TTC Police Shooting

[On Guard for Thee]

You cannot see someone hiding on the floor through the glass windows of a 10 foot bus. Stop being ridiculous. It was not unreasonable for a cop to believe someone could be hiding on the floor from the psychotic knife wielding man. This is a public bus.

It wasn't a bus, it was a streetcar, and it was extremely well lit, and can be easily seen into by rows of windows down either side. If you don't wish to be seen as ridiculous, get at least a few of your facts straight.

[GostHacked]

Actually you are the one trolling as I did not ask a single question in the response you quoted.

Let me correct myself then. Your rhetoric has already been dealt with way early on in this thread. Better?

[GostHacked]

You cannot see someone hiding on the floor through the glass windows of a 10 foot bus. Stop being ridiculous. It was not unreasonable for a cop to believe someone could be hiding on the floor from the psychotic knife wielding man. This is a public bus.

So firing into a bus risking the life of others that might be hiding in the bus is always a good course of action.

[H10]

It wasn't a bus, it was a streetcar, and it was extremely well lit, and can be easily seen into by rows of windows down either side. If you don't wish to be seen as ridiculous, get at least a few of your facts straight.

Your comment is plain ridiculous. You think policeman can see through the metal panels of a street car to see if someone was dying on the floor or hiding from yatim? You cannot see the floor of a street car from outside it.

[H10]

So firing into a bus risking the life of others that might be hiding in the bus is always a good course of action.

In this case yes. Its no different than when you have a hostage situation. There is a chance you shoot the hostage by accident, but you can't let the guy with the knife taking the streetcar or bus hostage, you can't let him kill with impunity. Its a price you may pay though.

[On Guard for Thee]

Your comment is plain ridiculous. You think policeman can see through the metal panels of a street car to see if someone was dying on the floor or hiding from yatim? You cannot see the floor of a street car from outside it.

Obviously you've not been on a lot of street cars. Hopefully the courts will have better knowledge of them.

[Rue]

Hern I am very sympathetic to police officers in the line of fire and under pressure. I just am having a very hard time reconciling the second set of shots. The first also raises training questions. Now hear me loud and clear, I admit, its easy for me to second guess. I was not there. I hear your points. I am glad it is a judge asked to give a sober, neutral look at all the facts who will decide and not me or you. Sure its complex.

Its tragic, no one wants to see a mentally ill person killed needlessly or an unfair standard used on the officer. Its damn complex.

[Black Dog]

Did the cop have a video inside of the bus before the shooting? Stop being silly. He thought people were hiding on the floor who could not be seen being held hostage. The last thing he wanted to do was for the yatim to go stab someone on the floor where shooting him would be impossible without harming a hostage.

He would never had the opportunity to shoot anyone if yatim didn't pull a knife, yatim is responsible for his own death. You are being anti-cop.

Do you have any evidence at all that this was a consideration?

[GostHacked]

In this case yes. Its no different than when you have a hostage situation. There is a chance you shoot the hostage by accident, but you can't let the guy with the knife taking the streetcar or bus hostage, you can't let him kill with impunity. Its a price you may pay though.

So risking death or injury to a 'hostage' is acceptable to get the perp? I might say you are trolling, but then again, I've seen some very stupid things posted on this forum.

[GostHacked]

Hern I am very sympathetic to police officers in the line of fire and under pressure. I just am having a very hard time reconciling the second set of shots. The first also raises training questions. Now hear me loud and clear, I admit, its easy for me to second guess. I was not there. I hear your points. I am glad it is a judge asked to give a sober, neutral look at all the facts who will decide and not me or you. Sure its complex.

Its tragic, no one wants to see a mentally ill person killed needlessly or an unfair standard used on the officer. Its damn complex.

It's the time frame which is telling to me. Mere minutes from when the police arrive to when Yatim was shot and killed. The cop did not hesitate at all.

[Army Guy]

You are missing the ball, go and look above at the chart. Do you see de-escalation anywhere on there?Cops are not trained to de-escalate, the are trained to escalate with overwhelming force. This is the guideline they follow. If he tried to de-escalate and someone died, he'd be fired and sued for not following the guidelines from the province. I was also in Afghanistan and cops actually have alot more leeway in shooting than we do. Cops were allowed to kill when they perceive a deadly threat after 2008 I recall a shift. In 2003 you could pretty much shoot anyone you want and if you were question just say he had a gun, even if he didn't have one. By 2008 you had to be fired on first or see the gun pointed at you and they were checking for guns and if there was a pattern you'd see jail time.

To me it is irrelevent legally if he shot once or 10 times. Once he perceived a deadly threat which the use of force guidelines points out he has the right to shoot to kill. And he did what he was told to do by the state.

I am not missing the ball. And while the chart does assist officers by giving them the left and right of arcs, it is not the only tool they have to resolve situations. They're are many options available to them, Police get extensive training in shoot or don't shoot situations....they're first responsibility is protecting the public, and that includes everyone, including the bad guys.....de escalation is one tactic that is used.....and is used first, until there is no other option....if police stuck by this chart, why do SWAT teams have negotiations officer...i mean according to you if the suspect is armed they could just shoot him and go home.....and yet the news is full of stories of these type of situations taking hours to resolve...

While i was doing my training, we had a few RCMP guys with us on the ranges, as they were being armed with the C-7 rifle, the military uses the double tap for any engagement, meaning you fire 2 shoots in rapid succession, to the center of mass at every target, until your target drops, or ceases to be a threat, while we were doing this training , the RCMP guys told us it goes again'st what they were trained to do, they pause after each round, see the effect then fire another if needed.....but only if needed..... each situation is different of course ....not all shoots are kill shoots, they are taught to aim to incompacate their intended target...... that is not what your guy did, he fired his wpn in rapid succession, in other words he panicked like he was facing some angry bear.....he broke protocol, and was not trying to save a life, but bent on taking a life....you don't empty a mag, without the intention of killing someone....either that or your a bad shot, a really bad shot and should not be wearing a uniform anyways...

If you were in afghanistan then you know we had some very loose Rules of engagement, if i felt like i or my section, or my veh, etc....was threaten in any way , i could use deadly force....To say the police force have an even slacker ROE is just plain silly to the point of almost funny....again going back to the police motto serve and protect.....not kill everyone that is armed....

[H10]

Obviously you've not been on a lot of street cars. Hopefully the courts will have better knowledge of them.

Ok smart mouth, can you see if someone is hiding on the floor in the back of the street car? Lets see how big of a liar you are?

You see the man standing in the first window. You cannot even see below his stomach area. If someone was ducking down or lying on the floor, you would not be able to see them. So stop with the non-sense, cops cannot see through metal.

[H10]

Do you have any evidence at all that this was a consideration?

Yes, this was the argument given by the lawyer at trial for Forcillo. He feared there was someone hiding or stabbed on the bus, notice one of the officers ran through the back door afterwards, they thought others were on the streetcar. Imagine if someone was dying on the floor, the cop waited and Yatim finished them off. Then it would well why didn't the officers shoot him when they had the chance, and didn't the officers know someone would be on a streetcar. When the officers arrive on the scene, all they see is a bus driver run off the bus, and a young man with his penis hanging out his pants and a knife in his hand who is agitated. Forcillo can be heard saying get the tazer.

[Boges]

Ok smart mouth, can you see if someone is hiding on the floor in the back of the street car? Lets see how big of a liar you are?

You see the man standing in the first window. You cannot even see below his stomach area. If someone was ducking down or lying on the floor, you would not be able to see them. So stop with the non-sense, cops cannot see through metal.

Please cite an instances, other than here, that it's being used as a defence. From the video it appears the driver was the last to leave the street car and he was on the stand last week. I wonder if he was asked the possibility of someone still being in the street car.

It's revisionist defence.

But let's entertain your theory. How would filling that Street Car full of a clip of bullets help the well-being of this mysterious hostage Yatim had? If that was a fear wouldn't the motivation for de-escalation be far more important?

Edited November 5, 2015 by Boges

[H10]

So risking death or injury to a 'hostage' is acceptable to get the perp? I might say you are trolling, but then again, I've seen some very stupid things posted on this forum.

In a hostaage situation that is always the case, come to think of it, in any scenario where an officer draws his gun and discharges, there is risk of injury to a hostage. When a man held a woman hostage at knife point in toronto and was shot in the back of the head by a cop, there was a risk the bullet hit the hostage and risk the bullet miss the mark. There is always a risk. To pretend you can discharge a gun in a city like Toronto, with hundreds of people per square kilometer and not risk danger to the public is pure fantasy.

[Boges]

In a hostaage situation that is always the case, come to think of it, in any scenario where an officer draws his gun and discharges, there is risk of injury to a hostage. When a man held a woman hostage at knife point in toronto and was shot in the back of the head by a cop, there was a risk the bullet hit the hostage and risk the bullet miss the mark. There is always a risk. To pretend you can discharge a gun in a city like Toronto, with hundreds of people per square kilometer and not risk danger to the public is pure fantasy.

At least in this instance you could see your target and aim for it. You'd have use believe that Forcillo fired blindly into a street car to protect an imaginary hostage.

[H10]

I am not missing the ball. And while the chart does assist officers by giving them the left and right of arcs, it is not the only tool they have to resolve situations. They're are many options available to them, Police get extensive training in shoot or don't shoot situations....they're first responsibility is protecting the public, and that includes everyone, including the bad guys.....de escalation is one tactic that is used.....and is used first, until there is no other option....if police stuck by this chart, why do SWAT teams have negotiations officer...i mean according to you if the suspect is armed they could just shoot him and go home.....and yet the news is full of stories of these type of situations taking hours to resolve...

While i was doing my training, we had a few RCMP guys with us on the ranges, as they were being armed with the C-7 rifle, the military uses the double tap for any engagement, meaning you fire 2 shoots in rapid succession, to the center of mass at every target, until your target drops, or ceases to be a threat, while we were doing this training , the RCMP guys told us it goes again'st what they were trained to do, they pause after each round, see the effect then fire another if needed.....but only if needed..... each situation is different of course ....not all shoots are kill shoots, they are taught to aim to incompacate their intended target...... that is not what your guy did, he fired his wpn in rapid succession, in other words he panicked like he was facing some angry bear.....he broke protocol, and was not trying to save a life, but bent on taking a life....you don't empty a mag, without the intention of killing someone....either that or your a bad shot, a really bad shot and should not be wearing a uniform anyways...

If you were in afghanistan then you know we had some very loose Rules of engagement, if i felt like i or my section, or my veh, etc....was threaten in any way , i could use deadly force....To say the police force have an even slacker ROE is just plain silly to the point of almost funny....again going back to the police motto serve and protect.....not kill everyone that is armed....

De-escalation is certainly A option. But it is not the guideline. You have negotiators typically in a situation where shooting the suspect is not typically practical because he might be hiding behind a hostage for instance. Also SWAT teams are far more highly trained than regular street cops. For one they have near full body armour, and a huge swat shield made of metal or bulletproof glass where they can literally just knock a suspect over. They have way more training, way more experience, way more protection and are experts in this type of confrontation.

Usually those situations are not on a bus, and the suspect is 16 feet away charging towards an officer who has his gun drawn who warns him he will shoot. In most SWAT scenarios, if the suspect charged with a weapon, he'd likely end up just as dead. Cops are paid well, just not well enough to go home with a knife in their neck. Our guy is a Toronto cop, not RCMP, different guide line. Our guys in Toronto are high on multiple drugs, they will kill you before you get off 5 single shots. He had the legal right to kill Yatim, it is withing the use of force guideline. And how can you see where your shot goes in the middle of the night on a dark streetcar?

Nope, police have loser ROE, I remember after 2008 we couldn't shoot on until we were basically fired on or had a gun pointed at us. I couldn't shoot a guy with a knife unless he was an inch from killing me. I didn't get to shoot anyone unarmed in the back like Canadian cops can, and you know it.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/inquest-hears-rcmp-shot-former-canadian-soldier-twice-in-the-back

[H10]

Please cite an instances, other than here, that it's being used as a defence. From the video it appears the driver was the last to leave the street car and he was on the stand last week. I wonder if he was asked the possibility of someone still being in the street car.

It's revisionist defence.

But let's entertain your theory. How would filling that Street Car full of a clip of bullets help the well-being of this mysterious hostage Yatim had? If that was a fear wouldn't the motivation for de-escalation be far more important?

I understand your point, to us it is clear the bus is empty because we SAW everyone runoff. The cops didn't see that, they literally just see the driver runoff and a man in the door with a knife. A reasonable person is thinking there are probably other people on this bus, since the driver just ran off and the backdoors are closed, odds are not everyone got off before the driver.

It isn't revisionist. The officer cannot take his eyes of the knifeman because he could close the distance in 3 big steps.

If Yatm is dead then person hiding in the back on the floor bleeding out can get medical attention faster or not get stabbed to death. No, if you have a hostage, and a suspect who you can reasonably kill without hitting the hostage you kill that suspect before he kills the hostage. Again imagine the outrage, useless cops show up to knife wielding knifeman, let him stab 3 people to death hiding on floor waiting for cops to save them. We've already seen in other cities where cops wait and let the suspect on the bus kill the passengers.

[H10]

At least in this instance you could see your target and aim for it. You'd have use believe that Forcillo fired blindly into a street car to protect an imaginary hostage.

this comment makes no sense, rephrase it

[Boges]

I understand your point, to us it is clear the bus is empty because we SAW everyone runoff. The cops didn't see that, they literally just see the driver runoff and a man in the door with a knife. A reasonable person is thinking there are probably other people on this bus, since the driver just ran off and the backdoors are closed, odds are not everyone got off before the driver.

It isn't revisionist. The officer cannot take his eyes of the knifeman because he could close the distance in 3 big steps.

If Yatm is dead then person hiding in the back on the floor bleeding out can get medical attention faster or not get stabbed to death. No, if you have a hostage, and a suspect who you can reasonably kill without hitting the hostage you kill that suspect before he kills the hostage. Again imagine the outrage, useless cops show up to knife wielding knifeman, let him stab 3 people to death hiding on floor waiting for cops to save them. We've already seen in other cities where cops wait and let the suspect on the bus kill the passengers.

You still haven't provided citation that this was part of the cop's defence. Or citation that the prospect of accidentally shooting a hostage you have no confirmation exists is preferable to deescalation. Why not just shoot every violent offender site on scene?

this comment makes no sense, rephrase it

You cited instances where police shot at a suspect who had a hostage. In those instances though, you could actually see the hostage and the suspect. In this instance Forcillo was shooting at where he "thought" Yatim was. If he did, in fact, think there was a hostage, this is very dangerous behaviour.

[Black Dog]

Yes, this was the argument given by the lawyer at trial for Forcillo.

Cite required. Put another way: I don't believe you.

The entire time elapsed between Forcillo arriving on the scene and him shooting Yatim was less than one minute. That's not enough time to adequately assess a situation like that. Had Forcillo taken another minute, he could have asked the streetcar driver if there was anyone else on the vehicle.

Imagine if someone was dying on the floor, the cop waited and Yatim finished them off.

Yes and imagine if Yatim had stashed a tactical nuke on the seat beside him.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Black Dog

[Michael Hardner]

Why not just shoot every violent offender site on scene?

I think this should be "sight unseen".

[On Guard for Thee]

Ok smart mouth, can you see if someone is hiding on the floor in the back of the street car? Lets see how big of a liar you are?

You see the man standing in the first window. You cannot even see below his stomach area. If someone was ducking down or lying on the floor, you would not be able to see them. So stop with the non-sense, cops cannot see through metal.

You get on a ladder to lift you higher than the window and you can easily see under the seats on either side. The courts will understand that hopefully.

[eyeball]

Did the cop have a video inside of the bus before the shooting? Stop being silly.

The cop had a bus driver he could have asked.

He thought people were hiding on the floor who could not be seen being held hostage. The last thing he wanted to do was for the yatim to go stab someone on the floor where shooting him would be impossible without harming a hostage.

He must have stated this or something like it early in the official investigation, where is that statement?

[On Guard for Thee]

Ok smart mouth, can you see if someone is hiding on the floor in the back of the street car? Lets see how big of a liar you are?

You see the man standing in the first window. You cannot even see below his stomach area. If someone was ducking down or lying on the floor, you would not be able to see them. So stop with the non-sense, cops cannot see through metal.

My mouth is no more or less smart than my brain, but yes you are correct about one thing: it is hard for us to see through metal. Which I am guessing is why they put windows in metal things, such as streetcars.