TTC Police Shooting

[Wilber]

Justice needs to be applied evenly. Of course not by me, but by the courts. There seem to be numerous similar situations where a lot of doubt has been left. Look at the video, do you think the kid needed to die? I won't convict him but hopefully the video will.

According to you, the video has already convicted him. Why bother with a trial?

[Boges]

I don't think any of us are saying he's guilty. But the video doesn't look good. Why else would he be charged and other separate investigations announced above and beyond the SIUs. He's entitled to due process and he's receiving it.

He's getting better than most. He's not getting cuffed and put into the back of a car.

But someone stating their opinion on the evidence that has been made public isn't denying him anything. It's just an opinion. Ultimately the only opinion that'll matter is that of a jury.

[Wilber]

I don't think any of us are saying he's guilty. But the video doesn't look good. Why else would he be charged and other separate investigations announced above and beyond the SIUs. He's entitled to due process and he's receiving it.

He's getting better than most. He's not getting cuffed and put into the back of a car.

But someone stating their opinion on the evidence that has been made public isn't denying him anything. It's just an opinion. Ultimately the only opinion that'll matter is that of a jury.

I think some are definitely saying he is guilty. I agree, the video doesn't look good.

[On Guard for Thee]

The video will convict him, in a proper trial setting.

[Black Dog]

The issue isn't actual charges being laid. It's the people who've appointed themselves as judge, jury, and executioner and come to the undoubted (in their minds) conclusion that the officer is a sick murderer.

As happens very often in the court of public opinion and on the basis of far less evidence than what we've seen. I hope you and the other self-appointed members of the Discourse Police are equally vigilant in protecting regular folks accused of serious criminal offenses from the aspersions of people who have no power to influence the outcome of the process.

[cybercoma]

If all they went on was the Youtube video then what has the SIU been doing for the past month?

I'm guessing they actually got to see the TTC surveillance footage that would have shown how much of a threat Yatim actually posed, especially after the first 3 shots were fired.

The news reports already indicated how much evidence they had to go through. The video was only one portion of it. They've also had forensic experts come in and look at where the bullets landed, coroner's reports, etc. The YouTube videos are not the bulk of the evidence.

[cybercoma]

As happens very often in the court of public opinion and on the basis of far less evidence than what we've seen. I hope you and the other self-appointed members of the Discourse Police are equally vigilant in protecting regular folks accused of serious criminal offenses from the aspersions of people who have no power to influence the outcome of the process.

The arguments I hear from bambino and American Woman make me wonder if some of the general public is not suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

[Wilber]

The video will convict him, in a proper trial setting.

As I said, you have already convicted him. To you a trial is just a troublesome formality.

[GostHacked]

The arguments I hear from bambino and American Woman make me wonder if some of the general public is not suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

I had mentioned that a couple times in the Snowden thread.

[cybercoma]

I had mentioned that a couple times in the Snowden thread.

I didn't notice, but you seem to be right.

I was reading an article earlier today about EA Origin. It's their version of Steam, I guess. I'm not sure because I don't play PC games. If you're not aware (or others aren't aware), it's basically iTunes for computer games. You license the software, download it, and get to play it as long as you have the license. Anyway, EA decides that they're going to give people a full refund within 24 hours of playing the game for the first time or 1 week after purchase, whichever comes first. For whatever reason, if you don't like the game, you get a full refund. You lose the license to the software, so you're not able to load it afterwards.

What a fantastic benefit for the customers, right? In the comment section of the news story, the posts were primarily excited. People were hailing Origin for being better than Steam in this regard. Steam does not give refunds at all. You buy it. It's yours. Full stop. However, there were a few customers that were concerned about people abusing it and recommending that it should be less than 24 hours amongst other things. Just stop and think about that for a minute. People were arguing against something that is a benefit to them. Economists are unable to deal with this behaviour at all. Which is why so many theories about wages, taxation, and demand do not work in reality. Consequently, it left me thinking consumers are beginning to show signs of stockholm syndrome. They've been held captive by the will of companies for so long that they're willing to harm themselves for the companies' benefits. It's incredible.

[PIK]

22 cops pointing guns at a knife welding guy....inside a street car.

Toronto's Finest , slipping in public confidence with every breathe we take.

So very true guyser. A incident very similiar to this happened in my home town just a few years back. And the cop got away with it and they even kept him on the force, instead of moving him.

[GostHacked]

I've seen other companies try to match what Steam has, and all of them have seem to have been failures. I agree that it is a nice option to say 'no thank you' to the game and be able to return it and get a refund. I've blown money on games that I hate and could not get a refund. But that is more to do with the legalities of the EULA for any piece of software that is out there today.

Is it hip to be a victim these days? Is it chic to watch all of this and simply accept it and feel powerless and marginalized? It's like dad beats you but you blame mom anyways? I find it just as baffling.

Also people seem to simply be afraid to speak their minds these days. I get ridiculed at times for speaking my mind and not following the herd mentality. I guess it is because I can think for myself, and sure I do get things wrong.

'Victim Transgressions' is a term I am coining right now. The basic definition is to blame someone else other than the people causing you harm.

NSA spying, but people would rather blame Snowden than the government.

People would rather blame the training and many other things than deal with what this one officer did. Yes the kid had a knife, yes he posed a threat, but the threat could be and was quite easily contained to the interior of the streetcar.

Another thing I have noticed and you may have as well is how some articles are written. The just of what I am getting at is that news articles are written in a way to confuse people, but not the ones who cannot think. I've seen it many times where in a single paragraph, there will be contradictions but written in a way that it reconciles fine in one's brain to say they do not contradict each other. The news article will be filled with non-important fluff while a single line might be key to the real issue the article is trying to get at.

For critical thinkers, these kinds of things simply hurt their brains. They know there is a difference, but cannot make others see it, for they are not critical thinkers (ties in a bit to your teaching thread)

So in the end we love to be victims as it seems cool to complain about others instead of dealing with the real issue at hand. I don't get it, so hence the term 'victim transgressions'.

[Boges]

I've seen other companies try to match what Steam has, and all of them have seem to have been failures. I agree that it is a nice option to say 'no thank you' to the game and be able to return it and get a refund. I've blown money on games that I hate and could not get a refund. But that is more to do with the legalities of the EULA for any piece of software that is out there today.Is it hip to be a victim these days? Is it chic to watch all of this and simply accept it and feel powerless and marginalized? It's like dad beats you but you blame mom anyways? I find it just as baffling.Also people seem to simply be afraid to speak their minds these days. I get ridiculed at times for speaking my mind and not following the herd mentality. I guess it is because I can think for myself, and sure I do get things wrong.'Victim Transgressions' is a term I am coining right now. The basic definition is to blame someone else other than the people causing you harm.NSA spying, but people would rather blame Snowden than the government.People would rather blame the training and many other things than deal with what this one officer did. Yes the kid had a knife, yes he posed a threat, but the threat could be and was quite easily contained to the interior of the streetcar.Another thing I have noticed and you may have as well is how some articles are written. The just of what I am getting at is that news articles are written in a way to confuse people, but not the ones who cannot think. I've seen it many times where in a single paragraph, there will be contradictions but written in a way that it reconciles fine in one's brain to say they do not contradict each other. The news article will be filled with non-important fluff while a single line might be key to the real issue the article is trying to get at.For critical thinkers, these kinds of things simply hurt their brains. They know there is a difference, but cannot make others see it, for they are not critical thinkers (ties in a bit to your teaching thread)So in the end we love to be victims as it seems cool to complain about others instead of dealing with the real issue at hand. I don't get it, so hence the term 'victim transgressions'.

Why are you talking about Ed Snowden in a thread about a Toronto Cop Shooting a kid.

Did this cop shoot Snowden too?

[g_bambino]

As happens very often in the court of public opinion and on the basis of far less evidence than what we've seen.

Which is precisely the problem that was being discussed, yes.

[Y]ou and the other self-appointed members of the Discourse Police...

Overly dramatic. Shone a light onto your guilty pleasures, have I?

[i hope you] are equally vigilant in protecting regular folks accused of serious criminal offenses...

Accusation isn't the issue. Jumping to the conclusion that someone is undoubetdly guilty of what they're accused of--i.e. skipping the whole trial process, which, as you said, often happens in the court of public opinion--is.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited August 20, 2013 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

The news reports already indicated how much evidence they had to go through. The video was only one portion of it. They've also had forensic experts come in and look at where the bullets landed, coroner's reports, etc. The YouTube videos are not the bulk of the evidence.

Indeed.

[Boges]

Which is precisely the problem that was being discussed, yes.

Accusation isn't the problem. Jumping to the conclusion that someone is undoubetdly guilty of what they're accused of--i.e. skipping the whole trial process, which, as you said, often happens in the court of public opinion--is.

So you're implying people should never have an opinion on someone's guilt before a trial?

Based on the evidence made public it's reasonable to believe that the officer is guilty. The public's opinion isn't legally binding. A court will still have its say on the ultimate fate of this officer.

[GostHacked]

Why are you talking about Ed Snowden in a thread about a Toronto Cop Shooting a kid.

Did this cop shoot Snowden too?

It was a direct response to Cybercoma. Read his post then read mine. No need to discuss Snowden further in this thread.

[g_bambino]

So you're implying people should never have an opinion on someone's guilt before a trial?

There's a difference between opinion and fact, which only grows wider the less evidence any opinion is based upon.

[Black Dog]

Which is precisely the problem that was being discussed, yes.

And yet I haven't really seen you pipe up for the rights of other accused murders, pedophiles etc.

Overly dramatic. Shone a light onto your guilty pleasures, have I?

That...doesn't....make...sense...?

Accusation isn't the issue. Jumping to the conclusion that someone is undoubetdly guilty of what they're accused of--i.e. skipping the whole trial process, which, as you said, often happens in the court of public opinion--is.

Except there's no chance due process will be passed by. The cop will get his day in court like anyone else. Where's the issue here, the damage?

[Guest American Woman]

So you're implying people should never have an opinion on someone's guilt before a trial?

Based on the evidence made public it's reasonable to believe that the officer is guilty. The public's opinion isn't legally binding. A court will still have its say on the ultimate fate of this officer.

What's been clearly stated is that there is a distinct difference between having an opinion of guilt and making a claim of guilt, saying we should all "know" that he is guilty, based on a YouTube video. It's one thing to have an opinion, and it's quite another to believe their opinion is factual, and everyone should feel that way and there's something wrong with them if they don't. It's one thing to have an opinion, and quite another to make statements about this officer's character, which none of us know a thing about.

While you may think it's reasonable to believe that the cop in guilty, that doesn't mean we "know" that he is.

-------------------------------------

It's also incredible to me the comments that have been directed at me by so many for simply pointing out that we don't know the whole story, that "due process" is an important right in our countries, and it's wrong to be making judgments about this officer, which are quite different from opinions, without knowing the whole story, and most importantly, without having heard one word from him.

I've also pointed out several times that by focusing only on the officer who did the shooting, other concerns may be getting buried. I bring up, again, the officer who used a taser on someone who had been shot multiple times. I bring up, also, the possibility of a need for changes within training. If this officer acted reasonably within his training, I have to question the second degree murder charge. I again wonder if it isn't to appease the crowd, as it's quite commonly thought that OJ was found innocent so as not to create a disturbance. It also could be, as I said, a second degree murder charge could be taking the heat off of the department/the incident in other areas.

There are a lot of unanswered questions, the main one being - why did the officer feel the need to shoot? He wasn't a rookie. Why did he shoot?

Edited August 20, 2013 by American Woman

[Black Dog]

There's a difference between opinion and fact, which only grows wider the less evidence any opinion is based upon.

And people are still allowed to hold and express opinions freely, regardless of the strength of the evidence. Feel free to debate the particulars, but to imply as you and AW have, that even the expression of opinions should be somehow limited is profoundly anti-democratic.

[Guest American Woman]

And people are still allowed to hold and express opinions freely, regardless of the strength of the evidence. Feel free to debate the particulars, but to imply as you and AW have, that even the expression of opinions should be somehow limited is profoundly anti-democratic.

I have never to much as hinted at what you claim I have implied. I have very clearly stated what I take objection to, what is wrong, and it's not "the expression of opinions," so I suggest you watch what you are accusing me of.

[Black Dog]

I have never to much as hinted at what you claim I have implied. I have very clearly stated what I take objection to, what is wrong, and it's not "the expression of opinions," so I suggest you watch what you are accusing me of.

Ah, yeah: another classic AW "misunderstanding".

Let's take a look at what you've "verry clearly" objected to here:

You speak of Derek and me not being "experts," even though my stance has consistently been that we can't make a judgement without all of the information, so I'll point out to you that you are no expert and are in no position to make such a judgement call.

I have to wonder how many people who have condemned this officer, made personal judgements about him without knowing him from Adam, would want to be so judged themselves on so little information. One of the great things about out nations is that people have the right of due process. Verdicts are not made on something so sketchy as a YouTube video showing just part of an incident from one viewpoint, or from what the media has to say/focuses on. The officer in question has not been able to say one word himself, and the police are not speaking out about it due to the investigation. Yet people claim they know all they need to know. The lynch mob mentality that is so apparent from too many goes against everything our countries stand for.

I have not condemned the officer or justified his actions. Again. My stance has always been that we don't have all the information necessary to make a judgment. We weren't there. We were not privy to what the officer was privy to. Again. A sergeant felt the need to use a taser after the shots were fired.

So, you're against people making judgments without all the facts. You explicitly say that this is something we can't and should not do. But what does that even mean in practice? Is it your opinion that we should say nothing at all until the process plays itself out? If not that, then what?

[Black Dog]

Ah, didn't see this.

What's been clearly stated is that there is a distinct difference between having an opinion of guilt and making a claim of guilt, saying we should all "know" that he is guilty, based on a YouTube video. It's one thing to have an opinion, and it's quite another to believe their opinion is factual, and everyone should feel that way and there's something wrong with them if they don't. It's one thing to have an opinion, and quite another to make statements about this officer's character, which none of us know a thing about.

Your objections here are purely aesthetic/semantic insofar as it's not the opinions you're objecting to, but the fashion in which they are being expressed. That's it.

It's also incredible to me the comments that have been directed at me by so many for simply pointing out that we don't know the whole story, that "due process" is an important right in our countries, and it's wrong to be making judgments about this officer, which are quite different from opinions, without knowing the whole story, and most importantly, without having heard one word from him.

In what way? Where's the line?

[Guest American Woman]

Ah, didn't see this.

Your objections here are purely aesthetic/semantic insofar as it's not the opinions you're objecting to, but the fashion in which they are being expressed. That's it.

Nope. That's not it at all as my objections are not "purely aesthetic/semantic;" stating one's opinion and making judgments/declarations are two very different things.