The 1.5 seconds is misleading in that the cop starts with his gun holstered. Also, it’s a sprint, not a lunge, unless you have someone with one hell of an arm span.
For a cop with a gun in hand, then obviously the assailant is toast.
In this case, where the suspect in the trolley where he would have to come through the door, and you have several officers around.
Unlike the recent Rottweiler case, where events happened within seconds and the dog was within biting range, they had time and distance here, I have to agree with the former officer quoted as saying it seems the excess force was used
I’d really like to know what the pause and then the additional shots were for. I know that police training calls for the officer to continuing shooting until the threat is neutralized.
Of course, channeling my fox tv-loving BIL, I can see the rebuttal is that when the Rottweiler was shot the police were criticized for not putting it out of its misery. Sometimes the police can’t win.
It doesn’t matter. He was physically too far away to be a threat when they started shooting him. Had he been holding a gun, or had the cops thought he COULD be holding a gun, it’s a different story. But I don’t see why you’d need to riddle someone up with bullets when they are that far away and the threat to their safety was minimal.
Why? Because it’s too ‘strong’ of a charge? Or, maybe you think the trial’s outcome is preordained? Why “bullshit”?
I, as the OP (of both this thread and one in GD on the same incident), can’t imagine that he’ll ever be found guilty of murder (and I hope not). Maybe manslaughter?
Isn’t that for a jury of the police officers peers to decide? I am not Canadian, but if this happened in the US I would feel happy that police could not unilaterally kill someone without having oversight of the general public. I would like to understand why you feel differently; do you trust the government to kill people in general or is it this case specifically where you felt it was warranted?
I am resurrecting this old Pit thread to add some video footage released to public today.
Specifically, the video (found on this page from the Toronto Star) confirms that when Sammy Yatin was shot by the police he was doing nothing different than he had been for the duration of the encounter. More to the point, it also confirms that when the cop opened fire on Yatim, it is a huge stretch to say that his life was in danger, or even that he had reason to fear for his safety. Looks even more obvious from this perspective that he simply panicked.
Oh, yeah. It also shows the tasing of a dead man - police gathered near his body clearly no longer fearing for their safety (by virtue of how close they were - the taserer apparently only inches away), seemingly debating, “Should we tase him? Maybe he’s dead already. Sure, go for it”.
ETA: The video I’m referring to is the black and white one, the first on the linked page.
Jesus, if there was ever a incident that called for a tasing and then a bumrush, this was it. Kid was standing there in a T-shirt, you could have tased him and been done in about 5 minutes. That cop is going to jail, for a long while.
Just to be clear (and fair), Toronto police did not (and still do not) carry Tasers with them. They must call in for a supervisor or sergeant to bring one to the scene urgently.
It’s a totally asinine policy. Almost be definition, Tasers are needed NOW, not 10 minutes later. When the dust settles from this case, I think it’s a pretty good bet that one of the recommendations (and you can be sure there’ll be recommendations made) will be to equip all cops with Tasers.
Tasers or not, there’s no way the kid needed to be shot at that point.
After a long trial, the police constable who shot Sammy Yatim was found guilty today of attempted murder. I believe there is a minimum sentence of four-years when the attempt is made with a firearm.
Trying as I am to understand the verdict, I am still confused.
I assume that the jury felt that Forcillo was justified in shooting Yatim (the first volley) because at that time he was fearing for his life. (I am not saying I believe he was fearing for his life, only that the jury did)
Nevertheless, apparently the jury felt that the second volley of shots (which presumably was another attempt by constable Forcillo to kill Yatim) was not justified. And, since they couldn’t be sure which volley killed him, but were sure that Forcillo was attempting to kill him with the second volley, they found him guilty of attempted murder.
BUT . . .
What I don’t get is why they didn’t attribute his second volley to an error in judgment due to the unimaginable adrenalin rush he must have been having at that moment, literally seconds after firing the first volley. At that point, Forcillo could not have been thinking, or behaving, rationally. No one could be.
So, as much as I think Forcillo was a brute who forgot or deliberately ignored his training for such situations, I don’t think the outcome is fair. Either convict him of murder (or attempted murder) for the first volley OR just leave it alone. The jury did precisely the opposite and based its finding on a totally implausible interpretation of the evidence (yes, I know that I don’t know the totality of the evidence . . .).
Wanna bet it’s appealed? Maybe by both sides (could that happen Northern Piper?)
ETA: For those who haven’t seen the KEY video, HERE you go.
The guy had a knife. The first volley stopped that threat. There was no need for the second volley.
When someone is already incapacitated by a volley, if there was intent to fire a second volley, that intent could only have been the intent to kill.
The adrenaline/heat of the moment defence is a valid one based on lack on intent, which I assume had been presented at trial, but was not persuasive. (My guess is that the delay between volleys indicated time for a trained officer to think.)
Appeal by the convicted? Probably. Perhaps even a cross-appeal by the prosecution. I wouldn’t venture a guess as to the outcome with only preliminary newspaper reports to go on.
A defense lawyer interviewed by the CBC (not the cop’s lawyer, but apparently a fellow defense lawyer supportive of the cop’s lawyer) said that the jury verdict makes no sense because if the first volley of three shots was deemed justifiable, then it’s inconceivable that in the 51 seconds or whatever the exact time interval was, the cop suddenly developed an “intent to murder”.
But to me it’s the lawyer’s argument that makes no sense, and sounds like a typical criminal lawyer slimeball defense. The judge spent two and a half days giving the jury detailed instructions, and I’m pretty sure they knew what they were doing. And I would guess the thought process was something like this. The cop overreacted and used excessive force, period. He shot the kid without good reason. But the first volley of shots didn’t meet the legal threshold for murder. Which is a long, long way from saying the jury was A-OK with it. Most people who saw the video were most assuredly NOT OK with it. The second volley, after the kid was already on the ground and already fatally wounded, put the action so far over the top, so far beyond any possible justification, that it got him the conviction. And indeed the cop himself testified that he regrets the second volley.
It’s a strange judgment but it reflect strange circumstances. IANAL, but it looks like the defense is going to play up the oddness of the split verdict as much as they can, because it’s the only card they hold, and I doubt it will be successful.
You’re not the only one! A group of lawyers in my office was discussing it, saying “How can it be attempt murder when the victim is dead?!? That sounds like a successful attempt…”
The jury doesn’t have to believe that he was fearing for his life, only that there was a reasonable doubt whether he did. This is the onus of proof in operation: the accused does not have to prove his state of mind, only raise a reasonable doubt with respect to the Crown’s case.
In theory, yes, both the Crown and the accused could appeal, but in practice, the Crown would likely have a hard time doing so.
The appeal rights aren’t symmetrical. The accused can appeal on the basis that the jury verdict is unreasonable/cannot be supported by the evidence. That may be open to them here, given the unusual result. (I don’t know, and I’m not expressing an opinion, just saying that I can see the argument.)
The Crown can only appeal on an error of law that likely contributed to the jury verdict. The Crown can’t appeal on grounds of unreasonableness of the verdict. So to appeal, the Crown would have to point to an error of law made by the trial judge, either during the trial or in the charge to the jury, and make the argument that the error was so significant that it likely affected the verdict. That is a high standard to meet.