TTC Police Shooting

[Guest American Woman]

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.

Yet the post you were responding to was very specifically about the case under discussion, and in particular, two very specific posters.

IOW, it doesn't apply at all.

Edited August 20, 2013 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

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.

The concept put forth is really not that complicated to understand.

[Guest American Woman]

The concept put forth is really not that complicated to understand.

I know what Stockholm Syndrome is. That it's being applied to anyone here is ludicrous.

[bleeding heart]

Yet the post you were responding to was very specifically about the case under discussion, and in particular, two very specific posters.

IOW, it doesn't apply at all.

It applies exactly as I said. Because--as AW might say--I understand what I am saying, and what I mean to say, better than you possibly can.

If you want to point out that my remarks can be read as you read them, because of their position in this thread...that's fine. I don't ever mean to hijack threads, but frequently am inspired by posts to ruminate on points made that don't necessarily apply directly to the topic at hand.

But when I say what I mean...I am saying what I mean. That simple.

[GostHacked]

I know what Stockholm Syndrome is. That it's being applied to anyone here is ludicrous.

Cop shoots someone, let's blame training.

NSA spying, let's blame Snowden.

Two examples that fit nicely with this notion of Stockholm Syndrome.

[Guest American Woman]

Cop shoots someone, let's blame training.

NSA spying, let's blame Snowden.

Two examples that fit nicely with this notion of Stockholm Syndrome.

Since this thread isn't about Snowden and I have no idea what you're talking about, I'll just comment in regards to this thread.

Who has "blamed" training? Furthermore, if one blames the training that the police get, how would that fit into Stockholm Syndrome?? Anyone with such a mindset would think the training, since it comes from within the police department itself, is all unquestionably wonderful.

[Guest American Woman]

It applies exactly as I said. Because--as AW might say--I understand what I am saying, and what I mean to say, better than you possibly can.

If you want to point out that my remarks can be read as you read them, because of their position in this thread...that's fine. I don't ever mean to hijack threads, but frequently am inspired by posts to ruminate on points made that don't necessarily apply directly to the topic at hand.

But when I say what I mean...I am saying what I mean. That simple.

Good Lord. Seriously. I was simply pointing out that your "cheap psychoanalyzing" doesn't apply to anyone in this thread, as the post you were responding to claimed.

[bleeding heart]

Good Lord. Seriously. I was simply pointing out that your "cheap psychoanalyzing" doesn't apply to anyone in this thread, as the post you were responding to claimed.

\

Uh, no...I'm the one who was pointing out that I wasn't applying it to anyone specifically in this thread. Broadly-prevalent human tendencies was my point, as I said, inspired by Cyber's remarks about the way people respond to authority in so many cases.

Edited August 20, 2013 by bleeding heart

[Guest American Woman]

\

Uh, no...I'm the one who was pointing out that I wasn't applying it to anyone specifically in this thread. So I guess we're in agreement.

Um, I was the one who originally pointed it out; that was the purpose of my post. Confirmation from you noted.

[bleeding heart]

Um, I was the one who originally pointed it out; that was the purpose of my post. Confirmation from you noted.

???

[g_bambino]

???

AW has wrongly attributed the Stockholm Syndrome statement to you. It was, in fact, cyber who brought up Stockholm Syndrome and named me and AW. You never mentioned anyone specifically.

[bleeding heart]

AW has wrongly attributed the Stockholm Syndrome statement to you. It was, in fact, cyber who brought up Stockholm Syndrome and named me and AW. You never mentioned anyone specifically.

Ah. An honest mistake, and no harm done. Thanks for the clarification.

[Guest American Woman]

Ah. An honest mistake, and no harm done. Thanks for the clarification.

I already told you that the post you were responding to was about very specific posters. Sorry that wasn't clear enough.

[bleeding heart]

I already told you that the post you were responding to was about very specific posters. Sorry that wasn't clear enough.

Well, but now whatever point you're fundamentally trying to make remains unclear.

If it's that my reply was in a place that might engender confusion about my point...I agree that at least one person appears to have been a bit confused.

And yet, as you said, I thought we had clarified matters already, "confirming" one another's points.

We maybe have entered some moebius strip of semantics here. Hopefully not.

Edited August 20, 2013 by bleeding heart

[Black Dog]

Now that that's settled, maybe someone can explain the substantive difference between an opinion and a judgement and why anyone should give a toss.

[bleeding heart]

Now that that's settled, maybe someone can explain the substantive difference between an opinion and a judgement and why anyone should give a toss.

I don't know. I don't see that those most concerned with parsing out the difference--which is so obvious that they can't quite explain it to anyone--do not with some regularity offer "opinions" which are also pretty unambiguous "judgements."

So I don't know why this particular case stands out for them, and how it differs from matters they might judgementally opine on elsewhere.

I mean, of course there should be a fair trial...who has suggested otherwise?

And are we to preface each opinion with "In my opinion?"......

Edited August 20, 2013 by bleeding heart

[Boges]

Anyone put off by the kid gloves Officer Forcillo has been treated with? No Perp Walk, No Arrest. Will the mug shot be released?

He was allowed to surrender and apply for bail the same day. His union is paying his legal costs and transported him to and from the courthouse.

He also gets full pay for the years it'll take for a trial to be concluded.

No civilian would get such treatment had they been charged with 2nd degree murder.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Boges

[Guest American Woman]

I don't know. I don't see that those most concerned with parsing out the difference--which is so obvious that they can't quite explain it to anyone--do not with some regularity offer "opinions" which are also pretty unambiguous "judgements."

So I don't know why this particular case stands out for them, and how it differs from matters they might judgementally opine on elsewhere.

I mean, of course there should be a fair trial...who has suggested otherwise?

And are we to preface each opinion with "In my opinion?"......

For starters, one could preface judgments with "I believe the officer is guilty" rather than "the officer is guilty." One could say "the video is evidence enough for me" rather than "the video tells us all we need to know." Fact is, it doesn't; and there is no"us" and "we" in a personal opinion.The officer hasn't even had the opportunity to speak one word. Yet he's being condemned by so many, so I ask you again, are you ok with that? One could also refrain from making judgments they know absolutely nothing about, such as stating why the officer shot at Yatim - and why other people have a different opinion. In that regard, they could refrain from criticizing those who don't agree that "the officer is guilty" as if his guilt is fact. Does that seem unreasonable to you?

[cybercoma]

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

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

People jumping to conclusions is to be expected. Anyone can watch these videos and draw conclusions based on their personal experiences, knowledge, and opinions. I don't expect a judge or a jury to do that, but we're not talking about that here. It's to be expected that people will watch the video, read the news reports, and draw their own conclusions from what evidence they have. Nobody would have any opinion on anything if a full forensic audit was needed to make a personal conclusion about things. People reach their conclusions with the tools and information that they have at their disposal. Some people, like yourself, choose to reserve judgment, others aren't going to.

What's hypocritical (and you weren't the one to do this) is chastising people for drawing conclusions about the incident and the cop, whilst drawing conclusions about the perpetrator or the prosecutors. By examining the inconsistencies in people's arguments, it makes it pretty clear where they stand, even when they claim otherwise.

[Guest American Woman]

Anyone put off by the kid gloves Officer Forcillo has been treated with? No Perp Walk, No Arrest. Will the mug shot be released?

He was allowed to surrender and apply for bail the same day. His union is paying his legal costs and transported him to and from the courthouse.

He also gets full pay for the years it'll take for a trial to be concluded.

No civilian would get such treatment had they been charged with 2nd degree murder.

His charge is unique in that it stems from his doing his job, unlike the "civilians" you refer to who have been so charged. Because his charge stems from doing his job, and until he is proven guilty he is innocent, he should still receive full pay.

From what I've read, the crown will have to prove that Officer Forcillo intended to kill Yatmin while he doesn't have to prove that Yatim DID provide a threat, only that he had reason to believe he was a threat. He doesn't have to prove that it was necessary to shoot at him, only that in the heat of the moment he reasonably thought it was necessary.

Quite a different scenario from most charges of second degree murder, I would think.

Edited August 20, 2013 by American Woman

[Boges]

His charge is unique in that it stems from his doing his job, unlike the "civilians" you refer to who have been so charged. Because his charge stems from doing his job, and until he is proven guilty he is innocent, he should still receive full pay.

From what I've read, the crown will have to prove that Officer Forcillo intended to kill Yatmin while he doesn't have to prove that Yatim DID provide a threat, only that he had reason to believe he was a threat. He doesn't have to prove that it was necessary to shoot at him, only that in the heat of the moment he reasonably thought it was necessary.

Quite a different scenario from most charges of second degree murder, I would think.

Cite? If he didn't "intend to kill Yatim" why would he fire upon him? Cops aren't trained to fire to wound. That being said, are you claiming that continuing to shoot after Yatim posed no threat (YEAH I KNOW! that's my opinion but it appears he is on the ground in an isolated street car in the video) has no baring on the future ruling?

As for his treatment, here in Canada at least, we're not supposed to have tiered systems of justice. It appears he was treated preferably because of his occupation.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Boges

[g_bambino]

People jumping to conclusions is to be expected.

Which is unfortunate.

What's hypocritical (and you weren't the one to do this) is chastising people for drawing conclusions about the incident and the cop, whilst drawing conclusions about the perpetrator or the prosecutors. By examining the inconsistencies in people's arguments, it makes it pretty clear where they stand, even when they claim otherwise.

Agreed.

[cybercoma]

The concept put forth is really not that complicated to understand.

Nor is it ludicrous. "People idolize power." How is that such a ludicrous or foreign concept?

[cybercoma]

Good Lord.

Can you please stop taking the Lord's name in vain. Some people may take serious offence to it.

[g_bambino]

No Perp Walk, No Arrest. Will the mug shot be released?

He was arrested when taken into custody. I don't know what you mean about "perp walk"; is this (with accompanying photo) what you're talking about?: "He left the courthouse on University Avenue just before 3:15 p.m., surrounded by media as he made his way to a black van - different from the white unmarked one he arrived in for his initial court appearance at Old City Hall." And is a mug shot ever released and publicly published in Canada?

[ed.: sp]

Edited August 20, 2013 by g_bambino