Guilty Of Attempted Murder

[elkhunter11]

After a great deal of publicity when the incident occurred, the trial is over, and the verdict is in. The jury apparently didn't believe that the officer's actions were legal.
http://globalnews.ca/news/2465927/sammy-yatim-toronto-police-officer-found-not-guilty-of-2nd-degree-murder-in-2013-streetcar-shooting/

[Wild&Free]

first volley legal, second volley a crime.

seems right to me.

[Okotokian]

first volley legal, second volley a crime.

seems right to me.

I could go either way on the first volley. The second burst "because he made a motion" as he was laying on the floor wounded from three shots to the cest? What is the threat to the officers? He had a knife, not a gun. That burst was to kill him.

I have to admit I'm still a little unclear on how you could kill someone and then be innocent of any level of murder, but guilty of attempted murder. I always thought "attempted murder" meant the attempt was unsuccessful.

[jaylow?]

Neither of them should have been legal they are equipped with pepper spray , tasers , botons shot guns with bean bags , tear gas ,flak jackets ,etc , etc with all the options available to these modern day officers somehow the only thing they tend to reach for is their handguns .

[Mulehahn]

first volley legal, second volley a crime.

seems right to me.

This^ He tried to attack someone with the knife, then after repeated orders to drop the knife and refusing he then proceeds to move towards the officers he has shown a clear threat and the officer was correct to shoot him.

The second volley is unjustified. He is clearly no longer an immediate thread. At that point he should have been dragged off the bus (it appears his feet were close to the door) the knife removed and first aid administered.

[deerguy]

Should have fired all 9 shots at once or just stopped after the 1st volley. I guess you shouldn't bring it knife knife a gun fight LOL

[3blade]

Neither of them should have been legal they are equipped with pepper spray , tasers , botons shot guns with bean bags , tear gas ,flak jackets ,etc , etc with all the options available to these modern day officers somehow the only thing they tend to reach for is their handguns .

No they did not have those tools available. They had called for a tazer but it had not arrived before the shots were fired.

IMO this is complete horse crap. The cop did his job, which was to protect the public from the knife-wielding druggie. Yes, he intended to kill him, that is the point of shooting someone. So if the perp was still moving, I see no reason to not shoot.

I'm very critical of law enforcement in most cases but IMO this one was justified.

[Grizzly Adams]

Should have fired all 9 shots at once or just stopped after the 1st volley. I guess you shouldn't bring it knife knife a gun fight LOL

No, but it would help if cops were still selected on the basis of physical qualifications suitable for their job. Wimpy cops, quick on the draw, is what we're saddled with. :D

Grizz

[Sundancefisher]

As another arm chair jurist it is hard to see justification in the first shooting. However I would err on the side of the officer as within reason we cannot second guess on the spot quick second decisions.

However the final shots were absolutely stupid.

[rem338win]

Neither of them should have been legal they are equipped with pepper spray , tasers , botons shot guns with bean bags , tear gas ,flak jackets ,etc , etc with all the options available to these modern day officers somehow the only thing they tend to reach for is their handguns .

Ignorant comment of the day. Half the stuff you refer to doesn't exist (wtf is a "flak jacket"?), and a knife is lethal force. You meet that with lethal force. Police should not just unneccessarily risk harm for the sake of a cracked out criminal with a knife.

Before you start internet burping about bean bags and tear gas, etc, etc, you may want to look into what their service provides, what it takes to deploy, reponse times to receive it, blah blah. Better yet, someone who knows nothing about your trade should start telling you how to do your job and whats exceptable, and the people who do know be damned.

You're as handy as the nitwit reporter that called CPS's glock a revolver; sit down and stop armchairing things you know nothing about.

[elkhunter11]

I myself have no real issue with the first shots being fired, as the suspect was presenting a threat at that point. However once the suspect had been shot and was lying helpless on the ground, the threat was no longer present, so I consider the second volley to be an excessive use of force. I feel that the courts got it right this time. Hopefully the police will learn from this verdict.

[Zuludog]

No they did not have those tools available. They had called for a tazer but it had not arrived before the shots were fired.

IMO this is complete horse crap. The cop did his job, which was to protect the public from the knife-wielding druggie. Yes, he intended to kill him, that is the point of shooting someone. So if the perp was still moving, I see no reason to not shoot.

I'm very critical of law enforcement in most cases but IMO this one was justified.

So the officer was just being thorough then? :) I too am critical of LEOs sometimes but in this case shooting him the first time could be justified. He was warned and still didn't drop the knife, so technically use of deadly force protocols seem warranted here. My problem is why can't highly trained, armored and in huge numbers of LEOs do what most bouncers do nightly?
Shut the door on the guy, problem solved. Fire some tear gas in and barricade the door, problem solved. Lots of times time and distance solve these problems, same could be said for the guy at Vancouver Int'l Airport that they tasered to death. Guy was alone in an enclosed room, only danger was to the furniture.lol As long as guy stays on bus or in the room alone, time and patience solves this, cops get some overtime, media gets "news" to report all is good and no one dies. :)

This^ He tried to attack someone with the knife, then after repeated orders to drop the knife and refusing he then proceeds to move towards the officers he has shown a clear threat and the officer was correct to shoot him.

The second volley is unjustified. He is clearly no longer an immediate thread. At that point he should have been dragged off the bus (it appears his feet were close to the door) the knife removed and first aid administered.

After the first volley the second seemed totally unwarranted. :)

[rem338win]

Having seen the video, use of lethal force in the first case was warranted and the criminal code reflects that. The scenario could've played out in different ways with other choices, but the fact that the deceased criminal whipped his genitals out and chased people in an enclosed area with a knife and failed to regard commands from officers dictated his removal from the gene pool.

The officer shooting a seemingly incapacited person with such pause between "volleys" is his undoing. I would call that unjustified.

[silver lab]

Not sure what video you guys seen. But the one i seen the police were in no danger at anytime, nor was anyone else. I hope this cop get what he has comin. But hey hes still getting paid. Lol

[3blade]

So the officer was just being thorough then? :) I too am critical of LEOs sometimes but in this case shooting him the first time could be justified. He was warned and still didn't drop the knife, so technically use of deadly force protocols seem warranted here. My problem is why can't highly trained, armored and in huge numbers of LEOs do what most bouncers do nightly?
Shut the door on the guy, problem solved. Fire some tear gas in and barricade the door, problem solved. Lots of times time and distance solve these problems, same could be said for the guy at Vancouver Int'l Airport that they tasered to death. Guy was alone in an enclosed room, only danger was to the furniture.lol As long as guy stays on bus or in the room alone, time and patience solves this, cops get some overtime, media gets "news" to report all is good and no one dies. :)



After the first volley the second seemed totally unwarranted. :)



Because he could go out a window, drive the bus, retrieve a gun from his backpack, set off a bomb, or any number of other things that could cause harm. Clearly dangerous, dealt with as such.

But then I've been in similar situations, and I know how fast it happens. So I'll leave the armchair quarterbacking to the know-it-alls who think they could do better.

[elkhunter11]

Not sure what video you guys seen. But the one i seen the police were in no danger at anytime, nor was anyone else. I hope this cop get what he has comin. But hey hes still getting paid. Lol

It is truly idiotic that this criminal is still being paid to uphold our laws after being convicted of attempted murder. He is a convicted criminal, there is no way that he should be getting paid to be a police officer.

[Wild&Free]

It would be truly idiotic if this criminal was still being paid to uphold our laws after being convicted of attempted murder.:mad0030:

did you not read the whole article?

[rem338win]

Not sure what video you guys seen. But the one i seen the police were in no danger at anytime, nor was anyone else. I hope this cop get what he has comin. But hey hes still getting paid. Lol

Um. Pardon? What video did you watch? I watched one where a deranged kid brandishing a knife was within 25 feet of cops standing between him and the public and he refused to reasonably drop the knife.

Stick with your day job. Only thing Lol about this is your comments.

Old video with some issues but it gets the point across well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_KJ1R2PCMM

[CaberTosser]

Neither of them should have been legal they are equipped with pepper spray , tasers , botons shot guns with bean bags , tear gas ,flak jackets ,etc , etc with all the options available to these modern day officers somehow the only thing they tend to reach for is their handguns .

Lets have some lunatic charge you with a knife and see how you react! Its an intentionally conditioned reflex, one doesn't have time to run down the laundry list of probabilities pul out the old slide rule and tabulate the statistical probability of success with each option. One dead lunatic, big whoop.

[Bear Ballz]

Lets have some lunatic charge you with a knife and see how you react! Its an intentionally conditioned reflex, one doesn't have time to run down the laundry list of probabilities pul out the old slide rule and tabulate the statistical probability of success with each option. One dead lunatic, big whoop.

^^ Bingo 👍🏻

[jtiwana]

Not specific to this incident, but in general we are having a slow militarization of police. Police has a very different job and the attitude required is different.

But I guess it goes with general degradation of society. No easy answers I guess.

[Sneeze]

You're as handy as the nitwit reporter that called CPS's glock a revolver; sit down and stop armchairing things you know nothing about.

And what exactly is your qualification?

I agree with him. Time and time again our police prove they are incompetent and incapable. I prefer giving them whistles.

I didn't clink on the link - so I am remembering the story from memory, but the guy had no hostages and was sitting in a bus? I'm pretty dull but can think of about a dozen different ways to handle that problem with out having to fill him full of holes.

On edit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx2iQnYMQfM

Ya... give them carbines... good idea.

[silver lab]

And what exactly is your qualification?

I agree with him. Time and time again our police prove they are incompetent and incapable. I prefer giving them whistles.

I didn't clink on the link - so I am remembering the story from memory, but the guy had no hostages and was sitting in a bus? I'm pretty dull but can think of about a dozen different ways to handle that problem with out having to fill him full of holes.

On edit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx2iQnYMQfM

Ya... give them carbines... good idea.



I hope hes not a cop. No one was in danger of a kid all alone in a bus with a knife. The cops that tazed a dead body with eight holes in it should have been charged too.

[rem338win]

My qualifications to comment on this are far greater than yours I'd bet.

And when are you going to consider the first offender? He dictated his end; first he sexually harasses and exposes himself to others, pulls a knife and brandishes it threatening normal folks. Then he fails to listen to reason and gets shot.

Oh Lordy those terrible cops. You sound like a bleeding liberal with all the fixings; maybe they should've hit him with the bubble wrap gun and waited for his parents and friends to arrive with a social worker to talk the evil police into believing how good of a person he really is contrary to his actions and public history.

What's your qualification other than watching a brief video? Shake your head.

[Sneeze]

What's your qualification other than watching a brief video? Shake your head.

None. The vid doesn't lie.

Mental illness shouldn't automatically be a death sentence.

Its not the country I want to live in where police are judge and jury. No life was in danger when the guy was filled full of holes.

Give them whistles if they can't be trusted with firearms.

[rem338win]

I hope hes not a cop. No one was in danger of a kid all alone in a bus with a knife. The cops that tazed a dead body with eight holes in it should have been charged too.

Sure they aren't. Make your number public so anyone can call you in to fix the problem next time. Bring your cape. I'm sure the ending will be epic; either way I expect an effigy.

Recall I said him intitially being shot was justified, I also suggested other means but unlike the inexperienced and uneducated on the subject I didn't claim they be hanged.

Did the guy have a knife, did he display ill intentions and was he able bodied? Answers yes.

[silver lab]

Free on bale,getting paid, for att muder. Think that would happen to any of us? The police should tazer first shoot second not the other way around. Dont care who it was. He didnt hurt anyone yea he was being a idiot. Did he deserve to die? No.

[rem338win]

None. The vid doesn't lie.

Mental illness shouldn't automatically be a death sentence.

Its not the country I want to live in where police are judge and jury. No life was in danger when the guy was filled full of holes.

Give them whistles if they can't be trusted with firearms.

He chose to use drugs; that isn't mental illness. Should other good people be allowed harm because his family isn't helping him? Where was the guys family?

I watched the video, multiple times. I'm glad it's a free country and your freedom to give an opinion is there. I'm also glad that your uneducated opinion isn't given more credit than it is due either. The courts found the cop guilty and I'm content with that. The bad guy is dead and I am content with that too.

[rem338win]

Free on bale,getting paid, for att muder. Think that would happen to any of us? The police should tazer first shoot second not the other way around. Dont care who it was. He didnt hurt anyone yea he was being a idiot. Did he deserve to die? No.

You are sooooo clueless. Taser first huh.

If you're of the belief he wasn't any danger, I'd suggest you might be a delinquent yourself. He had a choice to drop the knife; he didn't.

There are lots of people on BAIL that have a longer history of more incredible violence. You need to wake up and comment less on things you know more about.

Good night to you and Sneeze both.

[Hat in the Cat]

A drugged emotional youth with a knife and access to a street car and people still think he posed no risk?

You can't shoot out the tires on a street car nor can the police officer press the B button to switch weapons instantaneously.

If you ever get the unfortunate opportunity to shoot someone you will also realize in your adrenaline rush that you don't know if you have hit them or not. Unlike the Hollywood special effects, people don't show a lot of tells when initially hit, especially when you are pumped up. You don't do stupid trick shots like aim for a moving limb you hit centre of mass until the mass (the threat) stops.

[Rio56]

..

[ctd]

Had the Officer used a Tazer and the guy died then people would be saying they used excessive force.
Had they not shot him and he stabbed a Officer or innocent person we all would say he should of shot him.

The situation at hand was handled by the Officer. I doubt very much that this Officer received fair treatment in his trial as the video was all over the place. With little to no background.

The persons mother who was shot is sueing for millions for compensation. So I guess we will see where this one goes.

I think the Officer should have been tried by half Police and Half Civilians as his Jury. That would have been an interesting deliberation.


In the moment you react based on training.

[purgatory.sv]

Or experience?

[jaylow?]

Lets have some lunatic charge you with a knife and see how you react! Its an intentionally conditioned reflex, one doesn't have time to run down the laundry list of probabilities pul out the old slide rule and tabulate the statistical probability of success with each option. One dead lunatic, big whoop.

How is shooting a person with a side arm a reflex ? I would bet maybe 1% of police in Canada have ever fired at a person . The fact that they didn't have a taser means that they were unprepared . Guy could have sat on the bus with nowhere to go tIL they had one . You can go on YouTube and watch hundreds of videos of police tasing armed men . Knifes drop real quick .

[deerguy]

How is shooting a person with a side arm a reflex ? I would bet maybe 1% of police in Canada have ever fired at a person . The fact that they didn't have a taser means that they were unprepared . Guy could have sat on the bus with nowhere to go tIL they had one . You can go on YouTube and watch hundreds of videos of police tasing armed men . Knifes drop real quick .

That's not the point. Don't pull a knife on someone with a gun then cry if they shoot you, cop or not. I see George St Pierre walking down the street, I run up and pull a knife on him so he pulls out a gun and shoots me, guess who is too blame? Me, that's who. He is the victim , not me.

[Unregistered user]

Why was he convicted of attempted murder when the target died?

[Hat in the Cat]

How is shooting a person with a side arm a reflex ? I would bet maybe 1% of police in Canada have ever fired at a person . The fact that they didn't have a taser means that they were unprepared . Guy could have sat on the bus with nowhere to go tIL they had one . You can go on YouTube and watch hundreds of videos of police tasing armed men . Knifes drop real quick .

You don't taser someone who has a lethal threat present, that's how you get stitches or buried. I don't like police bullying people and power tripping but the second a weapon is present and shown as a threat, there is only one outcome I expect, cops going home.

[purgatory.sv]

Why was he convicted of attempted murder when the target died?

Looking at the sequence of event?

Interpretation or understudying will be open?

[rem338win]

How is shooting a person with a side arm a reflex ? I would bet maybe 1% of police in Canada have ever fired at a person . The fact that they didn't have a taser means that they were unprepared . Guy could have sat on the bus with nowhere to go tIL they had one . You can go on YouTube and watch hundreds of videos of police tasing armed men . Knifes drop real quick .

First, military and police spend hours of time doing use of force training, including facing knife wielding threats etc. Yes the reflex is to pull a gun first when a knife is presented and that reaction is appropriate and saved a lot of good guys lives. That means 100% of cops have drawn their sidearm when presented with such a threat.

Second, keep using YouTube as your source of education. I like Fails compilations, but I expect I will never attempt to replicate any of them.

There is not a police force in Canada that will ever tell an officer to pull a taser on a knife wielding assailant. Because that is really dumb, and stupid and did I mention dumb. They may have used a taser to end an event were a bad guy had a knife, but I will guarantee that there was at least one gun on him too. Tasers have a very limited distance and are not 100% effective 100% of the time, and they have a duration. You may feel like playing a lottery ticket it's your life but rational people don't.

You also are willing to assume this guy was willing just to stay on the bus. How do you know that? Did you watch some video unavailable to the rest of us or hear testimony we all haven't?

Your assumptions are very subjective to the viewpoint you want take. Try applying the same assumptions from the other point of view. When did you decide a cops life and wellbeing are of so little value?

I'm concerned that you think it's somehow acceptable for a person to threaten and endanger others, and in the end be coddled without consiquence for his own personal choices. And that because he is making those choices, other people have to risk their lives and wellbeing so they can be selfish and malicious.

That's ludicrous to the normal person.

[rem338win]

Why was he convicted of attempted murder when the target died?

I'm confused about that as well. Manslaughter is normally used were its in the midst of passion or is not intended to cause death and/or lacks premeditation. I would have thought that appropriate.

Attempted murder is normally used when the mental intent was to kill, and actions were taken to cause that end but failed or was interrupted. It's an odd decision.

[elkhunter11]

I see George St Pierre walking down the street, I run up and pull a knife on him so he pulls out a gun and shoots me, guess who is too blame? Me, that's who. He is the victim , not me.

So if GSP shot you, and you fell helpless onto the street, and then several seconds later he realized that you were still alive, and he opened fire again to finish you off, with witnesses watching, do you think that GSP would be charged and convicted?


You don't taser someone who has a lethal threat present, that's how you get stitches or buried. I don't like police bullying people and power tripping but the second a weapon is present and shown as a threat, there is only one outcome I expect, cops going home.

But once the threat is removed, because the suspect has already been shot, and is laying helpless, was it acceptable to keep shooting? The jury obviously felt that shooting the suspect again was illegal according to our laws.

[elkhunter11]

I just saw the story on the news, and the attempted murder charge was explained. It was determined that the first shots would have been fatal, so the later shots were not really killing shots, even though they were fired with the intent of killing the boy.

[Freedom55]

How many guys on this board would hunt with a fellow who would empty a magazine into an animal that is already on the ground after being shot?

What would be the standard way to kill an animal that was gut-shot and unable to get up to flee or fight?

We have a guy in our extended family that is retired from our federal police and he is all about "us vs them". He thinks the 6 Baltimore police officers that are in line for a murder charge for killing Freddy Gray are heroes. I think there is no such thing as a retired cop. He thinks a good perp. is a dead perp. I think he would like to shoot me.

But what do I know? I am only a civilian.

[does it ALL outdoors]

Lets have some lunatic charge you with a knife and see how you react!
Nobody charged at anybody, that's probably why its attempted murder. Badge or not that looked totally unnecessary

[Zuludog]

Because he could go out a window, drive the bus, retrieve a gun from his backpack, set off a bomb, or any number of other things that could cause harm. Clearly dangerous, dealt with as such.

But then I've been in similar situations, and I know how fast it happens. So I'll leave the armchair quarterbacking to the know-it-alls who think they could do better.

LOL. If he goes out the window he gets shot or subdued. WE can't discus driving the bus I don't know if the bus was still running, do you? Maybe a bomb too? Were you watching Speed today? :)

I said legally the officer was justified but I also think there are other alternatives. Bouncers and doormen deal with knives and guns and they do so without shooting people. Shooting people can be an effective option but it isn't the ONLY option. I'm not exactly feeling warm and fuzzy towards this guy BTW but the incident at Vancouver Airport was a tragedy and an embarrassment to our RCMP. I know plenty of people who could and would've handled it better.

As far as arm chair quarterbacking goes I guess you're a real live bad ass, me I've dealt with the knives and guns personally (without a gun or badge) so I feel free to give my opinion. :)

Rem338 - I've watched similar videos before and I think you're right most people don't realize how deadly a knife can be and how fast the distance can be closed. I'm familiar with the 21 foot rule but probably lots aren't, it's a real eye opener. :scared0015: I think if the officer or officers have their weapons drawn though the 21 foot rule looses SOME validity though but I wouldn't risk being much closer. :)

[Unregistered user]

It was a rail borne street car, chances are he wouldn't know how to run it and rail control can drop the power right away so zero chance of the guy driving off . He was alone, trapped and not a threat to anyone until he stepped off the car which would have been suicide.

[ForwardBias]

None. The vid doesn't lie.

Mental illness shouldn't automatically be a death sentence.

Its not the country I want to live in where police are judge and jury. No life was in danger when the guy was filled full of holes.

Give them whistles if they can't be trusted with firearms.

Agreed.

[marxman]

its too bad we have no way of screening who should be cops. these nonsense shootings keep happening i dont think most are murderers they cant use their heads under pressure. the whole thing doesnt make any sense and that cop was not fit for the job we know that now. in my opinion that should have been his defense but what a can of worms that would open up cops would be getting off all over the place and probly sueing for millions on top of it. but thats the direction everything else is going so why not

[rem338win]

I just saw the story on the news, and the attempted murder charge was explained. It was determined that the first shots would have been fatal, so the later shots were not really killing shots, even though they were fired with the intent of killing the boy.

That makes sense kind of. If I shoot a guy with terminal cancer it's only attempted murder, cause the guys illness was gonna kill him anyway? Odd.

[Purple Farmer]

Wait for the appeal, then the retrial with new evidence......

I don't agree with the sentence, I also don't believe there was any need for the Constable to keep firing.

The dead guy was high and from his social media posts was a wannabe gangster, the Constable likely stopped other crimes from happening down the road.

[762Russian]

The dead guy was high and from his social media posts was a wannabe gangster, the Constable likely stopped other crimes from happening down the road.

Thoughtcrime and 'future crime', really? Stalin would have liked you.

[rem338win]

Let's just kill everyone we don't like.

I take issue with this statement because you are making it personal. This "kid" was choosing a violent, druggie lifestyle and victimized people. He chose not to comply with police while presenting threat, and a knife is a very real threat.

His history and social profiles are indicative of his actions at the event, not the reason he died. I'm sure none of the cops at the scene had read his Facebook status.

He died because of his actions; the cop is getting sentenced because he used force in excess.

[Purple Farmer]

Thoughtcrime and 'future crime', really? Stalin would have liked you.

I'm sorry you struggle with reading comprehension, go fight with somebody else, you are embarrassing yourself.

[ZipperHead]

No sympathy on my part. If I pulled a knife and made a motion towards a cop, I'd expect to be dead. Tough luck. One less ******* on this planet. He could've really hurt someone that day. I'm tired of everyone turning the perpetrator into the victim.

And yes, if that was a family member of mine, I'd hold the same regard.

[ZipperHead]

Why anyone would want to be a Police Officer in this day and age is beyond me. Everyone hangs them by their throat every chance they get but yet still clings to them when they need help.

[elkhunter11]

the cop is getting sentenced because he used force in excess.

Most of us agree with that, my issue is that this convicted criminal is still on the payroll, even though a court of law has found him guilty.This criminal keeps getting paid as his legal team tries to find a technicality that will allow him to avoid being held accountable for the crime that he committed.

[CaberTosser]

How is shooting a person with a side arm a reflex ? I would bet maybe 1% of police in Canada have ever fired at a person . The fact that they didn't have a taser means that they were unprepared . Guy could have sat on the bus with nowhere to go tIL they had one . You can go on YouTube and watch hundreds of videos of police tasing armed men . Knifes drop real quick .

BECAUSE THE POLICE ARE TRAINED FOR IT TO BE REFLEX.

Want me to spell it in magnetic refrigerator letters for you?

[Sneeze]

BECAUSE THE POLICE ARE TRAINED FOR IT TO BE REFLEX.

Want me to spell it in magnetic refrigerator letters for you?

I am pretty sure police are not trained to shoot their handguns "reflexively".

Guys that do action shooters league at the range on Wednesdays probably better fit this description.

I am seriously astounded at some of the replies here. I'm no pinko, but are you guys listening to yourself? Some nutter gets hopped up on who knows what and is rambling on pacing back and forth in an empty bus - and the society you want is where our police pump him full of holes and we all nod our heads and say "good" together?

I will agree there are some situations where 20 bullets would have been better, but police are not supposed to be judges. No question the guy was a dead beat - but its a human life. There is value there, albeit limited, but its there. Only in the most definite of conditions should our police be acting as executioners.

The streets of Toronto are not Mogadishu like Rem338 thinks they are. Our police are not at war. Step back, have a coffee, pet the dog, text the wife if you still think shooting him is a good idea - okay.

[roper1]

The cop got a fair trial. A jury of his peers found him guilty.

What I don't understand from the cop defenders POV, is how in this so-called "life & death situation" with at least three cops with their guns drawn, only one cop decided to shoot???

And then with the kid down, still only one cop thought he was enough of a threat to shoot him some more???

Seems like the jury got it right.

[TBD]

I am pretty sure police are not trained to shoot their handguns "reflexively".

Guys that do action shooters league at the range on Wednesdays probably better fit this description.

I am seriously astounded at some of the replies here. I'm no pinko, but are you guys listening to yourself? Some nutter gets hopped up on who knows what and is rambling on pacing back and forth in an empty bus - and the society you want is where our police pump him full of holes and we all nod our heads and say "good" together?

I will agree there are some situations where 20 bullets would have been better, but police are not supposed to be judges. No question the guy was a dead beat - but its a human life. There is value there, albeit limited, but its there. Only in the most definite of conditions should our police be acting as executioners.

The streets of Toronto are not Mogadishu like Rem338 thinks they are. Our police are not at war. Step back, have a coffee, pet the dog, text the wife if you still think shooting him is a good idea - okay.

such a rare quality these days ...

[fargineyesore]

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2016/01/25/no-winners-with-forcillo-verdict

Interesting article. Sounds like these guys have more balls than the cops at the Yatim scene, either that or some cops like to shoot people rather than look for an alternative.

I hope the cop gets real justice, similar to how some of you law and order types wish other people were treated.

[elkhunter11]

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2016/01/25/no-winners-with-forcillo-verdict

Interesting article. Sounds like these guys have more balls than the cops at the Yatim scene, either that or some cops like to shoot people rather than look for an alternative.

I hope the cop gets real justice, similar to how some of you law and order types wish other people were treated.


I am still laughing about the article referring to the knife in the picture as a machete. They even tried to make it sound larger by saying that it was 30cm long, but that must include the handle.

[fargineyesore]

Could be, Yatim wasn't exactly holding a machete.

[fargineyesore]

The cop got a fair trial. A jury of his peers found him guilty.

What I don't understand from the cop defenders POV, is how in this so-called "life & death situation" with at least three cops with their guns drawn, only one cop decided to shoot???

And then with the kid down, still only one cop thought he was enough of a threat to shoot him some more???

Seems like the jury got it right.
Good point.

[rem338win]

I am pretty sure police are not trained to shoot their handguns "reflexively".

Guys that do action shooters league at the range on Wednesdays probably better fit this description.

I am seriously astounded at some of the replies here. I'm no pinko, but are you guys listening to yourself? Some nutter gets hopped up on who knows what and is rambling on pacing back and forth in an empty bus - and the society you want is where our police pump him full of holes and we all nod our heads and say "good" together?

I will agree there are some situations where 20 bullets would have been better, but police are not supposed to be judges. No question the guy was a dead beat - but its a human life. There is value there, albeit limited, but its there. Only in the most definite of conditions should our police be acting as executioners.

The streets of Toronto are not Mogadishu like Rem338 thinks they are. Our police are not at war. Step back, have a coffee, pet the dog, text the wife if you still think shooting him is a good idea - okay.

Oh you're a pinko; you lack the ability to grasp facts and reality, then apply your personal emotional response to a subject as both fact and reality. Text book pinko.

The police have trained to shoot reflexively for decades now. Strike up an actual conversation with a real life one and ask; you'll likely find that they are human and most are good at their job.

Take a ride-a-long one day even and get a real life point of view.

Your description of the situation and the kid isn't reflected by the video or the eye witness accounts.

You make it sound like its the Andy Griffiths show out there in one sentence and accuse me of being sensationalist (which I have not, just trying to inject some reality into your imaginary). Then the next sentence your trying to convince us Barney Fife should be fully trained and prepared to face "hopped up" knife weilders everyday with an unnaturally calm demeanour and superhuman control over how he is going to behave.

Your lack of knowledge and experience in this arena is deafening everytime you comment on it.

How much experience do you have dealing with persons on meth? Molly? Crack? Fentanyl? Exactly.

I'm of the opinion that human life is the most valued thing in society without doubt. I find no close seconds. My concern is that some people choose to waste it. My other is how little you value the life of the police, and how much you're willing to allow them to risk based on your limited knowledge and experience on such things. Very brave of you.

With your incredible life experience I expect you'd be a shoe-in if you applied, so step up and be an example.

[fargineyesore]

If you have to resort to insults because someone doesn't agree with your viewpoint maybe your viewpoint is flawed. One of the "cops can do no wrong" crowd.

[elkhunter11]

What I don't understand from the cop defenders POV, is how in this so-called "life & death situation" with at least three cops with their guns drawn, only one cop decided to shoot???

And then with the kid down, still only one cop thought he was enough of a threat to shoot him some more???

That is an interesting point that I hadn't really considered until now. So why didn't the other officers open fire during either the first or second volley?:thinking-006:

[fargineyesore]

Maybe because this ******* IS a murderer.

The article I posted stated this officer had been warned on more than one occasion to quit being so trigger happy. I believe he wanted to shoot that kid, and probably went to work every day wanting to shoot someone. Anyone that thinks some cops are not like this are extremely naive.

[Sneeze]

I'm of the opinion that human life is the most valued thing in society without doubt. I find no close seconds. My concern is that some people choose to waste it. My other is how little you value the life of the police, and how much you're willing to allow them to risk based on your limited knowledge and experience on such things. Very brave of you.



You are 100% right, definitely put me in place. Yeehaw shoot em up!

[elkhunter11]

Maybe because this ******* IS a murderer.

The article I posted stated this officer had been warned on more than one occasion to quit being so trigger happy. I believe he wanted to shoot that kid, and probably went to work every day wanting to shoot someone. Anyone that thinks some cops are not like this are extremely naive.

For a rookie cop, he was too quick to draw his gun — so quick that he had been flagged at least twice and gently warned by his superiors that they were going to have to sit down for a chat. A chat that never came.

That helps to understand why he chose to fire, and the other officers did not. It also concerns me as to why that chat never occurred. Perhaps that chat not happening was a factor in the shooting? I wonder if the jury was aware of this? And if they weren't, would it have effected their judgement on the other charge?

[Freedom55]

My qualifications to comment on this are far greater than yours I'd bet.

And when are you going to consider the first offender? He dictated his end; first he sexually harasses and exposes himself to others, pulls a knife and brandishes it threatening normal folks. Then he fails to listen to reason and gets shot.

Oh Lordy those terrible cops. You sound like a bleeding liberal with all the fixings; maybe they should've hit him with the bubble wrap gun and waited for his parents and friends to arrive with a social worker to talk the evil police into believing how good of a person he really is contrary to his actions and public history.

What's your qualification other than watching a brief video? Shake your head.

Tell us Great Swami how you are more qualified to speak on this matter than the rest of us unwashed. How is it that you are able to insult anyone who disagrees with your (rather narrow) point of view and carry that smug attitude forward armed with no more useful information than your own personal opinion?

[fargineyesore]

That helps to understand why he chose to fire, and the other officers did not. It also concerns me as to why that chat never occurred. Perhaps that chat not happening was a factor in the shooting? I wonder if the jury was aware of this? And if they weren't, would it have effected their judgement on the other charge?
Maybe because the police actually aren't that concerned about trigger happy cops unless it gives them bad publicity?

[rem338win]

Tell us Great Swami how you are more qualified to speak on this matter than the rest of us unwashed. How is it that you are able to insult anyone who disagrees with your (rather narrow) point of view and carry that smug attitude forward armed with no more useful information than your own personal opinion?

I'm sorry. Did I quote you in that comment? It is a narrow point of view; most experienced points of view on a specific subject are. That's why they are called specific.

You would likely see how broad my opinion is on the entirety of the scenario if you read all my posts.

You've offered nothing other than offence at my expression toward someone that is not you.

[Holy Grounds Coffee]

Double tap is what should of happened. Boom boom!

[58thecat]

No they did not have those tools available. They had called for a tazer but it had not arrived before the shots were fired.

IMO this is complete horse crap. The cop did his job, which was to protect the public from the knife-wielding druggie. Yes, he intended to kill him, that is the point of shooting someone. So if the perp was still moving, I see no reason to not shoot.

I'm very critical of law enforcement in most cases but IMO this one was justified.

x2

[CanuckShooter]

Not sure what video you guys seen. But the one i seen the police were in no danger at anytime, nor was anyone else. I hope this cop get what he has comin. But hey hes still getting paid. Lol




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi4In494rAg


This is the one I watched, and I don't think that police officer was in any immediate danger....it was what they called 'gunned down' in the old days or out and out murder/manslaughter. But the court system has convicted him of attempted murder...what a stupid thing to do, shoot a body that you just killed to try and kill it....go figure. some special kind of stupid going on here. IMHO :thinking-006:

[Freedom55]

I'm sorry. Did I quote you in that comment? It is a narrow point of view; most experienced points of view on a specific subject are. That's why they are called specific.

You would likely see how broad my opinion is on the entirety of the scenario if you read all my posts.

You've offered nothing other than offence at my expression toward someone that is not you.

Nice try. Obfuscation and bombast was once the exclusive domain of politicians caught in an unanswerable situation. You gave your opinion on a public forum and now I am asking you to answer the question in the same medium. What are the qualifications you spoke of that allow you to insult other members while denigrating the victim of an attempted murder? And the opinion of "twelve people good and true"?

I am not offering anything, and I am certainly not going to research your entire history of commentary not related to this topic to determine your state of mind. I am enquiring about your attitude towards us lesser humans and now, the reasons you think that yours is the superior position.

Free

[rem338win]

Nice try. Obfuscation and bombast was once the exclusive domain of politicians caught in an unanswerable situation. You gave your opinion on a public forum and now I am asking you to answer the question in the same medium. What are the qualifications you spoke of that allow you to insult other members while denigrating the victim of an attempted murder? And the opinion of "twelve people good and true"?

I am not offering anything, and I am certainly not going to research your entire history of commentary not related to this topic to determine your state of mind. I am enquiring about your attitude towards us lesser humans and now, the reasons you think that yours is the superior position.

Free

Uh-huh. So you're unwilling to read what I wrote, though I was also "attacked", now you're attacking what I wrote (but haven't read it) and demanding I post my resume on the Internet without offering yours first.

Sorry reading hurts you apparently so I'll paraphrase: you're unqualified to comment on my opinion in whole, but your willing to accuse me based on it, and then make demands of me. And you accuse me of being a politician; you're rich.

I've called other members out on their inconsistency and bias, and I stated facts about the "victim" based on cctv and what is actually known to the public from the case. I agree with the final verdict, but only take issue with he attempted murder charge. I'd have thought manslaughter more appropriate. If you had bothered to read what was written that would have been clear to you, but unlike others that are worth responding to, you're too good to bother yourself.

The courts and other qualified persons/bodies have seen and heard all there is beyond what we the public know and found the initial use of force within the law. I didn't despute that. What is it about the twelve good and true that you are making a point about?

If Sneeze wants to meet me and continue the discussion with our resumes on the table I'd be happy to. He made the statement that gave cause for mine; I'd buy the coffee. Does he need your help?

[rem338win]

Your spin doctoring is irritating. "Lesser humans". "Great Swami". "Superior Position". I'm happy to admit passion, using strong language and having a heated collar but for you to insinuate arrogance is uncalled for and antagonistic given how little you've contributed.

I called for a balanced approach from people making ridiculous comments in the face of everything laid before us on this subject. People talking nonsense having faced none of the dilemmas, basing tactics on Hollywood and poorly researched media, without any education or training on the subject. This was all as apparent as a guy talking about hanging plywood with shingling nails in a discussion about carpentry and youre calling me out for not posting my resume after a single comment. Again, you're rich.

[Zuludog]

I am still laughing about the article referring to the knife in the picture as a machete. They even tried to make it sound larger by saying that it was 30cm long, but that must include the handle.

Elk- The machete was in reference to the attack that was stopped by the unarmed mall security guard. :) The rest of the article is about why Yatim who had a knife was shot when the guy wielding the machete wasn't?

Although the article likes to make the focal point the size of the weapon that was used as justification for non-lethal force, the situation and context is much more important than blade size. In fact there are circumstances where I'd rather face a machete than a smaller knife. One has speed advantage and one reach so depending upon the situation it makes all the difference in the world.

I never knew that this officer was "trigger happy"? I'm all for protecting lives and property and have no use for stoned up wackos in public or elsewhere but it seems like either his training or psychology was different from the other officers. I'm leaning towards psychology as no other officers fired a round either time.

[Got Juice?]

I am pretty sure police are not trained to shoot their handguns "reflexively".

Guys that do action shooters league at the range on Wednesdays probably better fit this description.

I am seriously astounded at some of the replies here. I'm no pinko, but are you guys listening to yourself? Some nutter gets hopped up on who knows what and is rambling on pacing back and forth in an empty bus - and the society you want is where our police pump him full of holes and we all nod our heads and say "good" together?

I will agree there are some situations where 20 bullets would have been better, but police are not supposed to be judges. No question the guy was a dead beat - but its a human life. There is value there, albeit limited, but its there. Only in the most definite of conditions should our police be acting as executioners.

The streets of Toronto are not Mogadishu like Rem338 thinks they are. Our police are not at war. Step back, have a coffee, pet the dog, text the wife if you still think shooting him is a good idea - okay.


I was going to reply, but your thoughts mirror my own.

Now, I heard an offer of free coffee... I would make a drive up for that :)

[elkhunter11]

I never knew that this officer was "trigger happy"? I'm all for protecting lives and property and have no use for stoned up wackos in public or elsewhere but it seems like either his training or psychology was different from the other officers. I'm leaning towards psychology as no other officers fired a round either time.

A friend who retired from the RCMP after finishing his career at the training depot mentioned just how disappointed he was as to how the standards seem to have fallen over the years. He told me that many of the recruits that are being accepted today, would have never been accepted when he started his career with the RCMP. I can only assume that this is also the case with other police forces, as society becomes more politically correct.

[fitzy]

One of my best friends has been with the RCMP and is now with EPS he's pulled his gun. Never shot anybody. What amazes him is what the human body can do on some drugs. 85 pound girl on meth and 2 full grown men can barely control her. Put a knife in the equation and it gets scary. I'd trust every cop I've ever met with my life. That said I live in a small town.

[Freedom55]

Being an apologist for the police is a difficult job these days in light of the media portraying the boys in blue as "judge and executioner." Being a cop is a difficult job these days when so many are demonstrating their inability to follow the laws that mere mortals are saddled with. And we still don't know who is qualified to say what.

I won't argue with you rifleman. You are one of those guys who are right about everything and I am one of those guys who think that kind of person is full of prunes.

It is apparent that arguing with an armed man is not only futile, it is potential deadly. Particularly if it is none of my business.

Free (to let this be the end of it)

[Sooner]

That is an interesting point that I hadn't really considered until now. So why didn't the other officers open fire during either the first or second volley?:thinking-006:

I bet the others are thanking their lucky stars they didn't join in the shooting.

I think when a cop says drop your weapon and hit the floor, you better do it quick otherwise the next step can get a lot worse. That being said, no one was on the bus anymore, he was surrounded and only had a knife. The only person he could hurt was himself, there is no way he would have got close to a cop with that knife. There were other take down options available in this case.

I bet the cop would have walked if he didn't shoot again.

[rem338win]

Being an apologist for the police is a difficult job these days in light of the media portraying the boys in blue as "judge and executioner." Being a cop is a difficult job these days when so many are demonstrating their inability to follow the laws that mere mortals are saddled with. And we still don't know who is qualified to say what.

I won't argue with you rifleman. You are one of those guys who are right about everything and I am one of those guys who think that kind of person is full of prunes.

It is apparent that arguing with an armed man is not only futile, it is potential deadly. Particularly if it is none of my business.

Free (to let this be the end of it)

Likewise, it's impossible to converse with someone that has labelled you as something you've never claimed to be. You've claimed I'm an apologist (I'll point out again I believe the officer is guilty of manslaughter) and that I'm full of prunes. Because I've argued a person high on Molly wielding a knife and portraying the behaviour he was is a threat.

Sounds cut and dry to me in the end.

[crazyguntotinrightwinger]

You are sooooo clueless. Taser first huh.

If you're of the belief he wasn't any danger, I'd suggest you might be a delinquent yourself. He had a choice to drop the knife; he didn't.

There are lots of people on BAIL that have a longer history of more incredible violence. You need to wake up and comment less on things you know more about.

Good night to you and Sneeze both.

Since when is holding a knife a capital crime? I don't care what your 'qualifications' are, you're just plain wrong. The guy was holding a knife 25 feet away from anyone and that 'cop' was chomping at the bit to discharge his service weapon.

It was way overuse of force any way you slice it. Not only was the second volley murder outright, the first volley was totally unwarranted. Cops nowadays are taught to shoot first and ask questions later. They were in no immediate danger and the guy didn't 'charge' anyone. Police not being handcuffed to do their duty is one thing. Police acting like they have carte blanche just because they find themselves in a stressful situation is another.

[crazyguntotinrightwinger]

I am pretty sure police are not trained to shoot their handguns "reflexively".

Guys that do action shooters league at the range on Wednesdays probably better fit this description.

I am seriously astounded at some of the replies here. I'm no pinko, but are you guys listening to yourself? Some nutter gets hopped up on who knows what and is rambling on pacing back and forth in an empty bus - and the society you want is where our police pump him full of holes and we all nod our heads and say "good" together?

I will agree there are some situations where 20 bullets would have been better, but police are not supposed to be judges. No question the guy was a dead beat - but its a human life. There is value there, albeit limited, but its there. Only in the most definite of conditions should our police be acting as executioners.

The streets of Toronto are not Mogadishu like Rem338 thinks they are. Our police are not at war. Step back, have a coffee, pet the dog, text the wife if you still think shooting him is a good idea - okay.

This.

[crazyguntotinrightwinger]

Oh you're a pinko; you lack the ability to grasp facts and reality, then apply your personal emotional response to a subject as both fact and reality. Text book pinko.

For a supposedly rational person you sure use a lot of insulting language and negative tone to get your point across. If you were so sure of your point, why are you being so defensive?

The police have trained to shoot reflexively for decades now.

THAT'S EXACTLY THE PROBLEM THAT THE PEOPLE YOU ARE CUTTING DOWN ARE TRYING TO POINT OUT!


Your description of the situation and the kid isn't reflected by the video or the eye witness accounts.

Yes. It is. There were 3-4 cops with guns drawn. The kid had a small switchblade and was 25 feet away on a bus. It was a stressful situation no doubt but no one was in life threatening immediate danger at the time he was shot. From what I saw he didn't make any 'move' towards the officers. He was shot as soon as he came back into view with the cop who shot him through the open door.

fully trained and prepared to face "hopped up" knife weilders everyday with an unnaturally calm demeanour and superhuman control over how he is going to behave.

No. Not unnaturally calm and superhuman. Just professionally calm and normal human. In other words not hopped up on stress and testosterone and power and itching to pull a trigger. If individuals cannot control themselves then they shouldn't be police. Period. The training protocols should be weeding out these individuals. It seems more often than not that the thought of being a cop LURES these individuals in. Without proper remedy in situations like this we've got not only a lot of power tripping itchy trigger fingers, we have no resource for when they lose control of themselves, as happened here. The jury thankfully made the right decision and hopefully the appeal doesn't set this CRIMINAL free.


I'm of the opinion that human life is the most valued thing in society without doubt. I find no close seconds.

Except of course when they have drug problems. Then we should just kill them. We're preventing future crimes and doing society a favor right?

[crazyguntotinrightwinger]

Interesting tidbit from the news article:

"It seems he wasn’t thinking at all. For a rookie cop, he was too quick to draw his gun — so quick that he had been flagged at least twice and gently warned by his superiors that they were going to have to sit down for a chat. A chat that never came.


So what needs to change? Is it police hiring practices to weed out the Rambos and the panicked? Or is his police training to blame, as his lawyer will argue to try and get a stay of proceedings when court reconvenes in May?"

[roper1]

Toronto cops are having a bad week. This event, also 4 guys just charged with perjury, obstruction of justice, & planting evidence. Four senior officers colluding to frame a dope dealer. At least they are charged with a crime...however suspended with pay.

Another cop charged with a shooting into a parked car......

Four senior officers colluding to frame someone......just a one-off, nothing to see here folks. Do the rem338's of the world really have their head buried that far in the sand ????

[elkhunter11]

Toronto cops are having a bad week. This event, also 4 guys just charged with perjury, obstruction of justice, & planting evidence. Four senior officers colluding to frame a dope dealer. At least they are charged with a crime...however suspended with pay.

Another cop charged with a shooting into a parked car......

Four senior officers colluding to frame someone......just a one-off, nothing to see here folks. Do the rem338's of the world really have their head buried that far in the sand ????


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/four-toronto-police-charged-with-perjury-obstruction-of-justice/article28427920/

In dismissing the charges in the second case, Justice Morgan said the testimony of the officers was inconsistent and that he believed they had concocted a false story about what led them to stop Mr. Tran and search his car.

The judge that actually presided over the case suspects that they are guilty, but I an sure that someone on AO will be defending them.

[rem338win]

For a supposedly rational person you sure use a lot of insulting language and negative tone to get your point across. If you were so sure of your point, why are you being so defensive?



THAT'S EXACTLY THE PROBLEM THAT THE PEOPLE YOU ARE CUTTING DOWN ARE TRYING TO POINT OUT!




Yes. It is. There were 3-4 cops with guns drawn. The kid had a small switchblade and was 25 feet away on a bus. It was a stressful situation no doubt but no one was in life threatening immediate danger at the time he was shot. From what I saw he didn't make any 'move' towards the officers. He was shot as soon as he came back into view with the cop who shot him through the open door.



No. Not unnaturally calm and superhuman. Just professionally calm and normal human. In other words not hopped up on stress and testosterone and power and itching to pull a trigger. If individuals cannot control themselves then they shouldn't be police. Period. The training protocols should be weeding out these individuals. It seems more often than not that the thought of being a cop LURES these individuals in. Without proper remedy in situations like this we've got not only a lot of power tripping itchy trigger fingers, we have no resource for when they lose control of themselves, as happened here. The jury thankfully made the right decision and hopefully the appeal doesn't set this CRIMINAL free.




Except of course when they have drug problems. Then we should just kill them. We're preventing future crimes and doing society a favor right?

Most of this is torn terribly out of its context, and smells horribly of your own bias. My sarcasm got through without the body language and tone? Excellent.

I'm quite tired of going back and forth with people who've failed terribly to read what I actually said. I'm so happy you were able to come to a conclusion in direct opposition with all of the people who made judgements on the case. I'm slow clapping. Very slowly.

[rem338win]

Toronto cops are having a bad week. This event, also 4 guys just charged with perjury, obstruction of justice, & planting evidence. Four senior officers colluding to frame a dope dealer. At least they are charged with a crime...however suspended with pay.

Another cop charged with a shooting into a parked car......

Four senior officers colluding to frame someone......just a one-off, nothing to see here folks. Do the rem338's of the world really have their head buried that far in the sand ????

You're concerned about my head in the sand when yours is packed somewhere far worse?

I'm not familiar with any of the other Toronto instances that you're talking about there. If they did wrong I hope they're dealt with accordingly and some salt added. To accuse me of being some blind fan boy because you're incapable of objectively observing anything that has police attached to it is rich and I'm enjoying calling you on your ridiculous bias.

Guess who originally posted his outrage about the RCMP kicking a compliant and unarmed man in the head in Kelowna? And I recall posting my issues with the RC that was involved in perjury and impaired driving in Vancouver? My, my, I may have even posted my anger about how ridiculous behaviour of the RCMP was in Prince George when they arrested two seniors hunting for illegal storage when they were obviously transporting in their truck.

I'll repeat myself again: I - believe - the - cop - deserved - manslaughter.

My argument is with the ignorant stupidity of people saying a drug riddled teenager with a switchblade isn't a threat. He was obviously totally rational and compliant. That's why he had his penis in his hand and a knife in another with a bus full of people.

Goodnight.

[crazyguntotinrightwinger]

Most of this is torn terribly out of its context, and smells horribly of your own bias. My sarcasm got through without the body language and tone? Excellent.

I'm quite tired of going back and forth with people who've failed terribly to read what I actually said. I'm so happy you were able to come to a conclusion in direct opposition with all of the people who made judgements on the case. I'm slow clapping. Very slowly.


I dont need voice tone or body language: you're one salty dog.

It's pretty obvious you're missing the bias that exists in the justice system that's favorable to police too isn't it?

Thanks for not addressing a single point I made. You must be tired debating with all us idiots. I don't know why you do it!

[crazyguntotinrightwinger]

You're concerned about my head in the sand when yours is packed somewhere far worse?

I'm not familiar with any of the other Toronto instances that you're talking about there. If they did wrong I hope they're dealt with accordingly and some salt added. To accuse me of being some blind fan boy because you're incapable of objectively observing anything that has police attached to it is rich and I'm enjoying calling you on your ridiculous bias.

Guess who originally posted his outrage about the RCMP kicking a compliant and unarmed man in the head in Kelowna? And I recall posting my issues with the RC that was involved in perjury and impaired driving in Vancouver? My, my, I may have even posted my anger about how ridiculous behaviour of the RCMP was in Prince George when they arrested two seniors hunting for illegal storage when they were obviously transporting in their truck.

I'll repeat myself again: I - believe - the - cop - deserved - manslaughter.

My argument is with the ignorant stupidity of people saying a drug riddled teenager with a switchblade isn't a threat. He was obviously totally rational and compliant. That's why he had his penis in his hand and a knife in another with a bus full of people.

Goodnight.

Hey pot, meet kettle. No one in the thread is saying the kid wasn't a threat. That's obvious. What they're saying is that he wasn't an IMMEDIATE threat that warranted bringing him down with multiple volleys of bullets.

[rem338win]

I dont need voice tone or body language: you're one salty dog.

It's pretty obvious you're missing the bias that exists in the justice system that's favorable to police too isn't it?

Thanks for not addressing a single point I made. You must be tired debating with all us idiots. I don't know why you do it!

Is it hard for you to understand that you didn't make any points I hadn't already addressed?

What bias for the police are you worried about? He was convicted.

For a supposedly rational person you sure use a lot of insulting language and negative tone to get your point across. If you were so sure of your point, why are you being so defensive?

You need to look up "rational". And an argument in a rational world means there are opposing sides and you make points in favour of your argument.

THAT'S EXACTLY THE PROBLEM THAT THE PEOPLE YOU ARE CUTTING DOWN ARE TRYING TO POINT OUT!

No it wasn't. You need to read the comment I was responding to with that quote. But thanks.


Yes. It is. There were 3-4 cops with guns drawn. The kid had a small switchblade and was 25 feet away on a bus. It was a stressful situation no doubt but no one was in life threatening immediate danger at the time he was shot. From what I saw he didn't make any 'move' towards the officers. He was shot as soon as he came back into view with the cop who shot him through the open door.

and it is so large of you to make such a call from your home having no experience. That knife has an edge, looks at least 4". Harmless like a kitten. And again, he was so rational, for all the reasons explained before and action is much faster than reaction, blah blah. I'm sure you'll make comments regarding handling a situation like this that have come from resources and training you've done. Look forward to it.

No. Not unnaturally calm and superhuman. Just professionally calm and normal human. In other words not hopped up on stress and testosterone and power and itching to pull a trigger. If individuals cannot control themselves then they shouldn't be police. Period. The training protocols should be weeding out these individuals. It seems more often than not that the thought of being a cop LURES these individuals in. Without proper remedy in situations like this we've got not only a lot of power tripping itchy trigger fingers, we have no resource for when they lose control of themselves, as happened here. The jury thankfully made the right decision and hopefully the appeal doesn't set this CRIMINAL free.

my comment you responded to was in retort to the original posters inconsistent perception. And you've made up all this fluff with no regard for any of the original context. I'll repeat again: I - agree - with - the - conviction. There seems to be a direct corilation between poor reading comprehension and people who believe Sammy walked on water.

Except of course when they have drug problems. Then we should just kill them. We're preventing future crimes and doing society a favor right?

again, reading comprehension. His drug induced state is a contributor to how much of a threat he was. A lack of experience with drug users would allow someone not to recognize that. I happen to know drug addicts I like a lot, and they use incredible amounts of public resource. It's sad, and I'd morn their death, if it came from their addiction or if they pulled a stunt like Sammy. Like everything else you and others have done, you don't read into the obvious, but have incredible reach into taut which hasn't been said or seen.



Hey pot, meet kettle. No one in the thread is saying the kid wasn't a threat. That's obvious. What they're saying is that he wasn't an IMMEDIATE threat that warranted bringing him down with multiple volleys of bullets.

Hahahhahhahahhaha. Yes, people did say that.

Next, read the sections of the criminal code regarding use of force. Then put yourself into a situation like that, or multiple times. Then start defining immediate; you'd have preffered if he'd rushed them and cut them a little first? Cops signed up to get hurt right? The initial use of force to stop the threat was justified. I was shocked at what happened next, and the courts decision reflects my view of it.

Do you hunt? All your animals bang-flop? Lots of videos out there of people getting shot and still making damage on folks in the next seconds. Especially when they've got drugs on board, and funny thing: when I look up immediate the duration of seconds falls inside of it.

And again, read my original comments; I had some ideas for the moment but because I wasn't them and I wasn't there I held onto them. Thanks.

[crazyguntotinrightwinger]

Is it hard for you to understand that you didn't make any points I hadn't already addressed?

What bias for the police are you worried about? He was convicted.





Hahahhahhahahhaha. Yes, people did say that.

Next, read the sections of the criminal code regarding use of force. Then put yourself into a situation like that, or multiple times. Then start defining immediate; you'd have preffered if he'd rushed them and cut them a little first? Cops signed up to get hurt right? The initial use of force to stop the threat was justified. I was shocked at what happened next, and the courts decision reflects my view of it.

Do you hunt? All your animals bang-flop? Lots of videos out there of people getting shot and still making damage on folks in the next seconds. Especially when they've got drugs on board, and funny thing: when I look up immediate the duration of seconds falls inside of it.

And again, read my original comments; I had some ideas for the moment but because I wasn't them and I wasn't there I held onto them. Thanks.

Ok fine. Here's the relevant section in the code I could find:

(a) as a private person,

(b) as a peace officer or public officer,

(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or

(d) by virtue of his office,

is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

That's pretty obscure!

So what were the RCMP in this situation required to do? As law ENFORCEMENT officers, they were required to de-escalate the situation, protect the public at large and themselves, and to arrest the person wielding the knife so he could stand trial before a jury of his peers.

Now, was he a direct and immediate threat to anyone on the bus? No, there wasn't anyone on the bus.

Was he within striking distance of anyone, including police officers? No, he was 25 feet away.

Did he make a move to close the distance in an aggressive way? No, he was on the bus when he was shot and made no move to get off the bus. Yet he was shot anyway. That is not justified use of force in my, and in many posters here, opinion.

In this case, use of force would have been necessary to stop this guy from hurting anyone. As I said before, simply being high and holding a knife isn't justifiable reason to shoot him until he is dead.

In my opinion the jury convicted the guy of attempted murder because convicting him of actual murder would have embarrassed the Toronto police. I'm sure they felt that pressure and acted accordingly. What's amazing to everyone is that you can't see that. You seem to think the justice system is incorruptible, there was no pressure for the jury to decide a certain way, there is no bias in the courts towards men in uniform, and that police haven't gotten away with things they shouldn't have in the past simply because 'they can do no wrong.'

It will be highly interesting to see what you say if/when this officers appeal exonerates him of any wrongdoing.

[elkhunter11]

Ok fine. Here's the relevant section in the code I could find:

(a) as a private person,

(b) as a peace officer or public officer,

(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or

(d) by virtue of his office,

is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

That's pretty obscure!

So what were the RCMP in this situation required to do? As law ENFORCEMENT officers, they were required to de-escalate the situation, protect the public at large and themselves, and to arrest the person wielding the knife so he could stand trial before a jury of his peers.

Now, was he a direct and immediate threat to anyone on the bus? No, there wasn't anyone on the bus.

Was he within striking distance of anyone, including police officers? No, he was 25 feet away.

Did he make a move to close the distance in an aggressive way? No, he was on the bus when he was shot and made no move to get off the bus. Yet he was shot anyway. That is not justified use of force in my, and in many posters here, opinion.

In this case, use of force would have been necessary to stop this guy from hurting anyone. As I said before, simply being high and holding a knife isn't justifiable reason to shoot him until he is dead.

In my opinion the jury convicted the guy of attempted murder because convicting him of actual murder would have embarrassed the Toronto police. I'm sure they felt that pressure and acted accordingly. What's amazing to everyone is that you can't see that. You seem to think the justice system is incorruptible, there was no pressure for the jury to decide a certain way, there is no bias in the courts towards men in uniform, and that police haven't gotten away with things they shouldn't have in the past simply because 'they can do no wrong.'

It will be highly interesting to see what you say if/when this officers appeal exonerates him of any wrongdoing.

If there was another trial, it would serve him right if the next jury found him guilty of murder.

[rem338win]

Read more of the Section 20 area of the code.

And I called it. You made a lot of conjecture and accused the courts of collusion.

And you again re-iterated the kid was not a threat.

Like I said, it's a great thing that people are given the right to voice opinions. It makes life interesting.

I'm also glad that experienced, educated people get to give the evidence and make the judgements that are hard.

I'd never hire a lawyer to build my house, a farmer to defend me in court or a pilot to file my taxes. And I'd never believe the facts in an article written by a journalist. These are my experiences and opinions.

[rem338win]

If there was another trial, it would serve him right if the next jury found him guilty of murder.

I'm still startled by the crowns decision to proceed with murder and attempted murder charges.

It was manslaughter, as defined. If you are in a car accident and ribs go through your heart, and I walk up and shoot you that's attempted murder? Confusing.

[elkhunter11]

I'm still startled by the crowns decision to proceed with murder and attempted murder charges.

It was manslaughter, as defined. If you are in a car accident and ribs go through your heart, and I walk up and shoot you that's attempted murder? Confusing.

In my opinion, the reasoning was that they didn't think that a jury would dare find a police officer guilty of second degree murder, and attempted murder was too silly to even consider. I believe that they thought that a trial was necessary to appease the public, but they didn't expect a conviction. Now they are shocked that the jury found him guilty and they are trying to find a way to get a retrial, in the hope that the next jury won't find him guilty.

I can't think of another explanation that makes more sense.

[crazyguntotinrightwinger]

Read more of the Section 20 area of the code.

And I called it. You made a lot of conjecture and accused the courts of collusion.

Care to point me in the right direction? I don't have time to sift through hundred pages of criminal code.

What conjecture did I make? I could be wrong about what I said the obligations of police were in this situation, but I don't think I am wrong.

I suggested my opinion that there was pressure on the jury to find the least worst way of convicting this officer of wrongdoing, which is what they actually did. I could definitely be wrong about them feeling pressure, but I doubt it. Completely aquitting him would have been not altogether unexpected but it would have caused quite a stir.

And you again re-iterated the kid was not a threat.

The thing you can't seem to grasp is that threat level isn't binary. It isn't 'threat worthy of lethal force' or 'no threat.' There's a spectrum of threat. The kid wasn't a direct and immediate threat to anyone within running distance. That's a fact! You can spin it however you want to exculpate the trigger happy police officer, but it doesn't hold any water.


Like I said, it's a great thing that people are given the right to voice opinions. It makes life interesting.

Well it's a good thing you believe in free speech, history shows people with your overbearing, condescending attitude and know-it-all type of narcissism have been guilty of killing people for less.

I'm also glad that experienced, educated people get to give the evidence and make the judgements that are hard.

They're all angels too I'm sure.

I'd never hire a lawyer to build my house, a farmer to defend me in court or a pilot to file my taxes. And I'd never believe the facts in an article written by a journalist. These are my experiences and opinions.

Yet you insinuate we're all uneducated, inexperienced serfs for not agreeing with your pretty flimsy point of view on this whole situation. How fair handed a master you are!

[crazyguntotinrightwinger]

In my opinion, the reasoning was that they didn't think that a jury would dare find a police officer guilty of second degree murder, and attempted murder was too silly to even consider. I believe that they thought that a trial was necessary to appease the public, but they didn't expect a conviction. Now they are shocked that the jury found him guilty and they are trying to find a way to get a retrial, in the hope that the next jury won't find him guilty.

I can't think of another explanation that makes more sense.

Seems like thinking there is pressure on juries to rule in favor of police officers isn't the insane and baseless idea rem338 claims it is after all...

[rem338win]

In my opinion, the reasoning was that they didn't think that a jury would dare find a police officer guilty of second degree murder, and attempted murder was too silly to even consider. I believe that they thought that a trial was necessary to appease the public, but they didn't expect a conviction. Now they are shocked that the jury found him guilty and they are trying to find a way to get a retrial, in the hope that the next jury won't find him guilty.

I can't think of another explanation that makes more sense.

You think that in the current political climate that a jury wouldn't convict a cop of murder? I think you need to check that pulse in Toronto.

Murder was a charge was it not? And attempted murder.

If the Crown wanted to let him off they would've dropped the ball in the preliminary trial, so I see holes in your opinion Elk. If you look back at earlier media coverage it seemed apparent the Crown was hungry to pursue it.

They went after murder for the initial pulling of the trigger. And attempted murder for the later volley. I'm actually wondering if there is a logic to if they went for murder on the first volley, it was inconsistent to do the same for the second volley. There is some reason there, but there is no regard for "the state of mind". I'm wondering if there was case law they had to follow.

We'll see. It's normal for appeals whomever the accused is on cases with such jeopardy.

I'm curious to see what the Judge's sentence will be. His hands will be tied to case law on that as well if there is any relative.

[rem338win]

Care to point me in the right direction? I don't have time to sift through hundred pages of criminal code.

I'm sorry, I believed you wanted to understand better. I read it.

What conjecture did I make? I could be wrong about what I said the obligations of police were in this situation, but I don't think I am wrong.

One either knows, doesn't know, or is creating conjecture. "I don't think..." Is conjecture.

I suggested my opinion that there was pressure on the jury to find the least worst way of convicting this officer of wrongdoing, which is what they actually did. I could definitely be wrong about them feeling pressure, but I doubt it. Completely aquitting him would have been not altogether unexpected but it would have caused quite a stir.

are we in Cambodia or Canada? The jury doesn't pick the charge. And you're stating you think all of those people on the jury are corrupt? I'm losing faith in your character.



The thing you can't seem to grasp is that threat level isn't binary. It isn't 'threat worthy of lethal force' or 'no threat.' There's a spectrum of threat. The kid wasn't a direct and immediate threat to anyone within running distance. That's a fact! You can spin it however you want to exculpate the trigger happy police officer, but it doesn't hold any water.

It isn't a fact. It's your opinion. You weren't there and again, I-agree-with-it-being-manslaughter. You might want to look up a use of force continuum, ask a use of force professional, a psychiatrist that has studied thousands of these situations. You also seem to have something no one else does: first hand knowledge of what was in Sammy's head at the time. Please fully enlighten us!



Well it's a good thing you believe in free speech, history shows people with your overbearing, condescending attitude and know-it-all type of narcissism have been guilty of killing people for less.

Your character again. Thanks for calling me a murderer. And a psychopath; try looking up the definition of naccisism


They're all angels too I'm sure.

I get the feeling you believe you should've been judge, jury, professionals and prosecutor. No one is good enough for you eh?



Yet you insinuate we're all uneducated, inexperienced serfs for not agreeing with your pretty flimsy point of view on this whole situation. How fair handed a master you are!

Quite the leap. I said I was happy the people who do know, not pontificating forumists, do their job in their area of expertise. If you missed the very clear analogy I can't help that. Again, character....



Seems like thinking there is pressure on juries to rule in favor of police officers isn't the insane and baseless idea rem338 claims it is after all...

Because a fellow (who's much more reasonable than some no doubt) states an opinion without fact? You'll grasp anything to support your supposition.

[^v^Tinda wolf^v^]

There are some pretty sad stories and video surfacing in the public eye lately.
I couldnt ever see why but at this point if a police officer had reason to draw his sidearm on me, even if I put my hands in the air I would be thinking there's a body bag waiting for me some where or if I was feeling suicidle I would start dancing. watching this video was disturbing to me and every police officer who shot this person should be in the same boat as this bed wetter.

The only way I could see this incident being justified is if someone was injured or killed by the nut bar or he stepped off the bus wielding the knife. I do believe neither happened. Good thing it wasn't something more threatening to the police such as an umbrella. :fighting0021:

[crazyguntotinrightwinger]

I'm sorry, I believed you wanted to understand better. I read it.

I guess that's a no.

One either knows, doesn't know, or is creating conjecture. "I don't think..." Is conjecture.

Man you're really finding this no black and white = gray area stuff tough aren't you? There's no better evidence of a pig-headed person than the refusal to deal in anything but absolutes. Certainty is a spectrum too. There are facts and then there are reasonable beliefs. I came to my reasonable (and shared by the vast majority from what I can tell) beliefs by looking at the facts. You came to yours by ignoring facts because you have a predisposition of overtrusting the powers that be. It's obvious to anyone reading your posts that this is the case. I suggest you take a deep breath and a step back.



are we in Cambodia or Canada? The jury doesn't pick the charge. And you're stating you think all of those people on the jury are corrupt? I'm losing faith in your character.

Not necessarily corrupt, just human. Human beings are naturally afraid of going against authority. Jury members are no different.


It isn't a fact. It's your opinion. You weren't there and again, I-agree-with-it-being-manslaughter. You might want to look up a use of force continuum, ask a use of force professional, a psychiatrist that has studied thousands of these situations. You also seem to have something no one else does: first hand knowledge of what was in Sammy's head at the time. Please fully enlighten us!

Can you parse the factual statements from the ones where I stated opinions? There are objective facts that are shown on that video. One of them is that the suspect was not within even remote striking distance of any human being. That's an obvious fact. Does that mean he wasn't a threat? No! Does the fact that he was a threat by this definition also necessitate lethal force? Not necessarily!





Your character again. Thanks for calling me a murderer. And a psychopath; try looking up the definition of naccisism

You're also dumb if you think I called you a murderer.



I get the feeling you believe you should've been judge, jury, professionals and prosecutor. No one is good enough for you eh?

I would have done a better job than you, that's for sure.



Quite the leap. I said I was happy the people who do know, not pontificating forumists, do their job in their area of expertise. If you missed the very clear analogy I can't help that. Again, character....

Go ahead attacking peoples character, it doesn't make you look any more right. It is a pretty childish strategy though, so I could probably put you in the mentally and emotionally underdeveloped category as well. It's pretty obvious anyone who disagrees with you is an uninformed idiot in your mind, as you've stated multiple times this thread.

Because a fellow (who's much more reasonable than some no doubt) states an opinion without fact? You'll grasp anything to support your supposition.

The vast majority of people think what that officer did was wrong, including the jury. You really need to answer this question, because your whole point of view hinges on it: why is shooting the second volley at him, when he was dead already, a crime, but shooting the first volley not a crime?

[elkhunter11]

You think that in the current political climate that a jury wouldn't convict a cop of murder? I think you need to check that pulse in Toronto.

Murder was a charge was it not? And attempted murder.

If the Crown wanted to let him off they would've dropped the ball in the preliminary trial, so I see holes in your opinion Elk. If you look back at earlier media coverage it seemed apparent the Crown was hungry to pursue it.

They went after murder for the initial pulling of the trigger. And attempted murder for the later volley. I'm actually wondering if there is a logic to if they went for murder on the first volley, it was inconsistent to do the same for the second volley. There is some reason there, but there is no regard for "the state of mind". I'm wondering if there was case law they had to follow.

We'll see. It's normal for appeals whomever the accused is on cases with such jeopardy.

I'm curious to see what the Judge's sentence will be. His hands will be tied to case law on that as well if there is any relative.

I believe the crown wanted to make it look like they were anxiously pursuing the case to appease the public, but they underestimated the political climate in Toronto. But if you have a better theory, that explains the charges, then let's hear it.

[rem338win]

I believe the crown wanted to make it look like they were anxiously pursuing the case to appease the public, but they underestimated the political climate in Toronto. But if you have a better theory, that explains the charges, then let's hear it.

I thought I did. There is some obscure logic and then case law that interferes with how these things work sometimes and it would take more digging than most lazy journalists are willing to commit to for an explaintion to the public. I'm not going to run down to a law library to indulge either.

I'm not convinced that everyone on that jury would have that fear you speak of. I'd expect a hung jury if there was even on person dissatisfied, and there is a very strong anti-establishment climate there. The Crowns office is not always police friendly and for that crown this would be a case that would quickly establish him politically. To gain that conviction will have made him a golden child in strong political circles.

More answers should come with the Judge's reading and sentencing.

[elkhunter11]

I thought I did. There is some obscure logic and then case law that interferes with how these things work sometimes and it would take more digging than most lazy journalists are willing to commit to for an explaintion to the public. I'm not going to run down to a law library to indulge either.

I'm not convinced that everyone on that jury would have that fear you speak of. I'd expect a hung jury if there was even on person dissatisfied, and there is a very strong anti-establishment climate there. The Crowns office is not always police friendly and for that crown this would be a case that would quickly establish him politically. To gain that conviction will have made him a golden child in strong political circles.

More answers should come with the Judge's reading and sentencing.

Even a hung jury isn't a conviction. Of course the other possibility to a hung jury, is that if there are a few strong personalities. they can wear down the other jury members to where they get tired of the jury thing, and just want to go home. At that point, they vote with the people that want a not guilty verdict. It should not happen that way, but it does sometimes happen.

[rem338win]

Even a hung jury isn't a conviction. Of course the other possibility to a hung jury, is that if there are a few strong personalities. they can wear down the other jury members to where they get tired of the jury thing, and just want to go home. At that point, they vote with the people that want a not guilty verdict. It should not happen that way, but it does sometimes happen.

And in our brief back and forth we've managed to open the casket; our system is falable. Again, I am interested to hear the Judge's reading and sentence.

[elkhunter11]

And in our brief back and forth we've managed to open the casket; our system is falable. Again, I am interested to hear the Judge's reading and sentence.


The problem with our system, is that it is a legal system. not a justice system. The only concern is that the judges and the lawyers can justify things in a legal manner, with no concern as to actual justice.

[crazyguntotinrightwinger]

The problem with our system, is that it is a legal system. not a justice system. The only concern is that the judges and the lawyers can justify things in a legal manner, with no concern as to actual justice.

Exactly. I initially wanted to go to law school until I found this out.