TTC Police Shooting

[Boges]

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.

If he fired and he didn't intend to kill the kid, then he improperly discharged his weapon.

[Guest American Woman]

If he fired and he didn't intend to kill the kid, then he improperly discharged his weapon.

Again, only your opinion. Not fact at all. If what you say wwere true, if every time an officer fired his weapon he intended to kill, there would be no need for the prosecution to prove that Forcillo intended to kill Yatim; that would be a given. Edited August 27, 2013 by American Woman

[dre]

And what reason would that be?

To determine if hes legally guilty.

[Guest American Woman]

To determine if hes legally guilty.

So his guilt isn't a given.

[Black Dog]

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.

Cool so if I open up on a crowd with an M-60 I can make my defense "I wasn't trying to kill anyone, honest!" That will totally fly, right?

[dre]

Again, only your opinion. Not fact at all. If what you say wwere true, if every time an officer fired his weapon he intended to kill, there would be no need for the prosecution to prove that Forcillo intended to kill Yatim; that would be a given.

They do NOT have to prove he intended to kill him. All they have to prove is that he intended to do serious bodily harm and that death resulted.

Hell drunk drivers can even be convicted of second degree murder, and they dont intend to kill anyone at all.

[g_bambino]

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?

Probably. But, I don't know how many were armed loonies who advanced towards the police after being told to drop the weapon and not move, all in a situation where there was nothing between the police and said loony.

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...

The driver's seat is right at the top of the stairs and it's possible to simply jump from the streetcar floor to the street. However, I'd say another possibility is Yatim throwing the knife. Yes, yes, he's not a trained knife thrower (is he? He had an affinity for knives, did he not?) But, no police officer at the time knew that and the chance that he could've hit someone was there.

[ed.: +]

Edited August 27, 2013 by g_bambino

[Guest American Woman]

Cool so if I open up on a crowd with an M-60 I can make my defense "I wasn't trying to kill anyone, honest!" That will totally fly, right?

Yeah, cuz you're a cop - and that's just exactly what all cops are doing when they shoot. There is no perp involved, not following police orders. It's just a guy with a gun opening up on an indiscriminate crowd of totally innocent people who have done nothing wrong.

Good Lord.

[dre]

So his guilt isn't a given.

Yes his guilt in terms of a second degree murder charge is not a given. In fact I find it unlikely that he will be convicted.

[g_bambino]

A trial is necessary...

Yet...

[T]he murder of the perp...

[Guest American Woman]

They do NOT have to prove he intended to kill him. All they have to prove is that he intended to do serious bodily harm and that death resulted.

From all I've read, yes, they do. He was charged with murder, not "intent to do serious bodily harm."

Hell drunk drivers can even be convicted of second degree murder, and they dont intend to kill anyone at all.

Drunk driving is illegal while it's not illegal for a police officer to to fire his/her weapon; there is no need for anyone to ever drive drunk, that's never not illegal, whereas there is sometimes a need for a police officer to fire his gun. It's not illegal for them to do so. Therefore, from all I've read, there is a different "proof" involved, which would make sense. Edited August 27, 2013 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

Yes his guilt in terms of a second degree murder charge is not a given. In fact I find it unlikely that he will be convicted.

And by the same token, until the investigation is completed and determinations are made regarding his actions, it's not a given that he did anything wrong.

[Black Dog]

The driver's seat is right at the top of the stairs and it's possible to simply jump from the streetcar floor to the street.

[ed.: +]

He was behind the driver's seat at the time of the shooting. And if he had advanced and jumped down, it's a decent drop, probably more than a metre. I don't see how he could make that jump without enough time for officers to respond accordingly.

I'd say another possibility is Yatim throwing the knife. Yes, yes, he's not a trained knife thrower (is he? He had an affinity for knives, did he not?) But, no police officer at the time knew that and the chance that he could've hit someone was there.

Pretty dim possibility, to say nothing of the fact that the cops were wearing kevlar vests, so he'd have to land a perfect throw to the head or limbs to do any damage. I don't think he was in the circus, so I don't see that as much of a possibility.

[bleeding heart]

Pretty dim possibility, to say nothing of the fact that the cops were wearing kevlar vests, so he'd have to land a perfect throw to the head or limbs to do any damage. I don't think he was in the circus, so I don't see that as much of a possibility.

It's preposterous, and I'm surprised that g_bambino has resurrected this hypothesis, which I thought had been a rare moment of intellectual carelessness for him, nothing more.

[guyser]

They do NOT have to prove he intended to kill him. All they have to prove is that he intended to do serious bodily harm and that death resulted.

No, intent is still a factor for 2nd degree. Its the planned and deliberate part that is 1st degree

Good thing Sammy didnt shot the cop, different rules , same old rules for one, diff rules for others.

Edited August 27, 2013 by Guyser2

[Guest American Woman]

No, intent is still a factor for 2nd degree. Its the planned and deliberate part that is 1st degree

It most definitely is.

Good thing Sammy didnt shot the cop, different rules , same old rules for one, diff rules for others.

Of course there are different rules for police officers and civilians. You think it's the same when a civilian fires at a cop as when a police officer fires his/her weapon at a perp? Edited August 27, 2013 by American Woman

[guyser]

Of course there are different rules for police officers and civilians. You think it's the same when a civilian fires at a cop as when a police officer fires his/her weapon at a perp?

Somebody shot dead? Dont care who did it nor the persons job.

Part of the problem is the police have elevated themselves to some higher plane in need of certain laws.

[Guest American Woman]

Somebody shot dead? Dont care who did it nor the persons job.

You might not care, but the law, fortunately, sees the difference between an officer firing his/her weapon at a perp - and a civilian shooting at a cop.

Part of the problem is the police have elevated themselves to some higher plane in need of certain laws.

That's your opinion, as I doubt that "the police" have done any such thing; and I would say the proof lies in how many police officers deal with perps on a daily basis throughout the year(s) in relation to how many perps are shot and killed. Edited August 27, 2013 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

You might not care, but the law, fortunately, sees the difference between an officer firing his/her weapon at a perp - and a civilian shooting at a cop.

A cop is not above the law.

[dre]

From all I've read, yes, they do. He was charged with murder, not "intent to do serious bodily harm."

Well then you quite simply havent read anything at all.

Heres what the criminal code says...

Murder

229. Culpable homicide is murder

• (a) where the person who causes the death of a human being

  • (i) means to cause his death, or

  • (ii) means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not;

• (b) where a person, meaning to cause death to a human being or meaning to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and being reckless whether death ensues or not, by accident or mistake causes death to another human being, notwithstanding that he does not mean to cause death or bodily harm to that human being; or

• (c) where a person, for an unlawful object, does anything that he knows or ought to know is likely to cause death, and thereby causes death to a human being, notwithstanding that he desires to effect his object without causing death or bodily harm to any human being.

And section 231.7 which states...

(7) All murder that is not first degree murder is second degree murder.

So intent to kill is specifical NOT a requirement for second degree murder. All thats required is that you do something that you "know or ought to know is likely to cause death". Like shooting a guy 9 times! Or stomping on someones head while they are down.

[dre]

No, intent is still a factor for 2nd degree. Its the planned and deliberate part that is 1st degree

Good thing Sammy didnt shot the cop, different rules , same old rules for one, diff rules for others.

Intent is a factor but it doesnt have to be intent to kill. It just has to be an intentional act that has a reasonable likelyhood of causing death, and its considered murder whether you were trying to kill him or not.

Maybe I want to beat the living piss out of a guy.... not kill him. But I went to far and escalated my assault on the guy to the point where death was a reasonably likely outcome. Its still murder... Even if actually killing him did not even cross my mind. All i have to do is commit an act I should know is likely to cause death.

Edited August 27, 2013 by dre

[dre]

Yet...

You can enjoy your little "gotcha" moment but I have referred to the perp in this case as "accused murderer".

[Guest American Woman]

A cop is not above the law.

Of course not. I never so much as suggested otherwise, but of course a civilian shooting a cop and a cop firing his weapon in the line of duty are not, by law, the same - nor should they be.

[Boges]

I know this must have been addressed at some point in this mammoth thread.

Isn't the fact that none of the 20+ officers on the scene don't appear to feel threatened enough to have their guns drawn or to fire on Yatim speak to the negligence of Forcillo?

This should definitely be something examined in the trial. I doubt, due to the thin blue line, any of the officers will find fault in what Forcillo did though.

[dre]

A cop is not above the law.

No but police are sometimes allowed to use deadly force...

Deadly force can only be used to protect against death or grievous harm and when no less violent means are available

And thats what will be argued in this trial. Were the police in imminent danger of death or grievous harm, and were less violent means (tasers, beenbags, pepper spray available).

The problem for the officer in this case is going to be the second volley of shots. If they find that the first volley hit the perp and that he was down when the second volley was fired, hes going to have a nearly impossible time proving that at that point the suspect was a threat to the lives of any of the officers. It also looks really bad on him that none of the officers even had their guns drawn until after the suspect started unloading on this guy.

But its worth mentioning that this guy has some things in his favor too. Almost all the witnesses are other cops, and police in Ontario have been brought up on murder or manslaughter charges 9 times before and not one single time was anyone convicted.