[Xort]

llama66 llama66:

Playing Devil's Advocate, Suspect was commanded to drop the knife, when the suspect did not- at that point the constable would have fired until he felt the danger had passed.

Not following a command is not justification for lethal force. I was scared of a guy with a pocket knife inside a street car, many meters away from me, with my pistol drawn and pointed at him with 22(?) other officers around me is not a reasonable situation to fear for your life.

But again, lets pretend the frist 3 shots where somehow justified, what justification is their for the next 6 after he was shot laying on the floor of the stree car? Was he a threat to anyone lying on the floor dying?

[llama66]

Under normal circumstances no, its not grounds for lethal force, however considering no video currently availble to the public shows more then the legs of the Yatim, perhaps (and I'm throwing this out here) he gestured that he was going to do something that endangered the public (ie drive the 22,000kg streetcar), and forcillo, not having a taser shot the kid, the second grouping of rounds might have been because the kid still had the knife in his hand and was unable to let the knife go (because he was dead, most likely...). Also, perhaps Forcillo thought the kid was wearing a vest, its not uncommon, you'd go down if you were hit in the vest. Remember Police are trained to shoot until the threat has been removed.

People are quick to judge, if this cop had been killed in the line of duty he'd be called a hero and people would be trash talking this kid.

I think the Cop thought he had to make a choice, and right or wrong, the cop has to live with this decision for the rest of his life.

[llama66]

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

If this was a totalitarian police state the contable wouldn't have faced an ivestigation much less been charged with murder.

Right. So would you bet your life that this officer would be facing a murder charge if no video were present?

As of 2010, I believe the numbers from the SIU were as follows, 3600 investigations, 16 charges laid. If the Crown had such a batting average of convictions there would be a hell of a lot of criminals running around wouldn't there?

Publication ban
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_ban

"A publication ban is a court order which prohibits the public or media from disseminating certain details of an otherwise public judicial procedure. In Canada, publication bans are most commonly issued when the safety or reputation of a victim or witness may be hindered by having their identity openly broadcast in the press. They are also commonly issued when the crime involves minors or is sexual in nature."

When there is a dead 19 year old, ones "reputation" shouldn't matter should it? Furthermore, let's say it was a cop who's identity they were trying to hide, do you not think the others on the force would know exactly who it was?

In countries where press freedom is the norm, an actual ban on publication is used mostly for ongoing court cases where publicity may affect the case.

Notice the difference in which Canada uses this and how U.K and the U.S use this, much rarer.

The publication ban stands to protect the victims family, they probably do not want to see the gory details plastered on the front page of the SUN/STAR. THey also don't want reporters camped out and shoving a camera in thier face every 30 seconds. it'll still happen, no doubt. No conspiricy here.

[stratos]

There's an old cop joke that goes something like this.

Lawyer: So Officer Smith you shot the suspect 9 times

Officer Smith: Yes sir I did.

Lawyer: Well we have witnesses saying that after the second shot the suspect was down on the ground. Why did you continue shooting?

Officer Smith: Every time I shot him he twitched so I figured he was still a threat.

Lawyer: Why did you then stop after the 9th shot.

Officer Smith: I was out of bullets.

About the only ones who ever found it funny were cops but it does show the mentality that one can get while working in law enforcement.

[bootlegga]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

You kind of have that backwards. He is innocent. The case to prove him guilty will have to be super strong.

Based on the minimal amount of video evidence we have seen and the formal murder charge from the SIU, I believe the Crown heads into the case quite strong.

The officers lawyers will have the more difficult job of justifying the use of the weapon.

I guess you don't remember Rodney King - the defence attorneys twisted that video of him getting the crap kicked out of him by four cops as 'resisting arrest' simply because he lifted his arm up to protect himself.

That's why I don't think the grainy video won't convict Forcillo - it'll take testimony from his fellow officers and in 99.9% of cases, the blue wall kicks in.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

And now...

The publication ban! Gotta love democracy in Canada. This is just one of the reasons our allies don't trust us, why wouldn't such an important trial be allowed equal coverage as any other trial? In the U.S these trials are shown on tv 24/7, in Canada we censor the proceedings...

Because people deserve a fair trial, not a trial by media. I thought you of all people would appreciate that.

Freedom of the press much?

The press is free to attend the trial, they are just not allowed to publish the details until after the trial concludes. Fairness of Justice trumps Freedom of the Press. But both will be satisfied.

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

What I find absurd is that the lawyer of the accused states that we shouldn't jump to any conclusion simply based on the video, well he won't have to worry about anyone's mind changing because society apparently isn't in a mature enough democracy for us to see the facts of the case.

That is the job of the defence lawyer - to ensure his client gets a fair and impartial trial. We will see the facts when they are presented in court.

[uwish]

I don't think the SIU would have recommended murder charges if they didn't feel it was warranted. They have interviewed other cops that were on seen and have likely watched all the transit footage (which is in HD but not released). While I do agree that the video only shows one side of the story but as the saying goes, a video is worth a thousand words.

[uwish]

bootlegga bootlegga:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

You kind of have that backwards. He is innocent. The case to prove him guilty will have to be super strong.

Based on the minimal amount of video evidence we have seen and the formal murder charge from the SIU, I believe the Crown heads into the case quite strong.

The officers lawyers will have the more difficult job of justifying the use of the weapon.

I guess you don't remember Rodney King - the defence attorneys twisted that video of him getting the crap kicked out of him by four cops as 'resisting arrest' simply because he lifted his arm up to protect himself.

That's why I don't think the grainy video won't convict Forcillo - it'll take testimony from his fellow officers and in 99.9% of cases, the blue wall kicks in.

apparently, there is good HD transit video of the incident from several angles. So I wouldn't worry about the shitty cell phone version.

[Xort]

llama66 llama66:

(and I'm throwing this out here) he gestured that he was going to do something that endangered the public (ie drive the 22,000kg streetcar), and forcillo, not having a taser shot the kid, the second grouping of rounds might have been because the kid still had the knife in his hand and was unable to let the knife go (because he was dead, most likely...).

The second round of shots is not justified as someone laying on the ground holding a knife is not a lethal threat.

Try again.

$1:

Also, perhaps Forcillo thought the kid was wearing a vest, its not uncommon, you'd go down if you were hit in the vest. Remember Police are trained to shoot until the threat has been removed.

It's not uncommon?

I think it's hugely uncommon.

I'd say if their was more than 1 case a year with a suspect getting shot with a protective vest one that it was strange.

Anyway once you have committed to using lethal force you do shoot to kill, but only to the point that you have reached your objective. Even the military has limits on using too much force even when lethal force is justified.

$1:

People are quick to judge, if this cop had been killed in the line of duty he'd be called a hero and people would be trash talking this kid.

Hey what do you know the public doesn't like murderers.

$1:

I think the Cop thought he had to make a choice, and right or wrong, the cop has to live with this decision for the rest of his life.

But the guy he killed doesn't.

I hope that the video from inside makes it clear enough to get a conviction and that a judge applies a stern but not harsh punishment.

I also hope that this officer stops getting paid. If he isn't doing his job he shouldn't be getting paid. If I had to go to trial I doubt my employer would keep paying me.

[llama66]

Well Xort, why even have the trial, he's already been found guilty by you. Its good to see you being impartial. Lets just string him up.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The press is free to attend the trial, they are just not allowed to publish the details until after the trial concludes. Fairness of Justice trumps Freedom of the Press. But both will be satisfied.

Down here we just sequester the jury to accomplish the same thing. You guys sequester the whole f*cking country.

[Zipperfish]

llama66 llama66:

People are quick to judge...

Including you.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

llama66 llama66:

People are quick to judge...

Including you.

Sometimes quick judgment is a good thing. Like if you find that someone in a crowd is shooting at you and when you look you see a guy with a pistol aimed at you... and he's shooting at you.

There's a good chance he's the guy shooting at you.

But if you think it's more prudent to talk to everyone present before deciding on a course of action that's up to you.

My point is that sometimes obvious is just obvious.

[llama66]

How have I been quick to judge? Because I believe there may be more to this than we have seen on camera. I think I've said more than once, if he's found guilty then he needs to go and serve his time in prison. I've also said the police better equipment and training. Did this cop fuck up? Probably. But does he deserve the right to a fair and impartial trial? Absolutely.

[Xort]

llama66 llama66:

Well Xort, why even have the trial, he's already been found guilty by you. Its good to see you being impartial. Lets just string him up.

I don't think I said he shouldn't get a trial.

I'm saying that unless something huge comes out from the car's video this guy is guilty as fuck.