US Police killing of 13 year old Adam Toledo

breezy1985

Funny that we don't read these stories every week from European countries. It's almost like there is a simple solution to all this.

Overheal

breezy1985 wrote: »

Funny that we don't read these stories every week from European countries. It's almost like there is a simple solution to all this.

Simple to say not to do. Cats already out of the bag on guns in the US and not going back on in your lifetime or mine.

Maybe one day when weapons become so technologically sophisticated (and current ones so antique or undesirable and inferior), that the safeties will be implemented in all of them to make sure legal guns cannot be used for illegal things. That’s a pipe dream though when so many millions of guns circulate in the country, untracked and easily serviced. Not that tracking programs proved effective.

Yakult

Overheal wrote: »

Because. They. Are. Trained. To do so.

His reaction to compliance was a split second call to kill the boy.

Yes they are trained and he made a call based on what had happened leading up to the confrontation and when the suspect was confronted. To which the criminal, who had a gun in his right hand, who then discards the weapon AS he turns around.

Curious, did the police officer know the suspect was 13?

Nozebleed

breezy1985 wrote: »

Funny that we don't read these stories every week from European countries. It's almost like there is a simple solution to all this.

there is a simple solution...obey the law.

breezy1985

Overheal wrote: »

Simple to say not to do. Cats already out of the bag on guns in the US and not going back on in your lifetime or mine.

Maybe one day when weapons become so technologically sophisticated (and current ones so antique or undesirable and inferior), that the safeties will be implemented in all of them to make sure legal guns cannot be used for illegal things. That’s a pipe dream though when so many millions of guns circulate in the country, untracked and easily serviced. Not that tracking programs proved effective.

Didn't Australia do it. Cats out of the bag is a bull excuse peddled by closet republicans. Having guns out there doesn't mean you have to sell more

Overheal

Yakult wrote: »

Yes they are trained and he made a call based on what had happened leading up to the confrontation and when the suspect was confronted. To which the criminal, who had a gun in his right hand, who then discards the weapon AS he turns around.

Curious, did the police officer know the suspect was 13?

How could he have known the age? The salient bit is his reaction a suspect suddenly complying with his order was to kill him.

If cops don’t hope a suspect will change their mind and comply why bark the order so many times. Surely you should be prepared to anticipate that compliance as well. He only anticipated on thing and when what he was seeing didn’t match what he had anticipated he still shot.

breezy1985

Nozebleed wrote: »

there is a simple solution...obey the law.

Should just shoot all the people who break the law then and we'll be grand

Overheal

breezy1985 wrote: »

Didn't Australia do it. Cats out of the bag is a bull excuse peddled by closet republicans. Having guns out there doesn't mean you have to sell more

We aren’t Australia and changing hearts and minds to do anything close to what Australia did is simply not an attainable political objective in our lifetime. Sure push that agenda but I’d rather focus on cops who only get 12 weeks of training in the average case.

breezy1985

Overheal wrote: »

We aren’t Australia and changing hearts and minds to do anything close to what Australia did is simply not an attainable political objective in our lifetime. Sure push that agenda but I’d rather focus on cops who only get 12 weeks of training in the average case.

So all that is stopping it is people want guns. So it would be easy do if these people were not morons and saw sense like your average European

joe40

Overheal wrote: »

If not letting him escape means a very high probability your suspect is killed or you are killed, how important is it to make that arrest before backup arrives.

I think it is a bit like the high speed car chase. Very sexy on TV but I don't think they happen to a large extent in reality, at least not in Ireland. The risk is too great to continue a pursuit that is getting dangerous.

I'm not an expert on policing so open to correction here.

Overheal

breezy1985 wrote: »

So all that is stopping it is people want guns. So it would be easy do if these people were not morons and saw sense like your average European

Revolutionizing a culture, or reforming law enforcement by passing new laws and mandating new training.

One of those two things is much more outlandish than the other with regard to feasibility.

Yakult

Overheal wrote: »

How could he have known the age?

Exactly and thats my point.

You try to make it sound worse by saying "he killed the boy". Like it makes him more innocent or something. In that moment, he was a criminal, who was armed.
And in that moment you can't tell if its someone who is a murdering psychopath or not.

Overheal wrote: »

If cops don’t hope a suspect will change their mind and comply why bark the order so many times. Surely you should be prepared to anticipate that compliance as well. He only anticipated on thing and when what he was seeing didn’t match what he had anticipated he still shot.

Why don't you ask them?

I would probably anticipate the same way tbh. Suspect tried to discard the gun in a sneakily way while turning around to comply. Maybe if it had dropped it in plain sight of the officer, it would have ended differenty.

Overheal

Yakult wrote: »

Exactly and thats my point.

You try to make it sound worse by saying "he killed the boy". Like it makes him more innocent or something. In that moment, he was a criminal, who was armed.
And in that moment you can't tell if its someone who is a murdering psychopath or not.




Why don't you ask them?

I would probably anticipate the same way tbh. Suspect tried to discard the gun in a sneakily way while turning around to comply. Maybe if it had dropped it in plain sight of the officer, it would have ended differenty.

Me saying he killed the boy is staying a fact. You’re not being that clever.

In the moment, he was INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. HE WAS A SUSPECT. If he is a criminal show me the conviction.

Labels for me but not thee? I can’t call him boy but you can call him criminal? You're being quite the hypocrite.

In that moment you know how I know he wasn’t as you put it a “murdering psychopath?”

HIS HANDS WERE EMPTY.

Stop scraping your barrel it’s bone dry.

breezy1985

Overheal wrote: »

Revolutionizing a culture, or reforming law enforcement by passing new laws and mandating new training.

One of those two things is much more outlandish than the other with regard to feasibility.

Any normal country would see a 13 year old guilty or innocent being shot by a police officer or almost weekly mass shootings of innocent victims by far right but jobs and think enough is enough.

Manic Moran

Sudden Valley wrote: »

Do the cops not have warn a suspect before shooting them like "stop or I'll shoot" or is that something that just happens in movies? If it wasn't so tragic it would be impressive, the cop coming to a running stop and then shooting dead a suspect with one bullet, almost instantaneously. Kid probably thought he was saving his life by stopping so suddenly.

No. Indeed, it is an empty threat because there are extremely few circumstances where it is lawful for police to shoot someone attempting to run away.

The idea of the use of done is an interesting one for the future, but suffers some practical problems today. A K9 would probably be a better solution for today but the amount of dogs you would need is insane.

The big problem with drones as they are today is that they are only viable for observation. Thus, for example, they could observe a suspect break into a dwelling and, if the hole in the window was big enough, observe him taking a hostage. Stopping a suspect sooner, I think, is safer for the citizenry as a whole

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

No. Indeed, it is an empty threat because there are extremely few circumstances where it is lawful for police to shoot someone attempting to run away.

The idea of the use of done is an interesting one for the future, but suffers some practical problems today. A K9 would probably be a better solution for today but the amount of dogs you would need is insane.

The big problem with drones as they are today is that they are only viable for observation. Thus, for example, they could observe a suspect break into a dwelling and, if the hole in the window was big enough, observe him taking a hostage. Stopping a suspect sooner, I think, is safer for the citizenry as a whole

Agree with all your points but think bringing up hostages for this scenario (of which there are none) is gaslighting things.

Otherwise not opposed if the drones begin carrying non lethals. Strobes and sonic devices, pepper spray etc. don’t want to see a robot dog tazing or shooting though.

The Supreme Court has already established cops can’t be expected to stop every crime so I’m not sure I buy that it’s better to give them more expedient and lethal force to make up for lapses in response time.

OMM 0000

His friend was shooting at people, and he was holding a gun which he dropped just before the police shot.

We are living in utter idiocy that so many people think police should risk letting themselves get killed.

It is just shocking so many people are brain dead.

breezy1985

OMM 0000 wrote: »

His friend was shooting at people, and he was holding a gun which he dropped just before the police shot.

We are living in utter idiocy that so many people think police should risk letting themselves get killed.

It is just shocking so many people are brain dead.

It's shocking so many people can't see that shooting a 13 year old is wrong

drkpower

Overheal wrote: »

Me saying he killed the boy is staying a fact. You’re not being that clever.

In the moment, he was INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. HE WAS A SUSPECT. If he is a criminal show me the conviction.

Labels for me but not thee? I can’t call him boy but you can call him criminal? You're being quite the hypocrite.

In that moment you know how I know he wasn’t as you put it a “murdering psychopath?”

HIS HANDS WERE EMPTY.

Stop scraping your barrel it’s bone dry.

His innocence or not is irrelevant. His threat/perceived threat is all that matters.

Overheal

Effects wrote: »

Because the kid had shown an unwillingness to actually do what he was asked to, and he was carrying a gun.

That doesn’t wash well. The kid did in fact do what he was asked to do, and it was in reaction to seeing that sudden compliance that the officer decided to shoot.

drkpower

breezy1985 wrote: »

It's shocking so many people can't see that shooting a 13 year old is wrong

His age is irrelevant.

OMM 0000

breezy1985 wrote: »

It's shocking so many people can't see that shooting a 13 year old is wrong

Yeah, we should let kids shoot at people and possibly kill the police. This will definitely be great for society.

drkpower

Overheal wrote: »

That doesn’t wash well. The kid did in fact do what he was asked to do, and it was in reaction to seeing that sudden compliance that the officer decided to shoot.

He did but that too is irrelevant. The question is whether the office could reasonably have perceived a life threatening threat when the suspect, who had being carrying a gun, turned around suddenly with his hands raised. The suspects prior refusal to comply is likely to be relevant to that inquiry.

breezy1985

drkpower wrote: »

His age is irrelevant.

No it's not. 13 year olds by law like all kids have a certain amount of diminished responsibility and it's not the same as a 20 year old running from police or holding a gun

OMM 0000

breezy1985 wrote: »

No it's not. 13 year olds by law like all kids have a certain amount of diminished responsibility and it's not the same as a 20 year old running from police or holding a gun

Exactly, children should be allowed kill people, especially black children, I agree with you 100%.

drkpower

breezy1985 wrote: »

No it's not. 13 year olds by law like all kids have a certain amount of diminished responsibility and it's not the same as a 20 year old running from police or holding a gun

His responsibility is irrelevant also; all that matters is the threat he posed. Have a look at the law as it pertains to the use of lethal force; if you see age referenced in there, come back to me.

breezy1985

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Yeah, we should let kids shoot at people and possibly kill the police. This will definitely be great for society.

Police responded to sounds of shots fired. Show me the evidence he shot at someone or aimed a gun at a cop

Not having guns in society would be my answer. Not perfect here but it works pretty well

Overheal

drkpower wrote: »

His age is irrelevant.

Not to the cops reaction but it is to the broader discussion. Very hard for blue liners to dismiss the case or absolve any fault of the police through the typical practice of character assassination. We see that often if not like clockwork in other police killing situations. They’re always “thug” “gangbanger” “thief” “scumbag” etc.

Here, it is “child.” “Teenager.” “Adolescent.”

drkpower

Overheal wrote: »

Not to the cops reaction but it is to the broader discussion. Very hard for blue liners to dismiss the case or any fault of the police through the typical practice of character assassination.

What broader discussion?

breezy1985

drkpower wrote: »

His responsibility is irrelevant also; all that matters is the threat he posed. Have a look at the law as it pertains to the use of lethal force; if you see age referenced in there, come back to me.

So if a court finds the cop acted with undue force and does time you I assume will be back on here telling us of your love for the law