US Police killing of 13 year old Adam Toledo

Ckendrick

The kid had been missing for 2 days before he was shot.
Did his “grief stricken” mother report him missing?
Don’t be mad. Can anyone tell me (second time of asking) what BLM are doing to correct the terribly dysfunctional lives that end with 13 year olds being shot dead by the police?

TomTomTim

Effects wrote: »

Maybe it's risky, but kids are stupid.
The ones that I knew that did it were in the country, shooting shotguns and rifles, at dumped cars.

Are you American? I've never known children to have access to guns in this country in the way you describe. I knew people who owned guns, but they were locked away. None of us would of even considered asking a friend to take out their fathers gun, because even as kids we knew we would be playing with fire, and we weren't exactly choir boys.

Regardless of that, context matter. There's a big difference between having a gun out in a field, and having a gun out in a high crime, gang filled area.

drkpower

GreeBo wrote: »

Is it really?".

Yes it is.

The classic Supreme Court exposition on the use of force is that it is lawful when the officer reasonably believes the subject poses a significant threat of serious bodily injury or death to themselves or others. So the officers safety trumps that of the perpetrator if objective justification can be shown.

Obviously the question is whether this officer could have reasonably believed that a person running away from them with a gun in hand, which had recently been fired, who failed to stop on being told to do so, and who then turns suddenly towards the officer in the dark, and raises their hands poses such a significant risk.

All of that willin turn depend on what this particular officer perceived at the time, and what a reasonable officer would,have done in the circumstances. I would be quite surprised if a conviction was secured in such a case.

Tacitus Kilgore

Ckendrick wrote: »

The kid had been missing for 2 days before he was shot.
Did his “grief stricken” mother report him missing?
Don’t be mad. Can anyone tell me (second time of asking) what BLM are doing to correct the terribly dysfunctional lives that end with 13 year olds being shot dead by the police?

What's this got to do with BLM?


You appear to be so blinded by your racism biases that you think everything is cops VS BLM.

Take a step back from the internet

TomTomTim

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

What's this got to do with BLM?


You appear to be so blinded by your racism biases that you think everything is cops VS BLM.

Take a step back from the internet

This is literally the narrative that's been set from above. African Americans v the police. It's beyond disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

maxamillius

The vast majority of the worlds population do not run down alleyways at 3am carrying guns and being chased by armed police.

This in turn, means the vast majority of us get to continue with our lives. Unfortunate for all involved but the child should not of been carrying a gun, simple.

Tacitus Kilgore

TomTomTim wrote: »

This is literally the narrative that's been set from above. African Americans v the police. It's beyond disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

What? There's no black people involved in this incident?

Fandymo

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.

Luckily there was no innocent party shot here so, and the police officer got to go home.

SeaFields

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I don't want to sound heartless but why should we care, because clearly that don't care in the country where it is a problem. This happened in a country where quite frankly the likes of this is the result of poorly trained militarised police in addition to the country being awash with guns.

This is a problem for the US to solve. I suspect the real issue is that a good chunk of the population there don't see it as a problem, out at least one worth solving.

I have to agree with this. At one stage earlier there were five active threads discussing gun violence / mass shootings / George Floyd in the forum. It's a discussion forum - I get that - but the same arguments and counter arguments are made over and over again by posters and another shooting will happen next week or month and again after that and after that. Emotions run high and justifiably so. But at the end of the day, the US needs to sort this problem and are unwilling/ unable to. It's sickening but it's the reality.

BloodBath

If sandy hook couldn't change anything nothing will.

The merry go round of needless deaths of guilty and innocent parties won't stop.

If anything it's getting worse with more states implementing open and conceal carry laws.

GreeBo

Ckendrick wrote: »

The kid had been missing for 2 days before he was shot.
Did his “grief stricken” mother report him missing?
Don’t be mad. Can anyone tell me (second time of asking) what BLM are doing to correct the terribly dysfunctional lives that end with 13 year olds being shot dead by the police?

Honestly all good questions (well other than BLM, I dont believe they have a mandate to do anything?) but not sure of the relevance to the kid ending up dead?

It seems clear that you are trying to paint this child as a thug who the world is better off without, just as others do for Floyd.

Overheal

BanditLuke wrote: »

What is with Irish peoples weird obsession with American current affairs?

It’s a discussion board and these are dramatic pieces of news. Hardly an enigma.

GreeBo

BloodBath wrote: »

If sandy hook couldn't change anything nothing will.

The merry go round of needless deaths of guilty and innocent parties won't stop.

If anything it's getting worse with more states implementing open and conceal carry laws.

The nonsense is that people think they need more guns because others have guns, and so the cycle continues and in fact grows.

It feels like if people took a step back and thought about it the solution is a no brainer, and its not "moar gunz!" or the ridiculous "good guy with a gun"

GreeBo

drkpower wrote: »

Yes it is.

The classic Supreme Court exposition on the use of force is that it is lawful when the officer reasonably believes the subject poses a significant threat of serious bodily injury or death to themselves or others. So the officers safety trumps that of the perpetrator if objective justification can be shown.

Obviously the question is whether this officer could have reasonably believed that a person running away from them with a gun in hand, which had recently been fired, who failed to stop on being told to do so, and who then turns suddenly towards the officer in the dark, and raises their hands poses such a significant risk.

All of that willin turn depend on what this particular officer perceived at the time, and what a reasonable officer would,have done in the circumstances. I would be quite surprised if a conviction was secured in such a case.

And thats the problem, the Police in the US are protected as long as they can say "I believed X was going to happen" and Qualified Immunity.

If these were one off tragedies it would be ok, but it appears that its just an easy get out of jail card for officers who decide to shoot first.

Tell me how

BanditLuke wrote: »

What is with Irish peoples weird obsession with American current affairs?

Many of us live there.

I find the obsession with Irish people defending police who kill citizens or argue against stronger gun control in America as something which is much weirder.

GreeBo

Fandymo wrote: »

Luckily there was no innocent party shot here so, and the police officer got to go home.

Other than than the innocent 13 year old you are dead right.

Overheal

BloodBath wrote: »

The police aren't the bloody military. That's another terrible analogy. And yes hundreds, even thousands / hundreds of thousands of civilians get killed in wartime. Cases of mistaken identity/threat and abuses of power are just as much a reality there.

That's what happens when you put people in dangerous situations where their own lives are at risk.

Modern warfare is mainly conducted from the air and at long ranges with better gear and protection and teams of people. Rarely would a soldier find themselves in a situation like this.

My comments are snarkey because you clearly had an angle on this. One that has now proven to be BS. I know that video was emotive and my initial reaction too was one of disgust with the police officer but with more of the facts I don't blame him.

The thing is you also saw the video and chose to use a still shot of 1 frame before the kid get's shot. That 1 frame is a fraction of a second. I can clearly see the kid was hiding his right hand from view in his pocket and pulled it out suddenly while turning. A huge mistake.

It's just the sad reality of the US and no amount of police reforms is going to fix it. The only way to fix it is massive reforms of your culture and right to bear arms.

That's not as easy as pointing the finger at the police though.

Except at every turn they become more and more militarized. We agree: give them better gear to police at a safer range or with better protection. Absolutely absurd to suggest that police cannot be reformed?!

Overheal

BloodBath wrote: »

Like it or not their culture has a widespread effect on the rest of the world. The good and the bad.

It's usually a morbid obsession with the bad. Pretty incomprehensible that the worlds leading super power and wealthiest nation can't seem to get their **** together when the solutions are obvious.

You can ignore it and you're probably better off doing that but that won't make it go away.



A 13 year old gang banger with a gun get's shot and killed in unfortunate circumstances. No mental gymnastics needed. Maybe you should spend some time as a cop in Chicago to learn the reality of the situation. I'm sure this thread wouldn't exist if the cop had been shot and killed.

Here we go calling the dead person a gang hanger who has no way to defend themselves from the wholly unproven charge.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Overheal

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.

Have you proven his guilt? Speaking you know of giving up freedoms.

AllForIt

Overheal wrote: »

It’s a discussion board and these are dramatic pieces of news. Hardly an enigma.

I don't recall any threads on American police oficers being shot dead in the line of duty. Not dramatic enough maybe.

Overheal

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

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

So why train a cop to run full speed into a situation where a cop could be shot and killed like that? I don’t see the military doing that for one and they die a lot less often when they face people actively trying to kill them.

Tacitus Kilgore

Effects wrote: »

He wasn't innocent though, and that's part of the problem here. It's easier to justify shooting someone at night, fleeing from the police, with a firearm, than say, a 13 year old kid, during the day, not carrying a firearm and complying fully with police.

What was he guilty of?

Overheal

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

Those facts or opinions?

Mental gymnastics for me but not thee

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

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.



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?

A combination of a more non lethal ROE and new technology and tactics, NTM. I feel I was very thorough about illustrating that.

Tacitus Kilgore

Effects wrote: »

Unlawful use of a firearm.

Still only a suspect at that point unfortunately, and no I won't pretend otherwise - he was up to no good, being Judge'd Jury'd and executioner'd by the cop is not due process though.

Tacitus Kilgore

Overheal wrote: »

Mental gymnastics for me but not thee

the ones whatabouting BLM are going quiet at least,

Overheal

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.

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.

You keep saying it’s useless to reform police but your arguments keep cornering back to “well, that’s the way police are trained do things /shrug”

That’s what we’re saying though, how things are done are in need of reform.

Homelander

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.

How an earth is the cop supposed to magically know the answers to your 3-if-checklist, and ascertain and process those answers without putting their own lives on the line?

In a country like the US, awash with both guns and gun-related violence being a deep-rooted aspect of that society.

Specifically in the context of a suspect you have absolute reason to believe is armed, and has quite possibly already discharged this weapon.

You seem absurdly desperate to paint the cop as the bad guy when the shooting - however unfortunate - seems quite rational based on the contextual evidence at that split second moment.

You even go to lengths to say an innocent kid was killed, as if he was shot dead in broad daylight for stealing sweets - not that he was running from police at night with what they had every reason to belive was a loaded firearm.

The cop had less than a single second to react. The suggestions being made here basically amount to "Cop should put his life second".

Derek Chauvin is an example of blatant and completely avoidable police mis-action. This cop made a rational decision based on all available evidence in what easily could have been a shoot or be shot situation.

Using later information after the fact and the benefit of hindsight, with no credit or weight given to the information and balance of probability at that time, to attack that decision is utter nonsense.

It's terrible that a kid died, it's terrible a cop had to shoot him. But that's the USA for you, and as someone already observed, nothing will ever change until that country takes charge and ownership of the issue.

BorneTobyWilde

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

I don't even get the gun argument. It's the USA you have the right to bear arms, so I don't get these sissy cops

'' omg he's got a gun, omg omg omg omg ahhhhh cries cries omg omg omg''

wtf Is all that about.

So what if someone has a gun, it's legal to have one. geez.

No its not always legal to have a gun, and its certainly not legal at 13. And its not legal to run away from police.

Fandymo

GreeBo wrote: »

Other than than the innocent 13 year old you are dead right.

13 year old member of the Latin Kings gang, nicknamed Lil Homicide/Bvby Diablo.