TTC Police Shooting

[GostHacked]

Best tell the judge for the officer's trial not to waste his time (or everyone's tax dollars); you've already reached a verdict.

Would you offer the same to this person if he was not a cop?

[g_bambino]

[P]olice very frequently deal with situations where armed and irrational people refuse to obey commands and even move towards them, yet shootings are comparatively rare.

Given that the moving towards the police part is key here, how often does an armed person who's been commanded by the police to drop their weapon and not move move towards the police and not get shot at? And on what information are you basing your answer? I'd wager it's not very often, especially where there's nothing between the officers and the armed and irrational individual. The officers have no idea how an armed person in such a state is going to act and they're going to want to err on the side of caution in order to protect themselves from the very possible event that the armed individual will try and attack the police in some manner.

[GostHacked]

Given that the moving towards the police part is key here, how often does an armed person who's been commanded by the police to drop their weapon and not move move towards the police and not get shot at? And on what information are you basing your answer? I'd wager it's not very often, especially where there's nothing between the officers and the armed and irrational individual. The officers have no idea how an armed person in such a state is going to act and they're going to want to err on the side of caution in order to protect themselves from the very possible event that the armed individual will try and attack the police in some manner.

They guy was pacing back and forth on the streetcar. If they have no idea, they need to assess the situation. Some cops are just arriving on the scene and the kid is already on the floor of the streetcar.

This was a complete failure all over the place, not just this one cop. No attempts to detain, no attempts to communicate other than barking orders.

This did not happen here, but I really love it when I hear 'STOP RESISTING' while the cop lays another shot to the persons head.

[Boges]

With the evidence we do have, Yatim wasn't moving towards the police.

If it can be proven at the time of the shooting he wasn't advancing doesn't that itself prove the shooting wasn't required?

Edited August 27, 2013 by Boges

[g_bambino]

I really love it when I hear 'STOP RESISTING' while the cop lays another shot to the persons head.

I believe you.

[GostHacked]

I believe you.

I know you did not miss the real point that it was sarcasm. Remember, you are the one defending that kind of behaviour, by defending this cop who shot and killed a person on a streetcar. The sole thing of the badge is what is preventing his ass from being thrown in jail without bail.

[Boges]

Just being fair, as I posted this story in this thread weeks ago.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/durham-regional-police-officer-to-face-discipline-over-inappropriate-tweets/article13954467/

The Durham Regional Police wants the Ontario ombudsman to help restore the reputation of an officer whom he falsely accused of sending inappropriate messages to him over Twitter.

On Aug. 8, Ontario Ombudsman André Marin received tweets from an account identified as “Joe Mayo” before a news conference he was holding on the shooting of 18-year-old Sammy Yatim by Toronto police.

Mr. Marin said the Twitter user told him that he was a “carded member of Al Qaida” and not to stick his nose in “business it doesn’t belong.”

While the Twitter account was deleted, Mr. Marin publicly identified the tweeter as Durham regional police officer “Dennis Scott” and later clarified the name as “Scott Dennis,” also disclosing the constable’s salary. Several media outlets reported Constable Dennis’ name.

Less a problem with Marin than the person using the officer's account. Ironically we all know the name of the guy being framed but not the actual officer who created the troll account and maligned Scott.

[Black Dog]

Given that the moving towards the police part is key here, how often does an armed person who's been commanded by the police to drop their weapon and not move move towards the police and not get shot at? And on what information are you basing your answer? I'd wager it's not very often, especially where there's nothing between the officers and the armed and irrational individual. The officers have no idea how an armed person in such a state is going to act and they're going to want to err on the side of caution in order to protect themselves from the very possible event that the armed individual will try and attack the police in some manner.

On what information are you basing your answer?

I'd wager it varies depending on the weapon, the distance between the cop and the individual, and a host of other factors. In some cases, lethal force is probably the appropriate response. But not always.

In this particular case, it's difficult to see how the officer could have construed that Yatim was an immediate threat, given the distance between them and Yatim's location inside the streetcar. What's particularly damning is the fact that the officer issued a verbal ultimatum before pulling the trigger, which strongly suggests he was reacting to Yatim defying him rather than because he was facing an actual threat.

[g_bambino]

With the evidence we do have, Yatim wasn't moving towards the police.

The teen took a step forward at which time one officer, identified as Const. Forcillo, fired three shots.

National Post

[g_bambino]

[Y]ou are the one defending that kind of behaviour

Where did I defend that kind of behaviour?

[D]efending this cop...

There's a difference between defending someone's right to be given due process and presumed innocent until proven guilty and defending someone's actions.There's also a difference between reserving judgement of someone because not enough evidence is available to do otherwise soundly and concluding that someone's innocent.

[Black Dog]

The whole verbal exchange between Farcillo and Yatim is probably going to weigh heavily in this case. I expect cops are trained to instruct people to drop their weapons. I'm not sure they should be issuing ultimatums or goading people on. If someone is refusing to drop a weapon and taunting you, chances are they are probably going to make a point of crossing any arbitrary line you put in front of them.

[g_bambino]

On what information are you basing your answer?

You mean on what information am I basing my wager? I thought that was evident in the rest of my post: no more than logic and my understanding of human nature and, specifically, the trait of self-preservation. I never said my suspicion was more than that--a wager can be lost.

I'd wager it varies depending on the weapon, the distance between the cop and the individual, and a host of other factors. In some cases, lethal force is probably the appropriate response. But not always.

Indeed; I thought myself that there's likely more detail involved than what I included when describing a scenario in which opening fire on a person would be jusified; distance and what is between the police and the indvidual crossed my mind. So, while shooting at the armed and moving person is not always the only option, I wonder still about your assertion that discharge of an officer's gun happens less often than not when police face off with a person holding a weapon.

In this case, there was not a lot of distance between the police and Yatim--10-15 feet, from my watching of the available videos--and zero objects therein.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited August 27, 2013 by g_bambino

[Black Dog]

You mean on what information am I basing my wager? I thought that was evident in the rest of my post: no more than logic and my understanding of human nature and, specifically, the trait of self-preservation. I never said my suspicion was more than that--a wager can be lost.

Indeed; I thought myself that there's likely more detail involved than what I included when describing a scenario in which opening fire on a person would be jusified; distance and what is between the police and the indvidual crossed my mind. So, while shooting at the armed and moving person is not always the only option, I wonder still about your assertion that discharge of an officer's gun happens less often than not when police face off with a person holding a weapon.

There have been a dozen fatal shootings by police in Toronto in the last 30 years. I think it's safe to assume that is less than the total number of confrontations with armed loonies in that time period, no?

In this case, there was not a lot of distance between the police and Yatim--10-15 feet, from my watching of the available videos--and zero objects therein.

I guess it depends on one's perspective: IMO, 10-15 feet is a considerable distance when a guy is armed with a three-inch knife. Also, you're failing to take into account it's not a straight line: Yatim appears to be about where the yellow line is on the streetcar behind the driver's seat and would have to step forward a couple of feet and then clamber down the steps (which are pretty steep; I've sen lots of able-bodied people wipe out trying to get up and down those things in a rush) before reaching street level.

[Guest American Woman]

Where did I defend that kind of behaviour?

There's a difference between defending someone's right to be given due process and presumed innocent until proven guilty and defending someone's actions.There's also a difference between reserving judgement of someone because not enough evidence is available to do otherwise soundly and concluding that someone's innocent.

Exactly. It seems as if too many don't understand that. There's also a difference between stating an opinion and declaring guilt - insisting we know all we need to know when Forcillo has not even been given the opportunity to say one word.

Edited August 27, 2013 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

Exactly. It seems as if too many don't understand that. There's also a difference between stating an opinion and declaring guilt - insisting we know all we need to know when Forcillo has not even been given the opportunity to say one word.

His gun did that for him.

[Guest American Woman]

His gun did that for him.

And you prove my point.

[GostHacked]

And you prove my point.

Who fired the gun again?

[Guest American Woman]

Who fired the gun again?

And you continue to prove my point.

[dre]

I guess it depends on one's perspective: IMO, 10-15 feet is a considerable distance when a guy is armed with a three-inch knife. Also, you're failing to take into account it's not a straight line: Yatim appears to be about where the yellow line is on the streetcar behind the driver's seat and would have to step forward a couple of feet and then clamber down the steps (which are pretty steep; I've sen lots of able-bodied people wipe out trying to get up and down those things in a rush) before reaching street level.

The police arbitrarily decided on that range. They could have stood 5 feet away or they could have stood 20.

Watch the last video I posted where the perp advances on the cop near the beginning of the video. The cop backs up and maintains range.

The police were in total control of the streetcar situation. If they were 15 feet away its because thats where they chose to be.

I dont personally think this guy will get convicted of murder because in the 9 times police have been charged with manslaughter or murder in Ontario not one has resulted in a conviction. But no reasonable person is going to sit there and tell you that there wasnt other ways to handle this situation. An un-named source at the police department has said NLF should have been deployed here... Its a textbook scenario for it.

BTW... 15 feet is EXACTLY the recommended range for an X26 police issue taser.

[dre]

Exactly. It seems as if too many don't understand that. There's also a difference between stating an opinion and declaring guilt - insisting we know all we need to know when Forcillo has not even been given the opportunity to say one word.

This is total red herring. This guy is an accused murderer now, and he will be saying exactly what his lawyers advise him to... its also very unlikely that he will even take the stand.

And the core facts of the case have already been established. We know where the perp was, we know where the police were, we know how many shots were fired, we know what range they were fired from, we know who fired them, and we know that NLF should have been deployed. That doesnt mean he will be found legally guilty of murder... Its damn near impossible to convict a cop of anything. But nothing he can say is going to change the basic facts of this case. And like I said... its not likely that we will ever hear his testimony anyways.

[Guest American Woman]

This is total red herring. This guy is an accused murderer now, and he will be saying exactly what his lawyers advise him to... its also very unlikely that he will even take the stand.

Since when is a fact a red herring?

And the core facts of the case have already been established. We know where the perp was, we know where the police were, we know how many shots were fired, we know what range they were fired from, we know who fired them, and we know that NLF should have been deployed. That doesnt mean he will be found legally guilty of murder... Its damn near impossible to convict a cop of anything. But nothing he can say is going to change the basic facts of this case. And like I said... its not likely that we will ever hear his testimony anyways.

Makes one wonder why a trial is even necessary, eh? Why should we respect due process when "reasonable" people like you have already decided what's what?

Most likely Forcillo won't be found guilty of murder - because it's likely that it will be "damn near impossible" to prove that Forcillo's intent was to kill Yatim.

Edited August 27, 2013 by American Woman

[dre]

Makes one wonder why a trial is even necessary, eh? Why should we respect due process when "reasonable" people like you have already decided what's what?

Most likely Forcillo won't be found guilty of murder - because it's likely that it will be "damn near impossible" to prove that Forcillo's intent was to kill Yatim.

A trial is necessary for the same reason any other supected murderer is given a trial.

because it's likely that it will be "damn near impossible" to prove that Forcillo's intent was to kill Yatim.

Intent to do serious bodily injury, that results in death is all thats required.

When you shoot at a person 9 times, including a volley of shots after the person is already down, then it stands to reason youre trying to seriously injure or kill the guy.

Edited August 27, 2013 by dre

[Guest American Woman]

I trial is necessary for the same reason any other supected murderer is given a trial.

And what reason would that be?

[Boges]

Because it's likely that it will be "damn near impossible" to prove that Forcillo's intent was to kill Yatim.

If he didn't want to kill Yatim, then he shouldn't have fired upon him. The actions indicate the intent.

[Guest American Woman]

If he didn't want to kill Yatim, then he shouldn't have fired upon him. The actions indicate the intent.

That was my quote, which I don't think dre meant to include in his post - at least not as his. And no, firing his weapon does not = intent to kill. You may claim that it does, but it's only your claim. It's not fact.