TTC Police Shooting

[Guest American Woman]

I weighed in on whether or not there was a requirement for 2nd degree murder that there be a specific intent to kill, and everything I said was accurate. Then you started trying to appeal to your own authority and tossing about all kinds of nonsense.

You keep ignoring the fact that a police officer, by virtue of his job, has the right to use his firearm when he believes it is necessary. Using his gun, shooting someone, isn't in and of itself illegal. In order for Forcillo to be found guilty of second degree murder, the crown will have to prove intent. There are many articles out there, by many people who know Canadian law, that say that very thing. They said it about Cavanagh when he was charged with second degree murder and they are saying it now about Forcillo.

Why James Forcillo was charged with murder in Yatim shooting - CBC

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/.../f-forcillo-yatim-toronto-streetcar-shooting.htm...

Aug 20, 2013 - Toronto lawyer Julian Falconer told CBC Radio's Mary Ito that the availability of video ... Second-degree murder implies intent to kill the victim.

Toronto streetcar shooting: police have a 'defence that others don't ...

by Erika Tucker

Aug 20, 2013 - So what do lawyers think Forcillo's defence might look like? ...difficult for the Crown, because the issue of intent is difficult to prove ...

Toronto officer facing murder charge in streetcar shooting appears in ...

by David Shum - in 24 Google+ circles

Aug 20, 2013 - WATCH: Forcillo's lawyer and Toronto Police Association President Mike ... “In order for somebody to be convicted, the Crown would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they had the intent to kill or the intent to ...

Sammy Yatim shooting: Even the cops can't defend Const James ...

by Matt Gurney - in 60 Google+ circles

Aug 20, 2013 - An arrangement was made through Forcillo's lawyer, Peter Brauti,... The Crown must now prove that Const. Forcillo had the intention of killing Mr. Yatim and that he did not have any reasonable grounds to fear for his own life.

The Disaffected Lib: Why Forcillo's Five-Second Pause Matters

‎Aug 23, 2013 - The Crown, of course, must prove every element of the offence so it's unclear, ... correctly, it's not about which bullet killed the victim, it's about the intent of the shooter. ...

Why Forcillo was charged with murder in Yatim shooting | Webanews

Aug 20, 2013 - Toronto lawyer Julian Falconer told CBC Radio's Mary Ito that the availability of ... Second-degree murder implies intent to kill the victim. The Crown brings a manslaughter charge when it does not believe the killing was intentional. ... they can prove“there's a degree of intentionality” in the Yatim shooting.

Const. James Forcillo gets bail in Sammy Yatim shooting - News ...

Aug 20, 2013 - Forcillo's lawyer, Peter Brauti, had earlier told reporters outside that Forcillo's bail was $500,000 and that his ... "The conditions were crafted between the defence and the Crown and they were designed to give the ... Second-degree murder implies intent to kill the victim. ...

Matt Gurney on the fallout from shooting death of Sammy Yatim

eyecrazy.blogspot.com/2013/.../matt-gurney-on-fallout-from-shooting.ht...‎

Aug 20, 2013 - The Crown must now prove that Const. Forcillo had the intention of killing Mr. Yatim and that he did not have any reasonable grounds to fear for his own life.

CBA National Magazine - The charges against James Forcillo

www.nationalmagazine.ca/.../The-charges-against-James-Forcillo.aspx‎

Aug 23, 2013 - Criminal lawyers weigh on the reasoning behind second-degree ... "For someone to be charged with second-degree, it requires a specific intent to kill, ... his defence counsel will have to prove that shooting the teenager, rather ...

Edited September 3, 2013 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

You keep ignoring the fact that a police officer, by virtue of his job, has the right to use his firearm when he believes it is necessary.

So that's the legality of it? A cop gets to use his gun whenever he feels like it? You're being a bit dismissive, don't you think?

[Guest American Woman]

So that's the legality of it? A cop gets to use his gun whenever he feels like it? You're being a bit dismissive, don't you think?

Simply stated. Again. From what I've read. It's why the defense doesn't have to prove that there was a threat; they just have to show that it was reasonable for Forcillo to believe that there was a threat.

[dre]

You keep ignoring the fact that a police officer, by virtue of his job, has the right to use his firearm when he believes it is necessary. Using his gun, shooting someone, isn't in and of itself illegal. In order for Forcillo to be found guilty of second degree murder, the crown will have to prove intent. There are many articles out there, by many people who know Canadian law, that say that very thing. They said it about Cavanagh when he was charged with second degree murder and they are saying it now about Forcillo.

Yup they will have to prove intent, but not necessarily intent to kill. And the Cavanagh case is a bad example. Intent WAS an issue there because the defense claimed the shooting was accidental. Its unlikely Forcillo is going to claim this was an accident.

You keep ignoring the fact that a police officer, by virtue of his job, has the right to use his firearm when he believes it is necessary.

Im not ignoring that at all. As I said before thats what this case will hinge on. If Forcillos attorneys can make the case that his actions were necessary to defend himself or other officers from death or serious bodily harm, or even if they can convince the court that he BELIEVED they were, then he will walk.

[Guest American Woman]

Yup they will have to prove intent, but not necessarily intent to kill.

Intent to do what, then? The charge is second degree murder.

And the Cavanagh case is a bad example. Intent WAS an issue there because the defense claimed the shooting was accidental. Its unlikely Forcillo is going to claim this was an accident.

Intent was an issue - because intent IS an issue in a second degree murder charge. I provided you with a number of links. You might want to get reading.

Im not ignoring that at all. As I said before thats what this case will hinge on. If Forcillos attorneys can make the case that his actions were necessary to defend himself or other officers from death or serious bodily harm, or even if they can convince the court that he BELIEVED they were, then he will walk.

His attorney does not have to make the case that his actions were necessary, only that it was reasonable for him to believe that there was a threat. I doubt very much that his lawyer will try to make the case that his actions were necessary.

[cybercoma]

Simply stated. Again. From what I've read. It's why the defense doesn't have to prove that there was a threat; they just have to show that it was reasonable for Forcillo to believe that there was a threat.

That's different. It's not simply if Forcillo believed if there was a threat. It's if it was reasonable for him to believe that there was a threat.

[dre]

Intent to do what, then? The charge is second degree murder.

Intent was an issue - because intent IS an issue in a second degree murder charge. I provided you with a number of links. You might want to get reading.

His attorney does not have to make the case that his actions were necessary, only that it was reasonable for him to believe that there was a threat. I doubt very much that his lawyer will try to make the case that his actions were necessary.

His attorney does not have to make the case that his actions were necessary

Yes thats exactly what the standard is and what his attorneys will do. The police can only use deadly force if they believe its necessary to protect them from death or serious bodily injury. They will claim that Forcillo believed that when the perp took that step towards the door that Forcillo believed it became necessary to use deadly force to protect himself and/or the other officers.

Police get a fair bit of lattitude from the courts on this especially in Ontario. If he had only fired the first three shots, I would think the chances of a conviction were almost nil. The second volley of shots might be a problem for him. He will have to demonstrate that at that time he or the other officers still faced a threat of death or serious injury... and IF the first three shots were hits, then it might be a little bit tough for the jury to believe that a guy on the ground with a 3 inch knife thats been shot three times posed a deadly threat to 20 armed officers 15 feet away.

Intent was an issue - because intent IS an issue in a second degree murder charge

No it was necessary in that case because the defense claimed the shooting was accidental.

And intent IS an issue in 2nd degree murder cases. I never said it wasnt. I simply said that it doesnt necessarily have to be intent to kill, as the law clearly states.

Intent to do what, then?

Intent to do serious bodily harm... You can still be convicted of 2nd degree murder even if you only intended to seriously hurt someone, and did not mean to kill them.

But again... thats not going to be a big factor in this case. Forcillo intentionally shot this guy (up to) nine times.

Anyhow regardless of whether he is convicted or not, at least some good has come out of this. Ontario will now allow all officers to use stun guns...

Up to now, only supervising and specialized officers were allowed to carry stun guns, setting police in Ontario apart from counterparts in several other provinces along with the RCMP.

Police chiefs have been advocating for the expanded use of Tasers for years.

And at least this guy is off the streets for a while.

[Boges]

Anyhow regardless of whether he is convicted or not, at least some good has come out of this. Ontario will now allow all officers to use stun guns...

And at least this guy is off the streets for a while.

NO! Ontario was planning to announce that in June. It's a completely coincidence that they announced it exactly a month after that Yatim shooting. LOL!!!!

Individual departments will still have to foot the bill for these Taser. I'm pretty confident the union will still deem getting officers on the Sunshine list over paying for Tasers and Training.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Boges

[Guest American Woman]

That's different. It's not simply if Forcillo believed if there was a threat. It's if it was reasonable for him to believe that there was a threat.

Of course it's about whether or not it was reasonable - which is what I've said repeatedly. If it were simply about what he believed, there would be no trial. The point is - the defense doesn't have to prove that there was a threat. There are people here who keep claiming that he's guilty because there was no threat - but whether or not there actually was a threat isn't the issue; whether or not it was reasonable for Forcillo to believe there was a threat is the issue.

[Boges]

Of course it's about whether or not it was reasonable - which is what I've said repeatedly. If it were simply about what he believed, there would be no trial. The point is - the defense doesn't have to prove that there was a threat. There are people here who keep claiming that he's guilty because there was no threat - but whether or not there actually was a threat isn't the issue; whether or not it was reasonable for Forcillo to believe there was a threat is the issue.

That makes no sense. What if he just randomly beat someone senseless in the street? All the defense would have to prove that he "believed" that person was a threat, no one would have to provide evidence he was actually a threat or not?

[Guest American Woman]

That makes no sense. What if he just randomly beat someone senseless in the street? All the defense would have to prove that he "believed" that person was a threat, no one would have to provide evidence he was actually a threat or not?

He didn't randomly beat someone up on the street.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes thats exactly what the standard is and what his attorneys will do.

No, it's not. The standard is not whether or not his actions were necessary, but whether or not it was reasonable for him to believe that his actions were necessary.

The police can only use deadly force if they believe its necessary to protect them from death or serious bodily injury.

Ummm. Yeah. I don't believe anyone has argued otherwise.

They will claim that Forcillo believed that when the perp took that step towards the door that Forcillo believed it became necessary to use deadly force to protect himself and/or the other officers.

Yes. Just as I've said. Which is quite different from your claim that his attorney will make the case that his actions were necessary.

Police get a fair bit of lattitude from the courts on this especially in Ontario. If he had only fired the first three shots, I would think the chances of a conviction were almost nil. The second volley of shots might be a problem for him. He will have to demonstrate that at that time he or the other officers still faced a threat of death or serious injury.

No, he won't. He will have to prove that it was reasonable for him to believe that there was a threat. As I've said repeatedly, the fact that the sergeant used a taser on Yatim after all of the shots were fired would certainly show that another officer believed that Yatim was still a threat even after the second volley of shots. The fact that he's not being charged should, I would think, work in Forcillo's favor.

.. and IF the first three shots were hits, then it might be a little bit tough for the jury to believe that a guy on the ground with a 3 inch knife thats been shot three times posed a deadly threat to 20 armed officers 15 feet away.

Again. It's not whether or not the jury believes that a guy on the ground with a guy on the ground with a 3 inch knife that's been shot three times posed a threat, but whether or not it was reasonable for Forcillo to believe he was a threat. Again. The jury will hear that another officer, who is not being charged, used a taser on Yatim even after the second volley of shots. You think the sergeant used the taser not believing Yatim was a threat??

No it was necessary in that case because the defense claimed the shooting was accidental.

It doesn't matter what the defense claims; a charge of second degree murder requires the same buren of proof in both instances regardless of what the defense claims. Good grief. You think if Forcillo claimed that he didn't mean to fire that many shots that it would change the burden of proof? You think the burden of proof is determined by the defense?

And intent IS an issue in 2nd degree murder cases. I never said it wasnt. I simply said that it doesnt necessarily have to be intent to kill, as the law clearly states.

You keep going back to what you claim "the law clearly states," but that's your interpretation/understanding of the law. If all one had to do was read the laws and interpret them within their realm of knowledge, there would be no need to go to law school. Again. Everything I've read says that the crown, by charging the officer with second degree murder, will have to prove that he intended to kill him. I think it might be a bit ridiculous to say the crown doesn't have to prove that Forcillo intended to kill Yatim but intended to do great bodily harm. He was shooting him. If he "intended" to "do great bodily harm," it would stand to reason that he intended to kill him. Either way, giving you that for the sake of argument, it won't be any easier to prove that he "intended" to inflict great bodily harm; that that was the intent of shooting him.

Intent to do serious bodily harm... You can still be convicted of 2nd degree murder even if you only intended to seriously hurt someone, and did not mean to kill them.

How many people shoot another person with the "intent to do great bodily harm but not kill" the person? It's a rather ridiculous notion when the weapon in question is a gun. The charge doesn't pertain only to guns, so perhaps that's why there's the "great bodily harm" clause. But I can hear it now - 'yes, I shot him, but I only meant to cause great bodily harm, not kill him.'

But again... thats not going to be a big factor in this case. Forcillo intentionally shot this guy (up to) nine times.

Of course he intentionally shot at him up to 9 times; and as I keep pointing out, another officer used a taser gun on him after the up to 9 shots.

Anyhow regardless of whether he is convicted or not, at least some good has come out of this. Ontario will now allow all officers to use stun guns...

Yes, that is a good thing.

And at least this guy is off the streets for a while.

You do realize that he was "on the streets" for six years before this, and life as you know it went on, right? Edited September 3, 2013 by American Woman

[dre]

No, he won't. He will have to prove that it was reasonable for him to believe that there was a threat.

Thats pretty much word for word what Iv been saying.

I never said the defense would have to prove there that in fact deadly force was necessary...

The police can only use deadly force if they believe its necessary to protect them from death or serious bodily injury. They will claim that Forcillo believed that when the perp took that step towards the door that Forcillo believed it became necessary to use deadly force to protect himself and/or the other officers.

But the best way for them to prove that Forcilla believed it was necessary was to show that it WAS necessary and thats exactly what they will try to do. The video of the infamous "step towards the door" will be analyzed over and over again, and the defense will assert that there a threat to the lives of Forcillo and/or other officers.

Of course he intentionally shot at him up to 9 times; and as I keep pointing out, another officer used a taser gun on him after the up to 9 shots.

Those are totally different scenarios. The taser was used because the perp was still conscious and the officer wanted to make contact with the suspect (put cuffs on him, etc). Its not the same as standing 20 feet away.

How many people shoot another person with the "intent to do great bodily harm but not kill" the person? It's a rather ridiculous notion when the weapon in question is a gun.

Lots. Most times when guns are used in self defense the objective is to stop the person, not to kill. And gunshots are only fatal about 5% of the time. The fact you fired a gun at someone is not proof that you intended to kill. Of course... if you shoot him 9 times... 6 after hes already on the ground, then...

You do realize that he was "on the streets" for six years before this, and life as you know it went on, right?

So what?

[Black Dog]

How many people shoot another person with the "intent to do great bodily harm but not kill" the person? It's a rather ridiculous notion when the weapon in question is a gun.

You realize that this completely contradicts what you were saying earlier in the thread.

American Woman, on 20 Aug 2013 - 5:51 PM, said:

You think every time a police officer shoots at a perpetrator the intent is to kill him/her? Seriously? The intent is to stop the behavior, not kill them.

[bleeding heart]

You realize that this completely contradicts what you were saying earlier in the thread.

When your one and only point is to "win" every debate, such contradictions are more an asset than a liability.

[Rue]

So that's the legality of it? A cop gets to use his gun whenever he feels like it? You're being a bit dismissive, don't you think?

Of course that is not what she said. Can we get serious and stop misstating what she or I said.

Never did she say what you have now stated. Enough.

The only one being dismissive was you trying to misstate the point we both have been making which is

in this specific case, shooting in itself is not indicative of guilt-we have to get into the state of mind of the officer

before, during and after he fires the shots as well as any evidence that could indicate the officer should have known

the deceased was hit by bullets and disabled. Those are the crucial elements.

Its bad enough Dre has flipped and flopped all over the place bluffing his way through what the code says and what

powers a Judge has but your absurd misstatement is pointless.

No one on this site believes a police officer is unaccountable for their behaviour. What we have been trying to explain is

their is a legal procedure for establishing second degree murder. The very thing I tried to explain is what is carried in the articles

AWoman was kind enough to find.

Look its not rocket science, its as simple as this-shooting by itself is not the indicator of guilt.

That is exactly what Dre and some others tried to state-that it was obvious what the intent was by the number of shots. That is

what he and Black Dog stated earlier-its all obvious-well know its not.

Nothing is obvious or a given when it comes to proving culpable homicide as I have explained. You must show beyond reasonable doubt-that standard in itself was created precisely so that people can not just jump to conclusions but things instead must be carefully proven.

Whether it can be shown 9 shots were excessive depends on:

1-whether it can be proven the officer could see clear visible signs the deceased; or

2-whether it can be proven the officer could see clear visible signs the deceased was band/leeding and unable to move; and/or

3-an officer yelled out for him to stop and he ignored that officer; and/or

4-the shots were fired in a way that endangered other officers.

The above is the bare minimum needed to establish second degree murder and its still open to reasonable doubt arguments such as

the state of mind of the officer.

So enough. This discussion has beaten a dead horse with arm chair lawyers.

No one has said police are unaccountable but what we have argued is being accountable or holding a police officer to a standard of care is not the same standard of accountability or care as a member of the public in this case because the officer at the time of shooting was acting as a guardian of society-its precisely because of that his standard is higher and therefore proof to find he is negligent is different than simply-he's a cop bro, he' guilty, its obvious.

No its not. All we are on this board are after the fact spectators with fragmented pieces of the event.

[cybercoma]

Of course it's about whether or not it was reasonable - which is what I've said repeatedly.

I guess I just imagined this post that I was replying to then

You keep ignoring the fact that a police officer, by virtue of his job, has the right to use his firearm when he believes it is necessary.

The question is whether or not his belief is reasonable, not simply that he believes it necessary.

So no you have not been saying repeatedly that it must be reasonable.

[cybercoma]

You realize that this completely contradicts what you were saying earlier in the thread.

I'm glad someone pointed that out. I was laughing pretty hard when I read that post.

[cybercoma]

Of course that is not what she said. Can we get serious and stop misstating what she or I said.

Never did she say what you have now stated. Enough.

I restated her exact words, which were:

You keep ignoring the fact that a police officer, by virtue of his job, has the right to use his firearm when he believes it is necessary.

If that's not saying a cop can use his firearm when he believes it's necessary, then the english language no longer has any meaning.

[dre]

Of course that is not what she said. Can we get serious and stop misstating what she or I said.

Never did she say what you have now stated. Enough.

The only one being dismissive was you trying to misstate the point we both have been making which is

in this specific case, shooting in itself is not indicative of guilt-we have to get into the state of mind of the officer

before, during and after he fires the shots as well as any evidence that could indicate the officer should have known

the deceased was hit by bullets and disabled. Those are the crucial elements.

Its bad enough Dre has flipped and flopped all over the place bluffing his way through what the code says and what

powers a Judge has but your absurd misstatement is pointless.

No one on this site believes a police officer is unaccountable for their behaviour. What we have been trying to explain is

their is a legal procedure for establishing second degree murder. The very thing I tried to explain is what is carried in the articles

AWoman was kind enough to find.

Look its not rocket science, its as simple as this-shooting by itself is not the indicator of guilt.

That is exactly what Dre and some others tried to state-that it was obvious what the intent was by the number of shots. That is

what he and Black Dog stated earlier-its all obvious-well know its not.

Nothing is obvious or a given when it comes to proving culpable homicide as I have explained. You must show beyond reasonable doubt-that standard in itself was created precisely so that people can not just jump to conclusions but things instead must be carefully proven.

Whether it can be shown 9 shots were excessive depends on:

1-whether it can be proven the officer could see clear visible signs the deceased; or

2-whether it can be proven the officer could see clear visible signs the deceased was band/leeding and unable to move; and/or

3-an officer yelled out for him to stop and he ignored that officer; and/or

4-the shots were fired in a way that endangered other officers.

The above is the bare minimum needed to establish second degree murder and its still open to reasonable doubt arguments such as

the state of mind of the officer.

So enough. This discussion has beaten a dead horse with arm chair lawyers.

No one has said police are unaccountable but what we have argued is being accountable or holding a police officer to a standard of care is not the same standard of accountability or care as a member of the public in this case because the officer at the time of shooting was acting as a guardian of society-its precisely because of that his standard is higher and therefore proof to find he is negligent is different than simply-he's a cop bro, he' guilty, its obvious.

No its not. All we are on this board are after the fact spectators with fragmented pieces of the event.

This entire post is just a collection of strawman... a conversation with a voice inside your own head. None of us have said that the 9 shots means hes guilty of 2nd degree murder. I said the second volley of shots is problematic for him, but I also said I doubted he would be convicted.

he's a cop bro, he' guilty, its obvious.

Nobody is saying that or anything like that either besides the voices in your head.

This discussion has beaten a dead horse with arm chair lawyers.

And here we have more appeals to your own authority! What a big suprise! LOL

You can jump up and down and cry all you want, and you can keep lying about what other posters are saying, but the entire purpose of this place is for people to post their opinions on daily events. Thats all that anyone is doing. Besides you of course, who over and over again try to cast yours as something more than an opinion, and paint yourself as an expert... moses returning from the mountain with the word of god. LOL.

Good luck with that.

[On Guard for Thee]

I hear a bunch of arm chair lawyer hogwash, which is about as interesting as real lawyer hogwash. Anybody who sees the video and has at least half a brain could figure out all that was needed was to slam the door shut on the EMPTY streetcar and tell the kid when you get tired throw the gun out and come on out with hands up. That;s my armchair cop comment. I wonder why the real cops can;t figure that one out, or did they just have an itch to use that gun and taser!

I hear now that they have turned on 80 year old ladies. She must have posed a hell of a threat!

[Rue]

I hear a bunch of arm chair lawyer hogwash, which is about as interesting as real lawyer hogwash. Anybody who sees the video and has at least half a brain could figure out all that was needed was to slam the door shut on the EMPTY streetcar and tell the kid when you get tired throw the gun out and come on out with hands up. That;s my armchair cop comment. I wonder why the real cops can;t figure that one out, or did they just have an itch to use that gun and taser!

I hear now that they have turned on 80 year old ladies. She must have posed a hell of a threat!

Lol you do have a point. My response to you no doubt will make you roll your eyes and that is had they done what you think was an option,i.e., slam the doors shut and then the person turned on himself and began stabbing himself then of course the same armchair experts would still be complaining of improper response techniques.

So you see it aint as obvious as it looks. But I appreciate your point. Me personally I think you can't leave a deranged guy alone with a knife because he could hurt himself so this then turns us back to the real issue-how do we properly control deranged people?

Bottom line-there is no one easy way to deal with an unstable person.

Edited September 5, 2013 by Rue

[On Guard for Thee]

I agree that a deranged person presents a problem as to how to deal with them and I'm no expert, but, maybe the taser first, instead of after nine shots! Perhaps a little discussion with the guy. Maybe a tear gas canister if he starts to kill himself. I would think it a tad easier for the cops to deal with him killing himself rather than they doing the job for him for no apparent reason.

[Guest American Woman]

How many people shoot another person with the "intent to do great bodily harm but not kill" the person? It's a rather ridiculous notion when the weapon in question is a gun.

You realize that this completely contradicts what you were saying earlier in the thread.

You think every time a police officer shoots at a perpetrator the intent is to kill him/her? Seriously? The intent is to stop the behavior, not kill them.

No, it doesn't. I said, clearly, that there are times when the intent is to stop the behavior; ie: not kill OR do great bodily harm. I said that sometimes the intent is to intimidate and/or frighten the perp into cooperating.

[Guest American Woman]

The question is whether or not his belief is reasonable, not simply that he believes it necessary.

So no you have not been saying repeatedly that it must be reasonable.

Obviously he has the right to use it when he believes it's necessary, unlike a civilian. What basis do you think a police officer has for using his gun? You think he's going to run it by a judge and jury first, use a life line, call a friend? If he believes it is necessary, then he will deem it reasonable. Why would an officer think, "I believe it's necessary, but is it reasonable?" Obviously, to the cop making the call, "necessary" and "reasonable" are one and the same.