TTC Police Shooting

[Boges]

I was surprised that the defense chose judge and jury rather than just judge. I think that if they are going to deal with the nuances of the letter of the law then they would have a better chance against the videos which swayed public emotion.

It shows how bad the public image of a police officer has become. An officer would rather not be judged by his peers anymore.

[On Guard for Thee]

That was argued already and the judge threw out the motion. It's just a stalling tactic to keep him out of jail and receiving a paycheque from the service.

No the judge hasn't thrown out the motion yet, but in all likelihood he will. There are discussions ongoing about charges against the cop who tasered Yatim. Simple assault being the least, assault with a weapon the heaviest.

[Boges]

No the judge hasn't thrown out the motion yet, but in all likelihood he will. There are discussions ongoing about charges against the cop who tasered Yatim. Simple assault being the least, assault with a weapon the heaviest.

Not this one, we'll have to wait until May for that to happen.

But this was the first thing the lawyer argued years ago, it's a desperation ploy.

I hope Forcillo is saving all this money he's getting paid while sitting at home on suspension because Yatim's family is likely going to get all of it.

[On Guard for Thee]

Not this one, we'll have to wait until May for that to happen.

But this was the first thing the lawyer argued years ago, it's a desperation ploy.

I hope Forcillo is saving all this money he's getting paid while sitting at home on suspension because Yatim's family is likely going to get all of it.

He won't need the money for the next few years at least.

[jacee]

/james-forcillo-sentencing

James Forcillo's lawyer argues mandatory 5-year minimum is unconstitutional

Lawyer for officer who shot Sammy Yatim says mandatory minimum should not apply to officers on duty

Harper's mandatory minimums going to be struck down again?

I'll bet Harper never anticipated this situation.

And that, of course, is the reason mandatory minimums don't work for all possible situations and judicial discretion is necessary.

.

[Boges]

He should get 5 years or more.

[jacee]

He should get 5 years or more.

It'll have to be significant to restore public confidence.

But it won't be the 'tough on crime' group lobbying for a tough sentence this time. They're staying quiet.

Most believe Toronto police treated differently in justice system: poll

Majority of respondents report diminished view of police after Sammy Yatim case

[Boges]

It is weird that the same Union culture that many conservative, like myself TBH, loath in much of the public sector is embraced when it comes to the police.

It's hypocrisy, plain and simple.

[bjre]

If Canada can allow a team from China to build it, let them use design from China, workers from China. Subway can be built very fast.

Subway in Wuhan

Subway in Nanjing:

Subway in Shanghai:

Subway in Beijing:

Change of the Pudong district in Shanghai 20 years. from 1990 to 2010

http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2013/08/26-years-of-growth-shanghai-then-and-now/100569/

Edited July 16, 2016 by bjre

[Guest]

That Shanghai clip is amazing. I like how that boat lost most of its decks and turned around.

[Argus]

It'll have to be significant to restore public confidence.

But it won't be the 'tough on crime' group lobbying for a tough sentence this time. They're staying quiet.

And why do you think that is? Could it be there is a substantial difference between a guy who shoots someone down while robbing them or because they're paid to kill people or because they're on drugs and raging at the world - and a cop who makes a serious error in judgement while doing his job? Now you can go back and read what I've written about this and you won't find me saying one good thing about the Toronto police or this incident. It was an appallingly bad judgement on his part to shoot in the first place and he has no business being a cop. He also should go to jail. But I lack your need to grind him into the dirt. I'm saddened at how his life turned out and that whatever training he was given didn't catch his mental weakness earlier. This is not a guy who set out to do bad or hurt people. Quite the contrary.

Edited July 16, 2016 by Argus

[Boges]

Verdict today. 6 years in prison.

I wonder how many years before he actually serves a day after the appeals process. Which, might I add, he'll get full pay from the taxpayer.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Boges

[Argus]

Verdict today. 6 years in prison.

I wonder how many years before he actually serves a day after the appeals process. Which, might I add, he'll get full pay from the taxpayer.

I think now that he's convicted he can be fired. I could be wrong, of course. Police contracts are ridiculously generous.

I don't think 6 years is appropriate. As I said earlier, you need to acknowledge the difference between someone who sets out to hurt people and someone who sets out to help them. Even Yatim's father said that if police were properly trained in de-escelation his son would probably be alive. So we're essentially sending this guy to prison because we didn't properly train him.

Mind you, I still find his decisions bewildering. Particularly the second part of his shooting. Which is the part he was actually convicted for. All I can figure is he had tunnel vision and wasn't thinking straight. Again, poor training and preparation.

[Boges]

Mind you, I still find his decisions bewildering. Particularly the second part of his shooting. Which is the part he was actually convicted for. All I can figure is he had tunnel vision and wasn't thinking straight. Again, poor training and preparation.

Which is what he's going to prison for. Had he stopped at the first volley, he'd be a free man today. His claim that he was trying to preserve his safety fall on deaf ears once he continues to shoot at a twitching corpse.

Apparently he's been suspended without pay, so that's good to hear. I wonder if the Union will grieve.

He's serving 6 years because of a mandatory minimum of 5 years. I guess the extra year comes from the fact that the judge could demonstrate that his defence was completely contradictory to the evidence the Crown presented.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Boges

[Big Guy]

I think that 6 years is too heavy. I still have no idea what the motive was. If the judge ruled that the policeman was a targeting visible minorities or someone who looked Middle East then there would be an explanation but these folks did not know each other, had never met and the policemen gained nothing from the shooting.

I think this will be appealed and in a few months we will read on page 25 that the appeals court changed it to time served.

[Boges]

I think that 6 years is too heavy. I still have no idea what the motive was. If the judge ruled that the policeman was a targeting visible minorities or someone who looked Middle East then there would be an explanation but these folks did not know each other, had never met and the policemen gained nothing from the shooting.

I think this will be appealed and in a few months we will read on page 25 that the appeals court changed it to time served.

What does the motive matter? He shot at a lifeless body that posed no threat to him.

On what grounds would an appeal be made?

Edited July 28, 2016 by Boges

[Argus]

What does the motive matter? He shot at a lifeless body that posed no threat to him.

On what grounds would an appeal be made?

Motive ALWAYS matters in these kinds of crimes. Most murders are done for some kind of gain, or because someone was drunk or on drugs, or enraged at a romantic breakup.

That was not the case here. There was no intent, that anyone has come up with, other than that of self-defense. I grant you he was wrong and his decision was unreasonable, even bizarre. I don't think the shooting was justified, even the first shots, and have always maintained as much.

We put police into position of making life or death decisions based on a set of criteria drawn up by people in suits sitting calmly around a boardroom table. We give them virtually no training as compared to other well-paid professionals, and we have no real way of figuring out (nor do they) how their minds will function in a crisis. Sometimes they fail. But they fail doing our job, not trying to do society damage, and that's why I think we need to cut them some slack and not compare them to others who take lives illegally.

[Boges]

We put police into position of making life or death decisions based on a set of criteria drawn up by people in suits sitting calmly around a boardroom table. We give them virtually no training as compared to other well-paid professionals, and we have no real way of figuring out (nor do they) how their minds will function in a crisis. Sometimes they fail. But they fail doing our job, not trying to do society damage, and that's why I think we need to cut them some slack and not compare them to others who take lives illegally.

I think if I shot someone in the street I'd be facing much more than 6 years. He is getting the benefit of the doubt. He was found not guilty for murder even though Yatim was isolated on an empty street car. Personally I think it's still murder because all logic says that Yatim wasn't REALLY a threat, but the court disagrees.

He was, however, convicted of attempted murder because the self-defense argument goes away when Yatim goes does, yet he decides to start shooting again. He ceases becoming a protector of the peace and becomes an reactionary lunatic with a gun, something that we as a society shouldn't allow, especially from cops. They should be held to a higher standard.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Boges

[cybercoma]

I don't think 6 years is appropriate.

Neither do I but then I have a track record of being against mandatory minimum sentences. You don't.

[cybercoma]

He's serving 6 years because of a mandatory minimum of 5 years. I guess the extra year comes from the fact that the judge could demonstrate that his defence was completely contradictory to the evidence the Crown presented.

The extra year is an opportunity for the judgment to be overturned on appeal but that's just a speculation I have.

[Boges]

The extra year is an opportunity for the judgment to be overturned on appeal but that's just a speculation I have.

I ask again, on what grounds?

[Big Guy]

I think the original decision by a jury was faulty. It was influenced by public outrage of the time and was not justifiable and an appeal has been lodged. I also believe that the appeal will result in another trial - trial by judge - and the original decision will be reversed.

I still do not understand why this was considered a criminal act. It was a stupid act but stupid is not illegal.

[Boges]

Dude, appeal on what grounds?!?

He shot Yatim 6 times while he was already dying. How can self defence be a justified reason?

In the trial he said that he feared Yatim was getting up with the knife. Video evidence flatly refutes that.

[Big Guy]

Dude, appeal on what grounds?!?

He shot Yatim 6 times while he was already dying. How can self defence be a justified reason?

In the trial he said that he feared Yatim was getting up with the knife. Video evidence flatly refutes that.

Let us wait and see which one of us is correct.

[Boges]

Let us wait and see which one of us is correct.

Sure but if you're going to present an opinion, at least provide some context or evidence to support it.

If you look back at previous pages you'll see people insist Forcillo will get off.