Chicago cops murder 13 year old point blank

[BabaYaga 15302]

7 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I wonder what the shootings of cops and by cops would look like if the ROE were changed to you don’t fire unless fired upon.  (And accompanying roe for knife attacks or what have you)
you want to be treated as heroes, act heroically. Shooting at anything that spooks you isn’t heroic. 

Why I asked if a GSR swab has been performed.  We don't know what happened prior to the video and if shots were fired.

[StruggleBus 3922]

33 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

In a fraction of a second things went from here:  gun....to no gun.

Jesus, a trained SMU operator would have a hard time making the proper call here.  

Reason number 11 million I'd never be a cop. The line between acting in self defense and murder in a situation like this is really, really close. Plenty here will blame all racist shit head cops, plenty of others will blame the dipshit kid and his awful parents. Truth is, as long as we have people running around committing crimes with guns, this will continue to happen. And guns aren't going anywhere. So this is going to keep happening. 

[B00M 6433]

8 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I wonder what the shootings of cops and by cops would look like if the ROE were changed to you don’t fire unless fired upon.  (And accompanying roe for knife attacks or what have you)
you want to be treated as heroes, act heroically. Shooting at anything that spooks you isn’t heroic. 

This would necessitate a lot more expensive, lightweight body armor to protect most of the front of your average police officer... but I'm pretty sure we have the technology. This is a reasonable middle ground between "disarm the police" and "do nothing"

[SimonBolivar 10958]

32 minutes ago, RPM said:

If the first two would have acted responsibly, the third would never been involved.

Absolutely, and if it had been another cop or if his training had been better then the kid is in juvie right now. He shares in the blame for making a poor decision that led to a loss of life. I'd argue that the parents/guardians are "most responsible", but that doesn't excuse killing someone that is following orders because you gave bad orders.

[Post Oak 20254]

2 hours ago, RPM said:

I did and it wasn't hard. He was a little assassin that held on to the gun too long. Clean shoot. This is on the parents, not the police.

You have consistently been chased by intelligent thought and managed to out run it.

[RPM 26329]

Just now, Post Oak said:

You have consistently been chased by intelligent thought and managed to out run it.

Ouch. You going to call me an OU fan next? Your hot sports opinions are horribly wrong.

[smuggs 9353]

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

Jesus, a trained SMU operator would have a hard time making the proper call here.  

Trained SMU operators don't carry a firearm.

 

[GW Hayduke 1953]

56 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

So the only next step would be to make them unavailable by taking them all, including yours and mine. And that...won’t be happening.

 

We wouldn't need to take all of them.  We would only need to decrease the number of firearms in our population (buy-back program, registration system), replace the firearms that serve little purpose to society with those that do serve a purpose (buy-back program, licenses based on need), and limit the possession of firearms (background checks, license, registration, training).  

The point isn't to get the risks from firearm violence in the US to zero. The point is to get the risk of firearm violence in the US so it is close to the level of other developed countries.    

[Johnny Sack 8397]

11 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

We wouldn't need to take all of them.  We would only need to decrease the number of firearms in our population (buy-back program, registration system), replace the firearms that serve little purpose to society with those that do serve a purpose (buy-back program, licenses based on need), and limit the possession of firearms (background checks, license, registration, training).  

The point isn't to get the risks from firearm violence in the US to zero. The point is to get the risk of firearm violence in the US so it is close to the level of other developed countries.    

Good luck!

[SimonBolivar 10958]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Good luck!

Yeah there isn't anywhere near the public support for that.

[wildcat09 29360]

For those defending this shooting, how many cops that legitimately fear for their lives fire just one shot in response to the perceived threat?

[Nicole44 22072]

5 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

We wouldn't need to take all of them.  We would only need to decrease the number of firearms in our population (buy-back program, registration system), replace the firearms that serve little purpose to society with those that do serve a purpose (buy-back program, licenses based on need), and limit the possession of firearms (background checks, license, registration, training).  

The point isn't to get the risks from firearm violence in the US to zero. The point is to get the risk of firearm violence in the US so it is close to the level of other developed countries.    

According to the Juvenile Justice Information Exchange: 1/2 of shootings in our cities is committed by a small subset of people known by LE to be affiliated with street groups. These individuals constitute less than 0.6% of an average city’s population. Mass shootings comprise approximately 2% of all shootings.

There are cities/ states that have over the last 15 years managed to reduce homicides and shootings: Oakland and Richmond, California. New Haven, CT. The state of Massachusetts. MA has seen firearm activity drop by 22%. 
 

Most states and cities that have been successful have worked with high risk people by offering intensive intervention services such as mentoring, mental health counseling, cognitive behavior therapy, vocational training and travel opportunities. 
 

Just like the cops work for us so do our local leaders and politicians. Citizens should demand that they look to successful methods to curb violence; study what is working and seek funds and public support to implement those strategies. 
https://jjie.org/2019/12/09/cities-with-gun-violence-success-stories-work-closely-with-would-be-shooters/

 

Covid sadly has put a big wrench in a lot of things. And it’s unfortunate but not insurmountable problem we can certainly fix.

 

[MonkeyDoughnut 10336]

54 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I wonder what the shootings of cops and by cops would look like if the ROE were changed to you don’t fire unless fired upon.  (And accompanying roe for knife attacks or what have you)
you want to be treated as heroes, act heroically. Shooting at anything that spooks you isn’t heroic. 

It would go to zero as you wouldn't have any cops.   Waiting to fire until being fired upon isn't heroic, it's moronic.  Not to mention it would just move the goal posts as you would then argue that they weren't actually firing at you but past you and so you weren't justified.  Pretty sure cops are less worried about being "heroes" than they are about going home to their spouse and kids on an ordinary night.  You make it sound like they go on shift looking to go shoot someone.  The reality is they might have just attended their kids soccer game and told their spouse they would stop by the store to pickup cereal on the way home from work.

[Pato del Muerto 52539]

6 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

It would go to zero as you wouldn't have any cops.   Waiting to fire until being fired upon isn't heroic, it's moronic.  Not to mention it would just move the goal posts as you would then argue that they weren't actually firing at you but past you and so you weren't justified.  Pretty sure cops are less worried about being "heroes" than they are about going home to their spouse and kids on an ordinary night.  You make it sound like they go on shift looking to go shoot someone.  The reality is they might have just attended their kids soccer game and told their spouse they would stop by the store to pickup cereal on the way home from work.

Ok. Stay frosty. 

[Leeroy Jenkins 2409]

15 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

For those defending this shooting, how many cops that legitimately fear for their lives fire just one shot in response to the perceived threat?

I think it is a matter of brain processing time.  Once he pulled the trigger his brain recognizes that the threat is now gone as he has had time to process the hand it empty.  

We only get some of the audio in the video that I have viewed.  How many times did the officer command him to stop?   

[Dahobbs 17627]

14 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

It would go to zero as you wouldn't have any cops.   Waiting to fire until being fired upon isn't heroic, it's moronic.  Not to mention it would just move the goal posts as you would then argue that they weren't actually firing at you but past you and so you weren't justified.  Pretty sure cops are less worried about being "heroes" than they are about going home to their spouse and kids on an ordinary night.  You make it sound like they go on shift looking to go shoot someone.  The reality is they might have just attended their kids soccer game and told their spouse they would stop by the store to pickup cereal on the way home from work.

The military commonly utilizes an ROE of  "do not fire unless fired upon." I don't think it is entirely unreasonable to have cops operate that way as a default with deviations authorized for specific situations. 

I don't think most cop shootings involving a cop looking to shoot someone. I do think it happens (see Gaines in Houston), but it is rare. I think most questionable shootings result from cops and citizens being placed in high stress situations due to poorly thought out procedures that place the onus on citizens to act perfectly in those situations. And I think cops have inadequate training to deal with those high stress situations because they spend most of their time doing mundane stuff like traffic stops. That's why I think creating a separate unarmed force to deal with your garden variety citations makes a good bit of sense. The armed force can then spend more time training and preparing for the types of situations they are going to be asked to handle. 

Edited April 16, 2021 by Dahobbs

[J.R. Juniors Junior Jr. 1084]

39 minutes ago, smuggs said:

Trained SMU operators don't carry a firearm.

 

I wonder how that aggy's head was feeling after that.  That old Astroturf was directly over concrete.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

11 hours ago, immortal13 said:

How would stricter gun control prevented that kid from carrying? It's not as if he didn't know he was too young to legally carry a handgun.

Without reading through the rest of this thread, I'm going to give you a really unpopular answer.  Stricter gun control means, if you are a citizen carrying a gun in public, that would be illegal and you would likely be shot.  Then we wouldn't have these instances where there is any question.  Have a gun outside your domicile?  Then you get shot.  

If you are really looking for any cut or dry answers, that's the only one.  

[EuroHorn 3267]

2 minutes ago, Leeroy Jenkins said:

I think it is a matter of brain processing time.  Once he pulled the trigger his brain recognizes that the threat is now gone as he has had time to process the hand it empty.  

We only get some of the audio in the video that I have viewed.  How many times did the officer command him to stop?   

From what I could hear the cop never says turn around to the kid. He does say stop and show me your hands. The kid turning around is what got him killed. 

[GW Hayduke 1953]

2 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

According to the Juvenile Justice Information Exchange: 1/2 of shootings in our cities is committed by a small subset of people known by LE to be affiliated with street groups. These individuals constitute less than 0.6% of an average city’s population. Mass shootings comprise approximately 2% of all shootings.

There are cities/ states that have over the last 15 years managed to reduce homicides and shootings: Oakland and Richmond, California. New Haven, CT. The state of Massachusetts. MA has seen firearm activity drop by 22%. 
 

Most states and cities that have been successful have worked with high risk people by offering intensive intervention services such as mentoring, mental health counseling, cognitive behavior therapy, vocational training and travel opportunities. 
 

Just like the cops work for us so do our local leaders and politicians. Citizens should demand that they look to successful methods to curb violence; study what is working and seek funds and public support to implement those strategies. 
https://jjie.org/2019/12/09/cities-with-gun-violence-success-stories-work-closely-with-would-be-shooters/

 

Covid sadly has put a big wrench in a lot of things. And it’s unfortunate but not insurmountable problem we can certainly fix.

 

Giving an identity (street groups, gang members, Chicago) to the others while assigning identies to ourselves (good guy with gun, lawful gunowner) help some put off the need for gun control since they can tell themselves it is someone else's problem.  Our firearm problem in the US extends further than just shootings in cities.  We also have mass shootings, shooting by suicide, and non-"street group" shootings.  The idea that mass shooting events (the ones that are severe enough to make it to national media) only compose 2% of all firearm fatalities in the US is telling.

Massachusetts is an example of a state that has taken firearm violence seriously and requires a license for possession.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Massachusetts

Quote

Massachusetts Law requires firearm owners to be licensed through their local Police Department or the Massachusetts State Police if no local licensing authority is available. A license is required by state law for buying firearms and ammunition. An applicant must have passed a State approved firearm safety course before applying for a license.

 

[BabaYaga 15302]

20 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The military commonly utilizes an ROE of  "do not fire unless fired upon." I don't think it is entirely unreasonable to have cops operate that way as a default with deviations authorized for specific situations. 

And they hate it, as it gets people killed, namely them.  Further, that ROE is often out the window if you point a weapon at them. 

[BabaYaga 15302]

23 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Without reading through the rest of this thread, I'm going to give you a really unpopular answer.  Stricter gun control means, if you are a citizen carrying a gun in public, that would be illegal and you would likely be shot.  Then we wouldn't have these instances where there is any question.  Have a gun outside your domicile?  Then you get shot.  

If you are really looking for any cut or dry answers, that's the only one.  

So CHL is out the window?

[Dahobbs 17627]

7 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

And they hate it, as it gets people killed, namely them.  Further, that ROE is often out the window if you point a weapon at them. 

"[T]hey" don't hate it. Certain members may hate it. But if the military leadership hated it, it wouldn't be a commonly implemented ROE. The risk is part of the job. Cops face even less risk, so I don't get why it is unreasonable for them operate under the same ROE. Why are we lowering the standard for the policing of our own citizens? It doesn't make sense. 

Edited April 16, 2021 by Dahobbs

[Enchubben 5510]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

And they hate it, as it gets people killed, namely them.  Further, that ROE is often out the window if you point a weapon at them. 

Agree - you could make that the rule all day long, but any cop faced with a firearm in a potential lethal situation would 9/10 prefer to be judged by 12 than carried by six etc.

All this would do is trade the 50 or so suspects killed for 50 cops.

[InkaUtexas 26022]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

"[T]hey" don't hate it. Certain members may hate it. But if the military leadership hated it, it wouldn't be a commonly implemented ROE. The risk is part of the job. Cops face even less risk, so I don't get why it is unreasonable for them operate under the same ROE. Why are we lowering the standard for the policing of our own citizens? It doesn't make sense. 

Military leaders do hate it. And one major difference is when in a potentially bad conflict area you have your weapon at the ready, not in a holster. You are trained to always be ready and to react. You are always watching for potential threats. It is one reason combat units rotate in and out. the constant stress of always watching for the abnormal makes you very tired and edgy. 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

8 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

So CHL is out the window?

It’s either that or everyone goes around strapped and takes their chances.  

[Dahobbs 17627]

3 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

Agree - you could make that the rule all day long, but any cop faced with a firearm in a potential lethal situation would 9/10 prefer to be judged by 12 than carried by six etc.

All this would do is trade the 50 or so suspects killed for 50 cops.

That's absolute speculative bullshit. Here, in this very case, we know that it would have resulted in no additional cop dying and one less suspect dying. And, again, it seems to get the risk profile exactly backwards. The cops should put the citizens before themselves. That is the job. That means taking on risk in order to protect and serve us, the people, not themselves.  That is the standard they should hold for themselves and we should hold them to. 

[BabaYaga 15302]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

"[T]hey" don't hate it. Certain members may hate it. But if the military leadership hated it, it wouldn't be a commonly implemented ROE. The risk is part of the job. Cops face even less risk, so I don't get why it is unreasonable for them operate under the same ROE. 

I get this academic, detached viewpoint - but this is utterly ignorant.  These ROE's were implemented for political reasons, not strategic or tactical.  Full stop.  I would welcome you to poll massive numbers of active and military individuals (like @ SHOT show or something like that) and my guess is you'd get a near 100% agreement that they are stupid and dangerous and take the control out of the hands of the units on the ground, at the scene and give it to someone trying to set up political cover in case it makes the headlines.  Agreement may be on the surface given, but off the record, hated.

Further, those roles are understood to allow combatants the ability to still not limit their right, inherent right, to self-defense....when confronted with "an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury."  So this can't fire until fired on stuff isn't even true.  

[BabaYaga 15302]

5 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

It is one reason combat units rotate in and out. the constant stress of always watching for the abnormal makes you very tired and edgy. 

Yet LEO's don't have that option - it is one of THE biggest drivers of anxiety and stress at levels higher than many combat veterans.  Those "work ups" don't happen with LEOs.

[BabaYaga 15302]

3 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

It’s either that or everyone goes around strapped and takes their chances.  

[Dahobbs 17627]

3 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Military leaders do hate it. And one major difference is when in a potentially bad conflict area you have your weapon at the ready, not in a holster. You are trained to always be ready and to react. You are always watching for potential threats. It is one reason combat units rotate in and out. the constant stress of always watching for the abnormal makes you very tired and edgy. 

Again, I'm not mistaken in my assertion that it is a common ROE utilized by the military? If the military, as a whole, hated it and thought it had no value, it wouldn't be utilized. Yes, it creates additional risk for our soldiers. But it also creates benefits for us and our relationship with the people in the areas our military operates. If those benefits didn't outweigh the risks, our military wouldn't use it. I have no doubt that specific members hate it. But that isn't how one judges policy. For instance I also have no doubt that garbage men hate collecting garbage. In fact, I suspect most people hate some aspect of their job(s). But, sometimes we have to do things we hate. 

[Cajun 11722]

I'm as tough on Heroes as anyone on this site.  

That was a horrible tragedy, but this cop was put in an impossible position.  Split second decision.  Good shoot.

Cops need to be held accountable, but so do people running around firing guns at 2am, their parents, and the cities who coddle this behavior.  The process of this heartbreak began waaaaaaaaaaaay before that fatal shot was fired.

[InkaUtexas 26022]

9 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Again, I'm not mistaken in my assertion that it is a common ROE utilized by the military? If the military, as a whole, hated it and thought it had no value, it wouldn't be utilized. Yes, it creates additional risk for our soldiers. But it also creates benefits for us and our relationship with the people in the areas our military operates. If those benefits didn't outweigh the risks, our military wouldn't use it. I have no doubt that specific members hate it. But that isn't how one judges policy. For instance I also have no doubt that garbage men hate collecting garbage. In fact, I suspect most people hate some aspect of their job(s). But, sometimes we have to do things we hate. 

Please keep in mind the Military as a whole involves a lot of people who never leave the US and if they do the large base they are stationed at. I know people with multiple deployments who never left a large Air Force base like Bagram AB. But ask a combat soldier. They want to neutralize a threat as soon as it is seen. 

the ROE is good for most cases, it stops people from being trigger happy, but it also causes casualties. 

[Dahobbs 17627]

9 minutes ago, Cajun said:

I'm as tough on Heroes as anyone on this site.  

That was a horrible tragedy, but this cop was put in an impossible position.  Split second decision.  Good shoot.

Cops need to be held accountable, but so do people running around firing guns at 2am, their parents, and the cities who coddle this behavior.  The process of this heartbreak began waaaaaaaaaaaay before that fatal shot was fired.

I don't really fault the cop that much. I agree it was a tough situation. That said, I think it does present a trainable moment and there are aspects that should have been handled better (e.g., avoiding commands that will predictably require split second decisions). And, I think it presents an opportunity for us to examine how we police ourselves and whether a better path is available. 

[Dahobbs 17627]

1 minute ago, InkaUtexas said:

Please keep in mind the Military as a whole involves a lot of people who never leave the US and if they do the large base they are stationed at. I know people with multiple deployments who never left a large Air Force base like Bagram AB. But ask a combat soldier. They want to neutralize a threat as soon as it is seen. 

the ROE is good for most cases, it stops people from being trigger happy, but it also causes casualties. 

I agree with this. The question I presented on this thread is: if that ROE is good for most cases for our military (even if it causes casualties), why should we have a lesser standard for our police? 

[52-80 19207]

1 hour ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

It would go to zero as you wouldn't have any cops.   Waiting to fire until being fired upon isn't heroic, it's moronic.  Not to mention it would just move the goal posts as you would then argue that they weren't actually firing at you but past you and so you weren't justified.  Pretty sure cops are less worried about being "heroes" than they are about going home to their spouse and kids on an ordinary night.  You make it sound like they go on shift looking to go shoot someone.  The reality is they might have just attended their kids soccer game and told their spouse they would stop by the store to pickup cereal on the way home from work.

any discharge of firearms is a ton of paperwork.  and we know if theres anything people love...its to file more paperwork

[Dahobbs 17627]

18 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Yet LEO's don't have that option - it is one of THE biggest drivers of anxiety and stress at levels higher than many combat veterans.  Those "work ups" don't happen with LEOs.

I don't know that to be the case, but if it is, it is a problem in how we run our police departments. Mental fatigue has to be part of the calculus in deployment and training. 

[InkaUtexas 26022]

I am tracking your point. I was just stating the military (combat) does not like it. 

[InkaUtexas 26022]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't know that to be the case, but if it is, it is a problem in how we run our police departments. Mental fatigue has to be part of the calculus in deployment and training. 

One thing would not let them moonlight. Done with your shift, get your ass home and get some rest. 

 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

I’d  like to propose one more rule.  Anyone calling 911 for a non-life threatening situation has to identify themselves fully, the cops come to their address first and verify why they called and the caller has to accompany the officer while he investigates.  That would probably prevent a lot of the busybody bullshit cops have to deal with. 

Edited April 16, 2021 by Judge Roybeanbag

[MonkeyDoughnut 10336]

59 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The military commonly utilizes an ROE of  "do not fire unless fired upon." I don't think it is entirely unreasonable to have cops operate that way as a default with deviations authorized for specific situations. 

I don't think most cop shootings involving a cop looking to shoot someone. I do think it happens (see Gaines in Houston), but it is rare. I think most questionable shootings result from cops and citizens being placed in high stress situations due to poorly thought out procedures that place the onus on citizens to act perfectly in those situations. And I think cops have inadequate training to deal with those high stress situations because they spend most of their time doing mundane stuff like traffic stops. That's why I think creating a separate unarmed force to deal with your garden variety citations makes a good bit of sense. The armed force can then spend more time training and preparing for the types of situations they are going to be asked to handle. 

Pretty sure being 13, out at 2am on a Monday morning with a gun, running from a cop after his buddy just fired a gun 8 times nearby, attempting to throw away a gun and spin towards officer is maybe a little farther from my definition of perfect than yours.

[troph 24897]

3 hours ago, Enchubben said:

Yes. Thats why I took issue with you starting the whole racism discussion  with an argument that was a made by exactly no one in regards to an issue that has nothing to do with racism.

Everything you wrote in the middle of your post was hogwash. Plenty of people some here many out there see culpability on the kid. He deserves a reckoning but not with God but a jury. That’s it. Too many yeah - white people - see nuance. There is none, absolutely no nuance whatsoever. If you’re nuancing this conversation I question why. For many white people it’s racism and I don’t care if I offend any one when I say that.

[justhookit 4191]

15 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

This is a terrible take. When you are aiming a firearm at a human being and you tell that human being "turn around and show me your hands" and then that human being follows your instructions exactly as you gave them, you shouldn't shoot that person in the chest.

The officer instructed the suspect to turn around and show his hands. That is instructing a person who you're concerned might have a weapon to turn around, face you, and start raising their hand. It's a stupid thing to do and is the reason why the tragedy happened. It's basically asking the person to set themselves up to get shot. I'm absolutely not sure what CPD protocol is but I've seen enough videos to know that instructions to freeze, lie down on the ground, and put your hands behind your back don't just happen in the movies.

 

13 hours ago, TXSooner518 said:

THEN DON'T TELL HIM TO TURN AROUND AND PUT HIS HANDS UP.

 

13 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

That’s the breaking point. The cop issued a very specific order. The kid followed it, exactly. He follows the order. He shouldn’t have been shot.

Oh, and the issue of gun violence in Chicago, etc, is not an “either or” proposition. We can and should discuss and address that too. Feel free to start a thread on that topic if you want.

But this specific instance is its own specific case, with its own specific facts.

I mean we have a video complete with audio. The cop absolutely did not tell him to turn around. There is a gun in the kids hand less than a second before the kid is shot. The cop radios for an ambulance 3 seconds after the shot and immediately goes into medical rescue mode. This sucks but leaving the thread title as  “Chicago cops murder 13 year old point blank” is a joke.

[goatsaag 279]

8 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Pretty sure being 13, out at 2am on a Monday morning with a gun, running from a cop after his buddy just fired a gun 8 times nearby, attempting to throw away a gun and spin towards officer is maybe a little farther from my definition of perfect than yours.

Cop says "stop, drop it, show me your hands". Kid stops, drops it, shows his hands.

That shouldn't end in death.

[EuroHorn 3267]

1 minute ago, justhookit said:

 

 

I mean we have a video complete with audio. The cop absolutely did not tell him to turn around. There is a gun in the kids hand less than a second before the kid is shot. The cop radios for an ambulance 3 seconds after the shot and immediately goes into medical rescue mode. This sucks but leaving the thread title as  “Chicago cops murder 13 year old point blank” is a joke.

This is correct.  The cop never tells him to turnaround 

SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

ERIC STILLMAN: Police. Stop. Stop [expletive] now. Hey, show me your [expletive] hands. Stop it.

SMITH: Adam Toledo is then shown in the video raising his arms above his head. The gun that was seen in that screenshot does not appear to be in his hand anymore. And as he's raising his arms, the officer fires a single shot that hits the boy in the chest.

https://www.npr.org/2021/04/15/987787742/video-released-of-the-fatal-chicago-police-shooting-of-13-year-old-adam-toledo

[RPM 26329]

27 minutes ago, Cajun said:

I'm as tough on Heroes as anyone on this site.  

That was a horrible tragedy, but this cop was put in an impossible position.  Split second decision.  Good shoot.

Cops need to be held accountable, but so do people running around firing guns at 2am, their parents, and the cities who coddle this behavior.  The process of this heartbreak began waaaaaaaaaaaay before that fatal shot was fired.

Ed Zachary

[Pato del Muerto 52539]

8 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

I am tracking your point. I was just stating the military (combat) does not like it. 

Of course they don’t like it. 

strike first

strike hard

no mercy

why would anybody ‘like’ the idea of being put in a dangerous situation but only being allowed to react?  That’s why the military brass create these kinds of rules.  Because they are needed. Otherwise some of our guys would be shooting at everything. 

[RPM 26329]

Just now, goatsaag said:

Cop says "stop, drop it, show me your hands". Kid stops, tosses the weapon out of sight of the police, rapidly shows his hands.

That shouldn't end in death.

fify

He should have tossed the weapon in plain sight.

[BabaYaga 15302]

Just now, Pato del Muerto said:

Of course they don’t like it. 

strike first

strike hard

no mercy

why would anybody ‘like’ the idea of being put in a dangerous situation but only being allowed to react?  That’s why the military brass create these kinds of rules.  Because they are needed. Otherwise some of our guys would be shooting at everything. 

They are needed because, as stated, of the political ramifications of armed soldiers on foreign soil.  

Quote

A. You have the right to use force to defend yourself from attacks or threats of attack.

B. Hostile fire may be returned effectively and promptly to stop a hostile act.

C. When U.S. Forces are attacked by unarmed hostile elements, mobs, and/or rioters, U.S. Forces should use the minimum force necessary under the circumstances and proportional to the threat.

D. You may not seize the property of others to accomplish your mission.

E. Detention of civilians is authorized for security reasons or in self-defense.

 

[goatsaag 279]

2 minutes ago, RPM said:

fify

He should have tossed the weapon in plain sight.

Oh, right. He showed his hands too fast, shoot him.