No, **Jackmannii **was being clever. Couldn’t you tell?
Toronto, where the cops arrest people for blowing soap bubbles and Taser dead men.
I remember when it was still called, “Toronto the Good”.
But “Taser dead men” has a catchy ring to it. Perhaps Toronto will now get some respect in Montreal.
Vests do not protect against knives. Officers have been badly hurt or killed because they thought the vest made them invulnerable.
This is a sad fact: if you challenge a police officer with a deadly weapon, you are more than likely going to be shot. This is reality, it ain’t Hollywood.
We can’t see the suspect in the video the moment the first shot is fired, but he is clearly visible through the window up until 2 seconds before, when he moves out of view by making a deliberate move towards the front exit of the bus.
I mentioned navigating the stairs in my first post. Even doubling the travel time to allow for jogging down a couple steps leaves the attacker with about 2 seconds to stabbing range.
Police didn’t choose deadly force, they met it. The suspect escalated the conflict to deadly force level by wielding a deadly weapon. He had plenty of opportunity to drop it and deescalate the situation to wrastlin’ level, but showed no intention of doing so.
Note also that the officer with the taser didn’t even come onto the scene until 22 seconds after the first shots were fired. Meeting deadly force with non-deadly force is incredibly risky without the proper tools to do so.
I think the Monday-morning quarterbacks have a very skewed definition of “immediate threat”. Aggressive man + unpredictable behavior + making threats + deadly weapon + short distance which can be covered in less time than it takes to put someone down on average = immediate threat. This isn’t a choreographed fight scene where Steven Seagal is all set to smoothly deflect and disarm in the blink of an eye. In the real world, an armed, aggressive assailant is a very real threat to those in the vicinity.
It would be very helpful to our hindsight analysis to see the attacker’s exact position the moment before he was shot, so that we could see if he looked like he was preparing to charge forward or not. Unfortunately, we can’t see that in the video. We do know from the video that this wasn’t the first time he came to the top of the stairs at the front of the bus. He had been there before without being shot, so what was different about his posture and demeanor on his final trip there? Maybe the difference was that the cop was an asshole who had run out of patience, but if anything in the suspect’s posture indicated a charge, then the officer had every right to believe he was only seconds away from a wrestling match with a knife-wielding assailant.
You bet they did! Nine times! Yee-hah!
Saintly Challenged: my sarcasm wasn’t directed at you. Your post was more than rational.
I should have added to my post immediately above, though, that the kid was clearly not coming towards anyone after the third shot. Although I suppose it’s possible he was coming toward them at 0.1 fps.
Sorry, dude, you don’t win this argument by suggesting he may have looked like he was preparing to do something. He was inside the bus, up the stairs, and didn’t set foot on the first stair going down.
I’m all in favor of cops doing what it takes to make it home in one piece. If you’re scared that he can dart out of the bus and stab you, pick a better defensive position for yourself. There was a cop right outside the door, if that’s such a dangerous position that the man’s posture is enough to take him down, back the fuck up and get a bullhorn. The guy was inside the bus, he has one way out, and nowhere to go. That’s not a tactical position where the cops should get caught with their pants down.
“Deliberate move towards the front exit” = he walks from the front window to the front of the bus. And earlier in the video he goes from the front of the bus to that window. The common term for that is pacing around, and it’s not exactly aggressive behavior. This is a nice example of using official sounding language to make something sound more dire than it is.
This is some bizarre doublespeak. He had a knife and was not all that close to them; they had guns and shot him. He had not used deadly force on anyone and there was at best only the scantest imaginable suggestion that he might do that. So the word “met” is not appropriate there.
I’m not sure you can really call this a conflict, but the entire situation was that this guy had a knife on the trolley. He did not escalate the “conflict;” that was the situation when the police arrived. And he was alone. The question is why they needed to shoot him in that circumstance.
Am I wrong to believe that the fact that the officer to the left of the bus door doesn’t even feel the need to draw his weapon indicates that the suspect wasn’t a deadly threat?
What will happen now with the officer who shoots the suspect?
I consider the fact that few of the police at the scene had their weapons drawn to be a good thing. Not that it resulted in a good outcome for the victim. Still, soon as shots were fired more offices appeared with guns drawn and looking in various directions as if scanning for more targets of opportunity.
If I was a behavioral psychologist or sociologist I might be inclined to say something about this entire incident from a position of authority. But I’m not, so I won’t.
There are many public perception about what police can or cannot do in liberal mind set that are false. One of the myth is police shoot the leg or arm of a person to subdue the suspect. I was shocked when a family police officer was saying in police academy we are trained to shoot to kill , we don’t shoot the arm or leg or hurt person to subdue the suspect.We are trained when we disarmed the gun to shoot to kill.
Other public perception about police in the liberal mind is the use of tasers . The police can legally deploy the use of tasers when the suspect is not complying or combative .It is encourage in police training and police academy. The public perception thinks that the police will wrestler the suspect to the ground , and out all cost avoid the use of a taser unless officer may get hurt . This is false perception .It is encourage in police training and police academy to use taser.
Other public perception is the use of taser when a person is armed with weapon ( non gun). That not what taser where for. The tasers replaced baton of dealing with suspect who is not complying or combative .The police still have baton but the officer is encourage to use taser over fighting or using a baton of ,dealing with suspect who is not complying or combative or out of control.
In police training , police are trained to draw their gun anytime person has weapon that may cause death or serious injuries. This is any weapon that can cause death or serious injuries ( bat , stick ,pipe ,pole or knife ) And yes people have use these weapons to kill other people or put them in hospital with brain concussion or coma.
Police are trained to shoot person if person is going to cause death or serious injuries.
In this case in Toronto, the person had knife this is weapon and by training standards the officer are order to draw their gun. And can legally shoot the person that can cause death or serious injuries.In video he is walking to officer with knife and not listing to police to put it down . He is not running , lashing out or appear he is going to exit the bus and go after the officer .It not clear he is going to cause death or serious injuries.Even fact the officer was legally okay to do it ,it did seem the officer was too trigger happy . Even fact it appears he walking to the officer.
Most police would have shot him , if it appears he is running , lashing out or appears he is going to exit the bus and go after officers.But from video that not what it appears .
To me in video it appears he is walking slowing to stars of the bus.It clear he is not running , lashing out or appears he is going to exit the bus and go after officers. This is where it seems the officer was trigger happy. He was walking slowing to stars of the bus , and well may be officer thought he was going to exit the person.
In fact, to my eye, the officer holstered his weapon (and then used his radio).
IOW, I think you are spot on.
I disagree. At most, and as Marley said, he was pacing.
This link to The Toronto Star contains a Live Leak video showing that not only did the police officer to the left of the trolley door holster his weapon (around the 3’30" mark), but, at the time he was shot (shortly after the 4’00" mark), the victim was:
a) not charging toward the door and
b) was several feet from the door (still behind the driver’s seat) and
c) had bullets #4 though #9 pumped into him when he WAS CLEARLY NO LONGER A THREAT!
I hope you will look at this new video. I especially urge those who believe the police acted appropriately to watch it. Watch how the cops keep shooting when the kid is writhing on the ground.
ETA: Here is the direct link to the Live Link video
That second video does look much worse for the officers, as the suspect clearly had not yet turned the corner at the top of the stairs before they fired.
Awfully nice of you to speak on behalf of all liberals, though I must have missed your election.
You seem the have the front and the back of the bus confused. The decedent had moved away from the front exit, not towards it, when he was shot multiple times.
You seem to not know what the word “wield” actually means. This young man was not wielding a weapon, he was holding a weapon. There’s a difference, and that nullifies your perception that the young man “escalated” the situation; in fact, the situation was unchanged from it’s outset.
You don’t seem to know what the words “aggressive” and “assailant” mean; this young man was neither.
And if the young man had changed into the Shmoo, the officer would have had every right to believe that he himself was Li’l Abner. Meanwhile, the rest of us are dealing with the facts as we know them.
Nevermind
Well, if we’re counting New York as a place, then I guess we have our answer:
Can’t win, can’t break even, can’t get out of the game.
I don’t want to live on this planet anymore.
I think it all boils down to how compassionate each person has developed and from the perspective you stand from that brings you to agree or disagree on the methodology of handling this threat. I mean the obvious things we KNOW for sure you can answer for yourself correctly or be wrong, for example was there a easier way to get the knife out of his hand sure you can right a slew of different scenarios and make a flowchart of ideas, for example continue to wait him out til he falls asleep or starves to the point where he would rather cooperate just to get food or yeah taze him, hell send in some dogs if you got to, why does it gotta be a cop at risk, start pitchin baseballs at his ass til you knock him unconscious or something heavier perhaps rocks can’t be THAT expensive and hard to bring to the scene, i’m sure it’s worth it to keep some nut from dying right?, for those of you asking, WASN’T there an easier way?, give it up we all know there was. All the cops all know there was an easier way, hell him attacking the police wasn’t even an issue if the officer was within the vicinity to put him in harms way from a guy with a fucking knife he needs to back the hell up (EVEN if it’s only ten feet). Now the thing is SHOULD we give these people that benefit. I think that’s the question that can’t be answered so simply. Sure you can give your point of view but that’s all it is a point of view. Points of view are far away and take a while to get to.