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

[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

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?

[Glia]

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.

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.

[handy]

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.

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...

[Valley Oak]

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.

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...

[sharingwisdom]

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?

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.

[rossmen]

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.

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

[Dixon]

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?

[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. 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!

[rossmen]

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.

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?

[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?

[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.

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?

[handy]

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


[podfish]

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...

[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.

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.

[Shandi]

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.

[Tinkerbell]

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.

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.

[Barry]

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.

[jbox]

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.

[Shepherd]

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.

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.

[podfish]

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.

[Rustie]

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?

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.

[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

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.

[Valley Oak]

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.

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.

[Rustie]

Thanks Tom, I appreciate the info ~Rustie

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