Skip to comments.Sheriff's deputy will NOT be charged for shooting dead 13-year-old boy ...
Posted on 07/08/2014 7:08:32 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
Prosecutors said Monday they will not file criminal charges against a Northern California sheriff's deputy who shot and killed a 13-year-old boy carrying a pellet gun he mistook for an assault rifle....
Deputy Erick Gelhaus, 48, fired multiple rounds in response to what he believed was an imminent threat of death, Sonoma County District Attorney Jill Ravitch announced at a news conference.
'While in the lawful performance of his duty, Deputy Gelhaus was faced with a highly unpredictable and rapidly evolving situation,' Ravitch said. 'He believed honestly and reasonably that he was faced with a do-or-die dilemma.'
'While this was an absolute tragedy it was not a criminal act,' Ravitch said.
Gelhaus shot Lopez on October 22 as the teen walked near his home with the pellet gun. The deputy told investigators he believed the gun was real and opened fire out of fear for his life.
At least one witness said he heard the deputy order Lopez to drop the pellet gun before shooting, Ravitch said.
Gelhaus fired eight times, striking the eighth-grader seven times with his department-issued 9 mm handgun.
The district attorney said Gelhaus had 18 rounds in his gun and stopped shooting when he felt the threat had ended....
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Maybe they mistook him for a dawg . . .
No charges? I’m shocked.
He should be hung.
What ever happened with the officer who shot the kid who had a TV remote in his hand? The kid answered the door and was immediately blown away. I think he was about the same age.
Cops are too jumpy these days.
Looks real enough and doesn’t have the orange muzzle tip that airsoft ones do. However, it’s not clear from the story what the imminent threat was. It didn’t mention he was pointing it at the officer or someone else.
Abuse of a corpse or bad headline?
Carrying a rifle or pellet gun should not be an immediate, shoot on sight, death warrant.
Abuse of a dead headline.
“Deputy Erick Gelhaus, 48, fired multiple rounds in response to what he believed was an imminent threat of death, Sonoma County District Attorney Jill Ravitch announced at a news conference.”
This is NOT the standard by which a private citizen would be judged. It’s not enough that you believe there is an imminent threat, it must be a REASONABLE belief. In other words, a hypothetical “reasonable person” would also believe they were in danger in a similar situation.
Obviously that’s not the case here. A reasonable person would know that open carry is legal, and a reasonable person would also know that someone simply carrying a firearm is not necessarily threatening anyone. Otherwise we could shoot police officers on sight with no repercussions, if simply carrying their firearms constituted a threat.
That’s down in Euharlee Georgia and that decision is in the hands of the DA and the GBI as well — we’re waiting.
No, but it is getting to the point where a firearm combined with a badge constitutes much more of a threat than a firearm alone.
The newest excuse of the Tyranny:
Yeah, definitely makes you more uncomfortable nowadays.
Evidently, in the Brave New World, it is.
Cops can execute Citizens on the spot.
Judge, jury, executioner.
No — neither.
When the kid was down on the ground bleeding an motionless the cop shot him a few more times.
The police officer startled the kid when he drove up beside him shouting, and with his gun drawn. What follows is conjecture: the startled kid intended to show that the gun was simply a pellet gun and in the course of doing so pointed the barrel in the general direction of the officer. Officer Jumpy, who had shocked the kid, proceeds to empty his revolver into the kid's body.
Maybe it was one of the two dead boys who got up to fight in the middle of the night.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.