TTC Police Shooting

GostHacked · April 28, 2014

Still if you can receive financial compensation from a family of a dead person because of their death has caused you emotional problems, it'll be a horrible precedent to set. I suppose it's a situation of lawyers making life hard for people.

I just wanted to respond to Rue's claim that Forcillo is mentally hurt by what he did and should we feel sorry for him. Should he even be able to sue the Yatim family? Sort of tongue in cheek.

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/04/25/driver-that-struck-teen-suing-dead-boys-family

Now the driver of the SUV, Sharlene Simon, 42, a mother of three, formerly from Innisfil, is suing the dead boy for the emotional trauma she says she has suffered. She’s also suing the two other boys, as well as the dead boy’s parents, and even his brother, who has since died. She’s also suing the County of Simcoe for failing to maintain the road.

He may have grounds to sue. But what for? That would seem like a real dick move, especially after killing someone.

Boges · April 28, 2014

It's supposedly in response of a civil suit from the family of the dead boy. But you could just use your defence of no criminal responsibility to get the case thrown out then sue for legal costs. This looks like trying to cash in.

This smacks of lawyer greed actually. Both parties are being told they deserve money from the other party by a lawyer hoping to cash in.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Boges

GostHacked · April 28, 2014

It's supposedly in response of a civil suit from the family of the dead boy. But you could just use your defence of no criminal responsibility to get the case thrown out then sue for legal costs. This looks like trying to cash in.

This smacks of lawyer greed actually. Both parties are being told they deserve money from the other party buy a lawyer hoping to cash in.

Those lawyers that take part in this are pure scum. Greed is the motivation and to hell with facts or reason or to do something right.

guyser · April 28, 2014

The officer you guys talk of has had a nervous breakdown. He suffers from post traumatic stress syndrome and is under psychiatric care. He was put on a desk job to keep him doing something.

Doing something? Like shooting people who shouldnt be shot? Good !

Of cour4se he says he has had a nervous breakdown. Hes read the papers and sees people who would rather he be dead. No surprise there !

Not that some of you would believe it but this officer has been devastated by what he did. I do not wish the stress he is now undergoing on any of you. His brain continuously plays back what he did and he can not live with himself.

Good ! Hope he has many more sleepless nights

Hes alive....so he has that going for him.

He does not sleep, eat, and feels suicidal. He is not physically capable of returning to a street police job and probably may never.

Good ! Tell him to look in his medicine cabinet.

. It could have happened to any officer.

But doesnt because most have some control and or brains.

For those of you who still think its easy to say what he should have done know this-his life is ruined. He's not sitting happy about what he did.

Best news all day. Edited April 28, 2014 by Guyser2

guyser · April 28, 2014

That article pisses me off. The woman was cleared of any wrongdoing as the kids were riding their bicycles at 1:30am on a rural road with dark clothing on. Not only that bit it was drizzling out at the time and she wasn't speeding, nor did she have any alcohol in her system.

Cybercoma, is there some link you can post as pertains to your conculsions above?

From my udnerstanding, she was let go in an hour or so, witnesses were kept there until 6am. She was never tested for alcohol. Why to both?

Perhaps, as I have read, her husband, following her.......is a Cop? Seems perfect, she is let go without testing nor any other normal procedure, just like when cops f up, always get the soft toss .

Pathetic.

The suit that's being filed is her defence claim.

Er....no I dont think so. Her claim is being paid by her insurance company, this claim is paid by her. Big difference.

The defence has to include everyone with any possible liability.

No you have that backwards. The plaintiff names everyone.

The fact that the kids were negligent, riding their bikes without lights in the middle of the road at night, means they have to be named in the suit. That article and the way The Star presented it on social media is some of the most shoddy journalism I've ever seen. It seems pretty clear from the facts that have been presented in that situation who was in the wrong and it sure as hell wasn't the driver.

Its my estimation that the facts arent there, no testing, no alcohol test, no standard of care for vehicle etc.

This one enrages me, her mother et al have suffered too, obviously moreso than the mother of the kid And his bro who have died since.

Poor her! grrrrr....

If money were no object, I would print and post flyers of this **** everywhere, starting at her home and every damn place she went. Her face would be known be everyone so people can all tell her off if they wish.

She wouldnt be able to hide. But shes trying, her phone was switched off recently. Methinks she may have a rough go of things for awhile and I sure as hell hope she cant move without people dissing her daily.

Yea....this one angers me ...a lot.

ETA: I have a woman I work with who went by those kids minutes before. Yes they were very hard to see, the cops were phones 40 times about the kids on that road, so yes, they do share some culpability with the outcome, had they reflectors or a light this may have not happened, but it still doesnt change the tone of whats done

Edited April 28, 2014 by Guyser2

Boges · April 28, 2014

Yeah, if killing that kid made her life tough, filing this suit has just made it even tougher.

She better win because, from now on, I'd imagine she'll be a social pariah.

I do apologize for obliterating this thread with that Link it should be a different thread. Admins can act accordingly.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Boges

guyser · April 28, 2014

Boges, if its an obituary for her, then we'll start a happy new thread.

cybercoma · April 28, 2014

Still if you can receive financial compensation from a family of a dead person because of their death has caused you emotional problems, it'll be a horrible precedent to set. I suppose it's a situation of lawyers making life hard for people.

It only sets a precedent insofar as the person who died was responsible for causing this woman to kill him. She has to respond to the family's lawsuit. This is only appropriate, since their kid's death wasn't her fault and they're pressing the issue. Edited April 28, 2014 by cybercoma

guyser · April 28, 2014

, since their kid's death wasn't her fault and they're pressing the issue.

Any proof of this, in light of waht wasn't done?

cybercoma · April 28, 2014

Any proof of this, in light of waht wasn't done?

The police reports and the prosecutor not pursuing criminal charges?

Boges · April 28, 2014

Criminal and Civil liability is different.

guyser · April 28, 2014

The police reports and the prosecutor not pursuing criminal charges?

Umm....a policemans wife gets let go without any due process , or at least what you and I would be subject to.....and the results thus are fine by YOu?

cybercoma · May 2, 2014

Umm....a policemans wife gets let go without any due process , or at least what you and I would be subject to.....and the results thus are fine by YOu?

I think under the circumstances we would also be let go. There have been a number of pedestrian-vehicle collisions here in NB over the last few years and at least two of them went unprosecuted because the drivers were not at fault. It's a tragedy that someone was killed, but that doesn't automatically make it the drivers fault or even something that can be prosecuted.

guyser · May 2, 2014

I think under the circumstances we would also be let go. There have been a number of pedestrian-vehicle collisions here in NB over the last few years and at least two of them went unprosecuted because the drivers were not at fault. It's a tragedy that someone was killed, but that doesn't automatically make it the drivers fault or even something that can be prosecuted.

No alcohol testing of her....admitting she came from a party. Thats a fact. So is the point her husband is a cop.

The witnesses (after tha fact cuz none saw her hit them) were kept for 5 hours.

Im not suggesting she was at fault, I know the road and conditions and they are not good. At the very least she shares fault.

But no breath test? Are you ****ing kidding me? Nojne of us would be so lucky

cybercoma · May 3, 2014

No alcohol testing of her....admitting she came from a party. Thats a fact. So is the point her husband is a cop.

What are you talking about? She requested a breathalyzer herself.

Rue · May 3, 2014

Compassion and pity are two different things. The law will not pity the police officer in the shooting. No one should. Pity is a wasted emotion. Its an indirect reference for the actual feeling that causes it and that is guilt. Guilt is as most of you know a wasted emotion. Guilt prevents one from developing insight, i.e., learning from a past mistake and moving on to generate positive actions from learning from past negative mistakes.

What the law will do is break down the actions of the officer to see did he intend to commit a crime. If they can not find that, then there may be no criminal liability as most of you know to prove certain crimes one must show in addition to the physical act (actus reus) the connected mental state (criminal intent or mens rea).

I just don't see enough evidence to indicate criminal intent at this point.

Now when it comes to civil law, its a different story. To prove a crime you must show beyond reasonable doubt the perpetrator intended to commit an act he knew was wrong. In civil law its far different. The Plaintiff suing needs only to establish on the balance of probabilities there was an action that caused them harm-then the onus switches to the Defendant to show beyond reasonable doubt what they did was not in this specific case negligent,

In this case its impossible for the police officer in a civil case to say he acted reasonably. There is a degree of expectation placed on the standard of his behaviour that will make it very difficult for him to successfully argue he was not negligent

Yes he screwed up in layman's language. Yes a lot of you want him punished for that. You take the anger of a death and project it onto the officer and want him punished..

If there is malice and deliberate intent to harm or hurt, the law and disciplinary tribunals deal with the behaviour in a certain way and so does civil court.

In all three instances punishment is built into the sentencing or action.

In a case though where the actions fail to live up to a reasonable standard of behaviour but there was no malice or deliberate intent to hurt involved, then the law and tribunals try build in remedies and responses that teach and prevent such behaviour from happening again.

In this specific case, the shooting will be dissected as a learning tool to prevent future shootings.

In the specific case of the officer, whether he will be determined to have done what he did deliberately because of hatred or malice is another story.

What I can tell you is the people reviewing the films and tapes unlike many of you on this forum will not allow themselves to be inflamed by the tape to hate the officer nor will they carry into their determinations a pre-existing agenda where they believe negative things about all police officers.

This shooting as tragic. It shows police officers need to have certain protocols and procedures reviewed. Does it show this particular officer was a deliberately dangerous person who wanted to harm and hurt. I would contend no, what it does show is someone making a mistake-someone in the hea of the moment over-reacting.

I have said it in the past, when faced with a life and death decision the human body no matter how well trained can freeze up with paralysis, run (flee) or

attack (gain inordinate amounts of strength and lash out in a frenzy). Whether we run, freeze or fight is impossible to say. You can train a soldier, a specialized commando, a police officer, a fireman, anyone for the kinds of situations where they are asked in a split second to decide on life, but there is no guarantee how any one mind will react under extreme pressure.

Sure when you train special forces personnel they are carefully screened but even commandoes and highly trained and experienced soldiers and front line personnel have frozen up. People are not robots.

In this case the woman seeking to sue is far different than the police officer That police officer is not asking for any of you to pay him money nor is he asking for the victim's family to pay him money.

He is not asking anything. The police management and union put him back to work because of the process. He is not guilty until proven guilty and even if he is found negligent, if that negligence was not deliberate you don't destroy the man. It won't do the deceased or their family any good destroying this man. In fact the family never asked to destroy this man. They want answers to what happened and accountability. As the weeks turn to months and then years since this incident, their anger will turn inwords into depression and sadness (anger is sadness turned outwords) and when they can truly feel sad, as part of their healing process, they will want to forgive that officer and probably speak with him.

If I put the family and officer in a room after the anger is gone and that family is gripped in sadness, the person who will best understand their grief is that officer hard as it is for some of you to understand.

Don't mix up this officer and grieving family with the woman suing. The human dynamics is totally different. The woman suing is not the officer. Showing him compassion does not confuse him as a victim. Compassion means understanding that revenge and lashing out at someone does not help others heal It doesn't mean you condone negligence or want pity for the officer.

guyser · May 4, 2014

What are you talking about? She requested a breathalyzer herself.

Its my understanding and three articels I read said none was done.

Got a link?

Boges · July 24, 2014

This incident caused a report to be commissioned. It has just been released with recommendations.

TORONTO -- A report by a former Supreme Court of Canada justice into the use of lethal force by Toronto police has made 84 sweeping recommendations which, if implemented, would mean far more training and support for officers dealing with those in crisis.

The probe by Frank Iacobucci was sparked by the killing of a teenager on an empty streetcar last summer.

Its release comes just days before the one-year anniversary of 18-year-old Sammy Yatim's death and amid a lawsuit by the teen's family against the officer who shot him and another who Tasered him as he lay dying.

In the public outrage that followed Yatim's death, Toronto police Chief Bill Blair had asked Iacobucci last August to take a broad look at how officers interact with people in crisis and to come up with recommendations.

"This is not a report that will gather dust," Blair said today after its release. "This is a report that will gather momentum."

Among Iacobucci's many recommendations is a suggestion that Toronto police create a comprehensive police and mental health oversight body to help share health care information with police, including a voluntary registry of vulnerable people.

The 346-page report also recommends the force "more proactively and comprehensively educate officers" on mental health resources and give every officer a point of contact in the mental health system they can contact for advice.

The report suggests Toronto police consider conducting a pilot project to assess the potential for expanding Tasers to a selection of front line officers who would have to be equipped with body-worn cameras while carrying them.

It additionally recommends that the force issue body-worn cameras to all officers who may encounter people in crisis to ensure greater accountability and transparency.

Read more: http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/report-sparked-by-teen-s-shooting-recommends-more-training-for-police-1.1929403#ixzz38P18nChm

I think police having lapel cameras is a given at this point.

Oh and Yatim's family is suing Forcillo and the cop that tazed Yatim's dead body. I suspect he did that to try and cover up Yatim's apparent murder.

jacee · July 25, 2014

To be fair, he tazed his dying body.

He wasn't obeying their command to "stop moving" fast enough, I guess.

http://ww2.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2014/07/24/six-things-to-know-about-the-comprehensive-report-on-how-toronto-police-should-deal-with-people-in-crisis

The Metropolitan Police Service in London (UK) has been involved in shooting four people deemed to be psychologically disturbed, or as the report calls it in crisis, in the last 10 years in a city of 8 million people. In the same time period in Toronto, with a third of the population, police shot dead five people in crisis.

NoneOfTheAbove · July 26, 2014

I think a thorough investigation of Police training facilities and qualifications of Trainers should be performed. Watching the Streetcar shooting video, the first thing that came to mind was how all those constables seemed to have no idea what to do, just off the top of my head:

No one officer seemed to be in charge
A vehicle (taxi) is allowed to drive through the line of fire
At least two constables have their guns raised and pointed directly at victim even though he is a safe distance away and nobody is in immediate vicinity or threat
Many constables congregate right in front of the open streetcar door, way too many, all acting like chickens with its head cut-off
Number of constables walking around in the background doing absolutely nothing
Firing numerous shots in direction of victim without securing area behind
Tasing of prone bleeding victim posing absolutely to threat to anyone
Directly after shooting pedestrians allowed to walk in background
Streetcar rear door left completely unattended and open. one constable actually runs to it after the shots fired, seemed to be more of an afterthought

And then there was that poor Sergeant who got himself killed by getting in front of a moving snow plough...

mjrr · September 10, 2014

IMO what the cop did was murder the kid..

jacee · December 19, 2014

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2014/12/18/22140511.html

We received a call for man wielding a large knife, cutting his own throat and wrists at rear of the mall," Const. David Hopkinson said. "Officers responded and began speaking to the man and then shots were fired. We can't comment on what prompted the gunfire."

Hmm ... I wonder if they shot him because he failed to follow a verbal order to drop the knife.

.

eyeball · December 20, 2014

The cops weren't wearing their cameras?

What do you mean they haven't even been issued yet?

Good freakin' grief, his long is it going to take before this near criminal omission and deficiency in law enforcement administration and management going to be remedied?

GostHacked · December 20, 2014

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2014/12/18/22140511.html

We received a call for man wielding a large knife, cutting his own throat and wrists at rear of the mall," Const. David Hopkinson said. "Officers responded and began speaking to the man and then shots were fired. We can't comment on what prompted the gunfire."

Hmm ... I wonder if they shot him because he failed to follow a verbal order to drop the knife.

.

Did the man die? I don't know if shooting someone is helping them.