TTC Police Shooting

[Guest American Woman]

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.

Read my posts and links. They'll answer your questions.

Edited August 23, 2013 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

Um, yeah, you do have me on ignore.

Read my posts and links. They'll answer your questions. Now, for the last time, do what you intended to do - and ignore me, as I'll be returning the favor.

So you don't know then. K thanks.

[The_Squid]

What a bizarre conversation....

[Guest American Woman]

What a bizarre conversation....

So what do you think of the incident I cited? It illustrates why a police officer can't assume that just because a perp is "down" he no longer poses a threat. It also illustrates that taking several shots isn't necessarily fatal.

[ReeferMadness]

So what do you think of the incident I cited? It illustrates why a police officer can't assume that just because a perp is "down" he no longer poses a threat. It also illustrates that taking several shots isn't necessarily fatal.

No, he's not "down" until you shoot him 8 times and then taser him.

Doesn't anyone know the proper rule to "Whack the perp"?

[The_Squid]

So what do you think of the incident I cited? It illustrates why a police officer can't assume that just because a perp is "down" he no longer poses a threat. It also illustrates that taking several shots isn't necessarily fatal.

Totally irrelevant. And the fact that some of your "incident" is fiction makes it even less relevant.

[Guest American Woman]

Totally irrelevant. And the fact that some of your "incident" is fiction makes it even less relevant.

I posted the real news article, but don't let that stop you from dismissing it although perhaps it's more convenient to just dismiss it as "totally irrelevant" without reason.

[dre]

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/victoria-police-tasering-arrest-caught-on-camera-1.1418504

These guys managed to arrest the knife wielding perp without slaughtering him... and there was only two of them... and he wasnt trapped in a street car. But if the trigger happy chickenshit that shot the guy in the bus was here, theres no way this guy survives either.

There was all kinds of opportunities to use non lethal force. The only reason it was not tried was because 1 officer out of 9 decided to execute the suspect.

A police issue x26 taser has a range of 15 feet... If 3 or 4 of the officers were ready to deploy it theres no way that guy gets off the bus without going down, and certainly no way he closes the distance on the police to use his little knife.

This is about the easiest confrontation with an armed perp the police will ever face. There was absolutely no need for an execution here.

Edited August 24, 2013 by dre

[Guest American Woman]

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/victoria-police-tasering-arrest-caught-on-camera-1.1418504

These guys managed to arrest the knife wielding perp without slaughtering him... and there was only two of them... and he wasnt trapped in a street car. But if the trigger happy chickenshit that shot the guy in the bus was here, theres no way this guy survives either.

I posted instances where more than one police officer was injured, two severely, while dealing with one "knife wielding perp." Obviously every instance is different, and until proven guilty, we don't know that Forcillo is guilty of any wrongdoing. To declare that Forcillo would have acted differently than the officers in the situation you cited is nothing but speculation. He wasn't a rookie; he managed to perform his duties for six years without killing anyone, so condemning him as "trigger happy" without all of the evidence shows a bias, IMO.

[dre]

I posted instances where more than one police officer was injured, two severely, while dealing with one "knife wielding perp." Obviously every instance is different, and until proven guilty, we don't know that Forcillo is guilty of any wrongdoing. To declare that Forcillo would have acted differently than the officers in the situation you cited is nothing but speculation. He wasn't a rookie; he managed to perform his duties for six years without killing anyone, so condemning him as "trigger happy" without all of the evidence shows a bias, IMO.

The officers in the video I posted were in much greater danger than the ones standing outside that bus. The perp in this case was not contained, and the police had nowhere near as much backup.

Like I said... all they needed to do was have a few guys with tasers ready in case that guy stepped off the bus, and a couple of guys with guns drawn just in case and the police were safe. Its almost like someone forgot to train them on the use of non-lethal force, because that scenario is exactly what its designed for.

To declare that Forcillo would have acted differently than the officers in the situation you cited is nothing but speculation.

Its nothing but GOOD speculation based on the circumstances in those two scenarios.

so condemning him as "trigger happy" without all of the evidence shows a bias, IMO.

Yup! Bias against the police executing a suspect when non lethal force could easily have been used.

Edited August 24, 2013 by dre

[Guest American Woman]

The officers in the video I posted were in much greater danger....

Fortunately that's not for you to decide; you weren't there, you don't even have all of the evidence, and you aren't trained to make that kind of a judgement call.

Like I said... all they needed to do was have a few guys with tasers ready in case that guy stepped off the bus, and a couple of guys with guns drawn just in case and the police were safe. Its almost like someone forgot to train them on the use of non-lethal force, because that scenario is exactly what its designed for.

Yes, you have repeated your opinion. An opinion that isn't based on all of the evidence. An opinion derived with no police training. Again. Until proven otherwise, Forcillo is innocent, and you have no idea why he made the decision to shoot. As I've said, he has six years on the force that contradict your "trigger happy" judgement, based on nothing, as we know next to nothing about Forcillo.

Its nothing but GOOD speculation based on the circumstances in those two scenarios.

That's your opinion; an uniformed opinion, since you do not have all of the facts. Furthermore, since Forcillo spent six years on the force without killing anyone, without being "trigger happy" or a "chickensh*t," one could speculate that such speculation is based on an ignorant bias.

Yup! Bias against the police executing a suspect when non lethal force could easily have been used.

More evidence of bias and ignorance as none of us are in the position to make such a judgement call - and those who are have not yet made a judgement. Edited August 24, 2013 by American Woman

[dre]

Fortunately that's not for you to decide; you weren't there, you don't even have all of the evidence, and you aren't trained to make that kind of a judgement call.

Yes, you have repeated your opinion. An opinion that isn't based on all of the evidence. An opinion derived with no police training. Again. Until proven otherwise, Forcillo is innocent, and you have no idea why he made the decision to shoot. As I've said, he has six years on the force that contradict your "trigger happy" judgement, based on nothing.

That's your opinion; an uniformed opinion, since you do not have all of the facts. Furthermore, since Forcillo spent six years on the force without killing anyone, without being "trigger happy" or a "chickensh*t," one could speculate that such speculation is based on an ignorant bias.

More evidence of bias and ignorance as none of us are in the position to make such a judgement call - and those who are have not yet made a judgement.

News flash... the entire purpose of discussion forums is for people to express opinions on things based on what is known so far. Based on the crap you are spouting here this thread should not even exist, because we arent experts in law enforcement and the facts arent all known.

In fact... if you applied this criteria to yourself... You would have never made a single post in your life.

And if there were any obvious flaws in my logic regarding the use of nonn-lethal force you would point them out. But you didnt... because you dont see any.

Again... this is a textbook scenario for the use of non-lethal force. The exact scenario it was designed for.

Edited August 24, 2013 by dre

[Argus]

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.

Yes, American media are well-known for their respect for the privacy of crazed would-be cop-killers and their families, and of course, no doubt this incident would have recieved no media attention at the time...

The reason I wanted to view articles on this is how bizarre it sounds. Either the invidividual was very high on drugs and very, very large, or it was a fluke that bullets missed all vital organs.

Point remains, you don't shoot someone laying on the floor unless they've got a gun in their hand and are trying to point it at you. Period. Anyone who does needs to have their gun and uniform taken away from them.

Edited August 24, 2013 by Argus

[Argus]

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

And when they're laying on the floor?

[Argus]

So what do you think of the incident I cited? It illustrates why a police officer can't assume that just because a perp is "down" he no longer poses a threat. It also illustrates that taking several shots isn't necessarily fatal.

No one has suggested that once a suspect is down he should be considered no threat. What people have said is that a suspect without a gun who is down cannot be considered a threat, at least, not when no one is within a dozen yards of him.

[Guest American Woman]

News flash... the entire purpose of discussion forums is for people to express opinions on things based on what is known so far.

Expressing an opinion about Forcillo's actions and condemning someone and insulting them as you have are two very different things.

Based on the crap you are spouting here this thread should not even exist, because we arent experts in law enforcement and the facts arent all known.

So my opinion is "crap," eh? It's crap to believe we shouldn't be condemning Forcillo without all of the information. Guess "due process" is based on crap, then.

In fact... if you applied this criteria to yourself... You would have never made a single post in your life.

That's your opinion, which comes across as quite defensive to me, and it happens to be wrong. I could make this all about you and make ludicrous claims too, but I won't be going there. I've simply responded to what you've said in this thread, in the posts I've responded to.

And if there were any obvious flaws in my logic regarding the use of nonn-lethal force you would point them out. But you didnt... because you dont see any.

I've clearly pointed out the flaws in your "logic."

Again... this is a textbook scenario for the use of non-lethal force. The exact scenario it was designed for.

And again, that's simply your opinion. An opinion formed without benefit of all the facts; without Forcillo ever having had the opportunity to speak one word. You keep stating it as fact, and it's not. No decision, no verdicts, no judgments have been made by those who do have all of the facts and will be allowing Forcillo to have a word or two on the subject.

[Guest American Woman]

No one has suggested that once a suspect is down he should be considered no threat. What people have said is that a suspect without a gun who is down cannot be considered a threat, at least, not when no one is within a dozen yards of him.

And I'm saying that since a subject who is down can still be a threat, enough of a threat to drive a car in the instance I cited, we can't make that judgement call without all of the facts. Again. The sergeant who used a taser on Yatim obviously still considered him a threat - and he's not being taken to task for that decision, even though tasers in and of themselves have proven lethal.

[Big Guy]

Unless we find a previous adversarial relationship between Yatim and the policeman who has been charged then I believe the policeman will be found innocent of any criminal offence. When we assign people the responsibility to protect us and carry a deadly firearm then we have to accept the fact that some will make mistakes – minor and major.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, American media are well-known for their respect for the privacy of crazed would-be cop-killers and their families, and of course, no doubt this incident would have recieved no media attention at the time...

It's not the media respecting the privacy of the family - and the incident received lots of media attention at the time. If you click on the link I provided, you would see that. You would also see the real name of the man referred to as "Palmer" on the site I originally linked to - Joseph Kevin McGrotha, 27, of Warner Robins, Ga.

The reason I wanted to view articles on this is how bizarre it sounds. Either the invidividual was very high on drugs and very, very large, or it was a fluke that bullets missed all vital organs.

The link I provided says "the suspect had a blood alcohol level of .08 when he was shot by Officer Pete Soulis in the parking lot of a Southside gas station. In Florida, that blood alcohol level is considered intoxicated." Officer Soulis had no idea at the time, but the perp was a suspect in a murder. Sometimes what appears to be "routine," isn't.

Point remains, you don't shoot someone laying on the floor unless they've got a gun in their hand and are trying to point it at you. Period. Anyone who does needs to have their gun and uniform taken away from them.

That's your opinion, not policy. In the incident I referred to, the suspect was able to attempt to drive away after having been down and shot multiple times; 30 shots were fired, and McGrotha took about 20 hits.

[ReeferMadness]

Unless we find a previous adversarial relationship between Yatim and the policeman who has been charged then I believe the policeman will be found innocent of any criminal offence. When we assign people the responsibility to protect us and carry a deadly firearm then we have to accept the fact that some will make mistakes – minor and major.

Ah, "mistakes were made", the George Bush approach to evading accountability. Maybe we need to stop issuing these guys deadly firearms if they can't be trusted with them.

[dre]

Unless we find a previous adversarial relationship between Yatim and the policeman who has been charged then I believe the policeman will be found innocent of any criminal offence. When we assign people the responsibility to protect us and carry a deadly firearm then we have to accept the fact that some will make mistakes – minor and major.

If he is found innocent, that will not mean that the situation could not have been handled in a non lethal way. Like I said this is the exactly kind of scenario that non lethal force was designed for. The suspect was cornered, and the police had range. Similar situations have been handled using NLF many many many times.

I AM almost certain that you are right though. This guy will be completely cleared. At the very most he might lose his job, but he certainly wont have to answer to any criminal charges.

[g_bambino]

Like I said... all they needed to do was have a few guys with tasers ready in case that guy stepped off the bus, and a couple of guys with guns drawn just in case and the police were safe...

Because the knife was bonded to Yatim's hand? He couldn't've thrown it?

[g_bambino]

And when they're laying on the floor?

That's not relevant. Neither you nor I have any clue what position Yatim was in or what he was doing once he was down and out of sight from those who uploaded their recordings of the incident onto YouTube.

[Rue]

At this point the crown chose to go with a charge of second degree murder and only that-not a crime that would deal with excessive force such as manslaughter, criminal negligence, or a charge dealing with recklessness while using a firearm.

By doing so its an all or nothing for the crown in that they have to prove an intent to kill and we are not going to be dealing with the issue of excessive force in itself being prove of intent to kill because its not proof of intent to kill with second degree murder-it only would be with manslaughter or criminal negligence.

So if I did not know better they charge the officer with second degree murder to placate the crowds demanding a lynching while knowing by choosing that actual charge, its damn near impossible to prove and he walks which in the long run will only outrage the public unfamiliar with how criminal law and the evidence required to prove second degree murder works.

I already see the police Chief hanging the officer out. This is disgusting politics at its best and its what senior brass does and should not. Blair's interview shows he is more interested about his own legacy than the welfare of the police and public.

He's a sniveling sob upper management sell out-he does what upper management does-sell out their grunts at the lower level the moment the heat

is on.

As a police chief he should have simply stated the matter was unfortunate, the police take such things seriously, an investigation is under way to see what happened, when how, where, why and to try answer questions as to whether the matter could have been prevented and/or better handled. Then he should have such his mouth.

His comments at this point are prejudicial against the officer and its precisely the kind of b.s. a top brass should not engage in because he in effect is

saying to the public-hang the sob just leave me alone.

That police Chief is directly responsible. Instead of blaming the officer as he has not so subtly he should not be saying ANYTHING that prejudges what happened which he has.

As for the legal issue-as some of us have said, to prove criminal intent to murder probably won't happen. All the officer has to say was that he panicked, was anxious, thought his life or the life of other officers was on the line and that is the defence. In criminal law you must prove beyond a doubt someone's intent. How will they do that-no you can not infer intent by the no. of shots-try again.

You can infer improper training, excessive force, inappropriate management of mentally ill persons, etc., but none of that proves intent to murder.

The criminal trial is a total and utter waste of money and in my opinion a spineless political move to placate the masses who want a lynching and temporarily calm them down for a couple of years.

What needed to happen and will still need to happen is a review of the training police receive when dealing with the mentally ill in stand off situations.

Some have suggested expanding the number of units where a psychiatric nurse or social worker drives around with a specially trained police officer to respond to mentally ill people calls-that sounds nice, but its very expensive, would require a lot of manpower for it to be available 24 hours a day, and with any specialized unite such as that one or the canine unit, there is a limit to availability and invariably a time lag responding which might make calling one of these units a moot point.

Back we go again to the real issue-how to train street officers to deal with the mentally ill in confrontational situations.

I do expect though that for some this will continue to be a platform to express anger and distrust at all kinds of institutions using the actual officer in this shooting as a scapegoat for their misplaced anger at these institutions.

The people now scapegoating this officer use the very same technique racists do with people they believe all look the same-only now instead of skin colour its the uniform they wear. Either way you listen to Dre et all, and you may as well replace that word cop with black or Jew or choose the minority you want...the only thing missing is a comment as to the officer's big nose or big lips to complete the scapegoating.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Rue

[Black Dog]

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

Wow. They'd be stacking bodies like cordwood on street corners if you had your way.