US Police killing of 13 year old Adam Toledo

BloodBath

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

I agree, he had the choice to drop the gun and put his hands up, which he did, he may have committed other crimes at some point so let's be honest, he deserved to be shot dead there and then.

Saves time, saves money, only thing it doesn't save is bullets but there's no shortage of them.

It's not that black and white but it seems the majority of people are so stupidly polarized and simplistic in their thoughts these days.

BloodBath

I didn't mean to quote you. Sorry, edited and fixed.

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

Is holding a gun punishable by death now?

Oh ffs. That's pathetic.

Should the cup wait until he's shot dead himself?

In the real world, police can't outdraw criminals. This isn't a western on tv

Tacitus Kilgore

BloodBath wrote: »

An armed child who would probably shoot you for a few hundred dollars.

Virtue signaling nonsense.

WTF is a 13 year old child doing out at 2am in the most dangerous city in the US with a handgun?

BloodBath wrote: »

He was an armed and dangerous criminal, not a victim. A victim of circumstance of his life and American culture maybe but he still had choices. Trying to paint him as some sort of innocent victim is disingenuous.

You don't have time to think when an armed suspect turns suddenly on you like that. He followed standard police training. You don't wait for someone to shoot first and most US citizens should be well drilled at this stage on how to behave around police if you don't want to get shot. That's the price of "freedom".

You either give up those freedoms for more security or you deal with edgy cops and follow the procedure to not get shot.

BloodBath wrote: »

It's not that black and white but it seems the majority of people are so stupidly polarized and simplistic in their thoughts these days.

Agreed, you can put your own thoughts at the top of both piles for stupidly polarized and simplistic.


Take a look at yourself, it's a 13 year old child shot dead ffs.

Snickers Man

Overheal wrote: »

I should remind you that the casualty rate for military service, which uses those rules, is remarkably low. The US military has spent 20 years in Afghanistan fighting war/peacekeeping against a hostile force intent to kill them. 2,312 troops have perished in Afghanistan in that timeframe.
Every year in the US, however, police are killed at a rate that exceeds that, when the vast majority of people would not be outset with premeditation to engage with or kill these officers, the same way opposing forces to do so against military targets. 264 officers perished last year. Clearly, the argument cannot be made that Police rules of engagement keep them any safer than military style ROE.

Where did you get that figure of 264 officers killed?

The FBI puts out an annual report for the number of policemen and federal officers killed in the line of duty, drawing a distinction between those killed in accidents and those "feloniously killed".

In 2019, the last year for which figures are available, from what I can see, a total of 48 officers were "feloniously killed" and a further 41 died in accidents while performing their duty.

Fewer than 90 deaths in total, a far cry from your figure of 264. But that's for 2019. Where did you get that number?

davetherave

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Funny how it's always a kill shot with american cops.

What kind of shot would you like it to be?

The accuracy of shots fired under training conditions is generally greater than in operational circumstances. Police officers are normally trained to discharge conventional firearms at the largest part of the subject they can see, in order to increase the likelihood of striking the body and achieving the intended effect of neutralising the threat posed. In most cases this will be the central body mass.

The primary intention of the police, when discharging a firearm, is to prevent an immediate threat to life by shooting to stop the subject from carrying out their intended or threatened course of action. In most circumstances this is achieved by aiming to strike the central body mass (ie, the torso) and is known as a ‘conventional shot’.


If you fire a warning shot, a warning shot being an intentionally harmless shot, with the intention of gaining compliance or to encourage a subject to stop what they are doing you run the risk of either the subject or other officers thinking they are being shot at. Similar with a containing shot in the proximity of the subject.

BloodBath

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

Agreed, you can put your own thoughts at the top of both piles for stupidly polarized and simplistic.


Take a look at yourself, it's a 13 year old child shot dead ffs.

Why because I refuse the join the bandwagon of hate against police along with all the morons who will try to portray this as a racially motivated murder by a cop?

At this stage the police in the US should just go on strike and give the morons the anarchy they seem to crave.

Tacitus Kilgore

BloodBath wrote: »

Why because I refuse the join the bandwagon of hate against police along with all the morons who will try to portray this as a racially motivated murder by a cop?

At this stage the police in the US should just go on strike and give the morons the anarchy they seem to crave.

No, not because of that - because you are so obviously blinded by your own bias that you can't look at this in an objective manner at all. You've already decided the child deserved to be shot and killed by the cop - purely because he probably committed other crimes, or maybe could have shot the cop. Guess what - he didn't, he complied with instruction, put empty hands in the air and got shot dead.


You'll still say it's his fault, because of how completely biased you are against anything that puts the police in a bad light.

BloodBath

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

No, not because of that - because you are so obviously blinded by your own bias that you can't look at this in an objective manner at all. You've already decided the child deserved to be shot and killed by the cop - purely because he probably committed other crimes, or maybe could have shot the cop. Guess what - he didn't, he complied with instruction, put empty hands in the air and got shot dead.


You'll still say it's his fault, because of how completely biased you are against anything that puts the police in a bad light.

I never said he deserved to be shot and killed. I said he wasn't an innocent victim. He was out at 2am in Chicago with a handgun.

In the circumstances of the incident as seen in the bodycam the cop followed standard procedure and the kid acted in a manner that got himself shot.

It's unfortunate and sad for everyone involved but when you remove yourself from the emotive response of seeing a 13 year old get shot and killed you have to also consider the situation the cop was in.

I was 1 of the first in the original GF killing thread to condemn the police and say they should be charged with murder so no bias there.

It's up to the courts at this stage but from what I've seen of US law and police training the cop didn't do anything wrong "according to US laws and police training". You can argue a moral point after if you want. It's easy to say in hindsight.

Did you smash it

BloodBath wrote: »

I never said he deserved to be shot and killed. I said he wasn't an innocent victim. He was out at 2am in Chicago with a handgun.

A gun that had just being fired.

When you have 13 year olds with guns the war to keep the peace is already lost.

Tacitus Kilgore

BloodBath wrote: »

I never said he deserved to be shot and killed. I said he wasn't an innocent victim. He was out at 2am in Chicago with a handgun.

In the circumstances of the incident as seen in the bodycam the cop followed standard procedure and the kid acted in a manner that got himself shot.

It's unfortunate and sad for everyone involved but when you remove yourself from the emotive response of seeing a 13 year old get shot and killed you have to also consider the situation the cop was in.

I was 1 of the first in the original GF killing thread to condemn the police and say they should be charged with murder so no bias there.

It's up to the courts at this stage but from what I've seen of US law and police training the cop didn't do anything wrong "according to US laws and police training". You can argue a moral point after if you want. It's easy to say in hindsight.

I think it's incredibly sad that, there was a 13 year old child out at 2am with a gun, I think his society has massively failed him, I think it's incredibly sad that he was shot dead by the police, I think it's terribly sad that his death will not change anything.

That country is a mess, and I don't think there is any fixing to that society at this stage. I can't really argue with what you say above. I guess I reacted heavily to the post below.

BloodBath wrote: »

An armed child who would probably shoot you for a few hundred dollars.

Virtue signaling nonsense.

WTF is a 13 year old child doing out at 2am in the most dangerous city in the US with a handgun?

In isolation it looks bad, but your overall point is difficult to argue with.


And fwiw, I wansn't coming at this from a racial pov, I was just seeing a 13 year old child being shot dead, needlessly.

biko

R.F. wrote: »

Usual victim blaming as always on this forum. OK everyone get this out of the way. Yes the kid should not have been out at 2am and certainly should not have had access to a gun.

But the real blame is purely on both society who have failed that kid that has lead him down this track and his death is a result of another cop who has rushed into this situation and shot before thinking. You cant say “hands in the air” and also fire your gun in one motion.

I was just wondering when it would be society's fault.

But you are right. He appears to have shot too fast.
In less than a second according to this news video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw_LNOk_62o

biko

biko wrote: »

I was just wondering when it would be society's fault.

But you are right. He appears to have shot too fast.
In less than a second according to this news video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw_LNOk_62o

So now he "shot too fast"

How long would you wait if you at that exact moment, thought an armed suspect was going to shoot you?

I shall await your completely idealistic reply

BloodBath

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

I think it's incredibly sad that, there was a 13 year old child out at 2am with a gun, I think his society has massively failed him, I think it's incredibly sad that he was shot dead by the police, I think it's terribly sad that his death will not change anything.

That country is a mess, and I don't think there is any fixing to that society at this stage. I can't really argue with what you say above. I guess I reacted heavily to the post below.





In isolation it looks bad, but your overall point is difficult to argue with.


And fwiw, I wansn't coming at this from a racial pov, I was just seeing a 13 year old child being shot dead, needlessly.

Fair enough. Maybe I'm assuming too much about why this kid was out at 2am with a gun in Chicago. I just know what some of these kids are capable of but I shouldn't assume this kid was a gang banger just because he had a gun and was in Chicago. Hard for the cops not to assume similar things too.

GreeBo

BloodBath wrote: »

Or you could face the fact that most of the people they shoot are armed and dangerous criminals.

There's around 10,000 homicides involving guns in the US every year with 760 in Chicago alone last year.

They put their life on the line every day to protect entitled assholes who show nothing but contempt for the hard decisions they have to make while risking their lives to protect others along with all the other dirty work they have to do.

We really must put a stop to this process that is forcing these people to become police officers against their will.

BloodBath wrote: »

Would you do it? I somehow doubt it. I know I wouldn't. But I'm sure you could be calling them for help if you encountered any of these criminals.

Relevance? Do you put out fires? No, but I bet you would call the fire brigade if you had a fire.

BloodBath wrote: »

Why do your type always make excuses for dangerous criminals while showing nothing but contempt for police?

That cops life will never be the same again because he was forced into a bad situation by a criminal gun toting kid whose parents obviously don't give a crap about where he was at 2am in the most dangerous city in America. But of course he was carrying the gun for "protection". Give me a break.

My "type"? What is my type exactly?

A 13 year old dropped the guy and put his hands up as instructed, he then got shot.
The cop didnt even know he had a gun as he didnt tell him to drop it.
He could have had the totally wrong kid, scared out of his wits who, unsurprisingly, acted irrationally.
Feck it, he could have shot him for sneezing at that stage.

The system is clearly broken, too many people are being killed.

BloodBath

The system is broken. You won't have any arguments from me against that.

The problem is most people seem to think the police are the main problem and not the massive amount of guns in circulation that require a heavily armed police force who have to assume that every suspect could be armed with a gun.

Remove the majority of guns is the solution along with fewer specialized elite trained armed police units.

biko

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

So now he "shot too fast"

How long would you wait if you at that exact moment, thought an armed suspect was going to shoot you?

I shall await your completely idealistic reply

For you and me, we'd wait no time at all.
For a trained police officer, a bit longer.

BloodBath

biko wrote: »

For you and me, we'd wait no time at all.
For a trained police officer, a bit longer.

For Clint Eastwood maybe. Most mere mortals don't have time to wait for others to make the first move.

GreeBo

BloodBath wrote: »

He was an armed and dangerous criminal, not a victim. A victim of circumstance of his life and American culture maybe but he still had choices. Trying to paint him as some sort of innocent victim is disingenuous.

Dangerous? What had he done to give you that impression?
Also why are you defining him as a criminal? Does he have some prior convictions?

BloodBath wrote: »

You don't have time to think when an armed suspect turns suddenly on you like that. He followed standard police training. You don't wait for someone to shoot first and most US citizens should be well drilled at this stage on how to behave around police if you don't want to get shot. That's the price of "freedom".

You either give up those freedoms for more security or you deal with edgy cops and follow the procedure to not get shot.

“The juvenile offender had the gun in his right hand... looked at the officer which could be interpreted as attempting to acquire a target and began to turn to face the officer attempting to swing the gun in his direction,” Mr Grace wrote."
This is what your "edgy cop" was thinking, interpreting everything as a reason to shoot and ignoring the fact that the kid was doing everything he was being told to do.
Hammer, meet nail.

BloodBath

GreeBo wrote: »

Dangerous? What had he done to give you that impression?
Also why are you defining him as a criminal? Does he have some prior convictions?





“The juvenile offender had the gun in his right hand... looked at the officer which could be interpreted as attempting to acquire a target and began to turn to face the officer attempting to swing the gun in his direction,” Mr Grace wrote."
This is what your "edgy cop" was thinking, interpreting everything as a reason to shoot and ignoring the fact that the kid was doing everything he was being told to do.
Hammer, meet nail.

I would regard a 13 year old roaming the streets of Chicago with a handgun, which he had fired, as both criminal and dangerous. Luckily the law does as well.

Is this not a gun?

francois

Deleted User wrote: »

Is this not a gun?

where is the picture from? how do you know it is not doctored?

francois

francois wrote: »

where is the picture from? how do you know it is not doctored?

It's from the Chicago police department.

afro man

francois wrote: »

where is the picture from? how do you know it is not doctored?

Francois


how do you know it is not Doctored ? two sides to every story.. if you read all the reports Police and family have confirmed he was carrying a Gun.. the question now is was he carrying Gun when police shot him

joe40

BloodBath wrote: »

Why because I refuse the join the bandwagon of hate against police along with all the morons who will try to portray this as a racially motivated murder by a cop?

At this stage the police in the US should just go on strike and give the morons the anarchy they seem to crave.

The PSNI are all armed. They have their fair share of dangerous individuals but I have never heard of anything like that.

I don't necessarily think it was racially motivated, but it does show serious issues with Police training and procedures in the states, as well as the terrible problem of poor gun control.

The backtracking in this thread is pretty good. Though the denying that it's backtracking could be even better.

What appears to have happened:
Two suspects, one young teens and another, adult male. They between them or just one of them, had a loaded firearm and had shot at people. Police responded to a 'shots fired' call.

At police arrival the younger suspect ran away with what the police officer believed to a loaded firearm. The officer gave chase and the younger suspect ignored or at least, didnt respond to verbal commands to stop and at the very end, to drop a weapon.

The younger suspect stopped at a side of a fence and was standing either to his back or sideways on the officers arrival. The officer aimed his firearm at the younger suspect and made more verbal demands for the younger suspect to show his hands and drop the weapon. At no stage was he instructed to turn around. In fact he was told to stop.

As the younger suspect turned despite not being instricted to, he discarded the weapon behind the fence and the officer shot him. The officer tried to keep him alive but the younger suspect died.

Video and images: Having watched and looked again this is my take.

In the video the suspect is running away, the officer is giving chase. There is no audio to confirm that verbal commands were given and ignored.

In 1 frame, frozen we can see there is a firearm in the right hand of the younger suspect as he is turning.

In 1 frame, frozen and at the finish of the turn the younger suspect is no longer holding the firearm and is shot once.

This however, is seen in freeze frame images. Far from realtime. In realtime, verbal commands were ignored initially and the male was 100% armed with a loaded weapon. As he turned the weapon was visible in his right hand which was coming around anti-clockwise towards the officer. Between the start of the swing and the end of that swinging motion the firearm vanishes.

I think I can safely assume, at this point that the 13 year old let go of the fiream mid swing. The police officer again in that split second, thought that the suspect was turning to fire and fired first.

A split second people, a split second. BNow honestly, watching the video raw and without freeze frames. Could anyone here hand on heart make any determination about where the firearm actually was? I couldnt for either side. I couldnt tell if the suspect was armed at all at any stage or was still armed when shot. It took freeze framing to find out.

Thats the reality. Not a single person, or at least anyone with empathy, can suggest its not a terrible event. He was young and got involved in something very very stupid. He shouldnt have been out at that time, he shouldnt have been around a firearm and he most assuredly should not have run from police to discard the firearm. No, that doesnt mean he could just be killed without anyone raising an eyebrow but its still reality. Its still the facts of the event. Its equally a fact that the police officer made attempts to not fire. He gave verbal commands but he is, just as everyone, a human being performing a very real and serious action. Not a TV actor. A man, with a family that had to make a split second decision to kill or be killed.

wicklowstevo

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Funny how it's always a kill shot with american cops. An innocent kids killed by a chicken sh it cop who fired before he saw his hands were empty.

this has to be explained to you and your mates in every single thread

I refuse to believe that you forgot so can only assume your think your making some kind of point …….but your not

wicklowstevo

GreeBo wrote: »

Dangerous? What had he done to give you that impression?
Also why are you defining him as a criminal? Does he have some prior convictions?

.

he was waling around late at night with a loaded and operational firearm which it seems likely he fired .

that makes him a criminal
those facts on video

Oranage2

Crazy decision making but then you realize it was only a kid.

The cop sees the gun and thinks the suspect is trying to quick draw him. The kid on the other hand think he's doing a magic trick with the gun by switch, throw and show in a dark alley at 2am after firing shots.

Not sure the cop can really be faulted too much here