Cop in America doing a bad job, again

[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.

 

[calodo2003]

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.

To me, a lot of the intransigence to look at redefining this & perhaps narrowing its scope smacks of those who do not want to see one more restriction on guns.

We can & should make a concerted attempt to redefine this concept of ‘reasonably / imminent’ as well as reducing the scope of or eliminating qualified immunity.

Readjusting the scope of both the requisite danger & qualified immunity won’t suddenly create an environment that will be immediately anti-police, just like readjusting the scope of gun control won’t radically adjust the reduction in gun violence, but both would become a bit less visceral & offer a bit of fairness (for lack of a better word).

We simply can’t keep maintaining the status quo. That’s been proven on both these fronts. Right now things are unfairly skewed to the maintenance of the status quo.

 

[WI_Red]

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

It's Chicago, we'll see how "rigorous" the investigation is. Don't ever forget they desperately tried to cover up Laquan McDonald's murder.

 

[calodo2003]

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

This ‘rigorous investigation’ just might not be that rigorous.

Rarely seems to have been before the camera footage age.

 

[calodo2003]

It's Chicago, we'll see how "rigorous" the investigation is. Don't ever forget they desperately tried to cover up Laquan McDonald's murder.

Remember the kid in Texas, the one the nutters are somewhat rightly trying to equivocate with Floyd, Timpa? The kid who has coke in his system & the cops laughed at him as & after he died & the one cop had the audacity to say on body cam footage that ‘they tried to save him’ or some shit right before he cut the cam off?

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/body-camera-footage-in-tony-timpa-death-released-tuesday/209946/

It took years before the footage was released due to dubious police intransigence.

At least we are seeing a positive trend towards immediacy of footage being released. That’s a major step

 

[Skizzo]

This ‘rigorous investigation’ just might not be that rigorous.

Rarely seems to have been before the camera footage age.

It’s basically gonna boil down to the investigation and the video and hammering out what’s factual or not. The things they’ll be wading through..

Why were the called? Shot spotter going off 8 times and reports of two people firing Guns at passing vehicles.

Was that a legit call? Before they took off, they huddled together and looks like something was handed off. The older male has gun shot residue on his hands. Shell casings match the firearm later found by Toledo.

what happened next? Foot pursuit and ignoring or commands. Right before Toledo stops and turns you see what’s believed to be a firearm in his right hand. He looks back at the officer, can he interpreted as acquiring a target. You lose sight of his hand as he turns and begins to raise his hands. A split second life or death decision was made.

in that moment with that information, was it reasonable or not?

That’s not taking into account the fact it was in Latin Kings territory, and reported that Toledo had a fresh Latin Kings Tattoo. After the shooting the Latin Kings advised their members to shoot at passing unmarked PD vehicles.

To lower it down to “look at this split second freeze frame, he was unarmed” isn’t reasonable for judging someone’s ability to make that call. People talking about military being better trained and having better engagement restrictions, this officer was a Marine who went to Afghanistan.

 

[WI_Red]

It’s basically gonna boil down to the investigation and the video and hammering out what’s factual or not. The things they’ll be wading through..

Why were the called? Shot spotter going off 8 times and reports of two people firing Guns at passing vehicles.

Was that a legit call? Before they took off, they huddled together and looks like something was handed off. The older male has gun shot residue on his hands. Shell casings match the firearm later found by Toledo.

what happened next? Foot pursuit and ignoring or commands. Right before Toledo stops and turns you see what’s believed to be a firearm in his right hand. He looks back at the officer, can he interpreted as acquiring a target. You lose sight of his hand as he turns and begins to raise his hands. A split second life or death decision was made.

in that moment with that information, was it reasonable or not?

That’s not taking into account the fact it was in Latin Kings territory, and reported that Toledo had a fresh Latin Kings Tattoo. After the shooting the Latin Kings advised their members to shoot at passing unmarked PD vehicles.

To lower it down to “look at this split second freeze frame, he was unarmed” isn’t reasonable for judging someone’s ability to make that call. People talking about military being better trained and having better engagement restrictions, this officer was a Marine who went to Afghanistan.

Thank you for the breakdown.

I am wondering if this is going to come down to that stupid strobe light. Would improper use (if it is deemed as such) of that light be enough to call into question what the officer based his decision on? Not asking you to know the answer, just talking out loud.

 

[Beachryan]

It’s basically gonna boil down to the investigation and the video and hammering out what’s factual or not. The things they’ll be wading through..

Why were the called? Shot spotter going off 8 times and reports of two people firing Guns at passing vehicles.

Was that a legit call? Before they took off, they huddled together and looks like something was handed off. The older male has gun shot residue on his hands. Shell casings match the firearm later found by Toledo.

what happened next? Foot pursuit and ignoring or commands. Right before Toledo stops and turns you see what’s believed to be a firearm in his right hand. He looks back at the officer, can he interpreted as acquiring a target. You lose sight of his hand as he turns and begins to raise his hands. A split second life or death decision was made.

in that moment with that information, was it reasonable or not?

That’s not taking into account the fact it was in Latin Kings territory, and reported that Toledo had a fresh Latin Kings Tattoo. After the shooting the Latin Kings advised their members to shoot at passing unmarked PD vehicles.

To lower it down to “look at this split second freeze frame, he was unarmed” isn’t reasonable for judging someone’s ability to make that call. People talking about military being better trained and having better engagement restrictions, this officer was a Marine who went to Afghanistan.

Good post.

 

[calodo2003]

It’s basically gonna boil down to the investigation and the video and hammering out what’s factual or not. The things they’ll be wading through..

Why were the called? Shot spotter going off 8 times and reports of two people firing Guns at passing vehicles.

Was that a legit call? Before they took off, they huddled together and looks like something was handed off. The older male has gun shot residue on his hands. Shell casings match the firearm later found by Toledo.

what happened next? Foot pursuit and ignoring or commands. Right before Toledo stops and turns you see what’s believed to be a firearm in his right hand. He looks back at the officer, can he interpreted as acquiring a target. You lose sight of his hand as he turns and begins to raise his hands. A split second life or death decision was made.

in that moment with that information, was it reasonable or not?

That’s not taking into account the fact it was in Latin Kings territory, and reported that Toledo had a fresh Latin Kings Tattoo. After the shooting the Latin Kings advised their members to shoot at passing unmarked PD vehicles.

To lower it down to “look at this split second freeze frame, he was unarmed” isn’t reasonable for judging someone’s ability to make that call. People talking about military being better trained and having better engagement restrictions, this officer was a Marine who went to Afghanistan.

Appreciate your post.

I don’t think you can reduce it down to a split second call, but the totality of the event should be reviewed vigorously. There is culpability on the young man, this is unfortunately irrefutable. There is also culpability on the cop. Where that demarcation line falls will be key.

Questions about Shot Spotter - is it fixed or mobile? Does there need to be multiple SS deployed to be able to triangulate location? Could backfires, fireworks, & other sharp retorts be mistaken for the snap of gun fire, especially when taking into account the retort of different weapons? Is its evidence admissible in court or is it just for tactical use?

e - Not that it will potentially matter legally, but did Toledo have residue on his hands?

e2 - We need SS here. I estimated between 15 & 20 rounds were fired within earshot of my place last night.

 

[Skizzo]

Thank you for the breakdown.

I am wondering if this is going to come down to that stupid strobe light. Would improper use (if it is deemed as such) of that light be enough to call into question what the officer based his decision on? Not asking you to know the answer, just talking out loud.

It’s something to consider and something they can certainly try and take into account as to if changed his perception. That’s gonna be the biggest issue I think, and what they should really establish. With a strobe light going in, people are able to move their arms a good amount of distance if done slowly. It throws your perception off. I think that’ll be what opens him up to acting in a negligent manner. However, even with a split second of full light, if you see a gun before he turns towards you and raises his hands, I dont know if his decision would have changed with such minimal time to interpret what’s happening.