Discussion is always better when we have all of the facts. The fact that only one deputy fired is very important. This article says the same thing:
A deputy ordered the teen to drop the gun. As Lopez turned, the barrel of his BB gun pointed toward the officers, according to investigators. The senior deputy fired eight shots at the boy, hitting him seven times, police said.
The other deputy, also a veteran law enforcement officer but new to the Sheriff's Office, faced the same split-second decision and chose not to fire.
Here is an excellent article that talks about what I've always heard called "sympathetic fire" but they call "reflex fire:"
When an officer joins a fire fight in progress, the justification for firing cannot be simply that other officers were shooting, too. Each officer must be able to show that his or her shooting was reasonable, under the Fourth Amendment.
The justification may be, for example, self-defense or defense of fellow officers or others, or to prevent the escape of a dangerous suspect, or to stop the flight of a minor offender whose evasive actions are threatening the public safety. Targeting another with deadly force must be a reaction to articulable, perceived danger - not merely a conditioned reflex to the sound of gunfire.
The bold text is very important. The training of every law enforcement officer in the country for the past 20 years has included the Supreme Court case of Tennessee v. Garner. In that case, a Memphis police officer fired at a fleeing burglary suspect, a legal action at that time under Tennessee state law. The single shot killed the 15 year old suspect, his father sued the city, and SCOTUS ruled as follows:
Notwithstanding probable cause to seize a suspect, an officer may not always do so by killing him. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead.
SCOTUS defined the circumstances under which deadly force would be considered unconstitutional, and more importantly, established the circumstances under which deadly force could be used. The latter is now a part of law enforcement training for every officer in the US.
Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given.
Initial training and annual "shoot/don't shoot" decision-making requalification requires a law enforcement officer to be able to articulate the reason why he fired. The officer needs to be able to explain to the trainer during training (or to the investigation board or to a jury of his peers after an actual shooting) the reason for every time he pulls the trigger. The deputy who fired said that Lopez turned and pointed the gun at him. But the other deputy didn't fire. This says to me that in the second deputy's mind, there was no "articulable, perceived danger." You can be sure that the training about Tennessee v. Garner was part of the split second decision he made. None of us were there, so we don't know why, but the reason why only one deputy fired will be a very important part of this investigation. Maybe his view was blocked or he didn't see the gun...or he realized it was a toy. Let's wait and see what his reasoning was before we string them both up in the court of public opinion.
This article from a local NBC TV station has some valuable links and other information not included in the original linked article. In addition to this statement from the Santa Rosa Police Department (note that Lopez was not shot in the back as some folks here have been saying), the following eyewitness statement is significant:
Ismael Mondragon told NBC Bay Area that he saw Andy moments before he was killed with the gun in his hand. Mondragon said he warned the boy to get rid of such a real-looking weapon.
"I saw him with that rifle in his left hand," Mondgragon said. "And I said, 'Throw that thing away, the police are right behind you.' "
If this statement is true, then Lopez knew that the deputies were behind him. We will never know why he didn't do the smart thing and put the gun down right then, but he made a bad decision by continuing to carry it. Now one of the comments in the NBC TV story says this:
The parents and family want to blame the police, but they are the ones who gave him the gun as replica retailers do not sell to persons under 18 years old.
Is this true in California? Finally, page one of the Press Democrat article (surprisingly even-handed for an MSM source) has a photo gallery with clearer photos of the Airsoft gun compared to a real AK-47:
From a distance of 3-4 feet away, you can kind of see from the side view that the Airsoft gun has some parts that are translucent. From a distance of 20-30 feet, I'm not sure those parts would be visible in the split second when the muzzle is pointing at you and you're trying to decide whether you're about to be shot.