California police kill 13-year-old for carrying fake assault rifle - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: California police kill 13-year-old for carrying fake assault rifle

  1. #11
    Just to throw it out there... it is possible to shoot someone in the back in self defense. Someone can turn around while you're in the middle of shooting and you can't stop in time. Especially if you've already been hit in the head. Article to explain: Massad Ayoob: Fist vs. Gun - Disparity of force and the law | The Daily Caller

    Now, somehow I doubt that was the case with a 13 year old kid. Of course, if cops nowadays are scared of a tiny doggie... I think they've got "disparity of force" a little mixed up.

    However, good info... might need it some day.
    Modern Whig
    "Government is not meant to burden Liberty but rather to secure it." -T.J. O'Hara

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,412
    While in hindsight it seems apparent, even obvious, that there was no need for the cops to discharge their weapons, and that after-the-fact established fact makes this an undeniable tragedy, I honestly don't get all this stuff about the victim being 13 years old. This story was published in very close time-proximity after the 12 year old shooting two of his classmates and one of his teachers, a teacher who BTW, was a retired Marine with beau coup combat experience under his belt. Had that Marine been armed, I wonder if he would have hesitated to open fire on the 12 year old, and if he had opened fire after (and most likely even before) the two classmates had been shot and killed, he would've been lauded as a monumental hero.

    Also, in this case, repeating that the rifle the kid was holding was a "toy" is utter nonsense. It was a pellet rifle, and completely indistinguishable from a real AK 47 (or some variant thereof). Depending on what mechanism the rifle employs to shoot its pellets, it can still have the potential to be a deadly weapon too, but whether it is so-capable or not, there was absolutely no way for the cops to know that as the kid was turning towards them.

    Hindsight is always 20/20. These cops should not be judged by hindsight, but by the objective information they had available to them during the incident. That may or may not exonerate them, but that is the only fair and proper way to evaluate the incident.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  4. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    While in hindsight it seems apparent, even obvious, that there was no need for the cops to discharge their weapons, and that after-the-fact established fact makes this an undeniable tragedy, I honestly don't get all this stuff about the victim being 13 years old. This story was published in very close time-proximity after the 12 year old shooting two of his classmates and one of his teachers, a teacher who BTW, was a retired Marine with beau coup combat experience under his belt. Had that Marine been armed, I wonder if he would have hesitated to open fire on the 12 year old, and if he had opened fire after (and most likely even before) the two classmates had been shot and killed, he would've been lauded as a monumental hero.

    Also, in this case, repeating that the rifle the kid was holding was a "toy" is utter nonsense. It was a pellet rifle, and completely indistinguishable from a real AK 47 (or some variant thereof). Depending on what mechanism the rifle employs to shoot its pellets, it can still have the potential to be a deadly weapon too, but whether it is so-capable or not, there was absolutely no way for the cops to know that as the kid was turning towards them.

    Hindsight is always 20/20. These cops should not be judged by hindsight, but by the objective information they had available to them during the incident. That may or may not exonerate them, but that is the only fair and proper way to evaluate the incident.

    Blues
    It would have been nice if the original post had included a link to the article. I know very well the damage that a pellet rifle can do. I used to hunt rabbits and shoot stray skunks, opossums, and raccoons with one; and several years ago one of my sons was shot in the arm by a friend at a range of about 30 to 40 yards. The pellet struck him in his bicep and almost went through his muscle. There was a bump on his arm where the pellet was. The doctor only had to cut down about 1/4 inch to extract the pellet. The bad part was that he had to swab the wound canal. The original post misstated the facts: a pellet gun is NOT a toy. The fact still remains that 7 shots in the back seems to be overkill. Surely there was a better way of handling the situation. Thanks for the clarification.

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by bo_leggs View Post
    Nice attitude, but if you bothered to look at my comment as it was written you should have seen that I wasn't commenting about 7 shots in the back, I was commenting about the 34 shots by LEO in the fire fight with the Boston bombers. I agree that no one should ever be shot in the back unless it is your only shot at stopping a crime, not an escape. A 13 year old carrying a toy gun should not be seen as committing a crime.
    That's what "regardless of your argument" means.
    Quote Originally Posted by wolf_fire View Post
    Regardless of your argument, 7 shots in the back of a 13 yo kid that poses no threat and isn't trying to return fire (since he can't) is an inordinate display of jack boot thuggery!
    I know you were talking about the Boston case. I read the thread. Even read the thread you were commenting on which stated:

    Quote Originally Posted by canislupus View Post
    shooting a kid---- BAD
    shooting him in the back --- very BAD
    taking 7 shots---- ?????????????
    same thing happened to that piece of trash that was involved in the boston bombing.
    shooting him --GOOD
    but if my memory is correct, they fired 34 times ???????????

    I steered the conversation back to the thread about the 13 yo where only 7 shots were fired, they were fired in the back, and IMO, that is jack boot thuggery, which you seem to agree with with your latest comment. Not sure where I had "attitude".
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
    ~ Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,412
    Quote Originally Posted by bo_leggs View Post
    It would have been nice if the original post had included a link to the article.
    Several of us knew about and had been discussing the story at least a day before this thread was started. There may be others, but the thread of which I speak is here, and there is more than one link posted in the thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by bo_leggs View Post
    I know very well the damage that a pellet rifle can do. I used to hunt rabbits and shoot stray skunks, opossums, and raccoons with one; and several years ago one of my sons was shot in the arm by a friend at a range of about 30 to 40 yards. The pellet struck him in his bicep and almost went through his muscle. There was a bump on his arm where the pellet was. The doctor only had to cut down about 1/4 inch to extract the pellet. The bad part was that he had to swab the wound canal.
    That's all very cute, but pellet guns aren't the nearly-harmless, near-toys that they used to be. I have one that spits out .177 pellets at 1200 fps. From 30 to 40 yards, a shot from that rifle would've required a bit more first aid for your son than having the wound channel "swabbed."

    Still, if you have seen the picture of the rifle, it was indistinguishable from a real AK 47 variant. It likely is nowhere near as powerful a firing mechanism as my Gamo Whisper is, but the point is not how powerful a pellet gun it is - the point is were the cops reasonable in thinking that it was a real rifle? Looking at the picture, I believe they were. Have you seen the picture of which I speak? Here it is in case anyone in this thread hasn't seen it:



    As much (and as often as I've said it on this site) as I distrust cops these days, I do not expect them to allow someone holding what they reasonably believe to be a real center-fire rifle to turn towards them before stopping the movement. I believe that is an unreasonable demand to put on anyone, whether LEO or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by bo_leggs View Post
    The original post misstated the facts: a pellet gun is NOT a toy.
    Actually, most of the early reporting got it wrong, so depending on where the OP got his/her info from, s/he may well have relayed exactly what s/he read. I probably made the mistake of assuming that most people would try to track down fresh info and would have seen the picture by now, and maybe found out that the early reports of it being a "toy" were erroneous. Even if it was a toy though, do you see any blaze orange caps or markings anywhere on that "toy?" There is none to see, so the "toy" or "replica" (which it was also referred to as in the media) or the pellet gun or a real AK variant would be completely indistinguishable from each other.

    Quote Originally Posted by bo_leggs View Post
    The fact still remains that 7 shots in the back seems to be overkill.
    Like I said, there are links in the other thread, and I have yet to see reports that say that the victim was shot in the back.

    Here's the link from the OP in the other thread. Nothing there about it.

    Here's another news report linked in that thread - nothing about back-shooting.

    Here's another media report (local to the incident BTW) that I found on my own and posted in the other thread. The only mention of the kid's back is here:

    After the deputies spotted the boy Tuesday, they called for backup and repeatedly ordered him to drop the gun, sheriff's Lt. Dennis O'Leary said in a news release. His back was turned toward the deputies, and they did not realize at the time that he was a boy.

    According to the Santa Rosa police, the boy was about 20 to 30 feet from them when he turned toward the deputies with the gun and they opened fire.
    Still nowhere does it say he was shot in the back.

    Here's a story published on the same day this thread was opened that says the following:

    A preliminary autopsy report released Thursday said Andy Lopez was shot seven times, and the two fatal wounds were in his right hip and the right side of his chest.
    This is consistent with the cops' stories; they said the boy had his back to them when they first "repeatedly" ordered him to drop the "weapon" and that they opened fire when he started turning towards them.

    Sorry to be repetitive, but....

    Quote Originally Posted by bo_leggs View Post
    The fact still remains that 7 shots in the back seems to be overkill.
    Knowing what little we actually know now, would only one shot and a dead kid make any difference? Two shots? Three? What's the magic number between just plain kill and overkill? And while I sincerely hope and pray that you never have to shoot anyone for any reason, if you choose to answer that question, make sure it's a high enough number to cover any reaction you may have to facing what you reasonably believe is a real rifle, but far enough below the number 7 to make your "overkill" evaluation not be completely ridiculous.


    Quote Originally Posted by bo_leggs View Post
    Surely there was a better way of handling the situation.
    In this specific instance, using only hindsight from a distance, you are predictably 100% correct, but that's only because we now know that it wasn't a real rifle they were facing.

    If that teacher in Sparks, NV, the retired combat-veteran-Marine, had been allowed to be armed and dumped seven rounds into the 12 year old who was carrying a real rifle and killing people, nobody would have called that overkill. Sparks probably would've put on a parade for the guy, which is not to say that he wouldn't have deserved it, just to say that seven rounds is relevant to your evaluation only because you know after the fact that the rifle was some degree less than "real." The cops did not have the benefit of that knowledge, and it could have just as easily been a deadly mistake (to them) to wait long enough to get it.

    I find the accusation of "overkill" to be patently unfair with so little real knowledge of what actually happened.

    Quote Originally Posted by bo_leggs View Post
    Thanks for the clarification.
    I just relayed what I read, some of which I had to search for myself. It's always weird to me how a story can foment so much anger and emotion, and yet so few will actually try to find as much as they can of the real story on their own. As of the time that I started this post, it was #15 in this thread, and contains the first link(s) to anything concerning the story. But I'm interested in it anyway, so it's not like I went and found the links just so I could reply to your rather sarcastic reply. No thanks necessary. I linked to stuff I would have looked for anyway.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  7. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    3,832
    Thanks Blues for clearing this up. I did something I don't normally do; I took the OP's word for what happened without checking into it. Folks please disregard my previous post.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
    ~ Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

  8. #17
    Thanks Blues for the post, I remember my cousins having pellet guns when they were young boys. (Not the same type which you own) Of course,
    they lived in the country and there was no danger of being shot by a LEO.
    I agree, someone has to take out the trash....

  9. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Houston Metro Area, Texas
    Posts
    3,004
    Call me back when you have to make a split second decision about protecting yourself or fellow officers, while there have been issues, still comes down to life or death decision on spur of moment. Damned if you do Damned if you don't.

  10. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Several of us knew about and had been discussing the story at least a day before this thread was started. There may be others, but the thread of which I speak is here, and there is more than one link posted in the thread.



    That's all very cute, but pellet guns aren't the nearly-harmless, near-toys that they used to be. I have one that spits out .177 pellets at 1200 fps. From 30 to 40 yards, a shot from that rifle would've required a bit more first aid for your son than having the wound channel "swabbed."
    Sorry, but could you point out where I said pellet guns in my time were "nearly-harmless, near-toys"? Back in my day they were never considered toys, they were weapons. And when did this become a pissing contest over whose pellet rifle is most powerful?

  11. #20
    That gun sure looks like the real deal to me. Easy to see how the cops thought he was a threat. I read somewhere that the cops told him to drop it several times. It is an unfortunate thing, but the only person to blame is the kid.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast