Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Xithras

(16,191 posts)
12. Actually there are two major problems with your assumption.
Fri Nov 8, 2013, 01:50 PM
Nov 2013

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.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Andy Lopez Family Files C...»Reply #12