The LA Times has an interesting piece this morning about the police killing of Adam Toledo in Chicago last week. There have been the usual protests about police conduct, but they've been muted because it turns out that not everyone in Toledo's neighborhood blames the cops:
A steady stream of mourners visited the memorial this weekend, some pausing to pray. Most were Latino, their roots Mexican, Puerto Rican and Central American. Many said the youth was a victim of police brutality. But some also observed that he was out in the early hours of the morning with a member of the gangs who terrorize them.
“I see both sides: It’s tragic for the officer and for the young man,” said Elsie Franqui, 45, who brought her 12-year-old son and 14-year-old nephew to the memorial Saturday with Viva Honduras masks (she’s Puerto Rican, her husband Honduran) and a homemade votive candle bearing Adam’s photo.
....Fernando Serrano, 48, who rode his bike from his nearby apartment to watch the protest, didn’t see police as the only problem....“A 13-year-old should not be on the street at 2:30 a.m. with a gun,” said Serrano, a Puerto Rican-born father of three who works at Home Depot, grew up in Logan Square and married a Mexican woman from Little Village. “It could happen again tonight. There are parents worse off.”
This appears to be something of a minority view, but it's clearly lurking under the surface. And it gibes with the fact that, despite everything, only a small minority of Black and Hispanic poll respondents say they favor a decrease in police presence in their communities:
I wonder how common this is? When reporters go out to hot spots, it's easy to find activists on the streets who are eager to provide anti-police quotes and demands for less police presence. But what about all the people who stay home and don't attend the rallies? They're a lot harder to track down, but they might provide a very different viewpoint. This is something reporters ought to think about when they're on the scene and have the time to canvass a few homes for alternate views.
I don't think he should have been on the street at 2:30am with a gun. I wouldn't have a problem with the police detaining him or even potentially arresting him.
However, I do fault the police officer for shooting someone who a) was following his orders, and b) had his hands up and was not an immediate threat at that point. Even though it was dark and stressful, the cop fired before he had given himself a chance to assess the situation.
I think at the core of the "Defund" rhetoric is the fact that training/reform hasn't worked. It doesn't work. It won't work because they police officers who have to oversee the reform and the training don't (generally) see any problem with how they are policing.
Every time one of these police shootings gone bad occurs, you see the same sequence: 1) blame the victim and leak any possible dirt on him to deflect blame from the police, 2) insistence that it was just a lapse in training, and in the severest cases 3) meek and non-specific calls for "reform", with no specifics on what this reform entails or who will be held accountable for it.
I agree that "Defund" isn't a panacea or even especially popular, though there are a few specific ways in which policing should be curtailed: 1) they shouldn't be buying military equipment. Policing shouldn't look like occupying Fallujah. 2) We do need to invest more in non-violent social services intervention for the poor, homeless, drug addicted, and mentally ill. 3) I think we need to dial way back on police stops for flimsy pretexts (traffic and on foot.) We give the police too much leeway to stop just about anyone they choose, and this is dangerous for cops, dangerous for law abiding citizens, and ripe for abuse. Expired tags should get you a fine in the mail, not a traffic stop with a police officer scared out of his mind that you might just happen to be a drug kingpin.
All that aside, I think it's on the anti-defunders to actually propose something concrete here. If defunding isn't the answer (and I don't think it is), what is? How do we change policing in this country, and how do we do despite the resistance of police departments and police unions everywhere? If you can't answer that, you're really not in a position to gripe about defund rhetoric.
Not terribly relevant ideas. The cop wasn't using military gear, just an ordinary handgun. Non-violent social services aren't what voters want when they call the police about an armed gang in the neighborhood. It isn't a "flimsy pretext" to stop a armed man (or boy) who is brandishing a handgun at 2:30 in the morning.
This is a deliberate misreading of what the above poster wrote.
He did not suggest that non-violent social services types should respond to armed gangs, and you know it.
Toledo wasn't "brandishing a handgun," and you know that, too.
Yeah, none of my suggestions would likely do anything for Adam Toledo, though they might help in other situations. De-militarizing the police is important. Integrating them into the communities they police is important. Making police departments and police officers financially and legally accountable for their abuses and their mistakes is important.
But I don't know if any of that would have saved Adam Toledo. I don't know if anything would.
I wouldn't fixate on him, though, because I'm pretty sure by summer we'll have a fresh example of reckless policing with a whole new set of circumstances.
Good points! Comment below intended as reply to this one.
I agree with your comment in spirit, but it seems to me kind of missing the point to talk about police reform without considerably tougher gun control. We are a country marinating in weaponry. More than one firearm for every man, woman, and child in the country. And who has the bulk of this civilian firepower? Gangs and criminals, gun aficionados (nuts) who haven't yet experienced a suicidal or homicidal impulse they couldn't control, and hunters. And we ask police to protect us from this totally unregulated militia. Is it any wonder they are on a war footing? That's not to excuse the racist, trigger-happy members of the police, nor the pathology of police unions in protecting and serving their members to the detriment of public safety. But it strikes me as a pretty sure thing that some percentage of police are going to screw up and kill someone who shouldn't have been killed.
I agree, guns are a big part of the picture. Unfortunately, I don't think the current SCOTUS will allow much gun control, so short of court reform, that's about 15 years out.
(They might still uphold an assault weapons ban, which likely won't be much help in these situations, but should cut down on mass shootings.)
I’d like to see a ban on removable magazines. I’m not even sure it would be a constitutional issue.
Just wondering how a non-removable magazine works.
I favor a strict size limit on magazines; one round.
We could have prevented this had we just let the Fraternal Order of Police members marching with Jake Angeli to the Capitol on 1/6/2021 to kidnap, prosecute, & execute Nancy Pelosi, Mike Pence, Kamala Harris, & Chuck Schumer.
There's little question in my mind that a big part of the reason cops are as trigger-happy as they sometimes are is simply the knowledge that guns are everywhere, and can be turned on them any time, and place, by pretty much anybody.
^^^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^^^^^^^
First of all, I agree with all of your points regarding the way policing should be curtailed.
I would point out that Toledo was not just a 13 year old out at 2:30 am with a gun. He was with a 21 year old and that was the person who had, and who was shooting the gun. The gun was fired at a passing car. I think we can assume the car was occupied by some rival gang members. 7 shell casings were recovered. The 21 year old was attempting to kill people. Apparently, he missed. But all too often we see the news reporting random gunshots that resulted in people in their homes getting wounded or killed by stray bullets. Toledo was participating a very serious crime.
He was likely given the gun by the 21 year old because it’s not unusual for adult gang bangers to have a juvenile available when they commit crimes so the juvenile can get the blame and be in the juvenile justice system rather than face prison. When I worked in juvenile hall in the 70’s the average amount of time spent locked up for murder was 4.5 years. If the judge used the word “punishment” in the sentence it was grounds for a new trial. The proper wording was “remanded for rehabilitation”.
The cops found Toledo and the 21 year old and both ran away. When the cop was chasing Toledo he did not know his age or whether or not he was the person who did the shooting. But Toledo did have the gun, he was running away.
Toledo appears to have “complied” with the officer’s order to drop the gun by attempting to ditch in the hope he could claim he was unarmed. He ditched the gun behind the fence, and in the same motion put his hands up to surrender.
The cop shot once. It is my suspicion that the shot was due to an adrenaline rush. When I was a reserve Sheriff in the early 70’s most cops carried revolvers. I never liked pistols because the amount of force to pull the trigger was much less than a revolver and I feared something like this could happen. I was trained to fire three times in a close draw and shoot situation. Nowadays cops seem to pretty much empty their magazines whenever they fire their weapons.
I don’t see this shooting as being akin to most of the other police shootings that have been in the news lately. I see the Tamir Rice shooting as being completely different for instance. Those cops were unprofessional idiots who should have gone to prison.
Well said. People who have never been in an in extremis situation such as this one are certainly entitled to their opinions, but I doubt they have any concept of what it is actually like. It's true that training is the thing placed between the officer and reckless responses to life threatening situations, but training is no guarantee when the decision to use deadly force is less than one second away. We cannot assume the officer knew he was dealing with a 13 year old. What we do know is that the suspect was told to cease all effort to flee three times, and to assume that this had no affect on the officer's mind set is, IMO, pure folly.
It was a single shot and the officer did render first aid quickly.
Guns are too easy to fire.
I'm guessing it was the kid turning towards the officer that triggered the shoot--but I've avoided watching the tape--though it has been should enough times on the news.
In the cop shows in the 70's and 80's, it was always "FREEZE". Maybe they need to bring that back. Would a "freeze-raise your hands-turn around" prevented the shoot? Indeed, "freeze" may be a reminder to the officer to breath and assess the situation. When someone follows your commands, that should not lead to a shooting.
"but I've avoided watching the tape--though it has been should enough times on the news."
It is gut wrenching.
I have had conversations with friends both black and white about mass shootings or in this case individual shootings where police are perceived to use deadly force. We all agree that guns are too prevalent. They are so prevalent that some states are how passing laws to allow for the unfettered purchase of them. To me this is a blatant admission that the laws addressing bad guys with guns has failed.
But it's interesting to note something staring us right in the face. Kevins two stories about Adam Toledo' shooting have garnered more comments that any other stories I have seen since he started blogging on his own. This is a good sign - that we are willing to talk about it.
But for the most part we watch these news stories with a sense of "I'm glad that stuff doesn't happen here" attitude. Or "It happened in the big city not here in rural Idaho."
But it COULD happen anywhere and we need to wake up the population to what guns do outside of hunting.
I am of the opinion that ordinary folks should see the crime scene photos of Sandy Hood Elementary - showing the kids laying in pools of their own blood. All mass shootings should be handled this way. Show the carnage - make it REAL, not Hollywood.
The NRA did a masterful job in lobbying Congress to NOT study firearm deaths. Not requite gun registration record be mad public and they have down played violent deaths by guns by using phrases like "a good guy with a gun would have prevented that".
They have succeeded to the point where ANYONE could buy a gun or get a gun on the underground market
Show what they do in a shooting. Don't sugar coat it. The NRA rails against this suggestion for a reason. Showing a mass shooting involving children would cause great harm to their organization, and gun ownership Get the conversations started. Kevins two articles on Adam Toledo's shooting proves this to work
"The cops found Toledo and the 21 year old and both ran away. When the cop was chasing Toledo he did not know his age or whether or not he was the person who did the shooting. But Toledo did have the gun, he was running away."
Had "THE GUN"
Thats the assumption that gets cops killed. How did he know it was THE GUN how did the cop know it was the ONLY gun? If I recall this was an auto Shot Spotter call wasn't it? All that tells us is that shot(s) have been fired. Doesn't tell us how many different guns were used. Or it was a person calling it in from the safety of inside a building - with no discernment of how many people involved and how many guns were used
The fact that Adam was OBSERVED with a gun does NOT mean the other 21 year old did NOT have one. Or another one if he gave gun one to Toledo.
Bad situation for sure
royko-
This is a tough situation for sure
" I wouldn't have a problem with the police detaining him or even potentially arresting him."
What do you mean POTENTIALLY? He's 13 in possession of a gun. There's no potentially about THAT one
"However, I do fault the police officer for shooting someone who a) was following his orders,"
One time out of 4? That would get you flunked out of school.
"had his hands up and was not an immediate threat at that point. Even though it was dark and stressful, the cop fired before he had given himself a chance to assess the situation."
Immediacy is the issue here. Shots had already been fired but at the time of the dispatch they had no video of the other person firing at an unknown target (This is linked in KD's first article). So they had a gun "in use" and a person running away WITH a gun near the triangulated site of the shot spotter report.
Looking at the still pictures the officers body cam had a| FULL VIEW of
Toledo and the flash light formed a circular pattern which tells me there was NOTHING between the officer and the victim. If this officer were crouching behind the door of his patrol car, or was behind a dumpster or in a doorway I would agree that he SHOULD have taken the time to assess the situation as he had some COVER. But in this case none is seen.
Wither over 350 MILLION guns in this country - thanks to a society addicted to them I would be hesitant chasing 2 guys down an alley and ASSUME the gun I saw in Toledo's hand was the gun used in the shooting. I would assume MORE guns are nearby.
Given the circumstances, and I hate to say this - I would have fired too. Being in the open is no time for assessment. The arm that was holding the gun was MOVING and Toledo's body obscured the fact that Toledo tossed the gun behind the fence. So as the kid is raising his hands above his head is he armed or not? Had shots been previously fired? This kid was observed with a gun and I have a split second from the time the arm comes BACK in to view to pull the trigger or "assess" the situation.
As stated before I have shot people in Vietnam and I have bee shot at. It is the most terrifying situation you can put yourself in. But it is particularly dangerous when you are "in the open" with nothing to duck behind. I would assume the other guy had a gun too and that maybe there were more in the neighborhood.
Not a good situation to be in.
Yes STOP allowing police departments to purchase military gear - but be careful here. We read and see Oath Keepers all over the news. Their symbol resembles the Airborne, or Ranger patches worn on Army uniforms at the top of the shoulder. They typically wear cammo or tan colors and many of them are ex-military or ex law enforcement. They have the insight needed to modify street weapons into assault weapons.
I am hesitant on "standing down" the police when they have to deal with people like the Oath Keepers. But they do need to tone down the aggression when dealing with a George Floyd.
Expired tags should get you a fine? Oh please. You get a registration renewal in the mail. Yes we forget. Do you want "big brother" to take a pic of your license with the expired tag and be sent a fine? Heck we can't get America to wear paper masks because of loss of liberties. Lord knows how Gym Jordan would respond to getting a ticket in the mail w/o a warning based upon big brother invading HIS privacy.
I want all people CHARGED with a crime using a gun to lose their right to object to a search of their living quarters. No warrant needed. Go in with metal detectors. Don't wait for conviction. Loss of gun license if the criminal is a LEGAL gun owner before the crime. Mandatory jail time if the gun turns out to be illegal. This is enforcement of laws already on the books which should make the NRA nutz happy. This would also help in confiscating OTHER illegal guns because many people both legal and non-legal gun owners have more than one. Grab 'em all from the bad guys
NATIONWIDE background checks and minimum requirements for gun owners. Take it out of the hands of local law enforcement.
But what I'm reading about militia groups makes me real hesitant about defunding the police in general
Well put.
I appreciate your reflections. People we think of as minorities are still capable of making the same kinds of judgments that many white people make. Living in their communities, they have experience that gives them a fuller picture of the local issues than the media and activist spheres are going to put forward.
By the way, this killing didn't happen this week, but at the end of March. The video just came out.
Most Black people want cops out there protecting them from the bad guys just like everyone else. They also just want cops to knock off the harrassing stops for "driving while black" and the shoot first, ask questions later approach to policing their neighborhoods, not to mention the casual "Black Lives *Don't* Matter attitude exhibted by a lot of cops. It doesn't seem like such a difficult ask, but for some reason, it seems to be, and that's why we're where we are now.
Exactly.
A friend of mine was telling me about when he lived in an area where people put a couple rows of cinderblocks around the outside walls of their homes--so when they heard a gunshot outside, they could drop flat and the cinderblocks would stop any bullets.
It's hardly surprising that people facing a choice between "you get hassled by the cops now and then" and "you need cinderblocks in your house to stop stray bullets" will pick the first option. But they shouldn't have to face that choice in the first place.
We don't need less police; we need better police.
It's a difficult task because police stand behind each other. This is natural and even necessary for people in dangerous situations. Then prosecutors naturally don't want to antagonize police because they must cooperate to do their jobs. Ideally incidents would be subject to external review and some kind of prosecution outside the local loop, but this seems unlikely to happen at this point.
Excellent points!
And I would add that a lot of the rhetoric and media coverage poses a false dichotomy -- either you are "against" police or "for" them -- when in reality NOBODY (other than, of course, the overt white nationalists increasingly prominent in the Republican party) is "for" murderous carelessness, overreaction, and/or abuse by the police, and NOBODY (beyond perhaps a few adolescent fools) is "against" regular police protection, especially in poverty-stricken and/or high-crime neighborhoods. Even the "defund the police" advocates are not talking about abolishing the police but about redirecting them, up to and if necessary including restructuring them, away from the former and to the latter.
I suspect that, if indeed "the people who stay home and don't attend the rallies ... might provide a very different viewpoint," it would in fact be a small difference in emphasis and almost none in objective. It plays into the hands of the worst of the Republicans to suggest otherwise.
Nuts, this was supposed to be a reply to Royko, above. HIS points are excellent.
Can we PLEASE have an edit function? Thank you.
I agree! Most (almost all) people want some form of police protection. And people have been extremely generous (perhaps too generous) in giving police the benefit of the doubt. The fact that we have as many people advocating "defund" right now is more a sign of people's frustration with perpetually bad, unfair, and dangerous policing.
I don't know what the answer is, and I don't know what the best political strategy is, but I will continue to call for real action until something changes.
I imagine they would prefer not to have to choose between being terrorized by the cops or by gangs.
There is no contradiction between people wanting cops to provide safety and wanting cops to do their jobs better.
"Defund" does not propose to eliminate police. In the extreme case, some people want to rebuild police forces from scratch to wipe away the entrenched mechanisms that provide bad police and bad policies with multiple layers of protection that they wouldn't or shouldn't normally have in a properly functioning system.
Black people aren't naïve; they recognize that real crime exists and policing is meant to serve and protect them. What they experience, instead, is a system that often mistreats and denigrates them, and they've had enough of that BS.
Adam Toledo was most likely a bad boy and his parents are ultimately responsible for why a 13 year old is running around in the early AM, allegedly with a 21 year old and with a gun. Despite young Toledo's delinquency, he had not shot someone and the police officer chasing him had no reason to have his gun ready to fire on a youth he was chasing in an alley. The issue is not whether the police should discourage gun use and attempt to take into custody young persons running around the streets in the middle of the night, but that they resort to deadly force when doing so.
Male teen children, as well as female, of every socioeconomic class sneak out at night and cause trouble. Those from the upper and middle classes are usually not shot by the police. Of course victims of petty theft, intimidation by gang members with violence, and violent crime committed by these youths are going to want law enforcement to protect them. Shooting teens has not deterred unlawfulness in poverty stricken neighborhoods. Community policing by officers not armed with lethal force and placed where the crimes occur would do more to deter crime and reduce victims of both delinquents and the cops.
The kid had a gun. He was holding the gun when the police officer confronted him. He wasn’t a mischievous child. This was a perfectly appropriate activity for armed police as opposed to unarmed social workers.
The critical situation is evaluating the shooting itself and not the circumstances leading up to it. He had apparently discarded his gun (in compliance with the police officer’s orders) and his hands were raised and pointing up (therefore no immediate threat to the officer). Under the circumstances, the officer probably was not entitled to employ deadly force.
“... the police officer chasing him had no reason to have his gun ready to fire on a youth he was chasing in an alley.”
Are y of nuts? The kid was holding the gun while the Col was chasing him. The cop responded to a 911 call about gunfire. OF COURSE the cop is going to have his gun drawn. It’s absolutely absurd to suggest otherwise.
You mean to tell me Montgomery County cops never shot Squi back in '83!?
Even a bleeding-heart, liberal squishes like myself wants to support the police. Man, it's not easy. But every case is different. In George Floyd's case, I saw a sadistic police officer almost gleefully snuff the life out of a subdued and harmless man. In the Duante Wright case, I saw a panicked and gobsmackingly confused officer shoot and kill an unarmed man. In the Caron Nazario case, I saw two police officers power-trip their way to humiliating an army officer during a routine traffic stop. I could go on. But I saw something altogether different in the Adam Toledo case: a young man, involved in firing shots at 2:30 in the morning in an urban neighborhood, running from a police officer, with a gun in his hand. He did not drop the gun when told to, and kept running. The split second when he tossed the gun and turned around did not give the officer time to assess the situation and the officer-understandably, in my view-feared for his life and shot the suspect. The officer then tried to render assistance, and called for an ambulance. Much of the media wants to focus on the outrage and protests, because that's what they do, but most people would agree that the officer's actions were justifiable.
I’m not sure that I’d call the officer’s actions justified. I’d certainly like to hear what (if anything) he told the shooting review board but, as I said above, once the suspect had complied with the order to drop the gun and raise his hands (which he seems to have done) there was no longer an imminent threat to anyone’s life which means that the shooting was probably unjustified.
Mitch
Re-think this a little bit.
8/10 sec eleapsed between the photo showing the gin in Toledos right hand until the time his hands are in the air above his head.
How long was the right arm obscured?
Now take THAT time out of the 8/10ths sec total time. The officer COULD NOT SEE the arm as it was behind Toledo and the cop was exposed with no cover in a neighborhood where shots had been fired shortly before.
W/O knowing if this is THE gun can you assume - SAFELY - it is NOT? Is it a second gun? Are there more guns? This is racing through this cops mind while in the open.
Tragic situation with Toledo's accomplice being ID'd by people as someone who is part of a gang that harasses the people in the neighborhood - and THIS is the first time in 3 days Toledo's Mom said he's been home? That he went into his bedroom and she never checked on him after 3 days of being away unannounced at the age of 13?
If that were MY KID I would have beat him so bad he wouldn't have been able to leave that night.
The officer may not take these other factor into account in his decision to use deadly force since none of them are relevant to whether he was facing an imminent threat. We see from the video that the suspect complies with the order to drop the weapon and raise his hands.
The suspect clearly presented no imminent threat at the moment the officer fired his weapon. Therefore the shooting was not justified. The consequences of the officer’s actions can be debated but there can be no doubt that the use of deadly force against this suspect was not justified.
Do we see it Mitch?
Adam's arm was moving in the video and obscured from the police officer.
So when the arm comes up into view does he have a weapon or no? If I'm behind a cruiser I have no problem with repeating the order show me your hands.
But out in the open?
With shots already fired in the neighborhood? Unknown if it's this guy with this gun or another guy lurking nearby with another gun?
I'm with KD I just don't know. The adrenaline rush of going into a live shooter situation lends itself to all sorts of mis steps by all. THIS situation is exactly why I do NOT want school employees to be armed. I want LEO's in uniform in the schools to be armed. Imagine going into a live fire situation in a school where the principle is standing over a guy he JUST shot and the cops come around the corner simultaneously. That principle dies.
Police work is hard - harder than being a soldier at times. MOST of them do it in an exemplary manner. I could NEVER be a cop............and I tip my hat to those that are.
In this case I hope we can find some answers to our questions
I’m going from memory but I don’t think any of this would be relevant. In particular, if the officer can’t see the suspect’s hands then he can’t employ deadly force because there’s no threat. If he can’t see the threat, he can’t employ deadly force. Only what the officer knows and can perceive at that moment is relevant to the evaluation of whether an imminent threat to the officer’s life or the lives of others existed at the moment the officer pulled the trigger.
It seems likely that whatever kind of slotting review or board of rights will be focused on this exact moment and my guess is that the shooting will be deemed not justified. The suspect was complying, there was no weapon visible, and the suspect’s hands were raised. It’s a tragedy but the officer should not have fired.
Very well put. Unfortunately, I have noticed that the amount of attention and outrage attracted by any particular case is not particularly well-proportioned to the level of misconduct involved.
Being afraid should not be a blanket excuse to shot people who aren't threatening anyone's life. Whether a suspect obeys the first command, or the 100th, once he obeys there is no need to shoot, and any officer who shoots in those circumstances should face charges for it as any other person would if they kill someone unnecessarily while on the job. A suspect trying to run away by definition is someone who is not trying to confront or threaten the police officer so no need to shoot first, especially once the suspect obeys the command.
The most damning thing, is that if the officer was so certain that he did nothing wrong, he would not have lied in his report, where he indicated the gun was used against him in a threatening manner and in a way that made it imminent his life was in danger.
He didn't lie. He thought the kid had the gun in his hand when he turned toward him. He did have it eight tenths of a second earlier, after all. It's totally reasonable that, in the dark, chasing the suspect, the cop didn't see him drop it immediately before turning. I think you'd be had pressed to find a cop that wouldn't have shot him under those circumstances.
Bottom line, if you shoot guns illegally with gangbangers t 2:30 in the morning and run from cops with a gun in your hand, bad things are going to happen. The kid made many bad choices that put him in that situation.
"He didn't lie"
Yes he did. It's one thing to say "I thought he had a gun", it's a completely different one to state the gun was used in a threatening manner against him, which simply did not occur, no matter which way you try to spin it.
"He did have it eight tenths of a second earlier, after all"
In his earlier post Kevin asked how long is 0.8 seconds, well the answer is long enough for the kid to drop the gun (he dropped it after the officer yelled for him to show his hands), for the officer to yell "drop it" (he had already dropped it by now), for the kid to turn around with both hands visible and raise them from waist high to as high as his head, and the officer to yell "drop it" once more. All of those things happened before he decided to take a shot he shouldn't have taken.
One more interesting thing, is that the officer seemed to be completely unaware that Toledo was carrying a gun beforehand. While running he never yelled "drop it", he was yelling for him to stop. Once Toledo stopped (so he was already complying with his orders), you can even see the officer slow down and continue approaching more slowly (if he knew there was a gun he would have stopped right there to avoid getting himself in a more dangerous situation), yelling "hands, show me your F... hands" (again showing that he had no idea if there was a gun or not). It is here when the entire 0.8s sequence I described above started. He saw a glimpse of a gun, panicked, and shot despite the suspect complying with his orders (he had already dropped the gun before the first "drop it").
"It's totally reasonable that, in the dark, chasing the suspect, the cop didn't see him drop it immediately before turning."
Yes, it's very possible he didn't see that, and that is the problem. His nerves got the best of him and he shot in a situation where the suspect had already complied and there was no need to shoot. We know for a fact that the officer's life or health was never in danger in the entire encounter, but he thought it was and decided to shoot first and figure things out later. Police (and people in general), need to start accepting that this is a mistake that officers can make and as a result of these some people who shouldn't die will die, and when that happens officers should be penalized. The problem is that them (police) and a lot of people like you don't want to see that as a mistake, and thus penalties rarely befall the officers who shoot when they shouldn't. Shooting someone should the absolute last resort in any situation and only accepted as a response to the suspect actively firing or at the very least pointing it at the officers or bystanders, not merely when an officer fears for his or her life without being fully aware of what he or she is dealing with.
Until that changes in a meaningful way we will continue to see cases like this were cops shoot first and ask questions later, which is an attitude that should never be tolerated or go unpunished.
"I think you'd be had pressed to find a cop that wouldn't have shot him under those circumstances."
Maybe, maybe not (we've seen plenty of instances were even after the suspect has already attacked officers they still refrain from shooting back), but that misses the point. The point is that no cop should have taken that shot. If you think that all would have taken that shot is indicative of the systemic problem I mentioned above, where many think it is ok to shoot first and figure things out after.
"The kid made many bad choices that put him in that situation."
So victim blaming are we? If a woman goes out at night naked and drunk, and someone rapes her, the one responsible for it is still the rapist, not her. Yes, the kid made some bad choices prior to being shot, but then he is a kid, he is supposed to make bad choices, and none of the choices he made warranted being shot at (he never shot at the officer nor pointed the gun at him, which would be the only two choices that would have warranted being shot at).
What killed him were not his bad decisions, it was the bad decision made by the officer who shot when he didn't need to. The officer is the adult who has been trained to deal with the stress of those situations, and he still fired at the wrong time and without being fully aware of things.
Are we witnessing the return of the Silent Majority?
Possibly off topic, but barely half an hour ago, a young man came to the door offering an Uber-like "security guard" service, wherein you click an app on your phone and they send out a private security guard to deal with your problem, whether it's a breakin at your home, place of business, car, whatever or you're under assault. Because Albuquerque is the most dangerous place in the US, with the highest crime rate, and the police never do anything.
I didn't bite. I'm a lib; my preference is to get a better police force, not have rent-a-guards take over what should be a civc function.
I agree. This service should be absolutely not necessary. (At least in most places in the country. maybe in some rural places where there is limited police service or potential slow response times it might make sense.) However, if those liberals (I understand, it's not all liberals) who want to defund the police are successful, this service may become more necessary.
Obviously, Depends on the situation, mr. drum. The L.A. Correspondent was lucky that mr. Serrano essentially fell into his lap to give a different view. But even then, it’s not a particularly helpful view. I don’t see how even protestors would disagree that it’s bad to hang out with gangs or pass a counterfeit bill or run from a misdemeanor warrant. That people shouldn’t take such actions is not the point. And I’m not sure it’s worth a reporter’s time to seek out an opinion that obvious if it doesn’t just ride up to you on a bike, especially if a protest turns very angry.
Ms. Franqui’s comment is a little more useful. But again, I’m not sure how hard a reporter should work to get such a comment, especially in a case like George Floyd’s. The L.A. correspondent didn’t have to canvass the neighborhood, but good for him/her for including such comments . And it doesn’t help that in the various incidents, the cops usually show zero remorse. The kind of police defense a reporter would usually find would be along the lines of “he deserved being shot.” Comments like Ms. Franqui’s would be very difficult to find. But if such a person just walked by or a reporter had that much time on his/her hands..........
Let’s see. 13 years old. With a gun. On the street at 2:30 a.m.
Makes me wanna holler...
I from around over by there. The summer before covid 6 people were killed within 2 blocks of my house, one with an assault rifle, during the day; cops REALLY come out for stuff like that.
I live in a GOOD neighborhood, comparatively speaking.
The boy had no business being on the streets at 2:30 A.M. The Cop had no business shooting the boy either. But it gets hairy around here.
I've watched kids in running shoot outs across the street from a school, a drive by attempt right in front of my house. That was wierd, cops were talking to everyone but the guy that got shot at, who was pointing out gun casings, some in my 15 ' x 15' front yard.
It has slipped beyond the thrill into something darker, so casual as to be misunderstood by even those who participate.
A toddler was shot 7 times at a Mac D's drive through, the intended got hit once.
If that kid had been in bed like a 13 year old should be he'd be alive today.
The toddler never had a chance.
Slate has a nice write up on police thinking:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/04/police-violence-shootings-culture-fear-adam-toledo-daunte-wright.html
"They're a lot harder to track down, but they might provide a very different viewpoint. This is something reporters ought to think about when they're on the scene and have the time to canvass a few homes for alternate views."
You mean reporters ought to actually report the *full* story, not the take of their friends and their bubble? Say it ain't so!
But, given that they were unwilling to (or incapable of) doing this regarding Nixon (universally surprised that he was voted for twice), then for Reagan, then for Trump, good luck with that hope...