US Police killing of 13 year old Adam Toledo

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.

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.

BloodBath wrote: »

You've changed your tune.

It's what critical thinking people do when presented with new evidence.

Gone from quoting nonsense from Trevor Noah, a bad comedian and a bad analyst, to trying to be more reasonable but still trying to blame the police. But what has James Cordon got to say about it!

Not familiar with Cordon much at all tbf, and Trevor's prose statement is still equally fitting, that the cop in this case did not straight out murder a child in cold blood, is not some twisted vindication to argue the system is not broken or in need of massive reform.

Maybe yourself and Trevor should get down off your ivory tower and try a stint in the force to see how easy it is. If you're waiting for someone to shoot first you won't last very long.

Settle down? We are having a discussion here, you've arrived pissing vinegar.

As for the survival rate if a tactical force uses the rules of engagement to fire only if fired upon, I should remind you that the casualty rate for military service, which uses those rules, is remarkably low. The US military has spent 20 years in Afghanistan fighting war/peacekeeping against a hostile force intent to kill them. 2,312 troops have perished in Afghanistan in that timeframe. Every year in the US, however, police are killed at a rate that exceeds that, when the vast majority of people would not be outset with premeditation to engage with or kill these officers, the same way opposing forces to do so against military targets. 264 officers perished last year. Clearly, the argument cannot be made that Police rules of engagement keep them any safer than military style ROE.

Comparing a 13 year old running around a 2am firing off a handgun to yourself sneaking out at night when you were a kid is a bad analogy.

No, it's not. Any bystander can be in the area of any crime for any reason. Simply calling it a bad analogy, as well, is not a counterargument. If an officer positively ID's that person firing a handgun, or fleeing with a handgun, that's of course one thing, but if you just start chasing someone down an alleyway on the mere chance they might be a suspect, that is another. If I had been wandering around my town when gunshots were heard near by, I don't think we want to live in a society that supposes in that situation that I should be prepared to accept being shot at first with questions asked later.

The kid played a stupid game and won a stupid prize and his parents let him down big time.

Perhaps. But that is far from an absolution of police responsibility for its use of force. The system is quite broken if there is individual responsibility for thee, but not me. Both. Ways.

Your cynical view of it is clear. The kid clearly had his right hand hidden from view and in his hoodie pocket. He turned and pulled it out and was instantly shot. It's easy to say in hindsight and freezing a frame where his hands are visible but the cop had literally 1 second to determine his action and yes in hindsight it was the wrong action. In another scenario where he hesitates the cop get's shot.

The widespread use of guns is the problem. Maybe you will acknowledge that someday.

This is another baselessly snarky comment given that, indeed, we and I have acknowledged the problem of guns in this thread? I suggest going back to read all of what is posted. Again, it is one factor that doesn't tell the entire problem, which has no one locus. Guns have of course been brought up as a problem; the reality is they aren't going away, so the conversation had moved on to other use of force measures that don't inject risk of mortality for either suspect or officer.

If an armed US cop was chasing me down with a gun you can be sure I'd follow his commands and make sure my hands were visible and not do any sudden movements or cagey actions that could be interpreted as trying to pull a gun on them.

Okay. I might, too. And, so did Adam Toledo, incidentally.

Here, Adam Toledo did follow the command to stop, and show the officer his hands. A moment after seeing Toledo's empty palms, he was shot by the officer.

Again, though, since there is no empirical way to classify what counts as for instance, sudden and cagey movements, why should it make sense for cops to have the Rules of Engagement that say your cagey movements can ethically, legally, and morally result in your immediate death? You, BloodBath, who are being chased down an alleyway by a cop, and feel threatened and wish to surrender, you comply with the officers command, and triggered by some jittery movement or displeased with the angular velocity you used to turn around and face him, the officer empties his firearm into your chest per his standing rules of engagement... ?

The Chicago Police Union head for his part is pouring gasoline on the story.

The President of the Chicago Police Union, John Catanzara went on Cuomo Prime Time to discuss the fatal shooting of 13-year-old Adam Toledo. He called the actions of the police officer “100% justified” and added, “that officer’s actions were actually heroic.”

Adam Toledo was shot early March 29th by a Chicago police officer who was responding to a report of gunfire. The police said the incident was an “armed confrontation” and a gun was found nearby. Since the bodycam footage was released Thursday, there has been a debate over whether or not it shows Toledo holding a gun when he was shot.

Catanzara defended the officer saying, “In reality, an average human being could not block someone from slapping him in the face in less time than that…It’s a good reason why the officer only shot one. He would have been justified to shoot multiple times.”

He gave his sympathies to the officers at the scene, “What do you think the officers who responded to that scene and were rendering aid and trying to save his life are now stuck with for the rest of their life? And they got to bring that home to their families, and then their families are affected by this.” [They get to go home to their families.. - Overheal]

He continued, claiming that Toledo was a Latin Kings gang member. [Leveling accusations at the dead charging guilt that will never see a day in court - Overheal] “The poor young kid misguided made a horrible decision that cost him his life, but it was justified.” Remarking on Toledo’s age, Catanzara said, “I will say, he’s 13 years old. We talk about the public school system in Chicago specifically. He should have been in school. [Night Classes at 2 AM?? - Overheal] But we’re not in school learning, now are we?”

Catanzara is no stranger to controversy. Earlier this year he was stripped of his pay and suspended from the force for filing a false police report on former police Supt. Eddie Johnson for his participation in an anti-violence march. Catanzara also received complaints about social media posts where he suggested killing people and called Muslim people “savages” and that “they all deserve a bullet.” He defended the posts saying he was referring to cop killers and people who mutilate women in the name of Islam.

Host Chris Cuomo responded to Catanzara’s comments, “I don’t want to judge the officer as a person. I don’t want to judge the victim. I just want to judge the situation and whether it was reasonable in its midst. I appreciate your commentary. For me, I want to stick to the facts.”

I'm not sure how the actions were Heroic, honestly. I don't ever want to find a video clip of this encounter in the dictionary, under Heroism. Chasing people down alleyways you think might be armed, should be in the dictionary under Stupidity, honestly. And I have no idea how he thinks he is helping by saying 'well, if anything the kid's parents should just be grateful that they only shot him once, since they had every right to shoot him some more' - like, what point are you making, how are you trying to help your community with that statement, Union President Catanzara? Don't even have to consider Catanzara's past controversies, what he's said in this instance itself is, well, raw gasoline and in poor taste.