You and your ilk keep making the same wrong-headed point over and over. Perhaps you’ve never been stupid-drunk, or crazed by a teenage broken heart, or mentally retarded, or psychotic, or just too oblivious to understand police orders. But some people have had such experiences. It sounds like you’d be happy if all these “inferior” people were killed.
As to your question: I don’t know how I’d have found were I on the jury. But you totally missed, 2 or 3 times, the main point I’ve made 2 or 3 times. Here: I’ll use a larger font. Google translate it into your native language if that helps.
Just because a cop should be acquitted of murder does not mean his behavior was proper.
I’d hope we hold police officers to a higher standard than “anything that’s not criminal is good policing.”
If you’re going to keep calling him a kid, then what’s “quite clear” is that you’re not great at assessing stuff, and have a blind spot the size of Sammy Yatim.
Now why would you say that? I’ve repeatedly said it’s a real shame the cop didn’t have a taser – and that it’s a real shame the maniac with a knife didn’t stand still long enough for to get shot with a taser --.because I’d have been happy if he’d been shot with a taser. I’d also have been happy if he’d dropped the knife and so not been shot at all, but apparently he wasn’t up for that.
In addition to being a victim-blaming asshole, you are factually incorrect. That kid was 18, and the requirement in Canada is that one be 19 for jury duty. Voting depends on the province, and an 18 year old kid could not vote in mine, where the age requirement is also 19.
Here’s some advice … if you’re planning on being a sanctimonious prick, at least make sure you’re right and not just talking out of your ass.
Was it clear to the cop? Was it clear to the jury? Is it clear to me?
Well, the answer to that last one is ‘no’, obviously. But really consider that second one: they looked at the evidence, and AFAICT said, look, we get why you shot him when he was advancing with the knife in hand; your response was legal and understandable. But then things changed, so we can’t condone what you did next.
It’s “clear” to me that Yatim was less of a threat after those three gunshots than he was before 'em. It’s “clear” to me that the jury didn’t just rubber-stamp the cop’s actions, but instead realized that shooting him with the first volley made sense in a way that the second volley didn’t. It’s “clear” to me that I’d have likewise voted to acquit if the cop had stopped at three – because that’s when something important changed.
Hmm. Well, since I strive scrupulously to serve as an exemplar of fair-mindedness, I’ve taken it upon myself to find the actual text of the Juries Act, which possibly leads to the ambiguity: seems that, if you turn 18 in the year preceding the year for which the jury is selected, then you’re fair game.
Near as I can tell, Sammy Yatim turned 18 in 2012. Near as I can tell, Sammy Yatim was an armed maniac in 2013. Near as I can tell, Sammy Yatim was fair game.
And, at that:
Near as I can tell, in his, he could, for lo the age requirement is 18.
…he says, while acknowledging he wasn’t aware of any of this, nor did he look it up, until after telling us all what the facts were and how we should feel about that.
Nonsense. Like the other fella, I already had a ready cite at my fingertips; and, when confronted with something that called my cite into question, I of course looked for another cite to show I was right all along. So while it does turn out I was right all along, it’s not by dint of pure “nor did he look it up, until after” luck; I looked first, and also looked after.
So, it appears that although that criminal law in Canada is handled at the federal level, the laws regarding juries are regulated at the provincial level. That’s why I was told that I needed to be 19 when I was called for jury duty, and I mistakenly thought that was the case country wide. So Sammy was old enough to serve on a jury in his home province of Ontario, I was wrong on that point, and I stand corrected.
However, Waldo is probably still wrong. Sammy Yatin emigrated to Canada from Syria in 2008, and I can’t find any record of him completing the Canadian citizenship process, which requires one to live in the country for at least four years plus all the other hoops required. It’s probable that Sammy was not yet a citizen, and thus could not serve on a jury, vote, or join the military on those grounds, regardless of his age.
I do stand firm that Waldo is still a victim blaming asshole however. This case was a police fuck-up from start to finish, and no matter how many times he calls Sammy a “maniac” that won’t change.
My line was: “It’s my understanding that the ‘kid’ was old enough to vote: old enough to be tried as an adult, and old enough to serve in the military – and old enough to serve as a juror”. I didn’t end that sentence with a quick “and he met all the other requirements, too”; I said it was my understanding that he “was old enough”.
Under Ontario’s Use of force model, if there is a threat to serious bodily harm or death that is not ended on an officer’s challenge, then the only two options available are to shoot the person or to disengage.
The next piece of the puzzle is what constitutes a threat to serious bodily harm or death. Officers are trained that when a person wielding a knife gets within thirty feet, there is a threat to serious bodily harm or death.
Now let’s apply these procedures to the streetcar shooting. The deceased was wielding a knife and had cleared out a streetcar full of people, including one who said that he tried to cut her throat, and the deceased was well within the thirty foot zone. That constituted a threat to serious bodily harm or death. The deceased was then confronted by the police when several officers commanded him to drop the knife, and when the shooter told him “Don’t move.” Despite this confrontation, the deceased did not drop the knife and did move. The officer then shot him three times (the first of two volleys).
Up to this point the officer did everything by the book. The problem with that is that the book precluded de-escalation, and only offered neutralizing the threat using a firearm, or disengaging. The officer could not disengage without putting citizens at risk, so the officer shot the person.
It’s pretty darn hard to convict a person who was doing his job protecting the public by following the mandated procedure and applying his training based on that procedure.
I submit that the problem with the first volley was not the actions of the officer, but rather was the problem with the Use of Force Model, which precluded de-escalation in those circumstances. Had de-escalation been used, the police might have been able effectively use of the time gained through de-escalation to tase rather than shoot the person (note that the person was tased immediately after the second volley, so it was not that there would have been a long delay while de-escalating), and due to the person being at the top of the streetcar’s stairs, it would still have been safely possible for the three officers to shoot him if de-escalation were to fail.
The Use of Force Model needs to be adjusted to include de-escalation, and police need better training to become proficient in using de-escalation when circumstances permit it, rather than relying on comply or die.
To address this issue, a month after the streetcar shooting, Toronto Police Service Chief Blair commissioned past Supreme Court of Canada Justice Iacobucci to investigate and report on the use of force issue. In July, 2014, Iacobucci submitted his report titled “Police Encounters with People in Crises” in which he compared the present Ontario Use of Force Model with the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Model Policy on Use of Force with respect to dealing with mentally ill people and people having a mental health crisis. Here is a link to the Iacobucci report: https://www.torontopolice.on.ca/publications/files/reports/police_encounters_with_people_in_crisis_2014.pdf .
Here is a summary comparison in the report between what Iacobuci recommends (IACP) and the status quo (Ontario/Toronto Police Service):
Just a few posts after this, someone linked to a Toronto police training manual I’d never seen. I don’t know how that was presented to the jury; if the jury listened to more than 30 seconds of evidence they know more about the case than I.
Yet here’s Pepper calling me weird for not being sure how I’d have found were I on the jury!
This styoopid jump-to-conclusions with-facts-irrelevant mode of yours serves you well I’m sure among your fellow right-wing idiots. But it leads me to remember what I’d figured out when I engaged you in discussions years ago: You’re an idiot.
(On another matter, I thought of explaining to you that immature teenagers don’t suddenly become mature adults exactly on their 18th birthday. Now that I’m reminded you’re a clinical moron, I won’t bother.)
You posted the following: “Just because a cop should be acquitted of murder does not mean his behavior was proper.”. You bolded it and supersized it and everything.
It was a fine point – but I figured, hey, so long as you were talking about a situation where “a cop should be acquitted of murder”, you maybe had an opinion on whether this cop should’ve been acquitted of murder.
So, yeah: it struck me as weird that, no, you apparently tossed that in without having an opinion on whether said cop should’ve been acquitted of murder.
::shrugs::
As I said, it struck me as weird – but also as minor. That’s why I didn’t follow up by, say, stomping my feet and insisting you take a position, or something; I was perfectly satisfied with, if a bit surprised by, the answer you gave.
Hardly seems worth getting so worked up about.
Hmm. Are you, perhaps, jumping to the conclusion that I’m right-wing?
Had I claimed otherwise? Are you jumping to the conclusion that I believe otherwise?
Quoting someone and saying “that’s weird” does not convey the idea that you find it satisfactory but strange. It conveys the idea that you find it suspiciously strange.
Plus he’s right in pointing out that it isn’t strange. Why would a general statement mean he has a position on a specific case? I don’t know how many times I’ve come in to discuss the ideas something brings forth without having enough info to be sure it applied in the specific case.
I seem to remember you making quite a few right wing posts in the past. I definitely have you on my mental “conservative Doper” list.
You freaked out about people calling an 18 year old a kid, and cited his age and what he could legally do as the criteria. What other conclusion is there except that you think all 18-year-olds are adults and not kids?
And, yeah, maybe this is a bit of a lecture. But I’m only responding in kind. You’re lecturing about jumping to conclusions, are you not?
I had ‘strange but satisfactory’ in mind. You think it conveyed ‘suspiciously strange’. I’m genuinely sorry to have caused any confusion – but surely we could (a) split the difference at ‘strange’, and (b) clarify on request? No need to jump to insults.
See, it maybe wouldn’t have even occurred to me if he’d written “just because a cop was acquitted of murder does not mean his behavior was proper”: such a statement seems comparatively bland; the first part simply is the case in question.
But talking about a situation where a cop should be acquitted of murder made me wonder: is he talking about this case in question?
(No, not to the point where it means he has to take a position; again, that’s why I didn’t then insist he take one. But if you’re going to talk about what my ‘weird’ conveyed, let me remark in turn on what that ‘should’ conveyed.)
Well, this is the Dope, after all; on the one hand, I’m hardly likely to make a left-wing point that nine or ten posters in a thread have already beaten me to; and on the other hand, anything other than the party line is going to stand out.
But, again, for someone to criticize a “styoopid jump-to-conclusions” mode in the same sentence as classing me with “fellow right-wing idiots” seems a bridge to far. I mean, I’m right here; he can just ask, instead of doing a jump-to-conclusions tell.
For the record, I voted for Obama; and for Kerry; and for Gore; and for Clinton; and, at present, I plan to vote for another Clinton later this year; and I’d happily explain why I cast each of those votes; and if that doesn’t get me off your list, [del]that’s weird[/del] I’d like to know what would.
No, that is the conclusion: that they’re adults, and not kids. Full stop.
Septimus added a bit about how immature teens don’t magically become mature adults at 18. Is that incompatible with my conclusion? Or compatible with it?
Well, see, I too, am but responding in kind – you know, to that quip about a “styoopid” jump-to-conclusions mode. Where does it end? Where did it start?
The essential point, to which you never responded, is the point raised in my large-font bold-face sentence. Why not address the issues raised instead of trying to put words into posters’ mouths? As to why I emphasized the “should be” in acquitted, that’s very simple. You’d previously hijacked the conversation by stating that his acquittal was irrelevant, what mattered to you is whether you thought he should be acquitted. I wanted to avoid that hijack. But you just found a different hijack to avoid answering the question, and admitting that the unnecessary killing was improper.
Well, I’ll take your word for it. I’m sorry … and surprised. I don’t “keep score” on Dopers but I’d definitely associated you with right-wing ideation. IIRC, you’re a skeptic about AGW, no?