US Police killing of 13 year old Adam Toledo

GreeBo

beauf wrote: »

No way of knowing that till after the fact.

Which is exactly why you dont shoot first.

beauf wrote: »

This is not about a crime, its about playing chicken with someone who could shoot you. If you point a replica gun at a cop, its likely to get you shot as well.

There is nothing to suggest the victim was "playing chicken" or anything of the sort and everything to suggest that they were obeying the instructions as they understood them.

beauf wrote: »

But you are saying you want all cops to have the same split second reactions....

so you are saying that those with poor reaction times should shoot early, before they have properly analysed the situation?

beauf wrote: »

In addition you only want to them to shot back after they've possibly been killed.

Well considering I didn't actually say that, no I dont.

GreeBo

BattleCorp wrote: »

I can tell that from your posts in this thread.

And since you continue to be unable to keep this conversation adult and civil, thus ends our interaction.

GreeBo

irelandrover wrote: »

And in this case the police used their training. But you don't accept that.

He used his training to kill, I want them to use their training not to kill when they don't have to.

BattleCorp

GreeBo wrote: »

And since you continue to be unable to keep this conversation adult and civil, thus ends our interaction.

Fine by me.

You've been proven wrong but yet you persist. Off you go.

beauf

GreeBo wrote: »

He used his training to kill, I want them to use their training not to kill when they don't have to.

This is an answer to a different question, but it looks at the same issue...

https://www.police1.com/patrol-issues/articles/why-shooting-to-wound-doesnt-make-sense-scientifically-legally-or-tactically-6bOdYvNUEECtIWRI/

“In reality, this thinking is a result of ‘training by Hollywood,’ in which movie and TV cops are able to do anything to control the outcomes of events that serve the director’s dramatic interests. It reflects a misconception of real-life dynamics and ends up imposing unrealistic expectations of skill on real-life officers.”

Studies by the Force Science Research Center reveal some of the practical problems with these positions. Lewinski explains some of the basics of human dynamics and anatomy and the relative risks of misses and hits:

“Hands and arms can be the fastest-moving body parts. For example, an average suspect can move his hand and forearm across his body to a 90-degree angle in 12/100 of a second. He can move his hand from his hip to shoulder height in 18/100 of a second.

“The average officer pulling the trigger as fast as he can on a Glock, one of the fastest- cycling semi-autos, requires 1/4 second to discharge each round.

“There is no way an officer can react, track, shoot and reliably hit a threatening suspect’s forearm or a weapon in a suspect’s hand in the time spans involved.

“Twenty years ago officers were trained to ’shoot then assess.’ They fired 1 or 2 rounds, then stopped to see the effect. This required 1/4 to 1/2 second, during which time the suspect could keep firing, if he hadn’t been incapacitated.

“Now they’re taught to ‘shoot and assess,’ to judge the effect of their shots as they continue to fire, an on-going process. This allows the officer to continually defend himself, but because the brain is trying to do 2 things at once–shoot and assess–a very significant change in the offender’s behavior needs to take place in order for the officer to recognize the change of circumstances.

beauf

Overheal wrote: »

Except that a firefighter doesn’t fight fires with a lethal weapon or point them at people and the fire isn’t innocent unless proven guilty. See lots of problems with your incendiary comparison.

Heres another....

He draws the analogy of a house being on fire. “Firefighters can pour what seems at the time to be about the right amount of water on it to stop the fire versus not using one drop more of water than necessary, even in hindsight, to put the fire out.” The former fits the “reasonable” approach, the latter is the “necessary” perspective and is the essence of the shoot-to-wound/minimal force bill.

https://www.police1.com/patrol-issues/articles/why-shooting-to-wound-doesnt-make-sense-scientifically-legally-or-tactically-6bOdYvNUEECtIWRI/

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

Erm, I don't think those two scenarios are equivalent...Toledo wasn't going to shoot himself if the officer didn't?

But he could have shot the officer.

It does however show the dangers of relying on perceived things rather than facts.

What perceived things, rather than facts? Teen runs from an officer, gun in hand, then, drops the gun out of officers line of sight, whilst swiftly turning and raising his hands to the officer. All factual.


Officer shoots. I see no issue with it. I would imagine the most basic police training would cover that if someone runs from you and turns back to you with a gun in hand, you shoot, or you die.

Overheal wrote: »

Except that a firefighter doesn’t fight fires with a lethal weapon or point them at people and the fire isn’t innocent unless proven guilty. See lots of problems with your incendiary comparison.

Not really. The person qualified to deal with an issue, should be more than willing to die in the process of doing so, and not take steps to protect themselves, is the gist of the argument for the Police not shooting.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

But he could have shot the officer.





What perceived things, rather than facts? Teen runs from an officer, gun in hand, then, drops the gun out of officers line of sight, whilst swiftly turning and raising his hands to the officer. All factual.

Officer shoots. I see no issue with it. I would imagine the most basic police training would cover that if someone runs from you and turns back to you with a gun in hand, you shoot, or you die.



Not really. The person qualified to deal with an issue, should be more than willing to die in the process of doing so, and not take steps to protect themselves, is the gist of the argument for the Police not shooting.

I'd imagine that they'd cover giving instructions to comply before they'd talk about shooting. That's what this officer did, Toldeo complied, he still ended up dead.

Manic Moran

Tell me how wrote: »

I'd imagine that they'd cover giving instructions to comply before they'd talk about shooting. That's what this officer did, Toldeo complied, he still ended up dead.

Toledo chose to add a couple of extra actions on his own initiative. A terminal mistake.