TTC Police Shooting

[Guest American Woman]

Cite? If he didn't "intend to kill Yatim" why would he fire upon him? Cops aren't trained to fire to wound.

You think every time a police officer shoots at a perpetrator the intent is to kill him/her? Seriously? The intent is to stop the behavior, not kill them.

That being said, are you claiming that continuing to shoot after Yatim posed no threat (YEAH I KNOW! that's my opinion but it appears he is on the ground in an isolated street car in the video) has no baring on the future ruling

Of course the fact that he kept shooting will have bearing on the ruling, but only in regards to whether or not it was reasonable for officer to still believe, in the heat of the moment, that Yatim was a threat. It doesn't matter if you don't think he was, as you weren't there and it wasn't in your job capacity to make such a call. This isn't about what you think; it's about where the officer's head was at when he shot at Yatim.

As for his treatment, here in Canada at least, we're not supposed to have tiered systems of justice. It appears he was treated preferably because of his occupation.

As I pointed out, his occupation puts him in a unique situation regarding the charge. Also, as I pointed out, there in Canada a person is innocent until proven guilty, so on what grounds would it be fair and/or legal for his income to be denied?

[Boges]

You think every time a police officer shoots at a perpetrator the intent is to kill him/her? Seriously? The intent is to stop the behavior, not kill them.

I've always been led to believe cops are trained to shoot centre mass IOW shooting to kill.

Of course the fact that he kept shooting will have bearing on the ruling, but only in regards to whether or not it was reasonable for officer to still believe, in the heat of the moment, that Yatim was a threat. It doesn't matter if you don't think he was, as you weren't there and it wasn't in your job capacity to make such a call. This isn't about what you think; it's about where the officer's head was at when he shot at Yatim.

Yep and evidence neither of us are privy to should highlight whether he was or not.

As I pointed out, his occupation puts him in a unique situation regarding the charge. Also, as I pointed out, there in Canada a person is innocent until proven guilty, so on what grounds would it be fair and/or legal for his income to be denied?

Only in Ontario are suspended cops entitled to full income if suspended for a suspected improper action. I'm more offended with the fact that he was arraigned in less than a day. That's not something anyone usually gets.

[Guest American Woman]

I've always been led to believe cops are trained to shoot centre mass IOW shooting to kill.

I'm sure a lot of people believe a lot of things that aren't necessarily true. If a cop's intention was to kill, no one would survive being shot at by a cop, yet I would wager that more survive than die. The idea is to get the behavior to stop.

Yep and evidence neither of us are privy to should highlight whether he was or not.

Exactly. We are not privy to anything, really, outside of what we saw on the videos. Which was very limited. We have not heard one word from the officer.

Only in Ontario are suspended cops entitled to full income if suspended for a suspected improper action.

It hasn't been determined that it was improper, and I would appreciate some proof that officers are suspended without pay during investigations/trials throughout the rest of Canada. How could an innocent person legally be denied pay? As I've said, he is innocent of any charges/improper behavior at this time.

I'm more offended with the fact that he was arraigned in less than a day. That's not something anyone usually gets.

Again, by far most people charged with second degree murder were not acting within the duties of their occupation. This is a rather unique situation. Edited August 20, 2013 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

You think every time a police officer shoots at a perpetrator the intent is to kill him/her? Seriously? The intent is to stop the behavior, not kill them.

Eliminate the threat, this is what they are trained to do. If that means killing the threat, then yes, the intent is to kill. There seemed to have been no attempt at a de-escalation.

Of course the fact that he kept shooting will have bearing on the ruling, but only in regards to whether or not it was reasonable for officer to still believe, in the heat of the moment, that Yatim was a threat. It doesn't matter if you don't think he was, as you weren't there and it wasn't in your job capacity to make such a call. This isn't about what you think; it's about where the officer's head was at when he shot at Yatim.

Since it also seems that no other cops had drawn their weapon would tend to negate that stance of 'heat of the moment'. Maybe this cop was not experienced, jumpy, who knows. The trial will show those traits.

One officer shot, all others did not .. then one throws in the taser. WTF is really going on here. These are all very questionable actions by all the police involved here.

As I pointed out, his occupation puts him in a unique situation regarding the charge. Also, as I pointed out, there in Canada a person is innocent until proven guilty, so on what grounds would it be fair and/or legal for his income to be denied?

This cop is a danger to the public. He put his fellow officers at risk by his actions. He has now put himself in danger because of his actions.

The video clearly shows evidence of the cop shooting the kid, killing him. Now it's all semantics over what this death is classified as. Fact is, one dead kid. And this kid's story is by no means unique. IN contrast of the police's unique position which is instantly at more risk of abuse by not so level headed cops.

I have two friends who are cops back home. One I have no problems whatsoever with handing him a firearm, solid person. The other I would not even give a knife to, severe long standing chip on his shoulder.

The public is outraged, and for a damn good reason.

But if this does bring to light training is not up to par and evaluations, physically and psychologically, are letting some bad apples slip through, then you have a whole system that needs to be re-evaluated from top to bottom. Coupled with the long standing culture of protecting you boys behind the badge no matter what happens, and that can and has included, murder.

The great satire of life is that we can live through all this again when it happens again. We didn't listen! We did not do enough! By then we will have mostly forgotten about Yatim.

[cybercoma]

The First Nations have been dealing with this stuff with the RCMP for a long time. Except they don't get charged with murder when it's an indian they're killing.

[Guest American Woman]

Eliminate the threat, this is what they are trained to do. If that means killing the threat, then yes, the intent is to kill.

I didn't say they never shoot to kill; I said they don't shoot to kill every time they shoot at a perpetrator. I said the intent isn't to kill, but to stop the behavior. IOW, you just basically repeated what I said.

There seemed to have been no attempt at a de-escalation.

I would think that if there is an immediate threat, an officer responds whether there has been an attempt at a de-escalation or not.

Since it also seems that no other cops had drawn their weapon would tend to negate that stance of 'heat of the moment'.

I see more than one officer with his weapon drawn. Furthermore, the officer in question will have the opportunity to describe the "heat of the moment" since we were not in the heat of the moment. He was. Then a judgement will be made regarding his actions, whether it was reasonable or not that he perceived a threat.

Maybe this cop was not experienced, jumpy, who knows. The trial will show those traits.

He wasn't a rookie. But like you said, who knows? That's the bottom line. You mentioned a couple of negatives, so I'll point out that maybe it was reasonable for him to perceive a threat. The trial will give the answers. Then, hopefully, we will know.

One officer shot, all others did not .. then one throws in the taser. WTF is really going on here. These are all very questionable actions by all the police involved here.

They are actions that raise questions; questions which the officers have not been able to answer. So we have no answers. We don't know. I have to wonder how often, though, 22 cops would be shooting at once. The reality that only one cop shot - how unique is this? Perhaps he was in the best position to shoot and that's why he was the only one who did. As I said, all we have are questions at this point.

I keep referring to the sergeant who tazed Yatim after he was shot multiple times - and I keep questioning why he isn't 'under fire.' Again. Surely being tazed didn't help the chances of Yatim's chances of survival - and there had to have been a reason for the officer to use his taser even after that many shots - so what was the reason? Because he perceived Yatim to still be a threat? What other reason would he have had? Again. More questions.

This cop is a danger to the public. He put his fellow officers at risk by his actions.

That's simply your opinion, stated as fact. You don't know that either of those statements is true.

He has now put himself in danger because of his actions.

Yes, he is being held accountable for his actions. It comes with the territory, I would imagine. He's not the first cop to be investigated/charged - and I doubt he'll be the last - but being charged doesn't equal guilt.

The video clearly shows evidence of the cop shooting the kid, killing him.

It shows evidence of him shooting Yatim, but not killing him as Yatim was still alive at that time. So did the taser on top of the gunshots do him in? or make his death more of a certainty? Again. More questions.

Now it's all semantics over what this death is classified as. Fact is, one dead kid. And this kid's story is by no means unique. IN contrast of the police's unique position which is instantly at more risk of abuse by not so level headed cops.

Of course it's not "all semantics." Seems as if the "semantics" claim is so often trotted out as an argument, a rebuttal, and it's not. There are different words for different charges for different actions for a reason, and that reason is because there is a difference between them all. A real difference.

I have two friends who are cops back home. One I have no problems whatsoever with handing him a firearm, solid person. The other I would not even give a knife to, severe long standing chip on his shoulder.

What does that have to do with this officer? this incident?

The public is outraged, and for a damn good reason.

The public is jumping the gun in many ways. It's one thing to be calling for an investigation; it's quite another to be making claims about the officer and his actions, declaring him a murderer, without all of the evidence.

But if this does bring to light training is not up to par and evaluations, physically and psychologically, are letting some bad apples slip through, then you have a whole system that needs to be re-evaluated from top to bottom.

Or maybe the problem isn't "bad apples" but improper training. Again. Questions.

Coupled with the long standing culture of protecting you boys behind the badge no matter what happens, and that can and has included, murder.

I'm sure it has. That doesn't mean this officer is guilty.

The great satire of life is that we can live through all this again when it happens again. We didn't listen! We did not do enough! By then we will have mostly forgotten about Yatim.

Life goes on as always for us, but not for the people directly involved. The life of innocent people who have been tried and hung by the public can, and often does, change forever. I see nothing wrong with calling for an investigation or a charge; a cop should have to answer as to why he/she fired their weapon. I do have a real problem with drawing conclusions without all of the evidence as well as making personal judgments about the officer, whom we know nothing about.

[Wilber]

People jumping to conclusions is to be expected. Anyone can watch these videos and draw conclusions based on their personal experiences, knowledge, and opinions. I don't expect a judge or a jury to do that, but we're not talking about that here. It's to be expected that people will watch the video, read the news reports, and draw their own conclusions from what evidence they have. Nobody would have any opinion on anything if a full forensic audit was needed to make a personal conclusion about things. People reach their conclusions with the tools and information that they have at their disposal. Some people, like yourself, choose to reserve judgment, others aren't going to.

What's hypocritical (and you weren't the one to do this) is chastising people for drawing conclusions about the incident and the cop, whilst drawing conclusions about the perpetrator or the prosecutors. By examining the inconsistencies in people's arguments, it makes it pretty clear where they stand, even when they claim otherwise.

Good post. I want to know everything that happened, not just what is on the video.

[On Guard for Thee]

I say make a miniature video cam a required part of all cops uniforms and this kind of incident will all but disappear. If a cop knew they were being recorded they would have to think ahead about how this will look in court. Let's face it, if this video didn't exist, it would be swept under the rug by now.

[LonJowett]

What with all the people who have been wrongfully convicted, maybe it's hasty to even state an opinion (as fact) about the convicted. Sometimes evidence is misleading. Leave them for G-d to judge!

[Wilber]

I say make a miniature video cam a required part of all cops uniforms and this kind of incident will all but disappear. If a cop knew they were being recorded they would have to think ahead about how this will look in court. Let's face it, if this video didn't exist, it would be swept under the rug by now.

Most cops are very aware of this would like to have cameras because they feel they would back them up more often than not. However, they don't get much say on how the budget is spent.

[eyeball]

Personally, and I don't think I'm exaggerating here, I think that this sort of thing touches upon one of the great frailties of human beings: an adoration, even worship, of great power, perhaps because there's a residual (if perverse) feeling of personal power by proxy.

Well, it sounds maybe like cheap psychologizing, and is no doubt an oversimplification. Still, I think there is a broad truth to it.

(This is an insight of libertarianism, although libertarians have remained bloodymindedly and unreflectively focused on elected government, without viewing the problems of power and authority in a larger human context.)

When speaking of policing matters, I think the truth is fairly obvious: we grant (and I support this) the police a certain amount of authority in given situations. But it is not to be any sort of extrapolated and automatic support for Authority, itself; that is, we temporarily should grant them power and authority, on a case-by-case basis.

And as always--from government to police to employers to parents--the onus is on the powerful, on the person wielding authority, to justify their use of it.

The onus is not on us to explain why it is wrong; the onus is on them to explain why it is (temporarily) right.

It bears mentioning that we recruit police from the same society that is being suffused with our governments's growing expectations and sense of entitlement to deference to its authority. Coupled with the steady beat of irrational fear being pumped into society it stands to reason that potential authority figures like police, might become even more unstable than your normal run-of-the-mill sycophant in a situation that challenges their expectation of obedience.

Its easy enough to just shrug this off by saying governments and politicians have been trying to cultivate fear ever since the caveman days, but who ever said we need to make it a virtual policy or institution of our governance? I think its our species Achilles Heel myself and that we're seriously screwed. It's too late to turn it around. I just don't see how it can be done other than to try and survive another run of it's horrific course.

The path to enlightenment is painful.

[On Guard for Thee]

Most cops are very aware of this would like to have cameras because they feel they would back them up more often than not. However, they don't get much say on how the budget is spent.

True enough and I reckon the costs would be significant. Benefits vs costs is always a consideration. I did read recently that in jurisdictions where it has been implemented, the "use of force" occurences dropped significantly and rapidly. Australlia was one area as I recall. I have heard there is a certain amount of reluctance to the idea due to a sort of "invasion of privacy" issue, But I reckon when you have a badge and a gun and are excersising the authorty of a cop, that is no longer private. In my world as a grey haired commercial pilot, I can recall a similar ruffling of feathers when they started sticking cockpit voice recorders in the panel. I don't even think about it anymore but I do believe it has enhanced safety both by ensuring procedures are better followed, and providing insights into how to prevent reoccurences when things do go wrong.

[Boges]

The Union uses cost as an excuse because it would seriously hamper getting its members on the Sunshine list.

I've heard the Union head say on the radio he opposes lapel cameras because that money could go into proper training. Kind of laughable actually.

[Black Dog]

I'm sure a lot of people believe a lot of things that aren't necessarily true. If a cop's intention was to kill, no one would survive being shot at by a cop, yet I would wager that more survive than die. The idea is to get the behavior to stop.

They shoot until the target is down and incapacitated, something which carriers a very high probability of killing the target. The difference between that and "shooting to kill" is practically no difference at all.

[Rue]

The First Nations have been dealing with this stuff with the RCMP for a long time. Except they don't get charged with murder when it's an indian they're killing.

? How about we replace the word "Indian" with "black'...then go on and take out the word 'black' and put in mentally ill, on and on.

You are providing an example of misplaced anger as to another issue with this one. You are using this case as a platform for anotheragenda accusing police of racism.

The officer in this action had no idea Sammy Yatim was of Syrian heritage so your saying this is the same situation as an alleged incident or incidents where police acted because of racist beliefs against native peoples is nonsensical.

No its not the same thing but you do show the lack of rationality in your response

What this shows is that had Mr. Yatim been native you would have simply cried racism and with that quick label

fail to identify the actual issues causing the shooting and death.

In fact your sweeping allegation shows us how people like you will trot out the race card as soon as police are involved with no thought to your name calling.

Yes we all know, that police have become desensitivized and intolerant towards native peoples and treat them like dirt but is simply calling that racism dealing with the issue or simply giving you an excuse to make loud noises?

When police are repeatedly exposed to the same group of people engaging in the same problematic behaviour (i.e., alcoholism) over and over they will become insensitive but is it simply because they hate native people, or is it because whether those people are native, white, yellow, blue, the police will treat them equally as badly once they become desensitivized to them?

The issue in this current shooting does not flow from racism but how police react to mentally ill people of any colour and whether their training is appropriate.

What we need to do is look at training of police and look again at how repeated exposure to certain kinds of behaviour will desensitivize them.

I would agree with people I debate against such as Black Dog that a shoot to immobilize training response is often a death sentence when one uses guns because when you shoot, you are advised to shoot until the person does not move. Since the average person does not bleed visually because their clothes absorb it, police often do not know they have hit someone so keep shooting until there is no movement, i.e., after the person is dead.

Kill or be killed that is what is being taught. Let's state it as simply as that because that is what the current concept is.

No you can't shoot a gun out of someone's hand or aim at their leg, or do summersault and knock the gun or knife out of their hand. That is not real. Once you use a gun, someone is going to die and if they do not after being shot its a gad damn miracle.

I agree with the other poster G who said there is question about the training issue of de-escalation and when to incorporate it and how thoroughly in such situations as the Yatim one. I also again repeat back Amer Women's last comments.

However as I stated earlier in an ironic twist I am glad this was not a black or native person killed because people

like you would have gone off an a tangent about racism and not understood such issues are not simplistically stereotyped as an "ism" such as racism.

These are matters that arise because of police training issues such as shoot to immobilize if a person approaches you after being told to stop.If that is what the officer did, its a training issue, the officer only did what he was

trained to do.

If that is not the issue, i.e., if in fact Yatim did not approach the officer and he panicked or lost his temper

we have to look at that carefully and not simply assume he is a murderer. He may have lost it, i.e., panicked out of fear. He may have been angry because he exhibited a necessary fallibility of humans put in highly emotionally charged situations.

It may not have been deliberate but something that can happen again and again until we identify the proper training issues to identify and prevent the phenomena that triggered the officer's decision to fire.

We have to freeze frame each sequence of external stimulus and reaction by the officer to get a clear picture of what caused him to react and respond how he did and whether we can better get an idea how to control and manage emotions such as fear and anger which can trigger inappropriate responses.

Labelling this officer or murderer are meaningless. That us just the knee jerk mob desire to seek revenge.

All that does is fuel angry responses equally as problematic as the one that may have precipitated this whole situation and of course will not get to the root of the problem.

Its easy to call anyone a racist because we all are. It is easy to call someone a murderer given the role of protecting society with a gun and placing him in highly charged situations.

Police are not robots. They make mistakes. They freeze up, panick, get anxious, nervous, angry. They become brutal after being repeatedly exposed to the worst of human behaviour such as alcoholism, domestic violence,

dead bodies, people in all states of decay.

Stop and think. If I force the worst humanity has to be paraded in front of your eyes daily, in intense yet sporadic and temporary time bursts in between sheer and utter boredom that comes from filling in forms, how do you think you

would react. What do you think a human body does after sitting 5 hours immobile when you suddenly then call that

body to run and react to a life and death or violent situation?

You think you can take ANY human and train them to simply turn on and off a switch. Of course not. From immobile and sedentary and bored to threat mode can't just be turned on and off. The human mind and its physical metabolism both need a transition period to go from one state to the other.

You've watched drag racing. When the cars initially roll they skid in place and kick. That is exactly what a human body does if you push from sedentary to extreme speed alert too quickly. The body and mind have no time to adjust and jam or freeze up into a state of fixed behaviour that struggles until it can then move to the next step.

That probably is what happened to this officer.

The assumption because other officers did not have their guns drawn while he did means he was wrong by the way

is not a valid one and won't be used. Police training does not require all police act the same in any situation particularly where one officer is firing and the others are not. Each is allowed to use judgement.

The questions such as should de-escalation have been used, were there too many shots fired, does the interval between the shooting sequences suggest an error or excessive response, did the deceased move towards the officer prior to the shooting after being told not to, those issues will be looked at.

Deliberate intent to kill will never be proven. At best there is some chance of criminal negligence being proven and certainly there will be a civil negligence law suit-but murder-no.

There is no way to prove this officer stood there and say-I want to deliberately kill this individual.

What I think you will see proven is an officer made human mistakes-hard as it is for people like you Cyper to imagine a cop as a human. I can see in your case they are all evil racists.

Stereotyping the mentally ill is wrong, so is stereotyping all police. We need better reasoning then generalizations as to both. By becoming more aware of the behaviours of the mentally ill in public and how police function in public under stress will help us understand both groups better and prevent any more deaths. Stereotyping either side as the villain or victim won't get that done.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Rue

[Black Dog]

The officer in this action had no idea Sammy Yatim was of Syrian heritage so your saying this is the same situation as police acting because of racist beliefs is nonsensical.

Strawman. Cybercoma made no such claim.

Its easy to call anyone a racist because we all are.

Speak for yourself?

[Guest American Woman]

They shoot until the target is down and incapacitated, something which carriers a very high probability of killing the target. The difference between that and "shooting to kill" is practically no difference at all.

Or they shoot until the perpetrator surrenders.

[Guest American Woman]

Most cops are very aware of this would like to have cameras because they feel they would back them up more often than not. However, they don't get much say on how the budget is spent.

Agreed. There have been many instances where but for the camera/recording, the cops wouldn't have any proof that they acted appropriately when accused of inappropriate behavior.

Edited August 21, 2013 by American Woman

[Black Dog]

Or they shoot until the perpetrator surrenders.

Whichever comes first. usually the death part. They call it "lethal force" for a reason.

[Guest American Woman]

Whichever comes first. usually the death part. They call it "lethal force" for a reason.

So do you have any statistics to back that claim up? How often do police officers use their weapons compared to how often a perp is killed?

[Black Dog]

So do you have any statistics to back that claim up? How often do police officers use their weapons compared to how often a perp is killed?

Nope. Do you?

But again: it's called lethal force for a reason. The intention is not to tickle or annoy.

[Guest American Woman]

Nope. Do you?

But again: it's called lethal force for a reason. The intention is not to tickle or annoy.

No, I don't, which is why I never made a claim one way or the other. You, on the other hand did make the claim that more often than not the perp dies, so I was asking for stats to back that claim up. Apparently you have none.

And yes, it's called "lethal force" because a gun is, by nature, "lethal." However, that in itself in no way confirms your claim.

[Guest American Woman]

One thing that hasn't been brought up at all is "suicide by cop," where a person with a death wish purposely acts in a threatening way, provoking a lethal response from a police officer. People do throw themselves in front of trains, cars, etc. using other people to fulfill their death wish, and sometimes that person pays the price. I know of an instance where someone threw himself in front of a car with such a purpose, he was killed, and it so happened that the driver was legally intoxicated and thus charged with manslaughter and sentenced to time in prison even though it was an intentional act. I know of another person who was stalking a police officer, trying to provoke him into shooting her. It happens, is all I'm saying.

[g_bambino]

I say make a miniature video cam a required part of all cops uniforms and this kind of incident will all but disappear.

Why just cops? And on constantly during their shift? Not one second without his or her actions being recorded?

I can recall a similar ruffling of feathers when they started sticking cockpit voice recorders in the panel...

Isn't that recording stored only in the cockpit voice recorder--the black box--that records only for a half hour and can only "opened" following an accident?

[ed.: +]

Edited August 21, 2013 by g_bambino

[Black Dog]

No, I don't, which is why I never made a claim one way or the other. You, on the other hand did make the claim that more often than not the perp dies, so I was asking for stats to back that claim up. Apparently you have none.

Uh:

I'm sure a lot of people believe a lot of things that aren't necessarily true. If a cop's intention was to kill, no one would survive being shot at by a cop, yet I would wager that more survive than die.

And yes, it's called "lethal force" because a gun is, by nature, "lethal." However, that in itself in no way confirms your claim.

No, but it sure makes the claim that cops don't expect to kill when they exercise deadly force look stupid.

Here's a quick couple of stats:

In 2009, there were 42 Officer Involved Shootings with the LAPD. Out of those, 30 resulted in a suspect being shot. And out of those, 21 resulted in a suspect’s death. In 2010 out of the 40 OIS incidents, 16 suspects were killed and 13 suspects were injured.

In New York in 2010 there were 33 incidents of intentional firearms discharges during an adversarial conflict, with 16 subjects injured and eight killed.

In 2011, there were 36 incidents of intentional firearms discharges during an adversarial conflict, with 19 subjects injured and nine killed.

I'm not sure if this means NYPD cops are better shots than the LAPD or worse.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Black Dog