TTC Police Shooting

[ReeferMadness]

I'm not grasping what you're putting down......care to clarify?

You claimed that Sammy was not behaving rationally - most people would agree with that. However, I think that the cop who fired almost an entire clip within the space of a minute lost control and wasn't behaving very rationally either.

Nor is it very rational to suggest that a kid who's been shot at short range with a hollow point bullet and is lying on his back is suddenly going to leap to his feet and do injury to armed police who are shooting at him.

[Guest Derek L]

You claimed that Sammy was not behaving rationally - most people would agree with that. However, I think that the cop who fired almost an entire clip within the space of a minute lost control and wasn't behaving very rationally either.

You mean magazine, and no, 9 shots is half with a round chambered……And there is no indication, nor evidence to suggest the officer “lost control” and didn’t follow Toronto police policies…….If you have anything contrary to that, by all means, provide it.

Nor is it very rational to suggest that a kid who's been shot at short range with a hollow point bullet and is lying on his back is suddenly going to leap to his feet and do injury to armed police who are shooting at him.

What’s not rational is determining that without knowing all the facts…..clearly we don’t know how many rounds hit him and to what extent the damage was caused by the initial rounds……

[GostHacked]

22 I doubt, but the first one or two........Would you let someone stab or slash you with a knife?

Why would you get in harms way of a knife if the person was contained in the streetcar? It would be like he had a gun and you stepped in the path of where he was aiming.... that kind of stupidity will get a cop killed.

[Boges]

You mean magazine, and no, 9 shots is half with a round chambered……And there is no indication, nor evidence to suggest the officer “lost control” and didn’t follow Toronto police policies…….If you have anything contrary to that, by all means, provide it.

Actually one of the reasons he could be identified is because in the video it's seen that he's being pulled back by other officers. And people uttering his name is audible. Also the fact that he was suspended is an indication that the powers that be suspect he did something wrong.

What’s not rational is determining that without knowing all the facts…..clearly we don’t know how many rounds hit him and to what extent the damage was caused by the initial rounds……

I think evidence supports that at least one of the first 3 rounds hit their target otherwise why would the target be down? He clearly re-aims lower.

I'm sorry but even if he still had a knife in his hand he ceased being a threat when he was down an no longer in the doorway. At least he wasn't a threat enough to justify a further 6 rounds.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Boges

[cybercoma]

Yeah, a knife wielding guy can cover the distance in several seconds.....

How fast does a bullet from an officer's service weapon cover that distance?

I never said the cop couldn't hit the side of a barn.......that's your projection.

You're right. Those weren't your exact words, but that's exactly what you mean when you ask silly questions like this:

How do you know he was shot three times?

You keep suggesting that the cop missed the guy and that's why he needed empty half the magazine into him. The perpetrator was in a narrow street car with nowhere to move. After the first three shots he was on his back. At that point, you awkwardly try to justify firing several more rounds into the guy. It's this second volley of bullets that is completely abhorrent to any rational observer and the taser is ludicrous.

[cybercoma]

For illustration purposes, German police in 2011 only shot 36 bullets at suspects in total for the entire year. (The article also mentions a Harlem man in the US being shot at 84 times. A single suspect, 84 times.)

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/05/german-police-used-only-85-bullets-against-people-2011/52162/

[Moonlight Graham]

Glad you posted this, since it clearly shows the cops skipped right over the assess and plan phases.

You sure about that? Does anyone have the video footage showing the whole incident, starting with passengers running off the streetcar as it stops? I can't seem to find that particular footage.

[Guest American Woman]

You sure about that? Does anyone have the video footage showing the whole incident, starting with passengers running off the streetcar as it stops? I can't seem to find that particular footage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9JtkgDR7i8

[Guest American Woman]

That's pretty much the essence of what AW was claiming. 25% of shots hit their targets (or something like that). Not very impressive if that's what happened here. 15 feet away, stationary target with nowhere to move.

It's not my claim any more than the theory of relativity would be my theory because I quoted it. It's the claim of people who know. The site also explains why that's the case. If you want "impressive," then you're talking sharpshooters, which is altogether different.

[Black Dog]

You keep suggesting that the cop missed the guy and that's why he needed empty half the magazine into him. The perpetrator was in a narrow street car with nowhere to move. After the first three shots he was on his back. At that point, you awkwardly try to justify firing several more rounds into the guy. It's this second volley of bullets that is completely abhorrent to any rational observer and the taser is ludicrous.

I think the larger point that's obscured by the somewhat academic discussion of why the cop fired nine shots is why the cop shot at all. I am not comfortable with individual cops having the power to issue life or death ultimatums on the spur of the moment.

[Guest Derek L]

Actually one of the reasons he could be identified is because in the video it's seen that he's being pulled back by other officers. And people uttering his name is audible. Also the fact that he was suspended is an indication that the powers that be suspect he did something wrong.

Yet, with all that, no charges laid.......

I think evidence supports that at least one of the first 3 rounds hit their target otherwise why would the target be down? He clearly re-aims lower.

I'm sorry but even if he still had a knife in his hand he ceased being a threat when he was down an no longer in the doorway. At least he wasn't a threat enough to justify a further 6 rounds.

Your're basing that on what? A bullet could have ricocheted off a handrail sending a fragment into his arm or leg for example, and though painful, far from fatal, hence still a threat.

[Guest Derek L]

How fast does a bullet from an officer's service weapon cover that distance?

From an aimed shot?

You're right. Those weren't your exact words, but that's exactly what you mean when you ask silly questions like this:

No it isn't......

You keep suggesting that the cop missed the guy and that's why he needed empty half the magazine into him. The perpetrator was in a narrow street car with nowhere to move. After the first three shots he was on his back. At that point, you awkwardly try to justify firing several more rounds into the guy. It's this second volley of bullets that is completely abhorrent to any rational observer and the taser is ludicrous.

I never said the officer missed the guy, I have asked numerous times how many of the nine shots hit him, and where though.......both very important pieces of information to digest and form a reasoned conclusion.

You speak to being a rational observer, I'll ask you this then:

With both 9mm & .40 S&W calibre handguns, why are shooters taught as a minimum to fire a double-tap (two rapid aimed shots) at the target, and even with that practice being found insufficient in far too many documented cases, to fire a triple-tap or a Mozambique drill (two in the chest, one in the head) at a target?

Now when you figure that out, you might ask why defensive shooters (like police) don’t just carry a gun with a more powerful cartridge, like a 45ACP, which has a far superior inherent stopping power………that lesson will cover single and double stacked magazines and their relation to capacity of the different size calibres….

[jacee]

From an aimed shot?

No it isn't......

I never said the officer missed the guy, I have asked numerous times how many of the nine shots hit him, and where though.......both very important pieces of information to digest and form a reasoned conclusion.

You speak to being a rational observer, I'll ask you this then:

With both 9mm & .40 S&W calibre handguns, why are shooters taught as a minimum to fire a double-tap ...

I know guns are your passion, but this is all irrelevant.

There was no emergency, no need to shoot at all. The cop lost it.

Edited August 6, 2013 by jacee

[Guest American Woman]

There was no emergency, no need to shoot at all. The cop lost it.

The investigation is over - and I somehow missed reading about the findings? Source, please.

[Guest Derek L]

I know guns are your passion, but this is all irrelevant.

There was no emergency, no need to shoot at all. The cop lost it.

Why is it irrelevant? The poster I was responding spoke to the need (or lack there of) number of shots being fired, without mentioning the number that both hit and the extent of the injury caused by the initial 3, followed by the remaining shots several seconds later.

Simply put, if as mentioned by both AW and myself, previous North American police shootings (and as provided for some reason, including the Germans) only see an average accuracy of ~25-35%, that would translate into only ~2-3 shots actually hitting him of the 9 shots fired.

Now you couple this with the inadequate stopping power achieved with a 9mm cartridge, and only slightly better ballistics from a .40 S&W cartridge, add the training requirement of a double, and now triple-tap, and one can deduce why one would require 9 shots fired to achieve a minimum hit ratio of ~25-35%, translating into the deemed 3 shot minimum to stop a threat.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Derek L

[ReeferMadness]

I'm sick of debating this one so I'm just going to say what I would like to see happen and what probably will happen:

What I would like to see happen:

1. Critical examination of each of the 3 incidents as detailed by Ross McLean (the decision to fire the first 3 shots, the decision to keep on firing and the decision to use the taser
2. Serious review of officers conduct focusing on whether the police adequately attempted to avoid the use of violence through de-escalation tactics
3. Exploration of whether the police could have waited for the taser before the shooting started
4. Critical examination as to why other six shots were fired when suspect was still down
5. Determination as to whether taser was really necessary after 9 shots were fired
6. Review of who was in command and how that command was exercised (it wasn't apparent from the video that any one officer was in control - the cops appeared to mill around aimlessly)
7. Recommendations and changes that encourage police to use non-violent means to de-escalate these situations (better training, better leadership, more openness and accountability)

Based on what Ross McLean said and past experience, here is what I suspect will happen

1. The only testimony offered up by other police will be that which exonerates the shooter
2. The SIU will focus only on whether the officer behaved according to the chart that Derek posted
3. On the basis of that chart, the SIU will find that the officers were in mortal danger and there will be no charges recommended
4. Chief Blair will shrug his shoulders and defend his officers

In short, the system will defend its own and next time a deranged kid does something stupid, he will be executed by another cop.

[jacee]

Someone said the video showed other cops were saying the shooter's name and pulling him back ... though I didn't verify that myself.

I wonder if they'll testify about their actions.

[jacee]

Why is it irrelevant?

Why were any shots fired?

Because he didn't respond to a verbal command?

No one was in danger, if they stayed back.

There was no need to resolve the situation immediately, no need for an "or I'll shoot" ultimatum, no need to shoot.

The cop lost it.

[cybercoma]

I think the larger point that's obscured by the somewhat academic discussion of why the cop fired nine shots is why the cop shot at all. I am not comfortable with individual cops having the power to issue life or death ultimatums on the spur of the moment.

I agree. It should be an absolute last resort and this doesn't seem like a last resort situation. It seems a hell of a lot like the cop was looking for a reason to shoot the guy.

[cybercoma]

From an aimed shot?

No it isn't......

I never said the officer missed the guy, I have asked numerous times how many of the nine shots hit him, and where though.......both very important pieces of information to digest and form a reasoned conclusion.

You speak to being a rational observer, I'll ask you this then:

With both 9mm & .40 S&W calibre handguns, why are shooters taught as a minimum to fire a double-tap (two rapid aimed shots) at the target, and even with that practice being found insufficient in far too many documented cases, to fire a triple-tap or a Mozambique drill (two in the chest, one in the head) at a target?

Now when you figure that out, you might ask why defensive shooters (like police) don’t just carry a gun with a more powerful cartridge, like a 45ACP, which has a far superior inherent stopping power………that lesson will cover single and double stacked magazines and their relation to capacity of the different size calibres….

That's all nice and all, but the cop shot three times and the guy collapsed. It's pretty clear he was hit, incapacitated, and therefore no longer a threat. If you can't accept that simple truth, then you're just being ridiculous.

[GostHacked]

You must post before posting ... error again sucks.

Anyways the apologetics would have a different tune if this was a friend or family that was caught up in the shooting.

Edited August 7, 2013 by GostHacked

[Rue]

You must post before posting ... error again sucks.

Anyways the apologetics would have a different tune if this was a friend or family that was caught up in the shooting.

..and your point? Of course people emotionally attached to an issue because a friend or family

member was shot might be expected to reflect a bias....and so?

The point is precisely for that reason, it is important such issues are handled in a manner where

those who review the issue do so in an objective not subjective or emotionally bias manner.

If you are concerned with addressing the feelings of the family don't confuse that with the issue

of finding out when went wrong if indeed anything went wrong.

Assessing what happened is not a matter of providing revenge for the negative reactions to what happened.

True closure doesn't come about from merely obtaining punishment of an officer. If you think that is the point...

to punish an officer to provide closure or therapy for negative feelings that is not the point.

The issue remains, was excessive force used and if so are their better methods in which to manage a

mentally ill person in such situations? That is the issue.

Let's also be blunt. If I were a family member of this dead person, I would know by now he was holding his penis in

one hand and pointing a knife with the other while screaming incoherent statements.

Its not something the family would dismiss lightly. They know by now the boy was ill and they will be second

guessing not just what happened but what they could have done.

In fact in this case for all you know, the father who sent his boy away from home since he could not deal with him

may be quite sympathetic to the police officer who shot him. You don't know.

We assume the family would be mad at the police. Maybe they know better than anyone how hard the boy was to handle.

Maybe they blame themselves for not getting him to a hospital. None of us know and its why I do not want to rush to

judgement on the officer or make assumptions as to anyone's feelings, family or public.

Yes the temptation is to immediately blame the officer involved but none of you were there. None of you heard the obscenities or saw

him with his genitals out screaming.

I have come across such types in prison and in hospitals and believe me it aint easy staying cool when someone is spitting

at you or pulling on his genitilia and screaming obscenities.

I have seen grown men throw their excrement at people, urinate on people, spew other liquid. It aint easy being on the

front lines dealing with such people. I am not condoning excessive force but I am not apologizing either when I say stay calm

and stop trying to rush to judgement based on emotions.

I just dealt with a matter where a woman slapped her Alzheimer's mother across the face after a prolonged period of time in which

her mother because of her disease was biting her, bruising her. She lost it momentarily. It was a build up to being unintentionally

bitten and punched by her mother suffering from dementia.

Should I rush to judgement and deem her violent? Why do the same with this officer? Can we all not just take a step back and

analyze this using calm, detached reasoning processes? Is that being apologetic? No. Rational, yes.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Rue

[GostHacked]

So what is plainly obvious to many of us, is not obvious to some. The video provides more than enough to go on in this case to know the cop was not justified.

Other cops trying to hold him back? Meaning they knew something wrong could happen.

The police failed at EVERY point in this scenario. A life could have been saved. But the cop obviously judged him enough as a threat to take him down. There is NO way anyone can dispute that.

No attempts to detain, no attempts to simply surround, cop purposefully got in range of the knife to feel threatened to shoot. Those are the obvious things we can all gather from the video. That cop simply put himself in danger from his actions.

[Black Dog]

Yes the temptation is to immediately blame the officer involved but none of you were there. None of you heard the obscenities or saw him with his genitals out screaming.

I have come across such types in prison and in hospitals and believe me it aint easy staying cool when someone is spitting at you or pulling on his genitilia and screaming obscenities.

I have seen grown men throw their excrement at people, urinate on people, spew other liquid. It aint easy being on the front lines dealing with such people. I am not condoning excessive force but I am not apologizing either when I say stay calm and stop trying to rush to judgement based on emotions.

I just dealt with a matter where a woman slapped her Alzheimer's mother across the face after a prolonged period of time in which her mother because of her disease was biting her, bruising her. She lost it momentarily. It was a build up to being unintentionally bitten and punched by her mother suffering from dementia.

Should I rush to judgement and deem her violent? Why do the same with this officer? Can we all not just take a step back and analyze this using calm, detached reasoning processes? Is that being apologetic? No. Rational, yes.

Silly me: here I thought it was the entire job of a cop to keep their heads about them, to handle difficult people in trying situations.

We give cops a measure of authority and permission to carry lethal weapons and use them if necessary. In return, we expect a higher standard of conduct from them. And when they fail to live up to that basic standard, when they fail in their duty to serve and protect, they don't deserve our trust or confidence. That certainly seems to be the case here.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Black Dog

[Guest Derek L]

That's all nice and all, but the cop shot three times and the guy collapsed. It's pretty clear he was hit, incapacitated, and therefore no longer a threat. If you can't accept that simple truth, then you're just being ridiculous.

Where was he hit and how many times? Without knowing that, it's rather hard to determine that he was no longer a threat......There’s numerous, anecdotal & documented cases of people being hit by much larger (rifle) calibers, in various conflicts since the invention of metal cartridges, and still capable of harm……Now if you can’t accept human biology and firearms ballistics you’re demonstrating ignorance on the subject mater, as such, your reaction is purely emotional, and in my opinion (as will be confirmed with the results of the investigation) irrational.