http://blackamericaweb.com/177542/calif-sheriffs-deputies-shoot-kill-13-year-old/ SANTA ROSA, Calif. (AP) — Northern California sheriff’s deputies shot and killed a 13-year-old boy who was carrying a replica assault rifle after repeatedly telling him to drop it, sheriff’s officials and family members said. Two Sonoma County deputies on patrol saw the boy walking with what appeared to be a rifle around 3 p.m. Tuesday 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. Rodrigo Lopez identified the victim as his son, Andy, to a newspaper and said the boy was carrying a toy gun that belonged to a friend. Deputies would only learn after the shooting that it was a replica, according to O’Leary. After spotting the boy, the deputies called for backup and repeatedly ordered him to drop the weapon, O’Leary said in a news release. They fired several rounds from their handguns immediately afterward, according to O’Leary. A neighbor in the area, Brian Zastrow, told the Santa Rosa Press Democrat (http://bit.ly/1eJymxx) he heard seven shots. “First I heard a single siren and within seconds I heard seven shots go off, sounded like a nail gun, is what I thought it was,” he said. The boy fell to the ground on top of the rifle, according to O’Leary. O’Leary said the deputies ordered him to move away from the weapon before approaching him and putting him in handcuffs. They began administering first aid and called for paramedics, who pronounced him dead at the scene. Deputies also found a plastic handgun in the boy’s waistband, O’Leary said. The deputies, who have not been identified, have been placed on administrative leave, O’Leary said. Rodrigo Lopez told the Press Democrat he last saw his son on Tuesday morning. “I told him what I tell him every day,” he said in Spanish. “Behave yourself.” The family was back at their mobile home on Tuesday night after identifying the boy’s body, the Press Democrat reported. The newspaper quoted the boy’s mother, Sujey Annel Cruz Cazarez, as saying, “”Why did they kill him? Why?”
not murder but they left out one detail why did they shoot him he did not drop it did he point the gun at you fuck the police even tho i will call them if i need them
I'm curious if it was an airsoft gun. They didn't mention it, so it's possible it was just a toy. That definitely looks like an airsoft gun. So did he not understand what they were yelling? Could he not hear them? Gone are the days when little boys can run around and play army. I used to carry around a toy rifle from Toys R Us when I was a kid. Of course, they stopped selling them towards the end of the late 80s because of this very thing.
What is the correct protocol here? You have a young minor who is carrying a fake assault weapon that looks real. The article says he was carrying it, but it doesn't say whether he was pointing it, wielding it, etc. If they thought it was a real gun, what were they supposed to do that was different? I can't imagine that 13 year old can legally walk around with an AK47. Even the open carry people are adults. And California is not an open carry state with respect to rifles and assault weapons. He was asked to drop the weapon multiple times. You could try nonlethal stuff, but what if it is a real gun and he returns fire with deadly force? I don't know what the proper procedure is, but I am not so quick to say it was murder. When several police officers surround you and point guns at you, you might want to put down the toy gun.
I would just like to know more about the event. Did he speak english? If not, did the police speak spanish? Was he paying attention when they shot him? There's simply not enough information to make any kind of judgement on it.
It's a kid. You have to give more leeway with a kid. A beanbag shot is going to put even the biggest 13yr on his ass. Hit him with one of two rounds with that or a taser.
Police are, or should be, trained to deal with this stuff in an appropriate manner. They are professionals. A 13 year old kid is likely not as good a shot as a trained police officer. Killing him should be the LAST option, and only after he shows intent to kill others by pulling the trigger. Instead they use deadly force as their first option before the kid poses any threat. Additionally, if the witness is to be believed, it doesn't sound like the police waited very long before ending this kids life: “First I heard a single siren and within seconds I heard seven shots go off, sounded like a nail gun, is what I thought it was,” he said.
I don't disagree that the officers could have done less, but I don't know that doing less would have prevented the kid from doing some serious harm, if in fact the gun had been a real AK-47.
There's simply not enough information to know what exactly happened. With that said, cops don't carry around shotguns with beanbags loaded. They carry handguns. When someone calls them and says that there is a kid carrying a gun, they will respond swiftly and they will shoot to kill. Cops don't shoot to injure. That's not how they're trained, and there's a good explanation as to why they shoot to kill. They want to end the threat. If you wound someone, you do not end the threat. They shoot center mass because it's the biggest target and it will almost always put someone down. There's also a good reason why we consider kids to be threats. School shootings have put children squarely in the realm of a threat to society. You might think that kids should be dealt with differently, but situations like columbine have put people on edge. Instead of putting it on the cops, how about the person who called the police in the first place? Was the kid acting dangerously? Was he pointing the gun at people? Society is driven by fear now. Any time they see a gun, they call 911. You should assume that if you call the cops, there's a good chance that someone will be shot. That's just how it is now. I just want to know if the kid spoke english. Did they really give him a chance to drop the weapon or did they pull up, yell at him one time, and then shoot? This is why I want more information before I blame the cops.
I find it odd that with all the technology we have the police have to use deadly force. Seems like there should be plenty of nonlethal ways to subdue people.
There are, but the way they are trained is to end the threat, and most of the less lethal ways of dealing with someone do not "end the threat" as they put it.
I agree that it's not necessarily the fault of the individual officers (though it could be). But it's definitely a systemic problem with the entire police force. Being trained to end a life, and using that as your first line of action, rather than trained how to assess and properly react to individual situations is abhorrent. The fact that police forces largely recruit lesser-educated people is a big part of the problem. These are the people we allow to ensure our daily safety - they should be of high intelligence and high moral character, but that seldom seems to be the case.
