looking for a job after the next election.

Edit: I just checked Google and she was re-elected to a second term on June 3rd. How convenient that she made this announcement after the election. I hope the voters in her county recall her.

Ravitch is just another chickenshit political operator. Even though she's "a good liberal."

Last edited Wed Jul 9, 2014, 12:13 AM - Edit history (1)

Remember this is an Police Officer who fired his weapon. As a police officer he has NO duty to retreat and the law assumes if he fires his weapon he had just cause to do so. The DA not only has to prove he fired his weapon, but that it was uncalled for. Any questions of fact must be made in favor of the Police Officer. You may believe he had no just cause to do the shooting, but the law requires the DA to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that he had no reason to do the shooting.

In cases with civilians, most states require the Shooter to show they had just cause to do the shooting. i.e. the burden of proof in on the civilian shooter NOT the DA to show justification. This includes even the new Stand your grounds laws require SOME evidence of justification for the shooting, (you can not just pull a gun and shoot someone, you have to be able to say you had some reason to do so). Police do not even have to show that level of evidence, all they have to say is they reacted as they were trained in such situations and unless you have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the Officer did NOT follow what he was trained to do , he walks. If you can show the Officer did not do as he was trained, you then have to prove the Actions was unreasonable, remember all questions of fact is in favor of the Officer in any Criminal Trial, thus if the action comes under any definition of being reasonable, he walks.

Worse, Police Officers can claim the right not to incriminate themselves and thus NOT say what happened and the DA then has to go by the evidence she does have and any question of fact must be made in favor of the Officer. This rule also applies to Civilian Cases, but in cases of Civilians while the burden of proof in on the DA to show no right to self defense, but any doubts as to that issue is left to the jury to decide.

In simple terms, it is very hard to convict a Police Officer of misuse of his firearm in any criminal procedure. You have to have video of him slowly pulling his gun, slowing taking aim and shooting the victim as he stood they doing nothing (and a couple of eye witnesses to back up that video). Anything less is NOT enough.

Thus, the DA did what was required of her, dismiss this case. That does NOT relieve the officer of liability, he can still be sued for then the burden of proof is no longer beyond a reasonable doubt but preponderance of the evidence and given all criminal charges have been dropped he can be force to testify to what happened. Thus the best solution is to "Sue the Bastard".

Now, I have read the report, and it appears the first shot fired missed, the second shot fired just grazed the victim. The killing shots were the remaining five rounds and they appear to hit the victim as he fell to the ground. Thus was he a threat to the police officers? Probably not, but in a CRIMINAL case I do not see how the bullets hit the victim can show he was incapable of returning fire and thus what the police officer did was justified as self defense.

On the other hand, in a CIVIL SUIT, that the Victim was falling to the ground when he was hit by the killing rounds implies he was complying with the police order and thus he was acting accordingly to what he had been told to do and thus those shots were unreasonable excess firing. In a Civil Suit that would be enough for a jury to rule in favor of the victim's family on the grounds the eight shots fired were excessive given the situation taken as a whole. That the Police could have be equipped with revolvers that require more effort to fire and restricted to six rounds can also be brought up on the grounds this victim was killed by the policy of that police department to equip its police with Automatics rather then Revolvers.

I am sorry, but the DA did a decent report, leaves a lot for an Attorney to use to get a Judgement against the Police Department for not training their officers properly and for not equipping them properly.

Associated with known hate groups and even advocated how a police officer could clear themselves after an unjustified shooting

Cop Apologist are disqusting foul creatures when they try to justify Murdering a 13 year old kid

surprised to find you agreeing with this travesty of justice? It seems that, to you, the police can never do any wrong and are always justified. Having LEO in my family, I know full well that that is so not the case. At. All.

and face the music and it is not going to be pretty. the community is will not tolerate this bs.

The prosecutor's office looking out for the cops....

http://sonomacounty.ca.gov/Press-Releases-/No-Criminal-Charges-in-Officer-Involved-Shooting/

On page 12 of the report is the actual shooting. Two Officers were in a patrol car in an known gang area and spotted the 12 year old with what looked to them was an AK-47. They drove their car to the other side of the street from the 12 year old, exited their car with pistols pulled. They yelled at the 12 year old to put down the Weapon. Instead they report the victim turned to his right and looked like the rifle was being raised that they were in fear that he was going to open fire so they both decided to open fire first, with , Officer Gelhaus opened fire while Officer was getting into position to fire. The victim feel to the ground and no one came near the victim till backup appeared a few minutes later but medical was called in during the time period the officers were waiting for backup.

Sorry, that is enough to justify what the officers did. That the "Rifle" was a BB gun without ammo is not at issue. When it comes to these police officers the law MUST assume the situation as THEY SAW IT TO BE when they opened fire, that is they was a potential shooter with an AK-47.

Now the same report says the weapon was pointed to the GROUND when they first yelled at the victim to put it down. Thus there is NO evidence if he was a threat to anyone. In a Civil Suit that can be brought up and the issue of the weapon was a danger to anyone is up to a jury to decide. The problem this is a CRIMINAL case and thus the DA must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the weapon was NOT a danger to anyone. The DA can NOT do that. Thus the officers walk.

On the other hand in a Civil Lawsuit, the issue of the rifle being held is such a way as to be a danger to someone can be brought up and questioned. Even the officers said the weapon was not a danger to them till the Victim turned and appeared to life up the barrel of the weapon. A good attorney can show that the child was reacting to what the officers where saying, he did not think they were talking to him for all he had was a BB gun. The Officers should have participated this reaction and withheld their fire till it was clear if the victim was going to open fire. The officer's claim they feared for their lives for a real AK has the power to penetrate their protective vests can be shown to be stupid, for they were also behind their patrol car and its steel and iron. Lets see what happens when this case gets to court on the lawsuit.

Last edited Wed Jul 9, 2014, 06:16 PM - Edit history (1)

with the possible exception of the engine block and brake pad assembly, as most of the car is made up of light sheet metal so the car is not cover. The police officer did not open fire until the child started turning toward him and his partner, this is based on the wounds entering the side of the child. No police officer is going to wait for anyone, adult or child to fully turn around and raise the weapon toward them.

This was a horrible tragedy, but as reported not a criminal act on the part of the police.

And to put my comments in context, I have had military police training and use of force training including interactive shoot/no shoot simulations. If police officers waited until someone started to raise/aim their weapon before shooting, then police fatalities would sky rocket since action beats reaction nine times out of ten.

It is very easy for both sides to arm chair quarterback when we have the luxury of having a lot of time think about what happened. Police officers have to make these decisions in seconds.

My point was the police had options, but fell back on their training. That is more then enough to defeat any criminal charge. On the other hand, a lawsuit against the city is another matter. Improper training can come up in such litigation. That most people will not understand what "put down the weapon" means when they are carrying what they consider a toy. The actions of the victim, based on the reports of where the bullets hit (all in front but apparently as he fell to the ground, the first shot is believed to be a complete miss, the second shot a slight graze, the remaining five shots were all killers). The use of hollow points instead of Full Metal Jacket rounds will come up.

Lets don't forget all reports indicate the AK (lack of a better name) barrel was pointed to the ground and the victim was walking. A claim will be made that the Police Officers could have waited for backup before they confronted the victim. Backup was on its way and arrived within a few minutes of the shooting. At the time of the confrontation the AK was pointed at the ground and the victim was walking down the street.

As I said, no criminal actions will be filed for none can be, but a civil suit, that is another issue completely.

city hall, and every other hall of power.

Worse, the police would stop and tell the kid NOT to carry it with the barrel to the ground, he may jam the barrel with dirt. For that reason carrying a weapon with the barrel to the ground is improper weapons handling. The local police would tell the 12 year old to carry the weapon at port arms, with the barrel pointed upward and to the right but in both hands across his chest. In that position the weapon is the most secure. Then the police would drive away.

You may not like the situation, but the LAW takes the position that anyone charged with a crime MUST be given the benefit of any doubts in the facts. If any facts are in dispute, the law MUST accept the facts most favorable to the Defendant (in this case the police officers).

In this case the Police officer saw someone with an AK. That the "Ak" was a toy is NOT at issue, the law MUST accept the position the Police Officer that saw it as a real AK UNLESS it can be proved that belief of the officer was unreasonable under the circumstances (and in this case, the toy looked close enough to a real AK for the law to assume the Police saw a real AK).

AKs are illegal in California, thus the Police had the right to confiscate that illegal weapon. Police have the right to confront anyone on any public street and ask them to comply with their orders, if such orders relate to public safety, and confiscating an illegal weapon is such an order. In this case the Police saw a youth with an illegal weapon and demanded he put it down so they could confiscate it.

Police also have the right to defend themselves against what they view as a danger to themselves. If the Victim had had a real AK, it was capable of taking both Police Officers down, thus if the Police Officers believe the Victim was bearing the weapon on them, they had the right to defend themselves by opening fire first. The officer (and other witnesses) report the Victim turned to face the officers and only then did the officer open fire. The Autopsy shows that all hits were to the Victim's front as he faced the officers.

The witnesses do have variation as to the position of the Toy AK, but all admit it was in the Victim's hands when he turned to face the officers. The Officers, seeing the movement of the AK, feared that it was being brought to bear on them had the right then to defend themselves by opening fire.

That the Victim had a unloaded BB toy replica AK is unimportant. On the issue of Self Defense it is what the Officers THOUGHT they were facing and if that belief was reasonable under the circumstances. Given the shape of the BB gun and the movement of the Victim and the gun just before the police opened fire, it is reasonable for the Police to believe they were facing a real AK and of someone who was going to use it on them. That ends the case for criminal charges on the Police Officers.

As I have said otherwise, the issue of training, tactics etc can be brought up in a Civil Action, along with the idea the Victim was complying with the order of the officers the best he knew how (The autopsy indicates the first round missed, the second round only grazed the victim, the other five shots were the killers, all indicate a body that was falling to the ground) . In Civil Suites the burden of proof is not beyond a reasonable doubt and since we are only talking about money, the reasonableness of the officers can be litigated. In a criminal actions the law assumes the Police Act reasonably, but no such assumption is made in a Civil Suit, the issue of reasonableness of the Police Officers is reserved to a jury.

Thus this is NOT murder, given the facts released in the report. That does NOT stop a civil suit, given the autopsy report that the fatal five shots hit the victim as he fell to the ground. An argument can be made the Victim was complying with the orders of the Police and thus the Police opening fire was uncalled for. Lets see what the Civil Litigation does in this case before we said these offices avoided all forms of punishment.

we are at the mercy of their ability to follow the rules that they use to protect themselves.
One of the most interesting tidbits I came across on a connecting flight from SLC in one of those
little bitty planes, in the aftermath of a RAFT of local cop killings, was a fellow whose son in law was a
local cop. He said that Jerry Dyer, our unshakable Chief of Police (after a long line of fleeing office holders, including the fellow
who oversaw the MOVE bombings in Philly) had (DIG THIS!) THREATENED TO FIRE THE NEXT COP WHO KILLED SOMEONE.
Pretty elegant solution to a problem. Hasnt been nearly that many since, in my recall.
Of course, there was the summary execution of the fellow they tracked down who made the mistake of winging a cop.
Yeah, that justice system is something worth dedicating your life to, isnt it?
As uppity as lawyers can be, (nothing personal) I can only feel just a little sorry for those childish folks trying to play
with a broken toy.

How much differently this case would have turned out if it involved a white victim in an affluent neighborhood...

Now, in a richer neighborhood the Police would more likely assume it was a toy and thus ignore the white boy and no shooting would have occurred. On the other hand, if the Police thought it was a Real AK and pulled their pistols and yelled for the boy to drop the weapon, and the white boy did the same thing this victim did, the Police would have opened fire and killed him.

The problem is what the POLICE expect, not what happened. In richer neighborhoods police believe whites tend to belong there and if such a "Local" have something in their hands, there had a legal reason to have it. Thus the police would assume the BB gun was a BB gun NOT a real AK (and that is true even if the white boy had a real AK).

People react to how they are trained, and that includes what they see on TV. White kids in rich neighborhoods do NOT commit crimes in TV land but inner city Latino males do in TV land (I do miss the Lone Ranger Series, in that TV program NONE of the bad guys were anything but white, no bad Latinos, Native Americans or African Americas, but that was the 1930s through 1950s not post 1970 America).

Sorry, white kids are viewed as just into typical teenage mischief, Latino and African Americas are viewed as people using the fact they are below 18 and thus Juveniles as a way to get away with criminal activities. When a Police Officer see a white kid carrying what looks to be an AK, the Officer will walk up to the kid assuming it is a toy and just ask to see the weapon to make sure it is a toy, if the kid is African American or Latino, Police will assume it is real and he is out to gun someone down and do what the Police did in this situation.

Sad Commentary about our society, but it appears to be what our society views itself.

Thus the police would have had no right to confiscate it from a 13 year old. In California AKs are ILLEGAL and thus grounds for police to stop the 13 year old.

they will absolve a security guard for blowing away a BART passenger.
Any real or fake AK is hardly the beginning or end of the problem.
the problem is those murdering thugs with badges who have their defenses sewed up before they
commit murder.
Codes of silence, corrupt money laundering, drug confiscation and dissappearing evidence that their kids sell on the street.
thats what goes on.
If a cop is free to forego decent judgement and act on his racist, murdering steroid enhanced judgement,
legal or not, real AK's may be called for.

reason with this one. Happyslug is one of DU's premier badge sniffers. His/her username is quite apt.

I am talking past any authority buffs, and that name really sounds like some UCSC student on a shroom trip, after the stomach cramps settle down.
Cant say I will be trying to reason with people who think "the law" is adequate excuse for child murder,
here or abroad, but thanks for listening!

One of the old rules in law is "One does NOT really understand a law, till one tries to change it". In abuse by police, the law is quite clear, the Police Officer retains the right NOT to incriminate himself (Thus does NOT have to report anything he does that MIGHT be criminal) and the law requires any prosecution for Criminal misconduct be proved beyond a reasonable doubt given all disputes as to facts to the Officer.

Thus to convict any officer of any crime you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that what he did exceeded his powers AND was in violation of this training. If a case can be built that whatever the Police officer did was within his training, there is no intent to commit a crime and thus no crime.

Remember to be found guilty of a crime, any one accused of a crime does NOT have to prove anything, the DA has to prove not only was the Criminal Act done, but the Defendant KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN the act was a crime. Ignorance of the law is NOT a defense, but ignorance of a FACT is. Thus it is illegal to shoot a 13 year old with a BB gun, but if it is possible for the shooter to think the BB Gun was a real AK, then self defense kicks in. Among Civilians self defense only kicks in if the weapon is pointed to you or is going to point to you. It is the same rule for Police, but unlike Civilians, Police are permitted to confront potential criminals about their actions and be prepared for a violence response. i.e. Police can demand a 13 year old to put down a weapon, while they pull and point their pistols at him, Civilians can not actually put their pistols (if they have one on them legally) until the kid started to turn and then only if the weapon is brought to bear on them (and in most cases, Civilians have the duty to retreat from hostile situations, a duty the Police are exempt from for it is expected of police to be in hostile situations).

Now, I have advocated for years the following reforms, that are passable and may actually reduce such shootings:

1. Return Police to using Revolvers. Yes the Revolvers are slower and limited to six shots, but then you do not have 8 shoots fired, one of which missed the target. In actual shootouts between police and criminals the number of shots fires averages out to be two. Thus revolvers are sufficient for almost all police work, and in fact were the preferred Police Pistol till the 1980s. Automatics replaced Revolvers as a push to increase police firepower, but that firepower is unneeded except in very limited circumstances, and in most such circumstances other weapons, i.e. rifles, would be preferred in the first place.

2. Police have to be given a choice, if they decide to plead the fifth, the right NOT to incriminate oneself, then the duty to retreat has to be applied to them. i.e. they are treated as if they were a civilian who shot the victim. If they opt for the "Police Exemption" to such General Rule, then they MUST report everything that happened and the burden is on them that the shooting was justified.

At present the Police can claim BOTH exemptions, i.e. one that as American Citizens they have the right NOT to incriminate themselves, and thus the right NOT to say anything about what happened AND Two, the law presumes what they did was correct. i.e the shooting was justified for they are Police dealing with Criminals UNLESS there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that what they did was unlawful.

Years ago I ended up reading one of the first cases in Pennsylvania that justified a Police Shooting. It was around 1901 to 1909 if I remember right. It was out of Somerset County Pennsylvania. In that case a Sheriff Deputy had shot a person he was trying to arrest and had been charged with Murder for that killing. The Deputy went on the stand and described what happened (Thus giving up his Fifth Amendment right NOT to incriminate himself). The Jury after listening to him, voted he was not guilty. The Case hit the Case books for the Trial Court had require him to testify to justify the shooting and thus that decision was recorded in the list of decisions of the Courts of Pennsylvania. It is the first of many cases involving shooting by police and other law enforcement officers in Pennsylvania. It is notable that the Court REQUIRED the officer to testify as to why he shot the person he was trying to arrest.

I bring up that case for the so called Police Exemption to testify to justify any shootings had by 1900 NOT yet become the law in the US (This was a 1900 era case). Subsequent to that case, other Courts have expanded that exemption to the general rule as to shootings to the present one where not only does a DA have to prove the Shooting was unlawful, but the police retain the right NOT to testify. In that early 1900 case, the Deputy HAD testify as to why he had opened fire. The Judge ruled the Deputy had to testify to justify the shooting, or the Judge would have given instructions to the Jury to handle the case just like as if the Deputy had been a Civilian in the same situation.

Please remember, it is only in the 1920s that the US Supreme Court started to apply the Federal Bill of Rights to the States, thus when the above case was being held, the 5th Amendment's restrictions on forcing one to testify had NOT yet been applied to the States. The Pennsylvania Constitution had a similar provisions, but it was up to the Pennsylvania court to interpret that provision and the Police Exemption had NOT yet been developed (This was also the era of Private Police in Pennsylvania, so most cases involving violence by police involved such private police, whose primary protection method was being paid by their employers to skip the state. That remain the state till the Pennsylvania Coal and Iron Police were finally outlawed in the 1920s, thank you Gifford Pinchot).

Sorry, as long a Police can plead the Fifth AND still be able to use the Police exemption to any general law of Self Defense, such shootings will continue. The real check on such misuse of those two rules of law has been people suing those officers and their employers. In such lawsuits, the above defenses are no longer valid. The Officers can be forced to testify OR if they do not, the jury can take that refusal anyway they want (Unlike in Criminal Cases, where Juries MUST give any benefit of refusing to testify to the Defendant).

Thus right now, it is civil lawsuits that are the main control on the Police. That has been the case since at least the 1950s. Do not expect the State Legislature to do anything about Police Shootings, that would require the Legislature to take on the Police Lobby and the Various States Legislatures just will NOT do it. On the other hand, the Courts have to face these cases and address them as they come up to the Judges. The Judges may also want to support the Police, but they can NOT avoid the subject like the State Legislatures can when it is a case they have to decide. Judges like to defer to Juries on such difficult cases, and as the cases get worse, Juries give higher awards. The Trial Courts tend to uphold such awards and the Appeal courts also tend to uphold them (except if the award are NOT for Compensation but are "Punitive Damages" i.e. an award of damages no tied in with any actual harm but to punish the defendant for his wrongful actions. The Courts have impose restrictions on such punitive awards BUT not for actual damages awards, except for pain and suffering for awards for pain and suffering is subject to a lot of opinion of the jury).

Thus you hear from me and others, do NOT expect the Criminal Justice System to do anything in cases like this one, the Civil Side is where you have to look for justice. You may want someone to go to Jail, but as the law is today, that is almost impossible.

Side Note: Gifford Pinchot was Theodore Roosevelt's first head of the then Bureau of Forestry Federal (Now the US Forest Service). He was fired under Roosevelt's successor Howard Taft for insubordination, when Pinochet opposed the return of some Forest land to a coal company to be stripped. The return of the land was authorized by the Secretary of the Interior, thus Pinchot's boss. Pinchot was big on conservation. He was a close friend of John Muir (Through they disputed on how to use the forest, Pinchot said to get popular support for good forest, you must consider economics and how to use those forests, Muir was more a 100% conservationist, these two good friends had many debates on this during their life time).

Later on Pinchot became Governor of Pennsylvania, January 20, 1923 to January 20, 1927, and again from January 20, 1931 to January 20, 1935. In Pinchpt's first term, Pinchot changed the Pennsylvania Code of Regulations to become one of the most efficient such codes of regulations in the Country. Pinchot outlawed the Coal and Iron Police (Often called the only true terrorist organization ever formed in the US).. Pinchot started the Pennsylvania Highway Patrol, a Police force to patrol the roads of Rural Pennslyania. Pinchot formed a second state police force, rather then expand the exisiting Pennsyvania State Police, For the Pennsylvania State Police of 1903 to 1937 was tied in with and worked with the Coal and Iron Police in Labor Disputes, and thus was hated almost as much as the Coal and Iron police. Under Pinchots Democratic Successor in 1938, the two state Police forces were merged under the name "Pennsylvania Motor Police" and in 1947 was resumbed the name "Pennsylvania State Police", a name they retain to this day, even through most of the officers, after the merger of the two state police forces, had been Highway Patrol not State Police.

Pinchopt in his first term proposed rural electrification, which was denounced as Socialism. Pinchot also stated the Pennsylvania State Forest system, which is 2-3 times as large as the Federal Forest System in Pennsylvania (Pinchot also arranged for the Purchase of and formation of Allegheny National Forest, the only Federal Forest in Pennsylvania).

In Pinchot's second term, Pinchot wanted to retain prohibition, but that was defeated so Pinchot developed the Pennsylvania State Store System, which the GOP hates to this day for it is a Government owned Business that makes a huge profit and regulates who gets hard liquid in Pennsylvania (Thus it is beer that is used by teens to a much higher degree then hard liquor in Pennsylvania for Beer is sold by Private Enterprise not the state).

Pinchot in his second term in office also convinced FDR, to give Pennsylvania money to improve its rural roads, "To get the Farmer out of the mud" AND to implement FDR's Rural Electrication Program in Pennsylvania. Pinchot was also a big supporter of FDR's Civilian Conservations Corps (CCC) and Work Project Administration (WPA). Both programs were opposed by other Republicans (and lead to the Next Governor after Pinchot to be a Democrat, the first Democratic Governor in decades in Pennsylvania, remember I am discussing the 1930s not today). Thus the GOP came to hate Pinchot, for he showned how one can be a Republican and work with a Democratic President.

Pinchot would also run for Senator at least twice and Governor one more time, but as a good Republican, Pinchot would never switch parties and thus was never able to get those nominations (The Old Guard GOP of Pennsylvania kept denying him those nominations for the Old Guard GOP hated Pinchot's social programs). Pinchot stayed a Republican till the day he died, what a waste for the GOP had no use for someone like him even then. Pinchot won election due to massive support from Rural Residents in Pennsylvania and decent support from the Pittsburgh area. Pinchot was always opposed by Phidadelphia Area Republicans.

Second side note: Till the 1960s Phiadedphia was a GOP City, then the Republicans move to the Suburbs and Philly itself turned Democratic, but its Suburbs and surrounding rural areas remained Solidlly GOP. Western Pennsylvania around Pittsburgh, was different. Pittsburgh turned Democratic in the 1920s. Republicans did moved to the suburbs after the 1920s, but ran into the Rural Democrats that controlled Rural Western Pennsylvania at that time period. Thus the Suburbs had Democratic majorities, but a Republican could get elected in the suburbs (But NOT in the city iteself). Rural Western Pennslyvania was and remain Democratic, but socially conservative Democrats (They oppose abortion and Gay rights for example). Such Rural Western Pennsylvanians area also economic liberals, i.e they like unions, Social Security, Public Education and other Social Welfare programs. It is one of the big differences between the two sides of the state. The make up of each area is so different that state wide canidates run different commercials in both areas to cater to the different types of voters in both areas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifford_Pinchot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Muir

Sorry, you can see how the above three words translate from Political words into real words. We do not talk about high income areas, those are called low crime areas, rich part of town, etc, the term "Area" is never used for such areas.

"Gang" is NEVER used for groups of white kids, those may be "troubled teens" "adolescents", etc but never "gangs". I was watching Adam 12 (for you youngsters out there that was a police show from the early 1970s) and it was running a story about "Gangs" and it involved Latinos. Thus "Gangs" equal "Latinos" is very old. You start seeing it in the 1950s. Now "gang" was used for earlier organisations starting in the 1830s with various Irish Gangs. Over time these inner city gangs changed ethnicity, Irish then Italians and Jewish (starting in the 1880s) then African America (in the 1950s). These all graduated into the Crime Families of today. The Latinos came in last, after most African Americans had moved from the South to the North in the 1920-1960 period. Latinos starting to migrate to the inner city in the 1950s. The Irish, Italians and Jews were moving to the Suburb and abandoning Organized crime as the African Americans moved in then the Latinos moved into the inner city. The African Americans who opt for a life of crime, replaced the Irish, Italians and Jews that lived in their neighborhoods before the African Americans moved in. Thus you had integration of a sort when it came to African Americans. When the Latinos moved in, the African Americans had most avenue of advancements covered with many African Americans unable to take those routes for they were filled. Into this situation came the Latinos who developed new gangs for the older gangs wanted nothing to do with them (they were happy with African Americans filling out the bottom). The Police in the 1950s were use to the existing Crime system, accepted what the African Americans were doing as part of that existing criminal system, but saw the Latino's groups as something "New, and transferred the term Gang to those Latino's organizations. Thus Gang became a code word for Latino, more by accident of history then anything else.

This victim was hit by seven 9mm hollow point bullets. He never stood a chance of living with that many rounds going through his body. If these had been Full metal jacket rounds, he may have survived, but hollow points just tear up the inside of a body. bouncing all over the place after expanding to twice its caliber upon impact with the body.

The main objection to revolvers is that they contain six rounds AND you have to pull the trigger with the same pull each time you shoot and the pull includes not only getting the round into position to be fired, but cocking the hammer. Those actions are powered by someone pulling the trigger and that additional pull on the trigger slows down one's firing. Given that the average shooting involving a police officer is two rounds, revolvers are more then enough for most police work.

Till the 1980s Police Officers preferred revolvers for revolvers are NOT picky about ammunition. If the hammer falls on a dead round, all you have to do is pull the trigger to get another round to fire. In an automatic you have to work the action to get the dead round out of the chamber and get a live round into the Chamber. For this reason prior to about 1980 most police preferred revolvers. This preference went back to the turn of the 20th century when ammunition was NOT as reliable as people claimed. This was especially true of police departments who thought nothing of using 20 to 30 year old ammo, for it was in stock. About 1980 police started to switch to Automatics for increase fire power for most police departments had stopped buying surplus 38 special ammunition in the 1960s (and much of that ammunition was made in the 1940s during WWII under less then ideal conditions). Remember bad 38 special rounds may not fire, but they will NOT make the weapon unusable, bad 9mm and 35 auto ammo will make the weapon unusable until the action is manually operated.

Thus about 1980 you started to see more and more American Police with Automatics. Reports I have read state that about 7-8 % of police officers retain their revolvers when that option was open to them.

In most police work, a revolvers is all you need, it provides three times the average shoot out rounds (remember the average police shooting is only two rounds, a revolver holds six). Being manually operated, it slows down the number of rounds fired, and in many situation, as in this one, that may have made the difference between killing someone and merely wounding him. Yes, if the other side has an automatic, they would have fire superiority, but in most cases police can call for assistance if out gunned. A revolver is good enough to hold out in most such situations till more police arrive.

Yes, I have read about the FBI shootout in Florida where two criminals took out several FBI agents, but in that case the situation was pistols vs rifles and shotguns, used by people who knew how to use that rifle and shotgun. The problems was NOT revolvers vs automatics like a lot of people like to say about that shoot out, the problem was pistols vs Rifles and Shotguns. In such a fight put your money on the Rifles and Shotguns vs the Pistols, and that is true if the rifles are bolt action rifles and pump shotguns vs automatic pistols. I only bring that shoot out up for the simple reason it is NOT why Automatics should be used instead of Revolvers, but it is often cited for that very cause. That shoot out is an example of NOT going up against rifles or shotguns with pistols. That the pistols in that shoot out were revolvers was a minor part of that debacle.

My point is if this officer had a revolver he would only have been able to fire six rounds instead of the eight he did fire (one round missed). Furthermore it would have taken him more effort and more time to fire those six rounds, so the victim may have fallen to the ground before he fired all six rounds and once on the ground the officer would have stopped firing (Thus even less rounds would have been fired).

I am sorry, front line police should have Revolvers only. If they need greater fire power, they can call it in, or pull a rifle from the trunk of their car (I do advocate having M-16s in patrol cars in cases where police need greater fire power, the M16 will provide them greater firepower in a weapon that is more controllable then a pistol).

In this case, if the victim had had a real AK-47 and planned to shoot the officers, the officers could have taken him down with Revolvers while before that AK-47 could have been brought to bare. Thus revolvers would have worked as while in this shoot out as the automatics, and in some ways, less bullets being fired, may be better.

Tells you more about what the press wants to report then what actually was stated by the DA

And if asked she would have to say the victim was under the influence of drugs at the time of the shooting. The Autopsy clearly showed that. Thus the fact the minor had smoked marijunma was a factor in the shooting, but at best a minor factor. If the DA said more then it was a factor, I would clearly question her competency, but it appears all the DA said is the drug use was a "Factor" but not a major Factor in the shooting.

for most municipal armed forces these days. And they always seem to get away with it.

they blew the shit out of some pathetically depressed fellow with a shotgun across the street while I wished to hell I couldnt hear all of those LOUD gunshots, not one of which came from a shotgun.
I may never get over the regret of not stepping in and at least trying. The ex-cop next door said they didnt give the guy a chance.
I wish he hadnt said that.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Expert-witness-in-toy-gun-case-has-history-of-5614736.php