TTC Police Shooting

[Black Dog]

I've "admitted" no such thing. What I have said is that death would be virtually an inevitable result if the intent were to inflict grevious bodily harm.

Bah ha. Do you honestly think bullets care about the intent of the person firing them? Like I said: the idea that someone can shoot someone without intending to kill them or inflict bodily harm is simply absurd. That's the entire point of shooting someone.

It is obvious to anyone that when someone, even a cop, pulls the trigger at a weapon aimed at another person, they are intending to hurt or kill them (unless we're talking about an accidental discharge). But obviously, that intent is balanced by factors such as whether or not the cop's life or the lives of others was in immediate danger (cops in particular get the benefit of the doubt). That's what this whole case will turn on since there can be no doubt whatsoever that Forcillo intended to inflict death or bodily harm on Yatim, given that was a foreseeable consequence of firing nine bullets.

[Guest American Woman]

Bah ha. Do you honestly think bullets care about the intent of the person firing them? Like I said: the idea that someone can shoot someone without intending to kill them or inflict bodily harm is simply absurd. That's the entire point of shooting someone.

That's not always the entire point of shooting at someone. As has been pointed out ad naseum now. And according to everything I've read, the courts cares about the intent. As has also been pointed out ad naseum.

It is obvious to anyone that when someone, even a cop, pulls the trigger at a weapon aimed at another person, they are intending to hurt or kill them (unless we're talking about an accidental discharge).

That's your opinion. It's often not the intent. The intent is to stop the behavior; minimize the threat. As has also been pointed out, most perps who are shot at do not die.

But obviously, that intent is balanced by factors such as whether or not the cop's life or the lives of others was in immediate danger (cops in particular get the benefit of the doubt).

No, "that intent" is not balanced by other factors; it's what the intent was that's a matter of concern to the law. Furthermore, as I've pointed out, as I've read, it's not whether or not the cop's life or the lives of others were in immediate danger, but whether or not it was reasonable for the cop to believe they were in danger.

That's what this whole case will turn on since there can be no doubt whatsoever that Forcillo intended to inflict death or bodily harm on Yatim, given that was a foreseeable consequence of firing nine bullets.

You aren't the one deciding what this whole case will turn on, and everything I've read says that the crown must prove intent. You may have no doubt whatsoever in your mind what Forcillo's intent was, but you don't speak for him. Or the law.

[Black Dog]

That's not always the entire point of shooting at someone. As has been pointed out ad naseum now. And according to everything I've read, the courts cares about the intent. As has also been pointed out ad naseum.

That's your opinion. It's often not the intent. The intent is to stop the behavior; minimize the threat.

Simple test: why is shooting someone an effective means of eliminating a threat?

The answer, of course, is because it's often difficult for someone to continue, say, charging at you with a knife, when they've been perforated by a volley of bullets.

As has also been pointed out, most perps who are shot at do not die.

That claim has been made. I don't think it's been proven. And even if that were the case: so what?

No, "that intent" is not balanced by other factors; it's what the intent was that's a matter of concern to the law. Furthermore, as I've pointed out, as I've read, it's not whether or not the cop's life or the lives of others were in immediate danger, but whether or not it was reasonable for the cop to believe they were in danger.

You aren't the one deciding what this whole case will turn on, and everything I've read says that the crown must prove intent. You may have no doubt whatsoever in your mind what Forcillo's intent was, but you don't speak for him. Or the law.

Intent must be proven in every murder case. That was never the question.

Edited September 9, 2013 by Black Dog

[guyser]

I for one am glad to know that if a cop shoots someone, they are not intending to hurt or kill them.

What i dont know but would like to know is what bullets in a body or going through a body dont hurt?

"Amazing, the cop shot me but it didnt hurt! "

"those were candy bullets Jim"

[Guest American Woman]

Nothing to say, eh? Can't refute it?

Edited September 9, 2013 by American Woman

[guyser]

Center mass. It’s ‘operations central’ for your body, houses your heart, a most important muscle that sends blood to all parts of your frame. Your lungs are also here and they are necessary for the balanced exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide. You got nerves, lots of nerves that pass through center mass. The vagus nerve for instance represents the golden highway of neurological life sustaining information between your brain and vital organs. This nerve is the master switch for heart rate and blood pressure. Turn off that switch, empty the pump of blood or puncture a lung and a person is likely to die—quickly. This folks is where we are going to put our bullets.”

Police Trainer



Psst.....^ it didnt hurt.

[Black Dog]

Nothing to say, eh? Can't refute it?

Your desperate need for validation really shines through here.

[dre]

Cops always aim for the heart?

No. Just a couple of inches below it. Police are trained to aim for the center of body mass. It gives you the best chance of hitting the target and its also right in the middle of most of the vital organs, so its the most effective place to use force intended to "stop".

We elk and deer hunters refer to it as the "boiler room". If you find that mark a deer will only take a step or two before hes down, and you dont have to track him though the bush for an hour or two waiting for him to bleed out.

[dre]

Intent must be proven in every murder case. That was never the question.

Yes but in second degree murder it does not have to be intent to kill. It just has to be a deliberate act that causes death, and that a person SHOULD know was likely to cause death.

For example if I brutally assault a person and they die, I can be convicted of 2nd degree murder even if I only wanted to beat the shit out of them, and killing never entered my mind.

In this case intent wont be an issue because of the number of shots fired, and the fact that police are taught to shoot to kill when they use deadly force. The core issue in this trail will be whether or not the shooting was necessary to defend the accused or others on the scene from death or grevious bolidy harm.

Edited September 9, 2013 by dre

[Guest American Woman]

In this case intent wont be an issue because of the number of shots fired, and the fact that police are taught to shoot to kill when they use deadly force. The core issue in this trail will be whether or not the shooting was necessary to defend the accused or others on the scene from death or grevious bolidy harm.

Good God. How about you provide a source backing up your claim? Everything out there, including Forcillo's lawyer, says the crown will have to prove intent. Where did you get the idea that the number of shots would be a bearing on whether or not intent will be an issue? The "core issue" will not be whether or not the shooting was necessary, but as I've read, whether or not it was his intent to kill Yatim and whether or not it was reasonable for him to believe it was necessary to shoot - not whether or not it was necessary. You might want to consider reading up on this a bit.

Edited September 9, 2013 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

No. Just a couple of inches below it. Police are trained to aim for the center of body mass. It gives you the best chance of hitting the target and its also right in the middle of most of the vital organs, so its the most effective place to use force intended to "stop".

I know where they aim - and I know it's not the heart. Hence my comment. The intent, as I've been saying, as you say here, is to "stop,." The intent is not to kill. The intent is not to inflict grevious bodily harm. The intent is to stop the behavior/allievate the threat.

The crown, from all accounts, will have to prove intent.

[guyser]

I know where they aim - and I know it's not the heart.

Centre mass includes the heart.

Ok, they shoot centre mass but try not to hit the heart.

Wonderful logic., of course it goes directly against their training but hey, they have candy bullets !

The intent is not to kill. The intent is not to inflict grevious bodily harm.

The crown, from all accounts, will have to prove intent.

Hmm, better tell the trainers here in Ontario.

'The law regarding deadly force is very clear. A police officer is justified in using force that is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm if the police officer “believes on reasonable grounds that the force is necessary for the purpose of protecting the [police officer] or any other person from imminent or future death or grievous bodily harm.”

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/07/30/james-morton-the-rare-tragedy-of-a-police-shooting/

Edited September 9, 2013 by Guyser2

[dre]

I know where they aim - and I know it's not the heart. Hence my comment. The intent, as I've been saying, as you say here, is to "stop,." The intent is not to kill. The intent is not to inflict grevious bodily harm. The intent is to stop the behavior/allievate the threat.

The crown, from all accounts, will have to prove intent.

Yes it is intent to kill. They call it deadly force for a reason, and unlike in the movies police are specifically trained not to "wing" targets.

If you fire you gun in the line of duty you are supposed to try to kill the perp. Heres a couple of prominent Toronto Laywers weighing in on that.

He says it's irrelevant where Yatim was shot. "They're trained to aim for central mass," he says. "There's no 'winging them’," or shooting suspects in the leg, "like you see on TV," he says. The intent, when an officer deploys his weapon, is to use deadly force.

"No police officer is taught to shoot a leg or shoot a gun out of a suspect's hands," he says. "There's no sort of de-escalation tactics" when it comes to use of deadly force. "There's a good argument to made that he shouldn't have shot," he says. "But a wonderful argument to be made that he shouldn't have kept shooting."

The crown, from all accounts, will have to prove intent.

Intent yes but not necessarily intent to kill. They will have to prove it was a deliberate act, and that Forcillo knew or should have known it was likely to result in death. Thats what the law states, and anyone that tells you different is just wrong.

whether or not it was reasonable for him to believe it was necessary - not whether or not it was necessary. You might want to consider reading up on this a bit.

Thats just a different way of saying the same thing. The case will focus on the risk that Yatim posed to officers at the time of the first volley of shots, then again on the risk he posed at the time of the second volley. The 5 second pause might end up being a real problem for Forcillo because it basically separates the shooting into two separate events.

Heres another Lawyer from Toronto weighing in on that...

Russomanno says that the crux of the case will centre around the risk, if any, Yatim posed at the time of Forcillo's first shot.

And hes correct.

[Rue]

I applaud your patience Amer W. You restated the issues susinctly.

.

Lol when I hear someone dismiss a complex series of legal issues as "obvious" I have found its usually someone in love with their opinions. They should wash their hands when they are done.

Edited September 9, 2013 by Rue

[guyser]

I applaud your patience Amer W. You restated the issues susinctly.

.

Yes, because Police are not trying to hurt the perps when they shoot them. (post 977)

Candy bullets all around.

Do they come in sugar free version? gotta watch the weight you know. And lead, not to mention really really hot lead, is so like heavy man.

Edited September 9, 2013 by Guyser2

[Guest American Woman]

I applaud your patience Amer W. You restated the issues susinctly.

.

Lol when I hear someone dismiss a complex series of legal issues as "obvious" I have found its usually someone in love with their opinions. They should wash their hands when they are done.

And thank you. I have to chuckle because I had already read the article that dre quoted from. I've read a lot about this issue as I find it really interesting, so the points I've been making are based on what I've read - not my opinion, as some here persist in doing. Anyway. I noticed that dre didn't give a link for the quotes that he posted from the "couple of prominent Toronto Laywers," but as I said, I'd already read the article and couldn't help but notice that he didn't quote this "prominent Toronto lawyer:"

Dan Brown, a Toronto defence lawyer, calls the very fact that Forcillo was charged "unusual," as "the SIU does not have a reputation for laying charges." The nature of the charges is what sticks out, he says. "For someone to be charged with second-degree, it requires a specific intent to kill, instead of an intent to injure," he says.

"It's not important how many times he was shot, but where he was shot and what the officer's intentions were...

That's in direct contradiction to dre's claims, so I'm not surprised he didn't include it - and perhaps that explains the missing link?

http://www.nationalmagazine.ca/Articles/September-2013/The-charges-against-James-Forcillo.aspx

At any rate, I've provided numerous links to sources confirming what I've been saying. It should be an interesting trial. I'm particularly anxious to hear what Forcillo has to say.

[Rue]

All this talk about prominent lawyers. Me thinks "prominent" means someone he thinks agrees with his

opinions. Problem is he won't find any.

Criminal lawyers see both sides of the argument. They see no black or white, just possible positions to be prepared to argue depending on what argument the other side makes.

In second degree murder cases, the actual dialogue can be made up on the spot. Criminal lawyers often

rely on their gut to sense which way the argument is blowing.

The idea is to come in with a general plan as to the possible arguments.

In this case the arguments will flow from that 5 second gap between the first 3 and second six shots.

That is where this whole trial is headed.

If there is visible blood on the deceased and he appears to be foaming at the mouth or his eyes are rolled back in his head while he twitches that sets a presumption to stop firing after the first three and then it weights heavily on the officer to explain why 6 more? Do you have a reason why you started shooting again? That will be the key in that situation.

If on the other hand there is no visible sign of blood or rolled back eyes or freeze frames that would make a jury feel it was obvious to them the deceased was in physical distress by his appearance the window then opens to argue he thought he was not hit and so thought he was getting up.

Another argument I easily see is the officer saying, when he saw the deceased bouncing or moving, he was so focused, he had a reflex reaction to the movement.

That argument raises benefit of the doubt. Is it enough? Well the legal experts on this forum think its a slam dunk guilt finding. I mean you heard Black Dog. Its all obvious.

Lol.

[dre]

All this talk about prominent lawyers. Me thinks "prominent" means someone he thinks agrees with his

opinions. Problem is he won't find any.

I already did. You both ignored what they had to say.

If there is visible blood on the deceased and he appears to be foaming at the 
mouth or his eyes are rolled back in his head while he twitches that sets a 
presumption to stop firing after the first three and then it weights heavily on 
the officer to explain why 6 more? Do you have a reason why you started shooting 
again? That will be the key in that situation.

Yeah thats exactly what Iv been saying over and over again in this thread.

That argument raises benefit of the doubt. Is it enough? Well the legal experts on this forum think its a slam dunk guilt finding.

More strawman. I dont think its a slam dunk guilt finding at all, in fact I think the prosecution has an uphill battle.

[guyser]

All this talk about prominent lawyers. Me thinks "prominent" means someone he thinks agrees with his

opinions.

Point #1-No it probably means you are bruised not to be included in that list.

If there is visible blood on the deceased and he appears to be foaming at the mouth or his eyes are rolled back in his head while he twitches that sets a presumption to stop firing after the first three and then it weights heavily on the officer to explain why 6 more? Do you have a reason why you started shooting again? That will be the key in that situation.

If on the other hand there is no visible sign of blood or rolled back eyes or freeze frames that would make a jury feel it was obvious to them the deceased was in physical distress by his appearance the window then opens to argue he thought he was not hit and so thought he was getting up.

Point #2- considering the cop is below Sammy , and Sammy's head is away from the cop , do please tell us how one lying pretty much on the sam plane as the cop can see (1) his eyes and (2) his foaming mouth?

Point #2 pretty much guarantees point #1 and shows why.

And what is particularly funny is you on here castigating so many, yet leave one or two glaring examples of error alone.

Police dont shoot to kill nor do they hurt the perps. It would be funny if it were not so pathetic. You go on and applaud such silliness....

Edited September 10, 2013 by Guyser2

[Rue]

Guy I will respond to your comments:

You said; "Point #1-No it probably means you are bruised not to be included in that list."

Lol. Uh no. You can get more information from my urologist on the biopsy and details of the bruising-but thanks for noticing.

"Point #2- considering the cop is below Sammy , and Sammy's head is away from the cop , do please tell us how one lying pretty much on the sam plane as the cop can see (1) his eyes and (2) his foaming mouth?"

That is an argument the police officer's lawyer could make yes. However His head may not have been away from the police officer at all times. That is precisely why they will zero in on the time period between the first and second shootings and try determine what the police officer would have seen. You are trying to suggest I have made up my mind on this point. I have not. I have merely pointed out there will be 2 sides of the argument as to what the police officer could reasonably be believed to have seen between the first and second shootings and that may or may not influence a jury to believe he was guilty or innocent.

Try as you may to suggest I have stated a bias for one side of the argument and not the other-I have not. In fact the whole point of my responses is to point out to people when discussing these issues to try predict what BOTH sides of the argument will be not just one side.

You stated:

"Point #2 pretty much guarantees point #1 and shows why."

You obviously think so. I do not know. I see no slam dunk either way. I do not think you are I have the full picture as to what happened during the interval between the first and second series of shootings and neither of us has the full range of angles and body movement of the deceased during that interval.

The only thing I can guarantee at this point is that you are making assumptions because you believe you have sufficient information to draw an absolute conclusion.

Then you stated:

"And what is particularly funny is you on here castigating so many, yet leave one or two glaring examples of error alone."

I castigate people on either side of the argument for suggesting things are obvious or things can be inferred from what they THINK happened or what they THINK they saw on the tapes. I castigate as you say or in fact debate as I say, because I am trying to point out any cognitive process which assumes guilt

in this case or innocence is going to be necessarily defective because neither you nor I or any other member of the public have all the information required to make a conclusion based on absolute certainty of fact.

You stated:

"Police dont shoot to kill nor do they hurt the perps. It would be funny if it were not so pathetic. You go on and applaud such silliness...."

The above comment makes no logical sense. It may be the first sentence you wrote is supposed to be sarcastic and the second one refers to me applauding police for killing people. I can't be too sure though.

The motives for why a police officer shoots in any given situation can vary. What I have tried to explain to you and others its it varies. That means it depends on each particular fact situation. There is no black and white rule that says in ALL shootings, police are innocent or guilty. It is not black and white.

Applying the criminal law will not and can not work that way.

The criminal law requires we look at each shooting individually and weigh the events, characteristics, sequential behaviour, and many other factors that differ with each shooting.

There is no absolute rule that one can make. Some on this forum make the automatic assumption once the officer shoots, he is guilty. Others feel you can infer guilt simply because of the no. of shots. Some like you argue you know absolutely what the police officer did not see or saw and therefore are able to absolutely predict the outcome of the trial.

All you and the others engaged in the above are doing is subjectively speculating.

When forensic experts re-create the shooting, they will play back the events in a slowed down second to second sequence. By re-creating and slowing down the chain of events they can isolate on each moment and reveal things not visible to your eye.

That shooting reconstruction will in effect magnify the sequence between the first and second shootings and what it will reveal neither you nor I know. What we saw is one angle or one version-in law we don't jump to absolute beyond a reasonable doubt conclusions based on a simple assumption or one possible version of many.

Beyond reasonable doubt does not mean, once I establish its possible the police officer killed the deceased, he is guilty criminally. No in criminal law you must prove beyond any reasonable doubt.

In civil law, you need only show on a balance of probabilities the shootings could have led to his death or were excessive, then it switches back to the police officer to show beyond any reasonable doubt what he did was reasonable in the circumstance.

So I repeat one last time, in this matter there is no forgone conclusion one way or the other.

The crown will try show the police officer showed wanton disregard for the safety of the public (not the case as the public was not in the line of fire) or the life/safety of the deceased.

Some of you believe the no. of shots proves that lack of regard automatically.

I have argued it may not because the officer can argue he did not have a clear view of the deceased lying on the ground to know if he had actually shot him or not, or in the alternative thought he was still a danger, etc.

From the little I can see the officer could see the deceased on his back after the first 3 shots were fired. After that what he saw is not clear.

Your comment he could not see the deceased's head from the front or suggesting he could not see his legs appears problematic. If the head was turned the other way-but the body was convulsing it might have appeared like different things to the officer. It will depend on how the officer states he perceived that turned head compared to what a jury sees on the tape.

The head being turned one way or the other is probably a minute point in the grand scheme of legal arguments to be made. Slowing down the shooting reconstruction may aid on that point and whether it leads to a guilt or innocent conclusion.

As for the legs. It would be improbable to argue he could not see the deceased's legs after the first 3 shots and that they started moving.

Arguing the angle prevented the officer from seeing the deceased makes no sense. He was shooting him and shot again after an interval so that demonstrates he could see him.

So I am not sure what Guy your point was. I am not sure you even know.

[guyser]

Guy I will respond to your comments:

Would be nice if it were succinct and to the point but I expect to have to wade thru some diatribe .....oh lo and behold lookie here....

The only thing I can guarantee at this point is that you are making assumptions because you believe you have sufficient information to draw an absolute conclusion.

Wrong.

Next..

Then you stated:

"And what is particularly funny is you on here castigating so many, yet leave one or two glaring examples of error alone."

I castigate people on either side of the argument for suggesting things are obvious or things can be.....more blah blah......all the information required to make a conclusion based on absolute certainty of fact.

Yea sure.

Nothing about this tho....

You stated:

"Police dont shoot to kill nor do they hurt the perps. It would be funny if it were not so pathetic. You go on and applaud such silliness...."

The above comment makes no logical sense. It may be the first sentence you wrote is supposed to be sarcastic and the second one refers to me applauding police for killing people. I can't be too sure though.

Makes no sense but you are good to go leaving it alone . It was posted by another poster whom you applauded for being logical

Maybe it got skipped over, yeah that must be it.

And here is a lesson no one needs on this board but you must feel good schooling us on what is understood by all.

Why bother is my question? We already know all this, thanks dad.

The motives for why a police officer shoots in any given situation can vary. What I have tried to explain to you and others its it varies. That means it depends on each particular fact situation. There is no black and white rule that says in ALL shootings, police are innocent or guilty. It is not black and white.

Applying the criminal law will not and can not work that way.

The criminal law requires we look at each shooting individually and weigh the events, characteristics, sequential behaviour, and many other factors that differ with each shooting.

There is no absolute rule that one can make. Some on this forum make the automatic assumption once the officer shoots, he is guilty. Others feel you can infer guilt simply because of the no. of shots. Some like you argue you know absolutely what the police officer did not see or saw and therefore are able to absolutely predict the outcome of the trial.

All you and the others engaged in the above are doing is subjectively speculating.

When forensic experts re-create the shooting, they will play back the events in a slowed down second to second sequence. By re-creating and slowing down the chain of events they can isolate on each moment and reveal things not visible to your eye.

That shooting reconstruction will in effect magnify the sequence between the first and second shootings and what it will reveal neither you nor I know. What we saw is one angle or one version-in law we don't jump to absolute beyond a reasonable doubt conclusions based on a simple assumption or one possible version of many.

Beyond reasonable doubt does not mean, once I establish its possible the police officer killed the deceased, he is guilty criminally. No in criminal law you must prove beyond any reasonable doubt.

In civil law, you need only show on a balance of probabilities the shootings could have led to his death or were excessive, then it switches back to the police officer to show beyond any reasonable doubt what he did was reasonable in the circumstance.

So I repeat one last time, in this matter there is no forgone conclusion one way or the other.

The crown will try show the police officer showed wanton disregard for the safety of the public (not the case as the public was not in the line of fire) or the life/safety of the deceased.

Some of you believe the no. of shots proves that lack of regard automatically.

I have argued it may not because the officer can argue he did not have a clear view of the deceased lying on the ground to know if he had actually shot him or not, or in the alternative thought he was still a danger, etc.

From the little I can see the officer could see the deceased on his back after the first 3 shots were fired. After that what he saw is not clear.

Your comment he could not see the deceased's head from the front or suggesting he could not see his legs appears problematic. If the head was turned the other way-but the body was convulsing it might have appeared like different things to the officer. It will depend on how the officer states he perceived that turned head compared to what a jury sees on the tape.

The head being turned one way or the other is probably a minute point in the grand scheme of legal arguments to be made. Slowing down the shooting reconstruction may aid on that point and whether it leads to a guilt or innocent conclusion.

As for the legs. It would be improbable to argue he could not see the deceased's legs after the first 3 shots and that they started moving.

Arguing the angle prevented the officer from seeing the deceased makes no sense. He was shooting him and shot again after an interval so that demonstrates he could see him.

So I am not sure what Guy your point was. I am not sure you even know.

My point was obvious.

Obviously lost on you of course

Edited September 11, 2013 by Guyser2

[Boges]

This verdict could provide precedent for excessive use of force in the Yatim case.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/09/12/g20_assault_trial_guilty_verdict_for_officer_who_hit_adam_nobody.html

A Toronto police officer accused of using excessive force during the arrest of G20 protester Adam Nobody is guilty of assault with a weapon, Justice Louise Botham ruled Thursday.

Const. Babak Andalib-Goortani, 33, had pleaded not guilty to the charge.

In his tearful testimony earlier this year, he said that he struck and jabbed Nobody with his baton as he had been taught to do when an individual resists arrest.

Nobody, a 27-year-old stage hand at the time, has denied that he was resisting arrest at the June 26, 2010 protest outside Queen's Park. At issue was not the lawfulness of the arrest, but whether excessive force was used.

[Rue]

The fact situations are not the same. The individual who was the target of excessive force at the G20 rally was not holding

a knife and his penis out. He was in no way engaging in any threats to anyone.

So I am not sure how you see any relevance. Excessive force issues are fact specific. There is no general one size fits all

rule as to how to define what is excessive-it depends on each situation's characteristics and elements.

[jacee]

Another unnecessary death-by-police:

The provincial Special Investigations Unit (SIU) announced Wednesday it had cleared the officers involved in the Mesic shooting with any criminal responsibility connected to the former steelworker's death.

Mesic family doesnt buy SIU account of police shooting

SIU version of events that led to Mesic being shot just don't add up, family says

Mesic, 45, died on June 7 after a confrontation with police just behind his house. After checking himself out of a voluntary mental health care program at St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, he was seen wandering on the Lincoln Alexander Parkway near Upper Wentworth Street ramps.The SIU decision, released on Wednesday almost four months after Mesic's death, details the disturbing and somewhat bizarre occurrences that led to the shooting, which occurred in a grassy area located between the highway and Mesic's backyard. It also notes that officers were unaware of Mesic's mental state, that he had attempted to commit suicide while walking on the Linc, and that the home he was attempting to enter on that Friday morning was his own key pieces of information that could have led to a different outcome. ​

But Dorr and his daughter Sharon say some things in the SIU report just dont add up. Chief among them: the location of a shovel the SIU says Mesic was carrying, and just how far away he was from the two police officers who confronted him when he was shot.

Another disturbing aspect of this is that no officials - eg Chief of police, mayor - even extended condolences to the family ... until months later when confronted by the family at a Police Services Board meeting, and then only grudgingly, and then the mayor tried to make them leave the meeting.

Edited October 6, 2013 by jacee

[Argus]

There is no absolute rule that one can make. Some on this forum make the automatic assumption once the officer shoots, he is guilty.

My understanding, and you may correct me if I am wrong, is that once it is proven that the officer killed the individual, and did so deliberately, he is guilty of homocide. End of story. The question then arises as to whether what he did was justifiable. Ie, it is now his resonsibility to show that the killing he commited was done justifiably out of self defence of himself or others.

The crown will try show the police officer showed wanton disregard for the safety of the public (not the case as the public was not in the line of fire) or the life/safety of the deceased.

The individual killed was a member of the public, was he not?

I have argued it may not because the officer can argue he did not have a clear view of the deceased lying on the ground to know if he had actually shot him or not, or in the alternative thought he was still a danger, etc.

Anyone who shoots at people without having a clear view of them is incompetent. But your suggestion lacks credibility in that the camera angles show the office most certainly could see the individual he shot fall to the floor.

From the little I can see the officer could see the deceased on his back after the first 3 shots were fired. After that what he saw is not clear.

And you think you could make a case that having seen him fall to the floor, and then the victim having apparently, according to you, moved back out of sight (and further away from anyone he could harm) the officer was justified in firing blindly in the general direction he believed the victim was? And please note, the officer fired quite low in order to hit the man laying on the floor. If he had suspected the man had risen to his knees or crouched low in preparation to spring up he'd not have fired at the floor.

This is clearly another demonstration of what happens when there is some video of a police action, much as the video of the Robert Dziekanski killing, where police reports were utterly discredited. If there had been no video this would have simply been dismissed as a justified police shooting of a man with a knife. All police should be required to carry video cameras so we can keep a better eye on their conduct.

Edited October 6, 2013 by Argus