TTC Police Shooting

[Black Dog]

New video appears to show him already down when the last six shots are fired.

What's most telling, again, is how quickly events unfolded from the cops arriving on scene to the shooting. Maybe the shooter had a cup of Tim's in the car he didn't want getting cold?

Edited July 30, 2013 by Black Dog

[Michael Hardner]

, if the cops (cop) ****** up, that's on them

Black Dog - please note that foul language isn't allowed.

[guyser]

How do you know how long the cops had been at the scene before shots were fired?

it was reported in all the news reports

[Guest American Woman]

Evidently we don't need trials or investigations any more. All we need is a couple of minutes of video on YouTube and people on web boards can make the judgement. I'm sure we'd all be pleased to forego a trial and be condemned tried in such a manner.

[Guest American Woman]

it was reported in all the news reports

And how do they know? The police aren't giving out any information.

[Boges]

Evidently we don't need trials or investigations any more. All we need is a couple of minutes of video on YouTube and people on web boards can make the judgement. I'm sure we'd all be pleased to forego a trial and be condemned tried in such a manner.

None of us are conducting a legal proceedings. We are basing our opinions on the evidence that is available to the public. Should new information surface, I'm sure reasonable people will modify their opinions of the case.

[guyser]

And how do they know? The police aren't giving out any information.

They were there. Eyewitnesses have said it was only minutes from start to finish.

Not to mention the video confirms most of those accounts.

Edited July 30, 2013 by Guyser2

[Guest American Woman]

None of us are conducting a legal proceedings. We are basing our opinions on the evidence that is available to the public. Should new information surface, I'm sure reasonable people will modify their opinions of the case.

Opinions? It's one thing to have an opinion, it's quite another to condemn him. We've even got people making claims about his character and one saying he had a cup of coffee waiting for him, so that's why he shot the kid. It's a lynch-mob mentality that we are seeing here from many - not "an opinion." There's a huge difference between the two.

[Black Dog]

Evidently we don't need trials or investigations any more. All we need is a couple of minutes of video on YouTube and people on web boards can make the judgement. I'm sure we'd all be pleased to forego a trial and be condemned tried in such a manner.

You're right we should wait for an official police response before believing what we can clearly see with our own eyes.

Watch the latest video above. It shows the scene from before the cops arrive.

Edited July 30, 2013 by Black Dog

[Guest American Woman]

You're right we should wait for an official police response before believing what we can clearly see with our own eyes.

You can't "clearly" see anything. That's the problem with your judgement and condemnation. Adding that he shot the kid because he had a cup of coffee waiting for him is a nice touch to the "lynch-mob mentality" that we're seeing.

Edited July 30, 2013 by American Woman

[Black Dog]

You can't "clearly" see anything. That's the problem with your judgement and condemnation. Adding that he shot the kid because he had a cup of coffee waiting for him is a nice touch to the "lynch-mob mentality" that we're seeing.

It was a joke, you tiresome scold.

[GostHacked]

You can't "clearly" see anything. That's the problem with your judgement and condemnation. Adding that he shot the kid because he had a cup of coffee waiting for him is a nice touch to the "lynch-mob mentality" that we're seeing.

I had mentioned the coffee bit. But not in the way you are describing.

Video evidence - pff ignore it.

Witnesses in the area - pfff ignore it.

Better wait for the police to give us their version. Which came first the tazer or the gun?

[Boges]

If you look closely at the video, Rob Ford can be seen smoking crack in the background. I swear!

[Guest American Woman]

I had mentioned the coffee bit. But not in the way you are describing.

Video evidence - pff ignore it.

Witnesses in the area - pfff ignore it.

Better wait for the police to give us their version. Which came first the tazer or the gun?

I wasn't referring to you, but I'd be interested to know how you think coffee fits into this incident.

Since you don't think we should wait for an official investigation, are you saying that "video evidence" and "witnesses in the area" quoted in the media should take the place of trials and/or investigations? You think we should revamp our justice system accordingly? And you would be fine with being judged in such a manner? A couple of minutes of a video clip on YouTube, witnesses giving their versions, which of course aren't in any way colored by their mindsets, and a verdict can be made? Seriously?

[Black Dog]

Since you don't think we should wait for an official investigation, are you saying that "video evidence" and "witnesses in the area" quoted in the media should take the place of trials and/or investigations? You think we should revamp our justice system accordingly? And you would be fine with being judged in such a manner? A couple of minutes of a video clip on YouTube, witnesses giving their versions, which of course aren't in any way colored by their mindsets, and a verdict can be made? Seriously?

Jesus bloody Christ. Do you read this stuff through at all before you hit post? Do you read any of the posts in the thread? Because none of what you are saying here has anything at all to do with the discussion so far. It's completely bonkers.

[Argus]

And how do they know? The police aren't giving out any information.

They're probably trying to come up with a reason to excuse a cop shooting a guy six times who is clearly already been brought to his belly on the floor of the streetcar nowhere near where the cop is standing.

That's gonna take some time...

"I was sure he was about to spring to his feet, fly through the door like Tarzan, and stab us all with his pocketknife!

[Moonlight Graham]

In this case, from the video, an officer would have to be situated between the armed officers and the young man to attempt to depoly the taser.

There were 2, 3, maybe 4 cops looking into streetcar at the kid at one time one point while one was shooting. All you'd need is 1 cop with a taser, and one cop with a gun beside him in case it doesn't work.

Also tasers require both contacts to imbed into the target to function……..Movies and tv aside, their operation isn’t simple as it looks, you couple this to this case and the requirement to hit the young man inside the streetcar from a “safe” range, sans armed officers providing cover behind the officer with the taser, and it’s very likely the taser wouldn’t have worked anyways……..

The standard taser needs either both contacts to hit the target, or one to hit the body and one to hit the ground to complete the circuit. However, other types of tasers also exist, like the

, which has all barbs needed for the shock located on a single round and is wireless with on-board battery needed for the shock on the actual round deployed (taking away the range limitation of the standard wired taser). Tasers can also be fired increasingly accurate, this shotgun XREP taser is accurate up to 100 ft (military wants to get it to 300 ft). This video shows a guy hitting a target 50ft and 100ft away.

Given the kid in the streetcar was just standing still virtually frozen, a taser shot very likely would have worked.

Maybe John Rambo might be willing to approach an armed man to within several feet, with the guy elevated above him to boot, and hope his non lethal taser would work and not hit a pole or handrail inside the streetcar, but no police officer can reasonably be expected to risk his or her life with such stunt.

The thing is, the cops had the choice to stand wherever they wanted. They could have stood 50ft from the streetcar and had civilians stay that far back if they wanted, and the kid only had a couple exit choices from the car. The kid was trapped in a narrow space with only a couple exits, how much more control did the cops need here?

Now if the young man was unarmed, by all means, use tasers, pepper spray or an Asp, but this was clearly not the case……..As such, I fail to see why the police should be required to put themselves in unnecessary danger to detain an armed, combative person………..This could have been resolved without any violence if he had “dropped the knife”.

Whether the technology exists today or not, it's well within today's technological means for cops (and military btw) to possess non-lethal (or even less-lethal) weapons/tools to handle a situation like this. There's NO excuse for them not to. Far too much research has been done on lethal weapons for police/military relative to much-needed non-lethal tech. If the kid was suffering from mental illness it makes it even more tragic & necessary.

Edited July 30, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[guyser]

They're probably trying to come up with a reason to excuse a cop shooting a guy

While I share your sentiment, the truth is the Police are legally barred from commenting until the SIU report is issued.

Which of course means theyll have a ton of time to do what you say

[Black Dog]

While I share your sentiment, the truth is the Police are legally barred from commenting until the SIU report is issued.

Which of course means theyll have a ton of time to do what you say

To be fair, if you read between the lines of the statements from Blair and the TPSB, you get the sense that they know there was something screwy. I can't imagine them going so far as to offer condolences to the family if they felt the shooting was justified. I dunno.

[guyser]

To be fair, if you read between the lines of the statements from Blair and the TPSB, you get the sense that they know there was something screwy. I can't imagine them going so far as to offer condolences to the family if they felt the shooting was justified. I dunno.

I know what you mean.

I listened to what Blair said and had this feeling his sentiments as to the family of the dead boy was "we are sorry, he should have not been killed"

Except, he never did name the kid, but that may have been a minor faux pas or oversight.

Its either that, or Blair realizes he has the makings of some very hostile years when coupled with the continual fall out from the G20 fasco. Of course the meathead McCormick still struts around like the dickhead he is.

[GostHacked]

American Woman, on 30 Jul 2013 - 2:42 PM, said:

I wasn't referring to you, but I'd be interested to know how you think coffee fits into this incident.

I mentioned grabbing a coffee and waiting the kid out while completely surrounding the streetcar.

Quote

Since you don't think we should wait for an official investigation, are you saying that "video evidence" and "witnesses in the area" quoted in the media should take the place of trials and/or investigations?

Speaking of trials, this dead kid will never get one. Judge and jury were on the scene to administer immediate justice.

Quote

You think we should revamp our justice system accordingly?

This is law enforcement. Justice is served by the courts. And yes police actions need to be adjusted.

Quote

And you would be fine with being judged in such a manner?

We can revisit that after another cop shoots dead a kid. Justice served.

Quote

A couple of minutes of a video clip on YouTube, witnesses giving their versions, which of course aren't in any way colored by their mindsets, and a verdict can be made? Seriously?

The video is quite plain and clear about the events that happened. Still,why would the cop tazer him after unloading a clip into him?

Nothing about this makes any sense and we still get apologetic from a select few. It's like some are afraid to take a stance. Baffles me.

[Guest American Woman]

I mentioned grabbing a coffee and waiting the kid out while completely surrounding the streetcar.

Were you serious?

Speaking of trials, this dead kid will never get one. Judge and jury were on the scene to administer immediate justice.

No, police were on the scene to deal with the situation. It's what the police force does. It's what police officers do. They make decisions, and if they are questionable, there are investigations.

This is law enforcement. Justice is served by the courts. And yes police actions need to be adjusted.

Who are you to determine that? That's what the investigation is for.

The video is quite plain and clear about the events that happened. Still,why would the cop tazer him after unloading a clip into him?

No, it's not. The "events" didn't occur within the time frame of the video, and the video doesn't show what a cop on the scene was privy to. The video also doesn't get inside the cop's head.

The cop could have very well acted very wrongly, but he's a cop with 6 years experience on the force, so he's obviously not trigger happy since this type of thing isn't a regular occurrence with him. Yet people here are making all sorts of judgments about him and about his character and about WHY he shot at the kid. The video shows none of that. That's "lynch mob mentality."

Nothing about this makes any sense and we still get apologetic from a select few. It's like some are afraid to take a stance. Baffles me.

So you think waiting to hear all of the details = "afraid to take a stance??" Now that baffles me - and goes completely against the idea of 'justice' in our societies.

[Argus]

So you think waiting to hear all of the details = "afraid to take a stance??" Now that baffles me - and goes completely against the idea of 'justice' in our societies.

Justice doesn't require information. It does not require process or policy. A thing is either just or it isn't. Committing oneself to a particular process is fine, but to suggest the process encompasses justice, or that justice can't exist outside the process is nonsensical.

There is no question the cop acted improperly. His career is done. The only question is what the charges will be and whether the system works to get him off, as it often does with crooked, corrupt, brutal, or incompetent cops.

Speaking of which, still waiting to hear about the trial of the first of the RCMP tazer clowns, and whether the system was able to stretch itself far enough to say he didn't lie on his reports and lie to the commission even though we all know he did. And if he gets off, that will not be justice, even though it will have followed your precious process.

Edited to add, Constable Bill Bentley has been found not guilty of perjury. The crown delayed the charges for four years, doing everything it could to present the weakest possible case and give him every possible benefit, as is usually the case with cops. So he gets off scott free. His lying buddies will probably now see their charges dropped too.

Edited July 30, 2013 by Argus

[GostHacked]

Were you serious?

100% serious. Person did not pose anyone an immediate threat. All persons vacated the streetcar and he was alone. Sure, he was holding a knife, but still is a slight disadvantage being surrounded by gun carrying police officers. Make a perimeter, wait it out. The cops engaging the way they did put themselves in the danger zone. Absolutely a complete stupid action by the police.

You have a knife, and as a cop the first reaction is to step IN the danger zone and increasing the risk of being injured if the person attacks???

No, police were on the scene to deal with the situation. It's what the police force does. It's what police officers do. They make decisions, and if they are questionable, there are investigations.

...

Who are you to determine that? That's what the investigation is for.

Sorry if I don't have faith in any of those 'investigations'. Because there is video, the police will have a hard time to cover this up. IN many other situations were cameras were not present the investigations found that the police acted with in the duties of the police officer and excessive force was warranted.

No, it's not. The "events" didn't occur within the time frame of the video, and the video doesn't show what a cop on the scene was privy to. The video also doesn't get inside the cop's head.

It also does not get into the victims head either. And granted the video is of the last few moments. I would love to see CCTV footage of what transpired before. Would help with determining what happened.

The cop could have very well acted very wrongly, but he's a cop with 6 years experience on the force, so he's obviously not trigger happy since this type of thing isn't a regular occurrence with him. Yet people here are making all sorts of judgments about him and about his character and about WHY he shot at the kid. The video shows none of that. That's "lynch mob mentality."

So you think waiting to hear all of the details = "afraid to take a stance??" Now that baffles me - and goes completely against the idea of 'justice' in our societies.

What more details do you want/need? I'll base my judgement on evidence currently presented. As someone said, if evidence comes out to support something else, well then the judgement will be revised.

[Rue]

That video shows ONE, I repeat ONE officer who appears to have acted inappropriately-ONE.

Based on that tape and having security training I do have questions yes. If there was no hostage situation

I am under the impression the police in such situations are to secure the area and assailant and wait.

They are taught only to re-act with force after the area is secured if the individual with a weapon heads towards them in a menacing manner and that was followed by all those officers.

For those of you wondering why one did not run in the back door of the street car of course they could not. It would expose the officer going in to a knife attack towards him and no other officer being able to help him from the other door as there would be cross fire and no contrary to what some of you think, police are not trained to hand to hand fight with a person with a knife. That is t.v. b.s.

No hand to hand. As I stated they are taught to contain the area so the person with the weapon can't flee or endanger the public

and wait it out for one of the following events:

1- a more senior officer or negotiator specialis arriving an dt trying to establish rapport with the suspect

2- the officer above then making a decision to subdue the suspect with force.

This is not a conventional swat scenario as there were no hostages or military assault weapons or possible terrorism involved.

In regards to 2, if force had to be used, the police have options:

a-tear gas

b-stun grenades

c-fire extinguisher

d-water hose

e-stun (taser) gun (not preferred with knives as there is still a chance of an officer getting lunged at and stabbed)

f-use of a canine unit dog.

I myself am not a fan of the taser. I prefer the weapon certain police now use where they spray a quick hard forming foam on the suspect which prevents them from using their arms and legs.

I also like the net gun that is shot at the assailant and traps them in the net.

I also am a great believer in fire extinguishers and water hose as methods to subdue a suspect with a knife.

The training I was given though is different then in Canada so I am no police expert or claim to be.

I was under the impression though from their police training they are not to shoot unless the assailant moves towards them in a manner that could endanger their lives and so from what I could see they were all acting in line except for the one officer who does all the shooting.

From what I could see the youth did not lunge at or make movement towards the police offcer who shot him BUT the angle is obscured so that it is not clear-maybe he did lunge at him.

A proper investigation considering all the angles has to be considered.

Arm chair experts like me and you will and should cool it.

Let's get perspective on this though. One officer may have screwed up big time. You want to hate all police for it?

You want to march and scream that all police are bad? Knock yourselves out. Not me.

Hey Argus, that previous incident with the RCMP killing the Polish man in the airport it was as bad a thing as I have ever seen police do yes. Absolutely unforgiveable. But I won't turn on all cops because some are bad.

I want no part of the lynch mob forming. Lynching the cop won't bring that youth back or that genuinely innocent Polish guy back..

Sure the youth did not deserve to die but don't turn him into a saint either. His father threw him out because he would not work and was stoned all the time. For him to stand in a bus and have a tantrum and call police pussies indicates he was either a stupid punk or had a mental illness so let's not portray him as a saint turned on by evil souls.

No he should not have died but spare me the sweet angel references to him.

Serious questions remain to be answered yes. But I will not be joining any lynch mobs to burn the cop...same reason I passed on

roasting that big pink fat guy who is the Mayor.

I side with Frankenstein if their is a lynch mob.

Edited July 30, 2013 by Rue