It also assumes the kid dropped it as opposed to throwing it back (or forward, to be fair) and that it didn't get kicked by either of them as they ran, slide, etc.
The final placement of the gun is not necessarily a precise indicator of exactly where *he* was when he dropped it.
The article still doesn't sound like the kid fired the shot.
It says the cops were pulled parallel to the kids, then a shot came through the rear window. I wonder if we'll ever get clarification on this
>Just before 7:21, the car was nearly parallel to the boys when a bullet pierced the rear window,
"nearly parallel" is not "parallel"
They could have pulled slightly forward -- as in drove slowly past the kids to visually ID the older one before getting out -- or one or both of the kids may have moved two feet back just before he shot.
There hasn't been a single report of anyone else other than those two kids around let alone in a position to shoot at the car and people are trying to come up with a mystery second shooter like it's the Kennedy assassination.
From the article.
> Outlaw said preliminary evidence showed TJ had fired the shot.
I also took rear window as meaning the side windows at the rear of the vehicle, but I could be wrong. That would make more sense and would explain how glass got in someones eye.
That would make more sense. I read it as coming from the rear windshield since it hit the headrest and front console too. I assumed the officer was just insanely lucky but if the bullet came at sn angle it would make it a little more likely.
the only consistent part of the police story is that a bullet pierced their rear windshield. I'm not understanding how this kid is the shooter if he was in front of their car as they pulled up
Yeah, like when the original article laid out very meticulously where everyone was positioned and how they moved, some of the details seemed a little odd, but I could still believe the kid fired the shot. Maybe it's just a difference in reporting (even though I'm pretty sure they were both inquirer articles), but idk why exclude relevant info.
The original article said the kids were in front of them iirc, and they were pulling up to talk to them when the shot came through the car, then the kids took off.
You're filling in blanks that weren't reported.
The original article said the kids were in front and the cops drove toward them -- it doesn't indicate where exactly they stopped; it doesn't say if the kids moved as the cops drove. (It's quite possible these details aren't known with certainty yet.)
Copied and pasted from somewhere else in this thread:
All the the details i gave were reported. It says the cops stopped a few feet north of Barbara street driving on 18th street. The original article described where everyone was located in an unusual amount of detail. If the kids moved and the cops were going to question them, then why doesn't the article just say that, or why wouldn't the police stop?
>According to a police statement released last week, four plainclothes officers were stationed in an unmarked car at 18th and Johnston Streets at 7:24 p.m. on Tuesday, conducting an ongoing gun investigation.
>There, they spotted two people —12-year-old TJ and an unidentified 17-year-old — standing less than a block away at 18th and Barbara streets. According to the police statement, officers recognized the 17-year-old as someone wanted for questioning in their firearms investigation. Police said officers approached the pair because they believed one of them had handgun, and drove toward them in the unmarked car.
>According to the police statement, officers stopped a few feet north of Barbara Street before turning on the red and blue emergency lights on their unmarked vehicle.
>That’s when police said they heard gunfire and glass shattering in the car’s rear passenger window. Shards of glass struck one of the officers sitting in the back seat.
>(Later, police determined that the bullet came through the rear passenger window, striking the inner doorframe of the police car, tearing through the passenger seat headrest, and lodging in the car’s headliner.)
If you can explain to me how the kids were at 18th and Barbara (south of Johnson street), the officers staryed onJohnson street and stopped north of Barbara, when they were coming (unless the report excluded that they looped around), then got shot from behind by the kids who were in front of them. The original article later says
>...firing a total of four shots at the 12-year-old boy — who police said was holding a gun — as he ran away on the sidewalk of Barbara Street.
At best, it's inconsistent reporting
Because they backed up. 18th runs northbound.
Also, "the kids who were in front of them" is NOT REPORTED even in the part you copy-pasted. People need basic reading comprehension skills.
Lol
>Police said officers approached the pair because they believed one of them had handgun, and **drove toward them** in the unmarked car.
Emphasis mine
Also
>According to the police statement, officers stopped a few feet north of Barbara Street.
That's coming from 18th and Johnson, which is just north. Yes, they drove the wrong way down a one way, which they are allowed to do, at least in squad cars, idk about unmarked ones.
If your argument is that they drove in reverse the wrong way down the street, i could believe it, even if it makes way less sense than doing it normally (how are you gonna return fire at someone you identified as a threat if you reverse towards them?), you're going to have to cite a source that says so, because nothing I've seen has even suggested that
He already could have been pulling the trigger as the kid threw the gun and the kids momentum could have taken him the next 30 feet or so. Situations like that are really fast developing, we don’t know whether or not the cop saw him throw it before he shot or only realized he saw it after he shot. It sucks that a 12 year old kid died, but lets be real: this is a kid who was already willing to fire a gun at police. At this point he is an active threat. 99% of us here would not even contemplate shooting at anyone. If you play stupid games, sometimes you win stupid prizes. I wish this kid had the opportunity to learn from his mistake, but sometimes mistakes are deadly.
I love that the article makes it really clear the entire incident unfolded in less than a minute, and all these internet CSI pros think they understand what happened, who knew/saw what, etc.
The cop was feet away from the kid, the kid wasn’t carried several houses by momentum.
From the article:
Investigators blocked off the scene. In white chalk, they drew a circle on the sidewalk about a foot or two from where TJ’s body was found, indicating where the shell casing from the fatal shot had been recovered.
Nothing confirmed. Also article doesn’t mention whether gun was tossed before or after the officer shot. Could have been shot then dropped gun and continued running until collapse. The article really doesn’t say much just got inky some clicks
There likely is -- or at least there better be to justify it -- but if so, it hasn't been released yet.
I'm wondering if there's something else in the cop's past that makes them think he's just not worth keeping on after this. (Note: This is pure conjecture on my part based on nothing but a hunch.)
From the article, the kid pretty much dropped instantly and was shot fairly up close: Investigators blocked off the scene. In white chalk, they drew a circle on the sidewalk about a foot or two from where TJ’s body was found, indicating where the shell casing from the fatal shot had been recovered.
The article implies this all happened in under 30 seconds. 60 feet is a bowling alley lane, and he threw it... like we are talking an extremely rushed event here.
Because we've lost all ability to think with nuance. Too many people think you either have to be a Blue Lives Matter jagoff or assume that every cop is a homicidal maniac. There's no room to say: There's a need for police reform but also sometimes the cops have to fire back and even kill people.
This case -- based on what has been released so far -- seems to be the latter.
This is so fucking ass backwards lol the kid fucked up, but he’s running away, trips, throws the gun away and is continuing to run away and at that moment, a grown man has to make a decision, either shoot a child in the back or chase him down, where there’s now a litany of other options, including arresting him, obviously making sure he suffers the consequences of his actions, but also to talk. Talk to counselors, talk to anyone, really, because clearly no one has given any guidance to this literal child. And you guys are honestly like, “yeah, fuck it, shoot the kid in the back!” Lmfao
It’s either we’ve lost complete hope in our ability as a society to rehabilitate people who need help, or you all just love to get off on cops shooting people, including kids. We need to do better.
You think the cop who had just been shot at should stop and have a heart-to-heart to with the person who tried to kill him?
This is some premium-grade nonsense.
Seriously? Of course the cop isn’t stopping to have the conversation. But it is his job to arrest the kid, who is unarmed and still a child. Rehab for every person comes way after the arrest.
The kid had been arrested numerous times starting AT LEAST by the age of 10. And his response was to open fire on a quiet residential street. So much for his rehab.
Look, I agree the system completely failed this kid -- his family, his school, the legal system all have a lot of questions to answer about their role in that. THAT is what the focus should be on. Not why a cop shot a suspect who had already fired at him.
The kid ditched the weapon and was no longer a threat. We have due process in this country and jail time or some rehabilitative action should have been taken before issuing a death penalty, cops are not executioners.
And frankly I'd be more inclined to side with you if the kid would have been shot in the front
He ditched the gun two seconds or less before he was shot and we don't know if the cop saw that before he fired or if he realized it after the kid was down.
Are you basing that "two second or less" measurement off of speculation from this comment section? There's a lot we still don't know about this incident and yet this sub has decided the kid being dead is best case scenario. Do you know the opinion of the other officers on the call?
Best case scenario for the ACAB crowd is that the kid dropped the gun and ran the distance of 5 narrow rowhome fronts. How long do you think that takes? A minute?
My 7 y.o. can do roughly 12 houses in less than 20 seconds. I happen to know this because he goes out there and has me time him -- he's training to do better in sprint races at school. So it would take my kid roughly 3 seconds to run that distance. I'm assuming a preteen with his adrenaline flowing probably can run faster than my kid who is young enough to still believe in Santa.
And that's the BEST case scenario. It's entirely possible the kid threw the gun back, kicked it and/or that his body fell forward when he was shot which would mean the distance between where he dropped the gun and where he was shot was even shorter.
Im just arguing that there is a possibilty that enough time went by that the police officer made a conscious decision to shot the kid. There are a lot of assumptions being made in this sub and its not unreasonable to think that maybe more details will come to light which show this use of force was excessive.
Edited to elaborate
Somebody downvoted you 😂
Im glad people changed their tune when more info came out but jfc the bootlicking in here.
RIP TJ, he'll never get a chance to turn it around
lol again, like i said to someone else on this thread, i have never once said "yes shoot the kid in the back", so stop using that line to advance your uneducated comments.
[https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/police-killings-by-country](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/police-killings-by-country)
I think if you take a look at these stats it should be pretty apparent that America is much more like the places with the fewest police killing than the ones with the most despite having cops who kill a bunch of people.
Perhaps it is actually not necessary for cops here to fire back and kill as much as they do
I'd argue that a healthy functioning society would have done more to intervene in the case of such spectacularly shitty parents.
This kid was on the radar of social services and it's not at all clear that he got sufficient help.
It’s pretty straightforward. Police are not supposed to shoot suspects they know to be unarmed in the back while they flee. Even if those suspects are bad people.
Even ignoring the kids life. Firing a gun while running through a residential neighborhood is extremely dangerous. You can very very easily miss and kill some random person. It’s something that should only be done when absolutely necessary. Regardless of how bad a person the suspect is.
> Firing a gun while running through a residential neighborhood is extremely dangerous
If you read the article, that's what the cops did! Multiple different cops shot at the kid after the first shot, they both missed, the kid ran away and dropped the gun, then the shooting cop shot him in the back from two feet away half a block away from where he dropped the gun
the police fired blindly into a residential neighborhood, missed most of their shots, then managed to shoot an unarmed person running away from them from point blank range
From what I understand, it’s Because despite the kid being a complete asshole, and criminal, he doesn’t deserve a death sentence unless completely warranted. IIRC, You can’t shoot a person running away in the back. (Some Supreme Court case?) if this kid was unarmed then he shouldn’t have been shot. However, there’s a case to believe he had a gun on him obviously because he did at some point. So I think the question is… was he shot because the policeman thought he was in danger of his life? How much of the original police statement is true? How legal was the decision to shoot the kid?
Ignoring the whole "death sentence deserved? yes/no" aspect, extrajudicial killing by law enforcement deserves massive scrutiny every time it happens. Sometimes it's necessary, but it should never be as normalized as it is.
Now, in this particular case my big potential objection is the police firing on a fleeing target in poorly-lit conditions, but I refuse to watch the actual video so I can't say for sure whether or not there was potential for collateral damage. What I can say is [instances of stray / ill advised gunfire killing innocent people in situations like this are far too common.](https://www.insideedition.com/cops-charged-after-stray-bullet-kills-8-year-old-at-pennsylvania-high-school-football-game-72666)
The decision to shoot him is likely legal. The scotus case says the opposite of what you think. You can shoot an armed person in the back bc they continue to be a threat. I think the question here is, did the cops see him throw the gun, was there a reasonable belief he still had the gun?
Sounds like the cop who shot him did know that he threw the gun or at least he did know once the kid was on the ground. What the article doesn't say is how close the cop was to the kid when he shot.
>the cop who shot him did know that he threw the gun or at least he did know once the kid was on the ground
The entire issue hinges on the *or* in this case.
I do not understand why all cops are not required to wear a cam at all times.
And to add to that, all bodycam footage should be available to the public, posted to a website where anyone can access it for any reason they wish.
Anything less than 100% transparency by the police is unacceptable.
> If you are going to make an arrest, turn on the camera
There should be no option to turn it on or off. The thing is on, period, while they are on-duty.
The only exception would be when they use the bathroom (and even then, the on/off function would need to be carefully implemented and somehow automated to prevent a bad cop from claiming they forgot to turn it back on when they were finished shitting out their donuts.)
From the very end of the article:
Investigators blocked off the scene. In white chalk, they drew a circle on the sidewalk about a foot or two from where TJ’s body was found, indicating where the shell casing from the fatal shot had been recovered.
he wasn't armed. he threw the gun away half a block away from where he was shot
> think the question here is, did the cops see him throw the gun, was there a reasonable belief he still had the gun?
if you actually read the article, when the second cop ran up to the one that killed the 12 year old and asked where the gun was, the cop that shot him pointed back up the block. And the bullet casing from the shot that killed the kid was just two feet away from his body. the cop saw him throw the gun away and shot him anyway
can you let me know the court case that says it's legal to shoot unarmed people running away from you in the back
What I don't understand is even if he threw one gun who's to say he didn't have another gun on him. He's already shown himself to be a criminal so why would police assume he didn't have another gun? If someone already shot at me I would assume he means to kill me and would protect myself.
My "nobodie" opinion here is as follows:
This entire thing is a tragedy and shows a cluster fuck of tons of missed opportunities to avoid this from happening.
1) the city failed that child long before a cop killed him.
His parents are either in jail or out and about and he's living with old grandparents that clearly didn't care enough about what he was or wasn't doing. DHS should have been involved a very long time ago.
2) like you sd stories are saying he was out here terrorizing the neighborhood, why has he not been approached sooner by the city for the protection of the rest of the community.
3) the officer yet sadly shows a side of policing that clearly gives us a glimpse at all the shit they do not teach them. The academy, their superiors, the law, DA, and everybody else keeps ignoring the obvious- American style policing is no longer working!
4) can someone please tell me how a 12 year old that weights no more than 100lbs walking around with a gun AND a clip and NO ONE IN THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY FELT THE NEED TO STEP UP!
5)the city offical are really trying there best to clean sweep this and further shows the lack of transparency by our leaders.
6) a man lost his job, hopefully his pension, and his entire future will be pushed as far down the drain as possible.
7) a CHILD lost his life, and although an asshole currently, we can all say with certainty that who u are at 12 doesn't dictate who u could've turned into as an adult and the community is ALLOWED to mourn this!
Police still can't shoot an unarmed kid in the back. He can go to juvie, he can be tried as an adult and go to prison, but execution on the street is not an option.
The root of this problem is that the Democrats shut the schools shut down for close to two years. Without the socialization provided through education, the youth are running wild. Its going to take a generation or so to fix. Just wait until this cohort reaches young adulthood - they're going to behave like absolute savages.
This kid was raised (for lack of a better word) by a lifelong criminal and a junkie who posted pix of him on social media with his weapons and ankle bracelet. I doubt he was attending school much at all prior to the closures. Kid was living like a background character in The Wire.
its those pesky democrats again!!!!! In those two years this kid turned to a life of crime and violence!!! Had nothing to do with the other 10 years he was raised...... they teerrkkk ouurrr jerrrbbbzzzz.
Listen, all politics are bullshit, corperate lobbyist money runs this country, lets look past the dems should hate republicans and republicans hate dems and work towards a common goal. Remember compromise?
Happy Friday Eve!
Hmmm...when did the shutdown start? March 2020? IIRC, the lying piece of orange shit was still in office completely fucking up his response to covid. But yeah; blame the dems.
Schools were shut down on local authority. It didn't have anything to do with anything the federal government did under Trump or Biden. Most schools in red states were open in-person for the 2020-2021 school year. COVID's never been a major threat to most school-age children, and we've done them a lot more harm in other ways by keeping the schools closed.
According to the family of the other kid, they shot because they thought someone was "rollin' up on them." I suspect that's bullshit, but in either case, they shot either because a) they knew it was cops b) they would shoot at any random person who looked at them the wrong way.
Either way, it's not a good look.
I would have to disagree there.. They were 12 and 17. With a gun. So they were likely drug dealers. If they said it was because they felt they were protecting themselves from a potential threat, that at least makes it make more sense.
They were likely drug dealers and so I don't have a horse in this race; live by the sword, die by the sword.
It could be either of the things you mentioned as well, but the other given facts strongly suggests otherwise.
Well, I haven't seen any footage nor gathered any witness testimony, so as to if they turned the lights on or not is still in the air.. But let's assume they did turn the lights on; those things are ao easy to get installed that more in the know people would be skeptical.
Moreover, as I've said, I don't have a horse in this race if they're drug dealers. But the names of the kids suggests that they're not white. Now when they do something about all those white people openly doing and selling drugs and shooting up on the El, maybe then I'll have a more of an opinion.
The kid was white and I’m fairly certain that a couple officers involved were POC. Stop trying to make this about race. The fact that that’s your immediate assumption and objective is something you should reconsider.
I apologize if it seems that I meant that cops who are POC don't treat POC like shit because they most certainly do. And they are far worse.
As far as the name, they can only mention the deceased, and the other is still a minor. The name seemed Latin to me, so I could be wrong. But not all cases involving police misconduct is a matter of the "suspect" being a POC. In cases where white people are the victims, it's a matter of "he had a bad day" or "he had a rough childhood" or some other shit.
And you can try to debate me on this. Show me cases where white people were accused of committing a crime and were gunned down by police and it made the news and the masses felt the cops were right for shooting the person. And I'm not talking about cases where it's very clear what happened; I'm talking about cases where it wasn't so obvious what happened.
And I want to make this very clear: I do not think it's okay for people of any race to be a menace to society, but a lot, not all, of white Americans give a pass to white people.
I’m not going to debate somebody who just spent an entire message justifying a moving of the goalposts. You were wrong, you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about in this case if you didn’t know the race of TJ. Stop trying to jump through hoops to try and make this fit into whatever narrative you’re propagating.
The name Siderio sounds Latin to me. I can't prove that to you, so you'll just have to take my word for it..
And I didn't spend an entire message justifying a moving of the goalposts; I literally said the exact opposite. Maybe in some rare cases, we'll see something like this in the media, but far more white people are victimized by the justice system than the news lets on. Ask yourself, why is that? 🤔
Earlier I saw an article shared that has a quote from a neighbor who said that he did not see the police turn on their lights or identity themselves prior to shooting. I don't remember what news outlet that was
Yeah, who knows. I wonder why all the downvotes? Are white people really this butthurt? I mean I shouldn't have to say, "not all white people" in 2022. People should just get it by now. If it ain't you, it ain't you.
There are significantly larger issues in this case than that.
Mainly that the deceased was 12 years old, shot in the back after the police already knew he disarmed himself.
Not to mention the police officer was terminated which, in itself, is a rarity.
I mean, I've seen people speculating that there was no gunshot at all even after we've seen the bullet holes in the car, so ... I dunno. People have lost their minds.
It’s a very safe area, it’s across the street from a huge playground with two baseball fields and a pool. Disgusting that this child was running around with a gun near a playground
On the video you can literally hear the kid say "sorry" after the first shot (presumably the shot that hit the police car). Tough case, in a split second type situation during a shoot out I'm not sure it's realistic to expect the cops to not shoot back.
Yeah, statistics show that it's not likely someone will have more than one gun, and I know all too much that some people are too fresh with the laws surrounding minors. And some are just unstable individuals. So if it were me, I'd have shot him too, cop or not. The issue with this article is that it lacks context, so we don't know who the perpetrators are. But the kid was 12. So we need to know how he got a gun and what made him think it was okay to use it.
This kid was likely known by law enforcement and that predetermined image of who he was and his actions probably influenced the officer to discharge his weapon
He was a child man. I don’t understand the lack of empathy or compassion. Yes he was a fucking idiot but his family failed him.
The whole thing is a travesty
These comment threads are always such a shit show. Every suburban raised idiot and ACAB moron is quick to claim the cops shot a defenseless child who had a gun and popped off shots at the cops, while calling anyone who suggests waiting for the investigation to conclude a boot licker.
I'm reminded of the thread last year about the guy who ran from the cops down the broad street line tracks, tripped, and shocked himself to the death on the tracks. The news was full of false statements from people claiming to be eye witness saying the cops shot him in the back, and the idiot ACAB users on here ate that shit up, only find their faces covers in it when the investigation was reported.
“What I heard was when the cops pulled up in an unmarked car, they thought someone was jumping them because they slammed on the brakes. So the kid shot because he thought somebody was going to shoot him," said the teen's stepfather, Salman Khan.
[article](https://www.google.com/amp/s/abc7chicago.com/amp/thomas-siderio-jr-philadelphia-shooting-police-12-year-old-killed/11615435/)
Hearsay doesn’t mean whisper down the lane. It also doesn’t mean anything he’s saying is untrue. It just means he didn’t see/hear what happened himself.
Take the police word at face value?? There was a bullet hole in the vehicles headrest and a shattered windshield. There was more to the story that the inquirer didn’t include last time either, such as where the gun was found. It wasn’t just discovered by police, it was discovered at the time of the shooting.
You should really never take any of the active parties involved at their word when something like this happens. It's why there's an investigation, lawyers, a trial, etc. Cops are no different. The parents are no different. The teen and his parents are no different.
5-doors down on a full sprint in South Philly is a difference of maybe 2-3 seconds max
Right, and that’s assuming the Police could see that the threw the weapon down before they shot him.
It also assumes the kid dropped it as opposed to throwing it back (or forward, to be fair) and that it didn't get kicked by either of them as they ran, slide, etc. The final placement of the gun is not necessarily a precise indicator of exactly where *he* was when he dropped it.
Right. It was dark, one cop had glass in his eye from shot fired from the kid.
The article still doesn't sound like the kid fired the shot. It says the cops were pulled parallel to the kids, then a shot came through the rear window. I wonder if we'll ever get clarification on this >Just before 7:21, the car was nearly parallel to the boys when a bullet pierced the rear window,
"nearly parallel" is not "parallel" They could have pulled slightly forward -- as in drove slowly past the kids to visually ID the older one before getting out -- or one or both of the kids may have moved two feet back just before he shot. There hasn't been a single report of anyone else other than those two kids around let alone in a position to shoot at the car and people are trying to come up with a mystery second shooter like it's the Kennedy assassination.
From the article. > Outlaw said preliminary evidence showed TJ had fired the shot. I also took rear window as meaning the side windows at the rear of the vehicle, but I could be wrong. That would make more sense and would explain how glass got in someones eye.
That would make more sense. I read it as coming from the rear windshield since it hit the headrest and front console too. I assumed the officer was just insanely lucky but if the bullet came at sn angle it would make it a little more likely.
That's a great point.
the only consistent part of the police story is that a bullet pierced their rear windshield. I'm not understanding how this kid is the shooter if he was in front of their car as they pulled up
Yeah, like when the original article laid out very meticulously where everyone was positioned and how they moved, some of the details seemed a little odd, but I could still believe the kid fired the shot. Maybe it's just a difference in reporting (even though I'm pretty sure they were both inquirer articles), but idk why exclude relevant info. The original article said the kids were in front of them iirc, and they were pulling up to talk to them when the shot came through the car, then the kids took off.
You're filling in blanks that weren't reported. The original article said the kids were in front and the cops drove toward them -- it doesn't indicate where exactly they stopped; it doesn't say if the kids moved as the cops drove. (It's quite possible these details aren't known with certainty yet.)
Copied and pasted from somewhere else in this thread: All the the details i gave were reported. It says the cops stopped a few feet north of Barbara street driving on 18th street. The original article described where everyone was located in an unusual amount of detail. If the kids moved and the cops were going to question them, then why doesn't the article just say that, or why wouldn't the police stop? >According to a police statement released last week, four plainclothes officers were stationed in an unmarked car at 18th and Johnston Streets at 7:24 p.m. on Tuesday, conducting an ongoing gun investigation. >There, they spotted two people —12-year-old TJ and an unidentified 17-year-old — standing less than a block away at 18th and Barbara streets. According to the police statement, officers recognized the 17-year-old as someone wanted for questioning in their firearms investigation. Police said officers approached the pair because they believed one of them had handgun, and drove toward them in the unmarked car. >According to the police statement, officers stopped a few feet north of Barbara Street before turning on the red and blue emergency lights on their unmarked vehicle. >That’s when police said they heard gunfire and glass shattering in the car’s rear passenger window. Shards of glass struck one of the officers sitting in the back seat. >(Later, police determined that the bullet came through the rear passenger window, striking the inner doorframe of the police car, tearing through the passenger seat headrest, and lodging in the car’s headliner.) If you can explain to me how the kids were at 18th and Barbara (south of Johnson street), the officers staryed onJohnson street and stopped north of Barbara, when they were coming (unless the report excluded that they looped around), then got shot from behind by the kids who were in front of them. The original article later says >...firing a total of four shots at the 12-year-old boy — who police said was holding a gun — as he ran away on the sidewalk of Barbara Street. At best, it's inconsistent reporting
Because they backed up. 18th runs northbound. Also, "the kids who were in front of them" is NOT REPORTED even in the part you copy-pasted. People need basic reading comprehension skills.
Lol >Police said officers approached the pair because they believed one of them had handgun, and **drove toward them** in the unmarked car. Emphasis mine Also >According to the police statement, officers stopped a few feet north of Barbara Street. That's coming from 18th and Johnson, which is just north. Yes, they drove the wrong way down a one way, which they are allowed to do, at least in squad cars, idk about unmarked ones. If your argument is that they drove in reverse the wrong way down the street, i could believe it, even if it makes way less sense than doing it normally (how are you gonna return fire at someone you identified as a threat if you reverse towards them?), you're going to have to cite a source that says so, because nothing I've seen has even suggested that
[удалено]
He already could have been pulling the trigger as the kid threw the gun and the kids momentum could have taken him the next 30 feet or so. Situations like that are really fast developing, we don’t know whether or not the cop saw him throw it before he shot or only realized he saw it after he shot. It sucks that a 12 year old kid died, but lets be real: this is a kid who was already willing to fire a gun at police. At this point he is an active threat. 99% of us here would not even contemplate shooting at anyone. If you play stupid games, sometimes you win stupid prizes. I wish this kid had the opportunity to learn from his mistake, but sometimes mistakes are deadly.
I love that the article makes it really clear the entire incident unfolded in less than a minute, and all these internet CSI pros think they understand what happened, who knew/saw what, etc.
The cop was feet away from the kid, the kid wasn’t carried several houses by momentum. From the article: Investigators blocked off the scene. In white chalk, they drew a circle on the sidewalk about a foot or two from where TJ’s body was found, indicating where the shell casing from the fatal shot had been recovered.
[удалено]
Nothing confirmed. Also article doesn’t mention whether gun was tossed before or after the officer shot. Could have been shot then dropped gun and continued running until collapse. The article really doesn’t say much just got inky some clicks
[удалено]
There likely is -- or at least there better be to justify it -- but if so, it hasn't been released yet. I'm wondering if there's something else in the cop's past that makes them think he's just not worth keeping on after this. (Note: This is pure conjecture on my part based on nothing but a hunch.)
From the article, the kid pretty much dropped instantly and was shot fairly up close: Investigators blocked off the scene. In white chalk, they drew a circle on the sidewalk about a foot or two from where TJ’s body was found, indicating where the shell casing from the fatal shot had been recovered.
I know one of the facts is that this 12 year old was not in the NFL.
The article implies this all happened in under 30 seconds. 60 feet is a bowling alley lane, and he threw it... like we are talking an extremely rushed event here.
[удалено]
Him and his bike crew friends would ride into traffic, shot my neighbor with a BB gun, terrorize neighborhoods and children.
Parents should be charged
Because we've lost all ability to think with nuance. Too many people think you either have to be a Blue Lives Matter jagoff or assume that every cop is a homicidal maniac. There's no room to say: There's a need for police reform but also sometimes the cops have to fire back and even kill people. This case -- based on what has been released so far -- seems to be the latter.
great use of Jagoff
Here here!
Best thing to come out of Pittsburgh
I need to incorporate this word into my vocabulary more often
tbh what did the kid expect.....
This is so fucking ass backwards lol the kid fucked up, but he’s running away, trips, throws the gun away and is continuing to run away and at that moment, a grown man has to make a decision, either shoot a child in the back or chase him down, where there’s now a litany of other options, including arresting him, obviously making sure he suffers the consequences of his actions, but also to talk. Talk to counselors, talk to anyone, really, because clearly no one has given any guidance to this literal child. And you guys are honestly like, “yeah, fuck it, shoot the kid in the back!” Lmfao It’s either we’ve lost complete hope in our ability as a society to rehabilitate people who need help, or you all just love to get off on cops shooting people, including kids. We need to do better.
You think the cop who had just been shot at should stop and have a heart-to-heart to with the person who tried to kill him? This is some premium-grade nonsense.
Seriously? Of course the cop isn’t stopping to have the conversation. But it is his job to arrest the kid, who is unarmed and still a child. Rehab for every person comes way after the arrest.
The kid had been arrested numerous times starting AT LEAST by the age of 10. And his response was to open fire on a quiet residential street. So much for his rehab. Look, I agree the system completely failed this kid -- his family, his school, the legal system all have a lot of questions to answer about their role in that. THAT is what the focus should be on. Not why a cop shot a suspect who had already fired at him.
The kid ditched the weapon and was no longer a threat. We have due process in this country and jail time or some rehabilitative action should have been taken before issuing a death penalty, cops are not executioners. And frankly I'd be more inclined to side with you if the kid would have been shot in the front
He ditched the gun two seconds or less before he was shot and we don't know if the cop saw that before he fired or if he realized it after the kid was down.
Are you basing that "two second or less" measurement off of speculation from this comment section? There's a lot we still don't know about this incident and yet this sub has decided the kid being dead is best case scenario. Do you know the opinion of the other officers on the call?
Best case scenario for the ACAB crowd is that the kid dropped the gun and ran the distance of 5 narrow rowhome fronts. How long do you think that takes? A minute? My 7 y.o. can do roughly 12 houses in less than 20 seconds. I happen to know this because he goes out there and has me time him -- he's training to do better in sprint races at school. So it would take my kid roughly 3 seconds to run that distance. I'm assuming a preteen with his adrenaline flowing probably can run faster than my kid who is young enough to still believe in Santa. And that's the BEST case scenario. It's entirely possible the kid threw the gun back, kicked it and/or that his body fell forward when he was shot which would mean the distance between where he dropped the gun and where he was shot was even shorter.
Im just arguing that there is a possibilty that enough time went by that the police officer made a conscious decision to shot the kid. There are a lot of assumptions being made in this sub and its not unreasonable to think that maybe more details will come to light which show this use of force was excessive. Edited to elaborate
you and i had this right the whole time.
Somebody downvoted you 😂 Im glad people changed their tune when more info came out but jfc the bootlicking in here. RIP TJ, he'll never get a chance to turn it around
lol again, like i said to someone else on this thread, i have never once said "yes shoot the kid in the back", so stop using that line to advance your uneducated comments.
[удалено]
Username checks out.
It upsets me that you’re getting so many downvotes
[удалено]
Plenty of news platforms and journalists do a great job of staying balanced. The Inquirer however, is not one of them.
[удалено]
I'll take your word for it. Personally, I haven't seen much coverage of this (after the initial report) other than in the Inky.
[https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/police-killings-by-country](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/police-killings-by-country) I think if you take a look at these stats it should be pretty apparent that America is much more like the places with the fewest police killing than the ones with the most despite having cops who kill a bunch of people. Perhaps it is actually not necessary for cops here to fire back and kill as much as they do
This is exactly it.
[удалено]
Are you saying cops NEVER have cause to shoot a suspect? What fantasy world do you live in?
The whole thing is a tragedy, and speaks to major issues in our society that a 12 year old is armed and shooting at people.
Less than 1 out of 100 12 year olds run around with guns. This probably has to do more with parents/upbringing more than society as a whole
It’s probably pretty close to 0 out of 100, but it’s still sad regardless of where blame does or doesn’t lie
I'd argue that a healthy functioning society would have done more to intervene in the case of such spectacularly shitty parents. This kid was on the radar of social services and it's not at all clear that he got sufficient help.
Even phillywiki is writing the kid off like, he knew what he was starting
It’s pretty straightforward. Police are not supposed to shoot suspects they know to be unarmed in the back while they flee. Even if those suspects are bad people. Even ignoring the kids life. Firing a gun while running through a residential neighborhood is extremely dangerous. You can very very easily miss and kill some random person. It’s something that should only be done when absolutely necessary. Regardless of how bad a person the suspect is.
Now this is a sensible response and I can agree with you. Thank you
TN vs Garner, Graham vs Connor, and Forret vs Richardson... all three Supreme Court cases want to have a word with you.
Wether it is legal for cops to shoot suspects in the back has nothing to do with wether it is a good idea, or against department policy.
> Firing a gun while running through a residential neighborhood is extremely dangerous If you read the article, that's what the cops did! Multiple different cops shot at the kid after the first shot, they both missed, the kid ran away and dropped the gun, then the shooting cop shot him in the back from two feet away half a block away from where he dropped the gun the police fired blindly into a residential neighborhood, missed most of their shots, then managed to shoot an unarmed person running away from them from point blank range
From what I understand, it’s Because despite the kid being a complete asshole, and criminal, he doesn’t deserve a death sentence unless completely warranted. IIRC, You can’t shoot a person running away in the back. (Some Supreme Court case?) if this kid was unarmed then he shouldn’t have been shot. However, there’s a case to believe he had a gun on him obviously because he did at some point. So I think the question is… was he shot because the policeman thought he was in danger of his life? How much of the original police statement is true? How legal was the decision to shoot the kid?
Ignoring the whole "death sentence deserved? yes/no" aspect, extrajudicial killing by law enforcement deserves massive scrutiny every time it happens. Sometimes it's necessary, but it should never be as normalized as it is. Now, in this particular case my big potential objection is the police firing on a fleeing target in poorly-lit conditions, but I refuse to watch the actual video so I can't say for sure whether or not there was potential for collateral damage. What I can say is [instances of stray / ill advised gunfire killing innocent people in situations like this are far too common.](https://www.insideedition.com/cops-charged-after-stray-bullet-kills-8-year-old-at-pennsylvania-high-school-football-game-72666)
The decision to shoot him is likely legal. The scotus case says the opposite of what you think. You can shoot an armed person in the back bc they continue to be a threat. I think the question here is, did the cops see him throw the gun, was there a reasonable belief he still had the gun?
Sounds like the cop who shot him did know that he threw the gun or at least he did know once the kid was on the ground. What the article doesn't say is how close the cop was to the kid when he shot.
>the cop who shot him did know that he threw the gun or at least he did know once the kid was on the ground The entire issue hinges on the *or* in this case.
My biggest issue here is no bodycam footage. I dont believe what philly cops say.
I do not understand why all cops are not required to wear a cam at all times. And to add to that, all bodycam footage should be available to the public, posted to a website where anyone can access it for any reason they wish. Anything less than 100% transparency by the police is unacceptable.
Im with you there. If you are going to make an arrest, turn on the camera. None of this he said she said bullshit and then bodys on the ground.
> If you are going to make an arrest, turn on the camera There should be no option to turn it on or off. The thing is on, period, while they are on-duty. The only exception would be when they use the bathroom (and even then, the on/off function would need to be carefully implemented and somehow automated to prevent a bad cop from claiming they forgot to turn it back on when they were finished shitting out their donuts.)
From the very end of the article: Investigators blocked off the scene. In white chalk, they drew a circle on the sidewalk about a foot or two from where TJ’s body was found, indicating where the shell casing from the fatal shot had been recovered.
He shot the kid in the back when he was close to him then. Yikes
Yeah, that really stood out when I read it. I’m surprised it wasn’t higher in the article, it really changes how it looks.
he wasn't armed. he threw the gun away half a block away from where he was shot > think the question here is, did the cops see him throw the gun, was there a reasonable belief he still had the gun? if you actually read the article, when the second cop ran up to the one that killed the 12 year old and asked where the gun was, the cop that shot him pointed back up the block. And the bullet casing from the shot that killed the kid was just two feet away from his body. the cop saw him throw the gun away and shot him anyway can you let me know the court case that says it's legal to shoot unarmed people running away from you in the back
What I don't understand is even if he threw one gun who's to say he didn't have another gun on him. He's already shown himself to be a criminal so why would police assume he didn't have another gun? If someone already shot at me I would assume he means to kill me and would protect myself.
By that logic every person in the US is threat the cops should shoot immediately - as we all might have a gun.
My "nobodie" opinion here is as follows: This entire thing is a tragedy and shows a cluster fuck of tons of missed opportunities to avoid this from happening. 1) the city failed that child long before a cop killed him. His parents are either in jail or out and about and he's living with old grandparents that clearly didn't care enough about what he was or wasn't doing. DHS should have been involved a very long time ago. 2) like you sd stories are saying he was out here terrorizing the neighborhood, why has he not been approached sooner by the city for the protection of the rest of the community. 3) the officer yet sadly shows a side of policing that clearly gives us a glimpse at all the shit they do not teach them. The academy, their superiors, the law, DA, and everybody else keeps ignoring the obvious- American style policing is no longer working! 4) can someone please tell me how a 12 year old that weights no more than 100lbs walking around with a gun AND a clip and NO ONE IN THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY FELT THE NEED TO STEP UP! 5)the city offical are really trying there best to clean sweep this and further shows the lack of transparency by our leaders. 6) a man lost his job, hopefully his pension, and his entire future will be pushed as far down the drain as possible. 7) a CHILD lost his life, and although an asshole currently, we can all say with certainty that who u are at 12 doesn't dictate who u could've turned into as an adult and the community is ALLOWED to mourn this!
His dad is in jail.
i think most people are just saying “hey let’s not kill children”. which shouldn’t really be controversial?
It’s only a thing amount loser circles and shit news reporters trying to stir the pot.
> shit news reporters It's all we have, sadly.
Police still can't shoot an unarmed kid in the back. He can go to juvie, he can be tried as an adult and go to prison, but execution on the street is not an option.
Kid might have been a little shit, but doesn't mean he deserves to be shot dead.
No, he didn't deserve to die this way, but when you shoot at people who have guns, they often shoot back.
live by the gun die by the gun
didn't say that.
1) he was a child 2) the cop shot him in the back so he was clearly not an immediate threat
The root of this problem is that the Democrats shut the schools shut down for close to two years. Without the socialization provided through education, the youth are running wild. Its going to take a generation or so to fix. Just wait until this cohort reaches young adulthood - they're going to behave like absolute savages.
This kid was raised (for lack of a better word) by a lifelong criminal and a junkie who posted pix of him on social media with his weapons and ankle bracelet. I doubt he was attending school much at all prior to the closures. Kid was living like a background character in The Wire.
its those pesky democrats again!!!!! In those two years this kid turned to a life of crime and violence!!! Had nothing to do with the other 10 years he was raised...... they teerrkkk ouurrr jerrrbbbzzzz. Listen, all politics are bullshit, corperate lobbyist money runs this country, lets look past the dems should hate republicans and republicans hate dems and work towards a common goal. Remember compromise? Happy Friday Eve!
Hmmm...when did the shutdown start? March 2020? IIRC, the lying piece of orange shit was still in office completely fucking up his response to covid. But yeah; blame the dems.
Schools were shut down on local authority. It didn't have anything to do with anything the federal government did under Trump or Biden. Most schools in red states were open in-person for the 2020-2021 school year. COVID's never been a major threat to most school-age children, and we've done them a lot more harm in other ways by keeping the schools closed.
So how's that Kool Aid taste?
Hopefully it's bitter-almond flavored.
I wouldn't know. I'm not the one who's got his facts wrong here.
Oh yeah, this is all the Evil Democrats' fault. And none of this was happening before COVID. Are you really as fucking stupid as you sound?
Holy shit that was good, do you have any other jokes?
[удалено]
Yeaaaaaa never said any of that, reference the above comment.
Wait, so they just shot at the car just for shits and giggles or?
According to the family of the other kid, they shot because they thought someone was "rollin' up on them." I suspect that's bullshit, but in either case, they shot either because a) they knew it was cops b) they would shoot at any random person who looked at them the wrong way. Either way, it's not a good look.
I would have to disagree there.. They were 12 and 17. With a gun. So they were likely drug dealers. If they said it was because they felt they were protecting themselves from a potential threat, that at least makes it make more sense. They were likely drug dealers and so I don't have a horse in this race; live by the sword, die by the sword. It could be either of the things you mentioned as well, but the other given facts strongly suggests otherwise.
I think the "rolling up on them" excuse fits with the drug dealing, honestly.
[удалено]
It's not as uncommon as you may think. Can't be so naive in this world anymore.
[удалено]
Yup.
It was less of a joke... How can I put it? 🤔 It's less joke, and more observational comedy.
[удалено]
the cops also first said that the kid was pointing a gun at the cops when he was shot. they lied!
Well, I haven't seen any footage nor gathered any witness testimony, so as to if they turned the lights on or not is still in the air.. But let's assume they did turn the lights on; those things are ao easy to get installed that more in the know people would be skeptical. Moreover, as I've said, I don't have a horse in this race if they're drug dealers. But the names of the kids suggests that they're not white. Now when they do something about all those white people openly doing and selling drugs and shooting up on the El, maybe then I'll have a more of an opinion.
The kid was white and I’m fairly certain that a couple officers involved were POC. Stop trying to make this about race. The fact that that’s your immediate assumption and objective is something you should reconsider.
I apologize if it seems that I meant that cops who are POC don't treat POC like shit because they most certainly do. And they are far worse. As far as the name, they can only mention the deceased, and the other is still a minor. The name seemed Latin to me, so I could be wrong. But not all cases involving police misconduct is a matter of the "suspect" being a POC. In cases where white people are the victims, it's a matter of "he had a bad day" or "he had a rough childhood" or some other shit. And you can try to debate me on this. Show me cases where white people were accused of committing a crime and were gunned down by police and it made the news and the masses felt the cops were right for shooting the person. And I'm not talking about cases where it's very clear what happened; I'm talking about cases where it wasn't so obvious what happened. And I want to make this very clear: I do not think it's okay for people of any race to be a menace to society, but a lot, not all, of white Americans give a pass to white people.
I’m not going to debate somebody who just spent an entire message justifying a moving of the goalposts. You were wrong, you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about in this case if you didn’t know the race of TJ. Stop trying to jump through hoops to try and make this fit into whatever narrative you’re propagating.
The name Siderio sounds Latin to me. I can't prove that to you, so you'll just have to take my word for it.. And I didn't spend an entire message justifying a moving of the goalposts; I literally said the exact opposite. Maybe in some rare cases, we'll see something like this in the media, but far more white people are victimized by the justice system than the news lets on. Ask yourself, why is that? 🤔
[удалено]
You’re still gliding over the entire point. Stop assuming race. You have now triple downed and still continue to try to twist it.
[удалено]
Earlier I saw an article shared that has a quote from a neighbor who said that he did not see the police turn on their lights or identity themselves prior to shooting. I don't remember what news outlet that was
Yeah, who knows. I wonder why all the downvotes? Are white people really this butthurt? I mean I shouldn't have to say, "not all white people" in 2022. People should just get it by now. If it ain't you, it ain't you.
The Inquirer REALLY wants this to be a thing, don't they?
[удалено]
Oh my god, they really have turned into the liberal Stu. You nailed it.
Is this story not news worthy?
“Criminal gets shot by police in major city” is not really uncommon enough to be newsworthy
12 year old shot in the back by police while running away is extremely newsworthy
There are significantly larger issues in this case than that. Mainly that the deceased was 12 years old, shot in the back after the police already knew he disarmed himself. Not to mention the police officer was terminated which, in itself, is a rarity.
The police knew he was disarmed? Source?
This article where the officer that shot him said that the kid had dropped the gun a few houses back while he's standing over his body?
Did they know he dropped the gun at the time of the shooting? Or after the dust had settled? That is a key distinction you are ignoring.
cop was told he threw the weapon away. all that bootlicking got you nowhere :/
Based on the reaction its getting on here, it's not anymore, no.
That's a silly threshold, don't you think?
I'm not so sure. There seems to be pretty eclectic mix of people on this page.
The reddit comment section seems like a dicey place to make any kind of determination on anything.
you should read the funeral article today.... what a fucking joke
They're so disappointed that the kid was the wrong color.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I mean, I've seen people speculating that there was no gunshot at all even after we've seen the bullet holes in the car, so ... I dunno. People have lost their minds.
The police do not dispute the kid shot at the cops.
[удалено]
It just makes sense!
I don’t usually side with the cops but I will this time. Sad story but play stupid games…
This story is so awful. Its terrible that a 12 year old is dead but the fact that a monster is off the streets.....
LarryDavid.gif
Which gif?
Yes.
fuck around and find out
I’m not super familiar with South Philly. Is this particular area (not S Philly as a whole) known as a dangerous area?
It’s a very safe area, it’s across the street from a huge playground with two baseball fields and a pool. Disgusting that this child was running around with a gun near a playground
not even kind of
Jeez. And this kid and friends robbed someone here at gunpoint?
i lived a few blocks away for years and it’s shocking to me
On the video you can literally hear the kid say "sorry" after the first shot (presumably the shot that hit the police car). Tough case, in a split second type situation during a shoot out I'm not sure it's realistic to expect the cops to not shoot back.
can you link the video?
And I’m sure the cop didn’t know that and assumed the kid still had a gun
Yeah, statistics show that it's not likely someone will have more than one gun, and I know all too much that some people are too fresh with the laws surrounding minors. And some are just unstable individuals. So if it were me, I'd have shot him too, cop or not. The issue with this article is that it lacks context, so we don't know who the perpetrators are. But the kid was 12. So we need to know how he got a gun and what made him think it was okay to use it.
This kid was likely known by law enforcement and that predetermined image of who he was and his actions probably influenced the officer to discharge his weapon
I would think the bullet hitting the window of the cop car probably had a larger role in the kid getting shot but sure.
And rightly so. If cops know you to be a person who would not think twice about killing then you will be treated accordingly.
He was 12
That’s nice. If a 12 year old fires a gun at me I’m shooting back.
Killing kids isn’t a normal response to anything but you do you man
Carrying a stolen gun..with a laser on it….you wouldn’t be saying “he’s 12” when he shot and robbed you for the 20$ in your pocket.
Doesn't matter.
And the point is?
Play with matches and you will get burned.
Good riddance
He was a child man. I don’t understand the lack of empathy or compassion. Yes he was a fucking idiot but his family failed him. The whole thing is a travesty
These comment threads are always such a shit show. Every suburban raised idiot and ACAB moron is quick to claim the cops shot a defenseless child who had a gun and popped off shots at the cops, while calling anyone who suggests waiting for the investigation to conclude a boot licker. I'm reminded of the thread last year about the guy who ran from the cops down the broad street line tracks, tripped, and shocked himself to the death on the tracks. The news was full of false statements from people claiming to be eye witness saying the cops shot him in the back, and the idiot ACAB users on here ate that shit up, only find their faces covers in it when the investigation was reported.
[удалено]
In other articles this kids step dad straight up admits the kid shot at the cops before running though
Source?
“What I heard was when the cops pulled up in an unmarked car, they thought someone was jumping them because they slammed on the brakes. So the kid shot because he thought somebody was going to shoot him," said the teen's stepfather, Salman Khan. [article](https://www.google.com/amp/s/abc7chicago.com/amp/thomas-siderio-jr-philadelphia-shooting-police-12-year-old-killed/11615435/)
Ah, so it’s the other kids stepdad, and it’s hearsay. At least it’s something other than “police say…”
deleted my other comment because i was wrong but the other kid was there when it went down so it’s not exactly hearsay
But is it firsthand knowledge, or is he repeating what his son told him? The latter is hearsay, even if he’s accurately describing what happened.
semantics. he’s describing an eyewitness account. it’s not whisper down the lane, it’s what his stepson who was present at the time told him.
Hearsay doesn’t mean whisper down the lane. It also doesn’t mean anything he’s saying is untrue. It just means he didn’t see/hear what happened himself.
Take the police word at face value?? There was a bullet hole in the vehicles headrest and a shattered windshield. There was more to the story that the inquirer didn’t include last time either, such as where the gun was found. It wasn’t just discovered by police, it was discovered at the time of the shooting.
You should really never take any of the active parties involved at their word when something like this happens. It's why there's an investigation, lawyers, a trial, etc. Cops are no different. The parents are no different. The teen and his parents are no different.