Pattern Ghost

Yes, but which systems? That's the question. And by not being shocked, I mean we shouldn't be having knee jerk reactions and accusing a cop of a racially motivated murder, which seems to be how the wind is blowing in this case. Many large cities have "shot spotting" systems that listen for the sounds of gunfire then notify authorities. Here's one: https://www.shotspotter.com/ There were 8 shots detected in the area and police were dispatched. Almost every news story I've seen on the incident states that there were shots fired at a car. Toledo and the 21 year old suspect were found in the area. Toledo fled with a gun clearly visible in his right hand. Toledo continued to flee down an alley with gun in hand, ignoring continued orders from the police officer to drop the gun. Toledo finally stopped and tossed the gun away covertly, trying to get rid of the evidence, and not trying to display compliance to the cop. Toledo then turned to face the officer and started to raise his hands while doing so. Toledo was then shot by the officer. If you look at the video I posted from the Chicago news station, you'll be able to make your own judgment on the timing.

Since you said you thought it was "fair to say" (emphasis added), I assumed you were talking about my criticism of Beau's presentation. As for "other than the points you listed," I mentioned it twice in the post above yours: Anyway, apology accepted. I am still cranky from being cracked open like a lobster and the format often leads discussions to more nitpicking than you'd see in a normal face to face exchange. Plus, you're a good guy and I like you. No harm, no foul. I think we can all agree that it's a tragedy that a 13 year old got shot by the police, and that it's a very serious matter that needs to be examined closely.

My initial thought was that the 13 year old was given the gun to ditch. News report on the radio said the residue identified Toledo as the shooter. I think the distribution of residue might indicate if the person fired the gun vs. picked it up, otherwise such a statement would be irresponsible. Then again, it's not like our media are paragons of responsibility.

Quit selectively quoting me. Here's the rest of what I said: And I've said that twice. I don't blame the kid for being in the situation, but the fact remains that he was. So we shouldn't act shocked when he dies as a result.

I'm getting annoyed with being misinterpreted today, that is NOT what I said at all. I said that Beau implies the reason the cop had the strobe was because it was a "cool toy." I didn't say a thing about saying the strobe was misused being unfair. The unfair thing is making implications about his motives. We don't know why he had a strobe or why he wasn't trained on its use, so why imply that he just got it because it was a cool toy? He deliberately plants the idea multiple times in the video, and it's a transparent slant.

I can't find a single un-edited video of this shooting, but this clip shows the sequence of events: https://abc7chicago.com/adam-toledo-chicago-shooting-video-footage-eric-stillman/10518893/ Here's the sequence of events: Police officer chasing kid down an alley, continually giving verbal orders to "drop it" and "show me your hands." The kid runs and stops at a hole in the fence. Cop continues ongoing order shouting. Kid has gun in right hand, and is standing angled so that side of his body is facing the fence, not the cop. Kid covertly chucks gun behind fence. Kid turns and brings up hand to raise his hand. Cop fires. Time from the hand going from fence to being shot about .8 second. So, did the officer know that Toledo's hand was empty and that he was turning to raise his hand and not turning to fire? That's the important factor. And to Beau's point: The strobe probably did contribute there. To me, it looks like the cop erred on the side of caution and made the decision to fire as the kid was turning, and I don't see any negligence, unless he was using a non-approved light and that's shown to contribute. This goes back to a simple rule: Don't do stupid things, with stupid people in stupid places. Not that the kid likely had much of a choice. He was forced into his situation and the cop was forced into the situation too.

It's certainly something that should come up in court or during their investigation. I don't like that he implies the officer was just using it because it was a cool gadget rather than neutrally phrasing the question. That's not in any way fair. It's the sort of thing he himself calls out, and shows his bias. The bottom line is that the investigation should determine if the equipment used in the shooting was non-standard, including the light. Then to what degree it contributed.

I'd say that's a big stretch. Gunshot residue testing involves looking for traces of primer components. The whole point is to determine whether someone fired a gun. We're not talking about gunpowder residue from the blast. Did I say anything that contradicts this? Because I didn't. I gave context. My point is, there is no reason to go off the rails about this case at this stage. Let the investigation play out.

Two things come to mind: First, you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes. There was gunshot residue on the poor, innocent babe's hand. He was the shooter. So, the simplest way for him to have avoided becoming the victim of police violence was to not be a violent criminal. On the micro level. On the macro level: It's systemic racism that's lead to the situation where kids like him are forced into gangs at that age and made to do this shit. So, it's still racism. Just not necessarily on the cop's part. Second, the cop did not wait very long for compliance before shooting. I've been in quite a few knockdown drag out fights at work, on camera, over the last few years at my current job. I will say this: Things you think took several minutes usually only took seconds. You're brain races during a fight/flight response, and your sense of time is pretty f-ed up. That could be a factor here. Investigators will have to investigate. Things just aren't as clean or cut and dry in real life sometimes. Listen to the audio from after the shooting, when the officer is trying to save the kid's life. He's clearly torn up about it. He's also a victim of the same cycle that the kid was caught in. The whole situation sucks on this one. Also, I hope the 21 year old accomplice is charged for his death.

Two things: 1. I hadn't read anything regarding the prosecution's findings at that point. b) I used the word "intent" one time. I apologize for beating a dead horse like that.

Uh, that's not twerking. The only objectionable thing I see is that the brunette in the front row is out of time with the rest of the troupe a few too many times.

Or they're more concerned about acting out than the message.

I always thought it was a bad idea to arm panicky people. Seems counterproductive for protestors. You'd think they'd want their message to be heard.

I disagree. If a TASER can stop someone from speeding off in a car thinking police are in hot pursuit, then it's the safer option. Morons recklessly driving while running from police do far more damage each year than TASER activations do. The greater risk is letting someone drive away from the scene in those circumstances.

Charges have been filed: https://apnews.com/article/kim-potter-2nd-degree-manslaughter-shooting-daunte-wright-5eb0d206f2798e29b22c783b7d6b1d8d They landed on second-degree manslaughter. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.205

And as I pointed out, that second one won't pass the awareness requirement cited. Neither am I, but I can remain calm while restraining a single individual with copious back up. That looked like a very routine situation. I've dealt with far hairier shtuff than that guy at work, and didn't get wound up about it. Neither do most of my co-workers. The ones who do get wound up, don't last.

Or she's just not cut out for a job with that stress level. I doubt this will be proven. She thought she was deploying a TASER, not a firearm, so the risk of death she was aware of was practically zero. Absolution is another matter altogether. She done f---ked up and cost a person their life. There won't be absolution for her, likely including from herself. She'll have to live with herself, and overwhelming negative public opinion. Her own family will likely never look at her the same way again. I'd be surprised, however, if she faces any kind of criminal penalty. It was a mistake. There's no intent. No intent, no violent crime.

Stress reactions will be factored in. Before I go into that, let me just preface it by saying this wasn't a situation I'd find stressful enough to elicit such reactions, and not one I'd expect a veteran police officer to find highly stressful. Given that she had an stress reaction, a few things are going to happen: 1. Threat focus: People will tunnel on the threat, and not look at the weapon. In the vast majority of shootings, people instinctively point shoot. 2. Adrenal response: Weight and shape of handle are not going to register. At all. 3. Muscle memory: Most officers practice drawing their sidearm a LOT more than drawing their TASER. I noticed in the video that one of the officers had his sidearm on his strong side, and the TASER in a crossdraw. If that's the standard setup, then the department has them using the SAME HAND to draw BOTH weapons. So, which one is going to get drawn under stress? The one you've practiced most with. I'd be surprised if these points didn't come up in the officer's defense. The real question on my mind, is why do we have a veteran officer so jumpy they have a panic reaction instead of a measured reaction? The department in question is going to be held accountable for that, and probably number 3 above. I expect them to be forced to settle. The officer needs to be removed and encouraged to find a lower-stress career at the minimum. I'm not seeing any criminal charge that I think would stick, but I think she better start checking her union benefits for legal coverage when she gets sued by the family.

The company name certainly turned out to be prophetic in the case of Image.

Utah also has a Threat of Violence misdemeanor offense which would cover this situation. That assault wording is pretty much standard most places in the US whether by wording of the law or how it's enforced. -------------------------------------- Begin second post ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Worked fine for me. You may need a better ad-blocker. 😁

Some of Liefield's early work was attached to good writers like Louise Simonson, so I'm sure that boosted him.

Well, if you applied the edict directly, they'd just be "turtles" because Wolfman and Perez didn't start it.

Laserdisk!

I love some refreshing Lepton Iced Tea!

There he is! The Old Man we all know and . . . know!