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

[Shepherd]

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.

[occupied95472]

[Victoria Street]

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

[rossmen]

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.

[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.

[Shepherd]

"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.

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.

[Victoria Street]

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

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.

[eric]

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.

[Deborah Thayer]

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.

[Barrie]

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

[Tinkerbell]

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?

[Dixon]

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.

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.

[zenekar]

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

[eric]

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.

[Dixon]

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?

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.

[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)

[Runningbare]

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

[Barrie]

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

[karenm97]

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

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

[ronliskey]

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.

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)

[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? 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.

...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]

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[Barrie]

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

[Barry]

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


Police, Community Relations Strained After Teen's Death

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



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.

[patnicholson]

Howabout if the kid looked like he was dangerous?

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.

[Victoria Street]

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?

[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

Howabout if the kid looked like he was dangerous?

[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

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

[Victoria Street]

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.

[neil]

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.

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.