H10

I understand your point, to us it is clear the bus is empty because we SAW everyone runoff. The cops didn't see that, they literally just see the driver runoff and a man in the door with a knife. A reasonable person is thinking there are probably other people on this bus, since the driver just ran off and the backdoors are closed, odds are not everyone got off before the driver. It isn't revisionist. The officer cannot take his eyes of the knifeman because he could close the distance in 3 big steps. If Yatm is dead then person hiding in the back on the floor bleeding out can get medical attention faster or not get stabbed to death. No, if you have a hostage, and a suspect who you can reasonably kill without hitting the hostage you kill that suspect before he kills the hostage. Again imagine the outrage, useless cops show up to knife wielding knifeman, let him stab 3 people to death hiding on floor waiting for cops to save them. We've already seen in other cities where cops wait and let the suspect on the bus kill the passengers.

De-escalation is certainly A option. But it is not the guideline. You have negotiators typically in a situation where shooting the suspect is not typically practical because he might be hiding behind a hostage for instance. Also SWAT teams are far more highly trained than regular street cops. For one they have near full body armour, and a huge swat shield made of metal or bulletproof glass where they can literally just knock a suspect over. They have way more training, way more experience, way more protection and are experts in this type of confrontation. Usually those situations are not on a bus, and the suspect is 16 feet away charging towards an officer who has his gun drawn who warns him he will shoot. In most SWAT scenarios, if the suspect charged with a weapon, he'd likely end up just as dead. Cops are paid well, just not well enough to go home with a knife in their neck. Our guy is a Toronto cop, not RCMP, different guide line. Our guys in Toronto are high on multiple drugs, they will kill you before you get off 5 single shots. He had the legal right to kill Yatim, it is withing the use of force guideline. And how can you see where your shot goes in the middle of the night on a dark streetcar? Nope, police have loser ROE, I remember after 2008 we couldn't shoot on until we were basically fired on or had a gun pointed at us. I couldn't shoot a guy with a knife unless he was an inch from killing me. I didn't get to shoot anyone unarmed in the back like Canadian cops can, and you know it. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/inquest-hears-rcmp-shot-former-canadian-soldier-twice-in-the-back

Zero. There is a rage and anger in him and an apparently causal use of violence. He seems like a person who will beat his wife or kid, he is not in control of the situation. He is out of control.

In a hostaage situation that is always the case, come to think of it, in any scenario where an officer draws his gun and discharges, there is risk of injury to a hostage. When a man held a woman hostage at knife point in toronto and was shot in the back of the head by a cop, there was a risk the bullet hit the hostage and risk the bullet miss the mark. There is always a risk. To pretend you can discharge a gun in a city like Toronto, with hundreds of people per square kilometer and not risk danger to the public is pure fantasy.

Yes, this was the argument given by the lawyer at trial for Forcillo. He feared there was someone hiding or stabbed on the bus, notice one of the officers ran through the back door afterwards, they thought others were on the streetcar. Imagine if someone was dying on the floor, the cop waited and Yatim finished them off. Then it would well why didn't the officers shoot him when they had the chance, and didn't the officers know someone would be on a streetcar. When the officers arrive on the scene, all they see is a bus driver run off the bus, and a young man with his penis hanging out his pants and a knife in his hand who is agitated. Forcillo can be heard saying get the tazer.

Ok smart mouth, can you see if someone is hiding on the floor in the back of the street car? Lets see how big of a liar you are? You see the man standing in the first window. You cannot even see below his stomach area. If someone was ducking down or lying on the floor, you would not be able to see them. So stop with the non-sense, cops cannot see through metal.

Well Mulclair should resign for losing so bad after he was suppose to win. However, since Trudeau will ruin the country in one term, odds are Mulclair will look real good in the next election, while people still remember how bad Harper screwed up.

In this case yes. Its no different than when you have a hostage situation. There is a chance you shoot the hostage by accident, but you can't let the guy with the knife taking the streetcar or bus hostage, you can't let him kill with impunity. Its a price you may pay though.

Your comment is plain ridiculous. You think policeman can see through the metal panels of a street car to see if someone was dying on the floor or hiding from yatim? You cannot see the floor of a street car from outside it.

You cannot see someone hiding on the floor through the glass windows of a 10 foot bus. Stop being ridiculous. It was not unreasonable for a cop to believe someone could be hiding on the floor from the psychotic knife wielding man. This is a public bus.

I think this officer is completely out of control. i don't think he could control his emotions and will likely kill someone. So he has most likely made the decision to avoid white schools and white areas recognizing he will come under more scrutiny. What the idiot didn't realize that was that Colombia, SC has a huge politically active af.am population including school board adminstrators and mayor which is why he got fired.

To be fair her father died in Yugoslavia fighting for your freedom and her mother died of cancer. Her grandmother recently died and she was apparently being fostered.

I saw alot of rage in that cop, he should be in jail before he murders someone. Imagine what he does to his girlfriend or what he will do to his daughter when she becomes a defiant teen. This guy is trouble, he has been sued three times before and there is a pattern emerging with him. It will just keep going up and up until he murders someone.

Actually you are the one trolling as I did not ask a single question in the response you quoted.

To be negligent you have to fail to do something you were suppose to. To me it look like they did what they should have. Forcillo wasn't the only one with his gun out, others perceived a deadly threat. Even civilly you have to prove more likely than not the officer did bad. All the officer has to do is pull out the guideline, show where it says if person pulls knife you can use deadly force and the case would be dismissed on summary judgment it would never make it to trial.

Did the cop have a video inside of the bus before the shooting? Stop being silly. He thought people were hiding on the floor who could not be seen being held hostage. The last thing he wanted to do was for the yatim to go stab someone on the floor where shooting him would be impossible without harming a hostage. He would never had the opportunity to shoot anyone if yatim didn't pull a knife, yatim is responsible for his own death. You are being anti-cop.

You are missing the ball, go and look above at the chart. Do you see de-escalation anywhere on there?Cops are not trained to de-escalate, the are trained to escalate with overwhelming force. This is the guideline they follow. If he tried to de-escalate and someone died, he'd be fired and sued for not following the guidelines from the province. I was also in Afghanistan and cops actually have alot more leeway in shooting than we do. Cops were allowed to kill when they perceive a deadly threat after 2008 I recall a shift. In 2003 you could pretty much shoot anyone you want and if you were question just say he had a gun, even if he didn't have one. By 2008 you had to be fired on first or see the gun pointed at you and they were checking for guns and if there was a pattern you'd see jail time. To me it is irrelevent legally if he shot once or 10 times. Once he perceived a deadly threat which the use of force guidelines points out he has the right to shoot to kill. And he did what he was told to do by the state.

There are patterns of cyclical crime that are not clearly explained by any sociological factors, but it seems to occur in roughly 7 year patterns. There are so many other factors like the bad economy (which is linked to higher crime in general as this is when s--- hits the fan, couples divorce, husband kills wife, people sell drugs who didn't use and get caught up in wrong crowd and kill or be killed or commit crimes). Throw on all the stand your ground laws that have been passed in the last 5-10 years, in America its not even called stand your ground it is literally called the shoot first law, because as long as you shoot first and kill you stand a good chance of getting away with murder if no witnesses can be found, the end of clinton's federal assault weapon's ban also had a big effect. There is no real evidence that cops are not confronting bad guys because they fear becoming youtube stars and there is no real evidence that such a fear would cause an increase in crime. This is at best a theory, you need peer reviewed studies to say this is true or real there are so many other factors that can cause an increase in murder. For instance, this year 6,600 prisoners were released from prison because the federal government found prisons were 30% overcrowded. People were getting out of jail early, that is 6,600 convicted FELONS. That alone is enough to account for every single extra crime. Body cameras are a goodt thing, cops aren't suppose to apply the law. They are suppose to uphold, there job is to investigate crimes, gather evidence, give it to the prosecutor who tries to determine if there is a reasonable chance of conviction and if the person is guilty, then bring that to a judge or jury who makes the determination if the person is guilty and then apply the appropriate law to reach a just decision. It seems some people want cops to be judge jury and executioners. I suspect there is a Ferguson effect but it isn't the way that the FBI director suggest. I think alot of people look at what Darren Wilson did or George Zimmerman did and say I can shoot someone, say they attacked me, shoot them dead and claim it was self defense. Something like that will definitely cause an increase in murder because now there is a widespread perception that individuals won't be held responsible criminally for murdering. In fact there was an fbi agent shortly after Zimmerman acquital who did something very similar to his wife and was found not guilty.

The cop didn't know he was alone. The cop was likely thinking this guy has hostages, other people can be hiding on the floor of the bus and this guy was warned not to come forward or I would shoot him. The guy ignored the officer commands, ignored the officers threats despite the officer pointing a gun saying don't come forward and walked in his direction a mere 16 feet away with a deadly weapon. The use of force guidelines say cops can shoot suspects with deadly weapons. No the police handbook and use of force guideline actually tell cops to ESCALATE a situation. They say if someone physically resist arrest then you can beat them up to compliance, if someone balls up their fist, or brandish a knife you can shoot them. The cop job is to arrest the suspect. Not deescalate. Look at the guideline, nowhere does it say deescalate. This is how they are trained. Guy has a knife, you shot him. I support my local police.

He did. A bunch of other cops murdered people in far worse circumstances and WERE NOT CHARGED. You have failed to explain why. Who cares if Toronto is full of Italians, it just takes one prejudice prosecutor, one prejudice person, when I was lecturing at york university someone sprayed wops on the doors. And there was alot of anti-italian sentiment from ww2 and after and onwards from white on italian. They tazed Yatim while he was dead, interestingly enough, the white officer who tazed the dead or dying man was not charged with anything by the prosecutor. And the cops likely knew they were on film, forcillo is heard on tape saying get the tazer (regular toronto cops don't have guns, only the bosses have tazers). I don't see where murder happens here. You have a knife weilding suspect warned not to approach and he approaches, so how is it wrong. I feel if a man with a knife approached me I should be allowed to shoot him too.

no. officers killed unarmed people who "appeared" aggressive in their mind and had no weapon, I am not quiet sure why he is being charged, the police handbook on escalation of force certainly permits the use of deadly force against a knife weilding suspect. The fact that other officers pulled their guns after 3 shots shows other officers thought he was a threat with a knife too, and the fact he was tased by another officer shows that again, they perceived this guy wielding a knife although shot as a deadly threat. I really have no clue what the prosecutor was thinking.

why

I do question why Forcillo was charged. Is it bias against Italians from the irish or british prosecutors? Far more egregious cases of police murder do not get charged. Forcillo was charged due to his sisters political power and organized protest.

What is he guilty of? He was already dead by the 3rd shot through the heart. He wasn't going to survive anyhow. Frankly, the cop just put him out of his misery of suffering a heart attack and staying alive for 3-5 minutes in extreme pain.

I don't even see how Forcillo is being charged to be honest. Not that I believe he shouldn't be charged or that he shouldn't be on trial. I just don't see how they let off 20 other cops who seemingly did much worse or equally worse and were never even charged. You have cases of unarmed men being shot dead by police. Yatim was armed, and therefore substantially more dangerous. For instance, Jermaine Carby was shot dead unarmed by peel police. The SIU cleared the officers despite the fact that the witnesses all contradict officer testimony and that the shooting officer refused to turn over the notes and no knife was found at the scene. Based on that, I'd have to say Forcillo should be found not guilty. Throw on the fact that the defense lawyer is now spinning it as Forcillo believed that other passengers were hiding on the bus out of view, then his shooting doesn't even seem unreasonable. if you are an officer and believe Yatim has hostages, then shooting him is certainly reasonable. I don't expect to see any protest really mainly because Forcillo seems to be justified based off the past cases were cops murder civilians and get away.