The police killing of Adam Toledo in Chicago is unquestionably a tragedy. But was it unjustified? That's a lot harder to say. It all started when police heard gunfire and gave chase. One of the cops went after Toledo, who is shown here at the end of the pursuit as the officer is yelling at him to "drop it":
There appears to be a gun in his right hand. Now here's a still from the moment the police officer fires, eight-tenths of a second later:
Toledo's hands are empty. He has tossed his gun behind him, where the officer can't see it.
Is eight-tenths of a second, on a dark night with a shaky light, enough time for a trained police officer to realize that the gun he saw a moment earlier—which he didn't see being tossed away—is no longer there? I don't know.
I just don't know. But that's the question before us.
Sooooo he’s dead cause he did what officer told him to do?
Here's a better question. In a country where the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, is it justified to shoot someone just because he has a gun, even though it's not being fired or even pointed at anybody?
This is the only question. He never pointed a gun or anything else at the police. The shooting was unjustified.
We already answered this question during the storming of the Capitol. The answer was no.
The kid was already a criminal
it is illegal to purchase or POSSESS a handgun in Illinois by anyone UNDER the age of 18.
There was no COVER for either the cop or the kid from what I can see in the picture and the opening in the fence is a prime spot for the kid to duck through OR to throw something behind.
I feel badly for this kid. What he was doing out at that time of night in that neighborhood defies good judgement.
Did he run because he KNEW he had broken the law by having the gun? We'll never know. But if you are running FROM a policeman with a gun in your hand at 230 a.m. the consequences are never good.
It's also illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to possess alcoholic beverages. Big deal.
Drinks don't kill
Kids normally don't run away with a beer in their hand
How did the cop ascertain in eight-tenths of a second that he was underage? And is the punishment for underage possession of a firearm execution? (It wasn’t for the Rittenhouse guy elsewhere in Illinois and Wisconsin...)
Riteenhouse used a long rifle AR - 15 which is still considered to be a hunting rifle and able to be used by teenagers
While I disagree that it is a hunting rifle it was legal for him to possess one
Come on. Use your noggin. The officer told him four times to stop. The first three time he ran with a gun in his hand. He still had the gun in his hand eight tenths of a second before he turned to face the cop. The cop believed he was still holding the gun. The cop was there because of a 911 call for shots fired.
If anyone finds themselves in this situation you have to expect there's a a pretty good chance you're going to get shot. How do you avoid this situation? 1) Don't shoot guns illegally. 2) Don't hang around people that shoot guns illegally. 3) Don't run from cops. Especially with a gun in your hand. 4) Don't make a cop give you instructions four times before you comply.
The kid had a gun in his hand. He made no attempt to point it at the cop. The shooting was therefore unjustified.
I disagree. But I guess the courts or the DA will decide.
This really is one of those times when lefties looks like they've watched too many movies.
It takes about a 1/3 of a second to draw a gun and shoot someone... if you wait for the gun to be pointed at you then it's too late. You won't even hear the shot. Cops know this, and want to go home to their families after work, so they don't take chances in these crazy situations... if you're holding a gun in your hand in a dark alley after multiple refusals to drop it, it's probably not going to end well.
Being outraged over every incident like this makes it much harder to address obvious police abuse, like George Floyd, Eric Garner, etc.
Thank you. Totally agree.
And yet there are so many incidents where gun wielding white men are arrested peacefully even after having committed murders. Why do you suppose that is? Do you suppose the police automatically shoot everyone who has a gun or only certain types of people who have guns?
Lefties watch too many movies? How about the entire gun nut contingent not only watches too many movies, but then acts as if they are James Bond.
Other than hunters, gun ownership is for the most part a total fantasy from a statistical basis.
There are far more instances of accidental shootings, shootings when drunk, suicides then there are legitimate James Bond shootouts where the good guy wins.
If guns were some sort of new invention, they would never be legalized for self defense as any product with a higher probability of harming the owner than a "bad guy" would never be legalized.
This is a depressing discussion in a way that hyper-technical Kevin would love. Here, a professional, on video, demonstrates how poor a handgun is for ACCURATE self defense -- by "accurate" I mean a form of self defense which ends up statistically improving successful defense.
This comes a day or two after another professional attempts to use a taser and shoots the person instead!
Its all a vicious circle, but the start of the circle is the US love affair with a misreading of the Second Amendment and gun love.
"Why do you suppose that is?"
Outside of some cops being racist ass hats, honestly, I think a lot of it is some version of PTSD.
The reality is that most of the crime a cop deals with day to day is in the poorer minority neighborhoods... because as progressives know well, poverty breeds crime. That's why progressive policies are what they are, to give those neighborhoods a hand up.
In the meantime, though, cops have to deal with it, and I think it fucks their brains up. Even black cops end up profiling black people, and tend to shoot first and ask questions later in questionable situations.
The current ROE (Rules of Engagement) for Afghanistan is that you can not fire unless fired upon. Period. Full Stop. Someone carrying, even someone drawing down on you, it does not matter.
I'm sorry but if we can hold 18 & 19 year olds to a higher standard than we hold cops, that's a problem.
As to your later comment about PTSD, it's not so much PTSD it's being told day after day that it's "you" v. "them" and "they're out to harm you" and "be careful you don't wind up dead" - If we're told to always be dialed up to 11 or maybe you don't see your family again, of course it's easy to shoot first and ask questions later.
Comparing police to a soldier's ROE in Afghanistan is apples and oranges. Given some of the undefendable bases our soldiers have been expected the guard, and the tap dance of keeping the locals from joining our adversaries, I doubt the brass had individual soldier safety as their topmost concern.
Police departments, on the other hand, rarely operate with a calculation of "acceptable losses".
Then why did he tell the kid to stop, drop the gun and raise his hands? The kid did all three things, and the officer shot him anyway.
You can't say the kid refused to drop the gun when he clearly did drop it (and the cops lied about him dropping it).
This is murder plain and simple. Not any different from Floyd or Garner or the hundreds of others. Defending the murder here will not help prevent those cases from occuring.
"You can't say the kid refused to drop the gun when he clearly did drop it"
I get that this is an explosive topic in general, but honestly man, what are you talking about? They were in a dark alley. The kid had a gun in his hand that he had plenty of opportunities to drop in plain view. But he was trying to get somewhere to hide it I guess. He then dropped it, turned around with his hands hidden, then raised them, all in under a second. There was nothing "clearly" about this.
Cops are supposed to protect the citizenry, not kill them. Sometimes that means the cop has to take risks to avoid unnecessary killings. If the cop already has his gun pointed, he has ample time to shoot while the kid whose gun was pointing at the ground is bringing it up into aimed position. Further, handguns are notoriously difficult to shoot accurately. Even if the kid did get a shot away, it would almost certainly miss, and if it hit it's most likely to hit the cop's bullet proof vest.
Cops MUST take chances sometimes.
“ It takes about a 1/3 of a second to draw a gun and shoot someone”
I think it takes a lot longer than that. It takes at least that long just to squeeze the trigger.
Gotta hand it to you, that is some very good trolling. Shame that so much of what you said is wrong.
@ Citizen Lehew
When I took my CCP class I had a real gun nut for an instructor. One of those "a good guy with a gun will STOP a bad guy with a gun" folks
He asked for anyone to create a situation where this would not happen. So, me being the \wise ass had him stand in front of the room with me behind him. I put my hand behind his head and said "A criminal INTENT on committing a crime ALWAYS has the upper hand and the advantage if he HAS INTENT".
THAT is the problem with this situation. We don't know the kids INTENT. We know he ran. We know he was too young to possess. Shots had been fired in the vicinity already. The kid ignored several orders before complying and the cop could not see the gun being dropped BEHIND the fence.
As hard as this situation is I give Mayor Lightfoot kudos for releasing the body cam footage already.
This is not a George Floyd situation.
The officer told him to stop.
He stopped.
The officer told him to drop the gun.
He dropped the gun.
The officer told him to show his hands.
He put his hands in the air.
The officer shot anyway.
How is this difficult to understand? You're only way to explain the officers actions is if the cop planned to shoot anyway regardless of what the kid did. That makes it murder according to you. Congrats.
Did you actually look at the timestamps on the stills Kevin posted? Or watch the video posted online?
Your play by play is divorced from reality.
I don't know what you're smoking, but clearly _you're_ the one divorced from reality. Do you have any idea how long 0.8 seconds really is? As usual, you need to put down the pipe. And come back to the real world, if you can handle it.
Atticus, perhaps you should apply for a grant to teach your four-step, rational thinking process to thirteen-year-old boys. But just in case that a few might not be inclined to stop and coolly reason out their alternatives, I’m going to keep pushing for stricter controls on handguns and semi-automatic weapons, to keep them out of the hands of kids, people with a history of violence, the mentally ill, the untrained and unqualified.
If there was a rational understanding of the Second Amendment, you wouldn't need to even ask this question.
But we live in fantasy land, where in movie after movie, actors end up drawing guns pointing them at each other in stand offs which are totally ridiculous. This video is what actually happens.
The rational understanding of the Second Amendment is that states get to set up militias. Not that everyone gets to be Wyatt Earp or Doc Holliday if they want.
And these are just the publicized cases. My wife, who does some criminal work, once defended a guy on the following facts. He has no criminal record of any kind, but as a long haul trucker somehow gets the idea to carry a handgun in his cab for protection, even though he gets no training, is not ex-cop or ex-military, and of course never uses the gun (except once). That "one time" is that he tries to get ahold of his partner, with whom they have a child, but who, apparently is a bit of a partier, and finds out that although she told him she was going to "church" actually went out with her friends. Then, her sister says, "she left the club with some guy, I'm worried." He uses find my Iphone and sees its in a strange part of town, a dangerous part of town. He asks a friend to come with him. They find partner in a car with an unknown guy. He makes the mistake of a lifetime and walks to the car with the gun. When he gets to the car, he sees his partner passed out in the passenger seat and the dude in the drivers seat. He figures there is danger, makes the second mistake of a lifetime and draws the gun asks the guy to get out, the guy opens the door and lungs, and the client accidentally shoots the guy in the leg.
He's still in jail on 15 years to life for attempted manslaughter, and the DA threw the book at the guy.
If you can't take a gun into that circumstance, a gun is worthless. Which is my entire point. He didn't want to shoot anyone, let alone this guy, but he figured his "self defense" was a good reason.
All in all, lucky the one guy whose only crime was choosing the wrong gal to party with only got shot in the leg.
Guns for self defense is statistically a complete fantasy.
If by 'States get to set up militias' you mean to say 'States get to set up armed slave catcher patrols' you're 100% correct.
This reads like a Greek tragedy.
The officer told him to show his hands. The kid did. There was nothing in them. But he got shot anyway, which makes the purpose of the order obscure.
But it's all just collateral damage of the American gun culture. As long as people know there's a significant chance anyone in a conflict situation is apt to whip out a gun and shoot them, risk-averse people will be inclined to retaliate first. This will apply especially to cops, who know they are unlikely to be punished for it.
better to be tried by twelve than carried by six
Somehow no one gave the kid that choice.
The kid had plenty of choices. It was his choices that led to him getting shot.
Thanks for letting us know you think the kid would have been wiser just to shoot it out with the officer.
And say, aren't you the guy who said that voting by mail is much more susceptible to the in-person kind?
The guy who claimed to be an English major ... but wasn't really?
etc ...
You didn't think we were going to forget about any of those gaffes, did you 😉
For some reaosn it won't let me reply to ScentofViolets. But, this is in reply to your comment:
I didn't say the kid would have been wiser to shoot it out. Obviously that is silly. He would have been wiser to not be out at 2:30 in the morning shooting guns. He would have been wiser to not run from the cops. He would have been wiser to obey the cop's command to stop the first three times.
Yes, I did say mail in voting is more susceptible to fraud. It is.
And yes, was an English major. Graduated from Florida State. (Go Noles!)
Nope, you said it was set in stone that the officer was going to shoot the kid even after telling him to raise his hands, ergo, it would have been wiser for the kid to just try to shoot it out.
Like the rest of your reply, just so much derp. I would ask you to think before you post, but you've made it plain you've no intention of doing so, ever.
His choice to comply with the officers orders? Or was it his choice that the CPD is full of racist murderers?
I think you're confusing me with someone else. Not sure what you're talking about with you're "set in stone" comment. If it's in regards to one of my comments, can you quote my comment in your reply?
@Atticus
I don't believe Word Pres allows for replying to a reply. You have to reply to the original post
LOL, no. How many people were shot at the storming of the Capitol? The cops had guns. The insurrectionists had guns. Only one was shot AFTER hours of a seige, multiple lines & barricades being breached, multiple warnings given, multiple injuries sustained.
The cop didn't shoot here because the kid might be armed. He was shot because black lives don't matter.
"He was shot because black lives don't matter."
I haven't really investigated this, but wasn't this a white kid?
A dark-skinned Hispanic kid.
This sort of logic is _exactly_ why qualified immunity and the 'I was in fear of my life' excuse have got to go.
My guess is the older guy had a rap sheet. He gave the younger one the gun so he wouldn't face hard time as a felon in possession. If his prints are on the gun he is FuKed. Poor kid was being groomed as a gang banger. Young boys are stupid. I know cause I was one but survived.
Oh ya, lets blame the kid for being stupid rather than the adult who shot him.
Don't know that Dilbert was blaming anyone. He was just saying young boys are stupid. The question is why so many cops end up doing stupid things.
But that's the question before us.
Well, no. It's the question before the police investigators and one more review boards, various prosecutors, possibly some local politicians, and more likely than not a jury. And it will have to be evaluated in the context of a ton of information about the detailed course of events, the background and training of the police, and -- by at least some people, if not a jury -- institutional history of police and prosecutors with respect to similar situations.
At present, we're spectators with only a portion of the relevant information. I would say a few deep breaths are in order before people form battle-lines.
"... one OR more review boards ..."
What other relevant information is there? The video is pretty clear. Is someone saying aliens intervened and changed the space-time continum?
And besides, this is a democracy. We - the people - are definitely involved.
As to other information, what I said. As to our involvement, unless someone is suggesting that detailed police procedure and training be set by law -- which would be silly -- then our involvement is much higher level, eg, should we have much more restrictive laws and regulations concerning the sale and ownership of guns, or should jurisdictions generally as a matter of policy change the present emphasis in police interactions from control-oriented to more service-oriented and de-escalation (again I would say yes). But the question of "what happened here" or the guilt or innocence of anyone concerning a particular charge isn't up to us.
Uh, yes it is.
"At present, we're spectators with only a portion of the relevant information. I would say a few deep breaths are in order before people form battle-lines."
I have to agree with this.
Gang banger cop related murders are older than the hills. Overly armed negros who enjoy the tribal protection of the movers of contraband.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Midgard is an alcoholic. He ought check into rehab.
(H/t Chris Rock -- "Champagne")
When is KD going to ban this racist troll?
Shootie, get help. And fer chissakes, get a handle on your drinking problem.
It doesn't matter how long it took. The officer never had any gun pointed at him, he issued a command which was obeyed and he still shot.
Whether he shot out of ill intent or because his nerves got the best of him, he shot and killed a kid who should not have been shot and deserves to do jail time for that.
It wa a reasonable to think the kid turned with the gun in his hand. It was obviously a justified shooting.
Shooting is not justified until the gun holder evinces a clear intent to actually use it.
The cop was there because shots were fired. The gun had been used.
As far as the cop knew no one had been shot (shots fired is not the same as some one actually threatening people with a gun, or actually shooting someone). As usual a cop without the proper mental fortitude to be a cop (or an actual bigot out for blood), ended up killing someone they shouldn't have for not taking enough time to assess a situation.
A gun had been used; not necessarily that one.
That's stupid. The cop was telling the kid to turn around and put his hands up. So the kid did just that and the cop shot him because he did what he was told? LOL. Anything to justify the murder of black kids.
I'm copy and pasting this from my comment above since its an equally appropriate reply to you:
Come on. Use your noggin. The officer told him four times to stop. The first three time he ran with a gun in his hand. He still had the gun in his hand eight tenths of a second before he turned to face the cop. The cop believed he was still holding the gun. The cop was there because of a 911 call for shots fired.
If anyone finds themselves in this situation you have to expect there's a a pretty good chance you're going to get shot. How do you avoid this situation? 1) Don't shoot guns illegally. 2) Don't hang around people that shoot guns illegally. 3) Don't run from cops. Especially with a gun in your hand. 4) Don't make a cop give you instructions four times before you comply.
How is it an appropriate reply?
If the officer told him to stop and he stopped - that's an excuse to shoot? Use your noggin.
As to how we avoid this situation - it's simple. We purge the CPD of all their racist murdering cops. Remember the cop lied and said he had a gun in his hand when he was shot. For two weeks they lied, even though they had the footage.
He didn't lie. He thought he had a gun in his hand. He did have a gun in his hand eight tenths of a second earlier. You don't think there's any possibility he the cop didn't see the kid drop the gun while chasing him in the dark? You think it's more likely the cop just felt like killing someone?
Airline pilots are trained in an emergency to slow things down, and to avoid making any actions that might make things way worse. Police officers are taught just the opposite, to speed things up, to embrace the adrenaline panic, to shout obscenity laced commands at the top of their voice ("show your f--king hands!!") and then further escalate to take control no matter what the consequences. This officer was actually quite professional, he only fired one shot. All too many "professional law enforcement officers" would have fired 16 rounds (one in the chamber and 15 in the magazine) and then still been futilely pulling the trigger in hope of more.
Indeed. What was the point of yelling "show your hands" if the cop was going to shoot anyway once the hands were shown? Kinda proves that the cop was intent on shooting anyway.
According to Atticus, he was doing so to get a better 'kill' shot. Guess what kind of message that sends to people who are in that situation?
Right. Don't obey the cop -- shoot him instead.
With friends like you defending them, the police sure don't need enemies.
I don't think it proves "the cop was intent on shooting anyway," but rather that like so many police officers this one was so amped up on adrenaline that he was incapable of making responsible decisions. That is why police have to learn to deescalate, slow down, take more time and not be controlled by adrenaline.
I think this police officer should be fired. He killed someone unnecessarily. Should he face criminal charges? Yes. There is no point in ordering people to show their hands if you are going to shoot them even if they comply and their hands are empty, which this child's hands were. One terrible lesson of this encounter is that complying with police demands still can get a person killed.
Whether it's firing a gun instead of a taser or shooting someone who has complied with demands, it seems clearer everyday that there are countless police officers patrolling our streets, carrying lethal weapons, who are not competent to do so. These aren't the evil racists (who definitely exist), but people who can't manage crisis situations without making deadly mistakes.
Came down here to say the first part, except I draw the opposite conclusion. If we expect pilots to handle life-and-death situations without killing anyone, we should expect police to do the same.
I'll you why this is the way with police officers: steroids... & COCAINE!!!
I'll amend my prior comment. Maybe it's not "obvious". But it's certainly reasonable to consider it justified.
If you are shooting in anticipation of things that may or may not happen you are not being reasonable, you are acting out purely out of fear and emotion. In this case it's even worse because the cop didn't shoot the kid as he was turning (which while bad could be more understandable in your "will he shoot me or not" poppycock scenario), he actually fired once the kid was fully turned towards him and with his hands up.
He issued a command, the kid obeyed, and he had full view of the kids hands when he fired. That there will be too many people like yourself who think this is in any way justified is the reason why the US has so many policing issues. Far too many people who should not be cops are cops, and far too many people are willing to make up excuses for them when they mess up.
We have so many police shootings because we have people out in the streets at 2:30 in the morning shooting guns illegally.
How many people have you shot? How often have you been confronted with a stranger holding a gun?
If it turns out that the kid had the gun .8 seconds before he was shot, and if it's true that the kid was told three times to lose the gun, it's my belief that a jury will not convict the cop.
Justified is the wrong standard. Was in necessary in any way to shoot and kill this boy? No.
Police justify killing unarmed people basically by saying they (the police) were afraid. They fear for their lives because another person poses a deadly threat to them. But two empty hands don't pose any threat at all. It's a difficult job, but it is the police officer's job to determine that threat accurately. This officer issued a command, the boy complied, and the police officer shot him without determining if the threat existed. It may have existed in the police officer's mind but it didn't in reality and we live in reality.
Atticus, your arguments get worse and worse.
Then why did the cop even bother telling the boy to show his hands? According to your own logic, once the boy had his hands on a gun there was no other outcome possible but for his death. Somehow that occurs much less often when the skin color is lighter.
Have you ever watched the end of a basketball game when someone hits a buzzer beater? Eight tenths of a second is a long time. Long enough to come to your senses.
Basketball isn’t life and death. Like KD said, it’s an obvious tragedy but no reasonable person could blame the cop.
Yes, I could, and do.
That's your problem. You obviously have prejudice against cops. Are you planning to riot when they announce no charges will brought against the cop?
I bet your view on the police shooting of Ashli Babbitt is radically different.
Or does your misogyny trump white power?
I'm not prejudiced against cops generally. I'm prejudiced against trigger happy cops. I'm prejudiced against cowardly cops. I'm prejudiced against cops who don't understand that it's their duty to risk their lives to preserve the lives of those they are sworn to serve and protect.
Any reasonable person would blame the cop.
The fact that it's life & death makes it kinda more important than baseball doesn't it? If people can make decisions in baseball they can certainly take the time to do the same before pulling the trigger.
Agree. More important than baseball, let alone basketball.
Agree. Life & death is way more important than baseball, which is way more important than basketball.
"No reasonable person could blame the cop." Well now that Atticus has got this problem solved I guess the rest of us can just go away and wonder who to blame.
It's pretty obvious who to blame. Blame the person who was, 1) Shooting the gun illegally or hanging out with the person who was shooting illegally, 2) running from a cop with a gun in your hand, 3) not obeying the cops commands the first three times he gave them (while you're holding a gun).
If you do these things you have to expect there's at least a decent chance you're going to be shot by the police. Don't do those things. I would think any reasonable person would see the kid made some very bad choices that led to his death. It's obviously a tragedy considering his age. Kids do stupid things. I worry about my kids all the time making poor impulsive decisions that could have life altering implications for them or others.
I blame a system that allows everybody to walk around with a gun. I blame a culture that legitimizes and makes "cool" the carrying and using of a gun. I blame centuries of ongoing racial prejudice.
I would think any reasonable person would want and expect the trained police officer, not a scared kid, to be the one not acting stupidly and out of impulse, making sure that someone's life is actually at risk before deciding to take someone else's life.
For as long as bad cops are given a pass when they unnecessarily kill people they shouldn't kill, bad cops will continue to regularly shoot and kill people unnecessarily.
+1 for Rich Beckman
This was a travesty, not a tragedy. A tragedy is something bad happening which was unavoidable, this was not that.
Agree. The kid could have made better choices and he would be alive today. If you're out at 2:30 in the morning shooting guns illegally bad things are going to happen. Where were his parents?
Are you arguing that any kid who breaks the law deserves to be summarily killed?
Derp.
Of course not. I'm saying cops are justified in shooting someone if they believe their life is in danger.
The cop could have made better choices. He's the only one who murdered anybody.
There was no curfew. It's legal to be out at 2:30. This wasn't Rittenhouse breaking the law.
It's presumably illegal to shoot guns in that neighborhood.
Do you have any proof it was the kid who fired those earlier shots or are you just fishing for a justification to shoot him?
So, you want police patrolling our neighborhoods who kill unarmed people because they thought -- wrongly -- that their lives were in danger?
It seems like you are biased in favor of police killing unarmed individuals just because they are afraid.
" is unquestionably a tragedy. But was it unjustified? That's a lot harder to say."
No it's pretty easy. It was unjustified.
Secondly, you can't have it both ways. If it was justified it's not a tragedy, the cop was saving his own life (use of deadly force is only allowed to save himself or others from harm, there were no others, so...). If it's unjustfied, that is what makes it a tragedy.
"... If it was justified it's not a tragedy, .."
That's not how things work. A decision to give a vaccine to 100 million people in order to prevent 1 million deaths from a disease at the cost of 1000 deaths caused by the vaccine is justified but the deaths from the vaccine are still tragic.
This wasn't a collateral or accidental death. It was deliberate. The cop was either shooting to save his own life (justified) or it was a murder (the tragedy). If wasn't as if he was a shooting range practising and gun went off by accident and killed a bystander.
"This wasn't a collateral or accidental death. .."
It could in fact have been a collateral death in effect if the cop was acting within the rules of engagement he was bound by. These rules could have been formulated knowing they would lead to the occasional shooting that in hindsight was unnecessary.
And why can't the death be tragic even if the shooting was justified? If a kid makes a stupid decision that gets him killed that is never tragic?
No, it's not collateral death if the cop killed the person he was intending to kill. Sigh, do you understand the meaning of words?
The kid didn't make a stupid decision. The cop did.
"No, it's not collateral death if the cop killed the person he was intending to kill. Sigh, do you understand the meaning of words?"
I said in effect. It is the same tradeoff. The military may kill kill 10 people in a single strike 9 of whom are intended targets and one of whom isn't. Or it may conduct 10 strikes which each kill a single person 9 of these people being in the target group and one who isn't in the target group but was misidentified.
Here the cop could have been operating under rules of engagement that allow him to shoot in this instance although the people who formulated the rules would have known that this would result in the occasional (in hindsight) unnecessary killing.
It can be both. Just because the cop made a justifiable decision doesn't mean it's not tragic. A 13 year old is dead because he made several bad decisions. Kids make stupid decisions all the time. These decisions happened to have much graver consequences.
"A 13 year old is dead because he made several bad decisions"
He is dead because a cop made a bad decision based purely on his emotions.
So illegally shooting a gun at 2:30 in the morning is not a bad decision? Running from the cops while holding a gun is not a bad decision? Not obeying a cop's commands the first three times he gives them is not a bad decision? I guess we have totally different ideas of what is a good or bad decision.
Do you have evidence that this kid was firing that gun at 2:30 AM? If so, I'm sure the police would like to have this evidence.
Running away is not a capital offense. Running away is not threatening behavior.
Given what we know about whether or not obeying a cop's command protects from untimely death, not obeying isn't necessarily a bad decision.
I'm with KD on this. I don't know.
Neither do you.
Given the fact that once obeyed the cop and stopped he was immediately killed, running away and not obeying the cop seems like the more rational choice, don't you think?
People like Atticus make me fear for my life.
Was the "shooting a gun at 2:30 in the morning" illegal? There was a report of "shots fired". There's no indication that the shots were fired illegally.
No, the cop made the decision to kill, not the kid. Now it's time for the grave consequences portion.
I think the more salient question is, is it a reasonable expectation that you'll get shot if you comply with an officer's command?
If not, then, the 0.8 seconds between the officer's command and his firing a kill shot can only confirm that this was murder.
If you don't comply with him the first three times, and continue to run with a gun in your hand, after there had already been shots fired...yes, it's reasonable to expect that you'll get shot.
"he disobeyed three times and ran" is not a valid reason to shoot anyone, especially in a situation where no one's life had been threatened in any way.
If the person running has a gun, it was reported the gun had been fired, and he turns on the cop and the cop believes he's holding the gun, is absolutely a valid reason to shoot someone. You can't put yourself in that situation and then blame the cop because he didn't notice in the dark the kid had dropped the gun eight tenths of a second earlier.
No it's not. The only valid reason to shoot is to save one's own life or the lives of others.
I can easily put myself in a situation where I give someone an order, they comply with that order and I don't murder them or act as if they didn't comply. I also wouldn't lie about the situation knowing it was on video.
But then I'm not a racist murderer like the CPD is full of.
A "racist murderer". Do you really believe this stuff or are you just feigning ignorance to stir the pot?
The problem is that if you turn that around, the cop had his gun out and aimed at the kid; the kid under the circumstances would reasonably fear for his life and would be entirely justified in shooting first if he could pull it off. In other words, by your reasoning it doesn't matter whether it's the cop or the kid that ends up dead, it's justifiable homicide either way.
I think this "complied with commands" line is the most misleading narrative I've seen. The fact the effort to hide the gun incidentally meant dropping the gun is exactly that: incidental. The kid's primary intention was to get rid of the gun, not comply. The reason why he ran down the alley knowing full well the cops didn't want him to do that is because he wanted to at least ditch the weapon if he couldn't himself get away.
The root of the tragedy is the cop not realizing that's what the kid was up to. Had the cop had that in mind he could have made proper sense of what the kid stopping and handling the gun meant. Blame the cop for not getting that but the idea the kid was complying at any point prior to having gotten rid of the gun isn't true.
If complying with an order has no pertinence, then, the officer's command was worthless because it was the officer's intention from the moment that he issued the order, to shoot.
Come one, people. Someone reports shots being fired in the alley at 2:30 in the morning, in a neighborhood with endemic street gang activity for the last 50 years. I know. I grew up there.
The cops come and see two guys running away. The cop approaches one guy who has his back turned, but clearly he can see a pistol in his right hand.
You're that cop.
The guy turns abruptly, and as far as you can tell, the gun is still in his right hand because you didn't see it drop. Two things can happen if you hesitate. One, you're both lucky and he doesn't shoot you. Two, he shoots you and you're dead.
There was no way for this cop to know that this guy is 13 years old. What is a 13-year-old doing shooting up the neighborhood at 2:30 in the morning?
Are you aware of the last killing in that neighborhood? Of course not. Let me clear that up. It was Halloween night. A little girl was out trick-or-treating. Some gangbangers decided to shoot at someone in a rival gang. Of course, they missed and killed the little girl. No one was every arrested.
That's the scenario in Little Village, where these cops were called to investigate shots fired in the night. Maybe these were the same assholes that killed the little girl. Maybe you could save someone's life. Who knows, maybe these were the guys who killed that little girl. You. just. don't. know.
So spare me the righteous pontificating, from your comfortable computer chairs. Put yourself in that dark alley in the middle of the night, in a neighborhood plagued by gang shootings, where little girls die from stray bullets, and then we can talk.
All untrue. The cop said "show your hands". The kid showed his hands - they were empty. So why did the cop shoot anyway? If he was going to shoot before the kid showed his hands, why issue the command in the first place?
And what do you mean by "these assholes"? The cops who murdered this kid, or the cops who failed to find the killers of many of the other killers? You think the gangs operate in Chicago without the sympathy and cooperation of the police? LOL.
The cops said "show me your hands" four times. The first three times the kid didn't listen and ran with the gun.
The kid did in fact show his hands, and there was no gun. So the cop shot him anyway? OOOPS!
Rewind eight tenths of a second and there was a gun. OOOOPS! If you want to play like a gang banger you're going to wind up in jail or dead one way or the other.
jesus Kevin I think you need to not post on these events. This is an American tragedy that is insane and avoidable. We do not need these gun events. We need to remove the guns. This is a simple solution and ths UK and Japan shows us what we need to do. Simple. We are morons to not do it!!!!!
It was definitely avoidable. The kid made many bad decisions that led to him being shot. The situation could have been avoided if 1) he was not shooting a gun illegally or hanging out with someone shooting the gun illegally, 2) didn't run from the cops while holding a gun, 3) obeyed the commands of the cop the first three times they were given.
It was totally avoidable and a tragedy. The kid was only 13 and kids make bad choices sometimes. His choices had grave consequences.
"... 3) obeyed the commands of the cop the first three times they were given."
I don't think this is particularly important, if he had complied the third time he could have easily have been shot as well. I doubt this was a big factor in the cop's decision to shoot.
Good point. You may be right. But not obeying the commands the first three times certainly didn't help. It just escalated the situation.
Most likely if he had dropped the gun and continued to run and never turned and faced the cop he would not have been shot. Still I find it interesting that you seem to be expecting perfect behavior from a scared 13-year-old in this situation but not from the trained police officer.
For context, Atticus revealed on another blog that he was a wannabe cop who didn't get accepted.
Maybe because the people who review applicants thought (quite rightly, IMHO) that Atticus had no business being at the business end of a gun.
ScenofViolotes, that is now the second or third time on this thread you have told an outright lie about me. Please act like an adult. I'm all for people disagreeing with me and presenting arguments. But just making up lies is trashy and unacceptable.
The decision to fire would have been made around 0.5 seconds, then it's aiming and shooting. Stopping that action would have been very hard, if not impossible, once the decision was made. I don't know if nay training includes a re-evaluation of the actual risk before firing, esp. not if a gun was seen sometime during the encounter.
This is not meant to justify the actual shooting. It is a discussion of the mechanics of a shoot. How can we change that to prevent this from every happening again.
Yeah, it's the kid's fault because he shouldn't have shown his hands and instead thrown himself to the ground.
No, not the kids fault.
The officer issued a command, the kid complied, and the officer shot. By raising his hands, the kid triggered the shot response in the officer. That should not have happened. The question becomes, what order should the officer have given so the shot response would not have been triggered?
For now, I am assuming the officer acted in good faith for sake of this discussion. That may not be the case. However, this shows there needs to be policy and training changes. I don't want a "few bad apples" argument to be used as an excuse to not do the hard work of effectively evaluating training.
Why assume the officer acted in "good faith". How does one kill someone and lie about it in good faith?
When the officer put down in his report that the gun was used in a threatening manner he lost any benift of the doubt regarding this being simply an honest mistake.
"... How can we change that to prevent this from every happening again."
You can't anymore than you can prevent innocent people from sometimes being convicted and sent to prison. Unless you want to abolish prisons and cops which would have its own problems.
The best you can do is try to reduce the odds. And there is a tradeoff to some extent, the fewer innocent people sent to prison the more guilty people that get off. The fewer people shot by cops when it is unnecessary the more cops killed and fewer dangerous people apprehended.
No, that is a straw man argument. If a surgeon loses a patient, they will have a discussion of what happened and try to figure out what could have been done better so the patient would not have died. That type of analysis has to be done--not just for every shooting, but even for cases where cops draw their guns. What triggered a shooting vs why no shots were fired? Did the guns have to be drawn? In this case, why did the order to show hands trigger a shot response by the officer?
"... If a surgeon loses a patient, they will have a discussion of what happened and try to figure out what could have been done better so the patient would not have died. .."
And it is very rare for surgeons to go to jail for mistakes even very bad mistakes that kill a patient.
Seems like telling the kid to stop and then to move very slowly would have been better than telling him to show his hands.
Can one definitively say "13 year old was shot by a cop while his hands were up" is false? If not, that's your narrative.
A weapon that had already been used in a criminal action that night was being carried by a suspect who stopped and drew while being pursued. By the time it was apparent the drawing was just to toss the gun, the chain of motion from reaction time to trigger pulled to bullet strike was already underway. I'd say that'd be the best defence of the cop's actions.
Exactly. It's tragic but it's a tragedy that was set up by a series of very poor decisions made by the kid.
No, it was a series of poor decisions made by the cop. The only decision made by the kid was to listen to the cop and follow his commands. But the cop had already decided to shoot.
Not much of a defense if the cop had already decided to shoot without giving the kid a chance to comply with his own orders. That's a murder right there.
What criminal action? There was a report of "shots fired", There's no indication that the shots were illegally fired.
In almost every place I have ever heard of, it is illegal to fire a gun in a residential neighborhood.
Those laws always have exceptions. For instance, if you see a stray dog attacking your pet cat, you can shoot the dog. There are lots of valid reasons for firing a gun in a residential neighborhood.
Seems like the kid made the fatal error of ditching the gun and turning around at nearly the same time. He might still be alive if he had dropped the gun and put his hands in the air, back to the cop. Anyway, it was dark, so I have a hard time blaming the cop for thinking his life was at risk, especially since it's clear these two youngsters were up to no good. I would add that there is no way the officer could know it was a 13 year old.
A voice of reason in the wilderness. 🙂
Reason is not absolving someone of murder.
There's no murder of which to be absolved.
No, that was not the cops command. The kid did everything he could have to obey and the cop shot him anyway.
You have a hard time blaming the cop becuase innocent lives don't matter, that's pretty much it.
Eight-Tenths of a Second is long enough for a police officer to make a formal judgement finding a person undesirable for American society and execute the decision.
Similar to what happened with Tamir Rice in Cleveland -- cops drive up so fast and close to a kid with a gun that they create the "emergency" requiring a split-second response. They need to just stop doing that.
Actually, Tamir Rice had a toy gun but the cops didn't know that. But they drove up so fast and so close they didn't have time to figure it out. And so ... tragedy.
Not tragedy, murder. The cops didn't want to figure it out, they wanted to kill.
Off topic:
Anyone else have problems seeing their comments? When I click on the dialogue icon in the top right, the screen opens but there's just a blue spinning circle in the middle. Nothing ever populates. It's the same for all the sub-options (All, Unread, Comments, etc.). I'm using Chrome. Not sure if its a setting or what.
You have to refresh your browser after you post.
According to Beau of the Fifth Column, there was another factor here. The officer was using a strobe light (attached to the gun or worn on his clothing?). He did not have a second officer with a steady light shining on the kid - which according to Beau is supposed to be required. The problem is (if Beau is correct) the strobe winds up making even normal movements look abrupt and your brain fills in the darker spots - so it's likely the officer missed the fact that Adam Toledo had complied and fired in a panic.
Strobe lights are used to disorient suspects and make it harder for them to aim and shoot. If the cop was using it he has even less of an excuse to kill.
I searched out "adam toledo video" and found a sequence of stills where you can see the spot on Adam, then it's off, then on.
In this Police Academy reboot, the academy is a rave party.
Don't think that matters in this case. In others it might, but not in this one. There's .8 seconds from when the gun is visible in Toledo's hand until the point where he is totally turned around facing the officer. That's a fast movement.
I just wanted to point out -- yes, 8/10 of a second is pretty quick, but it was the police officer who made the decision to shoot after 8/10 of a second.
He had given 3 orders: turn around, put your hands up, drop the gun.
Adam did all three, but the cop could only see 2 (presumably he never saw him toss the gun.) But he could see that the person was complying with his instructions, had his hands up, was not pointing a weapon at him. There was no need to fire at that instant. The reason it all happened quickly is because the officer chose that.
You could maybe argue that the officer should have instead instructed him to lay on the ground or something. But he gave the orders he did, and having done that, he should have given Adam the opportunity to comply. And absent a clear threatening action, shouldn't have fired.
Yes, it was dark. Yes, the officer was under stress. Yes, the suspect had a gun. It was a difficult situation. But he gave an order and shot someone for complying with his order. That's just not OK.
Policing has to change to create trust with communities (black, latino, native American...) can trust that they will be treated fairly, that their lives will be valued, and that they won't get killed by a freaked out cop. Policing has to change to protect their lives. Policing has to change to make officers accountable for their decisions. Policing has to change so that POC (particularly black males) aren't seen as The Enemy. Policing has to change to make the lives of people as important as the fears of cops.
I'd correct you on one point. The officer never ordered Toledo to turn around. I hear "Stop" and "Show me your hands." Then, after the officer first saw the gun, a "Drop it." Never a "turn around"
The whole point of ordering a suspect to put his hands in the air is to: a) rendering him or her from being able to point and fire a weapon at you, and, b) ascertain that he or she doesn't have a weapon in the hand. The split second argument is a red herring. Being that an officer (or anyone, really) should only be shooting in self-defense, once the command is issued and complied with, the officer should take more than a split second to assess the situation, as the suspect, with his hands up, does not constitute an immediate danger.
Currently, what's the downside for a cop to shoot first and ask questions later? Why yes sir, I'll answer that question: nothing.
And as long as the police have qualified immunity and the get-out-jail-free excuse that 'I was afraid for my life', this will always be the case. Instead, well, instead, this palooka lied about what happened. For weeks. At the minimum he should be kicked off the force and forbidden to own a firearm ever again. Clearly, he can't handle the responsibilty.
Mr. Drum's framing of this is the problem, it's inherently morally skewed to give someone a deadly weapon and have them running around with the freedom to shoot anyone who scares them the slightest bit. Some idiot commenting here said "his actions are what led to this" in order to blame the victim, but really it's our policies and culture that put two people together in such a way that one of them ended up dead.
The idiot you refer to made it clear that given the current state of racial inequalities in the US, the kid running around with a gun was making some bad choices. The poster was not "blaming the victim" for anything other than being young and stupid, a state of being very few adults have avoided completely. Perhaps you were one of the lucky ones who never made dangerous choices.
So the gun "nuts" make it so easy for someone to give Toledo a gun WITH THE FREEDOM to use IT against anyone who scares him and he's off the hook? But the cop is not?
Keep in mind illegally obtained weapons are routinely given to others, bought sold and bartered for by the "bad guys with guns" crowd. Toledo COULD NOT HAVE BOUGHT this weapon on his own. Possessing it makes him a criminal even if he cop did NOT shoot him!!!
This is a bad neighborhood, the kid made a tragic decision to go out at 230am. Mom states he has disappeared before so Toledo's life no doubt sucks
But handling a weapon at 13? When its illegal? Ignoring 3 previous warnings from the police?
Pick your "system" to blame
the Police system
the racial inequality system
the economic disparity system
the social services system
All bear some responsibility here
Thank god we have juries and don't have to rely on bloggers.
As a combat veteran I will chime in here
The police are exposed to shootings at the highest level of "employment" outside of a combat soldier. Any comparison between these two groups is foolish though, because in combat you ASSUME the person you are confronting is the enemy, In police work you have to assume the opposite because they are innocent until proven guilty
The system is designed to protect those within the system because the system is prone to violence both gun and non gun related. It is a dangerous job
Does it make this shooting "legal"? I dunno. A 13 year old, with a gun, at 2am on a school night running away from a police officer? Was he afraid that if the cop found the gun on him he'd be arrested? Well if THATs the case the crime is already done all that has to happen is he gets caught. Doesn't justify the shooting though. The other "SYSTEM" allowed this kid to come into possession of a weapon.
Having been on night patrols I can tell you that in combat it doesn't matter you ALWAYS shoot first. At a sound, at a shadow, doesn't matter. But this isn't combat.
The kid apparently was armed just before he got shot. Surveillance video (not body cam footage) apparently shows the OTHER side of the fence where the kid tossed the gun. Another cop is shown shining his flashlight on the weapon.
Eventually the evidence will be revealed and we the "blogging public" will have to deal with some unpleasant facts.
There are too many police shootings against un-armed people of color
We may have to accept this shooting as NOT one of those circumstances
But as a parent? 13 years old? School night (virtual or not)? 3am? Sorry the "system" failed this kid
But to call the officer "heroic" is also not good as the Police organization did.
Let the evidence be revealed and be ready to accept what is tells us about this incident.
We do indeed need better policing. WE do indeed need better gun laws. We do indeed need to enforce the laws already in place. We do indeed need to STOP supplying police departments with military surplus equipment at very low cost. We do indeed need better equality of life to help kids like this NOT want to go out at this time of night.
Well said.
To give you some perspective
An AK47 the automatic weapon of choice in assault rifles is capable of firing 600 rounds per minute or 10 per second
Thats one round EVERY 10th of a second - this cop could have been hit 8 times in 8/10 of a second if the kid had an AK
But this is a FULLY automatic weapon
How many rounds can a Glock 19(as an example) shoot depends upon how fast one can pull the trigger but several rounds per second is NOT hard to do
So in 8/10 sec one or two hits from this gun are possible
But what happens when a gun is fired? Based on my experience only and I'm a chicken at heart - I flinch. Did it many a time. Then I got used to the sound and the conditions SURROUNDING that sound and learned to NOT flinch
The police - based upon their job and continued qualifications at the gun ranges SHOULD be in don't flinch mode.
But a civilian is usually NOT conditioned to that mode - especially a young civilian.
So, the police give the command show your hands. Kid runs dark object in his hand. Cop gives chase while carrying his weapon? Kid finally stops near an opening in the fence with arm movement notice able?
This is a tragedy of mis-steps.
Given what has gone on recently it's too easy to blame the police officer and to hard to accept the fact that a kid this age acted this way.
I have a concealed carry permit and as such can carry a gun in my car. I have been stopped on the highway. Kept my hands on the steering wheel. Cop knocked on the window and I slowly hit the down button and returned my hands to the steering wheel. Cop asked for license and registration. I told him I was carrying in the center console. He NEVER reached for the handle of his weapon but he did watch me lean a little to get my wallet out of my back pocket etc. It was a peaceful situation. Got a warning for a tail light.
I have black friends (same age - old) however that in the same situation the cop approaches the car with his hand on his weapon handle ready to draw even thought the man has both hands on the steering wheel has gray hair and does the exact same things I did.
THIS is what we have to STOP doing. It's a small gesture but indicative of our society's ills.
Both excellent comments. Thanks.
You are welcome Bear
Are you aware that in the state of Illinois it is ILLEGAL to purchase or POSSESS a handgun under the age of 18
The kid was already a criminal
The person who gave the gun to a kid is also a criminal
hmmmm,
US police spending ranks third among worldwide military budgets,
https://mobile.twitter.com/ehananoki/status/1383419877881303045
I don't know why that went wrong, but this is the link where
US police spending ranks third among worldwide military budgets,
https://mobile.twitter.com/PplsCityCouncil/status/1383071847479078913
A final comment about this
I read comments about ROE, PTSD etc here
Keep in mind the military acts under a totally different pretext. They operate under war conditions. They are PROTECTED against being charged for collateral damage shootings or damage to property and for the most part the higher ups take the blame for most of the wrongdoings
As for PTSD? I have often thought that a person suffering from PTSD should not have access to a gun. Nor should they be on a police force. There's too many things that can set a soldier with PTSD off with the result being killing himself, his loved ones or bystanders.
We don't know all the details yet. But this police officer was responding to shots fired, saw a kid running with a gun in a dark alley who REFUSED 3 previous command before complying with the fourth.
I'm sorry America. I would expect a cop to treat my teenage daughter the same way. Why? Cause one thing I've always told my daughters was to OBEY the police in public when they are directing you to do something. If the police man was coming on to them? Co-ercing them? THAT'S different.
This kid had a gun illegally. Shots had been fired in the area which was the cause of the call.
Kyle Rittenhouse had an AR-15 a "so-called" hunting rifle which CAN be used in Wisconsin by people as young as 16. He later obtained (illegally) a hand gun
Toledo was 13 - in a bad area at 230a.m. - running away from the police who responded to a shots fired call.
This had "bad boy" written all over it along with nervous cop. The results were tragic. The boy -= just by the act of having the gun had committed a crime. If his gun was the cause of the gunfire report then obviously someone, maybe even Toledo knew how to use it.
At 13. That's one helluva knowledge base eh?
+++