TTC Police Shooting

[Guest American Woman]

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.

So that's why you keep responding to me? Because you don't care? And nope. Not wrong.

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

You can be as certain as you want to be; it sill doesn't make your opinion anything other than an opinion.

Now that is an opinion.

Really?? You don't say!!

Um, yeah, it is. Just as your opinion is an opinion. Starting to get it, are you?

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.

And I explained why.

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

Wow. Talk about being elevated to a higher plane!!

Unique duties ...

Yep.

[guyser]

You can be as certain as you want to be; it sill doesn't make your opinion anything other than an opinion.

So then these laws that favour them came out of thin air? Oh my thats plenty stupid.

The laws exists = fact.

The law does not exist for anyone other than a cop.

The law exists because the P{olice pushed for them

All facts, or what you wrongly call an opinion.

In your bizarre world, the sun rises in the east is an opinion.

And I explained why.

Too funny,its now unique for a cop to stop on the side of the road but not anyone else.

Wow. Talk about being elevated to a higher plane!!

Yep.

Laugh all you want, still SOS and wrong.

The whole gist is, there are laws that dont apply to them , having nothing to do with their work.

You probably jumped to something other than what I was referring, whatever that was, I wasnt talking about.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Guyser2

[cybercoma]

What'd you read?

Oh no. Not this....

[g_bambino]

Cite?

I thought one of the witnesses had said this, but, now that I've searched for that, I think it may have been some reader's online comment about the way Yatim was holding the knife that I read. I must've remembered it because it made sense:

"The way he was holding the knife I found a little bit odd too. He just had his arm completely straight out in front of him with the elbow locked, and the knife was sticking directly up. It wasn’t actually pointing towards me."

Aaron Li-Hill quoted in the Toronto Star

[H]is fist was clenched around the handle of the knife.

Arron Li-Hill quoted in the Toronto Star

That is, of course, the way one who wished to throw a knife forward would hold it before bending the elbow and arcing the hand directly back past the ear, then very quickly reversing those motions and releasing of the knife as the arm comes to be almost fully stretched straight out in front of the torso, sending it spinning, blade over handle, directly in front of the thrower.

[g_bambino]

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

n this country we have instituted laws that protect the police for whatever reason.

So, assuming the latter is true, it isn't the police who've "elevated themselves to some higher plane", but legislators who've "elevated" them.

[dre]

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, 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.

Rues post argued points I had already clearly answered but for the most part he said exactly what Iv been telling you.

He claims that in a second degree murder trial the crown will have to "prove the intent to kill" which is clearly and plainly wrong, but thats about it.

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.

Oh please... Is there your first day posting on an internet forum? If you had a source that would have backed up what you are saying you would have posted it. You didnt. Instead you just kept repeating "Iv read a lot!", "I read this", "According to everything I have read".

Then another poster asked you....

What'd you read?

And... Crickets.

then was busy googling looking for something to back up what I hadn't read was news to me

Thats not news to you thats EXACTLY what you were doing. You know it, and so does everyone else reading this exchange.

Edited August 29, 2013 by dre

[Black Dog]

I thought one of the witnesses had said this, but, now that I've searched for that, I think it may have been some reader's online comment about the way Yatim was holding the knife that I read. I must've remembered it because it made sense:

That is, of course, the way one who wished to throw a knife forward would hold it before bending the elbow and arcing the hand directly back past the ear, then very quickly reversing those motions and releasing of the knife as the arm comes to be almost fully stretched straight out in front of the torso, sending it spinning, blade over handle, directly in front of the thrower.

You don't clench your fist around the handle a knife you are about to throw: from what I've seen, you either need to hold it by the tip of the blade or with a loose grip (it's all in the wrist). The witness quote was interesting, because it shows he was holding the knife that way before the cops arrived, which makes it hard to argue he was just about to throw the knife at Forcilo at al.

[guyser]

So, assuming the latter is true, it isn't the police who've "elevated themselves to some higher plane", but legislators who've "elevated" them.

So legislators woke up one day and decided," hey lets make some new laws that the cops might like? It will be like a present they dont know about!"

[g_bambino]

You don't clench your fist around the handle a knife you are about to throw: from what I've seen, you either need to hold it by the tip of the blade or with a loose grip (it's all in the wrist).

Hm. If you want to throw it well and know what you're doing, I guess.

The witness quote was interesting, because it shows he was holding the knife that way before the cops arrived, which makes it hard to argue he was just about to throw the knife at Forcilo at al.

Oh, I didn't say Yatim was still holding the knife that way by the time the police were outside the streetcar; it's not possible to tell how he was gripping it from the video we have. All I said was he was seen holding it that way before the cops got there, it's the way someone would want to hold a knife if they were going to throw it forward (though, as you point out, it might not be the way one would hold it if wanting to throw the knife effectively; yet, even a crappy throw into a group of people has a liklihood of hitting someone), and he may have still been holding it that way when confronting the police.

[ed.: sp.]

Edited August 29, 2013 by g_bambino

[Guest American Woman]

Rues post argued points I had already clearly answered but for the most part he said exactly what Iv been telling you.

He claims that in a second degree murder trial the crown will have to "prove the intent to kill" which is clearly and plainly wrong, but thats about it.

He said exactly what I've said I've read - that the crown will have to prove intent.

[g_bambino]

So legislators woke up one day and decided," hey lets make some new laws that the cops might like? It will be like a present they dont know about!"

So, cops forced legislators to make laws favourable to cops? Parliament has for more than a century been infiltrated and run by cops?

[Guest American Woman]

So, assuming the latter is true, it isn't the police who've "elevated themselves to some higher plane", but legislators who've "elevated" them.

How is it even elevating them to some higher plane? If police need laws that protect them in the line of duty, it's not treating them any differently than other people who have had laws passed to protect them. I don't know about Canada, but one law that comes to mind that doesn't apply to the public/pedestrians in general is:

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.

So, have construction workers "elevated themselves to some higher plane" in your mind?

[BubberMiley]

So, have construction workers "elevated themselves to some higher plane" in your mind?

I believe you're refering to "Andy's Law" in Michigan, which was deemed unconstitutional for putting workers on a "higher plane" than other individuals. They had to change it so it applied to all individuals in a work zone, not just workers.

[guyser]

So, cops forced legislators to make laws favourable to cops? Parliament has for more than a century been infiltrated and run by cops?

No but then again, you knew the answer to that.

The police brass pushed for them, and it goes to the point that police fireman ems are all guilty of holding themselves out as better insofar as getting laws passed, getting benefits that no one else would have including pay scales and the facts are municipalities are drowning from the bills they are charged for them.

TPS personnel have unbelieveable benefits from banking days to paid duty to free funerals to pay outs that we all fund .

Consider none of them are listed in the top most dangerous jobs.

[guyser]

So, have construction workers "elevated themselves to some higher plane" in your mind?

No

[Guest American Woman]

No

Why not? Since you feel that way about police?

[guyser]

Why not? Since you feel that way about police?

If you knew the law you'd know the answer.

Obviously you dont. So before you make a point, go learn about the law you want to discuss.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Guyser2

[GostHacked]

Why not? Since you feel that way about police?

How would you even make a comparison to a construction worker?

[Guest American Woman]

How would you even make a comparison to a construction worker?

Both construction workers and the police have had laws passed that apply to them and not the general public. That's how.

[guyser]

Both construction workers and the police have had laws passed that apply to them and not the general public. That's how.

Advice was given, but not taken.

Perhaps you could show us this law that applies to construction workers?

[g_bambino]

No but then again, you knew the answer to that. The police brass pushed for them...

Even if that were the case, that's still not the police elevating themselves to another plane; that's them pushing to be allowed to be elevated to another plane.

Regardless, have they pushed for all the laws that "elevate" them? Some? Can you show how they pushed for the law that grants them the ability to use force that civilians can't? I imagine you'd have to dig deep fot that, given the principle has been around since the beginning of policing.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited August 29, 2013 by g_bambino

[guyser]

Even if that were the case, that's still not the police elevating themselves to another plane; that's them pushing to be allowed to be elevated to another plane.

And the difference is what?

Yes I know the police dont enact legislation/laws.

Regardless, have they pushed for all the laws that "elevate" them? Some? Can you show how they pushed for the law that grants them the ability to use force that civilians can't? I imagine you'd have to dig deep fot that, given the principle has been around since the beginning of policing.

[ed.: c/e]

No one said they did (italics)

Edited August 29, 2013 by Guyser2

[g_bambino]

And the difference is what?

Who's doing the "elevating", obviously.

No one said they did...

Then it must be the law that grants them the ability to use guns in a way that civilians can't that you think "elevates" them.

[guyser]

Who's doing the "elevating", obviously.

No, the difference is nothing.

The cops wanted it , they got it.

Then it must be the law that grants them the ability to use guns in a way that civilians can't that you think "elevates" them.

What are you talking about? Guns? ...huh? No one has mentioned guns

[g_bambino]

No, the difference is nothing.

The who doing the "elevating" is something, not nothing.

Guns? ...huh? No one has mentioned guns

Then, what weapon were you thinking had been used to shoot when you said "Somebody shot dead? Dont care who did it nor the persons job."