TTC Police Shooting

[dre]

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.

Yes this is definately a problem for him. The video itself is a huge problem as well. The second volley of shots is an even bigger problem.

[Black Dog]

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.

Well, there were at least two others with weapons out: one beside Forcillo, one near the back doors. but yeah, only one guy felt threatened enough to shoot and that happened to be the same one engaging in the verbal with Yatim.

[Guest American Woman]

Well then you quite simply havent read anything at all.

Yes, actually, I have. I've already pointed out that a police officer using his gun in the line of duty is different from a civilian charged with murder.

Heres what the criminal code says...

And section 231.7 which states...

Which says absolutely nothing about police using their weapons in the line of duty.

So intent to kill is specifical NOT a requirement for second degree murder.

From what I've read, it is in this case, involving a police officer.

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.

Nope, not according to what I've read. Again, an officer uses his gun in the line of duty, so there's a provision in the law which authorizes use of force.

[dre]

Yes, actually, I have. I've already pointed out that a police officer using his gun in the line of duty is different from a civilian charged with murder.

Which says absolutely nothing about police using their weapons in the line of duty.

From what I've read, it is in this case, involving a police officer.

Nope, not according to what I've read. Again, an officer uses his gun in the line of duty, so there's a provision in the law which authorizes use of force.

Well sorry, but I directly quoted the criminal code as it pertains to second degree murder and intent. Intent to kill is quite simply not a requirement. Theres no special kind of 2nd degree murder for police officers. If they lawfully use deadly force then they arent guilty of ANY criminal code violation at all. But if they are charged with second degree murder, then no... intent to kill is not required as long as they took action where death was a likely outcome.

And again... you havent read anything about how intent factors into a second degree murder charge, or wouldnt be scouring google after the fact trying to find something. Like you just were.

Yes, actually, I have. I've already pointed out that a police officer using his gun in the line of duty is different from a civilian charged with murder.

Its only different if the police used their firearm legally. In Canada that means they (or someone else) faced serious bodily harm or death. They are taught this through police use of force models...

Police are only allowed to discharge their firearm in that little red slice on the upper left... only if death or seriously bodily harm is imminent. And THAT is what this trial will be about.

Note the word "perception" in the blue ring... That will be the core of his defense. His lawyers will try to convince the court that he "percieved" he was defending himself from death or serious bodily harm. And its a bit of stretch, and he faces some real problems. But again... convictions in these kinds of cases are extremely rare.

Edited August 27, 2013 by dre

[Guest American Woman]

And again... you havent read anything about how intent factors into a second degree murder charge, or wouldnt be scouring google after the fact trying to find something. Like you just were.

Actually, yes, I have - as I've said previously and repeated now. I didn't pull that information out of thin air - and you have no clue as to what I've been doing, and suggesting that you do is rather creepy.

And again. Yes. Intent will have to be proven, according to what I've read.

Edited August 27, 2013 by American Woman

[dre]

Actually, yes, I have - as I've said previously and repeated now. I didn't pull that information out of thin air - and you have no clue as to what I've been doing, and suggesting that you do is rather creepy.

And again. Yes. Intent will have to be proven, according to what I've read.

Not if its a second degree murder charge in Canada. And if you had a credible source that proved intent to kill is a requirement for a 2nd degree murder charge/conviction in Canada you already would have posted it.... instead of your little "oh yes! I have read things!" non argument.

[Guest American Woman]

Not if its a second degree murder charge in Canada. And if you had a credible source that proved intent to kill is a requirement for a 2nd degree murder charge/conviction in Canada ....

Try to understand this - I'm not saying it's a requirement for second degree murder charge/conviction in Canada; I'm saying I've read that it's a requirement for THIS case, because Forcillo is a police officer.

[dre]

Try to understand this - I'm not saying it's a requirement for second degree murder charge/conviction in Canada; I'm saying I've read that it's a requirement for THIS case, because Forcillo is a police officer.

I understand that and already explained why you are wrong, and even quoted the exact section of the criminal code hes being charged under. In order to find him guilty of 2nd degree murder they dont have to prove he specifically intended to kill the guy. Thats simply not how Canadian law works.

[GostHacked]

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

Yes, I do understand that. And I can think of many instances where it was more than justified. But this was not one of those situations.

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.

Agreed! The second volley of shots is going to work against him. If he had fired the 3 put him down and then reassess, we might still have a dead kid, but then we would not have the very questionable second round of shots.

Lots of talk about Ottawa police getting tasers now. Apparently the risk of these being used in even mild situations is there. Lots of talk about retraining. Is more tasers the solution or better training at assessing a situation?

[dre]

Lots of talk about Ottawa police getting tasers now. Apparently the risk of these being used in even mild situations is there. Lots of talk about retraining. Is more tasers the solution or better training at assessing a situation?

Well definately the cops need to be better equipped to use non lethal force. Current in ontario only supervisors and swat team members have Tazers. You can also buy cartridges now that extend the range to over 30 feet. There should probably be a tazer AND a beanbag gun, in every car.

The problem is these things can be overused as well, and used when only very mild resistance is encountered, so training has to happen to.

And police need to understand the use of force model!

... and that if they deviate from it they may find themselves as just another PERP like Mr (use of deadly) Forcillo.

Edited August 28, 2013 by dre

[g_bambino]

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.

Fairly dim, but a possibility nonetheless. He wouldn't even have to aim all that well; just a solid throw (and he apparently held the knife in the manner in which one would when prepared to throw it) of the knife into a cluster of people (the police officers, at the moment we're talking about) could result in someone getting cut. Clearly, I'm not suggesting it would kill anyone.

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 see him pretty well beside it, aligned maybe with the backrest. And, yes, it's about a metre down to the street. But, I think the possibility of the average police officer shooting a person who's suddenly and quickly closing a 15 foot gap between he and a now attacker is only slightly less dim than Yatim injuring a cop had he thrown the knife from where he stood. Having worked on a police building that held a shooting range, I know they have moving targets to train with; but, I don't know if they practice on hitting targets coming towards them or, if so, from how far, or how often they train. My brother is a retired cop and his wife still serves and I will likely see them over the weekend; I'll try to remember to ask them.

Of course, it's one thing to sit and take the time we have to replay video, read accounts, analyse (what's still insufficient evidence), and imagine what could and could not have happened or been done differently, and something else entirely to be there knowing very little in a situation wherein anything can happen very fast.

[ed.: +]

Edited August 28, 2013 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

...I have referred to the perp in this case as "accused murderer".

Not in your words that I quoted from the post you later went back and edited to remove them.

[guyser]

That's your opinion

No thats fact. Pretty easy to see the laws that are different for a cop vs anyone else.

, 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.

The police have pushed for and rec'd various changes in laws as respects them, most of which are horse dung . What they do is elevate themselves to a higher plane.

[Black Dog]

Fairly dim, but a possibility nonetheless. He wouldn't even have to aim all that well; just a solid throw (and he apparently held the knife in the manner in which one would when prepared to throw it) of the knife into a cluster of people (the police officers, at the moment we're talking about) could result in someone getting cut. Clearly, I'm not suggesting it would kill anyone.

Cite?

I see him pretty well beside it, aligned maybe with the backrest. And, yes, it's about a metre down to the street. But, I think the possibility of the average police officer shooting a person who's suddenly and quickly closing a 15 foot gap between he and a now attacker is only slightly less dim than Yatim injuring a cop had he thrown the knife from where he stood.

I don't see it. the second Yatim makes a real move, he's not only in range of two officers with weapons drawn, but at one more in close proximity. He'd be outnumbered and outgunned.

Having worked on a police building that held a shooting range, I know they have moving targets to train with; but, I don't know if they practice on hitting targets coming towards them or, if so, from how far, or how often they train. My brother is a retired cop and his wife still serves and I will likely see them over the weekend; I'll try to remember to ask them.

I would guess it's likely easier to shoot a moving target coming towards you than one trying to evade you: the closer they get, the better shot you get.

Of course, it's one thing to sit and take the time we have to replay video, read accounts, analyse (what's still insufficient evidence), and imagine what could and could not have happened or been done differently, and something else entirely to be there knowing very little in a situation wherein anything can happen very fast.

[ed.: +]

Yeah I think we've reached the end of the line, baring further revelations.

[Guest American Woman]

I understand that and already explained why you are wrong, and even quoted the exact section of the criminal code hes being charged under. In order to find him guilty of 2nd degree murder they dont have to prove he specifically intended to kill the guy. Thats simply not how Canadian law works.

But I'm not wrong; it' a fact that according to what I've read, the crown will have to prove intention. You can keep repeating the criminal code to me until the cows come home, but that doesn't change the fact that from what I've read, the crown will have to prove that killing Yatmin was Forcillo's intent. Again. There are different laws regarding police officers using guns, as it's part of their job, and civilians shooting at cops. That, from what I've read, is how Canadian law works.

[BubberMiley]

That, from what I've read, is how Canadian law works.

What'd you read?

[Guest American Woman]

No thats fact. Pretty easy to see the laws that are different for a cop vs anyone else.

No, it's your opinion. The "whys" are nothing more than your opinion, which is what I was referring to. Of course the laws are different for a cop than anyone else. I've said so myself.

The police have pushed for and rec'd various changes in laws as respects them, most of which are horse dung . What they do is elevate themselves to a higher plane.

And that, right there, is what is your opinion, just as I said. I can't see how it could be any different; how cops, who use weapons as part of their duties, would be bound to the same laws as the rest of us. How could it not be different?

[Rue]

I would like to clarify the criminal law of Canada in regards to second degree murder as Dre’s explanation is not entirely accurate.

Yes as Dre stated, the Criminal Code defines homicide as the death of someone where the killer meant to:

1- cause the death; or

2- meant to cause them bodily harm that was likely to result in their death.

There are in fact 6 criminal charges that may be layed that might deal with homicide;

1-first degree murder

2-second degree murder

3-infanticide

4-manslaughter

5-attempted murder

6-accessory to murder.

Let us now distinguish between first and second degree murder because the officer was charged only with second degree murder.

In regards to first-degree murder the crown must show beyond reasonable doubt that the killing was “planned and deliberate” or what is called ‘ pre-meditated ’, which means the person doing the killing can be shown to have thought about how he would kill the person.

There still can be some killings that aren’t premeditated but could constitute first-degree murder. Examples of that would me if you killed a police officer, killed someone while engaging in a kidnapping, rape or hijacking of a plane or terrorist act.

At this time a first-degree murder conviction means a life sentence with no parole possibility for 25 years.

In regards to second-degree murder the life sentence is also 25 years but you can be eligible for parole within 10 years.

While Dre is right in regards to the fact that second degree murder its defined in the Code as all murders that are not first-degree his explanation falls short after that as I shall now explain.

In this case a second degree murder conviction will require the crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the officer intended to kill. Second degree murder does not have to be pre-planned but still has to have an element of intention.

The crown MUT SHOW an intent to kill.

If a member of the public, you or I, who are not supposed to carry a weapon and protect society as large as part of our job fire a gun in a public place and these actions end up causing the death of someone in theory we could be charged with second degree murder but the reality is in those kinds of situations another criminal code section will be used since it will be easier to prove or raised during plea bargaining and keep in mind in Canada 95% of criminal matters are plea bargained to a lesser conviction.

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as:

1. an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, i.e.,a killing that was not pre-planned but none-the-less can be shown to have been conducted with malice (negative) afterthought (consequences);
2. was committed in the heat of the moment; (was done impulsively while the perpetrator started off doing something else intended to cause bodily harm or act out with anger) or
3. was caused by dangerous conduct and the offender’s obvious lack of concern for human life; (here the perpetrator must shown to have depraved indifference to human life).

Dre is not correct when he makes it seem as if all the crown has to show is a death happened from the shootings to prove second degree murder. No not at all. You still have to show one of the above 3 types of intentional non pre-meditated types of killings.

In the present case with the police officer the crown has to focus on the above third type of behaviour because as I earlier mentioned and Dre did not understand, the crown cannot show beyond reasonable doubt the first type above because they can’t prove the officer intended to engage in malice (negative behaviour-i.e., a desire to kill) unless suddenly tape can be heard with the officer screaming out or stating” I am going to kill you!”. All the officer has to argue is his intent at all times was to immobilize and in his intense focus he could not tell if the victim was still a threat or not because he could not see the results of his shots or interpreted initial and/o subsequent movement to be threatening and in need of force.

The second type cannot be proven because the officer can easily argue he was acting deliberately to protect himself and his fellow officers-there was no heat of the moment-he was completely focused on taking out the victim from being a threat.

So the crown will focus on the third type and argue the sheer number of shots can infer the officer evidenced a depraved indifference to human life.

So Dre is partially correct in saying the crown can try argue from the sheer volume of shots there was murder but the murder is proven not because of excessive force which falls under criminal negligence or negligent use of a firearm but with second degree murder on the argument that 9 shots can be inferred to show the officer did not care about the victim’s life.

However to counter depraved indifference the defence merely need show it was not depraved difference but fear, anxiety, concern for other officers.

As well the case law on what will be considered evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the accused acted indifferent to human life in the case of a police officer using force has never arisen until this charge.

There is no case precedent to go by. In most situations the officer might be charged with negligence while using a firearm, criminal negligence or perhaps manslaughter but second degree murder? It makes no sense. The requirement to show intent beyond reasonable doubt must be more than simply 9 shots.

In fact all the defence lawyer has to show was that the officer was calm and focused and not out of control. That shows no deliberate intent to kill but a deliberate attempt to immobilize. To jump to the conclusion immobilization and killing are exactly the same is not how the law works. Somehow you must indicate some kind of element in the behaviour that shows the immbolization turned from just that to murder. Shots in themselves will not do that. Another officer yelling stop, you’ll kill him, and he keeps shooting, might have been sufficient.

To summarize to be able to prove second degree murder the crown will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt the officer :

1. intended to inflict grievous bodily injury without legal justification;
2. intended to act in a manner likely to cause death or serious injury.

Second degree murder must be intentional. Its not simply inferred from the results of the action in question.

In regards to 1 above expect the crown to argue to the jury the amount of shots in itself can infer an intent to cause grievous bodily injury and the defence countering saying the officer’s intent was only to immobilize and he could not tell how many shots he made or whether they had penetrated and so kept shooting.

In regards to 2, expect the Crown to argue to the jury that the officer waiting betwen two series of shots can be inferred to mean he wanted to keep hurting the victim after the victim began convulsing on the ground-the defence will counter the officer interpreted the convulsions as the victim trying to kick or get up constituting the need for further immobilization or that his view was obscured and he started shooting again thinking there was movement.

Asny way you slice it, the onus is on the crown to show negative Intent other than just asking the jury to infer from the volume of shots fired. Inferrence works both ways not just one way and so opens the arguement to reasonable doubt.

Asking people to believe beyond reasonable doubt based on an inference can work in civil negligence actions but rarely in criminal actions and that is because of the difference in standard of proof in cvil courts where one only must establish on the balance of probabilities the defendant argued inappropriately and then it switches to the defendant to argue otherwise.

In criminal law the onus is all on the crown to show in absolute terms the actions of the officer might not have been caused for reasons other than the intent to murder the person.

Second degree murder was created for crimes of "passion" where during a domestic battle someone is killed or two people fighting leads to one killing the other. It was never intended for use against police officers pulling their gun in the line of duty in direct response to a pulled knife.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Rue

[GostHacked]

3 shots... pause ... then 6 more. Intent.

[Guest American Woman]

3 shots... pause ... then 6 more. Intent.

Well there we have it. No trial necessary. Forcillo didn't even have to say a word regarding why he acted as he did before being judged. Gotta love that. Who needs due process? Trials, hearing the whole story, getting all of the information before making a judgement - just a waste of time., energy, and money.

[guyser]

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

You responded by saying thats an opinion ,as I doubt that "the police" have done any such thing.

Sorry, you are wrong. It is a simple fact, in this country we have instituted laws that protect the police for whatever reason.

[Guest American Woman]

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

You responded by saying thats an opinion ,as I doubt that "the police" have done any such thing.

Sorry, you are wrong. It is a simple fact, in this country we have instituted laws that protect the police for whatever reason.

No, I'm not wrong. It's your opinion that they have "elevated themselves to some higher plane." I say they are in need of "certain laws" because of some of the duties that come with the territory; duties that are unique from duties that the general population face and that isn't "elevating them to some higher plane," but simply recognizing and addressing these unique duties.

Edited August 28, 2013 by American Woman

[dre]

But I'm not wrong; it' a fact that according to what I've read, the crown will have to prove intention. You can keep repeating the criminal code to me until the cows come home, but that doesn't change the fact that from what I've read, the crown will have to prove that killing Yatmin was Forcillo's intent. Again. There are different laws regarding police officers using guns, as it's part of their job, and civilians shooting at cops. That, from what I've read, is how Canadian law works.

Yeah! Because the "stuff youve read" but wont link to, supercedes the the actual section of the criminal code hes being charged under, which with complete clarity specifically says intent to KILL is not a requirement.

Like I said before all you need to do is commit an act that you either know, or should have known was reasonably likely to cause death.

[guyser]

No, I'm not wrong.

Yup. Still wrong. A little research would show you that, but hey, you can have a wrong opinion anytime of the week. I dont care.

It's your opinion that they have "elevated themselves to some higher plane."

No, quite certain they have. They have pushed for laws that are not applicable for others.

I say they are in need of "certain laws" because of some of the duties that come with the territory; duties that are unique from duties that the general population face and that isn't "elevating them to some higher plane," but simply recognizing and addressing these unique duties.

Now that is an opinion.

I can have a breakdown on the side of a highway and no one breaks a law by zooming by in the lane next to me. They do if its a cop stopped and flashing lights.

I have to wear a seatbelt or I can get a ticket. They dont.

Unique duties ...

Edited August 28, 2013 by Guyser2

[Guest American Woman]

Yeah! Because the "stuff youve read" but wont link to, supercedes the the actual section of the criminal code hes being charged under, which with complete clarity specifically says intent to KILL is not a requirement.

I won't link to it? That's news to me. Just as your telling me I hadn't read anything and then was busy googling looking for something to back up what I hadn't read was news to me. You might want to focus on the issue, not on me.

Like I said before all you need to do is commit an act that you either know, or should have known was reasonably likely to cause death.

Like I said before, from what I've read, in this case the crown has to prove intent. You might want to take a stab at responding to Rue's post instead of repeating the same thing to me, over and over again.