US Police killing of 13 year old Adam Toledo

BloodBath

BloodBath wrote: »

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

Exactly why I am out of this thread. Logic, reason and facts arent allowed in by the core group of usual suspects

GreeBo

BloodBath wrote: »

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

I'm arguing based on the facts, I understand if this doesnt suit your personal narrative.

BloodBath wrote: »

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.

so not enough time to analyse the situation leads to the default action of shoot first? Thats kinda the point, *this* is a problem with policing in America.

BloodBath wrote: »

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

Maybe an extra second would have given the cop the chance to perform some analysis and not shoot?
I mean why not just shoot immediately if you are going to shoot before you analyse the situation?

BloodBath wrote: »

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.

If discussing the facts of the case is "mental gymnastics" then we are probably done interacting with each other.

BloodBath wrote: »

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

If by "people like me" you mean people who want the police to stop shooting people, then that label is fine by me.

Varik

Penn wrote: »

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

No ones been charged with his death, there's no case yet.

Manic Moran wrote: »

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

He's been charged with child endangerment already and Illinois has a felony murder charge, where someone who commits a felony can be charged with murder for the death of someone they didn't kill but who died during the act.

Not sure if that'd be applicable as he was already under arrest at that point.

Read about it with getaway driver who never left the car getting charged with the deaths of 3 others in a home invasion while she waited.

GreeBo

BloodBath wrote: »

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

Who knows, I guess it would depend on what they were aiming at?
Perhaps they were shooting into the dirt, maybe into a sewer.

Again this is why its important to analyse the facts *before* shooting, its so much easier to clean up afterwards this way.

Manic Moran

Penn wrote: »

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.

The statement need not be at odds with the video. It does seem that when he began the turn he had the pistol in his hand, and threw it as part of the turning process. The pistol may still have been in motion behind the fence when the shot was fired thus landing after the shot was fired.

GreeBo

Varik wrote: »

N
Read about it with getaway driver who never left the car getting charged with the deaths of 3 others in a home invasion while she waited.

Isnt that just "joint enterprise"?
I wouldnt have thought it would apply in this scenario.

Tacitus Kilgore

minikin wrote: »

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

I don't mind, at least my conscience is clear on how I view a dead child.

toxicity234

Normal I would have sympathy for the Police in these cases.
But not in this one.

The lads had a gun, Dropped it and raised his hands.
It's Murder when you shot an unarmed person.

No matter what happens before the police flashlight, hit that person does not matter.
That could have been a 60 years homeowner defending his property but once he drops the gun. His treat level has dropped to small.
Shoting someone, in this case, is murder.

The problem in the USA is that police are undertrained for the weapon they carry.
That said, shooting an unarmed person is still murder. The office has to be charged.

BloodBath

GreeBo wrote: »

I'm arguing based on the facts, I understand if this doesnt suit your personal narrative.


so not enough time to analyse the situation leads to the default action of shoot first? Thats kinda the point, *this* is a problem with policing in America.

Maybe an extra second would have given the cop the chance to perform some analysis and not shoot?
I mean why not just shoot immediately if you are going to shoot before you analyse the situation?


If discussing the facts of the case is "mental gymnastics" then we are probably done interacting with each other.


If by "people like me" you mean people who want the police to stop shooting people, then that label is fine by me.

An extra second would also have given the kid enough time to shoot the cop remembering that the cop couldn't see the kid ditch the gun or that gun was empty.

I suggest you review standard police procedure in a situation like this. They are 100% trained to shoot first in this scenario and rightfully so and will be protected by law in doing so thanks to the bodycam evidence.

The kid should have dropped his gun in view and put his hands behind his head or above his head. Not attempt to conceal the gun from view with a dodgey sideways stance and then a sudden turn and arm raise. That's the kind of **** that get's you killed.

Put yourself in the cops shoes in this situation if you are capable. Your life is literally on the line and you have 1-2 seconds to decide your action.

seamus

BloodBath wrote: »

The kid should have dropped his gun and put his hands behind his head or above his head. Not attempt to conceal the gun from view with a dodgey sideways stance and then a sudden turn and arm raise.

So a 13 year kid should be able to remember "procedure", control his movements carefully and display a keen awareness of the mental state of the cop so as to avoid getting shot. And failure to do so makes it all his fault.

But a trained cop, an adult with a weapon, who fires in panic at a 13 year-old-kid is a-ok because, "procedure".

What absolute bullsh1t, mate.

drkpower

toxicity234 wrote: »

The office has to be charged.

He likely willl be though the chances of a conviction based on presently understood facts seems unlikely. Juries will tend to put themselves in the shoes of the cop, and every few, after they have genuinely done that, willl be keen to convict I would suggest

minikin

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

I don't mind, at least my conscience is clear on how I view a dead child.

As is mine, let’s leave it there so.

Ckendrick

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.

So stay there and risk being shot dead by the kid with the gun?

BloodBath

seamus wrote: »

So a 13 year kid should be able to remember "procedure", control his movements carefully and display a keen awareness of the mental state of the cop so as to avoid getting shot. And failure to do so makes it all his fault.

But a trained cop, an adult with a weapon, who fires in panic at a 13 year-old-kid is a-ok because, "procedure".

What absolute bullsh1t, mate.

Are you all really this ignorant to the realities of places like Chicago? The fact that the kid was 13 is irrelevant. There's plenty of dangerous 13 year old killers. The cop also did not know the kids age.

If you're going to roam the streets with a gun then you should damn well know the risks involved with other gun users and police.

If you don't want to hold the kid responsible the least you can do is hold his parents responsible. Not the cop.

Who the hell would want to be a cop with attitudes like this on top of the dangers and stress of the job.

Manic Moran

seamus wrote: »

So a 13 year kid should be able to remember "procedure", control his movements carefully and display a keen awareness of the mental state of the cop so as to avoid getting shot. And failure to do so makes it all his fault.

But a trained cop, an adult with a weapon, who fires in panic at a 13 year-old-kid is a-ok because, "procedure".

What absolute bullsh1t, mate.

What the kid should have done is pretty irrelevant. He was 13, it is expected that they may make poor decisions. There is a reason that we don't allow 13 year olds to drink, drive, or carry guns in public. He apparently got it into his head that he could be smart, ditch the gun and present a harmless appearance. Unfortunately, partially due to lack of maturity, he failed to think about the time in between his decision and his desired endstate.

This is all irrelevant to the cop, who can only act on the situation as he perceives it. Whether a13 year old is capable of making good decisions is not on his mind anywhere near as much as assessing the decisions the kid is actually making, which include running from police while armed and then making a rapid turn to the officer in a manner equally commensurate with an attempt to engage the officer as it was to suddenly surrender.

hotmail.com

The result of the American hysteria about crime leads to these unnecessary tragedies.

Americans need to consider their own culture going forward.

GreeBo

BloodBath wrote: »

An extra second would also have given the kid enough time to shoot the cop remembering that the cop couldn't see the kid ditch the gun or that gun was empty.

*IF* the kid was holding and gun and *IF* the gun had bullets and *IF* the kid was actually in the mind to shoot anyone, *THEN* you are correct.

Killing someone on the basis of at least 3 *IF*s doesnt seem like a sound decision to me, especially when you freely admit that he didnt take/have the time to analyse the situation.

Shoot first and let God sort it out is not a valid policy for those charged with protecting and serving the public.

BloodBath wrote: »

I suggest you review standard police procedure in a situation like this. They are 100% trained to shoot first in this scenario and rightfully so and will be protected by law in doing so thanks to the bodycam evidence.

The point is that this is not the rightful procedure, they shot an unarmed, innocent 13 year old!

BloodBath wrote: »

The kid should have dropped his gun in view and put his hands behind his head or above his head. Not attempt to conceal the gun from view with a dodgey sideways stance and then a sudden turn and arm raise. That's the kind of **** that get's you killed.


Put yourself in the cops shoes in this situation if you are capable. Your life is literally on the line and you have 1-2 seconds to decide your action.

A) There is no evidence that his life was on the line
He didnt take 1-2 seconds, he didnt even take 1

Put yourself in the mind of a 13 year old likely terrified out of his wits, if you are capable.
Does every 13 year old act rationally at the best of times? How about when scared and having a cop point a gun at them?

GreeBo

Ckendrick wrote: »

So stay there and risk being shot dead by the kid with the gun?

Being a police officer in the heavily armed US means that the job entails the risk of being shot!

Ckendrick

GreeBo wrote: »

Being a police officer in the heavily armed US means that the job entails the risk of being shot!

You mean the police officers lives dont matter, to you at least. They should know when they sign up that people have a right to shoot them.
This is how far you’ve allowed yourself to be sucked into the nonsense.

drkpower

GreeBo wrote: »

Being a police officer in the heavily armed US means that the job entails the risk of being shot!

It does.
And their first duty is to protect themselves.

Waiting an extra second or two seems an entirely reasonable suggestion sitting where we do right now with the information we know.

Waiting an extra second or two in the circumstances the officer found himself is a very different thing. Jurors will very like;y appreciate that distinction in due course.

BloodBath

GreeBo wrote: »

*IF* the kid was holding and gun and *IF* the gun had bullets and *IF* the kid was actually in the mind to shoot anyone, *THEN* you are correct.

Killing someone on the basis of at least 3 *IF*s doesnt seem like a sound decision to me, especially when you freely admit that he didnt take/have the time to analyse the situation.

Shoot first and let God sort it out is not a valid policy for those charged with protecting and serving the public.


The point is that this is not the rightful procedure, they shot an unarmed, innocent 13 year old!



A) There is no evidence that his life was on the line
He didnt take 1-2 seconds, he didnt even take 1

Put yourself in the mind of a 13 year old likely terrified out of his wits, if you are capable.
Does every 13 year old act rationally at the best of times? How about when scared and having a cop point a gun at them?

I'm talking about this from the cops point of view. The kid WAS holding a gun, the gun appears to be empty but again the cop didn't have time or a good enough view of it determine that, the cop also can't determine kids intentions.

From the cops point of view, he had reports of shots fired and a description of the suspect, he sees someone matching the description and attempts to apprehend him, the kid runs and ignores commands, finally he catches up to him and again the kid ignores commands to show his hands while clearly trying to conceal something. That something being a deadly firearm which is briefly visible 2 seconds before the shooting. The action of ditching the gun is not visible. The kid then turns quickly while raising the concealed hand leaving the cop, who most likely saw the gun no option but to open fire or risk being killed himself.

That's the reality of being a cop in a city like Chicago. It's easy in hindsight to say he took the wrong action when we know more of the facts. He didn't know them at that time.

I have empathy for the kid as well but his actions lead to his situation. He may well have just been shooting at some trees or something he perceived to be harmless but regardless his actions were dangerous and criminal.

You can keep calling him an unarmed innocent kid all you want but that is not the reality.

Sudden Valley

I think that is one of the most shocking videos I've seen in a while. I think the officer was not expecting the kid to comply with his request to stop so suddenly and just reacted. Could see the officers reaction knowing he had messed up. In the past I would say they would have just planted the gun in the kids hands. I don't think any malice here from cop but wow wouldn't want to watch one of these types of videos again.

GreeBo

Ckendrick wrote: »

You mean the police officers lives dont matter, to you at least. They should know when they sign up that people have a right to shoot them.
This is how far you’ve allowed yourself to be sucked into the nonsense.

You pushing that angle when I have never said anything of the sort.
If 1 person has to die then I would rather it be the police officer who signed up for the job than an innocent person who was shot because the police officer didnt take the time to analyse the situation accurately, as in this case.

GreeBo

Sudden Valley wrote: »

I think that is one of the most shocking videos I've seen in a while. I think the officer was not expecting the kid to comply with his request to stop so suddenly and just reacted. Could see the officers reaction knowing he had messed up. In the past I would say they would have just planted the gun in the kids hands. I don't think any malice here from cop but wow wouldn't want to watch one of these types of videos again.

I don't see any malice either, I think its just how they are trained.

I think this differs from the Chauvin case as I am not convinced there wasn't malice there, I presume he didnt mean to kill him, but I think he was happy enough for Floyd to be in pain.

BloodBath

Sudden Valley wrote: »

I think that is one of the most shocking videos I've seen in a while. I think the officer was not expecting the kid to comply with his request to stop so suddenly and just reacted. Could see the officers reaction knowing he had messed up. In the past I would say they would have just planted the gun in the kids hands. I don't think any malice here from cop but wow wouldn't want to watch one of these types of videos again.

They really should have censored the kid. Disturbing stuff but again more of the realities of the **** that cops have to deal with while morons attack them.

drkpower

GreeBo wrote: »

You pushing that angle when I have never said anything of the sort.
If 1 person has to die then I would rather it be the police officer who signed up for the job than an innocent person who was shot because the police officer didnt take the time to analyse the situation accurately, as in this case.

Who would want to be a cop/Garda when the people who ask them to do a dangerous job have that attitude towards them.

The kid in this case isn’t innocent it is sad to say. The cop had a second or less to make a call. One that not one of us would ever want to have to make.

GreeBo

drkpower wrote: »

And their first duty is to protect themselves.

Is it really?

drkpower wrote: »

Waiting an extra second or two seems an entirely reasonable suggestion sitting where we do right now with the information we know.

Waiting an extra second or two in the circumstances the officer found himself is a very different thing. Jurors will very like;y appreciate that distinction in due course.

You can be pretty darn sure that the officer in question is wishing he waited an extra second or two right about now. The bottom line is that he was wrong to act how and when he did. There may be many, many scenarios where waiting would lead to the cop being shot at first, but thats the job. Its the same reason we have innocent until proven guilty, its better to let a criminal go than detain an innocent person.

Its not "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, assuming the cops dont kill you first".

GreeBo

drkpower wrote: »

The kid in this case isn’t innocent it is sad to say. The cop had a second or less to make a call. One that not one of us would ever want to have to make.

What was he convicted of?
Why did have have a second or less? He could be still there right now in a standoff, but instead he *choose* to shoot.
Your opinion is prejudiced on the assumption that it was kill or be killed, when there is *zero* evidence of that in this case. There is no evidence that either suspect shot at *anyone* at any stage that night.

GreeBo

BloodBath wrote: »

They really should have censored the kid. Disturbing stuff but again more of the realities of the **** that cops have to deal with while morons attack them.

Who attacked who?
Seriously, you are losing the run of yourself here and just making up realities.
It doesnt matter if the cop had been shot at 99 time out of 100 in the same situation, he cannot shoot an unarmed person who is posing no threat to anyone.

wicklowstevo

GreeBo wrote: »

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?

is there any evidence that you have a clue what your talking about ? not a bit

GSR from picking up a gun he found the little angle ? ffs

you demand evidence from every one and ignore it when its presented ,

yo be fair your only here for one reason


exploitation of a dead child , disgusting scumbag thing to do imo

any evidence to the to disprove that ?