TTC Police Shooting

[Icebound]

It’s a moot point in this case……..the only evidence that could be construed as being tampered with is the nine .40 S&W casings on the street, but in this case, there is no ambivalence from the Toronto police on the number of shots fired or from what gun……….No need for a Warren Commission here……

It may be moot. But only because of the extensive video coverage. Absent that, would the witnesses be reliable enough to accurately count the shots and position the shooter?

Also..."in this case"..... shouldn't EVERY case be treated with the utmost professionalism?

Edited August 5, 2013 by Icebound

[GostHacked]

So, people want to wait for a report so they can determine if the cop done wrong while putting the blame 100% on the kid.

Quite disgusting if you ask me.

[ReeferMadness]

Yes, I read/watched that part.......so are you suggesting that SIU/The Crown are both in the pocket of the Toronto Police?

Ross McLean said that the SIU is limited in what it can do and say. And SIU's are commonly made up of ex-police so there is a natural bias in favour of police. Ross also said (just so it's clear, this is a crime expert talking, not me) that the SIU gives the benefit of the doubt to police. And don't forget that the Ontario Ombudsman and former head of the SIU has publicly called out the cops for failing to cooperate with the SIU.

The crap that police get away with is ridiculous. A couple of years ago in BC, someone died in police custody in BC. He'd been shot in the back of the head by the police. It was ruled self defence.

The good citizens of Toronto will not have forgotten how hundreds of bystanders were illegally rounded up, imprisoned and in some cases assaulted by Toronto's finest during the G8 summit. Blair managed to sweep all of that under the rug.

And don't even get me started about the Dziekanski case. When police are accused of something, they are often allowed to compare notes before being interviewed. They apparently can collude, lie, and invent a version of reality that is totally contradicted by video and eyewitnesses; and walk away from it all.

[Guest Derek L]

It may be moot. But only because of the extensive video coverage. Absent that, would the witnesses be reliable enough to accurately count the shots and position the shooter?

So, you think the police would try and hide the numbers of shots fired and from what gun?

Why?

Also..."in this case"..... shouldn't EVERY case be treated with the utmost professionalism?

How is it not in respect to 9 shell casings?

[jacee]

jacee, on 04 Aug 2013 - 9:23 PM, said:

What are the police procedures for dealing with what they seem to call 'excited delerium'?

Do they not have any yet?

It depends.......Here's a graph, from the National Post, highlighting threats and the corresponding police responses:

http://wpmedia.news.nationalpost.com/2013/07/force2.jpg?w=620&h=952

So ... use of deadly force depends entirely on the distressed person's response to verbal police commands - "communication" - in the above graphic.

My point is that there are many times when police are dealing with people with mental or physical disabilities, or strung out on drugs ... who simply cannot respond rationally to police commands ... and these people are getting killed by police.

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/2009/06/23/police_shoot_mentally_disabled_man.html?app=noRedirect

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/posted-toronto/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2011/08/08/vigil-held-as-siu-probes-disabled-man%E2%80%99s-death

There has to be a smarter strategy than

"Drop the knife!" bangbangbang ... bangbangbangbangbangbang ... zzzzzzzttttt!

Verbal commands and ultimatums are useless in these situations and should not be the only strategy employed by police. That policy amounts to a license to kill anybody who isn't capable of understanding or responding appropriately in their current mental state.

Seems a new policy is required.

Maybe all officers should do a day's work in a mental health facility to learn how staff handle distressed people. Asserting authority as a first approach, physically or verbally, is a definite no-no, guaranteed to escalate the problem, but this seems to be the only approach police are taught.

Something wrong with their policy and training.

Edited August 5, 2013 by jacee

[Guest Derek L]

Ross McLean said that the SIU is limited in what it can do and say. And SIU's are commonly made up of ex-police so there is a natural bias in favour of police. Ross also said (just so it's clear, this is a crime expert talking, not me) that the SIU gives the benefit of the doubt to police. And don't forget that the Ontario Ombudsman and former head of the SIU has publicly called out the cops for failing to cooperate with the SIU.

Or, could it be that the SIU investigators side with the police a great many times because they're in the right?

Has there been any evidence to suggest the Toronto police are not cooperating with the SIU over this case?

[Guest Derek L]

So ... use of deadly force depends entirely on the distressed person's response to verbal police commands - "communication" - in the above graphic.

My point is that there are many times when police

Look at the lower portion titled "Lethal Force"....

[Guest American Woman]

If people had any level of confidence that there will be due process, you wouldn't be seeing the same level of reaction.

So by "due process," you mean finding the officer guilty?

The "due process" will drag on for months and months.

Yes, due process normally doesn't happen overnight. These things take time. You think it would be better if they did a rush job? Why?

No doubt, it's hoped that the public interest and outrage will die down over time,

You already made up your mind, but "due process" doesn't mean 'concluding that the police officer is guilty.' it means a thorough investigation.

Then, when the inevitable happens and the cops are cleared, there will be a couple of small headlines and everything will be forgotten. Until the next trigger-happy cop needs a notch on his belt.[/size]

What gives you the right to judge this police officer with absolutely no knowledge of him? As you talk about not having faith that there will be "due process?" Do you really not see the total hypocrisy?

[GostHacked]

What gives you the right to judge this police officer with absolutely no knowledge of him? As you talk about not having faith that there will be "due process?" Do you really not see the total hypocrisy?

But we can judge the dead kid right? Sounds fair.

[Guest American Woman]

But we can judge the dead kid right? Sounds fair.

Show me one post where I even so much as insinuated that we can judge the dead kid. :angry:

Edited August 5, 2013 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

Very true... but until he attempts to do that (which the video shows that clearly he didn't) then they don't have a need to blow him away.

The cops' armour also protects from stab wounds. If they bothered to put it on that day.

[Guest Derek L]

The cops' armour also protects from stab wounds. If they bothered to put it on that day.

Not in the legs, groin, neck, armpit, kidneys, head, arms etc……all sorts of bits in the body that don’t take well to getting spiked…..

[jacee]

I guess police get the same consideration we all do - 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

However, they can usually count on other cop witnesses to back them up: A little confusion in their stories here and there can lead to 'reasonable doubt'.

Also there is no doubt that current police policy and procedures - "drop it or I'll shoot" - allow them to kill distressed/disabled people who can't follow commands.

[Rue]

The cops' armour also protects from stab wounds. If they bothered to put it on that day.

Actually no it does not. Do your homework.

[Rue]

Not in the legs, groin, neck, armpit, kidneys, head, arms etc……all sorts of bits in the body that don’t take well to getting spiked…..

Of course. CY should do his homework.

I wish people could watch some of the police training tapes to see just how difficult it is tohandle someone with a knife. In fact most trainers find it easier to train police on how to deal with guns than knives.

I have never met any expert in martial arts who would tell you its easy to disarm a man. Every trainer I know with the black belts in the wide range of martial and defensive arts would never claim its an easy thing to do.

In fact since ancient days thousands of techniques have been developed and there is no one way better than the others. The ideal defensive specialist would have to learn every single defensive art known to man and then it would be impossible to use them all or know which one is the best one in any situation.

I do agree with some of the contributors like Jacee that there has to be something better than drop the knife as a response to a deranged person.

Let's also get it clear. This person exposed himself, then brandished his knife at people on the bus. Had one passenger not blocked him with a bike we could have had a blood bath.

As it is everyone got off alive and that is something not to be overlooked and be thankful for.

As for those who want to try the police and find them guilty without due process I say this clearly-engaging in a lynch mob reaction will not help police in the future learn from this incident what not to do.

If things went wrong this can be turned into a learning tool.

No one wants a needless death. Its a tragedy. But I don't want a police officer dying anymore then I wanted that boy dying.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Rue

[Rue]

Or, could it be that the SIU investigators side with the police a great many times because they're in the right?

Has there been any evidence to suggest the Toronto police are not cooperating with the SIU over this case?

Or, could it be that the SIU investigators side with the police a great many times because they're in the right?

Has there been any evidence to suggest the Toronto police are not cooperating with the SIU over this case?

The SIU do not "side" with anyone. You are off base there. If anything their former head who is now the Ombudsman has a bias against existing police practices in Toronto and has shown it with intemperate remarks to date.

In fact internal affairs who used to investigate these things prior to the SIU were so tough on police they could not get any cooperation.

Of course there is a blue wall. Of course police don't want to turn on each other. You think that is any different than in any other profession?

Sure its there. No doubt.

Its why they want an arm's length SIU outside the police force.

In this incident what I see is a rush to judgement my thousands of arm chair experts with no training watching a video with an angle that blocks all the essential angles needed to understand the response

not to mention people operating on assumptions based on a lack of understanding how fast a mad man can move in a second or why officers don't cut off and/or surround madmen or why only one officer is doing the

speaking or firing in that situation or the protocol for dealing with knife carriers.

A lot of information is not known to some of you arm chair judges.

We all have opinions. I am very opinionated. But that is all we have. We do not have all the salient facts required in making any conclusions from watching one tape.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Rue

[Rue]

I also would like to see an autopsy done on the boy to see if he had

some organic disease that caused him to behave the way he did before his

death.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Rue

[ReeferMadness]

So by "due process," you mean finding the officer guilty?

Yes, due process normally doesn't happen overnight. These things take time. You think it would be better if they did a rush job? Why?

You already made up your mind, but "due process" doesn't mean 'concluding that the police officer is guilty.' it means a thorough investigation.

What gives you the right to judge this police officer with absolutely no knowledge of him? As you talk about not having faith that there will be "due process?" Do you really not see the total hypocrisy?

I mean a process where there is an honest assessment of whether the officer took reasonable steps to prevent killing an 18 year old. I mean some hard questions and honest answers as to why the shooting started within a minute of the police arriving on scene. I mean some understanding of among the 20 odd cops milling around aimlessly, was anyone in charge? I mean whether there is adequate training for police in dealing with disturbed individuals other than pulling a trigger 9 times, whether that training is actually being used and whether there is any effort to find better ways of disarming a guy with a knife. I mean someone coming to a fair and reasonable conclusion as to whether someone who has already been shot and is on his back presents a mortal threat to 22 armed police. And I don't see why this process should months or years to come to a conclusion.

I've seen this movie before and no matter how damning the evidence, the result is always the same. The cops can do no wrong. There are always the same platitudes about not prejudging the outcome and promises that the investigation will be thorough. Then the process winds on for years and at the end of it all, there is the inevitable finding that the police have done nothing wrong.

People need to get angry and to demand answers that satisfy them. Otherwise, the police will continue to use excessive violence.

[ReeferMadness]

Show me one post where I even so much as insinuated that we can judge the dead kid. :angry:

The kid hasn't be judged - but he has been executed. There's justice for you.

[ReeferMadness]

The SIU do not "side" with anyone. You are off base there. If anything their former head who is now the Ombudsman has a bias against existing police practices in Toronto and has shown it with intemperate remarks to date.

In fact internal affairs who used to investigate these things prior to the SIU were so tough on police they could not get any cooperation.

And yet....

Subsequent to the G20 debacle, a number of activists were sentenced to substantial prison terms for non-violent offences. About a year ago, there were big headlines indicating that high ranking police officials were to be charged for the rampant and flagrant abuses of police power. People were badly treated and in some cases assaulted. Care to tell me how many police are in jail as a result?

[Guest American Woman]

I mean a process where there is an honest assessment of whether the officer took reasonable steps to prevent killing an 18 year old. I mean some hard questions and honest answers as to why the shooting started within a minute of the police arriving on scene.

And that's exactly what the investigation is going to do.

I mean some understanding of among the 20 odd cops milling around aimlessly, was anyone in charge?

You're doing it again. You're drawing your own conclusions without all the evidence. How do you know the cops were "milling around aimlessly?"

I mean whether there is adequate training for police in dealing with disturbed individuals other than pulling a trigger 9 times, whether that training is actually being used and whether there is any effort to find better ways of disarming a guy with a knife. I mean someone coming to a fair and reasonable conclusion as to whether someone who has already been shot and is on his back presents a mortal threat to 22 armed police. And I don't see why this process should months or years to come to a conclusion.

Regardless of what you "think," the investigation will take as long as is necessary, just as trials may go on longer than you or anyone else may think they should. That's part of "due process;" taking as long as is necessary to gather all the evidence and evaluate it - then coming to a conclusion, and that doesn't necessarily mean coming to the conclusion you would like. Whether or not "due process" took place isn't dependent on whether or not everyone agrees with the outcome.

I've seen this movie before and no matter how damning the evidence, the result is always the same. The cops can do no wrong. There are always the same platitudes about not prejudging the outcome and promises that the investigation will be thorough. Then the process winds on for years and at the end of it all, there is the inevitable finding that the police have done nothing wrong.

Let's say that't true. That still doesn't give people the right to make claims about this cop's motives. It may be found that he did do the wrong thing, but that doesn't automatically mean that the cop was "trigger happy and wanted another notch on his belt." You don't seem to get that. You talk about due process as you judge away. You have no idea why the cop shot the kid. None at all. Yet that doesn't stop you from assignation of his character.

People need to get angry and to demand answers that satisfy them. Otherwise, the police will continue to use excessive violence.

And once again you've made your determination. This cop, according to you, used "excessive violence." That's reaching a verdict without all of the evidence - and when you go one step further, making claims as to why he did what he did - assessing his character, which you know absolutely nothing about, in the process.

[cybercoma]

4- Another cop says "Drop the knife now...". The Cop from #3 says "Don't move".

You see this too many times with cop videos. A bunch of cops get together and try to rush a suspect, taking him by surprise in order to disorient him, then they shout commands at him expecting him to immediately comply. The problem is cop 1 says do thing A and cop 2 says do thing B. Do you not move or do you drop the knife? You can't drop the knife without moving. Opening your hand is moving. This happens too often where they give contradicting commands and I suspect they do it intentionally to disorient the person they're apprehending. Yet at the same time they want a disoriented person to follow orders. It's pretty stupid.

[cybercoma]

If you look closely at the video, Rob Ford can be seen smoking crack in the background. I swear!

Ok. This made me laugh.

[cybercoma]

Justice doesn't require information. It does not require process or policy. A thing is either just or it isn't. Committing oneself to a particular process is fine, but to suggest the process encompasses justice, or that justice can't exist outside the process is nonsensical.

Not to invoke Godwin's Law, but American Woman's argument by its logic also justifies the atrocities of Nazi Germany because they were legal according to the laws and processes in place at the time. Only a complete fool would say justice was present in their concentration camps.

Edited August 5, 2013 by cybercoma

[ReeferMadness]

And that's exactly what the investigation is going to do.

You're doing it again. You're drawing your own conclusions without all the evidence. How do you know the cops were "milling around aimlessly?"

Regardless of what you "think," the investigation will take as long as is necessary, just as trials may go on longer than you or anyone else may think they should. That's part of "due process;" taking as long as is necessary to gather all the evidence and evaluate it - then coming to a conclusion, and that doesn't necessarily mean coming to the conclusion you would like. Whether or not "due process" took place isn't dependent on whether or not everyone agrees with the outcome.

Let's say that't true. That still doesn't give people the right to make claims about this cop's motives. It may be found that he did do the wrong thing, but that doesn't automatically mean that the cop was "trigger happy and wanted another notch on his belt." You don't seem to get that. You talk about due process as you judge away. You have no idea why the cop shot the kid. None at all. Yet that doesn't stop you from assignation of his character.

And once again you've made your determination. This cop, according to you, used "excessive violence." That's reaching a verdict without all of the evidence - and when you go one step further, making claims as to why he did what he did - assessing his character, which you know absolutely nothing about, in the process.

You have this inordinate faith in the process. Good luck with that.