No charges for Erick Gelhaus

[jlw]

Anytime an agent of government does something to someone it brings up a civil rights concern at the state and federal level...so lawsuits happen quite frequently even if the facts of the case are crystal clear and it's been ruled a good shoot in multiple venues. Just the nature of modern America.

An officer who acted within the boundaries of department policy is typically indemnified by his employer...meaning that he/she isn't on the financial hook directly for the defense in court or an individual judgment against them.

It doesn't even have to be a government agent. It could simply be two or more individuals acting in concert.

[Corvus]

If someone throws down on you, how many free shots you gonna give 'em to make sure it's not an Airsoft?

EDIT: Come to think of it, free shots to make sure it's not an Airsoft aren't adequate. Suppose he's just kidding with blanks? Better let him get in a hit or two to make sure it's live ammo...

The initial report was that he did not "throw down " on him and that he was shot from behind. Is there an autopsy report available ? The story given has changed several times.

[Corvus]

...because media coverage is notoriously fair, right?

Eric rolled up on somebody brandishing what he reasonably believed was an AK pattern rifle and Eric fired in defense of his life. All the other coverage goes to great lengths to ignore the fundamental questions really at issue in a use of force. The media likes to pretend that young or mentally ill people are harmless, even when armed with lethal weapons and often rake police officers over the coals when they use force against these people. Some time ago in Atlanta there was an individual off his meds swinging a butcher knife at police officers only feet away and "the community" was upset because one of the officers shot the man. He was crazy, you see, and in their calculation didn't "deserve" to get shot.

UOF has beans to do with "deserve" and everything to do with whether or not the person pulling the trigger was in reasonable fear for his/her life when they pulled the trigger. Seeing the "pellet gun" that is at issue in this UOF, knowing the results of many active shooter situations out there including what happened to one of our own at the hands of an active shooter wielding an AK it's not hard to argue that Eric's belief at the time he pulled the trigger was reasonable. Because it was reasonable, it was a justified use of force. Full stop.

The complaining over the outcome is largely from a lot of people who have never had to look over the sights at a problem when life is on the line and have absolutely no qualifications nor the slightest hint of a clue what is involved in making life-or-death decisions in the fractions of a second where this sort of thing transpires. They look at the result and proclaim the actions leading to it to be unsatisfactory. That is not how judgment of a UOF works, even though they try to make it so as they're doing here or did in the Zimmerman case.

What the dead teenager intended when he was brandishing that realistic looking weapon at a uniformed police officer is beyond our ability to discern...but his intentions are irrelevant. What matters is the situation he presented to the officers on that scene. When your actions give another objective cause to fear for their lives, death is a realistic possible outcome.

Media coverage ....compared to what ? The honest and responsible information we get from government these days ?

Where is the autopsy report ? Was the 13 year old really brandishing or just holding the pellet gun ? Was the 13 year old shot from the front or from the back ? If it was so clear cut why did only one of the two le fire shots ? Why did the DA wait until after the primary elections before coming out with a no bill if it was in fact a clear cut case of self defense ? If the shooter is such a nice guy and did nothing wrong why did he pull articles he has written such as the "Mean Gene" article off the internet? Lots of questions and little answers.

[Corvus]

Quote from the shooter about kids with BB guns that was posted on the forum Firing Line..... sounds like he had a plan all laid out before hand.

"It’s going to come down to YOUR ability to articulate to law enforcement and very likely the Court that you were in fear of death or serious bodily injury. I think we keep coming back to this, articulation — your ability to explain why — will be quite significant."

Does anyone have a source of where there is anything about the 13 year old pointing the AK as if to shoot anyone ? I have been unable to find anything that says this was the case. The statements I have found only say the 13 year old started to turn around after being yelled at by le and "it looked like" the muzzle was rising. If the 13 year old was gunned down from the back it was not self defense.

[Le Français]

Corvus,

Do you have any formal training in use of force?

[Corvus]

Yes but that has nothing to do with what happened in this shooting.

Everything I have been able to find on this does not match the stories being told on this forum about "throwing down" and "brandishing". From what I can find it was less than 10 seconds from the time le made a radio call to dispatch until the 13 year old was dead on the ground , the Ak was not pointed at le , the 13 year old was shot in the back , the 13 year old went down after 2 shots but they put a few more into him anyway for good measure. That is what I find when looking for information on this shooting.

Where is the information that says otherwise ?

[TSH]

Corvus,

Do you have any formal training in use of force?

His posts clearly indicate he doesn't. He's one step away from asking why the Officer didn't shoot the gun out of the guy's hand.

Corvus, why don't you explain why the officer should have to wait to be shot before he can defend himself?

[Le Français]

Yes but that has nothing to do with what happened in this shooting.

Whether or not you are trained in use of force (and the quality of the training received) plays a rather significant role in determining whether or not you are able to fully understand the physical and legal subtleties of a shooting such as this one.

[HCM]

Corvus,

If you are genuinely interested in the dynamics of use of force, I suggest you do some research beginning with the University of Minesota's Force Science Research Center.

http://www.forcesciencenews.com/home/index.html

[jlw]

Corvus,

If you are genuinely interested in the dynamics of use of force, I suggest you do some research beginning with the University of Minesota's Force Science Research Center.

http://www.forcesciencenews.com/home/index.html

There is an article there about shots in the back that should be read.