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

[Rustie]

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.

I've been wondering that myself!...

[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?

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

[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.

[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.

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?

[Barrie]

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

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.

[neil]

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.

[Dixon]

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.

...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".

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?

...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?

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?

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.

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.

[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

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.

[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

[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 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

[Dixon]

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.

[Glia]

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.

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

[Barrie]

Having oppositional disorder is not a death penalty crime.

[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. 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:.(

[Dixon]

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.

[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.

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

[Dixon]

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?

[Dixon]

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?

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:

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

What in the world are you talking about?

[rossmen]

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?

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

[Dixon]

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?

[rossmen]

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

What in the world are you talking about?

[rossmen]

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

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

[Dixon]

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.

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?

...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.

...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?

[Dixon]

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.

...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".

[Dixon]

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?

[Glia]

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.

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?

[Dixon]

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

[Glia]

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

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

[Valley Oak]

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.

[Dorothy Friberg]

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.

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