30 votes

Update: Press release. California Sheriff's Deputies Shoot, Kill 13-Year-Old

(AP) Calif. sheriff's deputies shoot, kill 13-year-old
SANTA ROSA, Calif.
Northern California sheriff's deputies have shot and killed a 13-year-old boy after repeatedly telling him to drop what turned out to be a replica assault rifle, sheriff's officials and family members said.

Two Sonoma County deputies on patrol saw the boy walking with what appeared to be a high-powered weapon Tuesday afternoon in Santa Rosa, sheriff's Lt. Dennis O'Leary said.

The replica gun resembled an AK-47 with a black magazine cartridge and brown butt, according to a photograph released by the sheriff's office. Deputies would only learn after the shooting that it wasn't an actual firearm, according to O'Leary.

Read more:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/23/Calif-She...

From SRPD web site:

"Deputy Involved Shooting Investigation

The Santa Rosa Police Department, in conjunction with the Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office and Petaluma Police Department, is investigating yesterday’s fatal shooting involving the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department. The investigation is ongoing and a detailed press release will follow later today.

Lt. Paul Henry of the Santa Rosa Police Department will be handling all media inquiries. Lt. Henry can be reached at (707) 543-3668."

Update: https://local.nixle.com/alert/5081195/

Wednesday October 23rd, 2013 :: 04:30 p.m. PDT

Community
Deputy involved shooting press update

TO: News Media

FROM: Lieutenant Paul J. Henry

SUBJECT: Officer Involved Shooting Investigation

On Tuesday, October 22, 2013, at approximately 3:14 p.m., two deputies from the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office were involved in a fatal incident in which the deputies encountered what appeared to be an armed male in the area of Moorland Avenue and West Robles Avenue in Santa Rosa, California. The male was subsequently shot by one of the deputies and succumbed to his wounds at the scene. Pursuant to the Sonoma County Law Enforcement Chiefs’ Association Employee Involved Fatal Incident Protocol, the Santa Rosa Police Department has assumed the primary investigative responsibilities into this event. The Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office and Petaluma Police Department are assisting in the investigation.

The investigation is on-going. After interviewing the involved deputies, the witnesses identified to this point, and examining the crime scene, the following information can be released.

The deputies were riding together in the same patrol car. They were driving a marked Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office patrol vehicle and they were dressed in their standard patrol uniforms. While driving in the area of Moorland Avenue and West Robles Avenue they observed a subject walking northbound on the west side of Moorland Avenue just north of the intersection with West Robles Avenue. The subject was wearing a blue “hoodie” style sweatshirt and shorts.

One of the deputies immediately recognized that the subject was carrying what appeared to be an assault style rifle, similar to an AK-47 assault rifle. The weapon was in the subject’s left hand and his hand was at his left side. The deputies immediately called for emergency assistance from other deputies in the area and they broadcast their location. The deputies continued northbound through the intersection and pulled into the southbound lane and stopped their vehicle. One of the witnesses described that he saw the patrol car’s overhead rotating lights come on and he heard a “chirp” of the vehicle’s siren.

Both deputies exited their vehicle, but maintained cover behind their open passenger door. One of the deputies shouted at the subject to, “put the gun down.” A witness in the area reported that he heard the deputy shout two times to “put the gun down.” Initially, the subject’s back was toward the deputies. When the deputy shouted at the subject, the subject began to turn toward the deputies. One of the deputies described that as the subject was turning toward him the barrel of the assault rifle was rising up and turning in his direction.

The deputy feared for his safety, the safety of his partner, and the safety of the community members in the area. He believed the subject was going to shoot at him or his partner. The deputy described that he is aware an assault weapon of this type is capable of firing a bullet that can penetrate his body armor, the metal exterior of his car, and the walls of the residential houses behind him. The deputy then fired several rounds from his service weapon at the subject, striking him at least one time. The subject immediately fell to the ground.

The deputies approached the subject, handcuffed him, and immediately began life-saving measures. They called for an emergency medical response and both Fire and EMS were on scene within minutes.

Andy Lopez Cruz, age 13, died at the scene. An autopsy is scheduled for Thursday, October 24, 2013.

Recovered at the scene were a replica AK-47 assault style rifle, and a replica of a handgun. The rifle was located on the ground next to the subject. The handgun was located concealed in the waistband of the subject. The rifle had a brown stock and fore grip, and a dark colored plastic body. It did not have the traditionally orange tip of a replica firearm. The handgun was clear plastic and did have an orange tip at the end of the barrel.

The Santa Rosa Police Department, in conjunction with the Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office and Petaluma Police Department continue to investigate this incident. Anyone with information about this incident is requested to contact the Santa Rosa Police Department at (707) 543-3590.

Any further press inquiries may be directed to Lieutenant Paul Henry at (707) 543-3668.

Address/Location
Santa Rosa Police Department
965 Sonoma Ave
Santa Rosa, CA 95404



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Democrats are responsible

Democrats are responsible these types of killings. If this was in the state I went to school, Montana, a police officer wouldn't even bother coming over to the individual. They have a right to open carry, the fact that ruthless, ignorant, mindless democrats in the california assembly have voted to do delete the second amendment out of the constitution and outlaw open carry is the reason why this happened. Disgusting, utterly disgusting.

file federal charges using title 18 sec 241 the death penalty to

the cop that killed the child.

the cops were not fired upon period. No danger period. No one had complained of being damaged.

Before a cop may act there must be a corpse delicti. and injuryed party. Or a contract that was broken.

Non of these things are present.

they were using color of law not true law or constitutional law.
Also as for there Oaths. If they did not have them on them or in there vehicle they were acting as private and no authority. There is more on this though I not put it here.

Thanks
May GOD Bless each and everyone.
I pray that God may see that Ron Paul will not be hurt or wounded, that he may become our next full two term President of the united States of America!
Tim

Here's the problem.

What triggered this delusional, reckless police behavior in the first place?

"One of the deputies immediately recognized that the subject was carrying what appeared to be an assault style rifle, similar to an AK-47."

The right of citizens to bear arms -- this is what triggered, or set off the sequence of events that led to the murder.

Since when should the exercise of a natural right trigger fear in a police officer?

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a rEVOLution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

Police Murder =

Internal investigations = protect one of our own. = Bu!! $hit.....

If these officers are so

...afraid for their lives perhaps then they should find a new line of work. Leaving the business of protecting the public to those not solely concerned with their own personal well being. If they are so risk adverse perhaps a career in accounting instead.

...

They enjoy killing and there is only one line of work where a person can get away with such an act.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

Letter of the Day: Deputy's conclusion

This was posted in the opinion column of our local paper. I left the officer's name off just in case it's a privacy issue.

Deputy's conclusion

EDITOR:
On Oct. 22, Deputy Erick Gelhaus shot and killed Andy Lopez. Somehow the toy gun Andy was carrying has become the issue, but I question this logic.

I have lived in and driven on the streets of Santa Rosa since 1972. Not once have I seen a person — child or adult — carrying a weapon openly. Not once. If I had seen a child in broad daylight on Moorland Avenue, carrying something resembling an assault weapon, I assure you the idea that it might be real would have been way down the list — after squirt gun, pellet gun, BB gun, Halloween prop, etc.

To any reasonable mind it is illogical to suggest that, at 3:15 on a sunny school afternoon, the toy Andy was carrying was a real weapon.

Also, anyone with any training in heavy firearms knows there are specific ways to approach a person with an assault rifle, and jumping out of a patrol car isn't one of them. This would imply that the deputy didn't give Andy any chance because, once out of the car, the deputy imagined a kill-or-be-killed scenario even though it was, both logically and actually, a toy.

Garnet
Daughter of 1776 American Revolutionists

Oh, the wording they use...

this is how they describe the toy gun, notice how even after it is discovered that they are toys they are referred to as "rifle" and "handgun":

"One of the deputies immediately recognized that the subject was carrying what appeared to be an assault style rifle, similar to an AK-47 assault rifle. The weapon was in the subject’s left hand and his hand was at his left side."

"One of the deputies described that as the subject was turning toward him the barrel of the assault rifle was rising up and turning in his direction."

"The deputy described that he is aware an assault weapon of this type is capable of firing a bullet that can penetrate his body armor, the metal exterior of his car, and the walls of the residential houses behind him."

"Recovered at the scene were a replica AK-47 assault style rifle, and a replica of a handgun. The rifle was located on the ground next to the subject. The handgun was located concealed in the waistband of the subject. The rifle had a brown stock and fore grip, and a dark colored plastic body. It did not have the traditionally orange tip of a replica firearm. The handgun was clear plastic and did have an orange tip at the end of the barrel."

NOW NOTICE HOW THEY DESCRIBE THE OFFICERS KILLING MACHINES:

"The deputy then fired several rounds from his service weapon at the subject"

so the toy is a threatening assault rifle and the guns that kill are "service" weapons. It's the kids fault, move along.

Approached him, handcuffed him and then started cpr????

WHAT?
So when you run up and see the fake weapon up close you still cuff the kid and exert your power over him??
You dont stop and say - holy shit I just shot a 13yo kid with a toy - holy shit, holy shit - god please help me save this kid.
Guess not when you are a thug punk asshole.

Listen - I get it - he couldn't know it was fake. But still - even by his own report - the kid didn't point it he just didn't drop it.

And since they shot him in the back - there was no real threat.

But hey - cops in NM this weekend shot at a minivan full of kids because the mom drove off. So if your mom driving off is enough to get you killed - having a toy gun is a no brainer.

...

A real human would be holding the boy in her/his arms and weeping for forgiveness from God.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

...

Demand the Oath of Office.

Lieutenant Paul Henry at (707) 543-3668

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

The press conference and the 'evidence' held up as Andy's

AirSoft AK, seems suspect for following reasons, IMO:

My immediate response to the PR lackey holding up that non-'Cali compliant,' non-orange tipped toy replica, was that it's possible that the cops' PR machine is deliberately obfuscating the public by NOT displaying the ACTUAL airsoft AK (aka. actual evidence) that Andy Lopez had on him, when he was shot, but most likely, it's merely a sample airsoft toygun:

PHOTO: PressDemocrat.com

IF so, it is wholly plausible that the murdered teen Andy Lopez was holding a far more toy-like looking replica, than what the press conference PR lackey tried to convey; not sure whether Andy's friend's gun had the orange tip removed before Andy had it in his temporary possession, but the sample shown at the Presser certainly didn't, which would obviously convey the sense that it certainly looked more like a real AK, than a toy, thus 'justifying the cop's action, more'-meme.

The reason why I doubt it? The following Time Magazine blurb states that the alleged AirSoft AK toygun held up at the Santa Rosa PD/Sonoma County Sheriff's Department press conference had a CLEAR, TRANSPARENT plastic receiver! If so, that means that Santa Rosa PD/Sonoma County Sheriff's Department LIED:

In a press conference on Wednesday, Santa Rosa police investigating the incident emphasized that Lopez’ airsoft gun did not have the required orange marker and public information officer Paul Henry says that the front portion had been removed. Unzipping two cases, an officer showed reporters a real AK 47-style rifle and the imitation that the teenager was carrying. “The firearm and airsoft rifle appeared remarkably similar, with matching black banana clips and brown stocks,” wrote the Santa Rosa Press Democrat. “Yet in the light of the [building where the conference was held] the model Lopez carried was clearly plastic with a transparent center section.” (In some places, restrictions on imitation guns require them to be made entirely of transparent materials.)

Then, most likely, the one Andy Lopez had at the time would've resembled something more akin to this one:

THAN something like this:

But, just like the hysteria during the entire 2013 AWB craze, 'liberal' anti-gun MSM never got anything about guns right. Even in this case, the reporters actually are so clueless and lazy that they didn't even bother finding out what AEG (Airsoft Electric Guns) was, and called it a company/manufacturer, when it's an acronym describing the how a particular type of airsoft, functions:

The more expensive version, made by a company called AEG, has a magazine capacity of 600 BBs that exit the muzzle at speeds of up to 400 feet per second. It was advertised as a “nonreplica rifle,” though the image on the box depicted a product designed for realism.

Then, there's this photo, released by Sonoma County Sheriff's Department:

This image, released by the Sonoma County Sheriff's Department, shows a replica gun that was being carried by a 13-year-old boy in Santa Rosa, Calif., on Tuesday, Oct. 22, 2013. Two Sonoma County deputies saw the boy walking with the replica assault weapon at about 3 p.m. local time Tuesday in Santa Rosa. Lt. Dennis O'Leary says they repeatedly ordered him to drop what appeared to be a rifle before firing several rounds. He was pronounced dead at the scene. (AP Photo - Sonoma County Sheriff's Department)

which looks more like the same toy airsoft held up at the press conference than the one that Time Magazine described.

So, either Time Magazine got it wrong and are lying about the AirSoft toy AK's receiver being made of CLEAR, TRANSPARENT plastic. Or, the Santa Rosa PD/Sonoma County Sheriff's Department LIED and released a 'crime scene photo' with a NON-evidence toygun that looked nothing like what Andy Lopez actually had on him when the cop shot him dead.

So who knows?

That said, for anyone who knows anything about guns, the more you actually learn, study and research real life lethal encounters and gunfights, and legalities surrounding self-defense cases, one cannot help but to come to the conclusion that the amount of rounds fired into a suspect killing him/her is a moot point. The ONLY thing that should be argued/debated/tried over is whether the person shooting was lawfully justified. Frankly to me, while it may seem like an overkill, if the person was in the wrong and initiated violence against someone to the point of being lethal, the defendant is justified in using a .22LR or a .50BMG or multiple .50BMG rounds to fend off his/her/their assailant, as far as I'm concerned.

But regardless, if you're a cop and aren't at a distance to be able to clearly identify your 'suspect' or what she/he's holding in his/her hand, before you decide to kill one of your citizen employers, you're clearly not qualified to determine whether or when you should deploy lethal force, let alone, be in such stressful line of profession.

So, if the teen was not brandishing, nor pointing the muzzle up at the cop, that fcuker had no justification to kill that kid. PERIOD.

Plus, I KNOW they're gonna now bring up the fact that there were/are several cases where gangbangers and zipgunners hid Remington 870 shotguns and others in Nerf toyguns and SuperSoakers, so they are now 'justified' in treating even a clear plastic toygun as well as the more colorful ones, as the real thing:

But, even IF it were so, all this is nothing more than a long line of Commufornia's policestate assholes telling the citizenry that 'Guns are illegal: you peons have no right to carry one, let alone own one! Not to mention, defend yourself with one!' - statist PR propaganda PsyOps.

If Commufornian state-actors, let alone any govt in general, NEVER had a history of anti-gun hysteria, nor lying about what they did, nor a history of using specific semantics alchemy, just so that they can always justify even killing their employers, aka, the 'peon' citizenry, worse: get away with murder, literally, it'd be wholly another matter.

But, as bad as this is, seeing as how these lunatics lie and kill, routinely now, tough shiit: no benefit of the doubt for you! I'd say.

If they're gonna act like collectivists, and claim to have more rights than the citizenry because they belong to their fictional occupational guild, and claim that they're immune by virtue of that said occupation/guild, and have a 'need' to automatically 'protect one of their own'/'thin blueline'?

Well then, I'd say double-tough shiit: we're gonna treat you like a group, as you asked for; so if one or several of them have a long established history of lying and murdering? Seeing as how they like to be treated like a collective? Sure thing: then, they're ALL guilty until 100% proven innocent, PERIOD. By the virtue of the fact that by their 'logic,' if one of them commits a crime, then they should all be considered suspect, seeing as how they want to be identified as same or having same characteristics.

Plus, at this juncture in history, history's on the citizenry's side: when an empire is in decline, state-actors and corporatist thugs tend to go absolutely batshiit crazy; so it's wholly historically and factually justified to treat them as an institutionalized cartel of criminals and killers, and nothing more.

Sorry, you asked. 'We' deliver: you want to be a collective? Then, don't act surprised when 'we' treat you like one.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Not logical to act like abberrent law enforcement

Why would we act like those that violate law? Law enforcement is erroneously trained to treat us as a group and use that attitude to kill us.

They would love it if we got an attitude and tried to discriminate against them as they do us.

That tactic asks us to ignore the good cops and the fact that they will act appropriately under the same conditions.

The problem is the courts, DHS, the infiltrated federal gov and corporations.

We need to be unified in enforcing our laws.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

...

The cop should kill himself to bring honor back to his family.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

No, the family

should be able to put them to death after a FAIR trial, if convicted.

Freedom is the ability to do what you want to do.
Liberty is the ability to do what you ought to do.
"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." 2 Corinthians 3:17

...

The person has already admitted the murder. I don't know what the purpose of a costly trial would be. According to you, he had every right to murder the boy in self defense. Needless to say, I have been a jure and that is not the case.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

If your replica gun looks like a real gun,

then expect to be treated as if you have a real gun. Maybe the police could have found a way to handle the situation differently. Hopefully there'll be an investigation. But get real. Some of these comments talk about a boy and his "toy gun" as if the kid were six-years old wearing a little suede holster with a toy pistol.

And it's not as if teenagers are rarely involved in violent crimes. On average juveniles account for about 10% of people arrested for murder. I doubt there are many here who know how they'd react if they thought an assault rifle was being pointed at them - by anyone. And how do you know if it's a real gun or just a replica? You don't.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

...

I could not find a code section that allows an OFFICER (aka Corporate Entity) to own and carry a loaded firearm. By your logic, living men should start shooting cops because they are not sure if the guns are real or not. However living men now know that the OFFICER could kill them on accident. Isn't that a reasonable defense to murder cops. Furthermore, ignorance of the law is not an excuse to break it. Your intentions are not provable but facts are a boy is dead. Not a man, a boy. Taking a life is unlawful. If you don't respect human life than yours will be next.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

You don't shoot someone for carrying a firearm.

I neither said nor implied that. I don't understand your logic. (Nor why you brought up ignorance of the law.) Taking a life is immoral and unlawful. But it's not deemed either immoral or unlawful to kill someone in self defense. So, who decides if an act is legitimately self-defense? In any such case, one of the two parties can't speak on his own behalf! It's generally a group of third party individuals using their best judgment. That's all you can do.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

...

"...it's not deemed either immoral or unlawful to kill someone in self defense."

Falsehood. Society is lost.

It is always unlawful to kill a living man. It may be "legal" in self defense. It is expected to avoid confrontation. This is seek and destroy. The kid had every right to be where he was. The police had no right to take his life.

These are the facts. You don't get the logic because your logic fails.

Violence begets more violence.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

***

"...it's not deemed either immoral or unlawful to kill someone in self defense."

Absolutely correct. Either you got lost in the double negative or you do not uderstand liberty.

God gave each of us the right to life. Anyone who disrespects that right and attempts to take away your right, is not worthy to retain his right, since he is attempting to use his right to life to remove another's.

If you decide to try and kill me, take away my right to life, it is my duty both to myself, my wife, and my duty to God, who has a plan for my life to preserve my life. I fht eonly way I can preserve my life is to take yours before you take mine, it is justified. You are the one who provides the justification, by your failure to respect my right.

If you do not believe I have the right to life, then you cannot justly believe you have a special right to life, because we are all created equal (in the endowment of rights). That would be discrimination. That's the philosophy of the NWO. "We are smarter than everyone else, so we will not recognize their rights so we can use tham for whatever purposes we choose.

Furthermore, if I defend myself from someone who does not respect my right to life, I am defending everybody else who might become a victim later on by the same disprespecter of rights.

Freedom is the ability to do what you want to do.
Liberty is the ability to do what you ought to do.
"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." 2 Corinthians 3:17

...

The understanding of liberty is required for a free society. In a free society people are not allowed to just open fire on anyone they choose or decide is a threat to the whole.

If it was lawful to kill in self defense than charges would never be filed in such cases. However it is not lawful or moral. Legalisms have polluted your brain.

Your ability to get away with murder does not justify it. As you have said in your post, you are the judge, jury and executioner for anyone you feel is a threat to your life. I don't assume you have ever defended yourself.

Justified murder is murder regardless the de facto authority that justifies it. The double think is a mindset that killing will protect life. History has proven this not to be correct.

Killing destroys life and corrupts moral character.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

2nd Amendment Shall Not Be Infringed.

Whether it was a toy, replica or real, there was no victim or crime.

http://www.infowars.com/sheriff-arrested-charged-after-defen...

Which reminds me, I am still waiting for 'hoss' [Republic of Texas TV] to engage in a little chat with me.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

...

Notice the article calls the boy a "subject". As if he is a thing that is owned by the crown.

SUBJECT
[...]"One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws."[...]

-Black's Law Dictionary, 1st Ed.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

I Don't blame

The cop. At 13 the kid didn't have anymore brains then that? The police told him to put the gun down but he pointed it at them. Anyone who has really been in life or death situations would have reacted the same way. Guess what kids 13 and under have been known to kill people. What about that 12 years old a couple days ago?

Dash camera

footage showing it before I'll believe he pointed his toy at them.

The creation, production and fair exchange of values is the business of evolving consciousness, love and life.--Craig Johnson

Is it possible...

Is it possible that at first the child didn't know that the police were talking to him. Is it possible that in the child's mind it only registered that he was carrying his toy and did not think of it as a "real gun" ?

The update says that the child's back was turned away from the police when they made their commands and he turned around and pointed the toy in their direction. It is natural body mechanics for an untrained person to respond to someone behind them by turning around with a real or toy gun's muzzle pointing in that direction.

This very thing happened at a hunter safety course I was at. A woman was shooting a shotgun at a target and missing with every shot. An instructor from behind her started giving instructions on how aim better. She was wearing ear protection and did not understand him. She she pivoted around and swept the muzzle of her shotgun (with her finger on the trigger)across the group of people behind her, I was one of them. We all hit the dirt in the blink of an eye as she innocently said " What did you say ?".

This was a child and not a person trained in the proper handling of a firearm. So naturally the child turned around to see who was talking to him and in the process the toy gun followed his rotation.

The police know damn well that if they approach and command someone from behind it startles them and they will by reflex rotate in their direction, And anything that they are carrying that points in the direction they are walking will end up pointing in the direction of the person that is commanding them. This was a child and the police ambushed him. The shoot first and ask questions later mentality by the trigger happy police got this child killed.

How dare you blame this child !!!!

RickStone

...

"How dare you..."

The media is fake. Hand cuffing a corpse tells it all. Society is broken.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

any more brains than what?

are toy guns illegal in ca?
why didn't the heroes approach him from the front with their lights on?

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

na, think what he really meant by

"more brains" is:

'Why don't you know how to comply to a State thug's order, when commanded to? I mean WTF's wrong with you? Why won't you simply comply to a state actor's arbitrary commands? I mean, who do F' you think you are? A Free American? A Free Human?'

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul