Deputies shoot, kill 13-year-old boy in Santa Rosa

The Press Democrat – by MARTIN ESPINOZA

Sonoma County sheriff’s deputies shot and killed a 13-year-old boy Tuesday afternoon during an encounter in a southwest Santa Rosa neighborhood.

The boy’s father, Rodrigo Lopez, identified the teen as Andy Lopez and said he had been carrying a toy gun that belonged to a friend.

It was unclear Tuesday whether the rifle, which sheriff’s officials characterized as a replica, was capable of firing BBs or other projectiles.  

Rodrigo Lopez said the last time he saw his son was Tuesday morning before he left for work.

“I told him what I tell him every day,” he said in Spanish, standing in the doorway of his mobile home near Moorland Avenue and Todd Road. “Behave yourself.”

The family had just returned home at about 9:15 p.m. from identifying Andy Lopez’s body.

The boy’s mother, Sujey Annel Cruz Cazarez, was grief-stricken in the living room.

“Why did they kill him? Why?” she said.

At 3 p.m., two sheriff’s deputies patrolling in the area of Moorland and West Robles avenues observed Lopez walking with what sheriff’s officials said appeared to be some type of rifle.

The deputies called for backup and repeatedly ordered the boy to drop the rifle, Sheriff’s Lt. Dennis O’Leary said in a news release.

At some point after the deputies told Lopez to drop the rifle, they fired several rounds from their handguns at the boy, who was hit multiple times, O’Leary said.

After telling Lopez to move away from the rifle, deputies approached the unresponsive teen as he lay on the ground and handcuffed him before administering first aid and calling for medical assistance, O’Leary said.

Lopez was later pronounced dead at the scene. Neither deputy was injured, said Sheriff’s Lt. Steve Brown. Sheriff’s officials did not release the names of the deputies Tuesday, but said both had been placed on administrative leave.

After securing the scene, deputies discovered the rifle the teen was carrying was a replica of an assault weapon, O’Leary said. Deputies also found a plastic handgun in the teen’s waistband.

The shooting took place at the edge of a field. The area was cordoned off for hours with yellow police tape. An ambulance and numerous patrol cars from both the Santa Rosa Police Department and Sheriff’s Office surrounded the area.

Moorland Avenue was initially closed from West Robles to Corby avenues.

Neither the Sheriff’s Office, nor the Santa Rosa Police Department, which is leading the investigation into the shooting, would release the boy’s name Tuesday.

Eduardo Diaz, a friend of Rodrigo Lopez, said Tuesday evening that he received a phone call and learned the boy was dead.

Diaz said the boy’s family lived near the corner of Todd Road and Moorland Avenue. The family said the boy recently attended Cook Middle School but had transferred to another school.

Moorland Avenue was blocked at Todd Road late Tuesday night.

At a little after 9 p.m., a police investigator’s SUV pulled up to the family’s home, a mobile home located on a property that has at least two other homes.

The boy’s mother, distraught and in tears, came out of the SUV accompanied by someone who appeared to be a family member.

She walked back to her home escorted by police investigators. Neighbors said she had been taken to identify the body of her son.

Two law enforcement chaplains arrived soon afterward. The mother’s cries could be heard from the dark driveway as the chaplains walked back to the residence in the rear of the property.

It was unclear Tuesday whether the weapon recovered at the scene was an operational pellet or BB gun. Lopez’s family called the gun a “toy,” but the Sheriff’s Department’s news release called it only a “replica” of an assault rifle.

There are dozens of Airsoft guns on the market designed to look like real assault rifles but are electric and fire plastic, nonlethal projectiles similar to BBs.

The gun recovered at the scene closely resembled an AK-47 style rifle, a replica of which can be purchased online for as little as $34.99 for a plastic version or more than $200 for ones with real metal and wood.

Such guns are often used recreationally, similar to paintball guns.

Ian Davis, who lives on Moorland Avenue, just north of West Robles Avenue, was on his way home, driving north on Moorland, when he encountered a sheriff’s patrol car parked in the southbound lane of Moorland, the front of the car pointed in the opposite direction of traffic. Two sheriff’s deputies were crouched and taking cover behind the driver’s side and passenger side front doors.

Davis turned right on West Robles, drove to the end of the street and then turned around and drove back to the intersection of West Robles and began shooting video of the scene.

Davis said he likely pulled up moments after the shots were fired because he could see someone lying on the ground, several yards in front of the patrol car.

In his video, Davis can be heard saying, “Police standoff … gunpoint. He said, ‘Don’t reach for the rifle.’”

Moments later, Davis says, “I don’t want to be here, actually. I need to get out of here. I’m in the line of fire.”

As Davis quickly crosses Moorland to get away from the scene, the video shows two sheriff’s deputies taking cover near their patrol car. In front of the patrol car, a body lies partially on the sidewalk and in a field of dry grass.

The shooting took place just as neighborhood residents were on their way home from work and school. Others were home when they heard gunfire.

“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,” said Brian Zastrow, a resident on Horizon Way. “After that I heard multiple sirens.”

Tuesday’s incident was the third fatal officer-involved shooting in Sonoma County this year. In February, Sonoma County Sheriff’s deputies shot and killed Richard Shreckengaust, 37, of Novato following a pursuit that ended near Guerneville.

In June, Windsor police officers shot and killed Urbano Moreno Morales, 48, near the Windsor Town Green after he stabbed and wounded his 60-year-old former domestic partner and approached them wielding a knife.

The investigation into Tuesday’s shooting will be handled by the Santa Rosa and Petaluma Police departments, as well as the District Attorney’s Office, sheriff’s officials said.

Sonoma County Sheriff Steve Freitas and Santa Rosa Police Chief Tom Schwedhelm did not return calls late Tuesday seeking comment.

Staff Writers Kevin McCallum and Julie Johnson contributed to this report.

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20131022/articles/131029886?title=Deputies-shoot,-kill-13-year-old-boy-in-Santa-Rosa#page=0

7 thoughts on “Deputies shoot, kill 13-year-old boy in Santa Rosa

  1. Killing children now? I don’t think the Nazis shot their own children, did they?

    The population need to take this in hand.

  2. Who wants to bet it didn’t happen like the dirty lying police say it did? Who wants a bet that mysteriously they did not have a camera in the police car? If they did I would wager it was not working or for some reason the footage gets lost… Lets see what happens! This has to stop, these guys are murdering people all over America and the worst punishment they get is to lose their stinking jobs… God bless the poor child and may he get justice. The police are now the no.1 threat to the people in the U.S. There is so much security apparatus set up for terrorists looking at the general population but really it should be used on government and police etc for that is where the terrorists and crooks really are, they are hiding in plain sight! God bless us all…

  3. I’m so filled with disbelief.. Don’t these cops have any training at how to observe behaviour? Observe weaponry? Would it have been such a drain on police forces to call for backup in order to secure the area and make it “safer” for one of the officers to engage the kid? So sad.. The police mentality is no longer to “protect and serve” but to “arrest and neutralize”. I don’t think I’m exaggerating. I’m just simple citizen but I’m sure I could of observed the kid from a safe distance and get a sense of what’s going on and then, with respect and curiosity, inquire about the nature of what he was up to. Hell, when I was 14, I was still running around in the fields and the woods with my 3 brothers dressed in ragtag camo “armed” to the teeth with all kinds of nods to weaponry. No one gave it a second thought.

    Sad.

  4. Did you catch that the mother was taken to “identify” the body of her son? And after he had been shot? Why weren’t the families of the children at Sandy Hook allowed to ID their children after they were shot? Could it be there were no children to ID? Closed caskets. If I had been one of those parents, I’d be out at the cemetery during the night with a shovel, digging up that grave to see my child. Having lost a child, the first thing we wanted was to see our son. Once again, the line has been crossed, and the time draws ever nearer to removing the cancer that is killing the host. My heart goes out to these parents, I truly know what they are going through.

  5. “I told him what I tell him every day,” he said in Spanish, standing in the doorway of his mobile home near Moorland Avenue and Todd Road. “Behave yourself.”

    “…….he said in Spanish,……”

    The kid probably died because he couldn’t understand what the cops were telling him to do – IN ENGLISH.

    Stupid immigrants (legal or otherwise) who don’t think they need to learn the language (hence the ‘stupid’ reference) had better think again.

  6. Meanwhile, California has a hundred gangs and thousands of illegal immigrants with REAL guns that shoot REAL bullets but the cops have to shoot some kid carrying a toy rifle.
    The cops won’t go after any REAL bad people, they might get “alarmed” or have to “fear for their safety” for REAL. As long as their shooting kids and unarmed dogs in peoples yards they can feel tough and macho without actually putting themselves in any REAL line of fire.
    Guaranteed, this incident will be spun around and the cops will walk away from it saying they did the right thing.

  7. There is no excuse for this action on the part of the “police”. Those who were dressed in uniforms as “officers” are just thugs hired to carry out (implement) the depopulation part of Agenda 21. That is correct, DEPOPULATION.

    The choice is yours, hold them accountable (lawfully) by requiring the laws of our state, our nation be kept or remove them from office – yes FIRE them for breaking the contract they agreed to in able to occupy the office or position they are occupying. You do NOT need an election to fire them for bbreaking the contract, but they may take you, us, the people of the state of California to court – but remember judges also have a contract they MUST abide by.

    You, we, the people of the state of California DO need an election to replace fired representatives. The Chief of Police is also, I believe, a political position. It is up to YOU, me, the people of the state of California! Let it go on, or start stopping it NOW! in a lawful manner.

    California has been implementing the UN’s Agenda 21 for decades now, and they feel it has been implemented enough that they can start murdering people using thugs in uniforms.

    These current officers would NEVER had been hired 20 or 30 years ago because they are thugs, literally.

    Wake up and see that what is happening is planned and being executed, literally, on our streets, in our homes, businesses, parks, etc. These thugs practice shooting at targets of children, pregnant women, older people, people in parks walking with children all around them, etc. This was no accident, it was deliberate on the part of those who are “imitating an officer of the law”.

    Thsoe officers are REQUIRED by their contract to take and KEEP this oath to meet the requirements of the contract – remove them. (caps are mine)

    Peace Officer Oath of Office, State of California
    PEACE OFFICER OATH OF OFFICE, State of California
    California Constution Article 20, Sec. 3. Misc. Subjects
    [Required Oath of Office ]

    ” I, ___________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, foreign AND DOMESTIC; that I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

    “And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or other- wise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or OTHER UNLAWFUL MEANS; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or other-wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means. I will not advocate nor become (name of office) a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means.”

    Ca Government Code Section 19572. Each of the following constitutes cause for discipline of an employee, or of a person whose name appears on any employment list:
    (a) Fraud in securing appointment.
    (b) Incompetency.
    (c) Inefficiency.
    (d) Inexcusable neglect of duty.
    (e) Insubordination.
    (f) Dishonesty.
    (g) Drunkenness on duty.
    (h) Intemperance.
    (i) Addiction to the use of controlled substances.
    (j) Inexcusable absence without leave.
    (k) Conviction of a felony or conviction of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. A plea or verdict of guilty, or a conviction following a plea of nolo contendere, to a charge of a felony or any offense involving moral turpitude is deemed to be a conviction within the meaning of this section.
    (l) Immorality.
    (m) Discourteous treatment of the public or other employees.
    (n) Improper political activity.
    (o) Willful disobedience.
    (p) Misuse of state property.
    (q) Violation of this part or of a board rule.
    (r) Violation of the prohibitions set forth in accordance with Section 19990.
    (s) Refusal to take and subscribe any oath or affirmation that is required by law in connection with the employment.
    (t) Other failure of good behavior either during or outside of duty hours, which is of such a nature that it causes discredit to the appointing authority or the person’s employment.
    (u) Any negligence, recklessness, or intentional act that results in the death of a patient of a state hospital serving the mentally disabled or the developmentally disabled.
    (v) The use during duty hours, for training or target practice, of any material that is not authorized for that use by the appointing power.
    (w) Unlawful discrimination, including harassment, on any basis listed in subdivision (a) of Section 12940, as those bases are defined in Sections 12926 and 12926.1, except as otherwise provided in Section 12940, against the public or other employees while acting
    in the capacity of a state employee.
    (x) Unlawful retaliation against any other state officer or employee or member of the public who in good faith reports, discloses, divulges, or otherwise brings to the attention of, the Attorney General or any other appropriate authority, any facts or information relative to actual or suspected violation of any law of this state or the United States occurring on the job or directly related to the job.

    Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

    The Constitution of the United States of America and all laws, bills, treaties, etc that are IN PURSUANCE THEREOF are the Supreme Law of this land, NOT those who serve within the federal government. The Supremacy Clause of Article VI does NOT declare that laws passed by the federal government are the supreme law of the land, period. What it says is that the “laws of the United States made in pursuance” of the Constitution are the supreme law of the land. So if the federal government is carrying out the duties assigned it by the US Constitution in a constitutional manner they are supreme. That is the ONLY time they are supreme. In PURSUANCE thereof, not in VIOLATION thereof.

    The first LAW STATUTE (that is correct, supreme LAW) of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.

    The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8.

    The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.

    5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office the three branches of our government, the military, all law enforcement, the heads of the States, all federal employees are required to take before assuming office.

    5 U.S.C. 3333 requires the three branches of our government, the military, all law enforcement, the heads of the States, all federal employees sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office.

    18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath of office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office AND; (2) confinement or a fine.

    18 USC § 241 – Conspiracy against rights: If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
    If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
    They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

    This is the contract with those who serve within the state of California:
    California State Constitution, Preamble:
    We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.

    California State Constitution, Art 1 Dec Of Rights, Sec 1: All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

    Art 1 Dec Of Rights, Sec 13: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable seizures and searches may not be violated; and a warrant may not issue except on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons and things to be seized.

    Art 1 Dec Of Rights, Sec 18: Treason against the State consists only in levying war against it, adhering to its enemies, or giving them aid and comfort. A person may not be convicted of treason except on the evidence of two witnesses to the same overt act or by confession in open court.
    (“adhering to its enemies, or giving them aid ” – That would be UN”s Agenda 21 which is destroying our legitimate government internally. If you think that the UN is a “friend” of the USA , then you need to get beyond texting and start reading, because it was created to destroy the USA and all soveriegn nations and create a one world government.)

    Art 1 Dec Of Rights, Sec 26: The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory and prohibitory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.

    Art 3 State Of California, Sec 1: The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

    Art 5 Exec, Sec 1: The supreme executive power of this State is vested in the Governor. The Governor shall see that the law is faithfully executed.
    (So now you know who to go after, to REQUIRE those officers arrest and prosecution from, and who to hold accountable for HIS oath and contract.)

    Art 5 Exec, Sec 7: The Governor is commander in chief of a militia that shall be provided by statute. The Governor may call it forth to execute the law.
    (The militia is every able-bodied person over the age of 21. That is correct, all of the people of the State of California is supposed to be armed and trained in the use of those arms so that they can defend the state of California if need be, assist in implementing the (lawful) laws, and dfend the USA from enemies both domesitc and foreign if needed.)

    Art 5 Exec Sec 13: Subject to the powers and duties of the Governor, the Attorney General shall be the chief law officer of the State. It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to see that the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced…

    Art 7 Public Officers And Employees: SEC. 9. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, no person or organization which advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or the State by force or violence or other unlawful means or who advocates the support of a foreign government against the United States in the event of hostilities shall:
    (a) Hold any office or employment under this State, including but not limited to the University of California, or with any county, city or county, city, district, political subdivision, authority, board, bureau, commission or other public agency of this State; or
    (b) Receive any exemption from any tax imposed by this State or any county, city or county, city, district, political subdivision, authority, board, bureau, commission or other public agency of this State.

    Art 20 Misc Subjects, Sec 3: Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:

    “I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.
    “And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or other- wise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or other-wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows: ___________________________________________________

    (If no affiliations, write in the words “No Exceptions”) and that during such time as I hold the office of ______________________________________ I will not advocate nor become (name of office) a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means.”

    And no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be required as a qualification for any public office or employment.

    “Public officer and employee” includes every officer and employee of the State, including the University of California, every county, city, city and county, district, and authority, including any department, division, bureau, board, commission, agency, or instrumentality of any of the foregoing.

    Art IV Sec 2, Clause 14 says, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”.
    That would be the Bill of Rights which the federal government is given the duty of PROTECTING, not destroying or even allowed to modify them.

    “Domestic enemies pursue legislation, programs against the powers of the US Constitution. They work on destroying and weakening the Rights of the People guaranteed by the Constitution. Plus they create laws, amendments, bills, etc that goes against the restraint on the three branches of our government by the Constitution. They are also those who support those in action, or by inaction; vote, voice, money, etc who are going against or trying to weaken the US Constitution and the Peoples written guarantee of the protection of those Rights.”

    28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism: “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published.


*