TTC Police Shooting

[Rue]

The difference between being a threat in a general sense (in that he was unhinged and had a knife) and being an immediate threat requiring the use of lethal force should be obvious to all. Except, apparently you.

You are way off base.

It most often is not apparent.

Anyone with psychiatric, psychological or hand to hand training could explain that to you.

You again spew out the rigid, narcissistic black and white thinking you engage in time and time again complete with the taunt at the end saying your opinion is the one we all would find obvious a blatant symptom of your inability

to understand your subjective bias opinions are not synonomous with the obvious, i.e., what all humanity would

agree with because you deem it so. Get off the narcissistic high horse.

Are you capable of seeing anything but black and white rigid stereotypes as to human behaviour or any issue? Is your mind that rigid? My God man can you not eat some prunes just once and let go of it?

Come on get real for one second:

1- a mentally ill person may or may not manifest a wide range of symptoms;

2-the symptoms in 1 may appear dangerous and may not appear dangerous;

3-some of the most dangerous mentally ill people show complete lack of emotions, symptoms or any signs of

violence;olut

4-a mentally ill person is capable of exhibiting a wide range of behaviours some appearing violent, others not

appearing violent and they may or may not be indicative of impending violent behaviour;

5-no a police officer, you, me, psychiatric nurses, doctors, none of us can be trained to absolutely know when danger is coming let alone this ludicrous definition you came up with suggesting there is a "general danger' scenario.

Talk about inventing ludicrous simplistic categories to slot your stunted and rigid stereotypical labels into.

What an idiotic thing to try attempt to suggest there is specific and general danger. Had you been in such situations,

had you ever had to work with the mentally ill, you would know general and specific are not meaningful categories precisely because danger is just that-if there is a potential for it, the methods needed to contain it whether it be general or specific would be the same. Can you stop your feigning of knowledge just once, can you just once, stop puffing as you go along presuming you know the difference between general and specific. If doctors do not how would you know? What are you some sort of clarvoiyant? What you have superpowers?

Get real. Smarten up with the simplistic its obvious to everyone comments. No its not. That is the point-its not obvious.

Anyone who has been trained in working with the mentally ill or in defending themselves against violence is first taught NOTHING absolutely NOTHING is obvious about human behaviour and the moment one engages in your simplistic stereotype thinking they endanger themselves and others.

Sometimes I cringe at how absurd your assumptions are and the arrogance in which you assume they are right, i.e.,

everyone agrees with you.

On this one you are so far off its not even capable of being ridiculed in jest. You are a blithering example of the arm chair

after the fact genius who claims to be an authority on mental illness, violent behaviour and of course hand to hand comment.

For over 20 years I have been in rooms less than five feet a way from mentally ill people and not one had obvious symptoms. Oh sure some had symptoms such as bulging eyes, pupils that enlargen right before an attack, hissing, spitting, biting, playing with their parts, hurling their feces, urinating on people, swaying back and forth, giggling, twitching with repetitive hand or head movements, licking of lips, repetitive behaviours, scratching until they bleed, pulling out if hair and eating it, picking their noses or ears constantly, on and on. So? They are symptoms? Each individual's symptoms may appear to you to be obvious but to the trained eye they are individual constellations of behaviour as unique in combinations of movements as snow flakes.

No one person's symptoms are exactly the same. In fact for you to suggest you can tell when someone is a general or specific danger is laughable. The two are one in the same. A dangerous person can go from docile and harmless to rabid in less than a second.

Symptoms are as individual as fingerprints and I can guarantee you that someone can turn on you and bite you in less than a second. Ask someone who has attended to a person with Alzheimer's or other paranoid dementia type behaviours.

Ask a psychiatric nurse or doctor or social worker how fast someone can turn. Ask someone who works with autistic children or children with fetal alcohol syndrome how fast they can change.

You have no idea, not a clue what it is like.

As for space and distance, what we need to do is put you the same distance away from a person exposing their penis and pointing a knife at you and calling you a"fing pussy" and watch you.

You would be the first to say you are not a trained police officer...oh heck but you come on this forum spewing off like one, not only a police officer, but an expert on violent behaviour and hand to hand combat as well.

Have you even used a gun? Of course not.

Have you ever had hand to hand combat training? Of course not.

Have you ever been in a clinical setting and had someone turn on you? Of course not.

For once just once stop trying to provide opinions on scenarios and issues you have no clue on.

Hear me loud and clear. I had a guy bust my nose and knock me off a chair into a wall within seconds of

smiling at me during a mediation trying to attack his wife then reverting back to passive and quiet as if nothing

happened.

You have no clue how fast a person can move and how quick they can turn.

You have no clue how tough it is to be an attendant care provider of the autistic, Alzheimer's and dementia patients,

prison guards. You have no clue how psychiatric nurses develop their six senses.

You have no clue what it takes to foster or adopt or manage kids with fetal alcohol syndrome or talk down violent

abusive drunk men. Not a clue. So shut up.

The officer you second guess is a human being. He was trained yes but you have no clue in what training he was given and what the limitations of that training were so don't pose all prim and proper claiming his situation was

obvious. It was not.

If there were mistakes made, this officer is as much a target of those mistakes as is the deceased. They both

are experiencing the aftermath of potential training mistakes.

Stop judging that officer. For once stop pretending to be an authority on things you have no clue of.

Yes we can all talk about not wanting to use lethal and excessive force on the mentally ill. Of course. That much is obvious. But it stops right there and if its not obvious to you why, time to do less pontificating and more listening.

Start with trying to find out why hand to hand training to defend against knives is not absolute or obvious or black and white and neither is the study of and ability to understand mental illness.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Rue

[Black Dog]

I was just tempted to reply with TL;DR, but I guess I'm feeling like I haven't ingested enough stupidity this week. Soooooo.....

You are way off base. Its often not apparent. Anyone with training can explain that to you. Its the kind of black and white

thinking you engage in time and time again I criticize to the point of laughing at you.

Are you capable of seeing anything but black and white and putting scenarios in rigid little all or nothing categories?

No idea what this is referencing.

Come on get real for one second:

1- a mentally ill person may or may not manifest a wide range of symptoms

2-the symptoms in 1 may appear dangerous and may not appear dangerous

3-some of the most dangerous mentally ill people show complete lack of emotions, symptoms or any signs of

violence

4-a mentally ill person is capable of exhibiting a wide range of behaviours some appearing violent, others not

appearing violent but none-the-less would be warning signs of impending violence

5-no a police officer, you, me, none of us can be trained to know the difference between an immediate one on one

danger and a general danger-one can turn into the other in less than a second.

Your simplistic black and white thinking and assuming everyone thinks like you and things are obvious only reflects

your myths, biases and misconceptions about mental illness and hand to hand training let alone human behaviour.

No idea what you're blathering about here. Maybe its that you think it's ok to shoot mentally ill people because they are basically ticking timebombs. Who knows!

Sometimes I cringe at how absurd your assumptions are and the arrogance in which you assume they are right, i.e.,

everyone agrees with you.

Does anyone go into a discussion assuming they're wrong?

On this one you are so far off its not even capable of being ridiculed in jest. You are a blithering example of the arm chair

after the fact genius who claims to be an authority on mental illness, violent behaviour and of course hand to hand comment.

And yet you can't even articulate what it is I'm supposedly wrong about.

Also: "hand to hand comment" = lulz galore!

30 years I have been in rooms less than five feet a way from mentally ill people and not one had obvious symptoms. They

may have what trained eyes become familiar with and associated with certain mental illnesses but nothing and I mean but nothing in

psychiatry or psychology is absolute and simplistic as you make it appear.

Symptoms are as individual as fingerprints and I can guarantee you that someone can turn on you and bite you in less than a second.

except we're not talking about some hypothetical situation, rather the one that is the subject of this thread. You know, where the kid (who, it should be pointed out, was not necessarily mentally ill) with a knife was blown away by the cops?

As for space and distance, what we need to do is put you the same distance away from this individual the officer was, and have you

see how fast they can cover space before the officer reacts.

Sure, get back to me on that. Having spent a lot of time going up and down the steps of a TTC streetcar, I feel pretty confident that there's no way I could make it from just behind the driver's seat, down the steps and onto the street level before someone already pointing a gun at me from six to eight feet in front of the vehicle could react. But yeah you're right, probably best to shoot someone just in case.

Better still I wish I could lock you in a room with a mad man with a knife and give you a gun after training you-genius.

I bet you would, but that would hardly be the same scenario would it, asshole?

Have you even used a gun/

Have you ever had hand to hand combat training or any training?

Of course not.

For once just once stop trying to provide opinions on scenarios and issues you have no clue on. Be quiet.

Maybe I should simply invent personal experiences and qualifications that just so happen to correspond with whatever argument I'm having like you do, hey? Rube.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Black Dog

[Black Dog]

The officer you second guess is a human being. He was trained yes but you have no clue in what training he was given and what the limitations of that training were so don't pose all prim and proper claiming his situation was obvious. It was not.

If there were mistakes made, this officer is as much a target of those mistakes as is the deceased. They both are experiencing the aftermath of potential training mistakes.

Read that bolded bit again. Don't see the problem? Then punch yourself in the face.

Stop judging that officer. For once stop pretending to be an authority on things you have no clue of.

Like how you are an authority on Sammy Yatim's mental health?

Yes we can all talk about not wanting to use lethal and excessive force on the mentally ill. Of course. That much is obvious. But it stops right there and if its not obvious to you why, time to do less pontificating and more listening.

I'm open to listening. But your stuff is just gibberish.

Start with trying to find out why hand to hand training to defend against knives is not absolute or obvious or black and white and neither is the study of and ability to understand mental illness.

None of this has any bearing on the discussion to this point.

[guyser]

22 cops , not all of whom thought any risk w this kid, ergo not drawing their weapons.Well, save for one jittery fingered boy in blue.

Didnt know they quake in their boots at the sight of a knife. Yup , blast em Dano.

And now.....sigh....the most bloviating of posters comes by to compare working with mentally ill people (while unarmed and no security around) is the same as having 22 cops w guns and thus thats why they should blaest em on sight.

Woot....no wait....<facepalm>

Edited August 9, 2013 by Guyser2

[Boges]

Read that bolded bit again. Don't see the problem? Then punch yourself in the face.

Like how you are an authority on Sammy Yatim's mental health?

I'm open to listening. But your stuff is just gibberish.

None of this has any bearing on the discussion to this point.

TL;DR ;-D

This thread takes a dog chasing its tail to new heights.

People who are arguing that the 9 shots were warranted are in the vast minority here but they'll continue to come up with hypothetical scenarios where it would have been regardless of evidence suggesting otherwise.

Perhaps the AG can get to the bottom of this if police can quit trolling him.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Boges

[Boges]

BTW the family has said Yatim had no history of mental illness.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Boges

[Black Dog]

TL;DR ;-D

This thread takes a dog chasing its tail to new heights.

People who are arguing that the 9 shots were warranted are in the vast minority here but they'll continue to come up with hypothetical scenarios where it would have been regardless of evidence suggesting otherwise.

Perhaps the AG can get to the bottom of this if police can quit trolling him.

I think it's less about honestly believing it was warranted as it is a chance to show off, whether its about mental illness or gun porn.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Black Dog

[Guest American Woman]

People who are arguing that the 9 shots were warranted are in the vast minority here but they'll continue to come up with hypothetical scenarios where it would have been regardless of evidence suggesting otherwise.

Is it the fact that nine shots were fired that you take issue with? Because that's normal in a situation where a cop chooses to shoot, and it's been explained why. If you are simply insisting that the cop shouldn't have shot at all, again, you are unaware of all of the evidence. No one here is qualified to make that judgement. It may be your opinion, but it's the opinion of others that such a judgement cannot be made without all of the evidence - which is why there is an ongoing investigation.

[Boges]

Is it the fact that nine shots were fired that you take issue with? Because that's normal in a situation where a cop chooses to shoot, and it's been explained why. If you are simply insisting that the cop shouldn't have shot at all, again, you are unaware of all of the evidence. No one here is qualified to make that judgement. It may be your opinion, but it's the opinion of others that such a judgement cannot be made without all of the evidence - which is why there is an ongoing investigation.

Less the 9 shots than the 5 second break between bursts.

When he was in the doorway I'd entertainment arguments he was a threat. After the first 3 shots, all evidence I've seen shows he was no longer an immediate threat.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Boges

[Guest American Woman]

Less the 9 shots than the 5 second break between bursts.

When he was in the doorway I'd entertainment arguments he was a threat. After the first 3 shots, all evidence I've seen shows he was no longer an immediate threat.

Fair enough; but yet he was tasered after the nine shots, by a different officer, who isn't under investigation, which makes me wonder what evidence there may be that we don't see.

I think Yatim's family is showing a lot of class saying that they believe the shooting will be investigated with the fullest measure of the law, that it's a tragedy for all involved, and they don't hold any ill will towards the thousands of officers who work to protect us each day.

[GostHacked]

American Woman, on 09 Aug 2013 - 3:02 PM, said:

Fair enough; but yet he was tasered after the nine shots, by a different officer, who isn't under investigation, which makes me wonder what evidence there may be that we don't see.

Good points.

Another thing I read (still looking for a link) is that the one with the taser showed up on scene after all the shots were fired, making the taser use a little more curious.

Quote

I think Yatim's family is showing a lot of class saying that they believe the shooting will be investigated with the fullest measure of the law, that it's a tragedy for all involved, and they don't hold any ill will towards the thousands of officers who work to protect us each day.

Hats off to them for being able to keep some composure. I'd be livid.

[cybercoma]

Differing circumstances, but one fact remains the same, when someone has a weapon, police will draw theirs and not because that person isn’t a threat to both officers and the public.

Nobody's arguing about police drawing their weapons.

[g_bambino]

Depends on your confidence in your skills.

No. My actual skills at knife throwing are part of determining what my level of threat is to a person with a gun.

And if you meet a cop like this kid did .. you will meet the same fate.

Can't agree or disagree, since our discussion is about hypotheticals and I don't yet know the specifcs surrounding the death of "this kid".

[g_bambino]

You're at least 7 feet away, up a short flight of stairs and slightly down the hall from me.

Me, personally? I'd not be too much of a threat, given that I've never practiced much at throwing knives. But, I might get a lucky hit, if that was, for some bizarre reason, what I wanted. 7ft. isn't that far.

[Guest American Woman]

Good points.

Another thing I read (still looking for a link) is that the one with the taser showed up on scene after all the shots were fired, making the taser use a little more curious.

From what I've read, the officer under investigation for the shooting initially requested a taser before shots were fired, but tasers are only given only to supervisors and emergency task force members. The officer who did use the taser is a sergeant. Yatim was alive as he was being transported from the scene, so from what I've read, some, including Yatim's family, are wondering why the officer who used the taser isn't under investigation, and apparently it's because it's being assumed that the gun shots were the cause of death. Still, as I said, one has to wonder why the sergeant felt the need to use the taser, and one has to wonder if it contributed to Yatim's death.

It will be interesting to see what comes out of the investigation - whether it sheds more light on what happened and why it happened.

Hats off to them for being able to keep some composure. I'd be livid.

Perhaps coming from Syria, where actions like this are likely common, where terrible things are a common occurance and it's not questioned, no investigations are conducted, they appreciate the concept of "due process," and look to the investigation to answer their questions. One can be livid and still respect the system. I think it's terrible that so many in a country where everyone has the right to due process feel qualified to judge with very limited information. It truly is reminiscent of a mob mentality.

At the end of the day, one still has to wonder why Yatim acted as he did, including not dropping the knife. I would guess that his family must wonder about that, too.

[Guest Derek L]

Sorry, I must have missed the part where he was gunned down by people on the streetcar.

So was he a threat to the folks on the Streetcar?

Are either of those actions likely to cause serious bodily harm or death to any person? No reasonable person would think so. (I also love the "advancing towards an officer" thing which in this case meant "crossing an arbitrary line some distance away from the officer." Reminds me of South Park's Uncle Jimbo: 'It's coming right for us!")

So should police have waited until he stabbed an officer?

I did. i don't think you have, though.

Sure I have, you know, the part where it shows the police will use lethal force when confronted with an armed man.

[Guest Derek L]

Less the 9 shots than the 5 second break between bursts.

When he was in the doorway I'd entertainment arguments he was a threat. After the first 3 shots, all evidence I've seen shows he was no longer an immediate threat.

Would 9 shots, in your opinion, have been alright if there was no ~5 second pause?

How long should it take an officer to adjust fire on a moving target?

[dre]

Would 9 shots, in your opinion, have been alright if there was no ~5 second pause?

How long should it take an officer to adjust fire on a moving target?

This just seems like post hoc rationalization to me. The reality is that most of the officers there were happy with standing their ground like they should have.

The trigger happy retard that gunned this kid down needlessly has been suspended, and will probably end up looking for a new job.

[Guest Derek L]

This just seems like post hoc rationalization to me. The reality is that most of the officers there were happy with standing their ground like they should have.

The trigger happy retard that gunned this kid down needlessly has been suspended, and will probably end up looking for a new job.

How do you know this? From watching the same video as I? The same video that also demonstrates the others officers not being in a position to fire their guns without the possibility of putting rounds into residences? That video……..you know that also showed several other officers with their guns drawn, all in a similar position as that of the officer that fired….

[jacee]

How do you know this? From watching the same video as I? The same video that also demonstrates the others officers not being in a position to fire their guns without the possibility of putting rounds into residences? That video..you know that also showed several other officers with their guns drawn, all in a similar position as that of the officer that fired.

Other officers were not in a position to fire their guns because it was an unnecessary and utterly moronic thing to do.

[jacee]

Dp

Edited August 10, 2013 by jacee

[Black Dog]

So was he a threat to the folks on the Streetcar?

There was no one on the streetcar.

So should police have waited until he stabbed an officer?

I can't believe someone as dim as you is allowed to own firearms. Terrifying.

Sure I have, you know, the part where it shows the police will use lethal force when confronted with an armed man.

It doesn't say that. Indeed, I already quoted the part that indicates when lethal force should be used.

[Guest Derek L]

There was no one on the streetcar.

That's not the question, prior to the folks leaving the streetcar, did they feel threatened?

I can't believe someone as dim as you is allowed to own firearms. Terrifying.

So why not answer the question as opposed to the personal attack?

It doesn't say that. Indeed, I already quoted the part that indicates when lethal force should be used.

Sure it does, right at the bottom, center of the chart:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[GostHacked]

That's not the question, prior to the folks leaving the streetcar, did they feel threatened?

Yes, and they all left the streetcar unharmed. Only ONE person dies was injured on that streetcar, and he is dead.

[Guest Derek L]

Yes, and they all left the streetcar unharmed. Only ONE person dies was injured on that streetcar, and he is dead.

Exactly, and according to the above chart, what instances can police forces legally use lethal force?

When the subject exhibits actions that are intended to, or likely cause serious bodily harm or death to any person