US Police killing of 13 year old Adam Toledo

beauf

Lots of videos and body cams of cops getting shot. Don't seem to get the same attention on these forums.

That's said where there is an abuse of power and systemic it should be highlighted. Thats as it should be.

Christy42

beauf wrote: »

You said it didn't happen elsewhere. It's obviously does.

If people are shooting nearby, and likely the person you are chasing. I'm not sure why you don't think that's dangerous and potentially life threatening situation.

Going hard after the figure of speech. Great well done. Currently it is like someone shouting that other people fall over as well while trying to sprint on ice in socks. Technically correct but not really making a point.


What were the police trying to do then? What outcome did they expect out of this were they made things better? They can't deescalate. They will just shoot for fear of their lives so what were they hoping to do aside from throwing a match at the problem? No matter what your reading of this situation is it is obvious reform is needed in the US. Either putting money into other services so that the streets can be made safer for police or putting money into other services so that the police aren't engaging in every situation causing escalation. Right now whatever they are doing is obviously not working.

BattleCorp

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.

The fact that the kid was 13 is pretty immaterial in my opinion.

A 13 year old can just as easily shoot you with a gun as a 20, 30 or 40 year old can.

Plus, how was the cop to know that the kid was 13?

BattleCorp

Overheal wrote: »

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.

Seriously, are you blaming the cop for running after a suspect?

Given that it's America and cops face the risk of being killed during almost any interaction with an armed member of the public, are you suggesting that there should be rules where cops aren't allowed to run after suspects? Seriously?

Criminals would love you. Act the bo11ix and if the cops show up, just run away. They aren't allowed to chase you. :rolleyes:

beauf

Christy42 wrote: »

Going hard after the figure of speech. Great well done. Currently it is like someone shouting that other people fall over as well while trying to sprint on ice in socks. Technically correct but not really making a point.


What were the police trying to do then? What outcome did they expect out of this were they made things better? They can't deescalate. They will just shoot for fear of their lives so what were they hoping to do aside from throwing a match at the problem? No matter what your reading of this situation is it is obvious reform is needed in the US. Either putting money into other services so that the streets can be made safer for police or putting money into other services so that the police aren't engaging in every situation causing escalation. Right now whatever they are doing is obviously not working.

Wasn't a figure of speech it was just wrong. It's not unique to the States. But there is a lot of it in the States. Very different.

I wouldn't be making sweeping generalisations based on a handful of extreme situations.

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

He said "show me your hands", not "turn around rapidly, momentarily hiding the one hand currently holding the gun, and then and show me your hands"

One is a far less threatening thing to do than the other, and OODA loops are a thing.

He also didn't say "put your hands up"

Yet you seem to imply he should have only put his hands up in the same direction he was running.

He was told to "show" his hands. How else would you show your hands? Tick tock, split seconds matter, the officer is armed too, and he just sprinted, his hands are shaky, his breath is unsteady, his palms are sweaty, knees weak..

Overheal

BattleCorp wrote: »

Seriously, are you blaming the cop for running after a suspect?

Running after him 1:1, in a tactically absurd manner yes.

BattleCorp

Overheal wrote: »

Running after him 1:1, in a tactically absurd manner yes.

We disagree so.

I'm not talking about the shooting at the end of this incident which may or may not be justified but...............are you suggesting that in similar circumstances the cops should just let an armed or potentially armed suspect run off into the night and not give chase?

If that was standard procedure, all criminals would just run away and dump their firearm and then the cops would have feckall on them if they were eventually caught.

MeMen2_MoRi_

Overheal wrote: »

He also didn't say "put your hands up"

Yet you seem to imply he should have only put his hands up in the same direction he was running.

He was told to "show" his hands. How else would you show your hands? Tick tock, split seconds matter, the officer is armed too, and he just sprinted, his hands are shaky, his breath is unsteady, his palms are sweaty, knees weak..

Mom's spaghetti...

beauf

Overheal wrote: »

Running after him 1:1, in a tactically absurd manner yes.

There were multiple camera angles which suggests cops were cutting him of from different directions. They would know that from the radio. Which puts a different perspective on the tactics. You're chasing them into a net.

JP Liz V1

Why don't the police shoot to injury not shot to kill

wicklowstevo

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Why don't the police shoot to injury not shot to kill

just wing him , like in the movies ?

or a few warning shots maybe ?
how about shooting the ground around his feet ?
that might have worked right ? :rolleyes:

Fandymo

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Why don't the police shoot to injury not shot to kill

Yeah they should just pop a cap in the perps toes. Holding the gun sideways to look cool and say something cool and catchy like “you thought you’d have it on your toes, until you had none” and high fived his partner, like in all the good films.

beauf

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Why don't the police shoot to injury not shot to kill

It's difficult to do, and if you miss, or hit somewhere not debilitating, it may not stop the person from attacking, or shooting and killing you or someone else.

So once it has escalated to shooting, they take no chances.

Which is why one someone has weapon, knife, or gun or the cops think you have one, it's very high risk..

GreeBo

drkpower wrote: »

His innocence or not is irrelevant. His threat/perceived threat is all that matters.

/Thread

Innocence is irrelevant.

Pa ElGrande

Maryland trooper shoots, kills teenager who had airsoft gun, police say

COLLEGE PARK, Md. — A 16-year-old boy who was shot and killed by a Maryland State Police trooper was an honor student who loved cooking with his mother and spirited political debates at the family dinner table, the teenager’s relatives said Wednesday.

source

Mother Of Peyton Ham, Teen Killed In Trooper-Involved Shooting, Mourns ‘Awesome Young Man’

A witness told investigators they saw the individual in the driveway in what the witness described as a shooting stance, pointing a gun at the trooper. The trooper fired at Ham, wounding him.

A second witness told investigators that after the trooper fired the first time, they saw Ham pull out a knife and try to get up. The trooper ordered him to drop the knife before he fired again.

Investigators later determined the gun to be an airsoft gun that was a “close representation of an actual gun.”

source

No body-cam or dash-cam footage for this incident, so I guess there won't be much for an outrage mob to work with.

Uriel.

Overheal wrote: »

He also didn't say "put your hands up"

Yet you seem to imply he should have only put his hands up in the same direction he was running.

He was told to "show" his hands. How else would you show your hands? Tick tock, split seconds matter, the officer is armed too, and he just sprinted, his hands are shaky, his breath is unsteady, his palms are sweaty, knees weak..

he could have just dropped the gun, very visibly, at any point along his alleyway run. I'd strongly suggest that if the cop saw the chap drop the gun as he was running (and indeed the cop could secure the gun) things may have turned out differently.

Uriel.

BattleCorp wrote: »

We disagree so.

I'm not talking about the shooting at the end of this incident which may or may not be justified but...............are you suggesting that in similar circumstances the cops should just let an armed or potentially armed suspect run off into the night and not give chase?

If that was standard procedure, all criminals would just run away and dump their firearm and then the cops would have feckall on them if they were eventually caught.

In fairness, Overheal has offered many viable alternatives. Like drones and robot dogs (so long as the robot dogs can't like shoot or tase people). :rolleyes:

GreeBo

Manic Moran wrote: »

He said "show me your hands", not "turn around rapidly, momentarily hiding the one hand currently holding the gun, and then and show me your hands"

One is a far less threatening thing to do than the other, and OODA loops are a thing.

If I asked most kids to show me their hands they would turn around too.

Cop didn't say not to turn around.

GreeBo

Btw the cop didn't "only had a split second" to make a decision, he only *took* a split second.
And he made the wrong decision since the kid was unarmed and the gun was empty.

Manic Moran

GreeBo wrote: »

Btw the cop didn't "only had a split second" to make a decision, he only *took* a split second.

Of course he only had a split second. How much longer do you think it take for an armed person facing away from you to shoot at you?

Timing examples.

https://www.forcescience.org/2020/01/you-dont-have-to-shoot-first-but-you-better-do-something/

The combined time for a person to perceive a threat and react to it is known as the perception-reaction time. It is, of course, longer than reaction time alone, and generally ranges from .7 seconds to 1.5 seconds.

[snip]

Let’s imagine our hypothetical officer was only focused on the suspect and had no distractions. If they immediately recognized the gun as it was being aimed in their direction, we could presume an average response time of .83 seconds.

But even assigning the officer this artificially fast response time, the suspect is still able to pull the trigger 3 or 4 times before the officer can fire once. That’s assuming the incoming rounds didn’t extend the officer’s response time…or prevent it all together.

or

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/response-time-human-factors-self-defense-shooting/

Extensive experiments conducted by William J. Lewinski, Ph.D., Director, Force Science Research Center,2 have determined that a suspect can retrieve a gun from the waistband, point and fire in 9/100ths of a second, while an officer, upon perceiving the threat, will take 31/100ths of a second to pull the trigger. This time includes 25/100ths for perception processing time and 6/100ths of a second for reaction/motor time.3 The suspect is not slowed by the perception processing time since he has made the decision to draw his gun and shoot.

It should be noted that, in these experiments, the volunteer subjects knew that the stimulus — a light or series of lights — would come on and they would fire as soon as this happened. Hence, they were prepared to shoot; an officer has to decide to shoot. There is no human way the officer can win except for luck — his good luck or the suspect’s bad luck. Knowing this, the officer cannot wait to identify what is in the suspect’s hands; he is already behind the curve.

[snip]

In 11 different experiments, repeated several times, it was found that a suspect could fire and turn his back in well under a second. Specifically, a suspect could stand facing an officer, raise and fire his gun, and then turn away with his back to the officer in half a second.

A suspect running away from an officer could fire several ways without turning, stopping or slowing. He could turn his shoulders, fire a shot and then have his back turned to the officer in an average of .14 seconds

Basically the only way for the officer to ensure his safety in this scenario would be to decide that the rapid turn is the initiating event for the shooting. Waiting for the turn to be completed and then evaluating it would automatically surrender the initiative to the suspect who was already known to be armed.

What the kid knew, intended, should have known, could have done, may have interpreted, etc, is all irrelevant to the simple fact that it takes longer to evaluate and react to a threat than it takes for the threat to kill you. Acting in a manner which results in the perception of a lethal threat is legal grounds for a lethal shooting. End of story.

Tell me how

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Maryland trooper shoots, kills teenager who had airsoft gun, police say





Mother Of Peyton Ham, Teen Killed In Trooper-Involved Shooting, Mourns ‘Awesome Young Man’




No body-cam or dash-cam footage for this incident, so I guess there won't be much for an outrage mob to work with.

And we can only imagine what the true number of incidents in which police acted excessively or irrationally resikt in the death or injury of a member of the public actually is over the last say 50 years before phone, dash and body cam footage became available.

And so the 'fcuk em, they should have complied, complied more slowly, not brought the police to their attention' crew can pretend theres no need for different training, deployment or engagement strategies for the fine upstanding members in Blue.

Laurenf35

I'm watching the video posted above on slow speed
By my rough calculation Mr toledo was unarmed for .7 of a second
So the police did indeed shoot dead an unarmed poc

Pa ElGrande

Tell me how wrote: »

And we can only imagine what the true number of incidents in which police acted excessively or irrationally resikt in the death or injury of a member of the public actually is over the last say 50 years before phone, dash and body cam footage became available.

And so the 'fcuk em, they should have complied, complied more slowly, not brought the police to their attention' crew can pretend theres no need for different training, deployment or engagement strategies for the fine upstanding members in Blue.

I don't know US law, the issues of police brutality have gone to the Supreme court and the standard for whether a government agent is entitled to the protection of qualified immunity was introduced in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) & reinforced in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), which essentially means police officers are given leeway in light of the chaos of a given situation.


The CHiPs series from TV was never like this. Content warning in this video a person is shot dead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u4WvZHd1Ts

Covid was the biggest cop killer last year. There are ~1000 people killed by Police in the United States every year. It's not all one way traffic.

Forty-eight officers were shot and killed on the job last year, compared to 51 in 2019, the report stated. Thirty of those officers were killed by a handgun, 13 were killed by a rifle and one was killed with their own weapon. The type of weapon used in the four other deaths is not yet known.

The largest number of firearms-related deaths came while officers were investigating a suspicious person or activity, with 11 such fatalities. Seven were responding to domestic disturbance calls.

source

BattleCorp

Tell me how wrote: »

And we can only imagine what the true number of incidents in which police acted excessively or irrationally resikt in the death or injury of a member of the public actually is over the last say 50 years before phone, dash and body cam footage became available.

And so the 'fcuk em, they should have complied, complied more slowly, not brought the police to their attention' crew can pretend theres no need for different training, deployment or engagement strategies for the fine upstanding members in Blue.

A witness saw the kid point the (airsoft) gun at the cops.
Another witness saw the kid pull a knife after he was shot.

A witness told police they saw Ham in the driveway “in a shooting stance” and pointing an airsoft gun at the trooper, who opened fire on the teen and wounded him, Jones said.
Another witness said the wounded Ham whipped out a knife and tried to get up, Jones said.

“The trooper ordered him to drop the knife before he fired again,” Jones told reporters.

I don't see what the cop did wrong (based on those reports) here.

GreeBo

Manic Moran wrote: »

Of course he only had a split second. How much longer do you think it take for an armed person facing away from you to shoot at you?

but you are making the mistake of assuming that everyone the cops stop is going to shoot at them.
In this instance the victim had dropped the gun that in any case was empty, there was zero threat to the officer.

If they are going to always assume the worst and shoot first, why not just put a bullet in his back and be done with it?

GreeBo

Effects wrote: »

Would most of those kids be involved in a shooting, and carrying a gun?

Not sure of the relevance of talking about victims who dont have a gun, but in any case there a numerous examples of kids being shot who were not carrying a gun.

Effects wrote: »

Or if he hesitated, thinking perhaps the gun was empty, the suspect might raise the gun he's carrying and shoot you with it.

More "might"s used to justify shooting an unarmed victim.

BattleCorp

GreeBo wrote: »

but you are making the mistake of assuming that everyone the cops stop is going to shoot at them.
In this instance the victim had dropped the gun that in any case was empty, there was zero threat to the officer.

If they are going to always assume the worst and shoot first, why not just put a bullet in his back and be done with it?

You are sounding very naive to be honest.

Yes, not everyone that a cop stops is going to shoot at them, but the cop has to be prepared for that eventuality. That's the reality of the job in the US.

You may get the fact that the gun was empty out of your head. That's irrelevant because the cop had no way of knowing that. The cop would be quite right in that scenario to assume that the gun was loaded.

Yes, the kid was unarmed when the cop fired. The most pertinent question to ask is how much time elapsed between the kid dropping the gun and the cop firing. Can you answer that question?

golfball37

13 year olds with guns there’s a good chance something awful is gonna happen in their life. No excuse for what police did but in America you run that risk when you veer towards crime and guns unlike 99% of your peers

Effects

GreeBo wrote: »

Not sure of the relevance of talking about victims who dont have a gun.

You seemed to be saying that someone without a gun, doing nothing wrong, would behave the same way as a kid who has a gun, and running from the police would.