Chicago police shooting incident video released

[ivwshane]

Yes really. Had the kid been home in bed where 13 year olds are supposed to be at 230 AM, none of this would have happened to him.

Now, had it been 830PM, we'd not have that point to cover.

Yes and if women didn’t dress all sexy rape wouldn’t be a thing.

Go fuck yourself!

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Let's see how what's-his-name chomps on this tidbit:

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2021-04-17/prosecutor-who-implied-boy-was-armed-when-shot-put-on-leave

 

[ondma]

Yes and if women didn’t dress all sexy rape wouldn’t be a thing.

Go fuck yourself!

Obvious false equivalency. The simple fact is, had the victim been at home, obviously he would not have been killed. Although this statement is true however, it, of course, does not mean the officer was justified in shooting him.

 

[ivwshane]

Obvious false equivalency. The simple fact is, had the victim been at home, obviously he would not have been killed. Although this statement is true however, it, of course, does not mean the officer was justified in shooting him.

It’s a form of victim blaming and it’s irrelevant why the kid was out late at night as that fact alone doesn’t justify being killed.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

It's a form of promoting personal responsibility.

 

[ondma]

It’s a form of victim blaming.

Of course it is, but is not the victim partially to blame? He either had a gun or was with someone who did at 2:30 AM. He also ran from the police, which escalated the situation. Again, I am not saying that justified the shooting, but there can be blame on both sides, no?

 

[railer]

Of course it is, but is not the victim partially to blame? He either had a gun or was with someone who did at 2:30 AM. He also ran from the police, which escalated the situation. Again, I am not saying that justified the shooting, but there can be blame on both sides, no?

He had a gun. We know this because thank god we have video of the worthless turd tossing it while in motion to put his hands up. There is almost always blame to go at least to some degree on both sides in nearly every situation, but not this one. That kid could have dropped that gun while he was running and then put his hands straight up, and he would 100% be alive today. He was being real sneaky hiding the gun to the side of his body like he did, plotting what exactly to do next.

Bottom line - if Don Lemon thinks it's a good shoot, then it's a good shoot. Time to move on from this one gals.

 

[railer]

So, a 13 year old who didn't have a gun in his hands when he turned around with his hands up, was shot and killed because he was a threat after shooting how many people.... ZERO!. Yet you are trying to say the guy who had a gun that he just used to shoot and killed 10 people, including a cop, was no threat at all because he surrendered with his hands up, and that was why he wasn't shot and killed. Oh.. Being in Chicago changes all that... right.. a 13 year old in Chicago who raised his hands as instructed, is a bigger threat than a guy who killed 10 people outside of Chicago. Did I miss something?

Yeah you missed the part where the kid had a gun in his hand the entire time, including .2 seconds before throwing his hand up. Since that's the only reason the white-looking kid got shot in the first place, you couldn't have missed bigger.

 

[ivwshane]

Of course it is, but is not the victim partially to blame? He either had a gun or was with someone who did at 2:30 AM. He also ran from the police, which escalated the situation. Again, I am not saying that justified the shooting, but there can be blame on both sides, no?

All we are talking about is the shooting. You guys want to make it about non relevant stuff in order to excuse the officers behavior. Did the fact that the kid was past his bedtime factor into the officers decision to shoot the kid? No? Then why does it matter now? Why do you guys think that’s relevant? Do you prefer to live in a country where the people who are sworn to protect and serve the citizens also gets to be judge and executioner? I don’t. So why keep making excuses for bad policing?

 

[rommelrommel]

Any police anywhere are going to shoot the vast majority of times in that situation. He went from armed to unarmed too close to the turn, and it was at least partially obscured by his body. That was absolutely perceived as an attempt to shoot at the officer and while it was wrong, you’re not going to convince a jury that it was unreasonable. Not in any other country either.

 

[emperus]

Any police anywhere are going to shoot the vast majority of times in that situation. He went from armed to unarmed too close to the turn, and it was at least partially obscured by his body. That was absolutely perceived as an attempt to shoot at the officer and while it was wrong, you’re not going to convince a jury that it was unreasonable. Not in any other country either.

In agreement. The problem is too many guns on the street.

 

[ivwshane]

Any police anywhere are going to shoot the vast majority of times in that situation. He went from armed to unarmed too close to the turn, and it was at least partially obscured by his body. That was absolutely perceived as an attempt to shoot at the officer and while it was wrong, you’re not going to convince a jury that it was unreasonable. Not in any other country either.

Yeah most police are going to shoot and that’s because they are poorly trained not because it’s the right call.

 

[rommelrommel]

Yeah most police are going to shoot and that’s because they are poorly trained not because it’s the right call.

The only training changes that would meaningfully change the outcome in these scenarios is to 1) not pursue/pursue with much less vigor or 2) accept far more risk of being shot.

The population of human beings capable of making a judgment call like that correctly with a high degree of certainty is very, very small.

This is not a US exclusive issue at all, unfortunately this boy likely would have been shot by armed police from anywhere.

 

[ivwshane]

The only training changes that would meaningfully change the outcome in these scenarios is to 1) not pursue/pursue with much less vigor or 2) accept far more risk of being shot.

The population of human beings capable of making a judgment call like that correctly with a high degree of certainty is very, very small.

This is not a US exclusive issue at all, unfortunately this boy likely would have been shot by armed police from anywhere.

Yeah sorry that’s not true in the slightest.

For one, this has been on ongoing issue for multiple decades!

Here is a DOJ document that talks about the issues and the solutions to them (you’ll note that this particular document was updated in 2003).

https://www.justice.gov/archive/crs/pubs/principlesofgoodpolicingfinal092003.pdf

You’ll also note this about training:

Training can have a significant impact on all aspects of police service delivery and is of critical importance in the control of police-community violence. A Police Foundation study on the use of deadly force published in 1977 noted: “In the course of this study police chiefs and administrators were asked what steps they would consider most likely to bring about a reduction in unnecessary shootings by police officers. The most common response was to recommend a tight firearms policy coupled with an effective training program.”11
While one can generally agree with this response, findings in the 1982 International Association of Chiefs of Police report, A Balance of Forces, also need to be considered:
• In-service crisis intervention training as opposed to preservice training was associated with a low justifiable homicide rate by police.
• Agencies with simulator, stress, and physical exertion firearms training experience a higher justifiable homicide rate by police than agencies without such training.
• Marksmanship awards given to officers for proficiency in firearms training are associated with a high justifiable homicide rate by the police.
• In-service training in the principles of “officer survival” is correlated with a high justifiable homicide rate by the police.12
These findings clearly suggest that when it comes to training police officers, both the type of training and the approach to training police officers must be carefully examined. In examining this area, Herman Goldstein makes several pertinent observations on police entry-level training in Policing a Free Society:
• The success of training is commonly measured in terms of the number of hours of classroom work. Eight weeks is considered 100 percent improvement over four weeks...

• ...those who have analyzed the status of recruit training have found much that is wrong...the programs are structured to convey only one point of view on controversial matters in a manner intended to avoid open discussion.
• ...there is an unreal quality in the training program in the emphasis placed on military protocol, in their narrow concept of the police function, and in their according-to-the- book teaching of police operations.
• ...they tend to portray the police officer’s job as a rigid one, largely dictated by law, ignoring the tremendous amount of discretion officers are required to exercise.
• ...training programs fail to achieve the minimal goal of orienting a new employee to his job...failure to equip officers to understand the built-in stresses of their job...officers are left to discover on their own the binds in which society places them...
• If recruit training is inadequate, in-service training is more so.13
In Goldstein’s observations one begins to understand some of the limitations of automatically turning to training to solve all problems. Perhaps it also suggests why some training programs may be associated with a higher rate of police justifiable homicides. A more recent observation in this area is made by Scharf and Binder in The Badge and the Bullet:
Our analysis suggests a framework in which to analyze training related to police deadly force. Few training programs have attempted to conceptualize the varied and complex competencies necessary to implement a responsible deadly force policy. Most training...focuses upon one or possibly two isolated competencies. Shooting simulators attempt to train police officers to quickly identify threats against them. Some crisis intervention training approaches focus almost exclusively upon the verbal skills useful in dealing with a limited range of disputes. If training is to be effective in reducing the aggregate number of police shootings, it must focus on multiple psychological dimensions, emphasizing those capacities that might influence police behavior in a wide range of armed confrontations. Also, such training should be conducted in environments simulating the complex, and often bewildering, conditions in which deadly force episodes usually take place. From our observations, this approach to shooting training is rare in police departments.14
Scharf and Binder’s observations indicate a need to rethink the approach to firearms training and, at the same time, reinforce Goldstein’s observations almost 10 years earlier on training in general. Both observations, however, seem to suggest that the advantages to be gained from training will not be realized until programs go beyond teaching a single response to complex situations. The focus should be on training and developing a “thinking police officer” who analyzes situations and responds in the appropriate manner based upon a value system such as this publication proposes.
This is obviously a much different approach to training than has been used in law enforcement. It requires consideration of a total situation as opposed to focusing solely on the final “shoot/don’t shoot” decision. This does not mean that many of the components of current training programs should be dropped. They need to be tied together into a decision-making framework that causes officers to make decisions in earlier stages of responding to a call or handling an incident. This would minimize the risk of a situation evolving to a point where the use of firearms is required to protect someone’s life.

In support of a new approach to police training, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department psychologists Marcia C. Mills and John G. Stratton reported findings in the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin in February 1982 that “The nature of academy training and type of services actually provided are often discrepant. Seventy to 90 percent of police training is devoted to crime control, laws, and police procedures, while frequently 70 to 90 percent of subsequent job duties are devoted to interpersonal communication and interaction.”

In terms of this being a worldwide issue, well that’s also false.

Not just “a few bad apples”: U.S. police kill civilians at much higher rates than other countries

Police violence is a systemic problem in the U.S., not simply incidental, and it happens on a scale far greater than other wealthy nations.

www.prisonpolicy.org

 

[railer]

Yeah sorry that’s not true in the slightest.

For one, this has been on ongoing issue for multiple decades!

Here is a DOJ document that talks about the issues and the solutions to them (you’ll note that this particular document was updated in 2003).

https://www.justice.gov/archive/crs/pubs/principlesofgoodpolicingfinal092003.pdf

You’ll also note this about training:



In terms of this being a worldwide issue, well that’s also false.

Not just “a few bad apples”: U.S. police kill civilians at much higher rates than other countries

Police violence is a systemic problem in the U.S., not simply incidental, and it happens on a scale far greater than other wealthy nations.

www.prisonpolicy.org

That's because there are too many guns in the us, and so many more people are armed or potentially armed. Police training had nothing to do with this shooting, as any human would have made the same shoot in the same scenario. Listen to the posters above you. They are correct. You are not.

 

[rommelrommel]

Yeah sorry that’s not true in the slightest.

For one, this has been on ongoing issue for multiple decades!

Here is a DOJ document that talks about the issues and the solutions to them (you’ll note that this particular document was updated in 2003).

https://www.justice.gov/archive/crs/pubs/principlesofgoodpolicingfinal092003.pdf

You’ll also note this about training:



In terms of this being a worldwide issue, well that’s also false.

Not just “a few bad apples”: U.S. police kill civilians at much higher rates than other countries

Police violence is a systemic problem in the U.S., not simply incidental, and it happens on a scale far greater than other wealthy nations.

www.prisonpolicy.org

I am talking about this particular scenario and ones like it. I am not denegrating training nor saying there shouldn’t be more, or better selection of candidates.
I’m saying that in a scenario with tenths of a second at play like this, training doesn’t matter much at all unless the tactics change radically.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Yeah you missed the part where the kid had a gun in his hand the entire time, including .2 seconds before throwing his hand up. Since that's the only reason the white-looking kid got shot in the first place, you couldn't have missed bigger.

At no time in the video can you tell what he has in his hands, unless you go frame by frame.. The only reason you know NOW what he had in his hands i because of details after the fact. You are watching it with the for knowledge it was a gun. IF you view it objectively, knowing that at the time no knowledge what was in his hand, you can't make out what it is. It was also much longer than .2 seconds from the time he tossed the gun behind the fence and when he turned and raised his hands. There was plenty of time to take note of his body language, which any parent has scene many times as there child tries to hide something.

Are you aware that the prosecutor was fired because he tried to peddle the same BS scenario you are trying to peddle here? The video doesn't support that argument, nor does it support he had a gun at all in his hands when he went to raise them and was shot. IF he had a gun in his hands when he turned toward the cop, and threw it as he raised his hands, as you say, it would have ended up in front of the fence.. not a foot or more down behind the fence.

 

[ivwshane]

I am talking about this particular scenario and ones like it. I am not denegrating training nor saying there shouldn’t be more, or better selection of candidates.
I’m saying that in a scenario with tenths of a second at play like this, training doesn’t matter much at all unless the tactics change radically.

He had tenths of a second because that's all the cop gave him!

Lets say the kid still had the gun when he turned around, how much longer would it have taken the kid to aim the gun and fire? No matter how much longer it would have taken the cop still could have responded before the kid could have aimed the gun.

So fuck yeah, training matters and had you read the DOJ article I posted (and even quoted the relevant part) you'd see that my claim is supported.

 

[ivwshane]

That's because there are too many guns in the us, and so many more people are armed or potentially armed. Police training had nothing to do with this shooting, as any human would have made the same shoot in the same scenario. Listen to the posters above you. They are correct. You are not.

Shut the fuck up little fascists. My previous link already debunked your tired talking point.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

He had tenths of a second because that's all the cop gave him!

Lets say the kid still had the gun when he turned around, how much longer would it have taken the kid to aim the gun and fire? No matter how much longer it would have taken the cop still could have responded before the kid could have aimed the gun.

So fuck yeah, training matters and had you read the DOJ article I posted (and even quoted the relevant part) you'd see that my claim is supported.

Or you know.. you could have just...
1. Not been in back alleys doing questionable acts.
2. Not been out at 2:30am in back alleys
3. Not run away from the police and instead surrender immediately.

But hey - that would require thinking. And we can't have that now can we? Thus we ignore all of these many elements that lead up to the result and instead just paint all the problems as being on the officer. Sounds logical lol.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 

[ivwshane]

Or you know.. you could have just...
1. Not been in back alleys doing questionable acts.
2. Not been out at 2:30am in back alleys
3. Not run away from the police and instead surrender immediately.

But hey - that would require thinking. And we can't have that now can we? Thus we ignore all of these many elements that lead up to the result and instead just paint all the problems as being on the officer. Sounds logical lol.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Irrelevant you fucking dumb ass.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Irrelevant you fucking dumb ass.

If you find all those items irrelevant, then you're simply a moron of epic proportions.

There's no point in trying to debate with someone at that peak level of stupidity.

To say that running away from police is irrelevant to the fact that the person was shot - you're just an idiot.

 

[NWRMidnight]

If you find all those items irrelevant, then you're simply a moron of epic proportions.

There's no point in trying to debate with someone at that peak level of stupidity.

To say that running away from police is irrelevant to the fact that the person was shot - you're just an idiot.

Which of those 3 things you listed should result in death? Do you know how may teens do stupid shit growing up? Do you know how many learn something from that stupid shit? Obviously, you where sheltered and lived a perfect life and never did stupid shit at the age of 13. That's why you are stupid as shit now.

Hell at 15 years old, I was pulled over at 1 am in the morning by a cop in a small town... why? Because I got off work and was heading home on my bike 5 miles outside of town, and someone called the cops on me because they where like you, thinking I shouldn't be up that time of night. . yes I worked at an article Circle that closed at midnight when I was 15. Why was I riding a bike that time of night? Because my dad was an asshole and refused to come get me. Point is, just because you are a rigid prick, doesn't make you right or anything you say relevant.

 

[rommelrommel]

He had tenths of a second because that's all the cop gave him!

Lets say the kid still had the gun when he turned around, how much longer would it have taken the kid to aim the gun and fire? No matter how much longer it would have taken the cop still could have responded before the kid could have aimed the gun.

So fuck yeah, training matters and had you read the DOJ article I posted (and even quoted the relevant part) you'd see that my claim is supported.

Your knowledge of tactics apparently is zero so you should probably just quit now.

In that scenario it was already too late for the officer to stop the threat had there been one without getting shot himself. Bullets don’t magically turn people off unless it’s a CNS disruption. An armed subject turning towards you equals justified shoot, especially in the dark, gun dropped to obscured side and no reasonable chance to observe the gun had been dropped. His brain was already shooting before the empty hand could have registered.

 

[darkswordsman17]

I am talking about this particular scenario and ones like it. I am not denegrating training nor saying there shouldn’t be more, or better selection of candidates.
I’m saying that in a scenario with tenths of a second at play like this, training doesn’t matter much at all unless the tactics change radically.

That's his point....