TTC Police Shooting

[jacee]

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.

Killing someone is.

.

[Big Guy]

Killing someone is.

.

I am not defending the fact that it retrospect, that young man should not have been shot. What I am trying to state is that there has to be a negative motive behind a criminal act. You shoot and kill a person because they are holding a knife at the throat of a child to (what you believe is) to save a child's life. Someone is killed but there is no criminal act.

The cop obviously made a major mistake. He did not know this guy, there is no evidence that he enjoys killing people or that he knew and/or disliked the victim. There is no evidence that the cop is mentally ill. It does not make any sense.

For that reason I believe that an appeal will be granted and a very different sentence will be applied.

[Boges]

I am not defending the fact that it retrospect, that young man should not have been shot. What I am trying to state is that there has to be a negative motive behind a criminal act. You shoot and kill a person because they are holding a knife at the throat of a child to (what you believe is) to save a child's life. Someone is killed but there is no criminal act.

The cop obviously made a major mistake. He did not know this guy, there is no evidence that he enjoys killing people or that he knew and/or disliked the victim. There is no evidence that the cop is mentally ill. It does not make any sense.

For that reason I believe that an appeal will be granted and a very different sentence will be applied.

The fact he didn't know his victim isn't grounds for appeal.

And he did have a track record of pulling his gun several times, to the point that he had to be spoken to about it.

When Yatim went down, his self defence argument goes up in smoke.

Edited July 29, 2016 by Boges

[jacee]

I am not defending the fact that it retrospect, that young man should not have been shot. What I am trying to state is that there has to be a negative motive behind a criminal act.

...

The cop obviously made a major mistake. He did not know this guy, there is no evidence that he enjoys killing people or that he knew and/or disliked the victim. There is no evidence that the cop is mentally ill. It does not make any sense.

Your reasoning is very strange. You don't have to know someone or dislike them or enjoy killing to be guilty for killing them.

Forcillo's training is designed for self defense.

He violated that, and he knew it, so he lied about Yatim moving to get up.

He may have been 'afraid' that Yatim 'might' get up, but that fear, in the absence of that fact, is not justification for firing 6 more bullets into him.

If police can try to kill someone because they are 'afraid he might' do something, then we are all at risk.

.

Edited July 29, 2016 by jacee

[Big Guy]

The fact he didn't know his victim isn't grounds for appeal.

And he did have a track record of pulling his gun several times, to the point that he had to be spoken to about it.

When Yatim went down, his self defence argument goes up in smoke.

Your reasoning is very strange. You don't have to know someone or dislike them or enjoy killing to be guilty for killing them.

Forcillo's training is designed for self defense.

He violated that, and he knew it, so he lied about Yatim moving to get up.

He may have been 'afraid' that Yatim 'might' get up, but that fear, in the absence of that fact, is not justification for firing 6 more bullets into him.

If police can try to kill someone because they are 'afraid he might' do something, then we are all at risk.

.

Why then do you folks think that he shot that young man 6 times?

[jacee]

Why then do you folks think that he shot that young man 6 times?

To make sure he killed him.

.

[Boges]

Why then do you folks think that he shot that young man 6 times?

We he said it was because he thought Yatim was getting up. That claim is objectively false based on video evidence from the Streetcar. Any other claim would be speculation. I think it's because he wanted to make sure Yatim was dead and didn't think he was being filmed.

Had someone not been documenting this on their phone, none of this would have made it to court. Which only shows this blue wall that people are concerned about.

They even tazed him after he was long dead, probably to try and cover their tracks.

Edited July 29, 2016 by Boges

[Big Guy]

I am not making any claims.

If you folks are looking for an argument then you are going to be disappointed. Your opinion is that this was a valid decision and will stand. My opinion is that it is a faulty decision and will be overturned and/or changed by an appeals court. Time will tell.

[Boges]

I am not making any claims.

If you folks are looking for an argument then you are going to be disappointed. Your opinion is that this was a valid decision and will stand. My opinion is that it is a faulty decision and will be overturned and/or changed by an appeals court. Time will tell.

I'm pretty sure the point of a forum like this is to engage in debate though. So having your opinion criticized is part of the game.

Anyway dude got released on bail today, so he'll have another year, or so, of freedom and he'll be up for parole after like 2 years. So don't weep to hard for him.

At least he's not collecting funds on the taxpayer's dime anymore. Hope he's been saving his money considering that he's getting his legal fees paid for by the Union.

Edited July 29, 2016 by Boges

[Argus]

Dude, appeal on what grounds?!?

It was a strange finding, that the constable was justified in shooting and killing Yatim, but guilty of attempted murder for the second group of shots after he was dead. The thing is, attempted murder requires the intent to kill, and his intent to kill was accepted as justified by the jury for the first shots fired. I grant you that his thinking it was self-defense was wrong, but that doesn't mean the fear within him wasn't there. That being the case, how does that impact the intent to kill given a policeman who fears for his life is allowed to kill? It was still wrong for him to shoot even the first time, in my opinion, but within the context of law can he form the intent to commit murder if he believed, however unreasonably, the shooting was in self defense.

Attempted murder is very tightly defined in Canadian law, making it very hard to prove, even in outrageous cases where someone is shot or stabbed multiple times in the chest. Usually the crown has to settle for a lesser charge, like assault with a weapon or assault causing bodily harm. Yet in this case the guy died, yet the jury rejected murder. It's very strange. I doubt you'd find another case where anyone has ever been convicted of attempted murder where the victim died.

Edited July 29, 2016 by Argus

[Boges]

It was a strange finding, that the constable was justified in shooting and killing Yatim, but guilty of attempted murder for the second group of shots after he was dead. The thing is, attempted murder requires the intent to kill, and his intent to kill was accepted as justified by the jury for the first shots fired.

Yes but all evidence points to the fact that Yatim was no longer a threat after the first 3 rounds. There was a 7 second break between groups of shots.

It's like if you shot a guy, he went down and appeared dead, but before you checked to see if you could help him, you shot him in the head execution style. You attempted to kill him, even if he was already dead.

Another example, even though it less applies here is if you go to kill a person sleeping in his bed. You shoot him 3 times and leave. But he's already dead from a heart attack. You still attempted to kill him.

Edited July 29, 2016 by Boges

[Argus]

Yes but all evidence points to the fact that Yatim was no longer a threat after the first 3 rounds. There was a 7 second break between groups of shots.

I agree, but it is a strange set of circumstances in law. When has a person ever been convicted of attempted murder in a case where the victim died but the court ruled out murder?

[Boges]

I agree, but it is a strange set of circumstances in law. When has a person ever been convicted of attempted murder in a case where the victim died but the court ruled out murder?

For sure. That's why, even 3 years later, it's still a top story. It's actually precedent setting, I think.

The attempted murder charge was applied afterwards. It was a clever legal trick the Crown used and it paid off.

Perhaps if only 2nd degree murder was on the table, the jury would have still convicted him. It's sort of like if you have manslaughter as an option instead of 1st or 2nd degree murder. But that's pure speculation.

Edited July 29, 2016 by Boges

[Argus]

For sure. That's why, even 3 years later, it's still a top story. It's actually precedent setting, I think.

The attempted murder charge was applied afterwards. It was a clever legal trick the Crown used and it paid off.

And 'clever legal tricks' are the kind that often get appealed and ruled out.

[Boges]

And 'clever legal tricks' are the kind that often get appealed and ruled out.

It was based on sound logic though. The defence would have to demonstrate that Forcillo legitimately fear for his life from a kid who was twitching on the floor dying.

[cybercoma]

I ask again, on what grounds?

Appeal on the grounds that the sentence is too harsh. He added an additional year when he could have left it at the minimum. That's even after saying he felt the minimum was too much. The appeal will be because the sentence is disproportionate. If it was 5 years they couldn't appeal the sentence because the judge literally can't give a lesser sentence.

[jacee]

Appeal on the grounds that the sentence is too harsh. He added an additional year when he could have left it at the minimum. That's even after saying he felt the minimum was too much. The appeal will be because the sentence is disproportionate. If it was 5 years they couldn't appeal the sentence because the judge literally can't give a lesser sentence.

Oh.

So that's why he did it.

He'll walk.

.

Edited July 29, 2016 by jacee

[Boges]

I'm sure they aren't appealing just to get a year taken off. They want the charges dropped.

The judge was responding to the constitutional challenge that because the state gives a cop a gun, he can't be held accountable to how he uses it. He rejected that premise and said he has to pass down the sentence mandated for an attempted murder conviction with a gun.

He added the year because the defence was torn to shreds by the evidence.

Edited July 29, 2016 by Boges

[jacee]

I'm sure they aren't appealing just to get a year taken off. They want the charges dropped.

The judge was responding to the constitutional challenge that because the state gives a cop a gun, he can't be held accountable to how he uses it. He rejected that premise and said he has to pass down the sentence mandated for an attempted murder conviction with a gun.

He added the year because the defence was torn to shreds by the evidence.

The extra year for the 'restricted weapon' under the law, which for him is police issue ... I'd be OK with losing that, and amending that law.

But I suspect this harsh sentence and appeal is about getting off on all charges.

Forcillo is going to have to dig deep and find some remorse.

.

[Peter F]

He added the year because the defence was torn to shreds by the evidence.

Agreed. He added the year because Forcillo's life was not in imminent danger for the 2nd volley. As a police officer Forcillo used his weapon when he knew he wasn't facing imminent danger. That, for a police officer, as the judge said, is a serious breach of trust .

so 1 year added to the minimum. Good thing Forcillo has friends, family and a clean past to speak well of him to mitigate the judge or he would have got a few more years added on.

Edited July 29, 2016 by Peter F

[Peter F]

Argus:

It was still wrong for him to shoot even the first time, in my opinion, but within the context of law can he form the intent to commit murder if he believed, however unreasonably, the shooting was in self defence?

Unreasonable fear would be rejected as a defence. The police are allowed to shoot people, in Canada anyways, only when they have 'reasonable' fear. Not unreasonable fear. According to the judge in this case, Forcillo had a reasonable fear that justified him shooting Yatim. But after Yatim was down and dying the judge saw no evidence to back Forcillo's claim to reasonable fear.

Edited July 29, 2016 by Peter F

[Argus]

Argus:

Unreasonable fear would be rejected as a defence. The police are allowed to shoot people, in Canada anyways, only when they have 'reasonable' fear. Not unreasonable fear.

I understand and I agree. Nor do I think the fear is reasonable. BUT... generally when we decide the fear was unreasonable, and yet there was no criminal intent, the charge is manslaughter. This business about accepting his fear for shooting the first shots then convicting him of attempted murder for the second group seems extremely odd. I think that he should have been convicted of manslaughter. Period.

Edited July 30, 2016 by Argus

[Peter F]

... generally when we decide the fear was unreasonable, and yet there was no criminal intent, the charge is manslaughter. This business about accepting his fear for shooting the first shots then convicting him of attempted murder for the second group seems extremely odd. I think that he should have been convicted of manslaughter. Period.

Manslaughter is when there is no intent to kill but killing is the result of the accused's action. Murder requires intent. The jury must have believed that Forcillo intended to kill Yatim when he fired the second round of shots.

[Big Guy]

Manslaughter is when there is no intent to kill but killing is the result of the accused's action. Murder requires intent. The jury must have believed that Forcillo intended to kill Yatim when he fired the second round of shots.

I do not disagree - except - a law enforcement officer never shoots to disarm, hurt or main. They shoot to kill. They are also trained to shoot only to kill. Ergo, if a policemen shoots and the person is only wounded then either he/she is a bad shot or he/she should not have taken a shot in the first place.

[Argus]

Manslaughter is when there is no intent to kill but killing is the result of the accused's action. Murder requires intent. The jury must have believed that Forcillo intended to kill Yatim when he fired the second round of shots.

You'd be surprised at the kinds of killings which draw a manslaughter charge. But high among the reasons for shifting the charge from murder to manslaughter are the mental state of the killer, not just intent.