Chicago police shooting incident video released

[railer]

So, if you are a 13 year old with a gun, you diserve to die. It if you are an adult who kills 10 people ina grocery store, you deserve to be taken into custody without being shot, and live. Think about that for a moment.. let it sink in.

I've seen versions of this narrative before, and it's a silly one.
If you kill 1000 people, and walk out to wherever the cops are with your hands up and no weapon, you are likely to be taken into custody.
If you kill 0 people, and have a weapon on you in any kind of remotely threatening posture, you are more likely to be shot.
Not complicated, and has nothing to do with age, race, gender, religion, etc. etc. etc.

 

[ivwshane]

Lol! Hands up? That's a threatening posture. Hands out the window? That's a threatening posture. Handcuffed while lying face down? That's a threatening posture. Reaching for your ID? That's a threatening posture! Rolled up on at a high rate of speed while playing with your toy gun? That's uber threatening!


Some one tell this piece of shit authoritarian that none of those postures were threatening and none of them deserved to be met with death.

 

[brycejones]

I got tired of this place because you all get butthurt so easily. And nothing is changed... the incessant whining is ridiculous. Then there are multiple posts trying to insult me. I want to know who told you people that I respect you enough to even care. I am honored to be actually remembered... thank you all.. that actually means I had an impact on you. Sorry the only one I remember was moonbeam. He was annoying but in a funny way at least.

Well since in my old age I am tired of dealing with racist shits like you. Good bye.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Thousands of different police departments, different training, differing experience levels of officers. Not to mention these two incident are totally different dynamics. Despite what you think... police don't go to work wanting to kill people. In Colorado the opportunity was there to take the perp alive... in Chicago it was a split second decision that went bad for the perp. Like the spa shooter in Atlanta that was taken alive. Sucks to have to pay his expenses until the death penalty is applied, but he is locked up, no longer a threat, and maybe some insight can be gained into what makes mass shooters tick.

Non of the above has ANYTHING to do with your statement of a 13 year old having a gun, and being illegal. Implying that he was shot because of being 13 who had a gun which was illegal, yet it wasn't in his hands.. I was trying to get you to realize that having a gun, although illegal is no excuse for him to be shot when we have others who killed multiple people and are handled as if they are not a threat. But for some reason, this 13 year old boy was a theat..

edit: I just saw your other post where you claim people are trying to insult you.. Well, if you take people's response as an insult, maybe you need to step back and evaluate what you say and how you come across, because you are just as much to blame for such insults.

 

[NWRMidnight]

I've seen versions of this narrative before, and it's a silly one.
If you kill 1000 people, and walk out to wherever the cops are with your hands up and no weapon, you are likely to be taken into custody.
If you kill 0 people, and have a weapon on you in any kind of remotely threatening posture, you are more likely to be shot.
Not complicated, and has nothing to do with age, race, gender, religion, etc. etc. etc.

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?

 

[ondma]

Only person I find on Google claiming he was a Latin King is Ngo. You aren't stupid enough to believe that piece of shit, are you? Apparently you are since he is also the one claiming he was known as Lil Homicide. Got any real sources for that info?

Only thing I can find from semi-reliable sources is that the Latin Kings are threatening retaliation. Could be he was in the gang. Could be the guy who gave him the gun was in the gang and the kid was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Could even be that neither were in the gang and they just want an excuse to kill some cops.

Let's pretend we're racists and want to believe the worst because we need to in order to feel better about our pathetic, sad, miserable little lives. Let's pretend he is Lil homicide. Does that mean the cops have the right to execute him? Does it you fucking piece of shit?

Well, being on the streets at 2AM for a 13 year old is definitely the wrong place, *and* the wrong time. Granted the police had not right to shoot him if he was not armed, but it certainly does not appear that he was just out for a walk.

 

[Sunburn74]

I've seen versions of this narrative before, and it's a silly one.
If you kill 1000 people, and walk out to wherever the cops are with your hands up and no weapon, you are likely to be taken into custody.
If you kill 0 people, and have a weapon on you in any kind of remotely threatening posture, you are more likely to be shot.
Not complicated, and has nothing to do with age, race, gender, religion, etc. etc. etc.

I don't think this is true at all. There are many many examples posted on this forum alone of white people doing highly threatening behavior. I only have to look one page back to find one.

Good shoot?

I wonder what would have happened here if something was slight different? I don't know.

forums.anandtech.com

You can't credibly argue that police shootings have nothing to do with race when the majority of shootings of unarmed individuals occur in black or latino individuals. The fact of the matter is white people aren't treated with the same wanton disregard as black people for similar crimes and activities. You can speculate why that is but the numbers don't like.

This NPR article is a good start.

Fatal Police Shootings Of Unarmed Black People Reveal Troubling Patterns

Since 2015, police officers have fatally shot at least 135 unarmed Black people nationwide. The majority of officers were white, and for at least 15 of them, the shootings weren't their first or last.

www.npr.org

The officers involved in these shootings are overwhelmingly black, may have criminal or ethical abuse histories, often have excessive use of force complaints prior lodged against them, or have histories of drug use and or domestic violence. In addition, an unusual number of them have been involved in other fatal shootings (many cops go their whole career without ever shooting even once). These are not good cops simply doing their job.

My judgement from looking at this video *in this particular incident* is that the officer was not justified in shooting the subject, since when he turned around, he clearly did not have a gun in his hand. Granted, it was a high stress situation that required a split second decision, but being able to handle that is what a policeman is required to do.

That said, are you seriously advocating giving fugitives one free shot before an officer responds, just because the shooter *might* miss?

That is not an unreasonable thing to advocate. Basically, right now cops don't have to be right when they kill someone. They only have to suspect something to be justified in ending a life. Over decades, that has created this mess of a situation where they shoot first and ask questions later particularly with blacks and latinos. Maybe if for some time we changed things where cops are judged by being right (ie if you suspected something, killed someone and was wrong, the cop gets punished hard), we'd see different policing practices. If you don't want cops to shoot in a cavalier fashion, change the incentives. Right now the incentive is to shoot.

 

[ondma]

I don't think this is true at all. There are many many examples posted on this forum alone of white people doing highly threatening behavior. I only have to look one page back to find one.

Good shoot?

I wonder what would have happened here if something was slight different? I don't know.

forums.anandtech.com

You can't credibly argue that police shootings have nothing to do with race when the majority of shootings of unarmed individuals occur in black or latino individuals. The fact of the matter is white people aren't treated with the same wanton disregard as black people for similar crimes and activities. You can speculate why that is but the numbers don't like.

This NPR article is a good start.

Fatal Police Shootings Of Unarmed Black People Reveal Troubling Patterns

Since 2015, police officers have fatally shot at least 135 unarmed Black people nationwide. The majority of officers were white, and for at least 15 of them, the shootings weren't their first or last.

www.npr.org

The officers involved in these shootings are overwhelmingly black, may have criminal or ethical abuse histories, often have excessive use of force complaints prior lodged against them, or have histories of drug use and or domestic violence. In addition, an unusual number of them have been involved in other fatal shootings (many cops go their whole career without ever shooting even once). These are not good cops simply doing their job.



That is not an unreasonable thing to advocate. Basically, right now cops don't have to be right when they kill someone. They only have to suspect something to be justified in ending a life. Over decades, that has created this mess of a situation where they shoot first and ask questions later particularly with blacks and latinos. Maybe if for some time we changed things where cops are judged by being right (ie if you suspected something, killed someone and was wrong, the cop gets punished hard), we'd see different policing practices. If you don't want cops to shoot in a cavalier fashion, change the incentives. Right now the incentive is to shoot.

Yea, if someone is pointing a gun at you, that is a pretty good incentive to shoot before they shoot you.

Edit: I do believe police should be held to a much higher standard for use of deadly force. Specifically, it should be higher than the "I feared for my life" defense, which is so common. They should be expected to prove that as best they could determine, their (or someone else's) life was in immediate danger. IMO, having someone point a gun at you definitely qualifies.

 

[pmv]

I've seen versions of this narrative before, and it's a silly one.
If you kill 1000 people, and walk out to wherever the cops are with your hands up and no weapon, you are likely to be taken into custody.
If you kill 0 people, and have a weapon on you in any kind of remotely threatening posture, you are more likely to be shot.
Not complicated, and has nothing to do with age, race, gender, religion, etc. etc. etc.

Though that's just a list of assertions, without any supporting evidence.

Also the final assertion doesn't follow from the preceding ones - what is being suggested is that the interpretation of 'remotely threatening posture' is affected by race, gender (and quite possibly religion, insofar as that is manifested in appearance). It's a slightly fruitless argument, however, as it needs solid evidence to argue either way. (Though I notice _yet again_ a conservative appears incapable of making a point without using the word 'narrative'. I find it interesting how much the right love that word.)

Ultimately though, in my opinion it's the prevalence of firearms in society that leads to cops having this attitude, whether it's influenced by race or not. It seems to become self-sustaining and circular, as the fact that cops think like this just reinforces the idea that nobody can trust them and thus everyone has to arm themselves for protection.

I can't help wondering whether those framers had this sort of outcome in mind when they wrote the second amendment. It's almost as if they couldn't really envisage the distant future - which makes one wonder why they drew up such a rigid hard-to-change document.

I mean, it's embarrassing enough being in a society that fawns over the buffoons and creeps that make up a royal family, but on the plus side, at least those fools are _alive_. The fact that the US has whole school of legal philosophy dedicated to earnestly trying to deduce what people who died 200 years ago intended the law to be regarding nuclear weapons, assault-rifles or the internet appears slightly insane to me.

 

[K1052]

I mean, it's embarrassing enough being in a society that fawns over the buffoons and creeps that make up a royal family, but on the plus side, at least those fools are _alive_. The fact that the US has whole school of legal philosophy dedicated to earnestly trying to deduce what people who died 200 years ago intended the law to be regarding nuclear weapons, assault-rifles or the internet appears slightly insane to me.

This is a not unfair point. Founder worship is a real problem and we tend to invent perspectives from them that suit the needs of modern politics to justify things we wish to do even if they actually wrote somewhere "No, don't do this". Also the average understanding of our political history is very poor.

 

[himkhan]

After rewatching over and over I recant my previous thought that I saw a gun in his right hand when he pulled his hands out and put them up. What I saw was the shadow of his hand against the fence he was next to. If I was a LEO with gun drawn it would have been difficult to distinguish that in a millisecond. I seriously thought it was a black handgun. I also saw the screencap of what S1M says was a gun. Again, after watching several times he must have dropped it into a hole because I don't see it on the ground anywhere nor secured by the LEO.

 

[K1052]

After rewatching over and over I recant my previous thought that I saw a gun in his right hand when he pulled his hands out and put them up. What I saw was the shadow of his hand against the fence he was next to. If I was a LEO with gun drawn it would have been difficult to distinguish that in a millisecond. I seriously thought it was a black handgun. I also saw the screencap of what S1M says was a gun. Again, after watching several times he must have dropped it into a hole because I don't see it on the ground anywhere nor secured by the LEO.

I'm of the opinion that the strobe the officer was using significantly contributed to this shooting. It makes it hard for the user to perceive motions and shapes accurately and could lead to incorrect anticipation. From what I've seen how he was using it is not how it's supposed to be used. I'd like to know if that equipment is department authorized, if they are trained on it, and if so was it used within policy. My suspicion is probably no on most of that.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

After rewatching over and over I recant my previous thought that I saw a gun in his right hand when he pulled his hands out and put them up. What I saw was the shadow of his hand against the fence he was next to. If I was a LEO with gun drawn it would have been difficult to distinguish that in a millisecond. I seriously thought it was a black handgun. I also saw the screencap of what S1M says was a gun. Again, after watching several times he must have dropped it into a hole because I don't see it on the ground anywhere nor secured by the LEO.

You have a hard time seeing that this is a gun? Maybe you should get your eyes checked?

 

[NWRMidnight]

You have a hard time seeing that this is a gun? Maybe you should get your eyes checked?

View attachment 43250

That was before he turned around and put his hands up, except the one after where it was up against the fense. But of course, most people don't go frame by frame to find evidence of a gun. They watch it in real time to get a sense of what the LEO saw.

Now, Please show us where there was a gun in his hand when he turned around with his hands up. You know, when he was actually shot.

 

[himkhan]

You have a hard time seeing that this is a gun? Maybe you should get your eyes checked?

View attachment 43250

Now before you get even more emotional about this case it should be easy enough for you to circle in red where he dropped after he was shot. I never said he didn't have a gun.

It is my opinion now after watching a video that shows the entire aftermath that the gun had been discarded prior to him about facing. Should be easy enough to prove your assertion with red circles if it helps but he did in fact toss it first...

Here is the video I watched and yes, I could be mistaken, as could you which I know might come as a shock to you. At 5:35 you can clearly see where he had tossed it prior to being shot. I don't think anyone is saying he didn't have a gun and that the cop had no right to fear for his own life at that point. I might have shot, too, but because I thought I STILL saw the gun in his hand when he raised his hands but again, it was the shadow of his right had on the fence behind him.

 

[ondma]

(Snip)

The fact that the US has whole school of legal philosophy dedicated to earnestly trying to deduce what people who died 200 years ago intended the law to be regarding nuclear weapons, assault-rifles or the internet appears slightly insane to me.

Bingo. Very well said. I just dont understand this reverence for the Constitution. It was written nearly 250 years ago, under very different circumstances, by fallible human beings, who often had their own agenda to keep the power of government in the hands of the elite.

The second amendment, in particular, was written when one often had to hunt for food and defend himself. And the weapons available were single shot muskets that were not very accurate and took a significant time to reload. A totally different society and weapon class from assault rifles which can fire a 30 round clip and be reloaded in a matter of seconds.

 

[railer]

Isn't the kid white?

How are we supposed to continue with the racist narrative that they are more prone to being trigger happy only with blacks?!



Also kids - lets not do things like this:

Not white enough apparantly!
If he was white-white, hed just be another dead dipshit, and we would not have a thread about him.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Well, being on the streets at 2AM for a 13 year old is definitely the wrong place, *and* the wrong time. Granted the police had not right to shoot him if he was not armed, but it certainly does not appear that he was just out for a walk.

Mom does have some 'splainin' to do in that regard.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Not white enough apparantly!
If he was white-white, hed just be another dead dipshit, and we would not have a thread about him.

I find this rhetoric pretty ridiculous. This kid was shot dead with his hands up. It's a problem.

 

[ivwshane]

Mom does have some 'splainin' to do in that regard.

Not really. All you are doing is clouding up the issue with irrelevant information. Why the kid was in the situation he was in is irrelevant to the interaction of him and the police officer.

 

[Torn Mind]

Hard to determine at this juncture based on the body cam alone due to the shooting victim going out of frame for an instant.

What would make the difference is whether the teenager made a clear and obvious throwing motion that the cop saw. If the cop did see something thrown long prior, then he abused his power. But if it was closer to bang-bang and too late, then it would be a lesser crime or self-defense. Unlike the jerky back=and-forth of the camera, what the officer saw threw his eyes would be a much more clear and stable picture. Thus, the possibility that he found an opportunity to slay someone with excuses at the ready cannot be ever fully discounted even if vindicated by the law.

I will say that if a "don't' move" was uttered by the cop, that might have avoided the need to fire.

The press statements and walk-back by the cops though, is the usual embellishments and utter lies they habitually make to make themselves look better, representative of the enormous power they have to create a narrative without a fact-checking body to look over their shoulder.


Adam Toledo, however, is yet another morally reprehensible loser in which him dying is more valuable to society than had he stayed alive. It is interesting to note how gun control proponents have forgotten that Chicago is a stronghold for their values and that they wanted laws like these passed precisely to stop the murdering.

 

[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?

Did you not see the video? The cop knew the kid had a gun as he chased him down the alley. The kid flips the gun in the same motion as he goes to put his hands up. Human reaction time is not instantaneous. Cop had about .2 sec to make decision, and his reaction time is at least .2 sec. Impossible situation for cop. Kid died due to his own bad decisions. Whether your 13 or 53 stupid hurts.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Did you not see the video? The cop knew the kid had a gun as he chased him down the alley. The kid flips the gun in the same motion as he goes to put his hands up. Human reaction time is not instantaneous. Cop had about .2 sec to make decision, and his reaction time is at least .2 sec. Impossible situation for cop. Kid died due to his own bad decisions. Whether your 13 or 53 stupid hurts.

Bullshit, he threw the gun behind the fence before he turned towards the cop raising his hands. Also, where did you get the indication the cop knew he had a gun from the video? All he knew is there was something in his hand . Lot of assumption on your part. (Yes I watched the video at normal speed multiple times).

 

[ivwshane]

Did you not see the video? The cop knew the kid had a gun as he chased him down the alley. The kid flips the gun in the same motion as he goes to put his hands up. Human reaction time is not instantaneous. Cop had about .2 sec to make decision, and his reaction time is at least .2 sec. Impossible situation for cop. Kid died due to his own bad decisions. Whether your 13 or 53 stupid hurts.

It’s not an impossible situation for a cop if they were trained properly and competent.

Here are some basic questions a cop should be asking to determine if lethal force is required.

1) Was someone injured/killed by the person I’m chasing?

2) Are they armed and if they are have the attempted to shoot at me?

3) Are they headed towards any innocent bystanders?

4) What are my surroundings?

5) Do I have a tactical advantage or disadvantage?

6) What are the chances of them being able to get off a good shot if they decide to use their weapon?

7) What support do I have?


All these are questions that can be answered either immediately after the initial encounter or while chasing after the suspect.

In this case the cop was chasing a kid with a gun with no known injuries/deaths.

The kid was running away from the cop down an alley at 2:30 in the morning and there are no other people around. The kid never made any attempt to shoot the officer.

Considering the officer has weapons training and a disorienting strobe light, I’d say he had the tactical advantage.

At this point in the encounter the kid has stopped running and still has not attempted to shoot the officer. The officer has already drawn his gun and has it aimed at the kid, another tactical advantage.

So we have a kid with a gun running away from a cop who isn’t aware of any injuries, deaths, or threats perpetuated by the kid or the other suspect who has yet to make any threatening moves.

Instead of taking almost zero time to react and end someone’s life, the officer should have taken an extra .2 seconds to verify any hostile action. He didn’t.

But I hope for your sake you are perfect and never have to pay with your life for a stupid mistake.

You piece of shit authoritarians are disgusting.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Not really. All you are doing is clouding up the issue with irrelevant information. Why the kid was in the situation he was in is irrelevant to the interaction of him and the police officer.

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.