US Police killing of 13 year old Adam Toledo

BattleCorp

Toledo had the gun in his hand as he started to turn to face the cop.

This is where Toledo stops and begins to turn towards the cop. The gun is visible but barely and only for a fraction of a second. Very hard to notice the kid dropping the gun seeing as his body is in between the gun and the cop and the fence would also obscure the dropping of the gun.

Toledo doesn't turn around slowly either. He turns pretty quickly. The still shot of him with his arms in the air is very misleading and not really in line with the reality the cop was facing because a fraction of a second earlier, he was certainly a direct threat to the cop.



I don't know how anyone can blame the cop in this situation.

GreeBo

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Greebo and Overheal, ye refer to whataboutery when people are talking about what the cop may have been thinking, but ye then go on to use whataboutery for the suspect. Ye are not acknowledging the limited facts available. At the time, there was no way of knowing the age of the suspect, only that he was a potentially armed suspect who was involved in the discharge of a firearm, and a description. When someone matches that description starts running, you rightly suspect (as a cop) that they are indeed the person you're looking for (why else would they run*). He gave clear directions, "stop" and "show your hands". The suspect (I'm not calling him a kid, because at the time he was a suspect, not a kid) did eventually stop, and turned around while dropping the gun, which due to his angle of turning and dropping the gun does look like someone who could be turning to aim. In a city where homicide is rife, gun crime is at an all time high and is the homicide capital of America, it's not a situation any of us will ever find ourselves in.

My first post on the first page of this thread agreed it was murder, but after more facts have come to light, the cop will not be found guilty imo. He followed procedure, he made a decision which was 50/50. As others have said, the suspect could have just have easily turned around to shoot.

The whole point is that as a police officer you shouldnt be able to take someones life based on "what ifs" and get away with it when the facts clearly now show that there was no potential for the victim to do anything and was in fact complying.

This isnt the wild west where you can just shoot people and life moves on, if that was the case then you might as well let the gangs just shoot each other.

GreeBo

Manic Moran wrote: »

They are justified in shooting people, innocent or not, if they are reasonably perceived as a threat to the safety of the cop or others.

When interacting with a US cop, if I'm holding a French baguette and a salami, my actions are going to be pretty similar to when I'm not holding a French baguette and salami. They start with "Keep hands in plain sight and make no sudden and rapid moves". Remember, I've been pulled over by a cop when armed with an actual firearm, not just a baguette and salami. The difference between getting shot and not getting shot was what I did to not present the appearance of a threat.

The "reasonable man" standard is a thing in both US and Irish jurisdictions. It is by definition not a hard standard. Over the last few weeks and months we have seen incidents of police actions which would appear to fail the 'reasonable' standard, but the case of Adam Toledo is not one of them.

So we are back to its the kids fault because a 13 year old didn't correctly know how to react to police, even though he was obeying the officers orders at the time?


And when the reasonable man is found to be wholly and totally incorrect, what then? Get out of jail free card?

GreeBo

Effects wrote: »

But it very well could have happened. Dark alley, crime suspect, armed with a gun.
The kid had earlier opportunities to drop the gun and give himself up, but he didn't take them.
It's easy for people like you turnaround after the fact, and detail what you think should have happened.



The courtroom and the streets can't be compared. How can you not see that?
The police officer made a reasonable, and correct assumption, that Toledo had been involved in a shooting, who then proceeded to flee while armed.
That much can't really be debated at this point.

So you have more rights in a courtroom than you have on the streets when encountering the police? Seems strange that you can be deemed guilty and killed without evidence on the streets.

You "correct assumption" doesnt come with a death warrant though, I'd argue the more important and relevant assumption was the threat the victim posed to anyone. The incorrect assumption was that he posed a deadly threat (or in fact any threat) as the facts have borne out, the victim was complying with the officers instructions and was no threat to anyone.

The reason why its easy for "people like me" to comment after the fact is that we bothered to take more than 1 second to asses the situation before killing someone. Crazy I know, but it seems like maybe we would have fewer police shootings if they followed the same idea?
Special mention goes to the cops for not charging after an armed suspect down a dark alley in the homicide capital of the US.

BattleCorp

GreeBo wrote: »

The reason why its easy for "people like me" to comment after the fact is that we bothered to take more than 1 second to asses the situation before killing someone. Crazy I know, but it seems like maybe we would have fewer police shootings if they followed the same idea?
Special mention goes to the cops for not charging after an armed suspect down a dark alley in the homicide capital of the US.

Nope, it's easy for 'people like you' to criticise while you are safe behind your keyboard and not likely to get shot while doing your job.

It's easy for 'people like you' to criticise with the benefit of hindsight. The cop didn't have that benefit. He was faced with an armed teen and (in my opinion) correctly perceived that he was in danger so he took action to protect himself.

You have the benefit with hindsight to take more than a second to assess the situation. Cops rarely have that option. One second can be the difference between the cop living or the cop getting shot. But yeah, you are right. There'd be less police shootings if they did things your way....but there would be more police officers shot. But that's probably ok in your book.

It wasn't an execution, it was self-defence in my book.

The teen was armed a fraction of a second earlier. Have a look at the pic I posted where Toledo is about to turn around. What's in his hands, a bunch of flowers for the cop?

wicklowstevo

GreeBo wrote: »

The whole point is that as a police officer you shouldnt be able to take someones life based on "what ifs" and get away with it when the facts clearly now show that there was no potential for the victim to do anything and was in fact complying.

This isnt the wild west where you can just shoot people and life moves on, if that was the case then you might as well let the gangs just shoot each other.

so you know what its like to be a American police officer in a high pressure armed situation where shots had already been fired with minimal training and near zero public or media or legal support. your a experienced law enforcement officer who is capable of putting them self's in that exact position ?

or your just some one who likes to be outraged by something that they know practically nothing about,

the world is full of stuff to be outraged about and you pick one that has clear video contradicting your every point because it makes you feel like a real radical liberal and you are bored ,

its sad really and you are the least deserving of sympathy in this situation

Graces7

Requiescat in pace child of God,and may Light Eternal shine on you.

Fandymo

Graces7 wrote: »

Requiescat in pace child of God,and may Light Eternal shine on you.

I reckon "Lil Homicide/Baby Dvablo's" elevator is more likely to be going down, rather than up.

Potential-Monke

GreeBo wrote: »

The whole point is that as a police officer you shouldnt be able to take someones life based on "what ifs" and get away with it when the facts clearly now show that there was no potential for the victim to do anything and was in fact complying.

This isnt the wild west where you can just shoot people and life moves on, if that was the case then you might as well let the gangs just shoot each other.

You might want to tell criminals that it isn't the wild west, they are the reason the cops have this mentality in the first place. If the place wasn't so dangerous in general, maybe the cop wouldn't have shot. More what ifs though, and ignoring the facts as they are presented in that second or two of the shooting.

GreeBo wrote: »

So we are back to its the kids fault because a 13 year old didn't correctly know how to react to police, even though he was obeying the officers orders at the time?

And when the reasonable man is found to be wholly and totally incorrect, what then? Get out of jail free card?

He wasn't obeying orders, he turned when he wasn't told. Yes, kid, 13, but the cop didn't know he was 13, just that he was an armed suspect matching the description of armed suspects after letting off shots. Again, you're making excuses for the suspect, but the cop has to be black and white? Doesn't add up. The age is irrelevant to the incident at the time. Play with fire and get burned, but apparently that only applies to certain people. You see a kid turning around with his hands up, I and others see a armed suspect turn in a dodgy manner which would look like someone turning to shoot.

Danzy

He was armed, a know gang member, with a reputation for extreme violence and suspected of murders.

No doubt selling crack cocaine to kids is a dangerous life in Chicago but he should have kept his gun at home.

Effects

Danzy wrote: »

He was armed, a know gang member, with a reputation for extreme violence and suspected of murders.

No doubt selling crack cocaine to kids is a dangerous life in Chicago but he should have kept his gun at home.

He wasn't a known gang member, that's just unsubstantiated rumours, circling after his death.

Manic Moran

GreeBo wrote: »

So we are back to its the kids fault because a 13 year old didn't correctly know how to react to police, even though he was obeying the officers orders at the time?


And when the reasonable man is found to be wholly and totally incorrect, what then? Get out of jail free card?

We are back to its the kids fault because of the sequence of events which led up to the shooting and thus placing the entire sequence of events in play. You're trying to blame a pilot for a 'plane crash because he was controlling the aircraft, even if the engines fell off because of an error by the mechanic.

Age is irrelevant. Actions are relevant. The totality of the circumstances are relevant. Once Toledo started the sudden and rapid turn towards the officer with a gun in his hand, the die was cast.

GreeBo

BattleCorp wrote: »

Nope, it's easy for 'people like you' to criticise while you are safe behind your keyboard and not likely to get shot while doing your job.

There is zero chance of me being shot at while doing my job. Engaging with dangerous & armed criminals is expected when you are a US police officer, certainly it would seem to be expected if you are a police officer in Chicago?
Or do you only use the prevalence of homicides in Chicago when it suits?

BattleCorp wrote: »

It's easy for 'people like you' to criticise with the benefit of hindsight. The cop didn't have that benefit. He was faced with an armed teen and (in my opinion) correctly perceived that he was in danger so he took action to protect himself.

How can he have correctly perceived that? He was 100% wrong, we have the facts to prove that the teen *couldnt* have shot him even if he wanted to and we have zero evidence that he actually wanted to or in fact has ever shot anyone.

BattleCorp wrote: »

You have the benefit with hindsight to take more than a second to assess the situation. Cops rarely have that option. One second can be the difference between the cop living or the cop getting shot. But yeah, you are right. There'd be less police shootings if they did things your way....but there would be more police officers shot. But that's probably ok in your book.

Erm, 1 more second was the difference between an innocent 13 year old living or being shot, are you forgetting that someone died? Someone convicted of no crime? Someone obeying police orders?
I would rather the officer died than an innocent person dies. The exact same way I would rather a guilty person walks than an innocent person gets imprisoned. Thats the whole basis of the legal system by the way.

BattleCorp wrote: »

It wasn't an execution, it was self-defence in my book.

The teen was armed a fraction of a second earlier. Have a look at the pic I posted where Toledo is about to turn around. What's in his hands, a bunch of flowers for the cop?

Being armed in the presence of police doesnt carry a death sentence, at least not in law anyway.

GreeBo

Danzy wrote: »

He was armed, a know gang member, with a reputation for extreme violence and suspected of murders.

No doubt selling crack cocaine to kids is a dangerous life in Chicago but he should have kept his gun at home.

Possibly, but is your argument that the cop knew this and took it into account during the 19 or so seconds he was on the scene?

GreeBo

Manic Moran wrote: »

We are back to its the kids fault because of the sequence of events which led up to the shooting and thus placing the entire sequence of events in play. You're trying to blame a pilot for a 'plane crash because he was controlling the aircraft, even if the engines fell off because of an error by the mechanic.

Age is irrelevant. Actions are relevant. The totality of the circumstances are relevant. Once Toledo started the sudden and rapid turn towards the officer with a gun in his hand, the die was cast.

No, I'm blaming the pilot for ditching the plane and killing everyone on board because the plane was near a building and he didn't want 9/11 to happen again, despite the plane obeying his every command at the time.

Overheal

Effects wrote: »

But it very well could have happened. Dark alley, crime suspect, armed with a gun.
The kid had earlier opportunities to drop the gun and give himself up, but he didn't take them.
It's easy for people like you turnaround after the fact, and detail what you think should have happened.

Yet he did take the opportunity given by the officer. “Stop. Stop right there. Show me your ****ing hands.” And that’s what he did. And he was shot in response.

It’s very simple: officer orders suspect. Suspect complied with officer. Officer does not shoot suspect. It’s not that hard.

The courtroom and the streets can't be compared. How can you not see that?

Hope you’re not suggesting that cops get to be judge jury and executioner.

The police officer made a reasonable, and correct assumption, that Toledo had been involved in a shooting, who then proceeded to flee while armed.
That much can't really be debated at this point.

Being involved in a shooting, especially one prior to the officers arrival, is not a death sentence.

GreeBo

Potential-Monke wrote: »

He wasn't obeying orders, he turned when he wasn't told.

Was there an order *not* to turn around?
What orders was he not obeying?
He was told to show his ****ing hands, its not beyond the realms of possibility that to many people this would involve turning to show your hands.

GreeBo

To those defending the cop, do you think he should face any sanctions at all or should be free to continue policing as before?

Overheal

Danzy wrote: »

He was armed, a know gang member, with a reputation for extreme violence and suspected of murders.

No doubt selling crack cocaine to kids is a dangerous life in Chicago but he should have kept his gun at home.

Let’s unpack this:

The officer KNEW who he was and that he was a member of a gang? Which gang? The officer knew he had a reputation for “extreme violence” and was “suspected of murders?” Where is the evidence he dealt drugs?

More mental gymnastics.

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

We are back to its the kids fault because of the sequence of events which led up to the shooting and thus placing the entire sequence of events in play. You're trying to blame a pilot for a 'plane crash because he was controlling the aircraft, even if the engines fell off because of an error by the mechanic.

Age is irrelevant. Actions are relevant. The totality of the circumstances are relevant. Once Toledo started the sudden and rapid turn towards the officer with a gun in his hand, the die was cast.

Once he complied with the officers order to show him his ****ing hands you mean.

Overheal

Kyle Rittenhouse roamed the streets with a rifle and killed multiple people. “Boy hero” gets outpouring of support. Buddies up with police that night.

Adam Toledo fired a gun, no apparent victim mentioned. “Had to die. Scumbag. Where were the parents. We have to assume he sold crack because he’s brown”

BattleCorp

GreeBo wrote: »

There is zero chance of me being shot at while doing my job. Engaging with dangerous & armed criminals is expected when you are a US police officer, certainly it would seem to be expected if you are a police officer in Chicago?
Or do you only use the prevalence of homicides in Chicago when it suits?[


How can he have correctly perceived that? He was 100% wrong, we have the facts to prove that the teen *couldnt* have shot him even if he wanted to and we have zero evidence that he actually wanted to or in fact has ever shot anyone.


Erm, 1 more second was the difference between an innocent 13 year old living or being shot, are you forgetting that someone died? Someone convicted of no crime? Someone obeying police orders?
I would rather the officer died than an innocent person dies. The exact same way I would rather a guilty person walks than an innocent person gets imprisoned. Thats the whole basis of the legal system by the way.


Being armed in the presence of police doesnt carry a death sentence, at least not in law anyway.

We aren't going to find any common ground because I think you haven't a clue what you are talking about. So for that reason, I'm out.

biko

Overheal wrote: »

Kyle Rittenhouse roamed the streets with a rifle and killed multiple people. “Boy hero” gets outpouring of support. Buddies up with police that night.

Adam Toledo fired a gun, no apparent victim mentioned. “Had to die. Scumbag. Where were the parents. We have to assume he sold crack because he’s brown”

These are two totally different scenarios with zero overlap.

Tell me how

biko wrote: »

These are two totally different scenarios with zero overlap.

Wrong.

Fox News referred to Rittenhouse as a 17 year old boy.
They referred to Toledo as a 13 year old man.

Given the influence they have on creating narratives within a large sector of society, and particularly in how resistant this sector is to any form of adjustment in policing practices or any sort of additional gun control the way in which they portray such stories is partly why America is so polarised in relation to how to fix the root causes of the issues.

More gun control might lessen the chance a 13 year old is kn the streets with a gun, different policing practices might mean a cop doesn't hide instructions but still shoot to kill when those contractions are complied with. Fox News, and by extension, a lot of their watchers want neither and s these incidents will continue.

biko

Tell me how wrote: »

Wrong.

Can you be more specific about the overlap, if it's more than they were both young?

Potential-Monke

GreeBo wrote: »

There is zero chance of me being shot at while doing my job. Engaging with dangerous & armed criminals is expected when you are a US police officer, certainly it would seem to be expected if you are a police officer in Chicago?
Or do you only use the prevalence of homicides in Chicago when it suits?

I had a question here, but you answered it below. You would prefer the cop to die over other people. You value other peoples lives over the cops.

GreeBo wrote: »

How can he have correctly perceived that? He was 100% wrong, we have the facts to prove that the teen *couldnt* have shot him even if he wanted to and we have zero evidence that he actually wanted to or in fact has ever shot anyone.

He was acting on facts available on the night, which were an armed suspect. That's it. After the fact doesn't matter at the time, and he acted as per policy at the time.

GreeBo wrote: »

Erm, 1 more second was the difference between an innocent 13 year old living or being shot, are you forgetting that someone died? Someone convicted of no crime? Someone obeying police orders?
I would rather the officer died than an innocent person dies. The exact same way I would rather a guilty person walks than an innocent person gets imprisoned. Thats the whole basis of the legal system by the way.

So you want a cop to get shot before they can shoot back. You put the value of the lives of cops, also humans with family at home, below that of criminals (he was 13 with a gun in a public place caught up in an act of shots fired, that is a crime, he is a criminal). Nice to know. Hope you never need the police.

GreeBo wrote: »

Being armed in the presence of police doesnt carry a death sentence, at least not in law anyway.

Correct, but putting yourself in a situation where you could be shot does. And the suspect did that.

GreeBo wrote: »

Possibly, but is your argument that the cop knew this and took it into account during the 19 or so seconds he was on the scene?

No, the cop only had information of a suspect matching the description being potentially armed. If you want to use the after the facts, as you like to, then it was obvious he was armed. Doesn't matter if the gun was empty. People have already given facts on response times in shootings, and you've already agreed that the cop should wait to be shot before shooting back (more or less).

Overheal wrote: »

Yet he did take the opportunity given by the officer. “Stop. Stop right there. Show me your ****ing hands.” And that’s what he did. And he was shot in response.

It’s very simple: officer orders suspect. Suspect complied with officer. Officer does not shoot suspect. It’s not that hard.

Yes he didn't say turn around. But the suspect did, while dropping his weapon, which at the angle he was to the cop could correctly be mistaken as lifting the arm the gun is in in order to fire back. Why didn't the suspect stop before then? Why didn't he throw the gun while running? All the blame going on the cop, none on the suspect...

GreeBo wrote: »

Was there an order *not* to turn around?
What orders was he not obeying?
He was told to show his ****ing hands, its not beyond the realms of possibility that to many people this would involve turning to show your hands.

So the cop didn't tell him to not turn around, so it makes it ok to do an action the cop didn't shout out? Again, blaming the cop and not the suspect for his OWN actions, from prior all the way up to the shooting.

GreeBo wrote: »

To those defending the cop, do you think he should face any sanctions at all or should be free to continue policing as before?

Continue as before. He followed procedure. Bad outcome, but wouldn't have happened if:

- kid didn't have a gun
- kid didn't run from the cops
- kid wasn't out at 2-3am with a known criminal who was firing his gun without care
- kid didn't turn when not asked to
- etc

Many things could have prevented this, and most of them fall on the kid. Who at the time wasn't a kid, but a potentially armed suspect.

Effects

Overheal wrote: »

It’s very simple: officer orders suspect. Suspect complied with officer. Officer does not shoot suspect. It’s not that hard.

Except he didn't comply, he ran from the police while armed.
It's not a black and white situation, no matter how much you pretend it is.

Being involved in a shooting, especially one prior to the officers arrival, is not a death sentence.

It's not a death sentence, but it can end up with you being killed, especially if you are armed and confronting police.

Tell me how

biko wrote: »

Can you be more specific about the overlap, if it's more than they were both young?

Both events occurred, in part, because of Americas stance on gun control.

beauf

Tell me how wrote: »

Wrong.

Fox News referred to Rittenhouse as a 17 year old boy.
They referred to Toledo as a 13 year old man.

Given the influence they have on creating narratives within a large sector of society, and particularly in how resistant this sector is to any form of adjustment in policing practices or any sort of additional gun control the way in which they portray such stories is partly why America is so polarised in relation to how to fix the root causes of the issues.

More gun control might lessen the chance a 13 year old is kn the streets with a gun, different policing practices might mean a cop doesn't hide instructions but still shoot to kill when those contractions are complied with. Fox News, and by extension, a lot of their watchers want neither and s these incidents will continue.

One was legally allowed to carry a gun. The other was not.

But somehow thats the bit you "forget" to mention.

GreeBo

BattleCorp wrote: »

We aren't going to find any common ground because I think you haven't a clue what you are talking about. So for that reason, I'm out.

Well at least you managed to keep the conversation civil and not make person attacks :rolleyes:

Conflict resolution 101, fail.