Posted on 11/05/2013 7:29:58 AM PST by Uncle Chip
:: the orange tip, if it had one, was cut off ::
Does Gelhaus have timeframe for that “cut-off”?
“You don’t think it’ll be an issue at the trial?”
Perhaps. But, the only argument they’ll be able to make is that’s it’s okay to shoot anyone they see carrying anything that looks like a gun.
Is it illegal to carry a real rifle? What difference does the orange tip make? 10 seconds (or less) for someone to react positively in a situation like this especially a young teenager is stretching things. If the cops had received a report of someone shooting people I would give a little more leeway but that doesn’t seem to be the case.
Casillas said a private autopsy conducted by a former Sonoma County medical examiner showed that the teen could not have raised the gun.
He also said a witness reported he saw the teen walking with the gun moments before the shooting and could tell from his stature and the way he was carrying the gun that Andy was a child carrying a toy.
No leeway, because they fall under the same “rules of engagement” that I do. Imagine if I, or any citizen, had encountered this boy and killed him within seconds... I would be in the cell BELOW the prison for the rest of my life. Cops, and sorry to all the Mark Levin fans, have lost their minds thanks to the “go home at all costs” training videos. This is precisely why I could never be involved with law enforcement today, in the collective mind of cops it’s US VERSUS THEM. You can’t convince me otherwise, I deal with them all the time.
That’s certainly a good point. Carrying a weapon isn’t enough to justify deadly force.
I think that's the whole point here. Was this an honest mistake, or a negligent act on the LEO's part. On the face of it (seven shots within seconds of initiating contact, as reported), it doesn't look good from the outside.
The hell with suing the city and having taxpayers pay for this murder.
These murders will stop once the union gets hit in the pocketbook. The uLEO's will then police their own.
You’re right. No, it shouldn’t have made a difference. Well, except maybe if the tip WAS still on, because then the cop had clear evidence it was a toy.
But I get what you all are saying and I agree: merely carrying a weapon is not enough for deadly force.
What if it had been real? Can the cop kill him with impunity then? The number one enemy of freedom is often NOT the gungrabbers, it’s the so-called patriots who strain to defend the gun while attacking the person holding the gun. It’s called psychosis.
“Casillas said a private autopsy conducted by a former Sonoma County medical examiner showed that the teen could not have raised the gun.”
Thanks, I hadn’t seen that. I can see where a person would likely turn to face Officer trigger happy and in the process the muzzle starts to point toward the cop. That’s all it takes these days.
The orange tip shouldn't make any difference. If cops are being trained to shoot - or not - based solely on orange tips, then something is drastically wrong here.
And what about BB guns? BB guns don't have orange tips. Are kids with BB guns now legitimate shoot-on-sight targets? If so, I had better warn my rural relatives.
I'm guessing the kid in this story heard a commotion behind him. He simply turned around to see who was doing all the yelling. And that was enough to get him shot.
Career? Right there I think we have identified the problem. The entire legal “system” is a broken collection of corrupt lawyers, politicians, and chiefs of police.
Police are civilians.
Army, Navy, and even Air Force are not civilians.
Marines get to not be civilians (though for most of their history they were the Navy’s police force).
They have. And maybe.
“Tough profession. One mistake can wipeout your entire career.”
I think you would have to classify this as more than “one mistake.” When you kill someone, there is no “going back.” And I hope that the motorist whom Gelhaus reportedly drew on, makes very clear Gelhaus’ mindset.
Mistake in the sense that I don’t think he intended to kill an unarmed kid. I really can’t see how it was anything other than a very bad judgement call on the LEOs part. There was no way he was following procedure.
The mistake was to treat an unarmed child as a lethal threat.
That right there takes it from bad judgment, to negligence. Not making a judgment, just saying that if that is the case.
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.