US Police killing of 13 year old Adam Toledo

Baggly

wicklowstevo wrote: »

its is clear that you either don't understand the world outside your screen or are just trying to derail another thread ,

everything has been clearly explained to you in language a 10 year old whose second or third language is English would understand. a video of the incident disproves all you allegation and theory's and still you persist , that isn't discussion

either way your not worth interacting with

for the benefits of the mods there may be a issue with the troll reporting system as it doesn't seem to be working

Mod

Threadbanned.

beauf

Overheal wrote: »

Of course, that’s the baseline. I’m not sure that anyone disagrees with or contends that. It’s not grounds for a rank dismissal of discussing the case or analyzing the faults of the officer or of their training though, or the discussion of guns and parenting, etc etc.

You're talking about the training and the officer "engineering" the situation.
But the suspect escalated it in every way, including hiding dropping the gun. Hes wan't running because he was innocent. He was running as he didn't want to be caught, not caught with the gun, and for the gun not to be found.

If you don't want people to be shot in error. Then the police should not chase and not challenge suspects. Its a bit like the no car chase police. Of course they'll then get criticized for doing nothing. But they can't win either way.

Overheal

beauf wrote: »

You're talking about the training and the officer "engineering" the situation.
But the suspect escalated it in every way, including hiding dropping the gun. Hes wan't running because he was innocent. He was running as he didn't want to be caught, not caught with the gun, and for the gun not to be found.

If you don't want people to be shot in error. Then the police should not chase and not challenge suspects. Its a bit like the no car chase police. Of course they'll then get criticized for doing nothing. But they can't win either way.

Engineering insomuch that he played a role in where he was, the angle, the commands, the aimed gun, etc. not implying that he did so by any insidious or untrained way. I am leveling criticism first and foremost at the training. I think the cop should face trial because of the timing but remain unclear on what the verdict would reasonably and lawfully be. There are eloquent arguments to either sway.

beauf

I was wondering how you'd simulate the reaction time needed here.

You set up a machine to punch you in the face in a fraction of a second. It will be programmed to only do it one in 20 times. 19 times will be dummies. But you don't know which one.
Your bet is €500 euro. If you only flinch and avoid the one punch that is going to hit you, you keep the 500. if you move for any the 19 dummies, you lose the 500.

That's a dumb example, and trivializing a tragic incident where someone lost their life. But for me thats impossible odds.

beauf

Overheal wrote: »

Engineering insomuch that he played a role in where he was, the angle, the commands, the aimed gun, etc. not implying that he did so by any insidious or untrained way. I am leveling criticism first and foremost at the training. I think the cop should face trial because of the timing but remain unclear on what the verdict would reasonably and lawfully be. There are eloquent arguments to either sway.

The critics have not suggested any reasonable alternative that doesn't increase the risk for the cops massively. Its taking the most risk as the default. Whereas most processes will err on the side of least risk.

Overheal

beauf wrote: »

The critics have not suggested any reasonable alternative that doesn't increase the risk for the cops massively. Its taking the most risk as the default. Whereas most processes will err on the side of least risk.

Understand that. And I still look forward to exploring new and better ways. The rate of evolution in policing staggers behind society. To imagine how quickly an entire civilization can turn itself on its head for a pandemic but year after year issue after issue it seems like jogging on sand to effect any meaningful forward progress in the policing industry.

ILoveYourVibes

It's interesting. Toledo isn't black. But its the BLM movement providing support.

For a long time people have accused the movement of not caring about people who aren't black.Its helping latinos too though.

beauf

Overheal wrote: »

Understand that. And I still look forward to exploring new and better ways. The rate of evolution in policing staggers behind society. To imagine how quickly an entire civilization can turn itself on its head for a pandemic but year after year issue after issue it seems like jogging on sand to effect any meaningful forward progress in the policing industry.

The cops were directed to this specific incident by shot spotter. This is not a low tech system. That's before you get into the developments in policing.

https://www.shotspotter.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunfire_locator

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattdrange/2016/11/17/shotspotter-struggles-to-prove-impact-as-silicon-valley-answer-to-gun-violence/?sh=59b2bfc931cb

Overheal

beauf wrote: »

The cops were directed to this specific incident by shot spotter. This is not a low tech system. That's before you get into the developments in policing.

https://www.shotspotter.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunfire_locator

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattdrange/2016/11/17/shotspotter-struggles-to-prove-impact-as-silicon-valley-answer-to-gun-violence/?sh=59b2bfc931cb

Familiar with shot spotter from the Seth Rich killing.

I mean there were 911 audio logs for this case though, so it couldn’t have just been the shot spotter the shot spotter would have helped them alert to location but 911 calls may also have influenced the police response. I haven’t heard them yet nor seen them reported as hugely relevant though.

I guess you could just arm the police force with non-lethal weapons for a few months, see how they get on? Maybe even up the numbers a little, might keep people happy if more cops were shot.

beauf

Sweeping generalizations about the lack of evolution in policing have no basis in reality when you consider the massive resources and technology and training being used even in this case. Its obvious its part of a much larger policing strategy and around gun crime holistically.

beauf

Deleted User wrote: »

I guess you could just arm the police force with non-lethal weapons for a few months, see how they get on? Maybe even up the numbers a little, might keep people happy if more cops were shot.

Kinda into a different discussion there. But non lethals don't seem to be that effective when facing something like a knive or a gun.

I was surprised in this case that only one shot was fired. Thats not typical from what I've seen.

Overheal

beauf wrote: »

I was surprised in this case that only one shot was fired. Thats not typical from what I've seen.

Which makes it that much harder to convict him and reminds me one of earlier comments about premeditation was entirely misplaced

I'm by no means any expert but a Pew Research study from 2017 or so showed that less than 30% of serving officers at the time had ever fired their gun in the line of duty, outside of a firing range. So typically, no shots are fired more than 70% of the time.

I guess you would have to look at the number of times they were required to draw their weapons and the situation was resolved without any injury / death vs the other scenario.

You could flip an old comic book saying on it's head and say that with great responsibility comes great power. Sometimes that power is going to result in someone dying where they might otherwise have survived.

Let's remember, we're talking about a country where it's - broadly speaking - possible to carry a firearm with you when you pop out to the shop to buy some smokes.

Diemos

Deleted User wrote: »

Let's remember, we're talking about a country where it's - broadly speaking - possible to carry a firearm with you when you pop out to the shop to buy some smokes.

I think it's something that a lot of people here have very little appreciation for when looking at these cases.

I also think the narrative is completely anti cop. It's cool to be anti cop.

The image in the original post, kids hands on there way up, I though this looks cold blooded.
But the video changes things for me, the kids body movement is not natural as he turns and lifts. My guess his had he just lifted his hand he would be alive today. (not getting into the don't run argument, it's moot)

That looks to me like a cop who thought a weapon was being pulled and made a tough call, and realised instantly it was a wrong call.
But because he was not the right skin colour there will be few, if any, protests.

GreeBo

drkpower wrote: »

Why the focus on Toledo’s innocence or otherwise?

It’s irrelevant; unless you think that it would be justifiable to shoot him if he had been found guilty of some crime or other.

Why focus on his innocence? Well because its usually an issue when innocent people get killed?
It would have been justifiable to shoot him if had posed an active threat to anyone (such as in the knifing incident)
This was a person complying with the police, it was wrong to shoot him.

beauf

GreeBo wrote: »

Why focus on his innocence? Well because its usually an issue when innocent people get killed?
It would have been justifiable to shoot him if had posed an active threat to anyone (such as in the knifing incident)
This was a person complying with the police, it was wrong to shoot him.

Running from the cops with a gun is not complying.

innocent of what?

GreeBo

beauf wrote: »

Running from the cops with a gun is not complying.

Was he running when shot? No, he had stopped.

beauf wrote: »

innocent of what?

Innocent until proven guilty, just like everyone else.
So how about "guilty of what?"

beauf

GreeBo wrote: »

Was he running when shot? No, he had stopped.
Innocent until proven guilty, just like everyone else.
So how about "guilty of what?"

Everyone the cops deal with is innocent by that logic as they haven't been to court yet.

So if everyone is innocent the cops should never stop or chase anyone ever. because they are innocent .

Do you have to be running to be shot? Thats a new one.

drkpower

GreeBo wrote: »

Why focus on his innocence? Well because its usually an issue when innocent people get killed?
It would have been justifiable to shoot him if had posed an active threat to anyone (such as in the knifing incident)
This was a person complying with the police, it was wrong to shoot him.

Is it not an issue when guilty people are killed too?

Any logic to your argument seems to be evaporating.

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

Was he running when shot? No, he had stopped.

I think the issue is that, in the cop's mind, he doesn't know what the person he's pursuing is going to do at that point. He's chasing someone he knows to be armed down a poorly lit alley. That person stops and starts turning, and the cop has less than a second to divine whether the person being pursued is about to drop the gun or aim it at him and pull the trigger. Given the timing here, it's likely that the gun had barely even hit the floor before the officer shot. It's a ****ty situation to be put in, but those split-second, high-pressure situations are always easy to judge with hindsight and frame-by-frame video.

It's sad that this child is dead, just as it's sad that the 16-year-old girl is dead. But I think the tragedy of the situation is in the story that comes before. How did a sixteen-year-old end up in the situation she was in - in foster care, running around in full view of cops, pinning another girl to a car and lifting a knife to attempt to plunge it into another human being's neck? How did Adam Toledo end up, at thirteen years of age, nicknamed "lil' homicide", running away from cops down an alley at 2am, holding a pistol, hands covered in residue?

It would seem that the easy route is to take to the streets and scream about the end result, burn down communities that are already struggling, and repeat banal chants that will achieve nothing but the smiling nods of politicians who are interested only insofar as it helps their election prospects. But if anything's going to change then those communities need to seriously reckon with how and why these situations occur in the first place.

beauf

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the issue is that, in the cop's mind, he doesn't know what the person he's pursuing is going to do at that point. .....

According to some on this thread of course he does he can see it in the video afterwards....

GreeBo

beauf wrote: »

Everyone the cops deal with is innocent by that logic as they haven't been to court yet.

Sorry but thats not "logic" its the reality of the justice system in the US.
Perhaps you have heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? Its not just a handy catchphrase, its the basis for their justice system.

beauf wrote: »

So if everyone is innocent the cops should never stop or chase anyone ever. because they are innocent .

Yes everyone is innocent until proven guilty, see above, that doesnt mean that cops should never stop or chase anyone, it does mean that they shouldnt shoot them unless they have no option due to an actual threat, as opposed to a perceived one.

beauf wrote: »

Do you have to be running to be shot? Thats a new one.

Huh? You said running is not complying, I pointed out that he had stopped running and was complying.


I noticed you ignored my question. What was he guilty of if you are saying he was not innocent?

GreeBo

drkpower wrote: »

Is it not an issue when guilty people are killed too?

Its an issue when anyone is killed, but sometimes people have to be killed to protect innocent people. This is not what happened in this scenario. The cop jumped the gun and killed they victim when he didnt need to, we have the facts to prove that he didnt need it.

drkpower wrote: »

Any logic to your argument seems to be evaporating.

Which argument would that be?

GreeBo

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the issue is that, in the cop's mind, he doesn't know what the person he's pursuing is going to do at that point. He's chasing someone he knows to be armed down a poorly lit alley. That person stops and starts turning, and the cop has less than a second to divine whether the person being pursued is about to drop the gun or aim it at him and pull the trigger. Given the timing here, it's likely that the gun had barely even hit the floor before the officer shot. It's a ****ty situation to be put in, but those split-second, high-pressure situations are always easy to judge with hindsight and frame-by-frame video.

I'm not even judging this based on the video, slo-mo or otherwise.
Im judging it on the cops actions towards someone who is obeying their directions. I think the onus is on the cop to handle himself better than the expects the untrained (and in this case juvenile) suspect to react.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's sad that this child is dead, just as it's sad that the 16-year-old girl is dead. But I think the tragedy of the situation is in the story that comes before. How did a sixteen-year-old end up in the situation she was in - in foster care, running around in full view of cops, pinning another girl to a car and lifting a knife to attempt to plunge it into another human being's neck? How did Adam Toledo end up, at thirteen years of age, nicknamed "lil' homicide", running away from cops down an alley at 2am, holding a pistol, hands covered in residue?

They are certainly all pitiful situations that you would hope no one ends up in, but the reality is that there are millions of people in the US "living the dream" so this wont go away by itself.

Deleted User wrote: »

It would seem that the easy route is to take to the streets and scream about the end result, burn down communities that are already struggling, and repeat banal chants that will achieve nothing but the smiling nods of politicians who are interested only insofar as it helps their election prospects. But if anything's going to change then those communities need to seriously reckon with how and why these situations occur in the first place.

I think both sides need to take a long hard look at themselves and comments from the other thread about how the cops should just let the community knife it out like they always have do nothing to help the situation, just like LeBron did nothing to help and actually just inflamed it.
Its shocking to us that a 13 year old would have a gun after 2am but as above, this is the reality of their situation, it needs to be possible to deal with this without killing them, unless its absolutely necessary (as it was in the knifing incident) and I dont believe it was necessary in this situation.

GreeBo

beauf wrote: »

According to some on this thread of course he does he can see it in the video afterwards....

These sort of asinine comments really don't add anything to the thread or any point you might be trying to make.

BattleCorp

GreeBo wrote: »

Yes everyone is innocent until proven guilty, see above, that doesnt mean that cops should never stop or chase anyone, it does mean that they shouldnt shoot them unless they have no option due to an actual threat, as opposed to a perceived one.

In the eyes of a police officer (or anybody else for that matter except you) a perceived threat is no different than what you call an 'actual threat'.

You are using the benefit of hindsight to say there was no chance that Toledo wasn't going to shoot the cop. The cop didn't have that benefit. I really don't understand how you aren't getting this.

GreeBo

BattleCorp wrote: »

In the eyes of a police officer (or anybody else for that matter except you) a perceived threat is no different than what you call an 'actual threat'.

I think thats a pretty inaccurate statement on many counts, not least that I am not the only one with this opinion and also that "actual" and "perceived" have two very different meanings. Its exactly the problem of conflating the two that lead to the shooting dead of this victim.
Perception can and often is wrong, perception is not reality. Actual is reality.

BattleCorp wrote: »

You are using the benefit of hindsight to say there was no chance that Toledo wasn't going to shoot the cop. The cop didn't have that benefit. I really don't understand how you aren't getting this.

No I am not actually. I am saying that Toledo was complying with the orders at the time he was shot and the cop incorrectly perceived a threat where we now know there wasnt one.
There was certainly a chance that Toledo could have shot at the officer, that chance exists when anyone is holding a gun.

beauf

GreeBo wrote: »

These sort of asinine comments really don't add anything to the thread or any point you might be trying to make.

That has been your stance from day one. That you can see " in the VIDEO" that the suspect hands are are empty in the split second after he dropped the gun.

I agree its asinine.

GreeBo

beauf wrote: »

That has been your stance from day one. That you can see " in the VIDEO" that the suspect hands are are empty in the split second after he dropped the gun.

I agree its asinine.

Except that it hasn't.
My stance has been that there was no actual threat at the time the officer fired. The video simply proves this, after the fact.
It wouldn't need to prove anything if the officer had waited until his perceived threat was an actual threat. As the evidence now shows, it wasn't possible for there ever to be an actual threat from Toledo.