Posted on 10/29/2013 9:59:16 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
SANTA ROSA, Calif. (AP) — Sheriff's officials say the Northern California deputy who fatally shot a 13-year-old boy is a firearms instructor who has trained his law enforcement colleagues in the proper use of force for nearly two decades.
Sonoma County spokesman Assistant Sheriff Lorenzo Duenas said 48-year-old Erick Gelhaus has been an instructor and rangemaster for the county for 19 years.
He also teaches pistol, carbine, shotgun and rifle lessons for Gunsite, a private company in Arizona, according to the company's Web site.
Gelhaus, a 24-year sheriff's office veteran, is a frequent contributor to S.W.A.T. magazine, a monthly firearms publication.
Duenas confirmed that Gelhaus is one of 26 gun instructors for Sonoma County.
He has not only given shooting lessons but also has provided instruction on the proper use of force, Duenas said.
To do that job, "you've got to be good at instructing others," Duenas said, adding: "You have to be able to instruct others on policy and procedures and use-of-force policy issues."
Gelhaus shot and killed Andy Lopez last week in Santa Rosa.
Investigators say Gelhaus mistook the pellet gun Lopez was carrying for an assault rifle....
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I’m a gun owner. I don’t understand that post. I’m not as stupid as the person depicted in that post.
There is nothing conflicting about the autopsy and the timeline -- and they speak volumes.
Which person -- the cop or the gun owner???
The autopsy says the kid was shot and is dead? Amazing!
The alleged gun owner.
shot 7 times
Do you think he still had that gun in his hands after the first shot hit him??? how about after the 2nd shot??? after the third??? after the fourth??? the fifth??? the sixth??? the one that missed??? the seventh???
What were all of those -- gratuities???
Whether or not the weapon was a real rifle or an airsoft replica is irrelevant.
The Second Amendment is specific....the right to keep and BEAR arms
shall NOT be infringed. Does not matter if the gun was real or not.
Badgemonkeys who shoot people carrying a long gun merely because
they see someone carrying a long gun are murderers....deserving of
the death penalty.
Badgemonkeys have no right, no authority and no legal protection for
EVER interfering in ANYWAY with a person who is merely carrying a
firearm. The MOST they can do is observe said person from a distance.
IF...and ONLY if...they observe a bonafide criminal act...not some
fabricated pseudocrime like “disturbing the peace” erc. then they can
investigate further.
The badgemonkey who fired his weapon in this case needs to be charged
tried and executed. If the state refuses to impose justice on him then
a patriot needs to hunt him down and bring him to summary justice.
Whether or not the weapon was a real rifle or an airsoft replica is irrelevant.
The Second Amendment is specific....the right to keep and BEAR arms
shall NOT be infringed. Does not matter if the gun was real or not.
Badgemonkeys who shoot people carrying a long gun merely because
they see someone carrying a long gun are murderers....deserving of
the death penalty.
Badgemonkeys have no right, no authority and no legal protection for
EVER interfering in ANYWAY with a person who is merely carrying a
firearm. The MOST they can do is observe said person from a distance.
IF...and ONLY if...they observe a bonafide criminal act...not some
fabricated pseudocrime like “disturbing the peace” erc. then they can
investigate further.
The badgemonkey who fired his weapon in this case needs to be charged
tried and executed. If the state refuses to impose justice on him then
a patriot needs to hunt him down and bring him to summary justice.
Post 128 is for you —
Every time I support the actions of a cop some drooling idiot calls me a "boot licker."
Every time I condemn the actions of a cop some drooling idiot calls me a "cop hater."
You can't even imagine how little I care what a drooling idiot thinks of me. LOL
What's to argue about???
The kid had every lawful right to carry that toy he had without police pestering him, and every lawful right to turn around to see who or what was behind him without getting 7 bullets in him.
Ague that if you wish.
Now take your drooling idiot Saul Alinsky butt out on the street with your "toy" gun and prove me wrong.
You also have the right to be charged with murder if what appeared to you turned out not to be true but an apparition.
That’s not the law. You only have to reasonably be in fear for your life. We went over this a thousand times on the Trayvon/Zimmerman threads. And others.
Event stress changes time perception. My instructor has a shooting simulator, very cool, and he demonstrated reaction shooting, laying about 5 shots into the hypothetical perp in maybe two or three seconds. They train on minimal trigger movement to get very fast repetition. The trained response is to keep shooting till the target stops moving. So no, the reported sequence does not surprise me, including the shouting. Ten seconds can be a long time when you think you might die. So this reaction is exactly what I would expect given what I have just learned about the training. If there is fault to be found, the training itself should be reviewed. Because that’s the tape that plays when you’re running on pure adrenaline.
The operable word being “reasonable”.
It was reasonable for Zimmerman to believe that someone sitting on his chest pounding his head into the concrete was actually a threat to his life. And the purpose of the one shot was to “neutralize the threat” — not to kill.
In this case is it reasonable to believe that a kid carrying a pellet gun walking away from you is a threat to your life???
Is it unreasonable to believe that if the kid hears something behind him that he shouldn’t turn around to see what it is or who it is???
Is it reasonable to believe that a kid with a plastic pellet gun is then as he turns around going to raise it up to shoot somebody with his toy???
Is it reasonable to believe that the deputy said anything to the kid or gave him any time to respond if all of that along with 8 shots happened within 6 seconds??
Is it reasonable to believe that it took 8 shots to neutralize a boy with a pellet gun turning around to see what the commotion is???
Yep — REASONABLE is the operative word to describe what the deputy lacked.
Ask your instructor if the kid in this case dropped his plastic pellet gun after the second shot but was still moving, should he keep shooting until he quit moving.
I don't know what the killer saw, but the stock is held together with screws and the deep wells for the screws are fairly prominent when the buttstock is visible. I assume the killer didn't see the buttstock, or at least not close enough to see the pattern of screws holding the plastic halves together.
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.