US Police killing of 13 year old Adam Toledo

Overheal

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I can't see the image in the op from the video.

I've fixed the OP with a hardcopy attachment.

BorneTobyWilde

Should have kept running, they'd never shoot a kid just running form them, or would they

Varik

Overheal wrote: »

Then where is the gun? Show me the freeze frame. I saw him go tend to the boy, I did not see him catch sight of any dropped weapon. If it was a split second it didn't travel 20 yards on its own, he wasn't exactly seen doing a discus throw.

Police said he held a gun in his hand. I see none in the video.

5:26 he steps through the fence and then after a bit shines his light at it.

Potential-Monke

The shooting was unwarranted imo, but also goes to show how quick something can happen. Not excusing it, there is no excuse imo, and I usually tend to side with police in unclear stuff, but to me this is clear. There's no way the cop gave enough time to clearly see he was armed. But again, easy to say that looking at it now while sitting in my sofa.

Further questions would be why the 13 year old had a gun, why he was with the other lad who seemed to either randomly shoot his gun, or was shooting at something specifically (both of which are dangerous and illegal), why did he run when the cops came along, why didn't he stop straight away. I'm not shifting blame, but questioning the events. And like everything, if one of those events happened differently, maybe the outcome would be different.

Either way, the cop is going to jail imo. I can't see him get a way out of that. Not in these times anyway.

Did you smash it

Not sure that photo came out.

So he had the gun in his hand half a second before he was shot. Tossed it, turned around and got shot.

So nothing should be disputed now with the passage of events.

Overheal

Why Were Police Told To Turn Off Body Cameras Minutes After Adam Toledo Shooting? It’s Standard Policy, Department Says

https://blockclubchicago.org/2021/04/12/why-were-police-told-to-turn-off-body-cameras-minutes-after-shooting-adam-toledo-its-standard-policy-police-sergeant-says/

CHICAGO — Eight minutes after a police officer fatally shot 13-year-old Adam Toledo in Little Village, officers responding to the scene were told to turn off their body cameras.

That’s according to police dispatch audio published on Instagram this weekend by Pilsen photojournalist Mateo Zapata. The audio, which Zapata edited for brevity, alarmed community members who have been following the case, but police say it’s standard procedure for officers to turn off cameras once a crime scene is “secured.”

Toledo was shot March 29 in the 2300 block of South Sawyer Avenue following an “armed confrontation” with police, authorities said. Prosecutors said Toledo was with Ruben Roman, 21, who had been firing a handgun nearby when officers responded to a ShotSpotter alert of shots fired.

Two uniformed Chicago Police officers responded to the scene, spotted Roman and Toledo and began chasing after them, prosecutors said.

After Roman was detained, the second officer chased Toledo down an alley. He repeatedly told Toledo to stop but Toledo continued running. The teen stopped near a fence and the officer told him to show his hands, prosecutors said.

Toledo was holding a gun in his right hand, at his right side, and standing with his left side facing the officer, prosecutors alleged.

“The officer tells [Toledo] to drop it — ‘drop it, drop it’ — as [Toledo] turns toward the officer. [Toledo] has a gun in his right hand. The officer fires one shot at [Toledo], striking him in the chest,” Cook County Prosecutor James Murphy said during Roman’s Saturday hearing. Body camera footage of the incident is expected to be released this week after Toledo’s family is able to view it.

In the audio, which Zapata said was recorded approximately 8 minutes after Toledo was shot, officers are told that the scene is secured and that they can turn off their cameras.

“Scene secured, everyone shut off your camera,” one person says over the radio.

“Just a reminder to any units on the scene here at 24th and Sawyer, please turn off your body cams,” another voice says. According to the audio from Zapata, officers were told at least four times to shut off their body cameras.

Block Club Chicago independently verified that officers were first told to turn off their body cameras approximately 8 minutes after Toledo was shot. However, the additional reminders came later, and were not all within the 29 seconds of the audio that he posted to Instagram.

A Chicago Police sergeant, who asked to remain anonymous, said shutting off the cameras once a scene is secured is consistent with department policy.

“Once the scene is secured, that’s when we can turn off our body cams. After the incident is completed and secured, that’s like a general order of ours,” the sergeant said.

Secured means that “it’s no longer an active scene and the police have cordoned it off for their investigation,” the sergeant said.

After Block Club published this story, CPD spokesman Don Terry confirmed officers at the scene followed department directives in shutting off their cameras after several minutes.

“They didn’t do anything wrong. An incident happens, after the incident is under control, turn off your body cameras while the investigation is underway,” Terry said.

[INSTAGRAM POLICE SCANNER AUDIO AT LINK]

Zapata, who obtained the audio from an unnamed source, said allowing police officers to shut off cameras just minutes after a fatal shooting by police seems like a bad policy.

“Whether it’s police procedure or not, it’s something that I don’t agree with,” he said. “I think if we are going to have police officers wear body cams, then we need to have the entire situation documented. Before, during the incident, and afterwards. I think it’s a level of transparency and accountability that the residents of Chicago are entitled to.”

The reason behind shutting off the cameras involves the cost of storing the footage, the sergeant said.

“It would be astronomical to store 9 hours or 24 hours a day for the whole police department. They are already spending millions of dollars,” the sergeant said.

According to a Chicago Police Department directive issued in 2018, officers must “activate his body-worn camera at the beginning of an incident and will record the entire incident for all law-enforcement-related activities.”

As for turning them off, the directive says they will not be deactivated unless “the entire incident has been recorded and the member is no longer engaged in a law-enforcement-related activity… or “the highest-ranking on-scene Bureau of Patrol supervisor has determined that the scene is secured in circumstances involving an officer-involved death investigation, firearm discharge, or any other use of force incident.”

Asked if turning off body-cams after an incident is routine, the sergeant said, “it’s become common because there was a learning curve. They thought they had to keep them on the whole time, but no, it’s only during the incident. Once it’s over and secured, that’s when it could be turned off [per] our rules and regulations.”

The sergeant said to activate the camera, there’s a round button near the center of the body camera that must be pushed twice.

“It starts recording at that point but it saves the previous thirty seconds, so technically they are always on but they are not always recording to where you’d be able to look back further than 30 seconds [before activating].

“The minute you start responding to a call, you’re supposed to activate it. Then you can turn it off once the scene is secured,” the sergeant said.

An independent policing expert, who did not want to go on the record due to the sensitive nature of the Toledo shooting, said she hadn’t heard the audio but confirmed that storage costs are something that police departments around the country are having issues with.

Zapata scoffed at cost as a reason to not have body-cams always on.

“We’re within the midst of a pandemic where the Mayor gave the Chicago Police Department over half of our federal relief funds amounting to $280 million and they are saying that it’s too expensive to log and review the footage. It’s a cycle of inconsistency on behalf of the Chicago Police Department,” Zapata said.

That if it is policy seems like a terribly bad idea. For example, having body camera that shows exactly when and where the gun was found would prove definitively where it was found. We have unfortunately had incidents in this country which have seriously shaken the confidence in police exerting special control over their body cameras. This officer for example in the tweet below did not factor in that the bodycamera model like most others functions to record 30 or so seconds of footage before the 'Record' button is pressed (this is usually in most cases the time where the footage has no audio initially - in the video for Adam Toledo's shooting this pre-recording length looked to be approximately 2 minutes of time preceding the record point) so, this officer below ended up recording himself planting evidence.

https://twitter.com/justin_fenton/status/887504546074939393?s=20

And this is not a freak occurrence either.

I think the public is going to have some very serious concerns that police can do all sorts of things to manipulate a crime scene with no cameras on - especially in ones where the only other involved party is dead.

Varik

Overheal wrote: »

Why Were Police Told To Turn Off Body Cameras Minutes After Adam Toledo Shooting? It’s Standard Policy, Department Says

https://blockclubchicago.org/2021/04/12/why-were-police-told-to-turn-off-body-cameras-minutes-after-shooting-adam-toledo-its-standard-policy-police-sergeant-says/



That if it is policy seems like a terribly bad idea. For example, having body camera that shows exactly when and where the gun was found would prove definitively where it was found. We have unfortunately had incidents in this country which have seriously shaken the confidence in police exerting special control over their body cameras. This officer for example in the tweet below did not factor in that the bodycamera model like most others functions to record 30 or so seconds of footage before the 'Record' button is pressed (this is usually in most cases the time where the footage has no audio initially - in the video for Adam Toledo's shooting this pre-recording length looked to be approximately 2 minutes of time preceding the record point) so, this officer below ended up recording himself planting evidence.

https://twitter.com/justin_fenton/status/887504546074939393?s=20

And this is not a freak occurrence either.

I think the public is going to have some very serious concerns that police can do all sorts of things to manipulate a crime scene with no cameras on - especially in ones where the only other involved party is dead.

The cameras' were shut off 4 minutes after they found the gun

poisonated

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Should have kept running, they'd never shoot a kid just running form them, or would they

There was a case in North Charleston a few years ago where the cop shot a guy who was just running away.

We need a sub forum for US related threads. Or one thread called. More ****wittery from the US of little interest to Ireland.

There are 1000+ police killings per year in the US. We could start a thread every few days for shootings of black people alone, about 30% of the total. We don’t need new threads. Let’s have one.

Overheal

Did you smash it wrote: »

Not sure that photo came out.

So he had the gun in his hand half a second before he was shot. Tossed it, turned around and got shot.

So nothing should be disputed now with the passage of events.

Thanks, I could not see through the strobe, but that very much appears to be a gun in his hand in that frame. And I didn't pay enough of attention to the longer minutes where the boy is dying so did not spot the gun there. Thank you again for doing so.

Now this officer finds himself in a very difficult situation, because the kid complied, his hands were up, his palms were up, yet the cop was not in control of his reflexes enough to not shoot, he was already wound up to do so and had a pretty understandable fear having registered there was a gun in his hand within those few split seconds. Yeah, if he had clearly been seen ditching it seconds earlier, I could see why the cops actions would then be wholly unjustifiable. Given how rare any one cop's number of encounters with armed suspects is overall, I think it would be hard to condemn his action as evil, thusly. Had I not seen any gun, and ran up to a suspect and did all that, yes, way overblown, but the guns in his hand right in this between time where, frankly, I think it could be argued human reaction time was a heavy factor. I've seen the reaction studies for like, baseball. Professional athletes throw them so fast that hitters(batters) cannot physically see-then-react to the whole launch, they have to just process body language cues from the pitcher and move where they intuitively think the ball will go. Here the cop made a similar intuitive call (the wrong one it turned out) that looks like it was already in motion faster than his brain could process new information and send it to his fingers.

I think the city needs to settle with the family and that the cop will likely receive qualified immunity. However, I'm still of the opinion cops in these cases should still sit trial and not have such blanket immunities; in this case I still think such a trial would end in light punitive sentencing for the officer.

I don't know how you fix policing in a society that says people have the right to carry firearms, though.

Overheal

Varik wrote: »

The cameras' were shut off 4 minutes after they found the gun

That's good. That is the important thing to me there, that they did confirm they had recorded the state of the scene, so this is what they must have meant by scene secure shut them off etc. so there is not that window of opportunity to manipulate that sort of thing.

I'm glad it was addressed here though as people are just hearing "they shut off the cameras?!" and going off on facebook posts etc. which is why I wanted to pick up on what I initially regarded as a rumor about the order to turn off cameras and follow it up.

BloodBath

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Funny how it's always a kill shot with american cops. An innocent kids killed by a chicken sh it cop who fired before he saw his hands were empty.

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.

Maybe because they are trained to aim center mass, the chest, because it's the biggest least moving target. You're playing too many games if you think they have time to think and aim at a limb in that situation.

Why the **** is a 13 year old kid running around with a gun? That's not legal.
Why don't you try being a cop in a city like Chicago and see how easy it is?

Moronic comment.

Overheal wrote: »

No, to be perfectly clear, it was after he saw his hands were empty.

He shoots him as he turns, he can't see his right hand, The kid could easily turn and shoot there. It happens all the time. Cops get shot or killed in scenarios like these but you won't see any threads about that. The kid needed to put his hands above his head to show his hands. You don't do a shifty turn like that in a dark alleyway.

I feel bad for all involved but some dopes really have it out for the cops without understanding how hard they have it. This guy has to live the rest of his life seeing that kids face knowing that he killed him and he seems to have a conscience. That can really destroy a person and lead to suicide. He may get a criminal charge on top. But hey **** the police right!

The gun laws are the problem and anyone with a bit of intelligence knows that.

Potential-Monke

I did miss the gun part, that wasn't clear to begin with, so my initial comment of murder may be incorrect, or at the least a reaction rather than a thoughtful informed reply. Seeing it again and with the close ups and confirmations, that split second will make all the difference. Again, easy for us to sit back and go through it all with a fine tooth comb, but that split second is all the cop had. Hard to know. Lots of questions from this case. Lots.

Don't see any rioting about it though... Genuinely, why is that? Also goes to show that sometimes we only see what we want to see, and miss vital and important information. It's why witness testimony is taken with a pinch of salt, people remember events incorrectly.

Overheal

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I did miss the gun part, that wasn't clear to begin with, so my initial comment of murder may be incorrect, or at the least a reaction rather than a thoughtful informed reply. Seeing it again and with the close ups and confirmations, that split second will make all the difference. Again, easy for us to sit back and go through it all with a fine tooth comb, but that split second is all the cop had. Hard to know. Lots of questions from this case. Lots.

Don't see any rioting about it though... Genuinely, why is that? Also goes to show that sometimes we only see what we want to see, and miss vital and important information. It's why witness testimony is taken with a pinch of salt, people remember events incorrectly.

In fairness to the cop his night sight is much, much, much better than the camera's, too. Though the strobe can't be helpful. I know they train with that, but still.

Mech1

If you play with guns, you might get shot, its the same the world over. Even here.

Mech1

Oh,, and I own a few.

AllForIt

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.

The police officers were responding to gun shots in the middle of the night.

It would be noting more that stupid to say oh maybe someone is just blowing a few bullets in the air for the fun of it so lets take this nice and easy.

All the policie officers have is a gun, their uniforms or flashing lights on their squad car don't protect them in any way. I'd be loath to to have to respond to 'reports of gunshot's' when you know full well someting is going down and you might not survive it.

The 2 chaps ran away, they had a gun, at 2am, so I don't know what kind of training is going to ensure 100% of these kinds of situations are all going to turn out well.

US officers killed in llne of duty:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_enforcement_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty_in_the_United_States#2019

There is no way I would ever wish to be a police officer chasing after people with guns down allyways in the middle of the night. Sometimes these situations will have a bad outcome, it's inevitable actually. And no training is going to completel prevent things like this happening.

BloodBath

If I had to criticize the cop for anything it would be his instruction to simply "show your hands" rather than put your hands above your head.

The kid turned to show his hands and the cop reacted. If he had raised his hands before turning I'm sure it wouldn't have happened.

Overheal

Mech1 wrote: »

If you play with guns, you might get shot, its the same the world over. Even here.

And I think that is why progressives want to push the agenda of just getting everyone to stop playing with guns, a drawdown of both citizens and police. The right, meanwhile, inexorably ties any regulation of firearms to Godwin's Law.

JupiterKid

Just when you thought the situation could not get any worse. This is just reprehensible.

Mech1

No one anywhere has the right to abuse the gun laws of the country, you have to abide by them full stop. Firing shots in a residential area would not be lawful use, thats playing and sometimes playing causes injuries to anyone that finds themselves envolved.

Overheal

AllForIt wrote: »

The police officers were responding to gun shots in the middle of the night.

It would be noting more that stupid to say oh maybe someone is just blowing a few bullets in the air for the fun of it so lets take this nice and easy.

All the policie officers have is a gun, their uniforms or flashing lights on their squad car don't protect them in any way. I'd be loath to to have to respond to 'reports of gunshot's' when you know full well someting is going down and you might not survive it.

The 2 chaps ran away, they had a gun, at 2am, so I don't know what kind of training is going to ensure 100% of these kinds of situations are all going to turn out well.

US officers killed in llne of duty:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_enforcement_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty_in_the_United_States#2019

There is no way I would ever wish to be a police officer chasing after people with guns down allyways in the middle of the night. Sometimes these situations will have a bad outcome, it's inevitable actually. And no training is going to completel prevent things like this happening.

I question then why they need to go down that alleyway. I don't quite know how you train for that sort of thing mind you but, shouldn't you surround an armed suspect, not going running up behind him? That seems like a bad tactic if your rules of engagement are that of a police officer. It's great tactics in Apex: Legends or something, sure, but this isn't a video game. To be clear, police seemingly have very wild west rules of engagement, even compared to the bulk military.

What should officers do with a suspect who is fleeing that is armed or believed to be armed? Should officers shoot people in the back, should they only fire if fired upon, etc. ? As the American military says, "Don't fire unless fired upon. But, if they want to have a war, let it begin here." So, if the officer is putting themselves in a tactical position to where they would be vulnerable to a First Strike, then perhaps we need to have a total re-evaluation of policing and police technology and tactics. Maybe police shouldn't respond to Shots fired without a ballistic shield, for example, maybe eliminate the possibility that a suspect could kill a police officer with a lucky first shot, and drastically eliminate the possibility of occurrences like Adam Toledo's death. Put the officer tactically in a position where they have the seconds of reaction time advantage to where a fast draw on a handgun is not a mortal threat to them, tag a suspect with a drone, even, why pursue a suspect mano a mano if he has nowhere to run or hide - it was a parking lot.

Mech1

Overheal wrote: »

I question then why they need to go down that alleyway. I don't quite know how you train for that sort of thing mind you but, shouldn't you surround an armed suspect, not going running up behind him? That seems like a bad tactic if your rules of engagement are that of a police officer. It's great tactics in Apex: Legends or something, sure, but this isn't a video game. To be clear, police seemingly have very wild west rules of engagement, even compared to the bulk military.

What should officers do with a suspect who is fleeing that is armed or believed to be armed? Should officers shoot people in the back, should they only fire if fired upon, etc. ? As the American military says, "Don't fire unless fired upon. But, if they want to have a war, let it begin here." So, if the officer is putting themselves in a tactical position to where they would be vulnerable to a First Strike, then perhaps we need to have a total re-evaluation of policing and police technology and tactics. Maybe police shouldn't respond to Shots fired without a ballistic shield, for example, maybe eliminate the possibility that a suspect could kill a police officer with a lucky first shot, and drastically eliminate the possibility of occurrences like Adam Toledo's death.

And drastically increase the possibility of the Criminal escaping or causing harm to others in his escape.

Mech1

You edited while I posted.

Manic Moran

Overheal wrote: »

I question then why they need to go down that alleyway. I don't quite know how you train for that sort of thing mind you but, shouldn't you surround an armed suspect, not going running up behind him? That seems like a bad tactic if your rules of engagement are that of a police officer. It's great tactics in Apex: Legends or something, sure, but this isn't a video game. To be clear, police seemingly have very wild west rules of engagement, even compared to the bulk military.

It's a nice idea in theory, but I don't see how it would work in practice. When you have someone running, you have positive ID on a suspect at that moment and time. If you let him go and surround the area, you lose the 'chain of proof' as it were. Who gets confined in the cordon (you know, 4th Amendment and all that) and who gets permitted to leave? What does the suspect even look like to describe on the radio, if all you saw was height, the back of his head, and whatever outer layer of clothing was being worn at the time? What if they decide that when they have a moment to themselves, they'll break into a house and take a hostage, or maybe do a carjacking? And can police even enter houses in a cordon to conduct a search on the speculation that a suspect 'might, theoretically' be hiding in one of them? I'm not sure they have that authority.

I think it would have been safer for everyone in the area for the officer to pursue the identified suspect.

Maybe police shouldn't respond to Shots fired without a ballistic shield, for example, maybe eliminate the possibility that a suspect could kill a police officer with a lucky first shot, and drastically eliminate the possibility of occurrences like Adam Toledo's death. Put the officer tactically in a position where they have the seconds of reaction time advantage to where a fast draw on a handgun is not a mortal threat to them, tag a suspect with a drone, even, why pursue a suspect mano a mano if he has nowhere to run or hide - it was a parking lot.

You have to have a balance between safety and practicality. The computer equivalent to the above is to say that the safest computer is one which is unplugged, in a safe, on a deserted island in the Pacific. Absolutely safe, but of no benefit. Having an armored cop may keep him alive, but it will also hinder his ability to keep up with his subject, which is the whole point of his being there in the first place.

I find myself in (rare) agreement with Mayor Lightfoot on this matter. There were a whole slew of things which went wrong long before the cop arrived on the scene, many of which would have resulted in there not being a dead child. Ask the question "why was a 13-year-old out at 2am with a pistol?" for a start before talking about police tactics.

AllForIt

Overheal wrote: »

I question then why they need to go down that alleyway. I don't quite know how you train for that sort of thing mind you but, shouldn't you surround an armed suspect, not going running up behind him? That seems like a bad tactic if your rules of engagement are that of a police officer. It's great tactics in Apex: Legends or something, sure, but this isn't a video game. To be clear, police seemingly have very wild west rules of engagement, even compared to the bulk military.

They have to do the job their paid to do, that's why they go down the alleyway.

Because you know the whole point of the police is to protect innoncent civilians. It's qutie simple really, they just have to catch the bad guys. But they don't know who the bad guys are in advance do they.

It's not a video game and IRL it's not like the movies either, with suspense music in the backgroud alerting the viewer that someting is about to happen. The good guy always seem to catch their man so easily in the movies, resources aren't a problem, they have the best guns, they can see the target clearly, it's not pissin rain, and someone will turn up just in time to save you when your about to be shot by the bad guy. Nope, it not like that IRL.

And as for your wild west reference, gunshots and 13yo gang members with guns does sound a bit wild west-ish to me.

What should officers do with a suspect who is fleeing that is armed or believed to be armed? Should officers shoot people in the back, should they only fire if fired upon, etc. ? As the American military says, "Don't fire unless fired upon. But, if they want to have a war, let it begin here." So, if the officer is putting themselves in a tactical position to where they would be vulnerable to a First Strike, then perhaps we need to have a total re-evaluation of policing and police technology and tactics. Maybe police shouldn't respond to Shots fired without a ballistic shield, for example, maybe eliminate the possibility that a suspect could kill a police officer with a lucky first shot, and drastically eliminate the possibility of occurrences like Adam Toledo's death. Put the officer tactically in a position where they have the seconds of reaction time advantage to where a fast draw on a handgun is not a mortal threat to them, tag a suspect with a drone, even, why pursue a suspect mano a mano if he has nowhere to run or hide - it was a parking lot.

To do all that you'd need lots money and resources. A helicoptoer with spot lights perhaps. Multipe armed units surrounding the area. I'm sorry but that's just the movies again. In reality it's you in the dark with a gun not knowing who is out there, what they are capable of doing with that nagging thought you might not come out of this alive. What could go wrong. Frankly, I don't think there is a perfect way to deal with these kinds of situations.

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's a nice idea in theory, but I don't see how it would work in practice. When you have someone running, you have positive ID on a suspect at that moment and time. If you let him go and surround the area, you lose the 'chain of proof' as it were. Who gets confined in the cordon (you know, 4th Amendment and all that) and who gets permitted to leave? What does the suspect even look like to describe on the radio, if all you saw was height, the back of his head, and whatever outer layer of clothing was being worn at the time? What if they decide that when they have a moment to themselves, they'll break into a house and take a hostage, or maybe do a carjacking? And can police even enter houses in a cordon to conduct a search on the speculation that a suspect 'might, theoretically' be hiding in one of them? I'm not sure they have that authority.

I think it would have been safer for everyone in the area for the officer to pursue the identified suspect.



You have to have a balance between safety and practicality. The computer equivalent to the above is to say that the safest computer is one which is unplugged, in a safe, on a deserted island in the Pacific. Absolutely safe, but of no benefit. Having an armored cop may keep him alive, but it will also hinder his ability to keep up with his subject, which is the whole point of his being there in the first place.

I find myself in (rare) agreement with Mayor Lightfoot on this matter. There were a whole slew of things which went wrong long before the cop arrived on the scene, many of which would have resulted in there not being a dead child. Ask the question "why was a 13-year-old out at 2am with a pistol?" for a start before talking about police tactics.

With respect, I think we should be asking a lot of questions in parallel, not before or after any one. Indeed, is it suspicious of a 13 year old boy to be out at 2 AM? I - honestly don't know, especially in a big urban environment! When we were kids time was fluid and we snuck out of the house at all hours to go to the riverwalk or something. Kids aren't, inherently, burdened with probable cause for being out at night, especially when there is no curfew? IS there a curfew for adolescents? And - is the age material, as how in the hell would this cop in this perspective have had the perception to know whether it was a 13 year old boy or not? What if it had just been a witness who had called police or another bystander who came to investigate gunshots or to look at why the Blue lights and sirens were there? If age could not be determined, could identity be determined? Certainly, the cop has a lot of unique experience, intellect, and wisdom in this arena and to the officers credit the person they pursued did have a gun, and having seen that evidence with my own eyes re: an earlier post I readily accept there was gun residue on his hand, (source: according to prosecutors).

I do have an appreciation for the chain of custody, but that said, there is more chain of custody in law enforcement today in that regard than in any other time in history, and that chain of custody will only evolve with more cameras and monitoring technology, like drones, which are far cheaper to purchase and operate than firearms, and even mid range units are attainable by the average department. The question I would have to ask of that is at what threshold is the chain of custody more valuable than the risk of life to either the officer (of which many die every year) or the suspect (of which many die every year)?

The military: do not fire unless fired upon. The police: fire if they might shoot, or if they might hurt someone else, or if you feel threatened, or if they make sudden moves, or or.. - look I also appreciate the argument to protect the life of innocent bystanders, as well, but there's clearly a pre-crime threshold there. That's when we just start condoning cops shooting anyone who runs away from them, on the mere suspicion that they intend to go hurt someone else sight unseen.

fritzelly

Sickening video to watch but ignored instructions to stop, had a gun in his hand with his back to the officer, turns round and got shot

Officer did nothing wrong - sure just another excuse for rioting and looting

Will check the thread tomorrow for the next "innocent" victim

Overheal

AllForIt wrote: »

They have to do the job their paid to do, that's why they go down the alleyway.

Because you know the whole point of the police is to protect innoncent civilians. It's qutie simple really, they just have to catch the bad guys. But they don't know who the bad guys are in advance do they.

It's not a video game and IRL it's not like the movies either, with suspense music in the backgroud alerting the viewer that someting is about to happen. The good guy always seem to catch their man so easily in the movies, resources aren't a problem, they have the best guns, they can see the target clearly, it's not pissin rain, and someone will turn up just in time to save you when your about to be shot by the bad guy. Nope, it not like that IRL.

And as for your wild west reference, gunshots and 13yo gang members with guns does sound a bit wild west-ish to me.




To do all that you'd need lots money and resources. A helicoptoer with spot lights perhaps. Multipe armed units surrounding the area. I'm sorry but that's just the movies again. In reality it's you in the dark with a gun not knowing who is out there, what they are capable of doing with that nagging thought you might not come out of this alive. What could go wrong. Frankly, I don't think there is a perfect way to deal with these kinds of situations.

You say it's not like the movies but in fairness your arguments are the same boilerplate things that are said of cops in action movies. "That's why they go down that alleyway, Billy: For their Country. [orchestra] [eagle & flag] [~fin]"

I have no clue why you are bringing up "pissin rain" as that has no relationship with anything going on with this shooting. I don't know why you are off presenting unprompted and then defeating that strawman. As though what, rain gives a cop more qualified immunity??

Guess who has lots of money and resources? The police. Over $155Bn is budgeted to police in the US. Yearly (The GDP of Ireland, the sum of all of your economic activity, is not even double that - $388.7 Bn. Your entire government fiscal budget is just $17.75 Bn). And, you are arguing puzzlingly that helicopters 'perhaps' would be required yet, that's not true when we live in a world with drones and robot dogs. Even then, however, I am not sure how you think helicopters are only 'in the movies' when in fact they are used all the time, especially in major urban areas... like... Chicago, Illinois, USA. Chicago PD operates 2 such helicopters, in fact. That said, a Tazer can cost $1,100, a brand new handgun can cost more than double that. Drones, fit very comfortably into this price point, and police cruisers are already teched to the gills (how about that multi thousand dollar package, with built in laptops and chair cooling and stuff? I don't buy that any Department in the US cannot find the money for drones when it can find the money for tasers. Furthermore, if it's really, really a problem, then I support Congress funding it, if that is your sole dilemma. And if your dilemma is the job is too dangerous, then, let's end the war on Drugs, if it's not safe enough for them to fight it.

Overheal

fritzelly wrote: »

Sickening video to watch but ignored instructions to stop, had a gun in his hand with his back to the officer, turns round and got shot

Was stopped, turned around, showed hands to officer as ordered to. "Turns around and got shot" is a conspicuous half truth.

just another excuse for rioting and looting

What riot? What looting? Who is rioting and looting for Adam Toledo? No reports of any in Chicago that I see.