If indeed that does report close range shots into a person on the ground murder would be the proper charge.

I am generally inclined to believe civilian witnesses over police in instances of police shootings in any case; it is far too well established that police officers lie regarding circumstances of their shooting someone, not only frequently but obviously, to a point where the safest assumption is that the officer is lying, and should be treated as lying in the absence of corroborating independent testimony or physical evidence.

Being reported on the radio here

Not doubting your word, just like to read these things for myself when possible.

Same can't be said about the murderous pigs. Not only that, but police even have their own codes and lines that can't be crossed. So other cops are entirely expected to lie on behalf of other crooked cops. If there are multiple witnesses to a cop killing someone, you can pretty much bet your life on the words of the civilians rather than the cops.

oh that's funny

Every word that has come out of your mouth has been a lie? Civilians tell the truth all the time. What they don't have is an institutionalized system that encourages and assists in lying. Considering you avoid all forms of media, you're probably not very familiar with the thin blue line.

want to get in trouble.

I'll take their word every day over the fucking pigs who just murdered someone. Cops murder people every fucking day and yet the cops and their brothers in the force cover it up. Have you ever seen a real life Serpico? A cop who turns in another cop for the murder they witness? It doesn't happen, they protect their own. Shame we don't have anyone to protect us.

between seeing an event and misinterpreting the actions. That happens all the time. But generally, civilians aren't lying. They're just telling a most-likely wrong personal view of the event.

Cops do deliberately lie. Yes, they may also see the event in the wrong light: a shadow was misinterpreted as a gun, or whatever. That's not lying. It is when there were no shadows and they had to make up some statement to justify their wrong actions.

deserved."

You're more than welcome to show the posts where you HAVEN'T been defending the cops at every turn.

to "he had it comming"

Of course, it's far more likely that he'll receive a slap on the wrist or even less for murdering a kid. Until then, I'm going to continue to point out that the preponderance of evidence suggests that the boy was killed in cold blood (including the multiple witnesses and now autopsy report which show that he was shot at a few times in the back).

the autopsy report doesn't say if it was a rear shot or a side shot, other than that, every other shot hit him either on the right side or in the front.

Unless you're suggesting he was shot from the side which is not really any better than being shot in the back. Do you have a link to back up your assertions? I've read that the bulk of the autopsy findings won't be released until Monday. Also, more than one witness said that he was shot in the back.

None of those descriptions with the exception of perhaps the chest wound specify whether they came from the front or back. Where on earth are you getting this information from?

And the autopsy makes it pretty clear that the kid was not shot 5x in the back, or even 2x in the back, at most, it was once in the right buttocks and even that doesn't say whether it was a side shot or a back shot.

You said that all but one shot has been determined to not come from the back. That's utter bullshit. There is only 1 shot that's listed as coming from the front. All others could very well have come from the back. Yet you've got to get in your defense of these murderous thugs. Some people simply aren't happy unless they've got some boots to lick.

Autopsy reports will state if the shots are in the back, front, right side, left side, this autopsy says right side, which means not the back, it's consistent with the kid turning towards the cops.

I'm going to wait for the rest of the evidence, forensic and physical evidence to be released, along with the dash cam footage, before I pass judgement on whether or not this was a justified shooting, unlike others here.

It says "There were non-fatal wounds on his right wrist, left bicep, right forearm, right buttocks and right hip." It says NOTHING as to where the shots came from. That's just your little authoritarian mind finding any way it can to excuse this piece of shit of murder.

but at least my mind isn't made up yet, unlike yours.
Nice rant by the way.

Any time I address a none-too-bright one who completely ignores objective reality and fact, he'll inevitably throw out the "agree to disagree". Well, you're free to disagree, but the very link you provided completely discounts what you said. It's not going to make you any less wrong. You are wrong. You are dead wrong, you couldn't be any more wrong if you tried. I'll post it again for you to see if it will help to sink in:

There were non-fatal wounds on his right wrist, left bicep, right forearm, right buttocks and right hip.

Where the fuck does it say where the bullets entered from? Care to tell me that? Surely with your extensive CSI autopsy training, you should be able to tell me, right? That is unless you've been utterly speaking out of your ass all this time. Rhetorical question, it's quite clear you've been speaking out of your ass all this time.

It will, however, prevent anyone with more than a few brain cells from being swayed by your bullshit. You have such extensive knowledge of this field, yet you don't know the difference between being shot in the right hand and being shot from the right. That's something my 7 year old daughter would snicker at. Even your CSI induced fantasies want nothing to do with your non-existent forensic abilities.

As I said, your name calling isn't going to make me "see the light".

By the way, I would've handled the situation differently, but that's because I'm probably far better trained than your average cop on the beat.

Glad to see your training paid off so well

Ok, that's fine, I've been called a lot worse by a lot tougher customers than you.

If your logic is so lacking that you can't comprehend such a simple sentence, your 'facts' are worse than useless. You'll forgive me if I get my facts from someone who's not an authoritarian cop wannabe.

Unable to comprehend simple sentences. Thinking violence is an acceptable solution to anything. Angry at others for making something of their lives. Yeah, it makes even more sense now that you'd defend that murderous fuck.

Doesn't appear that you've read anything I've typed. Try learning about deadly force situations and then come back to me.

Am I supposed to be impressed by yet another Internet rando excusing murderous cops?

Could you be anymore original?
I know you won't believe it, but we're 2 different people.

Especially considering this is the first I've heard from him? One of your wannabe cop buddies coming to your defense? So sad.

I don't need anyone to come to my defense, I've got the autopsy report to quote from, which still does not mean that I'm justifying, supporting or otherwise approving of what the police response was, my position is, and has been from the very beginning, that I'll wait for the official investigation to be completed before I condemn or support these officers actions.

As I told you before, I might have handled it differently, but I wasn't there at the time, and as a general rule, my expertise is not confronting children, it's going after the baddest of the bad and bringing them to justice.

or side. You've said that numerous times to defend that murderous cop when even a child could see that it says nothing of the sort. So again, you either lack basic comprehension skills or you just have a habit of defending sick fucks. Neither of those options say anything good about you.

but that still doesn't equal to supporting or approving or justifying the actions of these officers, like you and a couple of others here are accusing me of.

I've made it very clear where I'm standing on this, I'm taking no position on whether or not it was a righteous shoot or not until the official report is completed and published.
Now, if you and your cohorts want to keep on accusing me of taking sides, have at it, it doesn't bother me and I believe that most reasonable people here will agree that I haven't endorsed these officers actions.

But even most three year olds can tell the difference between being shot in the right hand and being shot from the right. It's alright though, must be tough if even the cops won't have you.

Which federal agency would take someone who doesnt know the difference between being shot on the right and being shot from the right? None that I can think of, Alex. I know loads of idiot keyboard commandos who wouldn't know the difference, but no one of any importance. You and your sock puppet crack me up.

no clue.
You truly are flailing here, but, ok, have a nice day.

Sock Puppet?

That's your game? Dazzle random Internet posters with baffling stupidity to uh, give them a false sense of security or something? And then you swoop in with your federal Marshalls and bam! You keyboard commandos are hilarious. You're more than welcome to explain to me how you came to the conclusion you did on the autopsy. In fact, I'd love to hear it. You won't be doing that though, as it would make you look even more ignorant. But go on and try. I'd love to see it.

Even little kids try to explain away their bullshit. So go on champ, explain how the autopsy says those shots didn't come from behind. Surely you can do that if you weren't some random internet idiot, right? Rhetorical question, of course. I'll tell you right now that you won't even try, but you're welcome to prove me wrong. Cop rejects just slay me.

Or are you confusing me with someone else? Or perhaps you just forgot to logout.

Don't need to, it's all right there, you just have to know how to read it.

Forgot to logout? Once again, please stop, now you're looking petty.
And on that, here, you can have the last word.

The report is in plain English, champ. Every one here has no problem understanding it. It's just you that can't comprehend a simple sentence.

I can only conclude you mean one of these.

You know, the one you mistakenly thought might make you seem slightly less ignorant.

I don't care because it's not me and I have nothing to hide.
God, it must suck to be so paranoid.

Anyways, have a good Saturday.

But after asking a dozen times, I'm quite sure that's not going to happen. You could always surprise me, though. Go on. Explain how getting shot in the right hand means getting shot from the right. We're all ears. And I thought you were done, champ.

Well thanks for letting me know Rem. I logged out on Friday and didnt check back until Monday and apparently I'm a sock puppet now.

Because you seemed to expect me to have read your ramblings on this subject and you haven't sent me a damned thing. Whatever your blatherings on this subject, I'm guessing they don't address in the slightest Ranchamps extremely stupid assertion that the autopsy report said that the kid wasn't shot in the back.

miraculous aren't they?

then I'll tell you the same thing, please, alert and let the process begin.

That's ok, I've been called a lot worse by a lot tougher customers.

but I have not yet seen that the autopsy has released any ifno as to whether the child was on the ground... yet

Police have mis-behaved here and been caught lying. However, the number civilians lying GREATLY outweighs the frequency of the police lying.

Police lie routinely, and cannot be believed when describing circumstances in which they shoot someone. There will certainly be cases where physical evidence and witnesses corroborate police testimony regarding a police shooting, and when such evidence and testimony is available, it is safe to believe the officer's account. Where such testimony and evidence does not exist, it is never safe to treat police testimony as truthful, and where such evidence and testimony does not agree with police testimony, it is by far the safest course, if one is interested in the truth of the incident, to treat the police testimony as a pack of lies tailored to present the appearance of justification for the officer's action.

And the official story. So told to me by a police officer a few years ago.

To kill a 13 year old boy!!!

I'm guessing that the testimony about the cop walking over and shooting the kid six times after the boy was already on the ground is going to turn out to be bullshit. The evidence is going to show that the cop fired 8 times in rapid succession from one position.

What I find interesting is why only one of the two cops felt threatened enough to fire at all. It seems to me that the cop that didn't fire didn't feel like his life was in imminent danger.

It could be the vereran took action and the rookie froze, or the rookie panicked and shot. Not enough info yet.

It was the 24 yr veteran who did the shooting.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Boy-with-toy-rifle-shot-7-times-by-deputy-4924334.php

where he had 11 years as a cop already.

Which is exactly what happened here. Don't worry, you will get the cop apologists in here to dismiss the murder as the kid was 'asking for it'. Some people here cannot mentally handle the fact that the cop fucked up and murdered the kid. It is just too much for them to grasp that LEOs make fatal mistakes.

and that the 2 fatal shots were to the front.

and the cop just unloaded.

Our Valley is all abuzz about this. There have been hundreds of people out in the streets of Santa Rosa the last two nights. I hope it doesn't escalate.

which would be consistent with him turning towards them.
http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/10/24/sonoma-county-deputy-shot-santa-rosa-teenager-seven-times/

Right arm, wrist, chest, buttocks, etc. The only shot to his left side was his left bicep, which would only make sense if he were holding the toy gun in a classic rifle pose and turning either towards or away from the cops.

There is no evidence he "spun". In fact, that classic spin you see when someone is shot in a movie is Hollywood make-believe; a handgun doesn't pack enough kinetic energy to spin someone like that. A rifle or shotgun, possibly, but usually not a handgun.

Usually they just crumple and fall down.

They don't spin people like they do in the movies.

Remember Newton's laws. Do they send people spinning around or flying backwards every time they fire a round? No. It's a gentle bump.

to prove a point?

Well, at least we would hope not in a play area .................

"assault rifle" be confronted by hyperactive police forces.

This incident happened only a couple of blocks from where I lived not three months ago. It's the southwest corner of Santa Rosa, and predominately Latino. I've lived in just about every neighborhood Santa Rosa has:

Rincon Valley: Predominately white, and by Santa Rosa standards, fairly conservative.

Bennet Valley: Also very white, a little less traditional than Rincon Valley

The JC neighborhood: Very White, but has more of a college town feel to it because of the community college presence.

West End neighborhood: A little more poverty stricken. More of a police presence here but since it's still very white, they're not totally oppressive.

West Steele Lane area: during the 90's when I lived here, it was considered one of Santa Rosa's toughest neighborhoods. It has cleaned up a lot since. In spite of this, the only trouble I ever had here was some vandalism on my car and a few run ins with over aggressive cops.

The southwest, Roseland, Bellvue Ranch area: Where the shooting happened. I bought my first home here in 2009 when the market was really low. Contrary to what many say, it's a very safe neighborhood and I never had any problems. The people are nice and everything is quiet. In spite of this, I have never, ever felt such an intimidating and oppressive police presence ANYWHERE in this city as I have in this area. Not even in the so-called "tough" neighborhoods. Police choppers are a regular occurrence flying overhead, often at very low altitudes. Police cruisers were nearly always patrolling the streets like sharks looking for prey. And you know those speed thingies that the cops leave out and when you drive past them they let you know how fast you're going? They were a regular thing too. I've never seen those on suburban residential streets before, but they were a regular thing there.

The reason for this enhanced police "protection?" The neighborhood is predominately Latino. I was not the only white person living there, but I was one of the few. The cops are trained to see people in that neighborhood as the enemy, and lo and behold, they often find it, even when it's just a kid with a pellet gun.

I agree with the PPs who wonder how the pro-gun DU contingent would be responding if this happened to a white NRA member.

At first the news reports where that a kid armed with a realistic toy AK47 was confronted by cops, told to drop the weapon twice, he refused and then pointed the weapon at officers who then shot him. That while being tragic seems above board. Cops where in legitimate fear of their lives if thats how it went down.

Now reports are saying that the kid was not facing officers when they arrived, had the rifle in his right hand (which appears to mean that he had a one handed grip on the toy and would appear to mean he had it at his side and was carrying it like a briefcase by the receiver or had his hand on the grip. If his hand was on the grip the barrel would be pointed strait up or down towards the ground most likely.) I stress this because if he did not have two hands on the toy it most likely wasn't shouldered in a firing position. That is important because it is doubtful he pointed it at officers while holding it in a single hand.

Now a eyewitness is saying as soon as the kid turned around he was shot by officers who then shot him 6 more times while he was on the ground.

The first situation would be a good (while tragic) shooting. The second situation goes from bad shoot to murder. I really think we need to wait for an investigation to be complete before we make any definitive statements on if this was a good or bad shoot. I'm just wondering if the police should investigate their own shootings, seems like they would be biased. The FBI should be used to investigate shootings where the reason for it is disputed. (I use good / bad in terms of if the police would have been allowed to shoot the kid based on the situation, this is tragic a kid got killed because of a toy)

Sad thing is I was completely on the cop side when they said they confronted him, ordered him to drop it, and then said that he pointed the AK at them. It's looking more like we can't give police officers the benefit of doubt anymore.

_________________________________________________________________

Please note that this article doesn't cooraborate the witnesses account that the kid was shot when he was on the ground but the autopsy should be able to determine that. Lets wait and see what the medical examiner says with regards to the angle of the shots. There should be dash cam footage of the shoot too since both officers took cover behind their open car doors, how about they release the footage and we can all see what actually happened.

Neither scenario condones the murder of a child for carrying a toy.

In regards if the first situation happened as described. It's important to note that while this was a toy it looks very similar to a real AK.

The cop screwed up big time and murdered a child. Time for cops (and yes I've seen the pictures) to attend classes on what real guns actually look like.

If Mr. ParanoidPants doesn't go to prison for a good long time, I hope this boy's parents send him pictures of the child he decimated without thought, yet with 7 bullets, every single day of his worthless life.

Kudos to the rookie for being smarter than the veteran.

He is a murderer. Plain and simple.

The sad thing is, I dropped my son off to play (I guess it's "hanging out" when you're 15) at a friend's this afternoon. I felt sick that I had to tell him to be careful, don't go walking around after dark, and Dear God, whatever you do, don't put the hood of your sweatshirt up. It now feels illegal for my son to be out and about...being a boy.

No, DragonBorn, he's a murderer. Both scenarios=murder.

Let me repost it just so we are clear.

At first the news reports where that a kid armed with a realistic toy AK47 was confronted by cops, told to drop the weapon twice, he refused and then pointed the weapon at officers who then shot him. That while being tragic seems above board. Cops where in legitimate fear of their lives if thats how it went down.

That is what was reported at first. Now let me ask you a question,
Do you think you have the right to point what appears to be a firearm at a cop after being told to drop it?

I've seen the pictures of the kids AK, and it looks very realistic. I've been shooting for over 10 years and if someone pointed that at me I would assume it was real to, especially at a distance.



Look at that pic and tell me what make this an obvious toy. Its not like the kid was holding a Nerf gun. Its a airsoft gun designed to look exactly like a real AK.

I am familiar with Airsoft guns. My son used to play with them 2 years ago, when he was 13. Thank God he got over it... because it's grounds to take his life in the minds of some here.

Veteran cop= Murderer. End of story. No excuses. 7 freaking bullets. If there actually was a hell, I'd love to see him rot in it.

And before you go off thinking I'm all Nancy No-guns, my family has hunted and my husband had a rather extensive collection of WWII era rifles.

It's about needing "cop control" here. This gentleman should never have been issued a badge or a gun with that level of paranoia brewing about in his system.

I think the most likely scenario of what happened is the kid was playing, cops confronted him, and he turned to face the cops after them yelling a command at him, and was then shot as he was turning.

I'd bet money that's what happened. Seriously sucks.

I notice you avoided answering both questions I posed. If you thought you had the right to point a realistic weapon at police and how you could tell that air soft gun was a toy, especially at a range of 10 - 20 feet. I'm not happy about this situation but their are at least a dozen cases over the past few months where police brutality was far more overt. This case is very murky and will remain so unless dash cam footage is released.

Where was this kid playing? That's one question I haven't seen anywhere. I don't know why anyone now a days let their kid play outside of their house with toy guns that can be mistaken for the real thing. Play with them inside your house or in your backyard. I knew when I was a kid not to point toy guns at the police. In fact I never had any toy that looked like a real gun. Maybe it was because I grew up in a poor area where people actually got shot, stabbed and beaten.

The veteran deputy reported that he fired after fearing for his life because the rifle barrel was "rising up and turning in his direction," police said.......

so the child never got the chance to "point" his toy at him

and both cops did not shoot just the one did...so obviously the rookie did not feel threatened

and seven or eight shots at a child?

this officer at least committed reckless homicide maybe murder....this shoot first and ask questions later mentality is just wrong

and i question why are the police so scared of their own shadows? that he could not face down a child?

this sucks and its tragic but I doubt the cop meant to kill a kid wielding a toy. He thought it was a real AK.

If anything this case should be a big wake up call for everyone to not allow their kids to play with airsoft guns or realistic gun in public.

because no one in their right mind seeing a CHILD with a "gun" thinks it is real

you trying to blame the parents is really low

... of children gaining access to weapons, both handgun and rifle.

In what possible way could you think that "because no one in their right mind seeing a CHILD with a "gun" thinks it is real" is an honest statement.

It happens frequently enough to be reported on.

You should just admit that you think that the cop should have been willing to take the chance and possibly a few 7.62 rounds because it was a child.

did not shoot so evidently not all reasonable people would of been threatened

this shoot em first mentality is wrong

where all done by adults now? Havn't a bunch of school shootings been done by children?

You walk around with what looks to be an AK-47 you stand a good chance at getting shot by a cop.

Does anyone here think its a good idea to walk around with a fake AK47 in their hands? Why would a parent let their child leave the house with a real looking toy gun that wasn't even carried in a bag. I'm not trying to blame the kid but a lot of people here thinks its automatically the cops fault and he should be punished when it was a really bad situation.

I paintball and when I was a kid we used to go paintballing in abandoned buildings and the woods. We always made sure to keep out guns a a bag in case anyone saw us they would not see what looks to be a bunch of guys carrying guns because we knew the cops would get called if that happens and that it would not be a fun situation.

so obviously officers should shoot every1 wearing trench coats!

Ignore that fact that it looked like this kid was carrying an AK 47 look a like.

Does anyone think this cop knew this kid was holding a toy and shot him anyway?