TTC Police Shooting

[Black Dog]

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.

Again: where's the line that divides what form of expression you find acceptable to that which you do not?

[Boges]

Bail Granted. Not a surprise.

Now we have to wait a year, two or even three for a trial.

There's a publication ban so no new evidence will be put forward until the verdict so I guess everything from now on, on both sides will re-hashed.

[bleeding heart]

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.

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.

Edited August 20, 2013 by bleeding heart

[cybercoma]

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

Did this cop shoot Snowden too?

He's talking about Stockholm Syndrome because it seems that people are quick to defend their oppressors these days. When the police are quick to fill a kid with 9 bullets for talking gibberish, whipping out his junk, and holding a knife, and when the cops wholesale abuse the rights of people on the streets of Toronto during G20, there's absolutely no reason to defend them because you could be the one being abused by them next. People don't stand up for themselves or the things that are for their benefit. That's why I brought up the EA Origin policy. People were arguing against something that benefits them. It makes no rational sense. Likewise, defending an out-of-control police officer that handled the situation terribly or defending the people trying to draw attention away from the NSA's excesses makes little sense. Yet, people seem to be doing just that. I'm not sure if it's because they want to be part of the "winning team" or what. Maybe they want to seem more enlightened? No idea. But it makes no sense not to be concerned about your safety or privacy or whatever else is being trampled on when it looks like it's going to be trampled on. Perhaps it's the American Dream? Don't take away the oppressors' ability to stomp on me because one day I'll rise up and be the oppressor and I want that power. Who knows?

[cybercoma]

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.

Man, such a great post that explains what I was trying to get at even better than I could and with all the appropriate qualifications that it needs. Thanks!

Edited August 20, 2013 by cybercoma

[bleeding heart]

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.

But Black Dog's question stands: what exactly is the demarcation here? Lots of opinions--most opinions--are, in one way or another, judgements of some sort...there are differences of degree, but that's it.

In my opinion, a poster who in another thread with me condoned rape and mass murder (actively; explicitly) as a means of Statecraft--is saying vile things. That's my opinion...and it's also a judgement.

Heck, your "opinion" on what posters have been saying in this thread is explicitly a judgement" upon them.

[g_bambino]

And people are still allowed to hold and express opinions freely...

Yup. And people are still allowed to call others out when said others confuse their opinion for fact.

[bleeding heart]

Man, such a great post that explains what I was trying to get at even better than I could and with all the appropriate qualifications that it needs. Thanks!

Thank you!

[Black Dog]

Yup. And people are still allowed to call others out when said others confuse their opinion for fact.

Then debate the facts. Simple.

[g_bambino]

He's talking about Stockholm Syndrome because it seems that people are quick to defend their oppressors these days.

Are you insinuating that I am defending my "oppressors" (let's not even get into the thought behind that choice of word) because I say the accused should be presumed innocent until proven guilty?

[ed.: c/e]

Edited August 20, 2013 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

Then debate the facts.

The debating of facts was never put into question; not by me, anyway.

[cybercoma]

Are you insinuating that I am defending my "oppressors" (let's not even get into the thought behind that choice of word) because I say the accused should be presumed innocent until proven guilty?

[ed.: c/e]

I'm saying that people are justifiably appalled when an officer is quick to shoot someone down because they're concerned about their own safety and should be.

Edit: WYSIWYG is not so WYSIWYG apparently.

Edited August 20, 2013 by cybercoma

[g_bambino]

I'm saying that people are justifiably appalled when an officer is quick to shoot someone down because they're concerned about their own safety and should be.

Putting aside the point about being able to protect one's self when concerned about one's safety, people can be appaled when an officer has been proven, based on all the evidence available, to have shot someone down without justification. You said yourself, though, that the YouTube videos--which are all that's available to the public concerning the shooting itself--aren't the bulk of the evidence. Yet, there are all these people out there and here who've decided the officer did, without doubt, shoot somone down without justification.

[Guest American Woman]

But Black Dog's question stands: what exactly is the demarcation here? Lots of opinions--most opinions--are, in one way or another, judgements of some sort...there are differences of degree, but that's it.

In my opinion, a poster who in another thread with me condoned rape and mass murder (actively; explicitly) as a means of Statecraft--is saying vile things. That's my opinion...and it's also a judgement.

Heck, your "opinion" on what posters have been saying in this thread is explicitly a judgement" upon them.

No, it's not a judgement upon them. I have never said one thing about any poster personally; what I've had to say is about their claims.

I have said, repeatedly now, and it's quite true, that one cannot make a judgement without all of the facts. Are you disagreeing? Do you think we can make judgments based on a YouTube video, showing a limited version of events?

So, I've said repeatedly now that there's a difference between having an opinion and stating that opinion as fact and expecting everyone to accept that opinion as fact. There is a difference between saying "In my opinion this officer is guilty" and saying "Based on the video, the officer is guilty; we know all we need to know. It's clear from the video that the officer is guilty" et al - and again, there are those saying WHY the officer shot, as if they can get inside his head. "He's trigger happy." "He couldn't handle being called a pussy." That's a judgment and it's quite different from an opinion. Even stated as an opinion, it's based on nothing but one's own biases.

Again. Would you want to be so judged on a selective portion of events?

And you do know what the right to "due process" involves, right? - because drawing conclusions based on a YouTube video doesn't fit the definition. Wouldn't you agree that one cannot make a judgment based solely on a YouTube video? Don't you think it would be nice to let the officer at least have the opportunity to speak before condemning him? Or are you ok with all the condemnation?

Edited August 20, 2013 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

Putting aside the point about being able to protect one's self when concerned about one's safety, people can be appaled when an officer has been proven, based on all the evidence available, to have shot someone down without justification. You said yourself, though, that the YouTube videos--which are all that's available to the public concerning the shooting itself--aren't the bulk of the evidence. Yet, there are all these people out there and here who've decided the officer did, without doubt, shoot somone down without justification.

Obviously it was concerning enough that the officer is being prosecuted for second-degree murder. People should be concerned when cops are getting charged with murder. We're not talking about legal theory here where beyond a reasonable doubt is required to convict someone. We're talking about the public being justifiably concerned about the situation, which is obviously something very different.

[Guest American Woman]

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.

"Cheap psychoanalyzing" is giving it way too much credence; to me it comes across as an inability to accept that others may have viewpoints that differ from yours. The idea that people are "defending" the officer because they don't think a YouTube video is enough to make a declaration of guilt or innocence is hardly evidence of "Stockholm syndrome" or "adoration, even worship, of great power." (Great power??) Talk about ludicrous. You think people couldn't "psychoanalyze" those who are making claims about the cop and/or police in general? As I said, it's ludicrous.

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.

We weren't the one there making a judgement call. We aren't privy to all that went on. That's the point being made.

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.

Except the officer hasn't been given that chance, as I've pointed out repeatedly now. Yet he's being judged - without even having had the chance to speak one word. That's been the point being made.

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

Again. Wouldn't it be nice if the officer in question were given that opportunity before being found guilty - based on a YouTube video??

And in case it totally escaped you, not one word that I've said is in any way, shape, or form indicative of "Stockholm Syndrome" or "an adoration, even worship, of great power." Good Lord.

[Rue]

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

The video can not. The criminal law does not work that way. To prove he is guilty of murder, i.e., committing a crime in addition to the physical comission of an act (actus reus) which the video can show, the crown must also prove the intent (mens rea) behind the action and show the intent was to kill to then be able to prove the act was criminal.

So no the video can not establish his mental process or the thoughts in his mind as he shot. To establish that the crown will need to cross examine the defendant and prove his mental process supported the belief he should kill.

This is why defence lawyers who usually defend criminals against police and who do not like police are now saying it will be very difficult if not impossible to prove mens rea.

The video only showz the actus reus and what it shows is the officer told the deceased not to take one more step or he would shoot and then the deceased moves and is shot which actually shows its a response to not obeying the officer which would negate an intent to kill intention but might prove the officer acted to excessively to the lack of obedience which might be criminal negligence and civil negligence but not murder.

The whole case comes down to the intent of the officer. In criminal law you have to prove BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT this office intended to kill to prove murder. In criminal law to prove negligence you show he used inappropriate force.

if the training of the officer told him to shoot in a situation where a person proceeds forward after being told not do-whcih I believe current training does teach-then its the training that is in question NOT the officer and so the police force should be sued for negligence civilly for inappropriate training.

If anything I think the tape establishes the training is inappropriate and I believe the police are hanging this cop out to dry rather than accept liability for the inappropriate training. By blaming this officer, the brass hopes it absolves the police force and its bad training and makes it limited to this officer. Its a cheap stunt by the police to avoid responsibility for the consequences of the training it gave its officers in my opinion.

I personally think charging this officer with murder was a cheap political stunt to appease the family and public audience seeking this charge out of revenge and the gutless police management selling out a grunt on the front lines rather than accept responsibility for the

training it gave that grunt.

I repeat again the arguement that if anything the cop is going down for the bad training the entire force was given. He's being made the sacrificial lamb so to speak.

I do not think a jury will find this officer guilty of homicide and what is more probable is that the crown is hoping hat like 95% of all crimes this one is plea bargained away and by starting with a murder change as opposed to manslaughter, the crown thinks they can bump down the ultimate conviction to manslaughter instead of starting at manslaughter and bumping down to a lesser charge.

A criminal lawyer would tell you there is more of a likeihood of a criminal negligence conviction if it can be shown the officer acted excessively than murder.

For the crown to show criminal negligence they will need to show the officer lost his temper and was angry and acted out of anger. Think of how difficult that will be.

Now in a civil case for wrongful death a type of civil negligence,, the family will have a much easier exercise. In civil court when they sue and they will, they only have to show on a balance of probabilities the officer acted inappropriately-then the onus switches to the officer to justify what he did as reasonable.

So for those of us who are lawyers we would tell you the criminal case is a smoke and mirrors exercise-a circus served up to an audience yelling for a lynching. Its an exercise in gutless politicians pandering to an angry crowd.

Bottom line is-if the officer acted excessively its because of bad training or human fallibility, i..e., he panicked. That can easily be shown in a civil trial.

However to show the officer had a state of mind where he set out to deliberately kill-aint gonna happen and no the video can only show one component of the two required to prove guilt.

The next question is, do the sheer amount of shots, i.e., 3 then 6, just the no. of shots indicate an intent to kill? That is what the crown is counting on as well.

However a defence lawyer could argue it might show the officer was in a state of automatism or automated reflex (so pumped up he lost track of his shots and what he was doing) a defence to forming criminal intent but not negligence (criminal or civil) and was trained to keep firing.

If it can be shown the deceased stepped towards the officer after he was told not to, that might be sufficient to justify a defence to all criminal charges but it won't work in a civil defence to negligence and maybe not a criminal negligence charge and it certainly won't answer the pressing issue as to whether police should use better methods when confronting the mentally unstable.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Rue

[g_bambino]

We're talking about the public being justifiably concerned about the situation, which is obviously something very different.

Well, yes, concern is something different. But, my original comment was about people jumping to conclusions.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited August 20, 2013 by g_bambino

[bleeding heart]

And you do know what the right to "due process" involves, right? - because drawing conclusions based on a YouTube video doesn't fit the definition. Wouldn't you agree that one cannot make a judgment based solely on a YouTube video? Don't you think it would be nice to let the officer at least have the opportunity to speak before condemning him?

On all counts: of course.

[cybercoma]

Concern isn't grounds enough to determine guilt.

Bambino, seriously? You're arguing something completely different. You're framing this in a legal positivist perspective, while public opinion and discourse have nothing whatsoever to do with that. What you're saying isn't wrong. You're just talking about something different and for some reason you're trying to apply it here.

[Guest American Woman]

On all counts: of course.

So perhaps you could explain why you "psychoanalyzed" others who believe these things should apply to the officer in question as having "Stockholm Syndrome" or "an adoration, even worship, of great power." It's quite ludicrous, as I said, and I can't begin to understand what's been said that would lead anyone to that conclusion.

Edited August 20, 2013 by American Woman

[Black Dog]

No, it's not a judgement upon them. I have never said one thing about any poster personally; what I've had to say is about their claims.

I have said, repeatedly now, and it's quite true, that one cannot make a judgement without all of the facts. Are you disagreeing? Do you think we can make judgments based on a YouTube video, showing a limited version of events?

Of course we can. And do.

So, I've said repeatedly now that there's a difference between having an opinion and stating that opinion as fact and expecting everyone to accept that opinion as fact.

You've said that repeatedly alright. You haven't expanded on what that difference is and, most importantly, why it matters.

There is a difference between saying "In my opinion this officer is guilty" and saying "Based on the video, the officer is guilty; we know all we need to know. It's clear from the video that the officer is guilty" et al - and again, there are those saying WHY the officer shot, as if they can get inside his head. "He's trigger happy." "He couldn't handle being called a pussy." That's a judgment and it's quite different from an opinion. Even stated as an opinion, it's based on nothing but one's own biases.

There's no substantive difference in your examples. It's merely a matter of phrasing.

Again. Would you want to be so judged on a selective portion of events?

By a jury? Not great. By the public? It's to be expected.

And you do know what the right to "due process" involves, right? - because drawing conclusions based on a YouTube video doesn't fit the definition. Wouldn't you agree that one cannot make a judgment based solely on a YouTube video? Don't you think it would be nice to let the officer at least have the opportunity to speak before condemning him? Or are you ok with all the condemnation?

There's no such thing as due process in the court of public opinion. If people want to suggest the cop was racist or that Yatim was on the verge of going on a stabbing rampage, they are completely free to do so and you are free to point out the flaws in such theories. Demanding people withhold their judgements on something like this, though? Pissing in the wind.

[g_bambino]

Bambino, seriously?

You likely didn't see my revision to my post to which you responded:

We're talking about the public being justifiably concerned about the situation, which is obviously something very different.

Well, yes, concern is something different. But, my original comment was about people jumping to conclusions.

[bleeding heart]

So perhaps you could explain why you "psychoanalyzed" others who believe these things should apply to the officer in question as having "Stockholm Syndrome" or "an adoration, even worship, of great power." It's quite ludicrous, as I said, and I can't begin to understand what's been said that would lead anyone to that conclusion.

I was responding in a general fashion to remarks about what was posted as a general tendency.

I was speaking off the cuff of what I view as a large-scale human weakness: the adoration of power (which, as I said, is undoubtedly far more complex than my brief remarks can navigate).

How or whether it applies specifically to the case under discussion is another matter.

[GostHacked]

So we talk about judgements. What went through the cops head to reach a judgment that he needs to unload on the kid?

I do believe some more tweaking on training needs to happen, but why did we not have all the other cops draw their weapons? Unfortunately this video evidence is the only voice this dead kid has in his defence. The to put the icing on the cake, taser him after the 9 shots were fired. Red flag, red flag, red flag .....

And without this video, I highly, highly doubt we would have seen a charge on this officer.

Who needs accountability when you have Stockholm Syndrome!