US Police killing of 13 year old Adam Toledo

GreeBo

Ckendrick wrote: »

I don’t understand what your saying here. Are you saying that once they established that this child had a gun that they should have got in their cars and drove away?
Because if that’s what your saying then I wholeheartedly agree.
Best conclusion.
Boy doesn’t get shot dead by cop.
Cop isnt shot dead by boy.
If the boy goes on to shoot some other boys then that’s sad, but it’s not important.

You don't see an option between shooting and walking away?
How about staying there and not shooting? Let's start with that maybe? The kid had stopped, dropped the gun and had his hands up.

GreeBo

BloodBath wrote: »

He didn't shoot at the cop because he had no ammo left from his previous shooting escapades.

He did have the gun in his hand seconds before being shot though. Stop making excuses.

Stop making up your own reality.
You have no evidence the gun was empty
No evidence the kid even shot the gun.

Tacitus Kilgore

BloodBath wrote: »

He didn't shoot at the cop because he had no ammo left from his previous shooting escapades.

He did have the gun in his hand seconds before being shot though. Stop making excuses.

Those facts or opinions?

Ckendrick

Ckendrick wrote: »

It’s almost inevitable now that US police will have no other option but to adopt a policy of not engaging with minorities on any level when it comes to criminal justice.
The black community and their supporters clearly want to be allowed to police themselves. If this results in deaths and loss of property then it will be because that’s what the citizens clearly prefer as opposed to these now daily incidents of the shooting of minorities in highly charged situations.
If it wasn’t what citizens want then they would surely rise up.

For years we heard that communities were neglected by law enforcement and that's why they were blighted by violence and crime. Now we're told the issue is "over-policing".

Cops in the US should avoid any dealings whatever with minorities whenever possible. Ensure there's no chance they can be accused of "over-policing" and just let the kumbaya-ing take over.

GreeBo

gctest50 wrote: »

He might have had a second handgun

kid ? awww poor innocent kid awww - he was wandering around with a handgun ffs

Lol, any other fantasies you want to make up? Grenade maybe? Anthrax?

BloodBath

GreeBo wrote: »

You don't see an option between shooting and walking away?
How about staying there and not shooting? Let's start with that maybe? The kid had stopped, dropped the gun and had his hands up.

The gun was dropped out of sight with his sideways stance to the cop. It was visible for a second or 2 possibly even to the cop right before he turned and raised the same hand the gun was in, then the shot happened. This was a matter of 2 seconds. The cop didn't have time to rewatch and freeze frame and think.

Put yourself in his shoes for a second if you are capable of that.

BloodBath

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

Those facts or opinions?

Fact based on the multiple frames where you can see the gun. I already linked it. Post 147.

minikin

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

He was 13, he was a child, no amount of de-humanising from you or the rest of them will change that.

You - are the scrote here. Take a look at yourself, sicko.

You have so much to add to this conversation.

GreeBo

Manic Moran wrote: »

This is the second time you've mentioned this, I think you may have a misunderstanding of how military ROE work. The kid would have been just as dead had be been confronted by a soldier. Irish soldiers have an escalation of force continuum certain steps of which may be skipped if the situation so indicates. US ROE are never as cut and dry as "the other guy must shoot first", as either the wording is such that one may "shoot at a threat" or there is a note that the ROE presents an ideal which need not always apply, normally worded akin to "Nothing in these RoE prohibit you from taking actions necessary to protect yourself or your unit". See for example the big boxed writing at the top of this ROE card. https://i.redd.it/pfor2mdu1uvz.jpg

I think the expectations and responsibilities are pretty different for soldiers and police.

Tacitus Kilgore

BloodBath wrote: »

Fact based on the multiple frames where you can see the gun. I already linked it.

Fact that the kid was going to shoot at the police only for he had no ammo? Or surmission?

BloodBath

GreeBo wrote: »

Stop making up your own reality.
You have no evidence the gun was empty
No evidence the kid even shot the gun.

I linked the bloody evidence. The gun is in his hand and on the ground in a state that handguns are in when the mag is empty.

You are the one living in a fantasy land.

GreeBo

wicklowstevo wrote: »

why would a cop take the chance of being murdered in a ally but some one ? are their lives worth less to you ? would his life be worth more if he was black ?
.

Because the cops job is to protect and serve, he shot this victim without any grounds to use lethal force.

His life would be worth the exact same to me if he was purple, no idea why you are bringing race into this?

BloodBath

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

Fact that the kid was going to shoot at the police only for he had no ammo? Or surmission?

I said who knows on that. Come on now.

GreeBo

BloodBath wrote: »

I linked the bloody evidence. The gun is in his hand and on the ground in a state that handguns are in when the mag is empty.

You are the one living in a fantasy land.

And you know the victim shot it how?

Seems like you just proved the point the the victim was no danger, he had no ammo?

BloodBath

GreeBo wrote: »

Because the cops job is to protect and serve, he shot this victim without any grounds to use lethal force.

His life would be worth the exact same to me if he was purple, no idea why you are bringing race into this?

He had grounds to use lethal force. You are beyond ignorant.

GreeBo wrote: »

And you know the victim shot it how?

Seems like you just proved the point the the victim was no danger, he had no ammo?

I don't know that but the police had reports of shots fired in that area and a description of the suspects. Combined with said suspect having a gun with what appears to be an empty mag it kinda does stack up.

GreeBo

BloodBath wrote: »

I said who knows on that. Come on now.

Well if we are playing that game, who knows if the victim wouldn't have prevented a mass murder of he was alive today?

It's almost like these 13 year olds don't think like mature adults.

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

Well if we are playing that game, who knows if the victim wouldn't have prevented a mass murder of he was alive today?

It's almost like these 13 year olds don't think like mature adults.

thank god bullets fired by 13 year olds magically turn into jelly beans then. Otherwise you would again be suggesting that police should allow 13 year olds to shoot them because they "dont think like mature adults"

Tacitus Kilgore

minikin wrote: »

Sick in the head???
A child would be home in bed at three in the morning.
A child would not be out popping caps at three in the morning.
This was an apprentice scrote, no loss.
Jog on stormtrooper.

minikin wrote: »

You have so much to add to this conversation.

These are your only two posts in the thread.

GreeBo

BloodBath wrote: »

He had grounds to use lethal force. You are beyond ignorant.

The grounds being a child with an empty gun with his hands up and complying with orders?

I don't know that but the police had reports of shots fired in that area and a description of the suspects. Combined with said suspect having a gun with what appears to be an empty mag it kinda does stack up.

Indeed. So its in no way possible that the other suspect shot all the bullets, or that neither of them did and they came across an empty gun that the actual shooter had ditched?

You seem to have all the facts before any investigation has been completed!

At least you admit that you actually dont know the things that you were stating as fact.

satguy

I'd give the cop a pass on this one.

The young lad had a gun, why did the young lad have a gun, how many people did he fire at with that gun.

You reap what you sow..

BanditLuke

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

He was 13, that is a child no matter how much you want to de-humanise him.

Sick in the head, both of ye.

He was a criminal with a gun that his buddies referred to as "Lil homicide". He chose his path or his path chose him it doesn't matter a jot. Iv'e a feeling if this was a white 13yo scumbag from Sherriff street or Finglas the same people blaming the police would be applauding the Gardai for ridding us of him.

You roam the streets at 2am waving and supposedly shooting a gun at others bad sh!t happens.

Manic Moran

GreeBo wrote: »

I think the expectations and responsibilities are pretty different for soldiers and police.

I agree, but he's the one saying that had the cop been operating under military RoE he would not have shot. A position with which I disagree.

GreeBo wrote: »

Is holding a gun punishable by death now?

No. Neither is driving at excessive speed without wearing a seat belt. Both activities have a known likely possibly of death as a result, however, and should be avoided if possible for just that reason.

To respond to an earlier comment, yes, I agree that the pistol appears to be locked back on an empty mag Again, though, that's with the benefit of a still image.

So, who will be charged or sued for giving the boy a gun?

Tacitus Kilgore

BloodBath wrote: »

He didn't shoot at the cop because he had no ammo left from his previous shooting escapades.

He did have the gun in his hand seconds before being shot though. Stop making excuses.

How about you direct some of of that "empathy" towards the cop and the situation he was in.

BloodBath wrote: »

I said who knows on that. Come on now.

Era now you didn't tbh.

BanditLuke wrote: »

He was a criminal with a gun that his buddies referred to as "Lil homicide". He chose his path or his path chose him it doesn't matter a jot. Iv'e a feeling if this was a white 13yo scumbag from Sherriff street or Finglas the same people blaming the police would be applauding the Gardai for ridding us of him.

You roam the streets at 2am waving and supposedly shooting a gun at others bad sh!t happens.

No, I never laud the death of a child, regardless of circumstance.

You think he deserved death so, fair enough. I think that's a sick way to think.

BloodBath

GreeBo wrote: »

The grounds being a child with an empty gun with his hands up and complying with orders?



Indeed. So its in no way possible that the other suspect shot all the bullets, or that neither of them did and they came across an empty gun that the actual shooter had ditched?

You seem to have all the facts before any investigation has been completed!

At least you admit that you actually dont know the things that you were stating as fact.

Are you really this ignorant or are you just trolling at this stage?

The cop had no time to analyze the situation and see that the gun was empty. It's literally only visible for a few frames before the shooting.

He gets shot in the turning and raising his hands action in the space of 1 second.

Regardless of your attempt at mental gymnastics the kid had a gun in his right hand that he was attempting to conceal from view 2 seconds before he was shot while turning and doing an action that could be perceived as a threat.

Really the cops can't win no matter what they do with people like you.

GreeBo

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

thank god bullets fired by 13 year olds magically turn into jelly beans then. Otherwise you would again be suggesting that police should allow 13 year olds to shoot them because they "dont think like mature adults"

Do you have any evidence of where or in what direction the shots were fired or are you just building your own facts to suit your narrative?

Penn

I think the full circumstances of the shooting are still up for debate, but it is possible the shooting could be considered reasonable under the circumstances.

What's not reasonable is the falsified report following it. It seems to have stated that Toledo had the gun in his hand when he turned, and after being shot it landed a few feet away. But they had to have seen the bodycam footage by then and therefore knew it wasn't in his hand.

That does irreperable damage to their own case for justifying the shot.

GreeBo

Effects wrote: »

There's supposedly gunshot residue on his hands, so if that's the case, then is that evidence enough for you?

Not really, that would be all over the gun and hence his hands irrespective of whether he actually shot it or not.
Either way, shooting a gun doesnt automatically make someone a threat.
Is there any evidence that either suspect actually shot at anyone?

minikin

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

These are your only two posts in the thread.

Nope... not true at all, you’re good at getting things wrong.

drkpower

The kid’s age is really irrelevant in this case (in terms of the officers culpability)

What matters is whether the officer could reasonably have pulled the trigger when he did in the circumstances. It’s a tough one but if the kid literally ditched the gun just before he raised his arms (and the officer knew/reasonably suspected he had a gun), I would have some sympathy for the officer. I certainly wouldn’t envy the decision he had to make in a literal split second.

This is far from the chauvin case.

BloodBath

Effects wrote: »

Or maybe he was a kid a little off the rails, who was firing a gun for fun. But would never intentionally point or shoot it at a person.
I know people who used to shoot guns for fun when they were that age.

That's definitely a possibility. Bit risky doing that in a city though no?