadly, situation? It looks to me like these cops were afraid for their lives--and the lives of others around them, given the highly publicized mass shootings we all hear about. A little empathy might be in order.

---

Sorry - not quite understanding Efren's cozy soundbite "We all bear the responsibility" or "if we are going to point the finger, we ought to be pointing it at ourselves as a community." As members of this community, I see several responsibilities - voting, protesting, and starting a revolution. Trigger happy "toy" manufacturers and law enforcement officials take note... In the meantime, parents - do YOUR kids play with "toy" guns?

Looking "dangerous" is in the eye of the beholder. How dangerous can a 13 y.o. boy look? Someone posted earlier that he saw this boy right before he was shot, saw the toy gun, and saw that it was a toy gun. And in any case, looking dangerous is not a death penalty crime. We need to tell the criminal justice system that we do not want people executed on police whim. Barrie

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by patnicholson:

Howabout if the kid looked like he was dangerous?

---

I want to echo what Barrie says here. Andy was not a threat or dangerous. Sheriff's deputy Erick Gelhaus is a threat, dangerous, and a killer. The "crime" of this boy is that he is brown-skinned, so the killer cop took him out, because he could, thinking that he would get away with it. Gelhaus came from the killing fields in Iraq and shot-to-kill.

This story has gone international. May we wake up to how militarized many of our law enforcement officers have become. As a child raised in a military family, I played with toy guns. Should I have been killed for that? We may be at the early stages of a police state, where the people are "the enemy," especially persons of color.
Shepherd, US Army vet, Vietnam Era

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barrie:

Looking "dangerous" is in the eye of the beholder. How dangerous can a 13 y.o. boy look? Someone posted earlier that he saw this boy right before he was shot, saw the toy gun, and saw that it was a toy gun. And in any case, looking dangerous is not a death penalty crime. We need to tell the criminal justice system that we do not want people executed on police whim. Barrie

---

Such a horrendous, heinous act has been committed here, and yet, personally, I do not want to get caught up in speculation. However, one thing is a fact: if the manufacture of realistic "toy" gun replicas had been illegal, Andy Lopez would be alive today - and the personal profile of Erick Gelhaus would be a nonissue.

Do you think that members of police and sheriff should have a greater right to "be safe" than Andy Lopez or anyone else in the community? What about Andy's right to be safe? What happened to that?

Do you think a member of the community would be justified in shooting a cop if they felt the cop was posing an imminent danger to them or someone else? Do you see the inherent imbalance in the argument that says the officer was compelled to shoot to ensure his own safety and that of his partner and the public?

"Deputy Erick Gelhaus fired eight shots, striking Andy seven times," reported the Press Democrat. To me it is clear that the intent was not to prevent a possible harm. The intent was to kill the boy. Cold execution. The plastic replica would be justification enough.

In a city where I used to live, not a year went by when the cops didn't shoot and kill a black youth because they "thought he had a gun" when really it was only a cell phone or can of coke. There are people who the police know they dare not shoot, and others who they know they can shoot and kill with impunity. Andy Lopez was in that second category. And more often than not, when police start shooting someone "expendable" like Andy, they keep shooting until they kill them. They have sometimes gone so far as to physically prevent trained medical professionals on the scene from administering first aid, ensuring that the victim of police shooting dies without telling his or her side of it. Cold execution.

When a cop starts his or her shift, it is not like a blank slate, with everything and everyone being equal. There is a long history of police violence and murder against poor people and people of color. There is a police culture of demanding deference and compliance under the threat of beating and death. Deputy Gelhaus is perhaps more outspoken and proactive than some of his fellow officers, but his actions on October 22 were not so out of character for a modern-day police force as we might pretend or wish them to be.

Andy is dead, killed in cold blood. The "CRIMINAL justice" system Gelhaus works for will likely make every effort to ensure that Gelhaus does not spend a day in prison for his crime.

Empathy for the poor embattled police? No one forced Gelhaus to discharge his firearm SEVEN TIMES into the body of a boy who was threatening no one. I don't buy into the myth that the officer "was afraid" and that he shot Lopez "to protect himself and others." Let's say it like it is: the Zimmerman's and Gelhaus's of the world live for such moments.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

If you were a cop in that situation and the guy said the gun, which looked quite realistic, wasn't real, would you stake your life on believing him?


Of course we know that now. Are you unclear on the fact that the cops in that situation had no way of knowing it then? Their only recourse was to get the kid to drop the gun so they could examine it and assure their (and other people's) safety. According to the accounts I read, they ordered him to drop the gun and he didn't do so. If this is true, doesn't the kid have some responsibility in creating a dangerous, ultimately deadly, situation? It looks to me like these cops were afraid for their lives--and the lives of others around them, given the highly publicized mass shootings we all hear about. A little empathy might be in order.

---

Dixon,

Thanks for your candidness, I appreciate the response. I'm not trying to spar, just a few observations. It appears to me that your primary objective is to point out that the public would be wise and fair to withhold judgment until more facts have been presented. Agreed, and in an effort to ascertain those facts I would suggest that it is imperative we ask the hard questions and insist on satisfactory answers that are substantiated by an impartial investigation and conclusive evidence. I would posit the idea that to ask those questions is not synonymous with conducting a trial, hollering for blood or presuming guilt. I would further suggest that empathy has nothing to do with this process nor does giving the benefit of doubt if the true objective is to rationally and fairly ascertain the facts.

It strikes me that in an overly zealous effort to be fair minded and give the benefit of doubt until all pertinent information is revealed you have overlooked some facts. For instance, while I agree that on rare, very rare occasions, the best course of action might be “shoot to kill, ask questions later” I fail to see the appropriateness of that behavior in this situation. What we do know for a fact is that the deputies were not responding to a 911 call of shots fired, disturbance or violence in the neighborhood, threatened or injured citizens, a robbery, or even a concern that there was someone walking the streets brandishing a weapon. They simply happened upon this kid walking in a field. Under these circumstances to immediately jump to the conclusion, as Gelhaus apparently did, that this was one of those rare occasions where shoot to kill is the only appropriate response seems to be, at the very least, demonstrative of extremely poor judgment on the part of a veteran officer. Can we afford to have officer's in the field lacking in the vital skills necessary to accurately assess a dangerous situation? Regardless of any other facts that come to light that is exactly what happened, the situation was inaccurately assessed by Gelhause and it proved to be a fatal mistake. Is it unreasonable to expect a higher level of critical thinking skills and better judgment from our law enforcement, particularly veteran officers?

You suggest that perhaps these officers were concerned about the possibility of the situation turning into a mass shooting such as Columbine, but where is the evidence that such a scenario could have developed – was the field or the neighboring streets occupied with vast numbers of bystanders? Was this a shopping mall, a school, a post office or some other similarly populated location? Was this really a potential threat for mass shootings? If so where were the masses?

In response to my question about 7 shots necessary to drop Andy you suggest that perhaps the intent was not simply to drop him but to incapacitate him to a high degree of certainty so he couldn't shoot anyone. You agree that 7 rounds seems excessive but you point out that none of us have the training and experience to make that judgment, and of course we weren't there. However what we do know for a fact is that there was no exchange of gunfire, Gelhaus was the only one shooting. So who exactly would have been responsible had a bystander been shot? Considering the fact that there was no return fire from Andy I would suggest that Gelhaus' actions of discharging his weapon 8 times was not only excessive but irresponsible.

I agree, police officers must have the ability and right to protect themselves just as anyone has a basic right to self-defense. And just like anyone they must be held accountable for their actions and decisions, they must not be held above the law and we must not turn a blind eye to evidence because a law enforcement officer's job is sometime dangerous.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

I've been wondering that myself!...

---

A citizens review committee for police shootings is way past overdue in this county. I'd advise Steroid testing for all cops too (I have heard from a local patrolman that it is a big problem in all three local forces).Gelhaus is out of control and has had complaints of pulling his gun on another harmless citizen (saw that on a mainstream news interview). Any police that are armed forces veterans who are hired should be fully debriefed and treated for PTSD before they can use a weapon. Ha ha, sure thing, right?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shepherd:

I want to echo what Barrie says here. Andy was not a threat or dangerous. Sheriff's deputy Erick Gelhaus is a threat, dangerous, and a killer. The "crime" of this boy is that he is brown-skinned, so the killer cop took him out, because he could, thinking that he would get away with it. Gelhaus came from the killing fields in Iraq and shot-to-kill.

This story has gone international. May we wake up to how militarized many of our law enforcement officers have become. As a child raised in a military family, I played with toy guns. Should I have been killed for that? We may be at the early stages of a police state, where the people are "the enemy," especially persons of color.
Shepherd, US Army vet, Vietnam Era

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by patnicholson:

Howabout if the kid looked like he was dangerous?

---

Was there anybody else on the street while andy was there w/ his gun? Were they freaking out because this kid was a deadly killing machine and needed to be put down? 911 calls about a shooter on the street?

Aren't cops trained to observe a situation and access risk? Were there cameras anywhere recording the scene?

just wondering.

There is a police accountability organization in Sonoma County, including a help line. On their website there is an article about the killing of Andy Lopez, and a "donate" button. see:

https://pachline.org/


From their website:
The Police Accountability Clinic and Helpline (PACH) exists to document police abuse, and to help survivors of Police Abuse find safety and support.
PACH participates in community based civil rights education.
We meet the fourth Tuesday of every month at 740 4th St, Santa Rosa, CA 95404.
We can be reached at 707-542-7224 or [email protected].
Mailing Address
719 Orchard St
Santa Rosa, CA 95404

I am feeling sadness, that that Police Accountability groups never have access to official government documents, about incidents such as the Lopez killing, and are usually ineffective at reining in the police. Yet they are a positive force in police accountability.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Fillie:

A citizens review committee for police shootings is way past overdue in this county. I'd advise Steroid testing for all cops too (I have heard from a local patrolman that it is a big problem in all three local forces).Gelhaus is out of control and has had complaints of pulling his gun on another harmless citizen (saw that on a mainstream news interview). Any police that are armed forces veterans who are hired should be fully debriefed and treated for PTSD before they can use a weapon. Ha ha, sure thing, right?

---

It's time for Gelhaus, or however he spells his name, to retire. When you are so scared on your job that you aren't safe to others, it's time to move on. Barrie

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tommy:

There is a police accountability organization in Sonoma County, including a help line. On their website there is an article about the killing of Andy Lopez, and a "donate" button. see:

https://pachline.org/


From their website:
The Police Accountability Clinic and Helpline (PACH) exists to document police abuse, and to help survivors of Police Abuse find safety and support.
PACH participates in community based civil rights education.
We meet the fourth Tuesday of every month at 740 4th St, Santa Rosa, CA 95404.
We can be reached at 707-542-7224 or [email protected].
Mailing Address
719 Orchard St
Santa Rosa, CA 95404

I am feeling sadness, that that Police Accountability groups never have access to official government documents, about incidents such as the Lopez killing, and are usually ineffective at reining in the police. Yet they are a positive force in police accountability.

---

Police know there are people who they dare not shoot and other people who they can shoot and kill with impunity. Andy Lopez was in this second group. Seven bullets into the boy's body....the intent was to kill him outright. In Deputy Gelhaus' mind, the plastic replica would be justification enough.

While Gelhaus may be more outspoken and proactive than some of his fellow officers, his actions on October 22 were not so uncharacteristic of a modern-day police force as we might pretend or wish them to be.

I do not buy into the myth that Gelhaus shot Lopez because he feared for his own safety and that of his partner and the public. Let's say it like it is: The Zimmerman's and Gelhaus's of the world live for such moments.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

Dixon,
Thanks for your candidness, I appreciate the response. I'm not trying to spar, just a few observations.

---

I'm not trying to spar either; I'm just looking for fruitful dialogue, as always. "Sparring" implies to me closed-mindedness, which is anathema to a rationalist.

Quote:

---

...I would suggest that it is imperative we ask the hard questions and insist on satisfactory answers that are substantiated by an impartial investigation and conclusive evidence. I would posit the idea that to ask those questions is not synonymous with conducting a trial, hollering for blood or presuming guilt.

---

I never said that asking the hard questions is synonymous with any of those things. I agree with you that we need to ask the hard questions, which is, I think, what I've been doing. I was referring to the fact that people in this and related threads are presuming guilt and (metaphorically speaking) conducting a trial and hollering for blood. For instance, some here have explicitly accused the cop of purposely murdering the kid for racist reasons. How could they possibly know that with the info we have? Some have insisted on talking as if the kid were killed for carrying a toy gun, which is hugely different from being killed for carrying something the cop thought was a real gun. When I point out that important distinction, they keep talking as if I'd never mentioned it. These are examples (and not the only ones) of "conducting a trial, hollering for blood or presuming guilt".

Quote:

---

I would further suggest that empathy has nothing to do with this process nor does giving the benefit of doubt if the true objective is to rationally and fairly ascertain the facts.

---

I didn't say that empathy and giving the benefit of the doubt are relevant to "rationally and fairly ascertain(ing) the facts" (your words). I implied that they are necessary for justice to be done. "Rationally and fairly ascertain(ing) the facts" is a big part of justice, but not all of it. Empathy and the benefit of the doubt come into play when we recognize the limitations of the facts we've been able to establish, which may not firmly establish guilt, and also when we look at possible mitigating factors. I'm arguing for, among other things, the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". I believe that it's better to err on the side of false negatives in situations like this; i.e., better to mistakenly let 10 guilty ones go than to hang one innocent one. Do you disagree with me on that?

Quote:

---

...while I agree that on rare, very rare occasions, the best course of action might be “shoot to kill, ask questions later” I fail to see the appropriateness of that behavior in this situation. What we do know for a fact is that the deputies were not responding to a 911 call of shots fired, disturbance or violence in the neighborhood, threatened or injured citizens, a robbery, or even a concern that there was someone walking the streets brandishing a weapon. They simply happened upon this kid walking in a field. Under these circumstances to immediately jump to the conclusion, as Gelhaus apparently did, that this was one of those rare occasions where shoot to kill is the only appropriate response seems to be, at the very least, demonstrative of extremely poor judgment on the part of a veteran officer. Can we afford to have officer's in the field lacking in the vital skills necessary to accurately assess a dangerous situation? Regardless of any other facts that come to light that is exactly what happened, the situation was inaccurately assessed by Gelhause and it proved to be a fatal mistake. Is it unreasonable to expect a higher level of critical thinking skills and better judgment from our law enforcement, particularly veteran officers?

---

Rustie, your account conveniently leaves out a couple of important factors which are part of a likely scenario: that "this kid walking in a field" was carrying what looked like it could be a real assault rifle, that he failed to drop it when ordered to do so, and that he started to raise it toward the cops. If you were a cop and someone were raising an apparently real rifle toward you after being told to drop it, wouldn't you shoot in self-defense? If not, what is your alternative plan? Stake your life (and others') on the hope that the guy wasn't about to put a bullet through your head?

Quote:

---

You suggest that perhaps these officers were concerned about the possibility of the situation turning into a mass shooting such as Columbine, but where is the evidence that such a scenario could have developed – was the field or the neighboring streets occupied with vast numbers of bystanders? Was this a shopping mall, a school, a post office or some other similarly populated location? Was this really a potential threat for mass shootings? If so where were the masses?

---

It is a residential area. Not important enough or populated enough to defend, in your opinion, Rustie?

Quote:

---

In response to my question about 7 shots necessary to drop Andy you suggest that perhaps the intent was not simply to drop him but to incapacitate him to a high degree of certainty so he couldn't shoot anyone. You agree that 7 rounds seems excessive but you point out that none of us have the training and experience to make that judgment, and of course we weren't there. However what we do know for a fact is that there was no exchange of gunfire, Gelhaus was the only one shooting.

---

Of course there was no exchange of gunfire; Gelhaus shot the guy before the guy could shoot him (keep in mind that he apparently didn't know, as we do, that it was a toy gun). If you think it's better to let the other guy have a free shot at you before firing in self-defense and just hope his bullet doesn't go through your (or someone else's) head, you've been watching too many cop shows on TV.

Quote:

---

I agree, police officers must have the ability and right to protect themselves just as anyone has a basic right to self-defense. And just like anyone they must be held accountable for their actions and decisions, they must not be held above the law and we must not turn a blind eye to evidence because a law enforcement officer's job is sometime dangerous.

---

I'm responding to people in these discussions persistently turning a blind eye to, for instance, the likelihood that the cop had reason to believe his and others' lives were in imminent danger.

Are there lots of racist cops? Yup.
Do they sometimes murder people? Yup, quite often (Oscar Grant comes to mind).
Are police forces in general, in addition to providing important safety services, instruments of oppression, especially oppression of black and brown folks? Yup.
Does that mean we should throw due process and the presumption of innocence out the window and make distorted, dishonest arguments demonizing a guy in a specific situation like this? Hell no! Let him have a fair trial and then, if it appears the trial was a cover-up, deal with that. I'm arguing for justice as opposed to destructive emotional responses.

I heard a news report on NPR that mentioned a guy driving along a ways ahead of the cop car who rolled down his window and yelled at Andy to put the Gun away because a cop car was right behind him.

The cop car came along , saw Andy with a Gun, Chirped their siren, got out and yelled at him to put the Gun down... and I sure wish that he had done so.

What a horrible and sad and Preventable tragedy!

Tom

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by patnicholson:

Was there anybody else on the street while andy was there w/ his gun? Were they freaking out because this kid was a deadly killing machine and needed to be put down? 911 calls about a shooter on the street?

Aren't cops trained to observe a situation and access risk? Were there cameras anywhere recording the scene?

just wondering.

---

This is the latest in years of police and sheriffs of Sonoma County killing people who didn't need to be killed. Back in about 98 a federal commission recommended that Sonoma County put together a civilian review board to go over police/sheriff policies that were causing these unwarranted deaths. Sonoma County has paid out a lot of money to families suing over wrongful deaths. In spite of this the county hasn't organized a civilian review board or taken other steps to prevent these deaths. I include in the list of unwarranted deaths two parents were killed by their mentally ill children because the parents were afraid that the police would kill their child if they called for help.

This can't go on! We need to tell OUR local government that we want more accountability, a civilian review board, and more training for law enforcement. Barrie

Was this Andy kid wearing bud headphones or some other thing that interfered with his hearing? Did he have a hearing loss? It seems like he was not responding to people speaking (yelling) at him.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tomcat:

I heard a news report on NPR that mentioned a guy driving along a ways ahead of the cop car who rolled down his window and yelled at Andy to put the Gun away because a cop car was right behind him.

The cop car came along , saw Andy with a Gun, Chirped their siren, got out and yelled at him to put the Gun down... and I sure wish that he had done so.

What a horrible and sad and Preventable tragedy!

Tom

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

Was this Andy kid wearing bud headphones or some other thing that interfered with his hearing? Did he have a hearing loss? It seems like he was not responding to people speaking (yelling) at him.

---

I saw a Facebook post from a guy who is familiar with that neighborhood and claims to have some info not generally available about Andy, the kid who was killed. He says that, as is pretty much always the case, the reality of the kid is not as rosy as the eulogies. Apparently Andy was expelled from his school that very day due to ongoing behavioral problems stemming from his Oppositional Disorder. If that's true, it's very likely that he ignored orders to drop his "weapon" and even started to raise it at the cops as reported; that sort of behavior is consistent with Oppositional Disorder. Furthermore, if he was expelled that same day, it's plausible that he may have been depressed/upset enough to commit "blue suicide" AKA "suicide by cop"--i.e., creating a situation that will cause a cop to shoot you. That last part is, of course, speculative, but it would go a long way toward explaining Andy's described behavior.

From wikipedia:

Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) is a childhood disorder described by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders(DSM) as an ongoing pattern of anger-guided disobedience, hostility, and defiant behavior toward authority figures which goes beyond the bounds of normal childhood behavior. Children suffering from this disorder may appear very stubborn and often angry.

That is helpful info -- it does not excuse anyone, but it does make some sense in an otherwise senseless death. Being depressed or emotionally upset delays reactions.

Here's how the wide-angle picture looks to me: first generation Mexican-American with all the usual first generation hyphenated American baggage, teenage boy with the sap of life (ie testosterone) rising, a creative, musical, right-hemisphere dominant boy from a Latin culture being forced into an authoritarian, non-creative, left-hemisphere oriented Anglo culture.

Of course he "opposed" this. Everyone should oppose something that is harmful, unpleasant and wrong for them.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

...Apparently Andy was expelled from his school that very day due to ongoing behavioral problems stemming from his Oppositional Disorder.

---

Having oppositional disorder is not a death penalty crime.

so you speculate from a third person face book post that a 13 yr old kid wanted suicide by cop. thats real reasonable dixon. a far more reasonable explanation is that he was turning to see who was shouting and was gunned down in the act. i know from experience that soco sheriffs are increasingly trained in procedures designed to facilitate intimidation and fear with tactics biased on overwhelming force and the immediate threat of violence. your training and experience twists your reason to excuse boyslaughter:.(

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

Of course he "opposed" this. Everyone should oppose something that is harmful, unpleasant and wrong for them.

---

I'm not sure what the "this" is you're referring to, Kirsten.

Fair question. "This" would be the school, the culture, perhaps feeling that he did not fit in, being tagged with a derogatory label, being told basically that he is a screwup, disordered, etc etc.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

I'm not sure what the "this" is you're referring to, Kirsten.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barrie:

Having oppositional disorder is not a death penalty crime.

---

It is if you point (what appears to be) an assault rifle at cops after they've told you to drop it.

Here are some questions for you and everyone else who's hollering for this cop's head:
If you saw someone walking through a residential area with an assault rifle, would you just ignore it, or would you investigate?
If you'd investigate, would that involve having him drop the weapon first, or would you take a chance on getting shot?
If you told him to drop the weapon and instead he started raising it toward you, would you refrain from shooting him on the assumption he wasn't going to shoot you? (If so, you'd be an idiot.)

Bottom line question for those of you who've been screaming for the cop's head:
Keeping in mind that they apparently thought, with good reason, the kid was carrying an assault rifle, what is your alternative plan for dealing with it without getting yourself shot?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

so you speculate from a third person face book post that a 13 yr old kid wanted suicide by cop. thats real reasonable dixon.

---

Ross, I clearly labeled it a speculation, which is more than most folks on these wild-eyed threads have done. And it is a reasonable one whether you like it or not. Re: the "third person" nature of my info, is your info any more direct? Is anybody's info on these Wacco threads any more direct?

Quote:

---

a far more reasonable explanation is that he was turning to see who was shouting and was gunned down in the act.

---

And after railing on me for speculating you speculate. :bs:

Quote:

---

your training and experience twists your reason to excuse boyslaughter:.(

---

What in the world are you talking about?

the deputies could have taken in that they were the first to be alarmed. they might have used their car mike to alert the suspicious person about their need to check him out, all the while keeping a safe distance and their cruisers engine between them and what looked like an ak. for me this is about how we choose to facilitate safety and security in our society. the county will pay (as they have in the past), but how will we train our peace officers?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

what is your alternative plan for dealing with it without getting yourself shot?

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

Fair question. "This" would be the school, the culture, perhaps feeling that he did not fit in, being tagged with a derogatory label, being told basically that he is a screwup, disordered, etc etc.

---

This seems like quite a tangent from the discussion. If you're questioning the appropriateness of the Oppositional Disorder diagnosis of Andy, I cannot respond as I know nothing of the case. If you're questioning the validity of the concept of Oppositional Disorder itself, I assure you it exists and it's not just a matter of pathologizing reasonable, normal rebelliousness; it's more destructive and out-of-control than that.

But what do these generalities about society have to do with the basic fact that if you're carrying something that looks like an assault rifle the cops will likely tell you to drop it, and if instead you point it at them they're likely to kill you in self-defense?

i am writing about your self identified training. and the most reasonable speculation is the simple one accounting for the agreed facts.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

What in the world are you talking about?

---

the deputies reported that he raised it toward them, not pointed it at them. get your facts straight dixon:(

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

and if instead you point it at them they're likely to kill you in self-defense?

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

the deputies could have taken in that they were the first to be alarmed.

---

Irrelevant to the decisions they had to make in the situation.

Quote:

---

they might have used their car mike to alert the suspicious person about their need to check him out...

---

Isn't telling someone to drop their weapon enough alerting?

Quote:

---

...all the while keeping a safe distance...

---

A safe distance from an AK47 is too far away to communicate with the guy, and there's also a concern that he might get away and hurt someone if you're not close enough to stop him from running/hiding.

Quote:

---

...and their cruisers engine between them and what looked like an ak.

---

If they can see and talk to the guy, their cruiser's engine isn't between them and his bullets.
So you see, your plan wouldn't work. The only way to assure their safety was to have him drop his weapon and of course they had to shoot him when he pointed it toward them. Or do you have another alternative plan that would actually work?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

i am writing about your self identified training.

---

Still not sure what training you mean, unless you're talking about my counseling training, which admittedly might make me likely to apply empathy to the situation instead of dealing with my feelings by demonizing someone and screaming for a sacrifice.

Quote:

---

...and the most reasonable speculation is the simple one accounting for the agreed facts.

---

Unfortunately, your speculation ("he was turning to see who was shouting and was gunned down in the act") doesn't account for the facts. You conveniently left out this fact you've acknowledged: "he raised it [his gun] toward them".

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

the deputies reported that he raised it toward them, not pointed it at them. get your facts straight dixon:(

---

It seems to you that there's a significant difference between the two? A big enough difference to bet your life on?

True, the speculation about his mental state and possible social angst issues is not 100% on topic. However, it does have bearing on Andy's behavior around the time of the incident, and how he responded to the two people who told him to put the toy gun away (one civilian, one deputy).

In general, it does sound like a teen boy who was having some problems was horsing around with a toy gun. More speculation: he did not understand the seriousness of a cop telling him to put the gun down (the judgement of teenagers is not the best), his reaction may have been delayed by various (again speculative) causes, and Deputy Gelhaus does seem to be very, very trigger-happy. All in all, a terrible confluence of factors with tragic result.

Re the oppositional disorder label: yes, i do have a problem with the validity of tagging a tween/teen with that "diagnosis." perhaps it does occur in adults. It may well be a result of brain damage caused by injury and/or abuse. My suspicion (aka speculation) is a trigger-happy child psychologist is a bigger factor than an actual disorder.

(addition posted 7 Nov) More and more it seems to me that this kid Andy was enrolled in the infamous "School to Prison Pipeline" program. He is the perfect mark for it: immigrant parents who speak English as a second language, trusting the school and medical "authorities" they erroneously believe are working in their child's best interest, probably a boy who, like most boys, has trouble reading and finds school frustrating. Andy got an early discharge from the S2PP program thanks to a trigger-happy cop; the usual out is a trigger-happy prison guard or being killed in prison -- a private for-profit prison.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

This seems like quite a tangent from the discussion. If you're questioning the appropriateness of the Oppositional Disorder diagnosis of Andy, I cannot respond as I know nothing of the case. If you're questioning the validity of the concept of Oppositional Disorder itself, I assure you it exists and it's not just a matter of pathologizing reasonable, normal rebelliousness; it's more destructive and out-of-control than that.

But what do these generalities about society have to do with the basic fact that if you're carrying something that looks like an assault rifle the cops will likely tell you to drop it, and if instead you point it at them they're likely to kill you in self-defense?

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

Re the oppositional disorder label: yes, i do have a problem with the validity of tagging a tween/teen with that "diagnosis." perhaps it does occur in adults. It may well be a result of brain damage caused by injury and/or abuse. My suspicion (aka speculation) is a trigger-happy child psychologist is a bigger factor than an actual disorder.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposi...fiant_disorder

sounds like being a "fish out of water" to me.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposi...fiant_disorder

---

Much of the solution and prevention--among other measures--in reducing tragedies like this one is to significantly improve the training and education of law enforcement personnel and also to increase their pay. Our society will benefit enormously if police are very well trained and very well paid. Situations like this one and many others could be avoided.

But I also support a ban on all assault rifles and a ban on the manufacture of toys that imitate real firearms.

In my opinion THIS would be an excellent community oriented item for a ballot measure, AND we would have the involvement of youth interested in the issue.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barrie:

This is the latest in years of police and sheriffs of Sonoma County killing people who didn't need to be killed. Back in about 98 a federal commission recommended that Sonoma County put together a civilian review board to go over police/sheriff policies that were causing these unwarranted deaths. Sonoma County has paid out a lot of money to families suing over wrongful deaths. In spite of this the county hasn't organized a civilian review board or taken other steps to prevent these deaths. I include in the list of unwarranted deaths two parents were killed by their mentally ill children because the parents were afraid that the police would kill their child if they called for help.

This can't go on! We need to tell OUR local government that we want more accountability, a civilian review board, and more training for law enforcement. Barrie

---

I'm not "hollering for this cop's head." I am hollering about the 20plus year history in Sonoma County of officers killing people very quickly when they don't obey their orders. People who are drunk, mentally ill, children, etc. may not be able to respond immediately. Jeremiah Chase was shot dead by police when he didn't put down the PEN KNIFE fast enough for them. He couldn't have done fatal damage with a pen knife, the police could have shown more patience. If they had waited all night, like they did for the white man up on Fountain Grove, Jeremiah would have gotten bored, sleepy, hungry, or calmed down and would have let his little brother go, put down the pen knife, and gotten out of the car ALIVE.

The same could go for the drunk Asian man in Rohnert Park who was out in the street waiving a stick around and making marshal arts type yells. He wasn't directly threatening anyone, he would be alive today if the police had used patience.

There is no reason that keeping people alive shouldn't be a priority. A driver saw Andy Lopez prior to the police arriving and recognized that it was toy gun.

Barrie

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Bottom line question for those of you who've been screaming for the cop's head:
Keeping in mind that they apparently thought, with good reason, the kid was carrying an assault rifle, what is your alternative plan for dealing with it without getting yourself shot?

---

Indeed -- also being much more selective about who is hired as a police officer (that Gelhaus guy should never have been hired in the first place), and having non-lethal measures be at the top of the list and lethal force the last resort.

Another possible improvement: get cops out of the patrol cars and back on their feet/bikes to look after their "beat" and get to know the residents and business people.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:

Much of the solution and prevention--among other measures--in reducing tragedies like this one is to significantly improve the training and education of law enforcement personnel and also to increase their pay. Our society will benefit enormously if police are very well trained and very well paid. Situations like this one and many others could be avoided.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:

Much of the solution and prevention--among other measures--in reducing tragedies like this one is to significantly improve the training and education of law enforcement personnel and also to increase their pay. Our society will benefit enormously if police are very well trained and very well paid. Situations like this one and many others could be avoided.

---

Police are already well paid. They certainly have better training than the average 13-year old. They are (or should be) more physically fit than the average person on the street, and have excellent medical attention if required. Plus they are issued body armor. So why not require them to "take" that potential first shot? The requirement of establishing certainty should take precedence over murder of children

The charge of murder or attempted murder should be on the head of whoever shoots first. NO exceptions.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:

But I also support a ban on all assault rifles and a ban on the manufacture of toys that imitate real firearms.

---

And who do you trust to enforce that ban? People like Eric Gelhaus? We just saw how that plays out...

I tried to look up the salaries of SR police on their website but I couldn't find anything. That's not to say that the information is not there but I could not find it with my cursory examination:

https://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/departme...s/default.aspx

I grew up with the understanding that police tend to be underpaid, so I could be relying on old information and needing to get up to speed. But if there are any cops in Sonoma County being paid less than $60,000 a year then that needs to be remedied immediately.

Physical fitness is certainly a necessary quality in our police but the training I was thinking of has to do with how to handle dangerous situations more effectively. Cop school should last longer and go deeper into most if not all areas of the training already covered. This expanded training, hopefully, should help address issues such as taking a first shot, establishing certainty, and some of the other important issues you mentioned.

And police should be required to have a minimum of formal education, such as an AA or an AS, but probably more than that. The high pay grade will reward talented and well educated police so that college graduates can look forward to a well remunerated career in law enforcement. Otherwise, why would someone get a BA or a BS in college and then work in a dangerous job for $30k, $40k, or even $50k? I sure as hell wouldn't do it.

Furthermore, it's vital to do an exhaustive psychological profile of everyone expressing interest in law enforcement, before they go to cop school. The psychological evaluations should be done by licensed mental health professionals. And they need to work independently, in other words, not be on a police payroll or even a city payroll.

The idea you expressed about responsibility for murder being on the head of whoever shoots first sounds interesting but I would need to explore that in greater detail before I could get behind it.

Regarding enforcement of a ban on owning and toting around machine guns in public (or private), I know that the police will do their job here as well.

Nobody's perfect. But what gets me is that everyone seems to be either completely supportive of police, no matter what they do, and the other side, the critics, seem to lambast the police mercilessly no matter what they do. There seems to be almost no one in the middle, which is precisely what we need in order to get results and the desperately needed reforms regarding law enforcement and public safety.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by handy:

Police are already well paid. They certainly have better training than the average 13-year old. They are (or should be) more physically fit than the average person on the street, and have excellent medical attention if required. Plus they are issued body armor. So why not require them to "take" that potential first shot? The requirement of establishing certainty should take precedence over murder of children

The charge of murder or attempted murder should be on the head of whoever shoots first. NO exceptions.

And who do you trust to enforce that ban? People like Eric Gelhaus? We just saw how that plays out...

---

Hmmm...there must be alot of us who had such a "disorder" to be able to stand up to adults who act completely dysfunctional. What do they call adults and school systems that are completely disrespectful to the child and sees them marginally human?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

I saw a Facebook post from a guy who is familiar with that neighborhood and claims to have some info not generally available about Andy, the kid who was killed. He says that, as is pretty much always the case, the reality of the kid is not as rosy as the eulogies. Apparently Andy was expelled from his school that very day due to ongoing behavioral problems stemming from his Oppositional Disorder. If that's true, it's very likely that he ignored orders to drop his "weapon" and even started to raise it at the cops as reported; that sort of behavior is consistent with Oppositional Disorder. Furthermore, if he was expelled that same day, it's plausible that he may have been depressed/upset enough to commit "blue suicide" AKA "suicide by cop"--i.e., creating a situation that will cause a cop to shoot you. That last part is, of course, speculative, but it would go a long way toward explaining Andy's described behavior.

From wikipedia:

Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) is a childhood disorder described by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders(DSM) as an ongoing pattern of anger-guided disobedience, hostility, and defiant behavior toward authority figures which goes beyond the bounds of normal childhood behavior. Children suffering from this disorder may appear very stubborn and often angry.

---

yes this is a significant difference and is important in speculating about the boy's motives. its a natural movement when turning around to see who is yelling at you. if he had pointed it directly at the officers it would support your speculation that he wished to die.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

It seems to you that there's a significant difference between the two? A big enough difference to bet your life on?

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:

Nobody's perfect. But what gets me is that everyone seems to be either completely supportive of police, no matter what they do, and the other side, the critics, seem to lambast the police mercilessly no matter what they do. There seems to be almost no one in the middle, which is precisely what we need in order to get results and the desperately needed reforms regarding law enforcement and public safety.

---

If you haven't noticed that I'm in the middle, Edward, you haven't read all of my posts carefully.

At this point, I think I'm gonna try to resist engaging in this discussion anymore. Nearly everyone involved is manifestly committed to making whatever assumptions they need to make and ignoring whatever facts they need to ignore in order to assuage their intense feelings by scapegoating the cop, even though no one has come up with a realistic alternative plan for how the situation could have been addressed without the horrible outcome that occurred. One discussant has even suggested that cops should be willing to take a bullet before firing in self-defense. When the discussion becomes this bizarre, it's time for me to sit back and see if some of the discussants will become a bit more reasonable when the hysteria dies down. As long as nearly everyone is willing to flush down the toilet basic principles like benefit of the doubt and and innocent until proved guilty, what we have is a hysterical witch-hunt rather than a reasoned discussion. Why should I waste any more time with this?

What about just covering the person with some good old-fashioned chain mal making him weighted down so the aim would be diverted, kevlar chain mal! You know it can be done if we can land a toy on Mars! It could be really heavy, propelled and dropped down over the area around the person. Why routinely shoot to kill, even after that person is down. Cops are supposed to be professional.

Seems this killing cop has ptsd-us/ them issues. There are countless law enforcement professionals demonstrating the wrong use of power. According to a survey years ago, 50 % self reported assaulting family members, within the preceding 90 days. 1-2 years as an armed anything changes a person, fear does that. Tweaky. There will be a wrongful death settlement. We have paid for this insurance, collateral damage, errors, omissions, statistics! Peace keeping or is that piece keeping? What we have here is a failure of imagination.
Citizen review boards! ASAP!

my suggestion assumes the cruiser had a mike and loudspeaker, most do. the officers would be protected from an assault weapon with steel bullets, which are very rare on the streets. less exposed, they might have taken enough time to assess the situation for what it was, a kid with a toy gun which shoots plastic bbs, not hard enough to penetrate skin. you don't know that it would not have worked. what we do know is that what they did, which is what they are trained to do, resulted in innocent tragic death causing great community harm. defend it all you want, though i don't think thats very empathetic.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

A safe distance from an AK47 is too far away to communicate with the guy, and there's also a concern that he might get away and hurt someone if you're not close enough to stop him from running/hiding.
...
If they can see and talk to the guy, their cruiser's engine isn't between them and his bullets.
So you see, your plan wouldn't work. The only way to assure their safety was to have him drop his weapon and of course they had to shoot him when he pointed it toward them. Or do you have another alternative plan that would actually work?

---

It is imperative, in my opinion, that we vote out Sheriff Freitas and DA Ravitch in the next election. They allow such murderous things to occur without much response from their offices. How many more murders of children do we need to get the message?

Agreed. The person I would vote for will be a member of Oathkeepers and Constitutional Sheriffs and Police Officers Association, as well as being open to a "shall issue" attitude toward concealed carry permits.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shepherd:

It is imperative, in my opinion, that we vote out Sheriff Freitas and DA Ravitch in the next election. They allow such murderous things to occur without much response from their offices. How many more murders of children do we need to get the message?

---

I suppose this should be in waccoReader, but it seems pertinent to this discussion.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/11/...es-of-america/

Welcome to the United Police States of America, Where Police Shoot First & Ask Questions Later
By John W. Whitehead
The Rutherford Institute
November 8, 2013

No longer is it unusual to hear about incidents in which police shoot unarmed individuals first and ask questions later. What is unusual is our lack of outrage, the relative disinterest of our elected representatives, the media’s abysmal failure to ask questions and demand answers, and our growing acceptance of the status quo in the United Police States of America—a status quo in which “we the people” are powerless in the face of the heavy-handed tactics employed by the government and its armed agents.

However, as I document in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, it’s all part of the larger police state continuum. Thus, with each tragic shooting that is shrugged off or covered up, each piece of legislation passed that criminalizes otherwise legal activities, every surveillance drone that takes to the skies, every phone call, email or text that is spied on, and every transaction that is monitored, the government’s stranglehold over our lives grows stronger.

We have been silent about too many things for too long, not the least of which is the deadly tendency on the part of police to resort to lethal force. However, as Martin Luther King Jr. reminded us, “There comes a time when silence is betrayal.”

For the sake of 13-year-old Andy Lopez, we can be silent no more. The Santa Rosa teen was shot dead after two sheriff’s deputies saw him carrying a toy BB gun in public. Lopez was about 20 feet away from the deputies, his back turned to them, when the officers took cover behind their car and ordered him to drop the “weapon.” When Lopez turned around, toy gun in his hand, one of the officers—a 24-year veteran of the force—shot him seven times. The time span between the deputies calling in a suspicious person sighting and shooting Lopez was a mere ten seconds. The young boy died at the scene. Clearly, no attempt was made to use less lethal force.

Rationalizing the shooting incident, Lt. Paul Henry of the Santa Rosa Police Department explained, “The deputy’s mindset was that he was fearful that he was going to be shot.” Yet as William Norman Grigg, a commentator for LewRockwell.com, points out, such a “preoccupation with ‘officer safety’ … leads to unnecessary police shootings. A peace officer is paid to assume certain risks, including those necessary to de-escalate a confrontation with someone believed to be a heavily armed suspect in a residential neighborhood.”

Unfortunately, this police preoccupation with ensuring their own safety at all costs—a mindset that many older law enforcement officials find abhorrent in light of the more selfless code on which they were trained—is spreading like a plague among the ranks of police officers across the country, with tragic consequences for the innocent civilians unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yet the fatality rate of on-duty patrol officers is reportedly far lower than many other professions, including construction, logging, fishing, truck driving, and even trash collection. In fact, police officers have the same rate of dying on the job as do taxi drivers.

Nevertheless, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 400 to 500 innocent people are killed by police officers every year. That does not include the number of unarmed individuals shot and injured by police simply because they felt threatened or feared for their safety. This is the danger of having a standing army (which is what police forces, increasingly made up of individuals with military backgrounds and/or training, have evolved into) that has been trained to view the citizenry as little more than potential suspects, combatants and insurgents.

Consider what happened in Cleveland, when two police officers mistook the sounds of a backfiring car for gunfire and immediately began pursuing the 1979 Chevrolet Malibu and its two occupants, a woman driver and a man in the passenger seat. Within 20 minutes, more than 60 police cars, some unmarked, and 115 officers had joined the pursuit, which ended in a full blown-out firefight in a middle school parking lot that saw 140 bullets fired in less than 30 seconds. Once the smoke cleared, it quickly became evident that not only had the officers been mistakenly firing at each other but the “suspects”—dead from countless bullet wounds—were unarmed.

I doubt the police officers involved in this massacre are bad cops in the sense of being corrupt and on the take, or violent and abusive, or bloodthirsty and trigger happy. Just like you and me, these officers have spouses and children to care for, homes to maintain, bills to pay, and worries that keep them up at night. Like most of us, they strive to do their jobs as best as they know how, but that’s where the problem arises, because they have clearly been poorly trained in how to distinguish what is a real threat.

So what is the answer?

If ever there were a time to de-militarize and de-weaponize local police forces, it’s now. The same goes for scaling back on the mindset adopted by cops that they are the law and should be revered, feared and obeyed. As for the idea that citizens must be compliant or risk being treated like lawbreakers, that’s nothing more than authoritarianism with a badge.

In other words, it’s time for a reality check, for both the police and the citizens of this nation, and a good place to start is with the words of that gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson, who warned: “Coming of age in a fascist police state will not be a barrel of fun for anybody, much less for people like me, who are not inclined to suffer Nazis gladly and feel only contempt for the cowardly flag-suckers who would gladly give up their outdated freedom to live for the mess of pottage they have been conned into believing will be freedom from fear.”

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead [send him mail] is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He is the author of A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State and The Change Manifesto (Sourcebooks).

Copyright © 2013 The Rutherford Institute
Previous article by John W. Whitehead: Welcome to the Secret Government


Quote:

---

Was this Andy kid wearing bud headphones or some other thing that interfered with his hearing?

---

isn't their some Talmudic cliche about what is happening on this board (and in the Press-Demo's mail column, and I'm sure elsewhere)? Why are we all parsing the minutia of this event so meticulously? The grand jury will have to, the cop's court case will have to, but come on - do you really think there's any insights for the rest of us in this process? Gee, if the red tip on the gun was there, it woulda clearly been the cop's fault, but without it, I guess it falls on Andy. Or since the cop yelled out his window, instead of first opening the door and crouching behind it before he shouted, he was clearly way premature in shooting - but it would have been ok if both the cops had left their vehicle and fired together. Or maybe Andy's peers and parents should have had toy-gun safety lessons, or... or...

Isn't anyone else feeling like this is starting to seem like (insert unsanitary or unsavory analogy here**) ??? It's even less enlightening than the volume of posts around Efren's case



*e.g. a dog returning to his ...

========
boy, I posted this before we even started getting into the psychohistory of this event. man...

Handy makes a good point below. Please read the article that he sent out about this group earlier, from Lew Rockwell.
I think someone like Sebastopol Police Chief Jeff Weaver would be good. I would not like to lose him here, but if he had a county-wide role, that would be helpful. We need the kind of community policing which he leads.

According to a front-page article in yesterday's PD, some of the Sebastopol police officers have video cameras, which document their interactions with people, as do all the Cotati police officers. A few have had them for a while in Santa Rosa, so I hope they move beyond their experimentation to actually all having them. In towns where police have such videos police violence against people has gone down, as have complaints against police. With the SR police investigating the Sheriff's Office, we have the fox guarding the chicken coop. They will whitewash the police crime. Continuing public pressure can at least mitigate their damage.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by handy:

Agreed. The person I would vote for will be a member of Oathkeepers and Constitutional Sheriffs and Police Officers Association, as well as being open to a "shall issue" attitude toward concealed carry permits.

---

The police do have ways of communicating, that ordinary citizens don't, via their onboard "mike". Although if the boy was in a state of defiance, he still may not have dropped the toy gun. Since this wasn't used as an option, we'll never know.

The one thing that stands our for me, is the unnecessary number of bullets used to take this boy down. This shows something of the police officer's state of mind. Both may have been in a defiant state of mind. More will be revealed.

If I had seen him with the gun, depending on the distance between us, I would have looked further at the gun to see if I could tell it was a toy, but also at his body language, and if close enough, into his eyes, which might have given me a clue to his state of mind. At first glance, even from a distance, I may not have believed that it was real. It's something that happens in my mind when I see something that is truly out of my ordinary reality. And this can be whether it's something awesome in nature, or a terrifying/brutal act of humanity. There's probably a term for this behavior.

I most likely would have distanced myself from him, just in case. And whenever I've seen threatening behavior towards myself, another person or animal, I usually alert the police or highway patrol. I'm not equipped to deal with this directly.

I would be careful about recommending the methods of the Sebastopol and Cotati Police Departments. I taught a misdemeanor diversion class for Sonoma County in which all the participants discussed the circumstances of their offenses. Two police departments stood out as looking for trouble where there wasn't any and arresting individuals for the most trivial incidents. These two departments were Sebastopol and Cotati.

Examples:

• One Sonoma State University student was walking across the campus late at night with a backpack on his back. He was stopped, his pack was searched, and he was arrested for being a minor in possession of alcohol when the officer found an unopened beer can in his pack.

• A man was arrested in Sebastopol for drunk and disorderly conduct when all he did was to walk out of Aubergine and across the street to his car, which was parked nearby.

All the arrests by Petaluma and Santa Rosa police, on the other hand, seemed to be for more serious offenses.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shepherd:

Handy makes a good point below. Please read the article that he sent out about this group earlier, from Lew Rockwell.
I think someone like Sebastopol Police Chief Jeff Weaver would be good. I would not like to lose him here, but if he had a county-wide role, that would be helpful. We need the kind of community policing which he leads.

According to a front-page article in yesterday's PD, some of the Sebastopol police officers have video cameras, which document their interactions with people, as do all the Cotati police officers. A few have had them for a while in Santa Rosa, so I hope they move beyond their experimentation to actually all having them. In towns where police have such videos police violence against people has gone down, as have complaints against police. With the SR police investigating the Sheriff's Office, we have the fox guarding the chicken coop. They will whitewash the police crime. Continuing public pressure can at least mitigate their damage.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Tinkerbell:

A man was arrested in Sebastopol for drunk and disorderly conduct when all he did was to walk out of Aubergine and across the street to his car, which was parked nearby.

---

There's more to that story that makes it sound not quite so bad, but I'm not going to get into that.

That said, Sebastopol PD often functions in "full court press" mode. There are times that it is warranted including, I reluctantly admit, for driving offenses. And not warranted other times, IMO.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:

Much of the solution and prevention--among other measures--in reducing tragedies like this one is to significantly improve the training and education of law enforcement personnel and also to increase their pay. Our society will benefit enormously if police are very well trained and very well paid. Situations like this one and many others could be avoided.

But I also support a ban on all assault rifles and a ban on the manufacture of toys that imitate real firearms.

---

Edward,

The cops are already very well paid. If you check on county salaries most, with overtime, make well over $100K and I believe I remember some police types getting over $200K with the inevitable overtime. Public safety always gets their money first and stuff like parks, libraries, and roads get the leftovers. Cities like Rohnert Park have voted in extra sales tax just for police and fire. Plus many police put in their 30 years and retire at age 51 or 52 with 90% of their highest pay as their pension. Who do you know who gets a deal like that? My niece's husband is a police officer and he will retire this year with 90% salary at age 51. Plus he got the OK this year to take an FBI course so he could get a certificate for sumthinorother and thereby bump up his pay and the pension. When I raised my objections to this little ploy he just laughed. Cops have a really good deal and certainly don't need more pay.

I agree with jbox. I appreciate the evidence and personal experience that he presents. I do not think that the money that law enforcement is paid is a problem. They do dangerous work and deserve good salaries and benefits, which I think that they usually get.

I think that a bigger problem with police is when they have had combat training and experience and then take that into their work back home. As a veteran, I know many other vets who have gone into law enforcement or fire-fighting, especially the combat vets. I think that fire-fighting, which is also very dangerous, is a more appropriate thing to do.

In traditional cultures, when the warriors return home, they go through rituals to prepare them to be civilians again. We do not do that, which is a serious problem
Happy Veterans Day! from a former U.S. Army officer, Vietnam Era, non-combatant, www.vowvop.org My vet group's website.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by jbox:

Edward,

The cops are already very well paid. If you check on county salaries most, with overtime, make well over $100K and I believe I remember some police types getting over $200K with the inevitable overtime. Public safety always gets their money first and stuff like parks, libraries, and roads get the leftovers. Cities like Rohnert Park have voted in extra sales tax just for police and fire. Plus many police put in their 30 years and retire at age 51 or 52 with 90% of their highest pay as their pension. Who do you know who gets a deal like that? My niece's husband is a police officer and he will retire this year with 90% salary at age 51. Plus he got the OK this year to take an FBI course so he could get a certificate for sumthinorother and thereby bump up his pay and the pension. When I raised my objections to this little ploy he just laughed. Cops have a really good deal and certainly don't need more pay.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Deborah Thayer:

What about just covering the person with some good old-fashioned chain mal making him weighted down so the aim would be diverted, kevlar chain mal! You know it can be done if we can land a toy on Mars! It could be really heavy, propelled and dropped down over the area around the person.

---

I can't wait to see police drones dropping chainmail... sounds so blade-runner.

Dixon,

Glad to hear you understand that I'm not simply trying to be argumentative, which was the reason for my sparring comment – in as much as you don't know me I wanted to be clear – thanks.

I completely understand your position and intent – innocent until proven guilty, no argument from me on that point. Further, I too see an overwhelming thread of what could be characterized as “lynch mob mentality”, very disturbing. As an aside, I saw this same behavior emerge with a fervor around the Efren issue. At least, I say with tongue in cheek, the masses here are consistent.

On the topic of empathy it appears that we agree, while it may have a place in determining a discipline, reparation or punishment it is not relative to ascertaining the facts &/or determining innocence or guilt. We also agree regarding mitigating factors, certainly they are relative to all aspects of determination and judgment.

Benefit of doubt is a bit slippery. A jury is given the instruction that the prosecution must have presented their evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to validate a criminal conviction. That means that there is no other logical explanation that can be derived from the evidence presented. It does not mean that in the absence of evidence the benefit of doubt must be applied thereby bringing in a verdict of innocence. None of this implies that I do not believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Perhaps we differ a bit on the merit of various methods employed to derive innocence or guilt. To answer your question, erring on the side of false negatives, I certainly would not want to be responsible for hanging one innocent nor would I be comfortable with being responsible for having let 10 guilty ones go.

Thank you for pointing out that this incident took place in a residential area. That point having been clarified I can only respond by suggesting that there is an enormous difference in threat potential between public facilities with unrestricted access where masses openly congregate and a residential area where the vast majority of the occupying public are inside their private homes. You made the distinction by specifically referencing mass shootings such as Columbine, I'm merely responding to the criteria you established. With all due respect I feel that it is disingenuous of you at this point of discourse to suggest, via the framing of your questions, that perhaps I do not feel a residential neighborhood is important or populated enough to defend. In fact the value of defending any particular location was never the question but rather the likelihood of the situation turning into a mass shooting scenario. On that point my position has not altered – a mass shooting recurrence such as Columbine was not a potential threat, in my opinion, given the specifics of where this occurrence took place.

I take issue with your assertion that I conveniently left out two important facts. One, that Andy did not obey the officer's order to drop his weapon - in my initial post I addressed that fact and I was under the impression that you and I had already exchanged opinions on that point. Second, I admit that I might be behind on some pertinent facts that have come to light but the last account I read indicating that Andy raised the mock AK-47 toward the officers was not substantiated by the eye-witness account therefore, not out of convenience but rather very purposefully, I have not included that point in a discussion about facts.

Finally we come to the point that seems to be of greatest import and distinction to you – that this was an unfortunate mistake that was a direct result of Gelhaus having no way of knowing that the weapon in question was a toy and he was only acting from fear and in self-defense. What would you do, is the question you repeatedly ask. Personally I can't say for certain, I'm not a trained police officer supposedly equipped with the skills necessary to asses an entire situation. I stress the word entire because nothing happens in a vacuum. The assumed AK-47 was only one element in this situation. I have read no reports that Andy's behavior was suspicious or aggressive, that the surrounding area was busy or even lightly congested with traffic and pedestrians, or that there had been any reports or 911 calls regarding violence or a disturbance in the neighborhood. The so called fact that you cite regarding the pellet gun being raised toward the officers is still in question and as I have previously pointed out, there was no return fire. If this was simply an act of self-defense emanating from fear, why 8 shots to assuage that fear? Remember we are talking about a trained police officer, someone who should have the ability to not be overrun by their fear. If they are not able to control those impulses, because after all cops are people too, then they do not have the skills necessary to be a cop and like most people who are incapable of performing their job duties they should be dismissed.

You appear to be so one minded that the critical element is the fact that he could not know the gun was a toy that you have now decided to disengage from this discussion on the grounds that nearly everyone involved is committed to ignoring the facts and promoting baseless assumptions. I can certainly understand your frustration, what I don't understand is why you do not hold yourself to the same standard. There are facts that you appear to not account for or at least are not willing to discuss in your assessment of the situation. One, Gelhaus is a noted expert in firearms. Certainly experts can also make mistakes but do you not feel that this is a salient point, at least worthy of mention in a discussion by fair minded people? Two, Gelhaus admits that he cannot remember if he identified himself as a police officer before firing. Isn't this rather critical before you gun someone down as a cop with a justifiable cause? Three, no more than 10 seconds elapsed from the initial confrontation to the fatal shooting. Does this seem like sufficient time to have attempted to asses the entire situation? Four, Gelhaus did not pause long enough to allow his partner time to take cover. Would this suggest that the situation was perhaps not life threatening? Five, by his own writings Gelhaus considers his job in law enforcement to be like a “contact sport”. Does this not establish a mindset of someone perhaps a bit over anxious to engage? Six, Gelhaus was considered a master marksman. Were 8 shots necessary to secure the situation?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

I'm not trying to spar either; I'm just looking for fruitful dialogue, as always. "Sparring" implies to me closed-mindedness, which is anathema to a rationalist.


I never said that asking the hard questions is synonymous with any of those things. I agree with you that we need to ask the hard questions, which is, I think, what I've been doing. I was referring to the fact that people in this and related threads are presuming guilt and (metaphorically speaking) conducting a trial and hollering for blood. For instance, some here have explicitly accused the cop of purposely murdering the kid for racist reasons. How could they possibly know that with the info we have? Some have insisted on talking as if the kid were killed for carrying a toy gun, which is hugely different from being killed for carrying something the cop thought was a real gun. When I point out that important distinction, they keep talking as if I'd never mentioned it. These are examples (and not the only ones) of "conducting a trial, hollering for blood or presuming guilt".


I didn't say that empathy and giving the benefit of the doubt are relevant to "rationally and fairly ascertain(ing) the facts" (your words). I implied that they are necessary for justice to be done. "Rationally and fairly ascertain(ing) the facts" is a big part of justice, but not all of it. Empathy and the benefit of the doubt come into play when we recognize the limitations of the facts we've been able to establish, which may not firmly establish guilt, and also when we look at possible mitigating factors. I'm arguing for, among other things, the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". I believe that it's better to err on the side of false negatives in situations like this; i.e., better to mistakenly let 10 guilty ones go than to hang one innocent one. Do you disagree with me on that?


Rustie, your account conveniently leaves out a couple of important factors which are part of a likely scenario: that "this kid walking in a field" was carrying what looked like it could be a real assault rifle, that he failed to drop it when ordered to do so, and that he started to raise it toward the cops. If you were a cop and someone were raising an apparently real rifle toward you after being told to drop it, wouldn't you shoot in self-defense? If not, what is your alternative plan? Stake your life (and others') on the hope that the guy wasn't about to put a bullet through your head?


It is a residential area. Not important enough or populated enough to defend, in your opinion, Rustie?


Of course there was no exchange of gunfire; Gelhaus shot the guy before the guy could shoot him (keep in mind that he apparently didn't know, as we do, that it was a toy gun). If you think it's better to let the other guy have a free shot at you before firing in self-defense and just hope his bullet doesn't go through your (or someone else's) head, you've been watching too many cop shows on TV.


I'm responding to people in these discussions persistently turning a blind eye to, for instance, the likelihood that the cop had reason to believe his and others' lives were in imminent danger.

Are there lots of racist cops? Yup.
Do they sometimes murder people? Yup, quite often (Oscar Grant comes to mind).
Are police forces in general, in addition to providing important safety services, instruments of oppression, especially oppression of black and brown folks? Yup.
Does that mean we should throw due process and the presumption of innocence out the window and make distorted, dishonest arguments demonizing a guy in a specific situation like this? Hell no! Let him have a fair trial and then, if it appears the trial was a cover-up, deal with that. I'm arguing for justice as opposed to destructive emotional responses.

---

I would point out that this neighborhood is not only known for violent gang activity, but it is also right near the 101 freeway where there would be thousands of commuters driving by at that time of day if one were inclined toward a mass shooting.
Tom

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

Thank you for pointing out that this incident took place in a residential area. That point having been clarified I can only respond by suggesting that there is an enormous difference in threat potential between public facilities with unrestricted access where masses openly congregate and a residential area where the vast majority of the occupying public are inside their private homes. You made the distinction by specifically referencing mass shootings such as Columbine, I'm merely responding to the criteria you established. With all due respect I feel that it is disingenuous of you at this point of discourse to suggest, via the framing of your questions, that perhaps I do not feel a residential neighborhood is important or populated enough to defend. In fact the value of defending any particular location was never the question but rather the likelihood of the situation turning into a mass shooting scenario. On that point my position has not altered – a mass shooting recurrence such as Columbine was not a potential threat, in my opinion, given the specifics of where this occurrence took place.

---

Thank you for clearing that up for me, Jon.

Well then, excepting what I said earlier about pay and bennies, I would like to see of those reforms I mentioned implemented.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by jbox:

Edward,

The cops are already very well paid. If you check on county salaries most, with overtime, make well over $100K and I believe I remember some police types getting over $200K with the inevitable overtime. Public safety always gets their money first and stuff like parks, libraries, and roads get the leftovers. Cities like Rohnert Park have voted in extra sales tax just for police and fire. Plus many police put in their 30 years and retire at age 51 or 52 with 90% of their highest pay as their pension. Who do you know who gets a deal like that? My niece's husband is a police officer and he will retire this year with 90% salary at age 51. Plus he got the OK this year to take an FBI course so he could get a certificate for sumthinorother and thereby bump up his pay and the pension. When I raised my objections to this little ploy he just laughed. Cops have a really good deal and certainly don't need more pay.

---

Thanks Tom, I appreciate the info ~Rustie

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tomcat:

I would point out that this neighborhood is not only known for violent gang activity, but it is also right near the 101 freeway where there would be thousands of commuters driving by at that time of day if one were inclined toward a mass shooting.
Tom

---