Cops Shoot Thirteen-Year-Old Because Second Amendment Is Dead Letter

The cops have been put on administrative leave pending an investigation, because we all know that, if a non-cop shot a kid he wouldn’t be arrested or anything like that.

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…

The cops were never shot at (not even by airsoft pellets). No one else was in the area being seemingly threatened by the “replica rifle.” The cops pointed their weapons at the boy, shouted orders, and then opened fire.

We can talk about how police are trained and whether this could possibly be a reasonable response. But I’ll skip that and turn to a slightly different issue.

This kid was killed because the Second Amendment is a dead letter in California and many other states.

He was carrying an apparent “assault rifle.” The police believed that, because he was carrying this weapon (or so they thought), they had a right to draw their weapons and aim at him.

He wasn’t threatening anyone.

He wasn’t shooting the gun.

He was just carrying a firearm.

He was bearing arms.

We live in a country where a boy can be stopped by the police, with their weapons drawn and aimed at him, just because he is carrying a rifle.

The Second Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed. Shooting someone for carrying a gun is about as serious an infringement of the right to bear arms as can be imagined.

Yet, even the way this story is being reported, it is assumed that, if the boy had been carrying a real rifle, then it would have been OK to order him at gunpoint to drop his firearm.

If our country had never had a second amendment in its Constitution, then the behavior of the police would make sense.

Society’s disregard for the Second Amendment gave those cops license to kill. Everyone who supports taking away the right to keep and bear arms is advocating that cops be permitted to behave in this way toward thirteen-year-old children.