US Police killing of 13 year old Adam Toledo

GreeBo · 16-04-2021 1:53pm

Ckendrick wrote: »

I don’t understand what your saying here. Are you saying that once they established that this child had a gun that they should have got in their cars and drove away?
Because if that’s what your saying then I wholeheartedly agree.
Best conclusion.
Boy doesn’t get shot dead by cop.
Cop isnt shot dead by boy.
If the boy goes on to shoot some other boys then that’s sad, but it’s not important.

You don't see an option between shooting and walking away?
How about staying there and not shooting? Let's start with that maybe? The kid had stopped, dropped the gun and had his hands up.

GreeBo · 16-04-2021 1:54pm

BloodBath wrote: »

He didn't shoot at the cop because he had no ammo left from his previous shooting escapades.

He did have the gun in his hand seconds before being shot though. Stop making excuses.

Stop making up your own reality.
You have no evidence the gun was empty
No evidence the kid even shot the gun.

Tacitus Kilgore · 16-04-2021 1:54pm

BloodBath wrote: »

He didn't shoot at the cop because he had no ammo left from his previous shooting escapades.

He did have the gun in his hand seconds before being shot though. Stop making excuses.

Those facts or opinions?

16-04-2021 1:54pm

Ckendrick wrote: »

It’s almost inevitable now that US police will have no other option but to adopt a policy of not engaging with minorities on any level when it comes to criminal justice.
The black community and their supporters clearly want to be allowed to police themselves. If this results in deaths and loss of property then it will be because that’s what the citizens clearly prefer as opposed to these now daily incidents of the shooting of minorities in highly charged situations.
If it wasn’t what citizens want then they would surely rise up.

For years we heard that communities were neglected by law enforcement and that's why they were blighted by violence and crime. Now we're told the issue is "over-policing".

Cops in the US should avoid any dealings whatever with minorities whenever possible. Ensure there's no chance they can be accused of "over-policing" and just let the kumbaya-ing take over.

GreeBo · 16-04-2021 1:55pm

gctest50 wrote: »

He might have had a second handgun

kid ? awww poor innocent kid awww - he was wandering around with a handgun ffs

Lol, any other fantasies you want to make up? Grenade maybe? Anthrax?

BloodBath · 16-04-2021 1:56pm

GreeBo wrote: »

You don't see an option between shooting and walking away?
How about staying there and not shooting? Let's start with that maybe? The kid had stopped, dropped the gun and had his hands up.

The gun was dropped out of sight with his sideways stance to the cop. It was visible for a second or 2 possibly even to the cop right before he turned and raised the same hand the gun was in, then the shot happened. This was a matter of 2 seconds. The cop didn't have time to rewatch and freeze frame and think.

Put yourself in his shoes for a second if you are capable of that.

BloodBath · 16-04-2021 1:56pm

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

Those facts or opinions?

Fact based on the multiple frames where you can see the gun. I already linked it. Post 147.

minikin · 16-04-2021 1:57pm

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

He was 13, he was a child, no amount of de-humanising from you or the rest of them will change that.

You - are the scrote here. Take a look at yourself, sicko.

You have so much to add to this conversation.

GreeBo · 16-04-2021 1:57pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

This is the second time you've mentioned this, I think you may have a misunderstanding of how military ROE work. The kid would have been just as dead had be been confronted by a soldier. Irish soldiers have an escalation of force continuum certain steps of which may be skipped if the situation so indicates. US ROE are never as cut and dry as "the other guy must shoot first", as either the wording is such that one may "shoot at a threat" or there is a note that the ROE presents an ideal which need not always apply, normally worded akin to "Nothing in these RoE prohibit you from taking actions necessary to protect yourself or your unit". See for example the big boxed writing at the top of this ROE card. https://i.redd.it/pfor2mdu1uvz.jpg

I think the expectations and responsibilities are pretty different for soldiers and police.

Tacitus Kilgore · 16-04-2021 1:58pm

BloodBath wrote: »

Fact based on the multiple frames where you can see the gun. I already linked it.

Fact that the kid was going to shoot at the police only for he had no ammo? Or surmission?

BloodBath · 16-04-2021 2:00pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Stop making up your own reality.
You have no evidence the gun was empty
No evidence the kid even shot the gun.

I linked the bloody evidence. The gun is in his hand and on the ground in a state that handguns are in when the mag is empty.

You are the one living in a fantasy land.

GreeBo · 16-04-2021 2:00pm

wicklowstevo wrote: »

why would a cop take the chance of being murdered in a ally but some one ? are their lives worth less to you ? would his life be worth more if he was black ?
.

Because the cops job is to protect and serve, he shot this victim without any grounds to use lethal force.

His life would be worth the exact same to me if he was purple, no idea why you are bringing race into this?

BloodBath · 16-04-2021 2:01pm

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

Fact that the kid was going to shoot at the police only for he had no ammo? Or surmission?

I said who knows on that. Come on now.

GreeBo · 16-04-2021 2:01pm

BloodBath wrote: »

I linked the bloody evidence. The gun is in his hand and on the ground in a state that handguns are in when the mag is empty.

You are the one living in a fantasy land.

And you know the victim shot it how?

Seems like you just proved the point the the victim was no danger, he had no ammo?

BloodBath · 16-04-2021 2:02pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Because the cops job is to protect and serve, he shot this victim without any grounds to use lethal force.

His life would be worth the exact same to me if he was purple, no idea why you are bringing race into this?

He had grounds to use lethal force. You are beyond ignorant.

GreeBo wrote: »

And you know the victim shot it how?

Seems like you just proved the point the the victim was no danger, he had no ammo?

I don't know that but the police had reports of shots fired in that area and a description of the suspects. Combined with said suspect having a gun with what appears to be an empty mag it kinda does stack up.

GreeBo · 16-04-2021 2:03pm

BloodBath wrote: »

I said who knows on that. Come on now.

Well if we are playing that game, who knows if the victim wouldn't have prevented a mass murder of he was alive today?

It's almost like these 13 year olds don't think like mature adults.

16-04-2021 2:07pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Well if we are playing that game, who knows if the victim wouldn't have prevented a mass murder of he was alive today?

It's almost like these 13 year olds don't think like mature adults.

thank god bullets fired by 13 year olds magically turn into jelly beans then. Otherwise you would again be suggesting that police should allow 13 year olds to shoot them because they "dont think like mature adults"

Tacitus Kilgore · 16-04-2021 2:09pm

minikin wrote: »

Sick in the head???
A child would be home in bed at three in the morning.
A child would not be out popping caps at three in the morning.
This was an apprentice scrote, no loss.
Jog on stormtrooper.

minikin wrote: »

You have so much to add to this conversation.

These are your only two posts in the thread.

GreeBo · 16-04-2021 2:09pm

BloodBath wrote: »

He had grounds to use lethal force. You are beyond ignorant.

The grounds being a child with an empty gun with his hands up and complying with orders?

I don't know that but the police had reports of shots fired in that area and a description of the suspects. Combined with said suspect having a gun with what appears to be an empty mag it kinda does stack up.

Indeed. So its in no way possible that the other suspect shot all the bullets, or that neither of them did and they came across an empty gun that the actual shooter had ditched?

You seem to have all the facts before any investigation has been completed!

At least you admit that you actually dont know the things that you were stating as fact.

satguy · 16-04-2021 2:09pm

I'd give the cop a pass on this one.

The young lad had a gun, why did the young lad have a gun, how many people did he fire at with that gun.

You reap what you sow..

BanditLuke · 16-04-2021 2:11pm

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

He was 13, that is a child no matter how much you want to de-humanise him.

Sick in the head, both of ye.

He was a criminal with a gun that his buddies referred to as "Lil homicide". He chose his path or his path chose him it doesn't matter a jot. Iv'e a feeling if this was a white 13yo scumbag from Sherriff street or Finglas the same people blaming the police would be applauding the Gardai for ridding us of him.

You roam the streets at 2am waving and supposedly shooting a gun at others bad sh!t happens.

Manic Moran · 16-04-2021 2:11pm

GreeBo wrote: »

I think the expectations and responsibilities are pretty different for soldiers and police.

I agree, but he's the one saying that had the cop been operating under military RoE he would not have shot. A position with which I disagree.

GreeBo wrote: »

Is holding a gun punishable by death now?

No. Neither is driving at excessive speed without wearing a seat belt. Both activities have a known likely possibly of death as a result, however, and should be avoided if possible for just that reason.

To respond to an earlier comment, yes, I agree that the pistol appears to be locked back on an empty mag Again, though, that's with the benefit of a still image.

So, who will be charged or sued for giving the boy a gun?

Tacitus Kilgore · 16-04-2021 2:14pm

BloodBath wrote: »

He didn't shoot at the cop because he had no ammo left from his previous shooting escapades.

He did have the gun in his hand seconds before being shot though. Stop making excuses.

How about you direct some of of that "empathy" towards the cop and the situation he was in.

BloodBath wrote: »

I said who knows on that. Come on now.

Era now you didn't tbh.

BanditLuke wrote: »

He was a criminal with a gun that his buddies referred to as "Lil homicide". He chose his path or his path chose him it doesn't matter a jot. Iv'e a feeling if this was a white 13yo scumbag from Sherriff street or Finglas the same people blaming the police would be applauding the Gardai for ridding us of him.

You roam the streets at 2am waving and supposedly shooting a gun at others bad sh!t happens.

No, I never laud the death of a child, regardless of circumstance.

You think he deserved death so, fair enough. I think that's a sick way to think.

BloodBath · 16-04-2021 2:14pm

GreeBo wrote: »

The grounds being a child with an empty gun with his hands up and complying with orders?

Indeed. So its in no way possible that the other suspect shot all the bullets, or that neither of them did and they came across an empty gun that the actual shooter had ditched?

You seem to have all the facts before any investigation has been completed!

At least you admit that you actually dont know the things that you were stating as fact.

Are you really this ignorant or are you just trolling at this stage?

The cop had no time to analyze the situation and see that the gun was empty. It's literally only visible for a few frames before the shooting.

He gets shot in the turning and raising his hands action in the space of 1 second.

Regardless of your attempt at mental gymnastics the kid had a gun in his right hand that he was attempting to conceal from view 2 seconds before he was shot while turning and doing an action that could be perceived as a threat.

Really the cops can't win no matter what they do with people like you.

GreeBo · 16-04-2021 2:15pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

thank god bullets fired by 13 year olds magically turn into jelly beans then. Otherwise you would again be suggesting that police should allow 13 year olds to shoot them because they "dont think like mature adults"

Do you have any evidence of where or in what direction the shots were fired or are you just building your own facts to suit your narrative?

Penn · 16-04-2021 2:17pm

I think the full circumstances of the shooting are still up for debate, but it is possible the shooting could be considered reasonable under the circumstances.

What's not reasonable is the falsified report following it. It seems to have stated that Toledo had the gun in his hand when he turned, and after being shot it landed a few feet away. But they had to have seen the bodycam footage by then and therefore knew it wasn't in his hand.

That does irreperable damage to their own case for justifying the shot.

GreeBo · 16-04-2021 2:17pm

Effects wrote: »

There's supposedly gunshot residue on his hands, so if that's the case, then is that evidence enough for you?

Not really, that would be all over the gun and hence his hands irrespective of whether he actually shot it or not.
Either way, shooting a gun doesnt automatically make someone a threat.
Is there any evidence that either suspect actually shot at anyone?

minikin · 16-04-2021 2:17pm

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

These are your only two posts in the thread.

Nope... not true at all, you’re good at getting things wrong.

drkpower · 16-04-2021 2:18pm

The kid’s age is really irrelevant in this case (in terms of the officers culpability)

What matters is whether the officer could reasonably have pulled the trigger when he did in the circumstances. It’s a tough one but if the kid literally ditched the gun just before he raised his arms (and the officer knew/reasonably suspected he had a gun), I would have some sympathy for the officer. I certainly wouldn’t envy the decision he had to make in a literal split second.

This is far from the chauvin case.

BloodBath · 16-04-2021 2:18pm

Effects wrote: »

Or maybe he was a kid a little off the rails, who was firing a gun for fun. But would never intentionally point or shoot it at a person.
I know people who used to shoot guns for fun when they were that age.

That's definitely a possibility. Bit risky doing that in a city though no?

16-04-2021 2:20pm

BloodBath wrote: »

Really the cops can't win no matter what they do with people like you.

Exactly why I am out of this thread. Logic, reason and facts arent allowed in by the core group of usual suspects

GreeBo · 16-04-2021 2:21pm

BloodBath wrote: »

Are you really this ignorant or are you just trolling at this stage?

I'm arguing based on the facts, I understand if this doesnt suit your personal narrative.

BloodBath wrote: »

The cop had no time to analyze the situation and see that the gun was empty. It's literally only visible for a few frames before the shooting.

so not enough time to analyse the situation leads to the default action of shoot first? Thats kinda the point, *this* is a problem with policing in America.

BloodBath wrote: »

He gets shot in the turning and raising his hands action in the space of 1 second.

Maybe an extra second would have given the cop the chance to perform some analysis and not shoot?
I mean why not just shoot immediately if you are going to shoot before you analyse the situation?

BloodBath wrote: »

Regardless of your attempt at mental gymnastics the kid had a gun in his right hand that he was attempting to conceal from view 2 seconds before he was shot while turning and doing an action that could be perceived as a threat.

If discussing the facts of the case is "mental gymnastics" then we are probably done interacting with each other.

BloodBath wrote: »

Really the cops can't win no matter what they do with people like you.

If by "people like me" you mean people who want the police to stop shooting people, then that label is fine by me.

Varik · 16-04-2021 2:23pm

Penn wrote: »

That does irreparable damage to their own case for justifying the shot.

No ones been charged with his death, there's no case yet.

Manic Moran wrote: »

So, who will be charged or sued for giving the boy a gun?

He's been charged with child endangerment already and Illinois has a felony murder charge, where someone who commits a felony can be charged with murder for the death of someone they didn't kill but who died during the act.

Not sure if that'd be applicable as he was already under arrest at that point.

Read about it with getaway driver who never left the car getting charged with the deaths of 3 others in a home invasion while she waited.

GreeBo · 16-04-2021 2:23pm

BloodBath wrote: »

That's definitely a possibility. Bit risky doing that in a city though no?

Who knows, I guess it would depend on what they were aiming at?
Perhaps they were shooting into the dirt, maybe into a sewer.

Again this is why its important to analyse the facts *before* shooting, its so much easier to clean up afterwards this way.

Manic Moran · 16-04-2021 2:24pm

Penn wrote: »

I think the full circumstances of the shooting are still up for debate, but it is possible the shooting could be considered reasonable under the circumstances.

What's not reasonable is the falsified report following it. It seems to have stated that Toledo had the gun in his hand when he turned, and after being shot it landed a few feet away. But they had to have seen the bodycam footage by then and therefore knew it wasn't in his hand.

That does irreperable damage to their own case for justifying the shot.

The statement need not be at odds with the video. It does seem that when he began the turn he had the pistol in his hand, and threw it as part of the turning process. The pistol may still have been in motion behind the fence when the shot was fired thus landing after the shot was fired.

GreeBo · 16-04-2021 2:26pm

Varik wrote: »

N
Read about it with getaway driver who never left the car getting charged with the deaths of 3 others in a home invasion while she waited.

Isnt that just "joint enterprise"?
I wouldnt have thought it would apply in this scenario.

Tacitus Kilgore · 16-04-2021 2:28pm

minikin wrote: »

Nope... not true at all, you’re good at getting things wrong.

I don't mind, at least my conscience is clear on how I view a dead child.

toxicity234 · 16-04-2021 2:29pm

Normal I would have sympathy for the Police in these cases.
But not in this one.

The lads had a gun, Dropped it and raised his hands.
It's Murder when you shot an unarmed person.

No matter what happens before the police flashlight, hit that person does not matter.
That could have been a 60 years homeowner defending his property but once he drops the gun. His treat level has dropped to small.
Shoting someone, in this case, is murder.

The problem in the USA is that police are undertrained for the weapon they carry.
That said, shooting an unarmed person is still murder. The office has to be charged.

BloodBath · 16-04-2021 2:31pm

GreeBo wrote: »

I'm arguing based on the facts, I understand if this doesnt suit your personal narrative.

so not enough time to analyse the situation leads to the default action of shoot first? Thats kinda the point, *this* is a problem with policing in America.

Maybe an extra second would have given the cop the chance to perform some analysis and not shoot?
I mean why not just shoot immediately if you are going to shoot before you analyse the situation?

If discussing the facts of the case is "mental gymnastics" then we are probably done interacting with each other.

If by "people like me" you mean people who want the police to stop shooting people, then that label is fine by me.

An extra second would also have given the kid enough time to shoot the cop remembering that the cop couldn't see the kid ditch the gun or that gun was empty.

I suggest you review standard police procedure in a situation like this. They are 100% trained to shoot first in this scenario and rightfully so and will be protected by law in doing so thanks to the bodycam evidence.

The kid should have dropped his gun in view and put his hands behind his head or above his head. Not attempt to conceal the gun from view with a dodgey sideways stance and then a sudden turn and arm raise. That's the kind of **** that get's you killed.

Put yourself in the cops shoes in this situation if you are capable. Your life is literally on the line and you have 1-2 seconds to decide your action.

seamus · 16-04-2021 2:34pm

BloodBath wrote: »

The kid should have dropped his gun and put his hands behind his head or above his head. Not attempt to conceal the gun from view with a dodgey sideways stance and then a sudden turn and arm raise.

So a 13 year kid should be able to remember "procedure", control his movements carefully and display a keen awareness of the mental state of the cop so as to avoid getting shot. And failure to do so makes it all his fault.

But a trained cop, an adult with a weapon, who fires in panic at a 13 year-old-kid is a-ok because, "procedure".

What absolute bullsh1t, mate.

drkpower · 16-04-2021 2:35pm

toxicity234 wrote: »

The office has to be charged.

He likely willl be though the chances of a conviction based on presently understood facts seems unlikely. Juries will tend to put themselves in the shoes of the cop, and every few, after they have genuinely done that, willl be keen to convict I would suggest

minikin · 16-04-2021 2:36pm

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

I don't mind, at least my conscience is clear on how I view a dead child.

As is mine, let’s leave it there so.

Ckendrick · 16-04-2021 2:37pm

GreeBo wrote: »

You don't see an option between shooting and walking away?
How about staying there and not shooting? Let's start with that maybe? The kid had stopped, dropped the gun and had his hands up.

So stay there and risk being shot dead by the kid with the gun?

BloodBath · 16-04-2021 2:38pm

seamus wrote: »

So a 13 year kid should be able to remember "procedure", control his movements carefully and display a keen awareness of the mental state of the cop so as to avoid getting shot. And failure to do so makes it all his fault.

But a trained cop, an adult with a weapon, who fires in panic at a 13 year-old-kid is a-ok because, "procedure".

What absolute bullsh1t, mate.

Are you all really this ignorant to the realities of places like Chicago? The fact that the kid was 13 is irrelevant. There's plenty of dangerous 13 year old killers. The cop also did not know the kids age.

If you're going to roam the streets with a gun then you should damn well know the risks involved with other gun users and police.

If you don't want to hold the kid responsible the least you can do is hold his parents responsible. Not the cop.

Who the hell would want to be a cop with attitudes like this on top of the dangers and stress of the job.

Manic Moran · 16-04-2021 2:47pm

seamus wrote: »

So a 13 year kid should be able to remember "procedure", control his movements carefully and display a keen awareness of the mental state of the cop so as to avoid getting shot. And failure to do so makes it all his fault.

But a trained cop, an adult with a weapon, who fires in panic at a 13 year-old-kid is a-ok because, "procedure".

What absolute bullsh1t, mate.

What the kid should have done is pretty irrelevant. He was 13, it is expected that they may make poor decisions. There is a reason that we don't allow 13 year olds to drink, drive, or carry guns in public. He apparently got it into his head that he could be smart, ditch the gun and present a harmless appearance. Unfortunately, partially due to lack of maturity, he failed to think about the time in between his decision and his desired endstate.

This is all irrelevant to the cop, who can only act on the situation as he perceives it. Whether a13 year old is capable of making good decisions is not on his mind anywhere near as much as assessing the decisions the kid is actually making, which include running from police while armed and then making a rapid turn to the officer in a manner equally commensurate with an attempt to engage the officer as it was to suddenly surrender.

hotmail.com · 16-04-2021 2:49pm

The result of the American hysteria about crime leads to these unnecessary tragedies.

Americans need to consider their own culture going forward.

GreeBo · 16-04-2021 2:52pm

BloodBath wrote: »

An extra second would also have given the kid enough time to shoot the cop remembering that the cop couldn't see the kid ditch the gun or that gun was empty.

*IF* the kid was holding and gun and *IF* the gun had bullets and *IF* the kid was actually in the mind to shoot anyone, *THEN* you are correct.

Killing someone on the basis of at least 3 *IF*s doesnt seem like a sound decision to me, especially when you freely admit that he didnt take/have the time to analyse the situation.

Shoot first and let God sort it out is not a valid policy for those charged with protecting and serving the public.

BloodBath wrote: »

I suggest you review standard police procedure in a situation like this. They are 100% trained to shoot first in this scenario and rightfully so and will be protected by law in doing so thanks to the bodycam evidence.

The point is that this is not the rightful procedure, they shot an unarmed, innocent 13 year old!

BloodBath wrote: »

The kid should have dropped his gun in view and put his hands behind his head or above his head. Not attempt to conceal the gun from view with a dodgey sideways stance and then a sudden turn and arm raise. That's the kind of **** that get's you killed.

Put yourself in the cops shoes in this situation if you are capable. Your life is literally on the line and you have 1-2 seconds to decide your action.

A) There is no evidence that his life was on the line

He didnt take 1-2 seconds, he didnt even take 1

Put yourself in the mind of a 13 year old likely terrified out of his wits, if you are capable.
Does every 13 year old act rationally at the best of times? How about when scared and having a cop point a gun at them?

GreeBo · 16-04-2021 2:53pm

Ckendrick wrote: »

So stay there and risk being shot dead by the kid with the gun?

Being a police officer in the heavily armed US means that the job entails the risk of being shot!

Ckendrick · 16-04-2021 2:58pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Being a police officer in the heavily armed US means that the job entails the risk of being shot!

You mean the police officers lives dont matter, to you at least. They should know when they sign up that people have a right to shoot them.
This is how far you’ve allowed yourself to be sucked into the nonsense.

drkpower · 16-04-2021 2:59pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Being a police officer in the heavily armed US means that the job entails the risk of being shot!

It does.
And their first duty is to protect themselves.

Waiting an extra second or two seems an entirely reasonable suggestion sitting where we do right now with the information we know.

Waiting an extra second or two in the circumstances the officer found himself is a very different thing. Jurors will very like;y appreciate that distinction in due course.

US Police killing of 13 year old Adam Toledo

Comments