• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: The News Thread

Cases like this are excellent reminders that lay people have practically zero knowledge of how the law and criminal code works.

Doesn't matter if you thought about possibly considering writing the LSAT, you're still a lay person talking out of your ass.
 
Here's a video of UK policeman taking down a man on the street with a machete and not one of them use their gun.

Sure their are 30 of them, but they understand the man is mentally unstable and he is well within 10 feet most of the time. I don't care if it takes 45 minutes of talking to the guy to get him to calm down and drop the knife.... the gun has to be the last resort. And why not take two or three shots to the legs of the guy first.
[video=youtube;cX5CPx4RKWw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX5CPx4RKWw[/video]
 
voyager said:
Cases like this are excellent reminders that lay people have practically zero knowledge of how the law and criminal code works.

Doesn't matter if you thought about possibly considering writing the LSAT, you're still a lay person talking out of your ass.
Click to expand...

Why discuss anything on a message board then? Most of the topics discussed are areas in which the average person is technically not qualified to discuss from an education or academic perspective.

This is appeal to authority reasoning of the highest calibre. I would, on the other hand, be curious to hear from an actual criminal lawyer on this board, but I don't think that there are any.
 
Hoss said:
And why not take two or three shots to the legs of the guy first.
Click to expand...

Because police are trained to aim at the highest concentration of bodily matter in their target, known as centre mass. That's the torso or chest. No Clint Eastwood-style arm or leg shots, which not only are significantly more difficult to hit, but also present a threat to innocent bystanders.

Even the best shooters would have difficult effectively hitting the extremities of a moving target reliably.
 
Hoss said:
Here's a video of UK policeman taking down a man on the street with a machete and not one of them use their gun.

Sure their are 30 of them, but they understand the man is mentally unstable and he is well within 10 feet most of the time. I don't care if it takes 45 minutes of talking to the guy to get him to calm down and drop the knife.... the gun has to be the last resort. And why not take two or three shots to the legs of the guy first.
[video=youtube;cX5CPx4RKWw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX5CPx4RKWw[/video]
Click to expand...

This guy being shot would have been justifiable. Good on them for avoiding that.
 
JaysCyYoung said:
I wouldn't call it murder. That requires a degree of pre-meditation and intent that wasn't present. I *do* think that Forcillo should have received an involuntary manslaughter conviction though.
Click to expand...

He wasn't charged with 1st degree murder, he was charged with 2nd degree... no pre-meditation necessary.
 
JaysCyYoung said:
That doesn't really apply to police officers though. They are taught that they have to eliminate the threat (or perceived threat in this instance) and then immediately initiate medical care to the target once the threat is eliminated.

Involuntary manslaughter fits much better in that instance.
Click to expand...

Involuntary manslaughter doesn't fit because he died at the hands of the first three bullets...... (you just said he had to "eliminate the threat")

the next 6 are unjustified, but he can't be charged with them causing the death becasue they didn't cause the death.

now if you want to say he shouldn't have taken the first three shots, then maybe you have a case for manslaughter. (although i do think its 2nd degree murder).
 
JaysCyYoung said:
I would, on the other hand, be curious to hear from an actual criminal lawyer on this board, but I don't think that there are any.
Click to expand...

I am a lawyer (though not criminal).

I do have a criminal law lawyer in the office next to me.

She basically said the same thing... the final six shots can't be manslaughter because the medical examiner indicated that they did NOT cause death.
 
Hoss said:
Here's a video of UK policeman taking down a man on the street with a machete and not one of them use their gun.

Sure their are 30 of them, but they understand the man is mentally unstable and he is well within 10 feet most of the time. I don't care if it takes 45 minutes of talking to the guy to get him to calm down and drop the knife.... the gun has to be the last resort. And why not take two or three shots to the legs of the guy first.
[video=youtube;cX5CPx4RKWw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX5CPx4RKWw[/video]
Click to expand...

They did a good job. This does happen quite frequently in Canada without resulting in people getting shot too though.
 
A kid with a 4 inch knife on an empty bus that is surrounded by police with their guns drawn, is not a threat requiring deadly force.

No other officer fired, even once. Usually if shooting is necessary, all of them will empty their clips.

One guy shot when he shouldn't have shot. He should be kicked off the force, banned from any job that requires carrying a gun, and put in jail for manslaughter at the very least.

Him getting off is pure corruption, and a miscarriage of justice.
 
JohnnyHolmes said:
A kid with a 4 inch knife on an empty bus that is surrounded by police with their guns drawn, is not a threat requiring deadly force.

No other officer fired, even once. Usually if shooting is necessary, all of them will empty their clips.

One guy shot when he shouldn't have shot. He should be kicked off the force, banned from any job that requires carrying a gun, and put in jail for manslaughter at the very least.

Him getting off is pure corruption, and a miscarriage of justice.
Click to expand...

He didn't get off...yet. Mandatory minimum is also in play here.
 
JohnnyHolmes said:
A kid with a 4 inch knife on an empty bus that is surrounded by police with their guns drawn, is not a threat requiring deadly force.

No other officer fired, even once. Usually if shooting is necessary, all of them will empty their clips.

One guy shot when he shouldn't have shot. He should be kicked off the force, banned from any job that requires carrying a gun, and put in jail for manslaughter at the very least.

Him getting off is pure corruption, and a miscarriage of justice.
Click to expand...

He was also the only constable in the door of the streetcar not to mention he was also the only one with a direct line of fire.

Plus how could he have known that the streetcar was empty?
 
voyager said:
He was also the only constable in the door of the streetcar
Click to expand...

Incorrect, watch the video. He was not in the door any more than the other officers were

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...ing-sammy-yatims-standoff-with-toronto-police

All of this of course bodes the question as to why the Officer would put himselfin that position in the first place, when communicating with Yatim can be done from a few metres further away, creating far more closing distance with a minimal effect on their line of site. An interesting statement from the infographic I posted.

As Yatim draws back out of the direct line of fire, Forcillo threatens to shoot if the teen takes one step towards him. Seconds later, Yatim moves forward towards the door, effectively to the spot where he’d been standing moments before. At this point, Yatim stands 4.541 metres from Forcillo
Click to expand...

As for how quick someone could clear 4.5M...this isn't flat ground we're talking about. You have to negotiate the stairs first before reaching ground level, with 3 officers (2 with weapons drawn and pointed at the door) available to support Forcillo.

not to mention he was also the only one with a direct line of fire.
Click to expand...

Because Yatim wasn't exiting the street car, Forcillo was the only one on an angle that allowed him to make a clean shot up the stairs, into the interior of the street car.

Plus how could he have known that the streetcar was empty?
Click to expand...

Scene management? Ask questions of eye witnesses who evac'd from the street car, visual confirmation from a safe vantage point near the rear of the street car, etc.
 
Last edited:
Didn't need to shoot the kid. There are alternatives. Tasers, rubber bullets, tear gas, pepper spray, concussion grenades.

Cell extraction teams in prisons go after way more dangerous guys, sometimes also armed, and they diffuse the situation without anyone dying.

If the kid gets a face full of heat, and a few boot / baton marks on him, well deserved, but to get blasted 9 times when he wasn't really a threat to anyone is impossible to justify.
 
voyager said:
Plus how could he have known that the streetcar was empty?
Click to expand...

(1) I'm not sure if you've ever been on a TTC streetcar, but it's very easy to see all the way to the back and every row from the front next to the driver's side (2) That's all the more reason not to fire if one suspects the presence of innocent bystanders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top