Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

US Police killing of 13 year old Adam Toledo

Options
1…1617192122…24

Comments

  • Options
    #542
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,123 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    beauf wrote: »
    One was legally allowed to carry a gun. The other was not.

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

    At which point did Rittenhouse show his permit?
    At what point was Toledo asked to show his permit?


  • Options
    #543
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Both events occurred, in part, because of Americas stance on gun control.

    One is a legally carried gun. The other an illegal gun.

    Just like this is an illegal gun.

    https://www.thejournal.ie/gun-ammunition-drugs-seized-baldonnel-5413557-Apr2021/

    So was that caused by our stance on Gun Control?


  • Options
    #544
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,123 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    biko wrote: »
    These are two totally different scenarios with zero overlap.

    Correct, in one of them an armed teenager shot and killed 2 people, in the other we have Adam Toledo.

    Seems strange to me that Toledo dies and the proven killer Rittenhouse walks away?


  • Options
    #545
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    GreeBo wrote: »
    At which point did Rittenhouse show his permit?
    At what point was Toledo asked to show his permit?

    Open carry rules are different in these states. So whats your point.


  • Options
    #546
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Correct, in one of them an armed teenager shot and killed 2 people, in the other we have Adam Toledo.

    Seems strange to me that Toledo dies and the proven killer Rittenhouse walks away?

    Its only strange if you've done no research, don't understand the laws, and have no understanding of the context, or are intentionally misrepresenting the facts.

    Either way it destroys your credibility entirely.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #547
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,123 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Potential-Monke wrote: »
    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.
    You value the the life of a cop who killed an innocent person over the life of the innocent person?

    Potential-Monke wrote: »
    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.
    Possibly, but does that make the policy infallible or even the correct policy?

    Potential-Monke wrote: »
    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.
    Sigh, again with the person attacks. Can't you just argue the point without resorting to this hysterical nonsense?

    Criminals are convicted of crimes, if you can share what crime he was convicted of *that the cop was aware of* then that would greatly help the conversation.
    Potential-Monke wrote: »
    Correct, but putting yourself in a situation where you could be shot does. And the suspect did that.
    The situation where you can be shot in the US is called being in public.
    Potential-Monke wrote: »
    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).
    Indeed, as you say, the cop wasnt even sure that he was chasing the correct person.
    To clarify, the cop should wait until it is clear that there is a danger to themselves or others, not make assumptions and shoot first.
    Potential-Monke wrote: »
    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...
    "could correctly be mistaken" what does that even mean in fairness? Talk about an oxymoron.
    The fact that you have to use such linguistic gymnastics to justify it should cause concern.
    Potential-Monke wrote: »
    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.
    He didnt tell him to show his hands without turning around. he also didnt tell him to keep breathing or to keep staying still.
    Potential-Monke wrote: »
    Continue as before.
    So there are zero repercussions now when someone shoots and kills an innocent person who has been convicted of no crimes?
    The land of the free and home of the brave indeed.


  • Options
    #548
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Another difference in these entirely dissimilar cases is one knew the rules and laws and followed them. The other deliberately broke them.


  • Options
    #549
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,123 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    beauf wrote: »
    Its only strange if you've done no research, don't understand the laws, and have no understanding of the context, or are intentionally misrepresenting the facts.

    Either way it destroys your credibility entirely.

    I thought it was obvious, but the point is that a teenager who walked the streets shooting and killing people wasnt shot and killed by police whereas another teenager who didnt shoot or kill anybody and was obeying the orders of police was.
    Does it seem correct to you?

    Rittenhouse is facing life imprisonment, what would Toledo have faced with assuming he had been taken alive?


  • Options
    #550
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,123 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    beauf wrote: »
    Another difference in these entirely dissimilar cases is one knew the rules and laws and followed them. The other deliberately broke them.

    Why is he facing life imprisonment if he followed the laws?:confused:


  • Options
    #551
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,524 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    beauf wrote: »
    One was legally allowed to carry a gun. The other was not.

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

    No one knew wheyher Rittenhouse was legally entitled to the gun or not because no one stopped to ask him. Instead they handed out bottles of water.

    That aside, didn't he cross state lines with the gun or something which questioned the legality if what he was doing?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #552
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Why is he facing life imprisonment if he followed the laws?:confused:

    What happened to innocent until proven guilty? :D


  • Options
    #553
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Tell me how wrote: »
    No one knew wheyher Rittenhouse was legally entitled to the gun or not because no one stopped to ask him. Instead they handed out bottles of water.

    That aside, didn't he cross state lines with the gun or something which questioned the legality if what he was doing?

    Sorry is this thread about that case or this one?

    Its different state different rules.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States


  • Options
    #554
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    GreeBo wrote: »
    ...
    To clarify, the cop should wait until it is clear that there is a danger to themselves or others, not make assumptions and shoot first....

    Hes didn't shoot first. Otherwise the shooting would be at the start of the video not the end of it.

    https://www.tmz.com/2021/04/16/adam-toledo-enhanced-video-chicago-police-shooting-body-cam-13-year-old-killed/
    ...The Toledo family's attorney, Adeena Weiss Ortiz, acknowledged Adam did appear to have a weapon...


  • Options
    #555
    Potential-Monke
    Registered Users Posts: 13,873 ✭✭✭✭Potential-Monke


    GreeBo wrote: »
    You value the the life of a cop who killed an innocent person over the life of the innocent person?

    He wasn't innocent, stop saying that. And yes, I will prefer the cop goes if he's just doing his job, which this one did. I don't support or protect cops who were in the wrong, like Chauvin.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    Possibly, but does that make the policy infallible or even the correct policy?

    It's the best available (as per the police department) for situations we just cannot even fathom. It was created by people who interact with dangerous criminals in dangerous situations, not by someone reading headlines and biased articles from the internet. Nothing is ever perfect. It helps keep the killed by cop rate down to 0.012% of reported crimes, that's good. Can it be improved? Yes, but everything in every part of life can be improved.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    Sigh, again with the person attacks. Can't you just argue the point without resorting to this hysterical nonsense?

    So you stick 100% to the definition of criminal, but refuse to accept he wasn't an innocent child? So a criminal is only a criminal once they are caught? So someone who has, for example, robbed a shop, is not a criminal until they're caught? So if they're never caught, they can never be considered a criminal? It's not mental gymnastics.

    Where did I personally attack you? What hysterical nonsense? The nonsense where an armed 13 year old is innocent?
    GreeBo wrote: »
    Criminals are convicted of crimes, if you can share what crime he was convicted of *that the cop was aware of* then that would greatly help the conversation.

    See above. Never black and white, as much as you'd like it to be.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    The situation where you can be shot in the US is called being in public.

    No, running from the cops with a firearm and refusing to stop until it suits you is where you can get shot in the US. 0.012%.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    Indeed, as you say, the cop wasnt even sure that he was chasing the correct person.
    To clarify, the cop should wait until it is clear that there is a danger to themselves or others, not make assumptions and shoot first.

    So if the suspect turned around and shot the cop in that instance, you'd be ok with that? Or are you going to ignore that possibility?
    GreeBo wrote: »
    "could correctly be mistaken" what does that even mean in fairness? Talk about an oxymoron.
    The fact that you have to use such linguistic gymnastics to justify it should cause concern.

    Pretty sure those words are clearly understandable. But I suppose I'm using my experience as a Garda in heightened tense situations. Maybe that's why you don't understand. Apologies.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    He didnt tell him to show his hands without turning around. he also didnt tell him to keep breathing or to keep staying still.

    Wow.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    So there are zero repercussions now when someone shoots and kills an innocent person who has been convicted of no crimes?
    The land of the free and home of the brave indeed.

    No, there will be an investigation, possibly a court case and eventually an outcome. The outcome, imo, will be policy followed and he can continue policing, if he wants. You have him convicted before the case, but we can't convict the suspect at all? Which is it, can't have it both ways.


  • Options
    #556
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,123 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    beauf wrote: »
    Hes didn't shoot first. Otherwise the shooting would be at the start of the video not the end of it.

    https://www.tmz.com/2021/04/16/adam-toledo-enhanced-video-chicago-police-shooting-body-cam-13-year-old-killed/

    He shot before any actual threat had materialized, i.e. shoot first and analyse later.


  • Options
    #557
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,223 ✭✭✭✭biko


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Both events occurred, in part, because of Americas stance on gun control.
    Chicago have quite strict gun control.
    Not the strictest as New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco are all much stricter than Chicago today. But it used to be nigh impossible to have a gun.
    Why the gun laws have been relaxed in this city is anyone's guess. It has been run by Dems almost a hundred years.

    That aside, it's doubtful the weapon Adam had was legally purchased.


  • Options
    #558
    Effects
    Registered Users Posts: 9,760 ✭✭✭Effects


    beauf wrote: »
    One was legally allowed to carry a gun. The other was not.

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

    Rittenhouse wasn't legally carrying his weapon either.


  • Options
    #559
    Potential-Monke
    Registered Users Posts: 13,873 ✭✭✭✭Potential-Monke


    @Greebo: You think this officer waited long enough? (not relatd to the case, but shows how quickly it can get to being shot):

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/11/tell-my-family-i-love-them-video-captures-a-near-death-shooting-of-a-police-officer/

    Edit: Nevermind, I'm wasting my time. I'm off to bang my head off a wall, seems more productive.


  • Options
    #560
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,123 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Potential-Monke wrote: »
    He wasn't innocent, stop saying that.
    Well if you can tell me what he was convicted of then maybe I will.
    Otherwise, perhaps you can follow the innocent until proven guilty and stop saying he is guilty of something?
    Potential-Monke wrote: »
    And yes, I will prefer the cop goes if he's just doing his job, which this one did. I don't support or protect cops who were in the wrong, like Chauvin.
    Well I and others happen to believe that this cop was in the wrong.
    Potential-Monke wrote: »
    It's the best available (as per the police department) for situations we just cannot even fathom. It was created by people who interact with dangerous criminals in dangerous situations, not by someone reading headlines and biased articles from the internet. Nothing is ever perfect. It helps keep the killed by cop rate down to 0.012% of reported crimes, that's good. Can it be improved? Yes, but everything in every part of life can be improved.
    Everything could be better so dont bother making things better?
    Just because your job involves interacting with dangerous criminals it doesnt mean that you can treat everyone as a dangerous criminal, which is what happened here.

    Potential-Monke wrote: »
    So you stick 100% to the definition of criminal, but refuse to accept he wasn't an innocent child? So a criminal is only a criminal once they are caught? So someone who has, for example, robbed a shop, is not a criminal until they're caught? So if they're never caught, they can never be considered a criminal? It's not mental gymnastics.
    They can only be treated as a criminal when they are convicted of a crime, thats how the justice system works?
    Potential-Monke wrote: »
    Where did I personally attack you? What hysterical nonsense?
    "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."
    This hysterical nonsense. "wont somebody please think of the children!"




    Potential-Monke wrote: »
    No, running from the cops with a firearm and refusing to stop until it suits you is where you can get shot in the US. 0.012%.
    Other than the fact that he had stopped running and/or resisting arrest you are correct, unless you are saying he was shot for something he had previously done?
    As for "until it suits" you, I'm not sure you know how the law works. He had stopped, the cops dont get to hand out some retribution because a suspect made them run!

    Potential-Monke wrote: »
    So if the suspect turned around and shot the cop in that instance, you'd be ok with that? Or are you going to ignore that possibility?
    I'd be perfectly happy with the victim being shot and killed in that scenario and would hope that the cop wasnt killed or indeed shot, but I would accept that outcome if it meant innocent people werent shot by the police. Since thats how the justice system works.

    Potential-Monke wrote: »
    Pretty sure those words are clearly understandable. But I suppose I'm using my experience as a Garda in heightened tense situations. Maybe that's why you don't understand. Apologies.
    "could correctly be mistaken" is language used by Garda in heightened tense situations? Seems like an excellent way of causing confusion.

    Nice little dig again though, clearly you are all knowing and no one else can give an opinion.


    Potential-Monke wrote: »
    No, there will be an investigation, possibly a court case and eventually an outcome. The outcome, imo, will be policy followed and he can continue policing, if he wants. You have him convicted before the case, but we can't convict the suspect at all? Which is it, can't have it both ways.

    Sorry, what did I convict him off? I asked a question. I would have expected a poster who is so experienced in tense situations to be able to correctly follow posts, apologies.


  • Options
    #561
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,759 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Tell me how wrote: »
    No one knew wheyher Rittenhouse was legally entitled to the gun or not because no one stopped to ask him. Instead they handed out bottles of water.

    That aside, didn't he cross state lines with the gun or something which questioned the legality if what he was doing?

    He didn't cross state lines with the gun. The gun was already in the state when it was given to him.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #562
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,123 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Potential-Monke wrote: »
    @Greebo: You think this officer waited long enough? (not relatd to the case, but shows how quickly it can get to being shot):

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/11/tell-my-family-i-love-them-video-captures-a-near-death-shooting-of-a-police-officer/
    This officer did exactly what I am suggesting, what would you have wanted him to do? Just shoot the guy in the back for not obeying commands?
    Potential-Monke wrote: »
    Edit: Nevermind, I'm wasting my time. I'm off to bang my head off a wall, seems more productive.

    "People are disagreeing with me, wah!":rolleyes:
    I would again have thought that your experiences in tense situations would have prepared you such terrifying situations as a text based disagreement without the toys leaving the pram?


  • Options
    #563
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,759 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Effects wrote: »
    Rittenhouse wasn't legally carrying his weapon either.

    That's up for debate.

    The law is a little murky when it comes to whether he was carrying legally or not. Apparently it's poorly worded legislation that leaves room for argument on both sides.


  • Options
    #564
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,759 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    GreeBo wrote: »
    "People are disagreeing with me, wah!":rolleyes:
    I would again have thought that your experiences in tense situations would have prepared you such terrifying situations as a text based disagreement without the toys leaving the pram?

    Nah, it's more like if you argue with fools, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.


  • Options
    #565
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,223 ✭✭✭✭biko


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    That's up for debate.

    The law is a little murky when it comes to whether he was carrying legally or not. Apparently it's poorly worded legislation that leaves room for argument on both sides.
    Yes, possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 is a misdemeanor in Wisconsin.
    The verdict on his actions are not yet decided to be unlawful as suggested by Effects. We'll have to wait and see.


  • Options
    #566
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Effects wrote: »
    Rittenhouse wasn't legally carrying his weapon either.

    The question was why wasn't he challenged for carrying rifle. The answer to that was its an open Carry State. Also its a rifle and not a pistol. Again different laws.

    If you want to change the question and derail this thread further about the Rittenhouse case then the answer to that they are going to argue that in the courts.


  • Options
    #567
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    biko wrote: »
    Yes, possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 is a misdemeanor in Wisconsin.
    The verdict on his actions are not yet decided to be unlawful as suggested by Effects. We'll have to wait and see.

    There was more to it...
    Wisconsin law stipulates that "any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor." On Aug. 27, prosecutors charged Rittenhouse with a misdemeanor count of possession of a dangerous weapon under the age of 18, according to court records.

    John Monroe, an attorney who specializes in gun rights, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that there’s an exception for rifles and shotguns, which is aimed at letting children ages 16 and 17 hunt, that could apply. But Rittenhouse wasn’t in Kenosha to hunt.

    https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/28/facebook-posts/did-kyle-rittenhouse-break-law-carrying-assault-st/


  • Options
    #568
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    They say Chicago/Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws in the state. But it doesn't seem to be working.

    https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/strictest-gun-laws-by-state

    https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/the-myths-and-truths-about-chicagos-guns-and-murder-rate/167390/


  • Options
    #569
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,524 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    beauf wrote: »
    They say Chicago/Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws in the state. But it doesn't seem to be working.

    https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/strictest-gun-laws-by-state

    https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/the-myths-and-truths-about-chicagos-guns-and-murder-rate/167390/

    Yea because neighbouring states including Tennessee have notoriously lax gun laws and there are reports that up to 80% of guns used in criminal activity in Chicago have been purchased legally elsewhere.


  • Options
    #570
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    There's always more to it isn't there. The issues in the US seem simple but never are.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #571
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,097 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    biko wrote: »
    These are two totally different scenarios with zero overlap.

    Both Americans

    Both armed

    Both suspected of murder

    Zero overlap? Lol


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement