HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Andy Lopez Family Files C...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Nov 2, 2013, 06:08 AM

Andy Lopez Family Files Claim vs. Sonoma County; Deputy "Emotional" After Shooting

Source: By Lisa Fernandez

Lawyers for the family of a 13-year-old Santa Rosa boy carrying a replica rifle and killed by a deputy when he said the teen wouldn’t put it down, have filed three claims against Sonoma County and plan to file a federal lawsuit in the wake of the boy’s death.

In the claims, according to the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, the firm of Moreno, Becerra and Casillas, based in Montebello, Calif., allege that the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office failed to develop proper policies and training for pedestrian stops, and that it negligently hired and continued to employ the deputies involved in the shooting.

The Sonoma County Counsel on Friday did not return a comment to NBC Bay Area seeking comment.

The claims, filed on behalf of Andy Lopez's parents, seek unspecified damages for loss of financial support, funeral and burial expenses, the value of household services the boy would have provided and for the loss of Lopez's “love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society and moral support.”


Read more: http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Andy-Lopez-Family-Files-Claim-vs-Sonoma-County-Deputy-Emotional-After-Shooting-Report-230244931.html

12 replies, 1811 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 12 replies Author Time Post
Reply Andy Lopez Family Files Claim vs. Sonoma County; Deputy "Emotional" After Shooting (Original post)
FreakinDJ Nov 2013 OP
gopiscrap Nov 2013 #1
Comrade Grumpy Nov 2013 #2
FreakinDJ Nov 2013 #3
musiclawyer Nov 2013 #4
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #7
FlaGranny Nov 2013 #5
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #6
FreakinDJ Nov 2013 #9
FlaGranny Nov 2013 #10
FreakinDJ Nov 2013 #11
FreakinDJ Nov 2013 #8
Xithras Nov 2013 #12

Response to FreakinDJ (Original post)

Sat Nov 2, 2013, 11:28 AM

1. Good, I hope they win

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreakinDJ (Original post)

Sat Nov 2, 2013, 11:43 AM

2. Ya basta with these killer cops. The good burghers of Sonoma will pay for this.

And as a Sonoma County resident, I, too, will pay for this. I think we have better things to do with our tax dollars than keep paying reparations to the families of the people our cops keep killing. Maybe like training cops to be human.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 2, 2013, 12:06 PM

3. Frankly - Hope they sue till the Cops Lose Pensions

If they are going to defend scum like this I don't want them living off my taxes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreakinDJ (Original post)

Sat Nov 2, 2013, 01:22 PM

4. Case won't go to trial

Board of supervisors and their excess insurance carrier will be negotiating multi 7 figures settlement for the next 6 months after the FBI report and other IAs are over

For what it's worth this kids parents will never have to work again ....

You want to make a difference .... Tell your elected officials you want police officers hired......not trained killers from the army and marines who arrive with an us v them mentality

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to musiclawyer (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 3, 2013, 01:44 AM

7. There will be no FBI report. The false claim the FBI would fully investigate originated with the

 

Sheriff's Department. The DA later revealed that it was not true and that the FBI would only receive information sent to it by the Sheriff's Department and the Police Department.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreakinDJ (Original post)

Sat Nov 2, 2013, 04:15 PM

5. Good grief!

What is wrong with PARENTS letting a 13-year-old carry what looked like a real weapon on the street? Hmmmm? I think the parents need a bit of investigating. They are at the beginning of the fault in this tragedy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlaGranny (Reply #5)

Sun Nov 3, 2013, 01:41 AM

6. 1) Without proof that the parents let him carry the toy, it is a false statement to say they did so.

 

2) A side-by-side photo comparison of the plastic toy held by the grammer-school kid with a real AK-47 shows that it was made clearly made of plastic, it had a trasparent center section, it was lighter, and it was shorter.



3) You think that the parents need a bit of investigating? No doubt the Sheriff's Department thinks so as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 3, 2013, 07:21 AM

9. Boy was alive on the ground when he put 6 more bullets in his body

The officer clearly violated Supreme Court statutes of using Lethal Force. Hence the pending 4th Amendment suit.

The officer involved would have to identify himself as Law Enforcement - not just shout "Drop the Gun"

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Fourth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution prohibits the use of deadly force to effect an arrest or prevent the escape of a suspect unless the police officer reasonably believes that the suspect committed or attempted to commit crimes involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury and a warning of the intent to use deadly physical force was given, whenever feasible (Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985))
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0074.htm


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreakinDJ (Reply #9)

Fri Nov 8, 2013, 07:40 AM

10. Okay everyone,

my point wasn't that killing the child was justified. My point is that kids shouldn't be carrying things that look like weapons in public. Sure, the picture above shows a difference, but at the time was it completely obvious that it was a toy? I don't know. I'm just saying in this gun crazy country, I wouldn't let a kid carry a toy weapon in public. It's so bad that people are shooting unarmed people knocking on their doors, how much worse that a teen appears to be carrying a weapon. It's the wild west all over again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlaGranny (Reply #10)

Fri Nov 8, 2013, 12:37 PM

11. Children naturally emulate what we as society Praise

Rambo, Terminator, Seal Team 6, all have the common theme of America heaping praise and accolades for their ability to kill bad guys with their High-Tech weaponry

We taught children this through TV News Media, Movies, and even in their school lessons. Kids (especially the male child) will naturally gravitate towards this to win acceptance into society

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlaGranny (Reply #5)

Sun Nov 3, 2013, 06:59 AM

8. Doesn't matter- Nothing gives cops the right to shoot him in the BACK

She says they were right behind the patrol car at a stop sign. Rojas saw the deputies turn on their police lights, then drive over to where the teenager was standing in an open lot.

Rojas and Marquez say they heard the deputies yell in english "drop the gun."

"Abrieron la puerta de cada lado y sacaron la pistola y tas, tas," Rojas said.

She says almost immediately, both deputies then opened their doors and shots were fired.

Rojas and Marquez say deputies only yelled once before opening fire.

"Imediatamente le dispararon, no le dieron oportunidad de nada," Marquez said.

She says they fired immediately and didn't give him a chance to do anything.


http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/north_bay&id=9302840


And then once the boy was wounded on the ground - go over an put 6 more bullets into a frail 13 yr old boy's body

Ethan Oliver says he lives across the street and came outside after he heard two gun shots.

He says by that time Lopez was already on the ground.

"Then the cops went at it again and unloaded like 6 to 7 shots,” said Oliver.

When asked if he meant that the deputy shot Lopez while he was on the ground, Oliver said, "Yeah. Exactly what I saw."
http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/national/dozens-march-remember-boy-killed-deputies/nbXW9/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlaGranny (Reply #5)

Fri Nov 8, 2013, 01:50 PM

12. Actually there are two major problems with your assumption.

1) As has already been mentioned, the officers never gave him a chance to drop the weapon. They shot a 13 year old kid in the back as he started to turn around to see who was yelling at him.

2) In California, open carry of a rifle is only a misdemeanor. Even if it HAD been a real gun, the officers had no legal justification to shoot at him without secondary evidence of a threat. According to all of the witnesses, there was none in this case. The maximum sentence for violating AB 1527 is a year in county jail, not death. This could have been a 30 year old guy carrying a real rifle, and the officers would have STILL grossly overstepped their legal authority in this incident by shooting the way they did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread