TTC Police Shooting

[g_bambino]

Point is, once the call is made, we can't simply defer to their judgement in the moment. Which is why this cop is facing charges. They have to get it right.

Well, yes, of course. The police's discretionary power stems from the Criminal Code, so its use is always potentially subject to judicial reivew.

I thought that you were saying the "people pulling the triggers" shouldn't get the final say on whether or not its reasonable to pull the trigger before pulling it.

[g_bambino]

Why are we expecting the guy holding the knife and yelling to be the rational one in this scenario?

Maybe it's not so much an expectation, but a hope? If, when facing alone a dozen or so police officers, someone holding a weapon doesn't drop it when told by the police to do so, then it's pretty reasonable to conclude that person isn't thinking rationally and thus could make any kind of action with that weapon at any moment.

[Guest American Woman]

the police wouldn't comment on this. It was from the SIU.

I don't see that from your quote.

After charges were laid, so earlier this week.

So how about a link to the article? At any rate, I recall reading that shortly after the incident occurred and I don't recall anything mentioned about an autopsy or anything specifically about the possibility of the taser having had an affect being investigated and proven to not have played a part.

Again, look at the wording.

Again. It's the wording of the National Post.

It would probably be a straightforward thing for a medical examiner to determine.[

If that's true, did a medical examiner make that determination? That's what I want to know.

If that were so, we'd just have to take him at his word.

It is so, and that's what will be determined by the trial.

Why are we expecting the guy holding the knife and yelling to be the rational one in this scenario?

Why are we expecting that an irrational act never result in unfortunate consequences?

And who's to say, at this point, that the officer wasn't rational?

[Guest American Woman]

Maybe it's not so much an expectation, but a hope? If, when facing alone a dozen or so police officers, someone holding a weapon doesn't drop it when told by the police to do so, then it's pretty reasonable to conclude that person isn't thinking rationally and thus could make any kind of action with that weapon at any moment.

Exactly. An irrational person with a weapon could possibly, reasonably, be perceived as a threat. Edited August 22, 2013 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

How would they decide that the taser did not contribute to his death if they didn't consider the possibility it may

of all the stupid arguments. Obviously the coroner has already determined cause of death and it sure as hell wasn't the guy holding the taser charged with mirder.

[Guest American Woman]

My thought as well. As competition within media to be first with a story becomes more in intense, they are increasingly getting things wrong. Properly varifying sources is no longer the priority it once was.

It seems even Yatim's family members are questioning this information:

A statement from the Yatim family was released Thursday after a Toronto Sun story reported eight of the nine bullets shot at the 18-year-old found their mark.

“They are upset and most distressed by this news as none of this information had been previously disclosed to the family and they are unclear about how this information has come to light, or if there is any truth to it,” the statement said.

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/08/22/sammy-yatim-family-in-dark-coroners-report

[On Guard for Thee]

of all the stupid arguments. Obviously the coroner has already determined cause of death and it sure as hell wasn't the guy holding the taser charged with mirder.

He should be charged with something. Tasering a dead man, not cool.

[ReeferMadness]

of all the stupid arguments. Obviously the coroner has already determined cause of death and it sure as hell wasn't the guy holding the taser charged with mirder.

So, I wonder why the autopsy results haven't been released.

[Black Dog]

Maybe it's not so much an expectation, but a hope? If, when facing alone a dozen or so police officers, someone holding a weapon doesn't drop it when told by the police to do so, then it's pretty reasonable to conclude that person isn't thinking rationally and thus could make any kind of action with that weapon at any moment.

So best to just shoot them down preemptively? Because that's the logical conclusion here.

[cybercoma]

So, I wonder why the autopsy results haven't been released.

Because there's going to be a trial. And now there's a media ban. The Chief Coroner's job doesn't entail contributing to the media frenzy. He/she, depending the province, has the discretion to release it or not.

[Argus]

There are lesser-included charges with second-degree murder, yes. That's why they charged him with it. The problem is that the case may not even get a guilty verdict on manslaughter. Juries are hesitant to convict officers in the line of duty. Also, we should keep in mind that rarely do they report all the charges someone faces. Typically, they'll just report the most serious one because a lot of times the judge will dismiss the others and just try the most serious charge anyway.

I think juries have been reluctant largely based on their trust of what they're told. But now they can see the shooting on video. It's one thing to listen to a cop saying he feared for his life, but quite another to actually view the action so as to be able to make a decision as to whether that fear was justifiable and realistic. I also think there is a lot less societal trust of police than there was even five years ago.

[Argus]

From all I've read, cops who deem it's necessary to use their weapon generally fire multiple shots. From what I've read, it seems as if the number of shots isn't all that damning.

And again, "investigative reporting" isn't always 100% accurate.

No, what is damning is taht the first three put the suspect down, and then there was a delay while the constable shifted positions before firing six more times. That is inexplicable, and I can only assume he had some kind of hysterical tunnel vision which kept his brain from functioning.

[cybercoma]

I can only assume he had some kind of hysterical tunnel vision which kept his brain from functioning.

A good quality to have when you're a cop apparently.

[Argus]

Regarding the number of shots fired - here's an incident where a perp took 22 hits and the police officer took four hits himself, without it having any serious affect on his performing his duty. It's interesting to see what the perp, Palmer, was still capable of doing after being shot so many times. From all that I've read, it can be a fatal mistake for a cop to assume that one or two shots have incapacitated the perp.

http://www.lawofficer.com/article/training/officer-down-peter-soulis-inci

Remarkably, Palmer had taken 22 hits from Soulis' .40-caliber Glock, 17 of which had hit center mass. Despite the fact that the weapon had been loaded with Ranger SXTs considered by many to be one of the best man-stoppers available Palmer lived for more than four minutes after the last shot was fired.

I can't find any news stories of this event. There is only the one article, which appears to go out of its way to not name when or where this happened, and a few other sites which quote the same article. Given they give the full names of the assailant and the cop I find it odd they would say 'worked for a large, metropolitican police department' instead of simply saying which one.

Without further information I'm going to dismiss this as fiction.

[Guest American Woman]

No, what is damning is taht the first three put the suspect down, and then there was a delay while the constable shifted positions before firing six more times. That is inexplicable, and I can only assume he had some kind of hysterical tunnel vision which kept his brain from functioning.

No can assume what you want, but an assumption is all it is, because I posted an example of a guy who had been shot multiple times and got back up twice after he was down, and once he actually tried to drive away. That guy took 22 hits. The cop took four hits, and it didn't affect his ability to continue to perform his duty. The few seconds between the initial shots and the rest of the shots may or may not be an issue. We don't know. But we do know that even after the second round of shots, a sergeant deemed it necessary to taze Yatim and evidently that's not being questioned.

Edited August 23, 2013 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

I can't find any news stories of this event. There is only the one article, which appears to go out of its way to not name when or where this happened, and a few other sites which quote the same article. Given they give the full names of the assailant and the cop I find it odd they would say 'worked for a large, metropolitican police department' instead of simply saying which one.

Without further information I'm going to dismiss this as fiction.

According to the article: Note: The incident recounted here is true, but the suspect's name was changed to ensure his family's privacy. In order to preserve confidentiality and clarity, some facts have been altered slightly, but the essential elements of the story remain unchanged.

Of course it's your prerogative to dismiss it, as I'm dismissing your assumption.

[cybercoma]

"Facts have been altered slightly"

So what are the "essential elements" that are unchanged and what are the altered facts, AW?

[Guest American Woman]

"Facts have been altered slightly"

So what are the "essential elements" that are unchanged and what are the altered facts, AW?

For someone who has me on ignore, you sure do pay me a lot of attention.

I would say, judging by the definition of "essential," the main points are unchanged. Hope that helps. If not, feel free to ignore it, just as you ignore me.

[cybercoma]

For someone who has me on ignore, you sure do pay me a lot of attention.

I would say, judging by the definition of "essential," the main points are unchanged. Hope that helps. If not, feel free to ignore it, just as you ignore me.

You didn't answer my question, you just reworded "essential" to "main". What are the main points and what facts have been changed in that article?

[Guest American Woman]

You didn't answer my question, you just reworded "essential" to "main". What are the main points and what facts have been changed in that article?

Perhaps you need to look up the definitions of "essential" and "main" ... because I did answer your question.

Edited August 23, 2013 by American Woman

[g_bambino]

So best to just shoot them down preemptively?

Once the irrational person holding a weapon and refusing to drop the weapon moves towards the police, yes.

[Guest American Woman]

I can't find any news stories of this event. There is only the one article, which appears to go out of its way to not name when or where this happened, and a few other sites which quote the same article. Given they give the full names of the assailant and the cop I find it odd they would say 'worked for a large, metropolitican police department' instead of simply saying which one.

Without further information I'm going to dismiss this as fiction.

I did a bit of research. If you want to read about the incident, which happened in 1997,* you can read "On Combat, The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace" by Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman.

"Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman, author of The Bullet-Proof Mind and the Pulitzer nominated On Killing, included Officer Pete Soulis’s 1997 deadly force gun battle in his book On Combat. In this engagement Pete Soulis suffered five shots during the engagement and fatally wounded the armed and violent suspect."

Officer Soulis is named as the officer in the incident I cited.

More on Soulis (excerpt):

"Officer Pete Soulis (Ret) is a twenty-five year law enforcement veteran from North Florida. Officer Soulis recently retired from the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office. He has an extensive tactical background and has served as a SWAT Officer and Team Leader for sixteen years out of the last twenty-five years with the department. Officer Soulis has been training civilian law enforcement and military personnel nationally about the aspects of surviving deadly force encounters. His lecture on “Surviving Armed Encounters” and “Street Combat Shooting” firearms instruction have been praised by law enforcement instructors and decorated military officers across the United States. Pete Soulis is presently the contracted primary firearms instructor for USBR (Dept of Reclamation) and the US Coast Guard tactical groups through Mantech International Corporation SMA. He continues to train law enforcement officers and military units in the principles of the Soulis Shooting System with CQB tactics, the dynamics of deadly force engagements and weapon skills that have been proven effective in combat numerous times by himself and officers he has trained.

http://policecombat.com/subpage.php?did=10

*Edited to add: There seem to be a lot of local articles about it, but I can't access most of them as it appears as if they are too old. Here's a list with the links that I haven't been able to access: http://search.jacksonville.com/fast-elements.php?type=standard&profile=jacksonville&querystring=%22PETE%20SOULIS%22

Here's one article I was able to access: http://old.chronicle.augusta.com/stories/1997/10/22/met_216380.shtml "Palmer's" name is really Joseph McGrotha.

More than 30 bullets flew. The motorist, Joseph McGrotha, 27, of Warner Robins, Ga., died after being shot about 20 times, said Chief Frank Mackesy of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office. Officer Soulis, shot through the left arm three times and once near the left thigh, was released Monday from University Medical Center.

At one point, Mr. McGrotha got back in his car in an attempt to drive off as the shooting continued. His car hit a nearby fence and stopped. Officer Soulis called for help over his radio and Mr. McGrotha was found dead in the car.

Edited August 23, 2013 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

Perhaps you need to look up the definitions of "essential" and "main" (and the definition of "ignore," while you're at it), because I did answer your question.

So I take you have no idea what facts were changed for the story then, since you're obviously not going to answer the question? If it's so obvious, why not just spell it out?

[Guest American Woman]

So I take you have no idea what facts were changed for the story then, since you're obviously not going to answer the question? If it's so obvious, why not just spell it out?

Why do you think I, who you have on ignore, should give you the time of day? I suggest, as I said previously, that you look up the definition of "ignore" - and then practice it. Then read the links I provided.

Edited August 23, 2013 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

Why do you think I, who you have on ignore, should give you the time of day? I suggest, as I said previously, that you look up the definition of "ignore" - and then practice it.

I don't have to put you on ignore. I cycle my ignore list regularly and you're currently off it.

You provided a link to support an argument and I'm asking for clarification on your link, so I can understand how it relates. Do you know what facts were changed in the article or not? You condescendingly keep telling me that the "essential" and "main" ones haven't been changed. So what has? If you don't know, just say so.