Another Black man killed by cops ... this time by accident?

[Pakuni]

For the sake of clarity, the 13 year old did have gunshot residue on his hands .. so while video shows the 21 year old shooting into passing cars .. Toledo shot at least once. 

(https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/man-who-was-with-13-year-old-the-night-he-was-shot-killed-by-chicago-police-is-back-in-custody)

I'm not sure how anyone wouldn't be terrified of the reality that these two guys were shooting into moving cars, targeted or random souls driving down the street.

For the sake of clarity, this isn't true.
Having gunshot residue on you is not conclusive evidence you fired a gun. It also could mean you were near someone when they fired a gun (which Adam Toledo was), handled a gun which recently had been fired (which Adam Toledo did), or was touched by someone who had recently fired a gun (which Adam Toledo was). Keep in mind, the cop who shot him then touched him immediately afterward, which would have transferred GSR.

There's plenty of evidence that GSR was transferred to the kid by means other than him firing a gun. There is zero evidence or claim by any law enforcement agency that he fired a gun .

https://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/gsrstillviable.html

As for being terrified of the reality ... imagine being a child growing up in a neighborhood where that kind of thing happens, and the only time anyone outside the neighborhood notices is when they use it to paint you as a dangerous criminal.

[Galway Eagle]

For the sake of clarity, this isn't true.
Having gunshot residue on you is not conclusive evidence you fired a gun. It also could mean you were near someone when they fired a gun (which Adam Toledo was), handled a gun which recently had been fired (which Adam Toledo did), or was touched by someone who had recently fired a gun (which Adam Toledo was). Keep in mind, the cop who shot him then touched him immediately afterward, which would have transferred GSR.

There's plenty of evidence that GSR was transferred to the kid by means other than him firing a gun. There is zero evidence or claim by any law enforcement agency that he fired a gun .

https://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/gsrstillviable.html

As for being terrified of the reality ... imagine being a child growing up in a neighborhood where that kind of thing happens, and the only time anyone outside the neighborhood notices is when they use it to paint you as a dangerous criminal.

Yeah anyone firing guns into traffic randomly is a dangerous criminal at any age. I mean he's young but by 7th grade you've got an understanding of life & death you aren't a kid with blurred lines of imagination and reality.

[Pakuni]

Yeah anyone firing guns into traffic randomly is a dangerous criminal at any age. I mean he's young but by 7th grade you've got an understanding of life & death you aren't a kid with blurred lines of imagination and reality.

1. There is zero evidence the kid fired a gun.
2. Science says you're wrong about what a 7th grader does and doesn't understand.

Every parent of a teenager is familiar with the special behavior that puberty seems to induce – mood swings, slammed doors, rash decisions. Parents often blame such erratic temperament on surging adolescent hormones, but it turns out that the brain has something to do with it, too.
Specifically, a teen's prefrontal cortex – the piece of brain right behind the forehead that is involved in complex decision making – is not capable of the kind of reasoning that allows most grown-ups to make rational decisions.
https://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2008/10/16_neurolaw.shtml

And remember, this was a 13-year-old with an established learning disability, so he was even further behind in his mental development than most kids that age.

Honestly, it's getting kind of gross watching people to portray a child with a learning disability as some kind of hardened gang banger to rationalize his killing.

[Lighthouse 84]

What he also basically said is "be sure to bring this up when you appeal."

I think it was remarkable that the judge mentioned the comments at all.  Simply bringing them up implies they've had an impact.  Very careless.  Wait until the trial is over and then address the comments if they have him that worked up.

Actually, I don't believe the judge brought up the comments until the defense attorney raised them when he requested a mistrial.

It was a dumb thing to say.

However, the current bar for stupidity and inciting more stupidity is insurrection and storming the capital looking for congressmen and the VP to abduct.

Right.  Trump wasn't the one who made the comments so why would anyone think there's anything wrong with Auntie Max's rhetoric, other than it was a dumb thing to say? No one's going to actually act upon her comments....right?  And if they do, it isn't her fault.

[Hards Alumni]

Actually, I don't believe the judge brought up the comments until the defense attorney raised them when he requested a mistrial.Right.  Trump wasn't the one who made the comments so why would anyone think there's anything wrong with Auntie Max's rhetoric, other than it was a dumb thing to say? No one's going to actually act upon her comments....right?  And if they do, it isn't her fault.

He could have said they were irrelevant to the case instead of the diatribe and left it at that.

[Galway Eagle]

1. There is zero evidence the kid fired a gun.
2. Science says you're wrong about what a 7th grader does and doesn't understand.

Every parent of a teenager is familiar with the special behavior that puberty seems to induce – mood swings, slammed doors, rash decisions. Parents often blame such erratic temperament on surging adolescent hormones, but it turns out that the brain has something to do with it, too.
Specifically, a teen's prefrontal cortex – the piece of brain right behind the forehead that is involved in complex decision making – is not capable of the kind of reasoning that allows most grown-ups to make rational decisions.
https://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2008/10/16_neurolaw.shtml

And remember, this was a 13-year-old with an established learning disability, so he was even further behind in his mental development than most kids that age.

Honestly, it's getting kind of gross watching people to portray a child with a learning disability as some kind of hardened gang banger to rationalize his killing.

1. There's circumstantial evidence, but you're right there's no definitive proof.

2. You're right, they're still in development and prone to irrational emotional decisions, that being said I didn't say they weren't I said they understood life & death and consequently that a gun can cause death.

3. Do we know what the learning disability is? Because let's say it's ADHD, yeah I'm not feeling sympathetic as I made it this far with that plus Tourette's and OCD without shooting a gun into the street. If it's a developmental learning disability, then I'm more inclined to feel sympathy.

4. Speaking from personal experience, a learning disability is not a get out of jail free card. If it's a developmental disability then by all means it's terrible. But theres a million learning disabilities out there that also don't effective your decision making.

If anything, your statement on growing up in a neighborhood where it happens everyday and the impact of that on his life resonated with me more than excusing it away with unspecified learning disability.

[Spotcheck Billy]

4. Speaking from personal experience, a learning disability is not a get out of jail free card. If it's a developmental disability then by all means it's terrible. But theres a million learning disabilities out there that also don't effective your decision making.

Well he won't be getting out of jail free

[Galway Eagle]

Well he won't be getting out of jail free

Dark but true. And I'm not trying to victim blame, entirely. At the end of the day there's loads of truly horrific unjustifiable police shootings and of the many this one is considerably lower on the priority list unless you're only watching the video in extreme slow motion.

But a 7th grade life was lost which in itself is a true tragedy.

[Pakuni]

3. Do we know what the learning disability is? Because let's say it's ADHD, yeah I'm not feeling sympathetic as I made it this far with that plus Tourette's and OCD without shooting a gun into the street. If it's a developmental learning disability, then I'm more inclined to feel sympathy.

I haven't seen any specification of his LD, but it was something that caused him from an early age to be placed in a separate special education classroom with just six other students. That kind of severe intervention typically isn't done for a minor LD, something like ADHD, in which inclusion is standard pracice.

Just to be clear, I'm not disregarding the fact the kid was by his own volition in a bad spot that night. But he was a child with a disability thrust into a situation well beyond his full comprehension, not a hardened gang banger with a history of violence.
Honestly, one can argue, if they want, that this cop was thrust into an equally difficult situation and the shooting was a tragedy, not a crime. You don't need to demonize a child - or lie about him, as some have - to make that argument.

[Jockey]

Actually, I don't believe the judge brought up the comments until the defense attorney raised them when he requested a mistrial.Right.  Trump wasn't the one who made the comments so why would anyone think there's anything wrong with Auntie Max's rhetoric, other than it was a dumb thing to say? No one's going to actually act upon her comments....right?  And if they do, it isn't her fault.

Is Auntie Max related to Auntie Jemima?

May try to not be so overtly racist?

[JWags85]

Is Auntie Max related to Auntie Jemima?

May try to not be so overtly racist?

He didn't come up with it.  Google Auntie Maxine and look at the articles from the LATimes, and Buzzfeed, and Jezebel.  Its a moniker that was originally bestowed on her by adoring supporters.  Same with people calling Lori Lightfoot "Auntie Lori". 

[MuggsyB]

I haven't seen any specification of his LD, but it was something that caused him from an early age to be placed in a separate special education classroom with just six other students. That kind of severe intervention typically isn't done for a minor LD, something like ADHD, in which inclusion is standard pracice.

Just to be clear, I'm not disregarding the fact the kid was by his own volition in a bad spot that night. But he was a child with a disability thrust into a situation well beyond his full comprehension, not a hardened gang banger with a history of violence.
Honestly, one can argue, if they want, that this cop was thrust into an equally difficult situation and the shooting was a tragedy, not a crime. You don't need to demonize a child - or lie about him, as some have - to make that argument.

I assume you've heard of "little yummies" before?  Now I'm not making light of this kid's disability or the tragedy but it's important to know that there are young kids in Chicago that are entrenched in gangs and gang violence.  Denzel Washington has talked about this in depth."It starts in the home" and "it starts well before they are incarcerated" or the "system" takes root.

[Galway Eagle]

I assume you've heard of "little yummies" before?  Now I'm not making light of this kid's disability or the tragedy but it's important to know that there are young kids in Chicago that are entrenched in gangs and gang violence.  Denzel Washington has talked about this in depth."It starts in the home" and "it starts well before they are incarcerated" or the "system" takes root.

Is this a Matt Gaetz Venmo phrase?

[Lighthouse 84]

Is Auntie Max related to Auntie Jemima?

May try to not be so overtly racist?

As Wags said, I'm not the one who came up with it.  In addition to others bestowing it on her, as Wags said, she literally called herself this yesterday.  But thanks for injecting a claim for racism where it doesn't exist. 

[Galway Eagle]

As Wags said, I'm not the one who came up with it.  In addition to others bestowing it on her, as Wags said, she literally called herself this yesterday.  But thanks for injecting a claim for racism where it doesn't exist.

So she's racist!

[Pakuni]

I assume you've heard of "little yummies" before?  Now I'm not making light of this kid's disability or the tragedy but it's important to know that there are young kids in Chicago that are entrenched in gangs and gang violence.  Denzel Washington has talked about this in depth."It starts in the home" and "it starts well before they are incarcerated" or the "system" takes root.

So, what's your point exactly? That this child is somehow to blame for his death because he didn't grow up with certain privileges?
Adam Toledo, just like Yummy Sandifer, didn't choose his parents, his neighborhood or the circumstances of his birth. He didn't choose a learning disability that led his schools to separate him from other kids. He didn't choose to grow up in an environment that made him susceptible to being taken advantage of by an adult criminal.
The lengths some are going to rationalize this are insane.

[Pakuni]

Chauvin verdict is in ...

[Lighthouse 84]

Chauvin verdict is in ...

And contrary to what POTUS says, the "Right" Verdict is the one that the jury gives us, not what he thinks it is. 

[Pakuni]

And contrary to what POTUS says, the "Right" Verdict is the one that the jury gives us, not what he thinks it is.

Nah. Juries can get it wrong (see: OJ Simpson, Emmitt Till).

[Galway Eagle]

Nah. Juries can get it wrong (see: OJ Simpson, Emmitt Till).

You implying OJ was guilty?! Man the glove didn't fit!

[Lennys Tap]

Nah. Juries can get it wrong (see: OJ Simpson, Emmitt Till).

Very true. POTUS rarely gets involved, however.

[Lighthouse 84]

Nah. Juries can get it wrong (see: OJ Simpson, Emmitt Till).

It's still the legal system we've got in place and up to them to reach a verdict, not the sitting President who unlike the jurors wasn't in the courtroom during the trial, nor has he heard or read 100% of the evidence.

[Pakuni]

It's still the legal system we've got in place and up to them to reach a verdict, not the sitting President who unlike the jurors wasn't in the courtroom during the trial, nor has he heard or read 100% of the evidence.

So, you don't really mean it when you say that whatever the jury decides is the "right" verdict. You're just mad that Biden gave his opinion.
Got it.

[Babybluejeans]

It's still the legal system we've got in place and up to them to reach a verdict, not the sitting President who unlike the jurors wasn't in the courtroom during the trial, nor has he heard or read 100% of the evidence.

I admire how much you value the integrity of the courts.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-campaign-lawsuits-election-results-2020-11.

[Galway Eagle]

I admire how much you value the integrity of the courts.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-campaign-lawsuits-election-results-2020-11.

I lol'd nice one