Cop in America doing a bad job, again

[Gehrman]

He appeared unarmed so I agree that it might be murder. Regarding his age, I must let you know that in cities like Chicago (also called Chiraq), boys as young as 13/14 do drills/hits for their respective gangs. They jump off the porch at a young age and get busy in the streets so age is not always a factor of the threat level. I can actually name 14 year olds in Chicago who have killed people. I dunno if Adam was gang affiliated and am not going to guess or assume, but giving some insight that teenagers in Chicago grow up faster than normal 13/14 year olds.

He was shot 0.8 seconds after he dropped the gun. The officers were called because he was seen together with a 21 year old who fired shots at cars or a car. The cop was in error here, but I think it's also pretty clear he didn't decide to randomly murder a kid here and at the same time he wouldn't know how old he was either. He saw the the gun in the teens hand when was body was turned, which he did dropped while turning around and showing his hands. A fatal error in the heat of the moment.

https://abc7chicago.com/adam-toledo-shooting-ruben-roman-who-was-with/10530999/

 

[Synco]

I still maintain a few things:
1. The reality of officer-related shootings is wildly misaligned with the perception of it. This is of course natural given how the media works, how social-media works, and our natural biases towards threatening/ bad news. Acceptance of actual statistics gets you called names on the internet, so is not encouraged.

2. Being a police officer is a hard job, particularly in areas where the majority of these tragic shootings take place. America's gun culture creates an environment that is virtually impossible to police without fatal incidents.

3. It is extremely easy to Monday-morning quaterback these incidents, and ignores even the physiology of adrenaline and how the brain responds in extreme-stress scenarios.

4. We should work on laws, policies and punishments designed to get the number of avoidable deaths down to zero. Of course. But it's far easier to make sweeping political statements like 'defund the police!' or 'ban the choke hold'! than it is to research, draft and implement sensible policy.

5. It's entirely possible to be both pro-law enforcement and pro-consequences of bad law enforcement.

You've just reduced the problem to difficult conditions for policing, irrational perceptions, and (social) media hysteria. Really don't know what to say, except that it's a heavily whitewashed take if I've ever seen one.

Sensibly working on constrictive solutions sounds nice until you take into account that some of the heaviest resistance to such measures comes from within the police force, as well as massively powerful parts of the establishment (politics, justice system, media) which represent their interests and mentality. Backed by a significant part of the population. It's not a matter of everyone constructively working on solutions, it's a large scale power struggle.

 

[Simbo]

We are talking about Adam Toledo right?

Yeh, put yourself in the cop's shoes. All you know is the person your chasing is armed with a deady weapon and has the will to use it. Your giving him the chance to surrender but he's resiting arrest, he's being backed into a corner and you have to assume he's willing to shoot and kill you to get away. You have to assume that because you rightly value your life much higher than theirs and you should take absolutely zero chances with your life. Your not an actor on some TV show so unfortunately don't come with plot armour, your a husband and father that does this job to provide for your family.

He turned, you couldn't tell if he was holding the weapon or not, so you shot. It wasn't the correct call in the end, but you are only human. You know it only takes a split second for this person to kill you and you should take absolutely zero chances with your life. Unfortunately split second decisions in your line of work are life and death.

 

[Stacks]

He was shot 0.8 seconds after he dropped the gun. The officers were called because he was seen together with a 21 year old who fired shots at cars or a car. The cop was in error here, but I think it's also pretty clear he didn't decide to randomly murder a kid here and at the same time he wouldn't know how old he was either. He saw the the gun in the teens hand when was body was turned, which he did dropped while turning around and showing his hands. A fatal error in the heat of the moment.

https://abc7chicago.com/adam-toledo-shooting-ruben-roman-who-was-with/10530999/

Damn. why were they doing this? The media reaction threw me off and made me think he was a sweet lil 13 year old boy who was on his way to school and the cops just pulled up and shot him. Having seen the tape now I still feel the cop panicked. Cops often tell people to drop guns so when they do you shouldn't then shoot them. I am trying to figure out why a 13 year old child would have a gun but then I remember its Chicago

 

[Gehrman]

Yeh, put yourself in the cop's shoes. All you know is the person your chasing is armed with a deady weapon and has the will to use it. Your giving him the chance to surrender but he's resiting arrest, he's being backed into a corner and you have to assume he's willing to shoot and kill you to get away. You have to assume that because you rightly value your life much higher than theirs and you should take absolutely zero chances with your life. Your not an actor on some TV show so unfortunately don't come with plot armour, your a husband and father that does this job to provide for your family.

He turned, you couldn't tell if he was holding the weapon or not, so you shot. It wasn't the correct call in the end, but you are only human. You know it only takes a split second for this person to kill you and you should take absolutely zero chances with your life. Unfortunately split second decisions in your line of work are life and death.

I gave my opinon on this 2 posts above. The officer clearly regretted what he's done as he was crying immediately afterwards in the full bodycam image. If I was chasing down a suspect armed with a gun in a dark alleyway, who was suspected for shooting at cars, I would be able to make the same error, but it was still an error.

 

[Scarlett Dracarys]

Damn. why were they doing this? The media reaction threw me off and made me think he was a sweet lil 13 year old boy who was on his way to school and the cops just pulled up and shot him. Having seen the tape now I still feel the cop panicked. Cops often tell people to drop guns so when they do you shouldn't then shoot them. I am trying to figure out why a 13 year old child would have a gun but then I remember its Chicago

Well the truth won't get the reaction they'll get by painting the above picture.
He dropped the gun while turning so the officer had no idea the weapon wasn't in his possession. He obviously assumed he was still armed and turning around to shoot him.

 

[Simbo]

I gave my opinon on this 2 posts above. The officer clearly regretted what he's done as he was crying immediately afterwards in the full bodycam image. If I was chasing down a suspect armed with a gun in a dark alleyway, who was suspected for shooting at cars, I would be able to make the same error, but it was still an error.

Yeh just seen, thought you were disagreeing with me originally.

I think that is a good way to put it though - It is an error anybody could make in the same situation.

 

[Scarlett Dracarys]

Yeh just seen, thought you were disagreeing with me originally.

I think that is a good way to put it though - It is an error anybody could make in the same situation.

It's a human error because he acted on instinct. It's self preservation.

 

[Beachryan]

Yeh just seen, thought you were disagreeing with me originally.

I think that is a good way to put it though - It is an error anybody could make in the same situation.

Really think this is the point: it's a horrible situation that no one should be put in, and there are a great many factors that led to it.

 

[WI_Red]

Yeh just seen, thought you were disagreeing with me originally.

I think that is a good way to put it though - It is an error anybody could make in the same situation.

Yes, but LEO are not "anybody". They are supposedly trained and paid to do better than just a random "anybody". I don't think the officer went out to kill someone, but he did and he needs to suffer the consequences of guessing wrong that his life was in immanent danger and killing someone, regardless of age.

 

[Beachryan]

You've just reduced the problem to difficult conditions for policing, irrational perceptions, and (social) media hysteria. Really don't know what to say, except that it's a heavily whitewashed take if I've ever seen one.

Sensibly working on constrictive solutions sounds nice until you take into account that some of the heaviest resistance to such measures comes from within the police force, as well as massively powerful parts of the establishment (politics, justice system, media) which represent their interests and mentality. Backed by a significant part of the population. It's not a matter of everyone constructively working on solutions, it's a large scale power struggle.

Why is this whitewashing? What does race have to do with my points? The comment was related to saying 'don't shoot children' not being an adequate position given the complexities of the situation.

 

[Synco]

Why is this whitewashing? What does race have to do with my points? The comment was related to saying 'don't shoot children' not being an adequate position given the complexities of the situation.

In that post, you made five general statements about police shootings, public perceptions, nation-wide statistics (which you didn't cite, btw), and what you see as good & bad ways to act politically. The Adam Toledo shooting may have been on your mind, but your points are clearly about the general situation.

As far as my grasp of English goes, "whitewashing" means misportraying a situation by leaving out the parts that contradict the narrative. "Race" is certainly one of them in this case, but by far not the only one.

 

[Beachryan]

In that post, you made five general statements about police shootings, public perceptions, nation-wide statistics (which you didn't cite, btw), and what you see as good & bad ways to act politically. The Adam Toledo shooting may have been on your mind, but your points are clearly about the general situation.

As far as my grasp of English goes, "whitewashing" means misportraying a situation by leaving out the parts that contradict the narrative. "Race" is certainly one of them in this case, but by far not the only one.

Firstly, I apologise if my understanding of English is off (which would be embarassing given I lack any alternatives) but whitewashing for me has very clear racial tones - especially in this area - rather than general. I misread your claim in that sense.

I'm happy to share stats that I've found interesting, my point was more that the appetite expressed by some isn't for those stats - it is for large scale political statements.

For example, in the last 5 years of WaPo police data, about 5% of fatal police shootings were involving an unarmed suspect. I was shocked by this, given the 'media narrative' you'd think that it's at least 50%. And knowing this does, for me, drastically change the resulting policies that shoudl be implemented. I dig that there should obviously be a desire for that figure to be 0%, but knowing this frames things differently for me.

 

[calodo2003]

I still maintain a few things:
1. The reality of officer-related shootings is wildly misaligned with the perception of it. This is of course natural given how the media works, how social-media works, and our natural biases towards threatening/ bad news. Acceptance of actual statistics gets you called names on the internet, so is not encouraged.

2. Being a police officer is a hard job, particularly in areas where the majority of these tragic shootings take place. America's gun culture creates an environment that is virtually impossible to police without fatal incidents.

3. It is extremely easy to Monday-morning quaterback these incidents, and ignores even the physiology of adrenaline and how the brain responds in extreme-stress scenarios.

4. We should work on laws, policies and punishments designed to get the number of avoidable deaths down to zero. Of course. But it's far easier to make sweeping political statements like 'defund the police!' or 'ban the choke hold'! than it is to research, draft and implement sensible policy.

5. It's entirely possible to be both pro-law enforcement and pro-consequences of bad law enforcement.

Agree with the last one, but the first four give us either BIN or BING (reference post 7228).

 

[Skorenzy]

Firstly, I apologise if my understanding of English is off (which would be embarassing given I lack any alternatives) but whitewashing for me has very clear racial tones - especially in this area - rather than general. I misread your claim in that sense.

I'm happy to share stats that I've found interesting, my point was more that the appetite expressed by some isn't for those stats - it is for large scale political statements.

For example, in the last 5 years of WaPo police data, about 5% of fatal police shootings were involving an unarmed suspect. I was shocked by this, given the 'media narrative' you'd think that it's at least 50%. And knowing this does, for me, drastically change the resulting policies that shoudl be implemented. I dig that there should obviously be a desire for that figure to be 0%, but knowing this frames things differently for me.

And so we end up with this bizarre contradictory mess, where the US constitution, the entire culture and worldview, which tells people it's their right as an American to be armed, is (one of) the main reason(s) for fatal outcomes during police interactions.

 

[choiboyx012]

By the logic of this post any person who ever runs from the police whilst holding a gun at the point they start running is fair game to be shot because who knows what they might do.




Re the bold at the end here, he was not armed at the point he was shot and he did what the cop told him to do.

He was instructed to put his hands up, what should he have done when given that instruction to avoid being shot and killed by the person who told him to do it?

Never said they were fair game to be shot, but it does amp up the incident and mindset of the officer when upon contact a shooter runs off with a gun and ignores lawful commands to stop/drop gun. Self-
preservation instinct and tunnel vision take over at that point and he ultimately takes the shot.

“At that point” is less than 1 second. Cop doesn’t know “at that point” that Toledo is unarmed. “What should he have done”? I would like to think he’d be alive if he had dropped the gun “in view” of the cop and not trying to conceal it behind a fence out of view. Or better yet, not run with a gun in the first place.

 

[choiboyx012]

I still maintain a few things:
1. The reality of officer-related shootings is wildly misaligned with the perception of it. This is of course natural given how the media works, how social-media works, and our natural biases towards threatening/ bad news. Acceptance of actual statistics gets you called names on the internet, so is not encouraged.

2. Being a police officer is a hard job, particularly in areas where the majority of these tragic shootings take place. America's gun culture creates an environment that is virtually impossible to police without fatal incidents.

3. It is extremely easy to Monday-morning quaterback these incidents, and ignores even the physiology of adrenaline and how the brain responds in extreme-stress scenarios.

4. We should work on laws, policies and punishments designed to get the number of avoidable deaths down to zero. Of course. But it's far easier to make sweeping political statements like 'defund the police!' or 'ban the choke hold'! than it is to research, draft and implement sensible policy.

5. It's entirely possible to be both pro-law enforcement and pro-consequences of bad law enforcement.

Good post

 

[Rado_N]

Never said they were fair game to be shot, but it does amp up the incident and mindset of the officer when upon contact a shooter runs off with a gun and ignores lawful commands to stop/drop gun. Self-
preservation instinct and tunnel vision take over at that point and he ultimately takes the shot.

“At that point” is less than 1 second. Cop doesn’t know “at that point” that Toledo is unarmed. “What should he have done”? I would like to think he’d be alive if he had dropped the gun “in view” of the cop and not trying to conceal it behind a fence out of view. Or better yet, not run with a gun in the first place.

If the cop didn’t want him to turn and put his hands up why is he shouting to put his hands up?

There’s no justifying that shooting in my mind, no matter how many things people try to throw in the mix.

Cop: “put your hands up”
Kid: *puts hands up”
Cop: *shoots kid*

 

[WI_Red]

Never said they were fair game to be shot, but it does amp up the incident and mindset of the officer when upon contact a shooter runs off with a gun and ignores lawful commands to stop/drop gun. Self-
preservation instinct and tunnel vision take over at that point and he ultimately takes the shot.

“At that point” is less than 1 second. Cop doesn’t know “at that point” that Toledo is unarmed. “What should he have done”? I would like to think he’d be alive if he had dropped the gun “in view” of the cop and not trying to conceal it behind a fence out of view. Or better yet, not run with a gun in the first place.

And he should go to jail for this. There was no actual threat to him or another officer/civilian when he took the shot. The only danger in that ally was the officer himself.

 

[choiboyx012]

If the cop didn’t want him to turn and put his hands up why is he shouting to put his hands up?

There’s no justifying that shooting in my mind, no matter how many things people try to throw in the mix.

Cop: “put your hands up”
Kid: *puts hands up”
Cop: *shoots kid*

I don’t remember exactly what commands he gives. Usually don’t have a gunman turn to face you. I really don’t know what exactly was going through his mind and reason for shooting. I probably would not have shot, but then again I’ve never been in that tense shoot/no shoot situation.

 

[Grinner]

I don’t remember exactly what commands he gives. Usually don’t have a gunman turn to face you. I really don’t know what exactly was going through his mind and reason for shooting. I probably would not have shot, but then again I’ve never been in that tense shoot/no shoot situation.

The quick turn around and raising the hands probably triggered the cops reaction. Make the wrong choice in that instant and you're dead. I'm sure their training drums it into them to make them face away as it's almost impossible to shoot someone that you aren't facing.

 

[choiboyx012]

And he should go to jail for this. There was no actual threat to him or another officer/civilian when he took the shot. The only danger in that ally was the officer himself.

You have an incredibly high expectation of threat assessment and view of use of force policy, which is admirable but unrealistic when you’re talking about human beings, no matter how well-trained.

 

[WI_Red]

You have an incredibly high expectation of threat assessment and view of use of force policy, which is admirable but unrealistic when you’re talking about human beings, no matter how well-trained.

I acknowledge and respect that your job is incredibly difficult and stressful. It is a job I could not do.

But you are damn right I have a high expectation when it comes to lethal force. If an LEO fecks that up a person is dead. This is not a video game, the victim does not respawn. If you think LEO's have the right to guess if they are in danger, and act on that guess by shooting someone without any repercussions if they are wrong, then we are not even close to being on the same page as to what the role of LE is. An LEO does not get to shoot us because they are scared.

 

[Grinner]

I acknowledge and respect that your job is incredibly difficult and stressful. It is a job I could not do.

But you are damn right I have a high expectation when it comes to lethal force. If an LEO fecks that up a person is dead. This is not a video game, the victim does not respawn. If you think LEO's have the right to guess if they are in danger, and act on that guess by shooting someone without any repercussions if they are wrong, then we are not even close to being on the same page as to what the role of LE is. An LEO does not get to shoot us because they are scared.

But the law explicitly states that they can do this.

 

[calodo2003]

Can’t see how the strobe light was helpful in the slightest.

 

[calodo2003]

But the law explicitly states that they can do this.

Is ‘scared’ & ‘fearful for his life’ really the same thing though?

 

[WI_Red]

But the law explicitly states that they can do this.

And the law is wrong. The law is why Breonna Taylors killer is walking free with a book deal.

 

[Grinner]

Is ‘scared’ & ‘fearful for his life’ really the same thing though?

What's the difference? That cop didn't look like he was cowering to me. I think he reasonably believed that his life was in imminent danger.

 

[Grinner]

And the law is wrong. The law is why Breonna Taylors killer is walking free with a book deal.

No, I'd say that the interpretation of it by juries and prosecutors is the bigger problem. Don't you like having legal protection to defend yourself if your life is threatened?

 

[WI_Red]

No, I'd say that the interpretation of it by juries and prosecutors is the bigger problem. Don't you like having legal protection to defend yourself if your life is threatened?

I can meet you at that middle ground I suppose.

Lets be honest though, in a society that has such disregard and contempt for life, especially for that of black and brown people, should we really be surprised?

 

[calodo2003]

What's the difference? That cop didn't look like he was cowering to me. I think he reasonably believed that his life was in imminent danger.

But, just being scared doesn’t give the cop the right to kill extrajudicially or indiscriminately.

Where the demarcation line currently is located is one of the key issues here.

I get what you are saying about this specific event & I somewhat agree, but there’s a bigger issue which tends not to get solved or even discussed fruitfully without worst case scenario events occurring.

 

[calodo2003]

No, I'd say that the interpretation of it by juries and prosecutors is the bigger problem. Don't you like having legal protection to defend yourself if your life is threatened?

It appears that such protection was removed from the recent Columbus debacle unfortunately.

 

[Grinner]

But, just being scared doesn’t give the cop the right to kill extrajudicially or indiscriminately.

Where the demarcation line currently is located is one of the key issues here.

I get what you are saying about this specific event & I somewhat agree, but there’s a bigger issue which tends not to get solved or even discussed fruitfully without worst case scenario events occurring.

It's usually all about the reasonable test. That's as fair as we can make it really. This Chicago cop has not acted impeccably (searching for the right word...failing) but I think he acted reasonably.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

I don’t remember exactly what commands he gives. Usually don’t have a gunman turn to face you. I really don’t know what exactly was going through his mind and reason for shooting. I probably would not have shot, but then again I’ve never been in that tense shoot/no shoot situation.

Yeah I would have assumed they'd be trained to move in the same direction as the person turning (i.e. suspect turning to their left, officer moves to his right) to protect themselves but, as always, training and real life don't always have the same outcomes.

 

[WI_Red]

It's usually all about the reasonable test. That's as fair as we can make it really. This Chicago cop has not acted impeccably (searching for the right word...failing) but I think he acted reasonably.

Short of new evidence coming out we are not going to agree on this. The LEO made a guess he was in danger. He was not. Now someone (regardless of age) is wrongly dead. The law will probably protect him, but if the standard for deadly force is guessing this cycle will never end.

 

[Grinner]

Short of new evidence coming out we are not going to agree on this. The LEO made a guess he was in danger. He was not. Now someone (regardless of age) is wrongly dead. The law will probably protect him, but if the standard for deadly force is guessing this cycle will never end.

You're just not being reasonable. These situations can't be sorted out by consulting a flow chart. We ask cops to make guesses all the time and part of that is the knowledge that they will sometimes get it wrong. That's why there are laws to try and sort out if it was malicious or an honest error, but it will never be perfect.

 

[calodo2003]

It's usually all about the reasonable test. That's as fair as we can make it really. This Chicago cop has not acted impeccably (searching for the right word...failing) but I think he acted reasonably.

Don’t necessarily disagree.

But the parameter of what level of scared / fear justifies a shooting needs to be altered.

In many industries, vocations, & in basic life, one ‘aw shit’ takes away a thousand ‘attaboys.’ Policing isn’t one of them, unfortunately. Their level of their civic responsibility isn’t measured the same when they make an error on the job. It’s a stressful job at times, but the severity of the punishment needs to fit the severity of the error made. We aren’t that close to such & have never been. There’s more skewed subjectivity towards the institution than towards the public.

 

[Grinner]

Don’t necessarily disagree.

But the parameter of what level of scared / fear justifies a shooting needs to be altered.

The law is usually very specific. It has to be REASONABLY believed that life is in IMMINENT danger. We had that drilled into us when I was on a jury and the accused claimed self-defence. Still that leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

 

[WI_Red]

You're just not being reasonable. These situations can't be sorted out by consulting a flow chart. We ask cops to make guesses all the time and part of that is the knowledge that they will sometimes get it wrong. That's why there are laws to try and sort out if it was malicious or an honest error, but it will never be perfect.

In every job there are guesses and GUESSES. An investor who gambles and loses on a stock for a couple grand is going to be fine. If they gamble and lose a billion dollars they will not be.

Making a decision to pull someone over because they appear to be weaving is a guess. Shooting someone because you think they are going to shoot you, but you don't see a gun, is a GUESS. By letting LEO's off for getting those guesses wrong we are passively saying we value their life more than the person who died, because I guarantee you the same defense would not have worked if the Chicago kids mom had been there and shot the cop to protect her child.

 

[Grinner]

In every job there are guesses and GUESSES. An investor who gambles and loses on a stock for a couple grand is going to be fine. If they gamble and lose a billion dollars they will not be.

Making a decision to pull someone over because they appear to be weaving is a guess. Shooting someone because you think they are going to shoot you, but you don't see a gun, is a GUESS. By letting LEO's off for getting those guesses wrong we are passively saying we value their life more than the person who died, because I guarantee you the same defense would not have worked if the Chicago kids mom had been there and shot the cop to protect her child.

He isn't being let off. He's currently suspended while a rigourous investigation takes place.