ReeferMadness

So, you're suggesting that Sammy was on his back having a nap after the first three shots were fired?

I'm sure that American Woman will immediately berate you for predudging the inquiry. Unless, of course, she is biased and only cares about people who hold the view that excessive force was used. And as for your chart and justification, I want someone to explain how someone who has already been shot and is lying on his back is "likely to serious bodily harm or death". Want to take a crack at that, Derek?

So says the Economist.

You have this inordinate faith in the process. Good luck with that.

And yet.... Subsequent to the G20 debacle, a number of activists were sentenced to substantial prison terms for non-violent offences. About a year ago, there were big headlines indicating that high ranking police officials were to be charged for the rampant and flagrant abuses of police power. People were badly treated and in some cases assaulted. Care to tell me how many police are in jail as a result?

The kid hasn't be judged - but he has been executed. There's justice for you.

I mean a process where there is an honest assessment of whether the officer took reasonable steps to prevent killing an 18 year old. I mean some hard questions and honest answers as to why the shooting started within a minute of the police arriving on scene. I mean some understanding of among the 20 odd cops milling around aimlessly, was anyone in charge? I mean whether there is adequate training for police in dealing with disturbed individuals other than pulling a trigger 9 times, whether that training is actually being used and whether there is any effort to find better ways of disarming a guy with a knife. I mean someone coming to a fair and reasonable conclusion as to whether someone who has already been shot and is on his back presents a mortal threat to 22 armed police. And I don't see why this process should months or years to come to a conclusion. I've seen this movie before and no matter how damning the evidence, the result is always the same. The cops can do no wrong. There are always the same platitudes about not prejudging the outcome and promises that the investigation will be thorough. Then the process winds on for years and at the end of it all, there is the inevitable finding that the police have done nothing wrong. People need to get angry and to demand answers that satisfy them. Otherwise, the police will continue to use excessive violence.

Ross McLean said that the SIU is limited in what it can do and say. And SIU's are commonly made up of ex-police so there is a natural bias in favour of police. Ross also said (just so it's clear, this is a crime expert talking, not me) that the SIU gives the benefit of the doubt to police. And don't forget that the Ontario Ombudsman and former head of the SIU has publicly called out the cops for failing to cooperate with the SIU. The crap that police get away with is ridiculous. A couple of years ago in BC, someone died in police custody in BC. He'd been shot in the back of the head by the police. It was ruled self defence. The good citizens of Toronto will not have forgotten how hundreds of bystanders were illegally rounded up, imprisoned and in some cases assaulted by Toronto's finest during the G8 summit. Blair managed to sweep all of that under the rug. And don't even get me started about the Dziekanski case. When police are accused of something, they are often allowed to compare notes before being interviewed. They apparently can collude, lie, and invent a version of reality that is totally contradicted by video and eyewitnesses; and walk away from it all.

Go back to the first video and listen to what he says about SIU. And read my quotes. SIU is limited in what they can do and say. And if there is even the slightest question, they side with the police.

He said SIU cleared the cop. That's not the same thing as saying that the cop couldn't have done a better job or that the cop was justified in shooting a guy on the ground. The point he was actually making is that SIU is letting the police get away (literally) with murder.

Wow, if the police can't do better than that from 15 feet, maybe they shouldn't be carrying firearms at all. By your estimation, it's probable that 5 or 6 of the bullets missed. And he was firing at point blank range. Someone (it might have been you) claimed earlier in this thread that these bullets could still be dangerous a mile away from where they were fired. It sounds to me like Officer Forcillo firing his weapon may have been more a threat to public safety than a skinny teenager with a knife in one hand and his dick in the other. Particularly after he was lying on his back shot.

Another interview with crime specialist and former Toronto police officer Ross McLean. Not very compliementary of police in general, the Toronto police force (particularly with regards to the G20 debacle), or police in general. More training needed when it comes to lethal force. And police need to follow the de-escalation training, not just the firing range training.

So what? Did you miss this choice quote? That doesn't sound at all different from what I said above. Keep at it - the hole you're digging is getting deeper.

That's a pretty weak reply. Did you even bother watching the video? Or have you just made up your mind that the police are always right. Ross McLean made a pretty good case that Some police have a tendency to shoot instead of talk In this case, the shooting started way too soon There was no apparent reason for the last 6 bullets, even if you accept the first 3 were justified The SIU probably won't get all of the answers needed His comments were based not just on this incident but his training and experience. It is rare for a former police officer to even hint at criticizing the police, which makes these comments more powerful.

Derek, apparently, your view is that the cops can do no wrong. So, I'll let crime specialist and former Toronto police officer Ross McLean do the arguing. See video here Choice quotes: On the takedown On whether 9 shots are reasonable On whether 3 shots should have been enough and how the SIU will see it On whether the officer did enough to de-escalate the situation. On the question of why the shooting started so quickly. On the powers of the SIU to get to the bottom of this. On whether better training will even work Pretty damning stuff. And then people wonder why the police aren't well regarded.

I don't claim to be a weapons expert (although I did fill a paper target with 9mm holes once), if the good officer couldn't hit a stationary target at the range Sammy was at (15 feet maybe), he should really find another line of work. And the position of Sammy's twitching legs after the first 3 shots clearly show that he was down. Maybe the cop just thought he was taking a rest?? One can deduce anything one bloody well wants. As I said, Sammy was clearly down. IF he was holding the knife, it may well have been just a case of his body reacting to the trauma by clenching. Sammy may be been completely unaware of his surroundings. In any case, he was down. There can be no argument that the cop thought he was in mortal danger as he fired the last 6 shots.

I predict you're right - the cop is cleared in almost all of these cases, which is why people are right to be outraged. Your summary of events leaves out a few things, such as He had ample opportunity to attack unarmed people in the streetcar but didn't Of the 9 bullets that were fired, 6 were fired after the guy was down on his back He was tased after being shot 9 times (WTF??)

If people had any level of confidence that there will be due process, you wouldn't be seeing the same level of reaction. The "due process" will drag on for months and months. No doubt, it's hoped that the public interest and outrage will die down over time, Then, when the inevitable happens and the cops are cleared, there will be a couple of small headlines and everything will be forgotten. Until the next trigger-happy cop needs a notch on his belt.

Read Daniel Ellbserg's comments on the topic. Ellsberg did stick around - back in the 70's.

Alcohol has a tendency to make people aggressive and take more risks. Pot has the opposite effect. Behaviour goes a long way in contributing to accidents.

Obama's supporters rationalize (probably correctly) that Obama is the lesser of the two evils. It just shows how little real choice there is in American democracy. Chomsky refers to the Republicans and Democrats as one party with two wings. Ellsberg's comments are instructive and insightful.

Exactly so. Snowden can watch the kangaroo court that Bradley Manning is enduring and decide how he will be treated.

And all of the other nuts are now crowding around to defend him.

Really? Your biggest problem is that people are saying not nice things about this guy? Really??? This cop is now sitting at home on full pay. He will hav a lawyer paid for by the fine citizens of Toronto justifying his actions. If he didn't have good reasons, that's OK - his highly paid lawyer will make some up. Meanwhile, the guy he shot 9 times is dead. So, would you rather have people say bad things about you or would you rather have a trigger-happy cop shoot you to death? And then taser you while you draw your last breaths?

Yah, I got that. But it's satire that reflects the way a lot of people are seeing this.