Cop in America doing a bad job, again

[WI_Red]

Cops were called because 2 people were allegedly shooting at cars. Cops respond on scene to investigate, because all the facts aren't known and that's part of the job, detaining possible criminal suspects who might have committed a crime of shooting a gun at cars/people, you know, endangering lives like. At some point Toledo flees with a gun in hand (yes he in fact was armed). He ignored multiple commands to stop and drop the gun. He stops at some point by a fence and tosses the gun behind it and in less than a second turns and puts his hands up, but gets shot.
No one knows how old these shooting suspects were, how many guns, what type. It doesn't matter. Any cop is approaching that scene with the highest threat level awareness as they very well should. And even more so when the suspects run away with gun in hand to do God knows what to God knows who. We all have the luxury of hindsight and relevant facts after-the-fact. The cop who shot does not.

This is correct, but in the end he guessed/felt/interpreted wrong and he should go to jail for a decent while. He killed an unarmed civilian who had his hands raised. He needs to go away from that. Your desire to go home at night does not give you the right to guess you are in danger. We pay you. We empower you. We hand over some of our civil rights to you. Your side of the bargain is to be 100% certain when you pull the trigger. Anything less is unacceptable.

 

[Skizzo]

I know all this, thanks. Except the fact that as far as I know (unless something has happened the last day or two) it's not 100 % confirmed that he had a gun, but it's probable that he did. Then it ended up with the fact that a 13 year old child who was suspected of but not convicted of a pretty mild crime getting gunned down unarmed with his arms up complying with the police.

Go on, ask me or Grinner about our endeavours that would make the 13 year old child a criminal but not us.

Why would shooting firearms at passing cars be considered a mild crime?

 

[Skizzo]

I seen this but didn't understand it.

What did he mean by it?

Didn't George Floyd's family post the same thing?

I took it to be a message of support, no?

It was meant to be in support, and I believe he got the idea from George’s family saying they can breathe a sigh of relief now after the trial. But the message was used prior as a message of support for police after Eric Garner I believe. Plus it just doesn’t really come off sounding all that great in general.

 

[calodo2003]

Yeah, that’s a tad daft.

Firing rounds off in any public space at any time of the day / night is a bit more than ‘mild.’

 

[choiboyx012]

I know all this, thanks. Except the fact that as far as I know (unless something has happened the last day or two) it's not 100 % confirmed that he had a gun, but it's probable that he did. Then it ended up with the fact that a 13 year old child who was suspected of but not convicted of a pretty mild crime getting gunned down unarmed with his arms up complying with the police.

Go on, ask me or Grinner about our endeavours that would make the 13 year old child a criminal but not us.

There are videos of him running with the gun and tossing it behind a fence.

Again you bring up his age. Not relevant and not known at the time.

Conviction comes after arrest and court appearance. He chose to resist arrest (and court and possible conviction) and instead run away with a deadly weapon.

The suspected (alleged) crime was shooting at passing vehicles. (Unlawful discharge of firearm, assault with deadly weapon, ATTEMPTED MURDER anyone?!) but you think that’s mild and petty. Interesting.

You say “unarmed” and “complying”. That is not the whole truth if not a flat out lie.

 

[NotThatSoph]

Why would shooting firearms at passing cars be considered a mild crime?

We don't know that he did, and as far as I know have little reason to believe so. We know that the prosecutors allege that he did, but we also know that they lied about him being armed when he was gunned down urnarmed with his hands up. As far as I understand the working theory is that the 13 year old didn't fire the gun at all, but rather that the 21 year old Ruben Roman did.

Edit: Sorry, the confirmed liars might have been the cops rather than the prosecutors. The prosecutors are just relying on the lying cops as witnesses, they might not have used the lies.

 

[NotThatSoph]

There are videos of him running with the gun and tossing it behind a fence.

Again you bring up his age. Not relevant and not known at the time.

Conviction comes after arrest and court appearance. He chose to resist arrest (and court and possible conviction) and instead run away with a deadly weapon.

The suspected (alleged) crime was shooting at passing vehicles. (Unlawful discharge of firearm, assault with deadly weapon, ATTEMPTED MURDER anyone?!) but you think that’s mild and petty. Interesting.

You say “unarmed” and “complying”. That is not the whole truth if not a flat out lie.

No, there's a video of him running with something that might have been a gun. The fact that he is not convicted of anything is relevant because Grinner is adamant to refer to him as a criminal.

He was unarmed and complying at the time he was gunned down. You know, within a certain culture there's this fecked up notion that if a girl is at one time up for it then it's not rape if she says no later. It is. Even if someone runs from the police, if they then give up, put their arms up unarmed and turn around as they're asked ... guess what, they're complying. That someone's at some point not complying doesn't give you a lisence to kill forever after.

 

[Grinner]

Disobeying a lawful order from a police officer is a crime.

 

[Carolina Red]

Saw this about an elder woman with dementia, police broke her arm, dislocated her shoulder etc. All this for her not having paid at a store, even though she went back in after talking to a guard and gave back the goods and tried to pay.
I just do not get how a 36 kg old demented lady on her way home can be a threat, and how the police do not understand that people that frail can not handle this physical abuse. Of course if you bend an older womens arms up behind her head they will be injured. Or maybe they were scared of this old woman.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...elderly-woman-dementia-during-arrest-n1264347

Yeah that bastard needs to be locked up.

 

[NotThatSoph]

Disobeying a lawful order from a police officer is a crime.

As is being drunk and disorderly. Imagine how many times you could have been shot in the face with your own blessing, hundreds of times documented on Redcafe. You're a criminal, I'm a criminal, the 13 year old gunned down unarmed might have been but we don't know.

 

[WI_Red]

Disobeying a lawful order from a police officer is a crime.

So is shooting someone.

This is not a zero sum game. Committing a crime does not equal just cause to shoot someone. I am going to repeat myself since our resident LEO have not commented the first 3 times I mentioned it.

Your power is derived from the compact we have made with each other. We cede some of our civil liberties to you. In return we expect you to act judiciously and courageously. You, being afraid but you or others around you not being in ACTUAL danger does not give you the right to kill us. If you do so you are murderers and should go to jail.

 

[Grinner]

So is shooting someone.

This is not a zero sum game. Committing a crime does not equal just cause to shoot someone. I am going to repeat myself since our resident LEO have not commented the first 3 times I mentioned it.

Your power is derived from the compact we have made with each other. We cede some of our civil liberties to you. In return we expect you to act judiciously and courageously. You, being afraid but you or others around you not being in ACTUAL danger does not give you the right to kill us. If you do so you are murderers and should go to jail.

Eh? I just said that by definition the kid is a criminal. Cool your jets.

 

[Grinner]

As is being drunk and disorderly. Imagine how many times you could have been shot in the face with your own blessing, hundreds of times documented on Redcafe. You're a criminal, I'm a criminal, the 13 year old gunned down unarmed might have been but we don't know.

Are you sure? I've never been convicted of anything and it's only mild crimes so they don't count. It's not like I had a gun or anything.

 

[Skizzo]

So is shooting someone.

This is not a zero sum game. Committing a crime does not equal just cause to shoot someone. I am going to repeat myself since our resident LEO have not commented the first 3 times I mentioned it.

Your power is derived from the compact we have made with each other. We cede some of our civil liberties to you. In return we expect you to act judiciously and courageously. You, being afraid but you or others around you not being in ACTUAL danger does not give you the right to kill us. If you do so you are murderers and should go to jail.

What would you like us to comment on?

 

[NotThatSoph]

Are you sure? I've never been convicted of anything and it's only mild crimes so they don't count. It's not like I had a gun or anything.

The 13 year old child who was gunned down unarmed with his hands up has never been convicted of anything either. Having a gun is not a crime in and of itself, and a minor in Chigaco having an illegal gun would carry a lesser sentence than several things you have done. So, yes, I am sure, are you fecking serious? Holy shit.

 

[choiboyx012]

No, there's a video of him running with something that might have been a gun. The fact that he is not convicted of anything is relevant because Grinner is adamant to refer to him as a criminal.

He was unarmed and complying at the time he was gunned down. You know, within a certain culture there's this fecked up notion that if a girl is at one time up for it then it's not rape if she says no later. It is. Even if someone runs from the police, if they then give up, put their arms up unarmed and turn around as they're asked ... guess what, they're complying. That someone's at some point not complying doesn't give you a lisence to kill forever after.

Seems that you like to speak in half-truths, whichever fits your narrative. Fortunately he’ll be judged on all the objective facts and circumstances without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

 

[WI_Red]

What would you like us to comment on?

Honestly, dude I don't even know. It's actually not even directed at you all I guess, but It's just tiring hearing all the excuses from the right wing and some LEO about how the officer "feared for his life" whenever someone is shot or beaten. We have seen for decades LE get a pass in the majority of cases from Rodney King to Breonna Taylor. You should be held to a higher standard because you are given extraordinary power over us. You can restrain me in a way that would get me arrested for kidnapping. You can manhandle me in a way that would get me arrested for battery. That is ok, because those are the powers we give you as part of a social compact. But the flip side of that is you need to error on the side of caution at ALL times when exercising those powers. Fear is not cause, no matter what the "law" says.

 

[NotThatSoph]

Seems that you like to speak in half-truths, whichever fits your narrative. Fortunately he’ll be judged on all the objective facts and circumstances without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

Seems like unlike the lying cops I've been open about what we know about the case. If we had to rely on the cops then we'd only "know" that an armed suspect was shot in a confrontation with the police, but thanks to other evidence we know that the 13 year old child who probably but maybe not had a gun at one time was gunned down unarmed with his hands up.

I'm assuming that you're very dismayed about the lying cops, right, and not just my alleged half-truths?

 

[Grinner]

Seems like unlike the lying cops I've been open about what we know about the case. If we had to rely on the cops then we'd only "know" that an armed suspect was shot in a confrontation with the police, but thanks to other evidence we know that the 13 year old child who probably but maybe not had a gun at one time was gunned down unarmed with his hands up.

I'm assuming that you're very dismayed about the lying cops, right, and not just my alleged half-truths?

Once again, you're entitled to your opinion.

 

[Olly Gunnar Solskjær]

The guy talking after: https://www.tiktok.com/@riskie_e/video/6953358222635961605

 

[choiboyx012]

So is shooting someone.

This is not a zero sum game. Committing a crime does not equal just cause to shoot someone. I am going to repeat myself since our resident LEO have not commented the first 3 times I mentioned it.

Your power is derived from the compact we have made with each other. We cede some of our civil liberties to you. In return we expect you to act judiciously and courageously. You, being afraid but you or others around you not being in ACTUAL danger does not give you the right to kill us. If you do so you are murderers and should go to jail.

You have your definition of what “actual danger” is, and if I’m understanding it correctly, then it’s different from the laws, policies, and statutes in place. A person aiming a replica gun at an officer or person isn’t an “actual” threat or danger by your definition, but should person/cop go to jail for defending himself? That’s the compact we give cops. To respond to and enforce crime, and if necessary use reasonable and appropriate force and make those split-second judgment calls, knowing that errors can inevitably be made.

 

[Grinner]

You have your definition of what “actual danger” is, and if I’m understanding it correctly, then it’s different from the laws, policies, and statutes in place. A person aiming a replica gun at an officer or person isn’t an “actual” threat or danger by your definition, but should person/cop go to jail for defending himself? That’s the compact we give cops. To respond to and enforce crime, and if necessary use reasonable and appropriate force and make those split-second judgment calls, knowing that errors can inevitably be made.

The law is pretty clear that if you reasonably believe that you are in imminent life-threatening danger then deadly force is allowed.

It would be reasonable to assume that a replica is a real gun.

 

[calodo2003]

The guy talking after: https://www.tiktok.com/@riskie_e/video/6953358222635961605

Is six plus cops / cars responding to a robbery SOP?

 

[Grinner]

Is six plus cops / cars responding to a robbery SOP?

I've never understood why you see hordes of them on calls. Perhaps @Skizzo or @choiboyx012 can explain why this happens. Surely a supervisor on duty decides how many bodies are needed.

 

[calodo2003]

I've never understood why you see hordes of them on calls. Perhaps @Skizzo or @choiboyx012 can explain why this happens. Surely a supervisor on duty decides how many bodies are needed.

It’s also massively intimidating, especially at night.

Also raises the possibility of misinterpretation, at least to me.

 

[Skizzo]

I've never understood why you see hordes of them on calls. Perhaps @Skizzo or @choiboyx012 can explain why this happens. Surely a supervisor on duty decides how many bodies are needed.

Depends on the type of call, or what everyone is tied up with. We back each other up on pedestrian calls, calls that may include weapons etc because it can give you more options if you arrive on scene and need cover or backup. If something ends up happening it’s better to have another officer there than trying to handle something one on one (or one on multiple) and be able to take someone into custody with less issues.

 

[choiboyx012]

Is six plus cops / cars responding to a robbery SOP?

I've never understood why you see hordes of them on calls. Perhaps @Skizzo or @choiboyx012 can explain why this happens. Surely a supervisor on duty decides how many bodies are needed.

It all depends on the department and manpower they have. It's not uncommon at all. A robbery is a felony and considered a violent crime. If there's 2 suspects and a weapon involved then a lot could go wrong so if you're fortunate to have all that backup, you use it until the situation is cooled down. If they had split and run off in opposite directions you need to contain them with a perimeter. If they had pointed their guns at the cops, you need more firepower to stop the threat. If you conduct a high-risk felony stop, you ideally have other squad cars stop traffic to prevent cross-fire situations.

 

[WI_Red]

You have your definition of what “actual danger” is, and if I’m understanding it correctly, then it’s different from the laws, policies, and statutes in place. A person aiming a replica gun at an officer or person isn’t an “actual” threat or danger by your definition, but should person/cop go to jail for defending himself? That’s the compact we give cops. To respond to and enforce crime, and if necessary use reasonable and appropriate force and make those split-second judgment calls, knowing that errors can inevitably be made.

sorry for the delay, was walking the dogs.

I am not talking about the rare replica gun instances, or when someone is pointing a gun at an LEO. I am talking about mistaking a cell phone for a gun, a subway sandwich for a gun, feck, just pretending they thought there was a gun. NONE of those justify someone being shot at, much less being killed.

I don’t care what the law says. The law protected the cops that beat Rodney King. The law protected the cops the beat and killed civil rights protesters in Alabama. The law has protected hundreds of good and bad cops who made bad decisions. Until keeping citizens alive at all costs becomes the main goal of all LE, LE will never have the trust of all of us. That trust was squandered by your predecessors and peers, and it will be squandered by you future colleagues if nothing changes.

the bond between society and LE is broken because most of us believe LE, in general, care more about “making it home” than making sure the person on the other side of their gun is intent on the opposite.

 

[calodo2003]

It all depends on the department and manpower they have. It's not uncommon at all. A robbery is a felony and considered a violent crime. If there's 2 suspects and a weapon involved then a lot could go wrong so if you're fortunate to have all that backup, you use it until the situation is cooled down. If they had split and run off in opposite directions you need to contain them with a perimeter. If they had pointed their guns at the cops, you need more firepower to stop the threat. If you conduct a high-risk felony stop, you ideally have other squad cars stop traffic to prevent cross-fire situations.

So this qualifies as a ‘high risk felony stop?’

Why don’t the ancillary cops leave once the suspects are clearly in custody? None of them seem to be attending to traffic there (nor very often).

 

[choiboyx012]

sorry for the delay, was walking the dogs.

I am not talking about the rare replica gun instances, or when someone is pointing a gun at an LEO. I am talking about mistaking a cell phone for a gun, a subway sandwich for a gun, feck, just pretending they thought there was a gun. NONE of those justify someone being shot at, much less being killed.

I don’t care what the law says. The law protected the cops that beat Rodney King. The law protected the cops the beat and killed civil rights protesters in Alabama. The law has protected hundreds of good and bad cops who made bad decisions. Until keeping citizens alive at all costs becomes the main goal of all LE, LE will never have the trust of all of us. That trust was squandered by your predecessors and peers, and it will be squandered by you future colleagues if nothing changes.

the bond between society and LE is broken because most of us believe LE, in general, care more about “making it home” than making sure the person on the other side of their gun is intent on the opposite.

LE never has and never will have the trust of everyone. That's pure utopian fantasy, especially in America where we have guns and crime trends that mirror 3rd world countries. Changes have been, and will continue to happen, albeit slower than people would like.
The bond between LE and society is at a breaking point now, but in my experience it's not completely broken. The vocal minority have been making the most noise. The silent majority of the country are supportive of LE, or at the very least tolerate and understand that cops are a necessary thing that have an impossible job to do as fallible human beings.

 

[choiboyx012]

So this qualifies as a ‘high risk felony stop?’

Why don’t the ancillary cops leave once the suspects are clearly in custody? None of them seem to be attending to traffic there (nor very often).

Yes it's a high-risk stop.

I was speaking generally. I don't know why the extra bodies stayed. Maybe lookey-loos that were bored all night and wanted to see what's happening.

 

[calodo2003]

Yes it's a high-risk stop.

I was speaking generally. I don't know why the extra bodies stayed. Maybe lookey-loos that were bored all night and wanted to see what's happening.

Well, that’s just one aspect of policing that needs to be amended imo.

Generally, taking into account the videos I’ve seen, such loitering is apparently commonplace.

Downtime / lackadaisical attitude like this is countenanced by superior officers typically?

 

[WI_Red]

LE never has and never will have the trust of everyone. That's pure utopian fantasy, especially in America where we have guns and crime trends that mirror 3rd world countries. Changes have been, and will continue to happen, albeit slower than people would like.
The bond between LE and society is at a breaking point now, but in my experience it's not completely broken. The vocal minority have been making the most noise. The silent majority of the country are supportive of LE, or at the very least tolerate and understand that cops are a necessary thing that have an impossible job to do as fallible human beings.

I have personally not had a bad interaction with LE, but I have seen bad actors in all 3 states I have lived in.

1) as a teen in Torrance, CA on a ride along the cops I was with ran the plates of a cute girl they saw and then pulled her over for a broken taillight so they could see if the body matched the face.

2) in Alabama I rear ended a guy. That guy was in the US legally (had his documents out) and had a Mexican drivers license. The sheriff let me go but kept him there, talking him “you’re not in Mexico anymore motherfecker”.

and other shit here in WI. The point is that I went from being in that “silent majority” to someone who does not trust it. We are at a breaking point, but it is not society that needs to fix it. We are not equal players in this because at the end of the day LE works, and is accountable, to us. As long as the bad acts are covered up and unions fight to keep bad actors in jobs LE will not gain our trust back. There needs to be fundamental change.

 

[Rado_N]

Cops were called because 2 people were allegedly shooting at cars. Cops respond on scene to investigate, because all the facts aren't known and that's part of the job, detaining possible criminal suspects who might have committed a crime of shooting a gun at cars/people, you know, endangering lives like. At some point Toledo flees with a gun in hand (yes he in fact was armed). He ignored multiple commands to stop and drop the gun. He stops at some point by a fence and tosses the gun behind it and in less than a second turns and puts his hands up, but gets shot.
No one knows how old these shooting suspects were, how many guns, what type. It doesn't matter. Any cop is approaching that scene with the highest threat level awareness as they very well should. And even more so when the suspects run away with gun in hand to do God knows what to God knows who. We all have the luxury of hindsight and relevant facts after-the-fact. The cop who shot does not.

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.

There are videos of him running with the gun and tossing it behind a fence.

Again you bring up his age. Not relevant and not known at the time.

Conviction comes after arrest and court appearance. He chose to resist arrest (and court and possible conviction) and instead run away with a deadly weapon.

The suspected (alleged) crime was shooting at passing vehicles. (Unlawful discharge of firearm, assault with deadly weapon, ATTEMPTED MURDER anyone?!) but you think that’s mild and petty. Interesting.

You say “unarmed” and “complying”. That is not the whole truth if not a flat out lie.

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?

 

[Beachryan]

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.

 

[esmufc07]

Anyone who thinks that cop was justified in murdering a 13 year old unarmed child is part of the problem.

 

[Simbo]

Anyone who thinks that cop was justified in murdering a 13 year old unarmed child is part of the problem.

I'm not sure justified is the correct term, but if that was my day job I think there's a fair chance i'd of shot him too in the same situation.

 

[Gehrman]

I'm not sure justified is the correct term, but if that was my day job I think there's a fair chance i'd of shot him too in the same situation.

We are talking about Adam Toledo right?

 

[Beachryan]

Anyone who thinks that cop was justified in murdering a 13 year old unarmed child is part of the problem.

To me - this attitude means that we'll never improve anything. It's a truism, excellent soundbyte. It has no nuance, room for the complexities of reality and reduces a hugely complex, multi-variate issue into a binary. It sounds great politically.

It's far easier than thinking about, for example, why officers are so ill-prepared to deal with being confronted by an armed suspect. It ignores why a 13 year-old has access to and was potentially dangerously discharging a weapon. It ignores what may have been reported by whoever called the police, the police's policy on how many officers approach such an incident. It ignores any background around where the incident was, history of similar incidents and what was learned or not from them.

But who is going to argue with: don't shoot little children?

 

[Stacks]

Anyone who thinks that cop was justified in murdering a 13 year old unarmed child is part of the problem.

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.