Adam Toledo video released

[Jimmy Higgins]

He pointed his gun at the cops?

I'm not trying to be cute or pedantic here, but, he "came close enough to pointing his gun at cops to be perceived as pointing his gun at cops, which almost always ends badly for people who point guns at cops or appear to be pointing guns at cops."

This flatly implies gun possession is equivalent to imminent threat of use of deadly force against an officer.

At what point can he get rid of the gun without an issue? If he has the gun and raises his hands, dead. If he has the gun and starts to throw it and the officers see it, dead. It seems possession of a gun in sight of an officer gets you killed if you are black. This teen made mistakes, bad mistakes. But was the officer in immediate fear for his own life (or the life of another), the only reasonable time to use deadly force.

He wasn't black. So....

The teen that killed three people with his gun in Wisconsin was openly carrying a gun, past police... and wasn't even pulled aside! Do you notice an insane rift there?

Running was also a poor choice, speaking of "in the first place." Again, had he IMMEDIATELY surrendered himself, he'd be in custody but alive. Unless, obviously, the cop is a straight-up murderer, but I have no reason to suspect that. (cue accurate but irrelevant Derek Chauvin reference.)

And again, plenty of people get apprehended after making a bad choice of not quite giving up immediately. This teen made a lot of bad choices, but the question to be asked is whether the officer was justified in shooting. There should be a standard where lethal force is allowed only in cases of imminent threat to life.

 

[Toni]

I think there’s a lot of dishonesty going on in this thread by all of those who believe that to any extent, Adam Toledo was responsible for his own death.

You think it's dishonest to point out that, had Toledo dropped the gun before running, things would have turned out differently?
Tom

I think it’s dishonest to have expected a frightened 13 year old to have had the forethought to know to drop the gun, yes. I don’t think a single person posting, if they were honest and put themselves in Adam’s shoes would have done better. I think it’s dishonest to not expect a law enforcement officer who commands someone to put their hands up and drop their weapon to actually give the suspect at least a second to drop the gun and out their hands up before shooting, giving the officer all the benefit of reaction time and giving the child zero. Yeah I think that’s dishonest AF.

 

[TomC]

Lots of people failed Adam Toledo.

I could not agree more with this.


Lots and lots of people failed Adam Toledo.


So many, it's hard to know where to start.

His family? His culture? His school? His neighborhood? His government?


Where was his dad? Let's start with that.
Tom

 

[TomC]

I think it’s dishonest to not expect a law enforcement officer who commands someone to put their hands up and drop their weapon to actually give the suspect at least a second to drop the gun

Toledo ran 50 yards before dropping the gun. That's a lot more than the split second the cop had to make a decision.

And I think it's dishonest to dodge that fact.
Tom

 

[LoAmmo]

This flatly implies gun possession is equivalent to imminent threat of use of deadly force against an officer.

No, it doesn't. Not in my mind, I guess I should say. Not "mere" possession. Having it in your hand, as you turn towards a cop who's just chased your ass half-a-football-field down a dark alley maybe is.

By your implication, if a cop pulled a car over, and the driver tells him, with both hands on the wheel, "officer, just for awareness, there is a handgun in my glove compartment," etc, the cop could reasonably start blasting away, and I think nothing could be further from the truth.

Adam didn't "merely possess" a gun, and that's not what got him shot.

The teen that killed three people with his gun in Wisconsin was openly carrying a gun, past police... and wasn't even pulled aside! Do you notice an insane rift there?

It's not the case I thought we were talking about. That--what's his name, Rittenhouse, (?) I agree. I don't know if he was licensed to open carry at that time or what the particulars were. (and, for the record, I am not a fan of all these open-carry commandos being able to walk around flaunting assault rifles; I think it's provocative and asinine.) But, that's beside the point: Adam Toledo and that Rittenhouse guy is not an apples-to-apples comparison as I understood it.

And again, plenty of people get apprehended after making a bad choice of not quite giving up immediately. This teen made a lot of bad choices, but the question to be asked is whether the officer was justified in shooting. There should be a standard where lethal force is allowed only in cases of imminent threat to life.

Plenty do; implying that some don't. Toledo didn't. I'm not sure what's confusing about that.

I also think it's fair to assume that the cop felt HIS OWN LIFE was under imminent threat...his life "matters" too, let's not forget. Was he a tad jumpy? Maybe. By the same token, a lot of cops are dead because they erred on the side of waiting just those extra couple of seconds to really, really see how serious the threat was, and they found out the hard way, and surviving cops watch those videos and take lessons from them, too.
They're in a pretty tough spot, and we expect them to be perfect, every time, and, they aren't ever going to be. This one, I think, acted reasonably. Chauvin, I think, did NOT--and he got (deservedly, IMO) hammered for it, not to conflate the two cases.

 

[laughing dog]

I think it’s dishonest to not expect a law enforcement officer who commands someone to put their hands up and drop their weapon to actually give the suspect at least a second to drop the gun

Toledo ran 50 yards before dropping the gun. That's a lot more than the split second the cop had to make a decision.

And I think it's dishonest to dodge that fact.
Tom

Unless you are arguing that officer shot the kid because he did not want to chase him any more, what relevance does your fact have to the issue of not even waiting one entire second before blowing that child away after he had stopped running?

 

[Toni]

I think it’s dishonest to not expect a law enforcement officer who commands someone to put their hands up and drop their weapon to actually give the suspect at least a second to drop the gun

Toledo ran 50 yards before dropping the gun. That's a lot more than the split second the cop had to make a decision.

And I think it's dishonest to dodge that fact.
Tom

Think back to when you were 13. Were you ever frightened because you knew you were going to get into trouble?

Did you ever run?

How long do you think it would take you to comply with the order of a police officer shouting at you?

 

[Toni]

No, it doesn't. Not in my mind, I guess I should say. Not "mere" possession. Having it in your hand, as you turn towards a cop who's just chased your ass half-a-football-field down a dark alley maybe is.

By your implication, if a cop pulled a car over, and the driver tells him, with both hands on the wheel, "officer, just for awareness, there is a handgun in my glove compartment," etc, the cop could reasonably start blasting away, and I think nothing could be further from the truth.

Funny you mentioned that.

Jury acquitted the cop who killed Philandro Castile for doing just that.

It's not the case I thought we were talking about. That--what's his name, Rittenhouse, (?) I agree. I don't know if he was licensed to open carry at that time or what the particulars were. (and, for the record, I am not a fan of all these open-carry commandos being able to walk around flaunting assault rifles; I think it's provocative and asinine.) But, that's beside the point: Adam Toledo and that Rittenhouse guy is not an apples-to-apples comparison as I understood it.

You're right: they aren't 'apples to apples.' Not at all. There is a pretty big difference between 13 and 17, for one thing. There's another big difference between deliberately shooting and killing multiple people with a firearm you are too young to possess and maybe shooting at some cars. One of those big differences is that the cops didn't see Rittenhouse as a threat, even though he had just shot multiple people. Rittenhouse is not only alive, but is being praised all over Right Wing Talk whatever platform you care to name.

And again, plenty of people get apprehended after making a bad choice of not quite giving up immediately. This teen made a lot of bad choices, but the question to be asked is whether the officer was justified in shooting. There should be a standard where lethal force is allowed only in cases of imminent threat to life.

Plenty do; implying that some don't. Toledo didn't. I'm not sure what's confusing about that.

I also think it's fair to assume that the cop felt HIS OWN LIFE was under imminent threat...his life "matters" too, let's not forget. Was he a tad jumpy? Maybe. By the same token, a lot of cops are dead because they erred on the side of waiting just those extra couple of seconds to really, really see how serious the threat was, and they found out the hard way, and surviving cops watch those videos and take lessons from them, too.
They're in a pretty tough spot, and we expect them to be perfect, every time, and, they aren't ever going to be. This one, I think, acted reasonably. Chauvin, I think, did NOT--and he got (deservedly, IMO) hammered for it, not to conflate the two cases.

Yeah, the cop felt his own life was in danger. Did he have another choice? Of course he did. He could have waited a full second. Adam dropped the gun. He was unarmed when the cop shot him. The cop didn't give himself enough time to process what was happening. Adam is dead.

 

[TomC]

I think it’s dishonest to not expect a law enforcement officer who commands someone to put their hands up and drop their weapon to actually give the suspect at least a second to drop the gun

Toledo ran 50 yards before dropping the gun. That's a lot more than the split second the cop had to make a decision.

And I think it's dishonest to dodge that fact.
Tom

Unless you are arguing that officer shot the kid because he did not want to chase him any more, what relevance does your fact have to the issue of not even waiting one entire second before blowing that child away after he had stopped running?

Because the violent criminal was already shooting at people with the gun. Then turned on a cop, after fleeing arrest.
Toledo gave the cop .9 seconds to make a decision, after having made several decisions over a lot more time than the cop's split second.
All of which were bad decisions.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, it doesn't. Not in my mind, I guess I should say. Not "mere" possession. Having it in your hand, as you turn towards a cop who's just chased your ass half-a-football-field down a dark alley maybe is.

By your implication, if a cop pulled a car over, and the driver tells him, with both hands on the wheel, "officer, just for awareness, there is a handgun in my glove compartment," etc, the cop could reasonably start blasting away, and I think nothing could be further from the truth.

That is the implication of your statement, don't blame me... also that is how Castile died.

Adam didn't "merely possess" a gun, and that's not what got him shot.

Well, it wasn't him aiming the gun at the officers. It wasn't him firing on officers. It was him having a gun.

It's not the case I thought we were talking about. That--what's his name, Rittenhouse, (?) I agree. I don't know if he was licensed to open carry at that time or what the particulars were.

For the record, no, it was against the law for him to have possession of the gun. His mommy got it for him.

But, that's beside the point: Adam Toledo and that Rittenhouse guy is not an apples-to-apples comparison as I understood it.

You are correct, but not in the way you think, as Rittenhouse killed three people with that gun... and walked pass the officers without a second thought. Toledo wasn't treated with "kid gloves" or ignored for potentially firing at cars.

And again, plenty of people get apprehended after making a bad choice of not quite giving up immediately. This teen made a lot of bad choices, but the question to be asked is whether the officer was justified in shooting. There should be a standard where lethal force is allowed only in cases of imminent threat to life.

Plenty do; implying that some don't. Toledo didn't. I'm not sure what's confusing about that.

There is no confusion. The question is the standard for opening fire and killing a suspect. It varies from person to person.

I also think it's fair to assume that the cop felt HIS OWN LIFE was under imminent threat...his life "matters" too, let's not forget.

Hard to forget when I said: "There should be a standard where lethal force is allowed only in cases of imminent threat to life."

Was he a tad jumpy? Maybe. By the same token, a lot of cops are dead because they erred on the side of waiting just those extra couple of seconds to really, really see how serious the threat was, and they found out the hard way, and surviving cops watch those videos and take lessons from them, too.
They're in a pretty tough spot, and we expect them to be perfect, every time, and, they aren't ever going to be.

I'm not expecting perfection, I'm expecting a bullet to be fired only if there is an imminent threat to life.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I've already pointed it out directly and others have indirectly: reaction time. .8 seconds is not enough time to recall a shoot decision. The gun was pitched rather than brought to bear but in such a situation the human mind simply can't change tracks fast enough.

This indicates very poor decision making...on the part of the police officer.

The gung ho hollywood attitude of cops is disgusting and dangerous. This is why police departments need to be rebuilt from the ground up.

Don't take it from me, take if from some one whose job was to train police forces:
You tube video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmjB7TUroyE

A video from 2018 addresses an event in 2021 how?

 

[laughing dog]

Unless you are arguing that officer shot the kid because he did not want to chase him any more, what relevance does your fact have to the issue of not even waiting one entire second before blowing that child away after he had stopped running?

Because the violent criminal was already shooting at people with the gun.

No, the "violent criminal" was shooting in the air. And the officer had more than a split second to make a decision. The officer choose to not take more than a split second to make the decision to shoot to kill.

Then turned on a cop, after fleeing arrest.
Toledo gave the cop .9 seconds to make a decision, after having made several decisions over a lot more time than the cop's split second.
All of which were bad decisions.

If bad decisions merited a killing, we wouldn't be worried about climate change at all.

 

[repoman]

That is the implication of your statement, don't blame me... also that is how Castile died.

Well, it wasn't him aiming the gun at the officers. It wasn't him firing on officers. It was him having a gun.

It's not the case I thought we were talking about. That--what's his name, Rittenhouse, (?) I agree. I don't know if he was licensed to open carry at that time or what the particulars were.

For the record, no, it was against the law for him to have possession of the gun. His mommy got it for him.

But, that's beside the point: Adam Toledo and that Rittenhouse guy is not an apples-to-apples comparison as I understood it.

You are correct, but not in the way you think, as Rittenhouse killed three people with that gun... and walked pass the officers without a second thought. Toledo wasn't treated with "kid gloves" or ignored for potentially firing at cars.

And again, plenty of people get apprehended after making a bad choice of not quite giving up immediately. This teen made a lot of bad choices, but the question to be asked is whether the officer was justified in shooting. There should be a standard where lethal force is allowed only in cases of imminent threat to life.

Plenty do; implying that some don't. Toledo didn't. I'm not sure what's confusing about that.

There is no confusion. The question is the standard for opening fire and killing a suspect. It varies from person to person.

I also think it's fair to assume that the cop felt HIS OWN LIFE was under imminent threat...his life "matters" too, let's not forget.

Hard to forget when I said: "There should be a standard where lethal force is allowed only in cases of imminent threat to life."

Was he a tad jumpy? Maybe. By the same token, a lot of cops are dead because they erred on the side of waiting just those extra couple of seconds to really, really see how serious the threat was, and they found out the hard way, and surviving cops watch those videos and take lessons from them, too.
They're in a pretty tough spot, and we expect them to be perfect, every time, and, they aren't ever going to be.

I'm not expecting perfection, I'm expecting a bullet to be fired only if there is an imminent threat to life.

here is the video of him walking by the cops with hands raised up



or this video starting from 10:55 if you don't have a youtube account

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Disagree--I don't believe he was playing chicken. He knew he was doing something illegal, he tried to flee. When it became obvious that wasn't working he tried to ditch the gun. He didn't realize how deadly the rules of the game were, that the cop was going to react to the quick movement of the gun. He didn't realize the cop would be focusing on the gun and see the motion.

He is a victim in all this, but his killer is the gang.

the cop was focusing on the gun?

Of course he was.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The lowest estimate I have seen for guns in the US is upwards of 300 million. I have also seen a reasonable case for 600 million.

Lets suppose you get 90% of them by making them illegal. (And I think that's optimistic.) That leaves 30-60 million in criminal hands. It will take the police a long time to get rid of those, by which time small workshops will be turning them out for criminals if they have no better source.

I think this is an “enemy of the good” argument, Loren. I’d be tickled pink to know 90% or anything approaching 90% of the guns were removed from this country. Wouldn’t you?
The rest and anyone who would manufacture or bring guns into the country illegally will be an ongoing problem like any other criminal activity.

I wouldn't be happy--because it wouldn't help at all. A bunch of guns that weren't a problem would be gone, the guns that were a problem would remain.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think there’s a lot of dishonesty going on in this thread by all of those who believe that to any extent, Adam Toledo was responsible for his own death.

You think it's dishonest to point out that, had Toledo dropped the gun before running, things would have turned out differently?
Tom

I think it’s dishonest to have expected a frightened 13 year old to have had the forethought to know to drop the gun, yes. I don’t think a single person posting, if they were honest and put themselves in Adam’s shoes would have done better. I think it’s dishonest to not expect a law enforcement officer who commands someone to put their hands up and drop their weapon to actually give the suspect at least a second to drop the gun and out their hands up before shooting, giving the officer all the benefit of reaction time and giving the child zero. Yeah I think that’s dishonest AF.

It doesn't matter how someone else in his shoes would have done. This isn't some sporting competition with rules to make it "fair". Put the blame where it belongs--with the gang.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think it’s dishonest to have expected a frightened 13 year old to have had the forethought to know to drop the gun, yes. I don’t think a single person posting, if they were honest and put themselves in Adam’s shoes would have done better. I think it’s dishonest to not expect a law enforcement officer who commands someone to put their hands up and drop their weapon to actually give the suspect at least a second to drop the gun and out their hands up before shooting, giving the officer all the benefit of reaction time and giving the child zero. Yeah I think that’s dishonest AF.

It doesn't matter how someone else in his shoes would have done. This isn't some sporting competition with rules to make it "fair".

Actually there are laws and issues with equal protection to make things fair. We had that guy in Georgia be armed after killing several people, and being arrested alive. The teen in Wisconsin killed people and walked right past the police, open carrying. And we have this thirteen year old who was doing something they shouldn't have been doing (something very reckless!), and is killed during apprehension.

There is a disconnect, and the Constitution says there shouldn't be... that it is about fairness.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, the "violent criminal" was shooting in the air. And the officer had more than a split second to make a decision. The officer choose to not take more than a split second to make the decision to shoot to kill.

Reality check: The officer saw the gun start to come up. At this point his choices are:

1) Within a small fraction of a second decide to shoot.

2) Hope the kid isn't trying to shoot him, because if he is the officer is dead.

Then turned on a cop, after fleeing arrest.
Toledo gave the cop .9 seconds to make a decision, after having made several decisions over a lot more time than the cop's split second.
All of which were bad decisions.

If bad decisions merited a killing, we wouldn't be worried about climate change at all.

Once again, this isn't a sporting event. You are focusing on things that have no bearing on the situation.

 

[laughing dog]

Reality check: The officer saw the gun start to come up. At this point his choices are:

1) Within a small fraction of a second decide to shoot.

2) Hope the kid isn't trying to shoot him, because if he is the officer is dead.

Your reality check is not reality. If it were, you'd acknowledge
a) there is more than a fraction of a second,
b) it takes a firearm pointed in one's direction to make one a target, and
c) targets are not always hit (or people killed when shot).

Once again, this isn't a sporting event. You are focusing on things that have no bearing on the situation.

Your responses are inane enough without the babble.

 

[ZiprHead]

Reality check: The officer saw the gun start to come up. At this point his choices are:

1) Within a small fraction of a second decide to shoot.

2) Hope the kid isn't trying to shoot him, because if he is the officer is dead.

Your reality check is not reality. If it were, you'd acknowledge
a) there is more than a fraction of a second,
b) it takes a firearm pointed in one's direction to make one a target, and
c) targets are not always hit (or people killed when shot).

Once again, this isn't a sporting event. You are focusing on things that have no bearing on the situation.

Your responses are inane enough without the babble.

Wondering if the gun was even loaded at the time. Yes, I know this makes no difference to the cop.