• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chicago prepares for a rough night as body cam footage of police killing a 13 year old boy is about to be released

GummyVitamins said:
You complained about armed police officers and then complained about training issues in regards to this situation. So yes, unless you clarify you're not making much sense. I'm also not sure what you wanted the officer to do differently here other than use his thoughts and prayers that the kid no longer had the firearm in his hand when the video clearly shows he couldn't see him ditch it. It's not his job to stand defenseless because you think the police should take on more risk when chasing down armed suspects than they already do in Chicago.
Click to expand...
"
My response and "complain was about the comment I heard from another poster who mentioned parenting in general

PeacefulWarrior said:
How much "police training" will it take before 13 year old kids stop running the streets with guns?

Notice his comment about kids (plural) which shows an attempt to make an argument braoder than the particular situation.


And my response was that police officers should not find such excuses because their professional itself is based on the fact that we live in an imperfect world. So, they should still focus on what THEY can control (police training) instead of blaming bad parenting.

The officer needed to take cover and wait before shooting. Part of the police ethos in the US is that many police officers are reluctant to take some risk . The real question in this situation is what should the other person have done. It seems that the victim did exacly what the police oofficer told him to do. He stopped and turned with his hands up.
 
Last edited:
interesting observation from Senator Ron Johnson: when an unarmed black is shot by the police, within a day at the latest, the press knows who did the shooting. When that white rioter-who was unarmed, was shot by capitol police, we still don't know who did the shooting
 
TurtleDude said:
interesting observation from Senator Ron Johnson: when an unarmed black is shot by the police, within a day at the latest, the press knows who did the shooting. When that white rioter-who was unarmed, was shot by capitol police, we still don't know who did the shooting
Click to expand...
lmfao
 
TurtleDude said:
interesting observation from Senator Ron Johnson: when an unarmed black is shot by the police, within a day at the latest, the press knows who did the shooting. When that white rioter-who was unarmed, was shot by capitol police, we still don't know who did the shooting
Click to expand...
Whats really interesting is that someone would repeat that observation, and call it ‘interesting’.
 
Threegoofs said:
Whats really interesting is that someone would repeat that observation, and call it ‘interesting’.
Click to expand...
OK it is rather telling concerning the hypocrisy of the press. happy?
 
TurtleDude said:
interesting observation from Senator Ron Johnson: when an unarmed black is shot by the police, within a day at the latest, the press knows who did the shooting. When that white rioter-who was unarmed, was shot by capitol police, we still don't know who did the shooting
Click to expand...

I suppose, but will learning his name is Greg Horner (yes I made that up) make Babbitt pop back to life? The only thing that would come out of releasing his name would be he's doxed, has to be let go and possibly uproot where he lives and try to relocate. Each situation is different but in this one, his name won't change what we all saw that day.
 
SkyFox76 said:
I suppose, but will learning his name is Greg Horner (yes I made that up) make Babbitt pop back to life? The only thing that would come out of releasing his name would be he's doxed, has to be let go and possibly uproot where he lives and try to relocate. Each situation is different but in this one, his name won't change what we all saw that day.
Click to expand...
well you could say the same thing about officers who shoot unarmed blacks, but those names are quickly released-whether the shooting was based on rock solid legal grounds or of dubious legality
 
TurtleDude said:
well you could say the same thing about officers who shoot unarmed blacks, but those names are quickly released-whether the shooting was based on rock solid legal grounds or of dubious legality
Click to expand...


I've got zero issue with the name of an officer being keep from the public, as long as whoever is running the investigation keeps the public informed on what's being looked at.
 
TurtleDude said:
OK it is rather telling concerning the hypocrisy of the press. happy?
Click to expand...
This thread is about a Chicago shooting.

What is the victims name?

I haven’t seen the cop’s name at all. I don’t think it’s been released.
 
snakestretcher said:
Analysis done by who? Some newsroom editor?
Click to expand...
Jimmy. Jimmy did the analysis.

Are you actually claiming the thing in his hand wasn't a gun? Or the gun they found right behind the fence where Toledo was shot wasn't a gun?
 
KevinKohler said:
When lethal force is being employed, yes it is.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. That is an impossible standard. The standard for a seizure under the fourth amendment (which is what a use of force by police is) is that it be reasonable. Your standard would see a cop go to prison for shooting a person who pointed an unloaded gun at him.
 
KevinKohler said:
I'll ask this again, this time, directed at you. On average, 40 officers per year are shot and killed in the line of duty. Out of some 700,000 full time officers. Let's less deaths per year than retail worker accidents, less deaths per year than a great many professions, in fact.

Yet so many police officers are on edge, behaving as if they believe they are in constant mortal peril.

Where is that coming from? And why?
Click to expand...
I don't know. Ultimately, it's irrelevant to the question of the reasonableness of this officer's actions.
 
Citizen said:
And that is the problem
Click to expand...
No. It's not a problem to expect people to act reasonably instead of requiring them to guess correctly 100% of the time, risking prison or the grave if they guess wrong.
 
dave8383 said:
Please. I never said he wanted the kid dead. He made the wrong decision.
Click to expand...

Gondwanaland said:
He made the right decision based on what he could see. Sadly, the kid chose to toss the gun where the cop couldn't see him do so, and then spin around where the last thing the cop saw was a gun in his hand. The cop fired.
Click to expand...
Both of you are characterizing this the wrong way. Whether he made the "right" or "wrong" decision isn't the point. He made a decision that was reasonable.
 
dave8383 said:
Look, this isn't rocket surgery. The cop told him to show his hands and drop the weapon only seconds before he fired. Watch the video. The kid complied. The cop fired. Now, is it cut and dry? No. But the cop should have waited the extra second.
Click to expand...
The cop had no way of knowing Toledo had ditched the gun before Toledo spun around.

He had a vest on, he's a trained police officer.
Click to expand...
Nobody ever died from getting shot in the head, amirite?
 
dave8383 said:
The kid did what the cop asked.
Click to expand...
In a manner that made it impossible for the officer to know he had done so.

His reaction was reasonable, given that the last time he saw that hand, it had a gun in it.
 
dave8383 said:
Not at all. I've heard many cops say the opposite. The cop is trained, the cop had a vest on, the cop is an adult, etc., etc.
Click to expand...
Body armor is meant to diminish the likelihood of death by gunshot. It is not a reason to not engage in a use of deadly force.

If you've heard cops say otherwise, those cops are retarded.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
Body armor ......................................is not a reason to not engage in a use of deadly force.
Click to expand...

Gee, you mean if a soldier wears a vest he should still fire at the enemy? No, really!?!

The cop is trained, the cop had a vest on, the cop is an adult, the kid followed his orders and turned around, hands up, no weapon. Bang, the cop killed him anyway and now he'll have to live with it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom