Chicago police shooting incident video released

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,037
2,615
136
But your skipping over an important point, the youth DID have an opportunity to drop the gun early on and chose to keep running and ultimately try and hide the weapon. Usually I don't side with the cops on these matters but in this case the cop was put into a bad situation, he knows the youth is armed, he refuses to drop the gun so the cop now would know he's not facing getting shot at and turns quickly after his hands are hidden and raises them. No, not a "good shoot" but an accident I feel the cop does not deserve much blame for either.
I get it. He didn't correctly triangulate the position of the stars, the kelvin of the ambient light, the vibratory force of the sound waves in the area to know what information the police officer could take in as he showed his empty hands and so it was the kids fault he got shot. Not the trained professional.

Look here's what going to happen. The cop will be tried for something (reckless discharge or a weapon or manslaughter or something). The city will payout 30+ million and nothing will change. That's the US way of doing things. Nothing changes until it affects white people.

Listen, I've had cops pull guns on me at least 3 times when I was under 25. Once, the cop was jumpy and I thought he was going to shoot me for sure (someone shot in a movie theater and my friends and I happened to be the closest black guys around). I'm not a fan of current policing. And my black skin makes it worse. So, stop with the obtuse stuff.

I think this is one of those situations where it's not cut and dry. The cop could have already decided to shoot him, could have been biased, but what surrounded what happened in that video, makes it a 50-50 situation which you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the cop.

I think this is the problem we have right now. We've been given benefits to the cops for decades and look where its gotten us. They are more trigger happy than ever and readier to falsify documents and allegations than ever. We gave benefit to cops and all they did was lie about what actually happened to protect each other. Thank god for video cameras that are countering the concept of "given the benefit" to police officers. Thank god.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,424
136
I'll make my one comment here in response to this particular remark.

As clarification, ordinary citizens don't "have to be right" either when they use force to defend themselves.

The law of self-defense which applies to ordinary citizens also applies to police. Some people get confused when they talk about police being "privileged to use force" under certain circumstances. However, that refers to non-lethal uses of force, like restraining someone during an arrest, which would be assault and/or false imprisonment if done by one citizen toward another. This may become relevant, as it is in the Chauvin trial, when an unintended death occurs.

For deadly force, however, the privilege exists only where it would also exist for a citizen. It is the law of self-defense. There are no special legal rules for police.

The law of self-defense is this: You can use deadly force if you have a reasonable belief in an imminent threat of deadly force from the victim.

Reasonableness is not judged by hindsight. That is why it says "reasonable" and not "correct."

I will not attempt to apply this law to the facts of this particular case. I only wanted to intervene because practically no one seems to understand that the law in this area is the same for cops as citizens, and it's actually pretty simple what that law is.

I've also noticed one or more people suggesting that police should not be able to shoot in situations where an ordinary citizen would likely be allowed to under the law.

That may be what the law is and it certainly is what's allowed, however that doesn't make it right.

But thank you for this info.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
Look no one is saying that crimes should go unpunished. However, committing a crime doesn't mean you should be executed in the street by a police officer. There's a reason we have laws, trials, juries, etc. When cops gun people down like this its not justice. Its vigilantism.

Second point of clarification. You're correct on the point here that it is 100% irrelevant if what the 13 year was doing was a crime or not a crime.

Per my above post, what is relevant is whether the officer could reasonably believe, based on the information that he had, that the 13 year posed an imminent deadly threat.

That is to be judged on the facts known to him at the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rommelrommel

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
That may be what the law is and it certainly is what's allowed, however that doesn't make it right.

But thank you for this info.

Doesn't make what right? You mean what the officer did here? If so, then I presume you mean that in your opinion, his actions did not fall under the self-defense rule?

Or are you arguing that the law of self-defense isn't right? Because that law has been with us for hundreds of years and seems pretty sound to me.
 
Last edited:

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,424
136
Doesn't make what right? You mean what the officer did here? If so, then I presume you mean that in your opinion, his actions did not fall under the self-defense rule?

Or are you arguing that the law of self-defense isn't right? Because that law has been with us for hundreds and years and seems pretty sound to me.

I'm not arguing against what the law is as I already conceded that point. What's not right is not holding people we pay to protect and serve us, who are trained, to the same standards as normal people are held to. Especially when proper training can easily change the outcomes of these interactions (see the DOJ paper I linked to earlier in this thread).
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
I'm not arguing against what the law is as I already conceded that point. What's not right is not holding people we pay to protect and serve us, who are trained, to the same standards as normal people are held to. Especially when proper training can easily change the outcomes of these interactions (see the DOJ paper I linked to earlier in this thread).

I was responding to comments which are rather the converse of what you are talking about. Like saying police should have a special rule where they have to let the other person shoot at them and hope they miss before they can fire. That is not the law for ordinary citizens.

The problem with police accountability has to do with multiple issues including a thin blue line mentality which causes police to protect other police, union contracts which give police special privileges when accused of crimes, DA's who prosecute being friends with police, juries tending to believe police over ordinary citizens, and more.

These are structural issues which can possibly be addressed in one way or another.

For the individual case, however, it has to be judged by applying the correct law to the known facts of the case. Including the fact that the privilege of self-defense is based on contemporaneously known information, not hindsight. I'm not entirely sure that is always what is being done in these threads.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rommelrommel

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,424
136
Btw, I'm not were of any law where a normal citizen can pursue someone and claim self defense.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
Btw, I'm not were of any law where a normal citizen can pursue someone and claim self defense.

You could claim it. It may or may not work depending on the quality of your reason for pursuit. If your pursuit put the victim in reasonable fear of you, then you try to claim self-defense because he drew a gun, then you're probably out of luck. Reminds me of the Trayvon Martin case, except Zimmerman was not out of luck.

The cop here did have reason to pursue though. It was his job. So I'm not really seeing the point you're trying to make.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,424
136
You could claim it. It may or may not work depending on the quality of your reason for pursuit. If your pursuit put the victim in reasonable fear of you, then you try to claim self-defense because he drew a gun, then you're probably out of luck. Reminds me of the Trayvon Martin case, except Zimmerman was not out of luck.

The cop here did have reason to pursue though. It was his job. So I'm not really seeing the point you're trying to make.

My point being that police have more leeway in what's considered self defense compared to a normal citizen.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
My point being that police have more leeway in what's considered self defense compared to a normal citizen.
"He committed a triple homicide but he's running away, don't pursue we can't claim self defense since the crime is now over! Hopefully we catch him some other day."

Best and the brightest right hurrrr
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,198
18,669
146
"He committed a triple homicide but he's running away, don't pursue we can't claim self defense since the crime is now over! Hopefully we catch him some other day."

Best and the brightest right hurrrr

He committed a triple homicide so it's ok to gun 'em down. You're a stable jeenyus.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
READ THE ARTICLE......This is exactly what happenned --
Thirteen-year-old Adam Toledo dropped the gun he'd been holding, turned and began raising his hands just as the officer had commanded. Then the cop fired a single shot, killing the boy in the dark Chicago alley. -- kid complied and then the kid died......


Teen's death puts focus on split-second police decisions (msn.com)

Thirteen-year-old Adam Toledo dropped the gun he'd been holding, turned and began raising his hands just as the officer had commanded. Then the cop fired a single shot, killing the boy in the dark Chicago alley.

The graphic video that became the latest tragic touchstone in the nation’s reckoning with race and policing puts a microscope on those split-second decisions with far-reaching and grave consequences. Investigators are still sorting through exactly what happened, but the shooting has raised difficult questions about why the boy wasn't given more time to comply, and whether the deadly encounter could have been prevented in the first place.

there is more.....
 
Last edited:

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
You could claim it. It may or may not work depending on the quality of your reason for pursuit. If your pursuit put the victim in reasonable fear of you, then you try to claim self-defense because he drew a gun, then you're probably out of luck. Reminds me of the Trayvon Martin case, except Zimmerman was not out of luck.

The cop here did have reason to pursue though. It was his job. So I'm not really seeing the point you're trying to make.
It was not self-defense.......the kid did not have the gun in his possession when he turned with his empty hands in the air.....
 

NWRMidnight

Diamond Member
Jun 18, 2001
3,038
2,652
136
My point being that police have more leeway in what's considered self defense compared to a normal citizen.
A normal citizen also can't shoot someone just because they have a gun. They actually have to use it in a threatening way for a citizen to be able to justify the shooting.. aka point it at you, or threaten you with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,424
136
He committed a triple homicide so it's ok to gun 'em down. You're a stable jeenyus.

He just wants to make sure everyone on this forum knows just who the dumbest mother fucker is, its his title and he owns it.

Btw, who did these suspects shoot and kill? Oh nobody? Oops I guess that invalidated his point. Yeah he still holds the title.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,198
18,669
146
He just wants to make sure everyone on this forum knows just who the dumbest mother fucker is, its his title and he owns it.

Btw, who did these suspects shoot and kill? Oh nobody? Oops I guess that invalidated his point. Yeah he still holds the title.

He's doing a fantastic job.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,284
13,581
146
So I have a question, does anyone else remember a time when it was established that cops didn't shoot first? I have distinct knowledge of this from my youth, and that's backed up by non-idiotic media that I remember as well.

Example, The Place Beyond the Pines. Came out in 2012, first half takes place in the late 90's. There's a scene where a young officer shoots an armed suspect first out of a panic, and is subsequently shot in the leg before the suspect dies. Scene in question at the rough timestamp, feel free to skip if you don't want spoilerinos: (EDIT: rat bastards, go to 1:22 or so)
After, there's a scene where the officer is having a conversation with his chief in the hospital to 'get his story straight' and establish that the perp shot first, very very clearly to avoid liability from the young'n being the one to shoot first.

Why would this scene even exist in the present day? Does anyone even seem to give a shit if the cop shoots first now? At this point it seems like half of our citizenry is willing to justify a shooting of someone that's unarmed, because 'they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, tough shit'. Why do I remember this differently but nobody else does?
 

rommelrommel

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2002
4,410
3,183
146
It was not self-defense.......the kid did not have the gun in his possession when he turned with his empty hands in the air.....

As covered already, the standard is not perfection given the benefit of hindsight. It’s a reasonable belief in the moment of death or grievous bodily harm.

If this were a homeowner coming across an armed intruder and the armed intruder spun around while dropping the gun to their obscured side in similar circumstances overall would you be in a hurry to fry him?
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
27,648
26,746
136
As covered already, the standard is not perfection given the benefit of hindsight. It’s a reasonable belief in the moment of death or grievous bodily harm.

If this were a homeowner coming across an armed intruder and the armed intruder spun around while dropping the gun to their obscured side in similar circumstances overall would you be in a hurry to fry him?
I don't think he should be "fried" but obviously thousands and thousands of dollars of training failed in this case and he should no longer be a cop. I expect far more from a cop we've invested in training to be a professional in the use of force than I do a homeowner who can get a gun with zero training.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,125
30,518
136
He didn't make an error in judgement. You're analyzing the judgement based on the aftermath. I'm analyzing his judgement based on what he knew before he made that shot.
1.) Shots fired
2.) Someone with a gun running from you
3.) You chase the person into an alley
4.) The person stops partially obstructed by a fence with his back to you and you can't tell what he's doing and where the gun is.
5.) He starts turning around toward you.
6.) ......

Now you tell me what you would have done at 6.
Cops should not be allowed to kill because "they feared for their lives." Their job is to put their life on the line to protect others.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,424
136
Cops should not be allowed to kill because "they feared for their lives." Their job is to put their life on the line to protect others.

I would be happy if their first instincts aren’t deadly force.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
It was not self-defense.......the kid did not have the gun in his possession when he turned with his empty hands in the air.....

The question is not whether in hindsight he had the gun or not. It was whether the officer knew that at the time.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,198
18,669
146
The question is not whether in hindsight he had the gun or not. It was whether the officer knew that at the time.

I thought it was more like did the officer fear for his life. There doesn't need to be a gun at all, could of been a phone for instance. That's been the status quo TMK