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…1819202123

Comments

  • Options
    #662
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    GreeBo wrote: »
    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.


    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.


    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?

    Innocence is irrelevant. Cop can't decide that. So its not a factor in the cops actions. You keep bring up innocence as a distraction.

    You are treating a split second in time, as if there is endless time to analyze it. The reason for that is you have the luxury of hindsight. Also you feel the cops should let themselves get shot and possibly killed, as the default response. No sane person will accept Russian roulette as normal working practice.


  • Options
    #663
    irelandrover
    Registered Users Posts: 3,704 ✭✭✭irelandrover


    GreeBo wrote: »
    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.

    When does a suspect become an actual threat? When they have a gun, when they point a gun at someone or when they shoot the gun?


  • Options
    #664
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    GreeBo wrote: »
    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.

    All of that was only confirmed AFTER the fact.

    What was known before hand.
    There was a shooting at this location.
    Suspect ran and was likely to have a gun, likely to be a loaded gun.

    Suspect deliberately hid the act of dropping the gun with his body as he lifted his hands and that movement is indistinguishable from someone lifting a gun to fire.

    So even if wasn't a threat he made himself appear as a threat, and he gave the cop no time to see his hand empty.


  • Options
    #665
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    irelandrover wrote: »
    When does a suspect become an actual threat? When they have a gun, when they point a gun at someone or when they shoot the gun?

    After they've shot you dead apparently.


  • Options
    #666
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    GreeBo wrote: »
    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.

    You and others may have that opinion and you are entitled to it but the US Supreme Court disagrees with you.
    In the 1980s, a pair of Supreme Court decisions — Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor — set up a framework for determining when deadly force by cops is reasonable.

    Constitutionally, “police officers are allowed to shoot under two circumstances,” David Klinger, a University of Missouri St. Louis professor who studies use of force, said. The first circumstance is “to protect their life or the life of another innocent party” — what departments call the “defense-of-life” standard.

    The key to both the legal standards — defense of life and fleeing a violent felony — is that it doesn’t matter whether there is an actual threat when force is used. Instead, what matters is the officer’s “objectively reasonable” belief that there is a threat.

    So, give the above ruling.....it would appear that a perceived threat is treated no differently to what you call an 'actual threat'.
    There was certainly a chance that Toledo could have shot at the officer, that chance exists when anyone is holding a gun.

    So the officer correctly perceived a threat approx. 0.7 seconds before he fired.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #667
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,114 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    beauf wrote: »
    Innocence is irrelevant. Cop can't decide that. So its not a factor in the cops actions. You keep bring up innocence as a distraction.

    You are treating a split second in time, as if there is endless time to analyze it. The reason for that is you have the luxury of hindsight. Also you feel the cops should let themselves get shot and possibly killed, as the default response. No sane person will accept Russian roulette as normal working practice.

    I really cant explain this any clearer.
    The only reason there was a split second decision is only because the officer made a decision after a split second.

    Who does it make more sense to take the risk of getting shot.
    An innocent member of the public or the person who willingly and knowingly takes on a job that involves dealing with people who are going to shoot at them?


  • Options
    #668
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,114 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    irelandrover wrote: »
    When does a suspect become an actual threat? When they have a gun, when they point a gun at someone or when they shoot the gun?

    Well its clearly not when they just have a gun in the US, otherwise we would have a lot more shootings.
    Even pointing a gun at someone seems to be unclear as there are cases where suspects are not shot just for pointing a gun, based, I presume, on the context and their demeanor.

    I think its safe to say that shooting the gun at someone can be considered a threat by everyone?


  • Options
    #669
    irelandrover
    Registered Users Posts: 3,704 ✭✭✭irelandrover


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Well its clearly not when they just have a gun in the US, otherwise we would have a lot more shootings.
    Even pointing a gun at someone seems to be unclear as there are cases where suspects are not shot just for pointing a gun, based, I presume, on the context and their demeanor.

    I think its safe to say that shooting the gun at someone can be considered a threat by everyone?

    So you think police should only fire a gun after they have been shot at?


  • Options
    #670
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,114 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    beauf wrote: »
    All of that was only confirmed AFTER the fact.

    What was known before hand.
    There was a shooting at this location.
    Suspect ran and was likely to have a gun, likely to be a loaded gun.

    Suspect deliberately hid the act of dropping the gun with his body as he lifted his hands and that movement is indistinguishable from someone lifting a gun to fire.

    So even if wasn't a threat he made himself appear as a threat, and he gave the cop no time to see his hand empty.

    So if the cop couldnt see him drop the gun he also couldnt see that he had the gun in the first place, since he clearly couldnt see his hands.
    So shoot first and ask questions later?


  • Options
    #671
    BloodBath
    Registered Users Posts: 10,299 ✭✭✭✭BloodBath


    GreeBo wrote: »
    I really cant explain this any clearer.
    The only reason there was a split second decision is only because the officer made a decision after a split second.

    Who does it make more sense to take the risk of getting shot.
    An innocent member of the public or the person who willingly and knowingly takes on a job that involves dealing with people who are going to shoot at them?

    No you couldn't make it any clearer that you side with dangerous criminals while framing them as innocent while having a complete disregard for the lives and safety of police who try to protect us, and themselves, from dangerous criminals like these.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #672
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    GreeBo wrote: »
    I really cant explain this any clearer.
    The only reason there was a split second decision is only because the officer made a decision after a split second.

    The reason the officer made a split decision is because a split second earlier the suspect had a gun in his hand and started to turn towards the cop.

    Yes, with the benefit of hindsight, if the cop waited a second or two he would have seen that Toledo had dropped the gun............

    But...............

    If he wated a second or two and Toledo hadn't dropped the gun, he would more than likely be dead.

    Who does it make more sense to take the risk of getting shot.
    An innocent member of the public or the person who willingly and knowingly takes on a job that involves dealing with people who are going to shoot at them?

    I'm slightly confused here. Are you saying that because the cop took on that job that he should take the risk of getting shot? Really? :confused:


  • Options
    #673
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,114 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    irelandrover wrote: »
    So you think police should only fire a gun after they have been shot at?

    Thats exactly not what I said.
    Being shot at would automatically mean that the police should shoot at the suspect, but they dont have to wait to be shot at, they do have to wait for there to be an actual threat to someone before shooting. There was no actual threat, the cop misinterpreted the victims actions and perceived a threat and now someone is dead because of it.


  • Options
    #674
    irelandrover
    Registered Users Posts: 3,704 ✭✭✭irelandrover


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Thats exactly not what I said.
    Being shot at would automatically mean that the police should shoot at the suspect, but they dont have to wait to be shot at, they do have to wait for there to be an actual threat to someone before shooting. There was no actual threat, the cop misinterpreted the victims actions and perceived a threat and now someone is dead because of it.

    You said having a gun isnt an actual threat, pointing a gun isn't an actual threat. Shooting a gun is an actual threat. And you want police to wait until an actual threat to shoot.

    How can it be read any different than they have to wait until there is a shoot before they can shoot


  • Options
    #675
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,114 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    The reason the officer made a split decision is because a split second earlier the suspect had a gun in his hand and started to turn towards the cop.
    Becuase the cop told him to stop and show his hands. We have been over this a million times at this stage...
    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Yes, with the benefit of hindsight, if the cop waited a second or two he would have seen that Toledo had dropped the gun............
    You only need to worry about hindsight if you take an action that cant be undone.
    BattleCorp wrote: »

    If he wated a second or two and Toledo hadn't dropped the gun, he would more than likely be dead.
    Because Toledo was going to spin around and shoot the cop from distance at night Matrix style? I'd suggest to you that the cop, who had his weapon drawn and aimed, would have been able to shoot the suspect 99 times out of 100 without getting shot or anywhere close to it.

    BattleCorp wrote: »
    I'm slightly confused here. Are you saying that because the cop took on that job that he should take the risk of getting shot? Really? :confused:

    I'm saying that taking fire or at least risking taking fire is part of the job for a cop in a country where there are hundreds of millions of guns. Part of the job is to accept this rather than shoot first to avoid it. Otherwise why not just shoot everyone at every police interaction since maybe they will spin around and shoot the cop as we have seen in countless example videos?


  • Options
    #676
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,114 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    irelandrover wrote: »
    You said having a gun isnt an actual threat, pointing a gun isn't an actual threat. Shooting a gun is an actual threat. And you want police to wait until an actual threat to shoot.

    How can it be read any different than they have to wait until there is a shoot before they can shoot

    I said having a gun or even pointing a gun isnt *necessarily* a threat it depends on the context and situation.
    I want the police to use their training and experience to determine when holding a gun turns into an actual threat, hopefully without them having to be shot at, but I accept that this is not always possible, but it is preferable than them shooting an innocent suspect.


  • Options
    #677
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Because Toledo was going to spin around and shoot the cop from distance at night Matrix style?

    Yes. Exactly. The cop perceived that Toledo was going to spin around and shoot him.

    See my earlier comment where I quoted a couple of US Supreme Court decisions that treat perceived threats the same as what you call 'actual threats'.


  • Options
    #678
    BloodBath
    Registered Users Posts: 10,299 ✭✭✭✭BloodBath


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Thats exactly not what I said.
    Being shot at would automatically mean that the police should shoot at the suspect, but they dont have to wait to be shot at, they do have to wait for there to be an actual threat to someone before shooting. There was no actual threat, the cop misinterpreted the victims actions and perceived a threat and now someone is dead because of it.

    He misinterpreted the kids intentions, not his actions. His actions were shifty at best, concealing a firearm from view, which we got a glimpse of as I'm sure the officer did too, literally 1-2 seconds before turning quickly raising the hand the weapon had been in 1-2 seconds before. The weapon drop was not visible.

    Any cop in that situation would interpret that as an aggressive action. The kids actions were the problem, not the cops interpretation of them. You can pin that as diminished responsibility because of his age, which the cop didn't know, but regardless it's his own fault and the fault of his parents and peers.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    I'm saying that taking fire or at least risking taking fire is part of the job for a cop in a country where there are hundreds of millions of guns. Part of the job is to accept this rather than shoot first to avoid it. Otherwise why not just shoot everyone at every police interaction since maybe they will spin around and shoot the cop as we have seen in countless example videos?

    Are you Roy Keane? Totally pointless hyperbole.


  • Options
    #679
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,344 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Who does it make more sense to take the risk of getting shot.
    An innocent member of the public or the person who willingly and knowingly takes on a job that involves dealing with people who are going to shoot at them?




    Exactly. This is why I feel all members of the fire service should sacrifice themselves and burn to death if they can't get a blaze under control or if someone is perceived to be inside a building at any time.


    Who does it make more sense to take the risk of getting burned alive?
    An innocent member of the public or the person who willingly and knowingly takes on a job that involves dealing with fires?


  • Options
    #680
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,114 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Yes. Exactly. The cop perceived that Toledo was going to spin around and shoot him.

    See my earlier comment where I quoted a couple of US Supreme Court decisions that treat perceived threats the same as what you call 'actual threats'.

    And that's what I am saying is wrong when the result of incorrect perceived threat is someone dead, especially when, as in this scenario, we can categorically state that the perceived threat was incorrect.

    If you have 10 armed officers and 1 of them perceives a threat and shoots a victim but the other 9 don't, is that perceived threat still valid? What if its 1 vs 99? 1 vs 999?
    "perceived threat" can't be a carte blanche to get away with making mistakes when the result of a mistake is death.


  • Options
    #681
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    GreeBo wrote: »
    And that's what I am saying is wrong when the result of incorrect perceived threat is someone dead, especially when, as in this scenario, we can categorically state that the perceived threat was incorrect.

    If you have 10 armed officers and 1 of them perceives a threat and shoots a victim but the other 9 don't, is that perceived threat still valid? What if its 1 vs 99? 1 vs 999?
    "perceived threat" can't be a carte blanche to get away with making mistakes when the result of a mistake is death.

    Off you go and argue with the US Supreme Court so.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #682
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,114 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Exactly. This is why I feel all members of the fire service should sacrifice themselves and burn to death if they can't get a blaze under control or if someone is perceived to be inside a building at any time.


    Who does it make more sense to take the risk of getting burned alive?
    An innocent member of the public or the person who willingly and knowingly takes on a job that involves dealing with fires?

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

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


  • Options
    #683
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,114 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Off you go and argue with the US Supreme Court so.

    Erm, I'm having a discussion/debate with others on a discussion forum who feel that the decision was ok?:confused:


  • Options
    #684
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,917 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Exactly. This is why I feel all members of the fire service should sacrifice themselves and burn to death if they can't get a blaze under control or if someone is perceived to be inside a building at any time.


    Who does it make more sense to take the risk of getting burned alive?
    An innocent member of the public or the person who willingly and knowingly takes on a job that involves dealing with fires?

    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.


  • Options
    #685
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,114 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    BloodBath wrote: »
    He misinterpreted the kids intentions, not his actions.

    No, he misinterpreted his actions. He thought his actions were to shoot when they were not, as they could not be.
    BloodBath wrote: »
    His actions were shifty at best, concealing a firearm from view, which we got a glimpse of as I'm sure the officer did too, literally 1-2 seconds before turning quickly raising the hand the weapon had been in 1-2 seconds before. The weapon drop was not visible.
    "shifty" isnt a crime yet.
    BloodBath wrote: »
    Any cop in that situation would interpret that as an aggressive action. The kids actions were the problem, not the cops interpretation of them. You can pin that as diminished responsibility because of his age, which the cop didn't know, but regardless it's his own fault and the fault of his parents and peers.
    You cannot possibly say that any cop would do the same.
    We already have a case where 1 cop out of 3 shot a victim when the others didnt.
    BloodBath wrote: »
    Are you Roy Keane? Totally pointless hyperbole.
    No I'm not, but its the logical conclusion to responding to individual perceptions.


  • Options
    #686
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Erm, I'm having a discussion/debate with others on a discussion forum who feel that the decision was ok?:confused:

    You are putting forward your own idea (which you are free to do) that a 'perceived threat' and an 'actual threat' are different.

    I just showed you that when it comes to US law, the US Supreme Court disagrees with your own idea that they are different because cops are legally allowed to use deadly force if they 'perceive' a threat.

    You can keep repeating the same thing over and over about the difference between perceived and actual threat but it doesn't change the fact that the US Supreme Court doesn't see a difference between the two.


  • Options
    #687
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,114 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    You are putting forward your own idea (which you are free to do) that a 'perceived threat' and an 'actual threat' are different.

    I just showed you that when it comes to US law, the US Supreme Court disagrees with your own idea that they are different because cops are legally allowed to use deadly force if they 'perceive' a threat.

    You can keep repeating the same thing over and over about the difference between perceived and actual threat but it doesn't change the fact that the US Supreme Court doesn't see a difference between the two.

    Well until the Supreme Court start moderating this thread I and everyone else are free to voice our opinions on what happened, vs what should have happened and what is right regardless of what the law currently says.

    It is a *discussion* forum rather than a *state the facts* forum yunno?


  • Options
    #688
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    GreeBo wrote: »
    No, he misinterpreted his actions. He thought his actions were to shoot when they were not, as they could not be.

    No way of knowing that till after the fact.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    "shifty" isnt a crime yet.

    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.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    You cannot possibly say that any cop would do the same.
    We already have a case where 1 cop out of 3 shot a victim when the others didnt.

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

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


  • Options
    #689
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Erm, I'm having a discussion/debate with others on a discussion forum who feel that the decision was ok?:confused:

    I doubt anyone thinks its ok.

    More like if you are playing with fire getting burnt is a real possibility.


  • Options
    #690
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    GreeBo wrote: »
    It is a *discussion* forum rather than a *state the facts* forum yunno?

    I can tell that from your posts in this thread.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #691
    irelandrover
    Registered Users Posts: 3,704 ✭✭✭irelandrover


    GreeBo wrote: »
    I said having a gun or even pointing a gun isnt *necessarily* a threat it depends on the context and situation.
    I want the police to use their training and experience to determine when holding a gun turns into an actual threat, hopefully without them having to be shot at, but I accept that this is not always possible, but it is preferable than them shooting an innocent suspect.

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


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement