US Police killing of 13 year old Adam Toledo

Overheal

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.

Completely irrelevant to this thread though?

Fandymo

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

What was he guilty of?

possession of an illegal fire arm

discharge of an illegal fire arm

theres 2 off the top of my head.

Overheal

AllForIt wrote: »

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

You have always had the freedom to make one? And nobody is stopping you now.

Sudden Valley

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.

Overheal

Student_111 wrote: »

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.

Who says it’s illegal?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2737205/amp/Gun-girls-America-Innocent-faces-Pink-rifles-After-horrific-shooting-9-year-old-children-grip-nation-s-troubling-obsession.html

This might be news to you.

TomTomTim

Effects wrote: »

At the time of his killing he wasn't actually dangerous, only perceived to be dangerous.

It seems he had an empty gun and he was trying to not get caught with it.

What a bizarre distinction. The police can't read peoples minds.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

You have always had the freedom to make one? And nobody is stopping you now.

But his point was that other people have no interest in that. Hundreds of (mostly young black boys/men) are killed in Chicago Street violence every year - but BLM don't care about those lives, only when they're involved in police alterations. The police have a very difficult job.

Overheal

Effects wrote: »

It doesn't really matter at this point whether he was only a suspect at that point.
You can't paint him as innocent unfortunately. He didn't deserve to be killed, but that's the reality of the situation. The cop was placed in a difficult situation, and the outcome for everyone is tragic.

The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact (a judge or a jury). If the prosecution does not prove the charges true, then the person is acquitted of the charges. The prosecution must in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted. The opposite system is a presumption of guilt.

In many countries and under many legal systems, including common law and civil law systems (not to be confused with the other kind of civil law, which deals with non-criminal legal issues), the presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial. It is also an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11.

In non-criminal proceedings (like breach of contract) the defendant is usually presumed correct unless the plaintiff presents a moderate level of evidence and thus switches the burden of proof to the defendant. However, there are exceptions to this.

Know your rights, come on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

Overheal

Student_111 wrote: »

But his point was that other people have no interest in that. Hundreds of (mostly young black boys/men) are killed in Chicago Street violence every year - but BLM don't care about those lives, only when they're involved in police alterations. The police have a very difficult job.

There’s a BLM/WLM thread for that, with all due respect.

TomTomTim

TomTomTim wrote: »

What a bizarre distinction. The police can't read peoples minds.

I would like to see what all the police critics would do in similar situations! They expect the police to have god-like knowledge of the situation & suspects motives.

Fandymo

Fandymo wrote: »

possession of an illegal fire arm

discharge of an illegal fire arm

theres 2 off the top of my head.

Resisting arrest by running from police. Can add that too.

Homelander

Overheal wrote: »

Know your rights, come on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

Aren't you the person who was endorsing the burning down of Louisville after a protestor was shot dead? An armed protestor.

You know, automatically assigning guilt and innocence before any real facts were established, much less in a court of law or due to investigation?

Overheal

Student_111 wrote: »

I would like to see what all the police critics would do in similar situations! They expect the police to have god-like knowledge of the situation & suspects motives.

I’ve already said my piece: don’t go chasing armed suspects down alleyways 1:1, use more drones and distance tactics.

Addressing the gun problem would be great but unfortunately that’s even less likely than police reforms, and blaming “the culture” is a cop out, the regulated factor in these scenarios are the police, as such are within the public and governments wheelhouse to enact reforms on. There is much less political resistance to police reforms than to gun reforms. I would love to see gun reforms but it’s so far removed from possibility that I’d rather reform police to work better within a gun culture rather than pretend the gun culture itself is able to be fixed in our lifetime with the entrenched special interests that exist along with the number of weapons already in circulation.

Overheal

Homelander wrote: »

Aren't you the person who was endorsing the burning down of Louisville after a protestor was shot dead? An armed protestor.

You know, automatically assigning guilt and innocence before any real facts were established, much less in a court of law or due to investigation?

You’re bang out of order. I said I would be silent about it. And the restaurantor was not known to be armed when we learned the pro cop cook had been shot and killed - by a cop, which upset me greatly given how we were being told how much to just show love for the cops at the time. Attempt to derail the thread with airing of ancient grievances noted though. I did not place guilt on the cop, I said I would totally understand Louisville burning that night.

Tell me how

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.

Are the police judge, jury and executioner so?

Previously, reactions on here to police shootings which seem unwarranted have included the justification of 'Why didn't they just comply?'

This child did, he was still shot and killed.

Tell me how

TomTomTim wrote: »

What a bizarre distinction. The police can't read peoples minds.

Can they not see their hands either?

end of the road

Fandymo wrote: »

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

you are incorrect.

Overheal

Effects wrote: »

That's all well and good, but if this innocent kid hadn't run away from home, and then ran away from a police officer while carrying a gun, he'd still be alive today.

If he had immediately dropped the gun and put his hands up, then he'd most likely still be alive today, but facing firearm charges. He would have a chance to defend himself against those charges in court, and we would have known nothing about it.

So your takeaway is if a suspect is already running and ordered to stop - they might as well just always keep running away right, if stopping and complying will just result in your death which will be defended by Joe Public?

He stopped. He showed the officer his bare hands, as directed - then he was shot.

Tell me how

Fox being Fox once again.

https://twitter.com/_EthanGrey/status/1382842022315356161

breezy1985

Fandymo wrote: »

possession of an illegal fire arm

discharge of an illegal fire arm

theres 2 off the top of my head.

Has it not turned out that he didn't have or fire a gun ?

I watched the video once, in real-time and it looked reasonable to me. I'm sure if you pause it, go frame by frame and do a VAR job on it, it could look different. The fact that he chose to pull the trigger given the current climate re police shootings would suggest that he genuinely feared for his life. A study a few years back showed approx 30% of US, male, serving cops had fired their weapon in the course of their job, so it doesn't appear to be something done very lightly.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

So your takeaway is if a suspect is already running and ordered to stop - they might as well just always keep running away right, if stopping and complying will just result in your death which will be defended by Joe Public?

He stopped. He showed the officer his bare hands, as directed - then he was shot.

My takeaway is don't run away from police down a dark alley while carrying a gun. I don't do that and, whatta ya know, I haven't been shot yet.

Enter name here

Wouldn't be nice to live in a world where the headline actually read. "Career gangbanger criminal gets shot whilst evading the police after last crime" Age is of little importance and about as important as his last victim was to him.

Overheal

Student_111 wrote: »

My takeaway is don't run away from police down a dark alley while carrying a gun. I don't do that and, whatta ya know, I haven't been shot yet.

So yes, you are saying that if you are chased down by police you are already dead, no point in complying with orders.

end of the road

Effects wrote: »

That's all well and good, but if this innocent kid hadn't run away from home, and then ran away from a police officer while carrying a gun, he'd still be alive today.

If he had immediately dropped the gun and put his hands up, then he'd most likely still be alive today, but facing firearm charges. He would have a chance to defend himself against those charges in court, and we would have known nothing about it.

he wouldn't given he had dropped the gun and put his hands up, where there was visibly no gun.
try again.

Tell me how

Effects wrote: »

It's not as simple as you want it to be.

He stopped, tried to conceal his movements while he disposed on a gun, then turned towards the officer and raised his hands.

You are literally saying yourself that the shooting was unjustified.

Overheal

Enter name here wrote: »

Wouldn't be nice to live in a world where the headline actually read. "Career gangbanger criminal gets shot whilst evading the police after last crime" Age is of little importance and about as important as his last victim was to him.

No agenda pushed in the thread title, shame for you.


Where is your proof he was a “career gangbanger?”

What 13 year old has a “career” anyway!?

What criminal convictions are you referencing that demonstrate his guilt as a career gangbanger as you have put it?

So far all I see is a kid with a gun. I haven’t even heard what he shot at or who, allegedly. Without more information he could have been shooting at cans or robbing a place, but in the blank Im not going to fill that with “career gangbanger,” no matter how many unverified accounts on Twitter refer to him as “lil homicide.” If I said to my brother “hey there killer” and a cop overheard us would he presume guilt? Definitely not. For all you know he got the nickname from “murdering” a tin can. In the absence of conviction, where do we get “oh yeah 13 year old with a gun, HAS to be a CAREER GANGBANGER”

Overheal

Effects wrote: »

Comply with orders as soon as possible, and you drastically reduce your chances of a bad outcome.

He stopped, but didn't immediately comply or raise his hands. He tried to dispose of a gun and hid his movements.

But he did stop and comply and was killed as a reaction to stopping and complying, arms up, hands bare.

Homelander

Tell me how wrote: »

You are literally saying yourself that the shooting was unjustified.

Do you know what literal means? As in, he literally did not say that.

end of the road

Effects wrote: »

It's not as simple as you want it to be.

He stopped, tried to conceal his movements while he disposed on a gun, then turned towards the officer and raised his hands.

correct, it is as simple as it actually is .
he raised his hands which contained no gun and visibly so, he was shot.
so, therefore the only conclusion that can be come to here is that there would have been no point in him complying dispite doing so as he was going to get shot regardless.