no charges for cop who shot kid holding bb gun

[madd0ct0r]

guess open carry dosen't apply to non white people or something.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/charge ... ndy-lopez/

Sonoma County DA announced on Monday that they will not be filing charges against Deputy Erick Gelhaus who shot a child through the heart, then 6 more times after the first fatal round, on October 22, in Santa Rosa, CA.

The young boy was walking down the street carrying a partially translucent plastic airsoft BB gun that resembled a rifle when he was spotted by Deputy Gelhaus and his partner Michael Schemmel.

Gelhaus ordered Lopez to drop his weapon, possibly confused because the orange tip on the toy was missing.

Lopez then began to turn towards the officer when the officer immediately opened fire, shooting to kill. Gelhaus told investigators that he could not remember if he identified himself as a police officer,

Seven bullets were fired at Andy Lopez within six seconds. The officer’s report claims that he shot Lopez after he turned towards him with the toy gun, despite bullet wounds in Lopez’s side (which supporters claim may indicate he was struck while turning).

The altercation lasted a total of 19 seconds from the call for backup to “shots fired”.

After the 8th grader was on the ground, having been shot repeatedly, the officers then handcuffed the child’s dead, lifeless body.


Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/charge ... XrZiTZ7.99

[Borgholio]

Open carry doesn't exist in California...sorry.

With that said, this is still an outrage. I can't imagine the boy's parents will let this one go easily.

After the 8th grader was on the ground, having been shot repeatedly, the officers then handcuffed the child’s dead, lifeless body.

What the flipping fucking hell?

[TheFeniX]

After the 8th grader was on the ground, having been shot repeatedly, the officers then handcuffed the child’s dead, lifeless body.

I spit coke at my monitor from the unexpected laugh I got out of this. Because that's all I can really do: laugh at the insanity of cases like this. But also because I think about how easy I had it growing up in the suburbs of Houston. We had matte black BB guns and other types of "toys" in that vein. We used to paint our super-soakers black for awesome tacti-cool and blast each other all day. And we weren't just a bunch of white kids: hispanic, Middle-eastern, Philipino, we had all types out in Mission Bend.

But cops would just drive by and even wave at us. They'd even stop to let us know that having fun meant staying out of the street and watching for oncoming cars. Now, especially after kids getting shot for holding Wii-Motes, I don't think you can allow your kid to have anything that even remotely resembles something that might have at some point remotely resembled something that looked like something like what may have possibly been a firearm. Because, you know, that makes about as much sense as the time police officers use to assess a situation before opening fire.

I have to wonder, were the handcuffs applied before or after they realized it was a BB gun? Maybe they were like "Holy shit, we shot this kid for having a fake gun. If he's still alive, he's going to be pissed: cuff him!"

[Me2005]

The young boy was walking down the street carrying a partially translucent plastic airsoft BB gun that resembled a rifle when he was spotted by Deputy Gelhaus and his partner Michael Schemmel.

Gelhaus ordered Lopez to drop his weapon, possibly confused because the orange tip on the toy was missing.

This is the part where police officers need to go back for some education. My friends and family and I have played airsoft, and the options are A) Black, super-realistic guns with easy-to-remove orange tips or B) realistic silhouettes that are partially/completely transparent that do not always come with orange tips (whether they need them or not is up to the strictness of the import official). I'd be less surprised if the officer shot someone carrying a blacked-out gun as we've been approached by officers thinking that we had real weapons many times, but the transparent ones look fake even from a distance. Unless it was at night and he couldn't make out anything other than the silhouette, but the story doesn't appear to mention the time of the incident.

The problem though is that airsoft guns *are* designed to look and feel like real-steel guns, but are also used as toys by kids/adults. I've long felt that they need to look like Nerf guns - clearly fake, designed as and colored like toys, and not anything like any real gun.

I understand the reaction though, almost every time we have been approached by officers it's been guns-drawn. What else can you expect when you're running around with an assault rifle? For all the officer knows (as despite open carry laws in some places, nobody really open carries), you're going to murder anyone you encounter. In that kind of situation, the correct response is to demand surrender and shoot to kill if they don't - and if the officer didn't do that, he'd likely have ended up dead in some earlier encounter. It's an unfortunate fact that there is no such thing as "shoot to maim" or "incapacitate" when you're potentially dealing with a lethal-force response.

We always dealt with this same situation by doing what the officer(s) asked though - dropping our weapons (or shooting them from concealed positions thinking they were in on the game - THAT was sketchy! Fortunately, the cop holstered his pistol and laughed it off, having figured out what those reports of people running around with firearms were all about) and explaining what we're up to. It's possible here that the officer was responding to some other threat, or that the kid was pointing the rifle at someone and not *just* carrying it, or that he turned with it pointed at the officer. Fortunately for my friends and I, we've never had the situation play out that way, but it's usually a known risk.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Generally it is policy to handcuff people who have been shot after a firearm related incident. In this case they were likely stressed out because they had just shot a child holding a BB gun. I doubt they were really thinking at all and were just following policy. I can't say that just shooting a kid with a fake weapon wouldn't a massive jump in stress levels. Can you?

By the way before you say I wouldn't have fired because the gun was obviously transparent... This is your "transparent" BB gun.

In the comparison photo the one on the left is a real rifle. The one on the right is the BB gun the kid was holding.

[Jub]

Another case of a situation where police in other nations wouldn't have killed the kid. They would have shouted a warning, taken aim, and then, as a last resort fired. In this case the kid hadn't shot at them, hadn't raised his weapon, and shouldn't have been killed. Those officers are murderers regardless of what the law says and they get to live with that fact.

Edit: Now before anybody jumps on me for this I just want to say it would be different if the kid had his weapon aimed, shouted a threat, had been doing something threatening to have caused the police to show up on the scene. However there is nothing that he could have been doing with that gun that would have looked or sounded like gunfire, so the police couldn't have been responding to shots fired calls. Nor was the kid likely to have been shooting at or threatening people with a toy gun, so that type of call is out. Thus maybe the police should have considered using other options, like those tazers they carry to incapacitate people with - though those most often seem to be used on unarmed civilians...

[Captain Seafort]

Another case of a situation where police in other nations wouldn't have killed the kid.

Really? The entire situation is almost identical to one in the UK a few years ago. An armed response unit was called out to report of a bloke carrying a shotgun concealed in a bag, they ordered him to halt, and instead of doing that he responded by rotating towards to the shout, just as this kid did. That sort of movement causes your off hand to come up, and therefore any long object carried in that hand to point at whoever your turning towards. Naturally the police shot him.

The "shotgun" was a table leg.

[Jub]

Another case of a situation where police in other nations wouldn't have killed the kid.

Really? The entire situation is almost identical to one in the UK a few years ago. An armed response unit was called out to report of a bloke carrying a shotgun concealed in a bag, they ordered him to halt, and instead of doing that he responded by rotating towards to the shout, just as this kid did. That sort of movement causes your off hand to come up, and therefore any long object carried in that hand to point at whoever your turning towards. Naturally the police shot him.

The "shotgun" was a table leg.

And naturally the officer was completely wrong to have done so. The man hadn't done anything wrong, he acted as we've been trained to when people call out to us. The officer, in spite of feeling in danger, never was in danger and unless he had reason to think he was dealing with a dangerous criminal he should have approached the situation differently. In both of these cases the police have murder people guilty of nothing but being 'armed' near a trigger happy cop.

[Captain Seafort]

And naturally the officer was completely wrong to have done so. The man hadn't done anything wrong

Yes he did - he was told to stand still, he failed to do so, and the plod responded entirely justifiably based on the information available to him.

unless he had reason to think he was dealing with a dangerous criminal

Which part of "reports of a bloke carrying a shotgun" didn't you understand?

[Lord Relvenous]

Another case of a situation where police in other nations wouldn't have killed the kid.

Really? The entire situation is almost identical to one in the UK a few years ago. An armed response unit was called out to report of a bloke carrying a shotgun concealed in a bag, they ordered him to halt, and instead of doing that he responded by rotating towards to the shout, just as this kid did. That sort of movement causes your off hand to come up, and therefore any long object carried in that hand to point at whoever your turning towards. Naturally the police shot him.

The "shotgun" was a table leg.

And naturally the officer was completely wrong to have done so. The man hadn't done anything wrong, he acted as we've been trained to when people call out to us. The officer, in spite of feeling in danger, never was in danger and unless he had reason to think he was dealing with a dangerous criminal he should have approached the situation differently. In both of these cases the police have murder people guilty of nothing but being 'armed' near a trigger happy cop.

It's a sad state when the people who are ostensibly "protecting and serving" the populace can justify murdering said populace with the phrase "I felt threatened".

Sure that weapon is a convincing replica of an AK-47. So does that mean shooting a kid for simply carrying a real AK-47 justified?

[Jub]

And naturally the officer was completely wrong to have done so. The man hadn't done anything wrong

Yes he did - he was told to stand still, he failed to do so, and the plod responded entirely justifiably based on the information available to him.

Yet when anybody calls to you, what is your natural reaction? You turn to face them, often before you even think. That's a learned behavior and almost a reflex.

unless he had reason to think he was dealing with a dangerous criminal

Which part of "reports of a bloke carrying a shotgun" didn't you understand?

Is it illegal to wander around with a weapon? For all the officer knew this man had a carry permit. In any case the report wouldn't have stated shots fired, a man acting in a threatening fashion, or an other such even that would imply undo risk to the officer. Thus the officer was in the wrong.

-----

It's a sad state when the people who are ostensibly "protecting and serving" the populace can justify murdering said populace with the phrase "I felt threatened".

Sure that weapon is a convincing replica of an AK-47. So does that mean shooting a kid for simply carrying a real AK-47 justified?

He's coming right for us! Seems to be the rallying call for US police officers when it comes to kids, dogs, and protesters these days.

[madd0ct0r]

Is it illegal to wander around with a weapon? For all the officer knew this man had a carry permit. In any case the report wouldn't have stated shots fired, a man acting in a threatening fashion, or an other such even that would imply undo risk to the officer. Thus the officer was in the wrong.
-----

this is the UK, and iirc, in a city. yes, it's illegal to wander around with a shotgun.

[Captain Seafort]

Sure that weapon is a convincing replica of an AK-47. So does that mean shooting a kid for simply carrying a real AK-47 justified?

If he looked like he was about to shoot you (i.e. turning towards the plod and raising the weapon, as will happen ), yes.

Yet when anybody calls to you, what is your natural reaction? You turn to face them, often before you even think. That's a learned behavior and almost a reflex.

As is shooting someone who's turning to point a shotgun at you.

Is it illegal to wander around with a weapon?

Yes - this was in the UK.

In any case the report wouldn't have stated shots fired, a man acting in a threatening fashion, or an other such even that would imply undo risk to the officer.

Again, which part of "reports of a bloke carrying a shotgun" didn't you understand? People wandering round with firearms is a big fucking deal.

[Jub]

Is it illegal to wander around with a weapon? For all the officer knew this man had a carry permit. In any case the report wouldn't have stated shots fired, a man acting in a threatening fashion, or an other such even that would imply undo risk to the officer. Thus the officer was in the wrong.
-----

this is the UK, and iirc, in a city. yes, it's illegal to wander around with a shotgun.

How about a table leg in a sack? Or does that also require a permit now?

-----

Yet when anybody calls to you, what is your natural reaction? You turn to face them, often before you even think. That's a learned behavior and almost a reflex.

As is shooting someone who's turning to point a shotgun at you.

Except that there was never a shotgun involved except in the mind of the person who actually had a gun. I also expect cops to be at the far end of the bell curve when it comes to self sacrifice and self control. That doesn't seem to much to ask of those tasked with carrying weapons and defending the peace.

Is it illegal to wander around with a weapon?

Yes - this was in the UK.

Even with a permit? I understand that the UK does still issue those.

Again, which part of "reports of a bloke carrying a shotgun" didn't you understand? People wandering round with firearms is a big fucking deal.

I tend to agree. However neither of these people had weapons (the BB gun could be argued, but that's a weak argument at best) and nor is merely carrying a weapon enough to provoke lethal force. Neither of these people did anything to provoke the shots fired at them.

[salm]

People nearly get shot here in Germany every once in a while because they are being stupid and are using soft air guns where they shouldn´t use them. I myself once looked down the barrel of a police gun when I was a 15 year old idiot thinking that it was a good idea to play cops and robbers with a real looking bb-gun on a construction site.

This is a very sad story but I don´t think you can blame the cops for thinking this was a real gun.

[Agent Fisher]

Well, I guess in Jub's world, police need to be shot at first, before they can shoot back.

[Jub]

Well, I guess in Jub's world, police need to be shot at first, before they can shoot back.

Yes, they accept that risk when they sign up for the job. Hell soldiers in Vietnam had stricter RoEs than some police forces do these days and they were conscripts. So excuse me for thinking a few more cops and a few less kids and dogs ought to get hurt.

[Irbis]

Really?

Really. Unless you're registered hunter or ex-enforcement officer, it's as hard to get a weapon in Poland as in UK, and I have never heard of anyone with airsoft gun being shot by police.

And that in country where airsoft scene is pretty big precisely as gun owning substitute and you can encounter people looking like this [image] [image] in big cities pretty often. Gee, these don't look realistic at all

As is shooting someone who's turning to point a shotgun at you.

It's good thing then competent law enforcement or military training is supposed to quash knee jerk responses and make people respond calmly even under stress instead of spray-and-pray on first sight of danger, then.

[LadyTevar]

WRONG FORUM, Moving to N&P

[cadbrowser]

Why is there no mandate that specifies all toy guns (Airsoft is a plastic BB...so I would consider them toys; the ones that shoot the metal BBs you can actually do some small game hunting with and I'd not consider them toys per se) to be constructed in such a way as there is no mistake they are actually toys (Like Nerf does)?

To me, this could alleviate these types of senseless killings.

For one, wouldn't it give a would-be-caller pause if they see that the guns are brightly colored or oddly shaped in the first place?

[Elheru Aran]

The thing with Airsoft is that people want real-looking guns that a.) don't kill people (barring freak accidents; just the other day a kid in Oklahoma got killed by one) and b.) don't cost ridiculous amounts of money. There is a massive market for this kind of thing because of firearms and military fetishization in the US.

Generally there's a red tip or clear plastic parts. However, many can be basically indistinguishable from the real thing. So unless some way of identifying them is established (a radio tag of some kind perhaps?), cops have to react as though they're a real gun if there is no external way of telling them apart. It's highly unfortunate but there's no way around it apart from making the guns ridiculously unrealistic or heavy legislation.

[Patroklos]

Yes, they accept that risk when they sign up for the job. Hell soldiers in Vietnam had stricter RoEs than some police forces do these days and they were conscripts. So excuse me for thinking a few more cops and a few less kids and dogs ought to get hurt.

This has come up a few times recently in multiple threads. It seems to be a common thought amougnst some, where exactly are you getting this impression?

Also on plastic parts, even clear ones, there are a few real gun magazine designs that can look like that.

[Grumman]

The officer’s report claims that he shot Lopez after he turned towards him with the toy gun, despite bullet wounds in Lopez’s side (which supporters claim may indicate he was struck while turning).

Being shot in the side is less damning than these critics seem to believe it is. A gun of this sort would be fired across the body, and so your side would be facing towards the target.

That British cop should have had the book thrown at him because it's not reasonable to expect people to avoid holding anything long or fist-sized in case some idiot cop mistakes it for a gun, but this kid was holding something made with the specific purpose of looking like an assault rifle, with the part that says "this is definitely not an assault rifle" removed. It's bad that the kid died, but it's not a bolt from a blue sky the same way that getting shot for carrying a table leg or mobile phone is.

[Cykeisme]

The fact that it turned out to be a toy isn't even the only point of contention here. Even if it was a real and loaded assault rifle, I don't think he deserved to get shot unless he had raised the rifle and pointed it at the police officer (thus presenting himself as an immediate threat).
I don't think ownership of an unlicensed weapon should result in an instant summary death sentence in any country.


In situations like this, we can only wish there's footage that would objectively show what the kid's actions were. Perhaps lapel-cameras should become mandatory for police officers? I'm sure that cameras on the officers would also often exonerate police officers who need to defend their actions, when they were justifiably responding to actual threatening behaviour.

Knowing that they have an active camera facing forward might also cause a police officer to be more alert and aware of the actions the officer takes, too, and may outright prevent incidents like this one.

[Me2005]

Why is there no mandate that specifies all toy guns (Airsoft is a plastic BB...so I would consider them toys; the ones that shoot the metal BBs you can actually do some small game hunting with and I'd not consider them toys per se) to be constructed in such a way as there is no mistake they are actually toys (Like Nerf does)?

This is similar to my feeling. You can't really mandate such a thing, but having a company manufacture ones for use by kids that don't look like *real* guns but still are attractive would be great. Unfortunately, you already need to be 18+ to buy them, and if the kid is into military-esque looking ones, his parents will just buy those instead of the ones that don't look real.

It's a community, public, and enforcement education problem. The airsoft community needs to be aware that these *look* like real firearms, and while the market the industry aims for usually is aware (adults looking to reenact or play a contact sport like paintball with safe replacements for real weapons) and treats them as such while in transport and use, kids aren't nearly as responsible. That's where parents need to be made aware - these 'toys' your kids want to play with look and largely act exactly the same as real-steel weapons, and will be treated as such by law enforcement. The law states that anyone found using or claiming to use a replica firearm (even a stick that *looks* like a firearm, IIRC) is guilty of the crime as though they'd used a real firearm. Now, the cops need to be aware that these things exist, but even the safeguards on one (orange tip) can be faked onto a real weapon and you sometimes can't tell even close up which is real and which isn't (We had a cop hold his sidearm next to one of our airsoft guns and they looked *identical* until you drop the mag).

It's a shame that this played out this way; I'm sure the cop wishes he'd done everything differently but he acted by the book for "some unidentified male in dark clothing carrying an assault rifle just turned to point it at me" - though 13 is a kid age, it's also the age that he could be adult-sized. It's a shame that it's any kid's instinct to turn to face someone shouting at them and not to immediately drop what is likely one of his favorite toys on the spot. It's a shame he wasn't traveling with a group of kids, which would have tipped off the officer that this wasn't a murderous crazy running around. It's a shame that the kid didn't have the rifle in a bag or on his back, where it wouldn't have been *immediately* dangerous if he had turned around.

What needs to happen as a result of this is that *anyone* who uses airsoft needs to treat their equipment as though it were real-steel when out and about, and parents of kids playing airsoft need to make sure their kids know how to treat their equipment and preferably only allow their kids to use obviously fake-looking equipment. And though open carry is legal in some parts of the US (Not in CA IIRC, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country; where I live it is legal), I've never seen anyone do it with a rifle or shotgun; and anyone who is doing it with a pistol has it holstered and isn't carrying it around drawn.

Lapel cams might be a good idea.