… can’t rely on blogs for accurate reporting of legal opinions.
In Melbourne, when this happens, police management say two things:
You can’t second guess the man on the spot.
We support the decisions made by our man on spot.
If you look carefully at that, you will notice that they have second guessed their man on the spot. Even though they weren’t there, they are saying that the action was correct.
The problem I have with that is that it doesn’t leave any room for correction or improvement. Personally, I’d ask two questions:
Did the policeman act in accordance with his training?
Does the incident show that the training should be changed?
But when you ask the second question, you are questioning the management of the police force, and the management of the police force is not interested in asking that question.
I’m a little late in noticing this, but it might be worth pointing out that police make a little more than $30,000. That officer was on the sunshine list last year; he made $106,000 and change. Don’t know if it matters, but it’s not really accurate to classify Toronto Metro as low-paid civil servants.
If he were to exit the bus with the one or two seconds he needed a whole entirely new situation would have arisen that would be the opposite of the one they are in now. now they are in control in almost every way, if he were to exit they may not be able to shoot because they would not necessarily be able to predict exactly which direction he would run in he could possibly strafe or run in different direction than previously thought which may make the use of guns much less effective because he wouldn’t be a standing target and a moving target would lead to possible quick guess shots that may lead to an innocent bystander getting hit or even another officer depending on the angle of the bullet or even a ricochet. I think that in real life all that is possible and equals risk to others and yourself. In that manner of thinking it’s understandable that he would not even be allowed to make a SINGLE movement towards the door because of what it might lead to. Maybe not likely, but a possibility. And with police I wouldn’t be surprised if they believe there is no right or wrong, you ain’t gonna please everyone, if half the viewers thought they acted inappropriately now, then reverse the situation the other half would still be bitching about how they didn’t just take him down on the bus.
It matters, though I doubt I could name a salary above which police officers should be expected to prioritize the lives of apparently dangerous criminals above their own (and for anyone who missed the first page, I am not saying this shooting was justified at all.)
Out of curiosity, I looked up salary figures for the NYPD to see if Toronto cops were outliers, and they earn $90k+ after five years. I had no idea you could make that sort of money as a beat cop.
In answer to the OP, yes, yes we should. They are accorded more privilege and power over regular people and show we should expect more from them. However, in accordance to this, they should also be paid higher
I think $90,000 a year and up is more than enough to Taser a dying man shot nine times in an otherwise empty streetcar.
The point is that you are saying that it’s okay to shoot a mentally ill person for being mentally ill. Since they are not capable of realizing they need to drop the gun, you say it’s okay to kill them. Not because they have no choice. Not because they are a danger to themselves or others. Just because they don’t understand what they need to do in that situation.
And, yes, you’ve changed your tune multiple times in subsequent posts, but that doesn’t change what you originally said. People deserve to die if they are too stupid to understand certain things. That is reprehensible.
I’m not changing my tune – and it’s, uh, “reprehensible” for you to say so, given that I stand by what I originally said.
I’ve never said he deserved to die for being too stupid to understand certain things. I’ve said that he needed to be put down swiftly and efficiently, and that he deserved to be tasered, and that it’s tragic the officer in question didn’t have said taser and so made the right choice between grappling for the knife or shooting the guy. But when did I say he deserved to die for just being stupid?
I’ve said the exact opposite of that – and I’ve said I can’t tell whether he was committing suicide by cop, and I’ve said someone who’s too unreasonable to comply with reasonable instructions from the cops isn’t a problem unless he’s also armed – but, to coin a phrase, deserve’s got nothing to do with it.
We may pay them to protect and serve, but, they are not required to do it. IIRC, there are court cases where the ruling is that cops need not put themselves in harms way for any reason. They are just there to do what they can, and mop up what is needed for the DA.
If you’ll notice, the “Protect and Serve” mottoes have disappeared from a lot of police cruisers, and has been replaced with some innocuous or even mildly threatening ones.
Are you kidding? I’d do it for half that, with only 8 bullets in him.
I can understand completely how frightened and disturbed BigT is about a world in which simply being too stupid to understand certain things merited death. But that’s not what was said, and BigT is in error for paraphrasing it thusly.
An update: the police officer who fired the shots has been charged with second degree murder:
Officer charged with murder in Sammy Yatim streetcar shooting
We should have a debate whether it is even conceivable he could ever be convicted of that charge. I mean, even I, the OP’er in this and the Pit thread, believe he MAY have feared for his life and, presumably, that would acquit him.
Might a better charge have been manslaughter?
Manslaughter is a lesser included offence in a murder charge.
Am I correct in taking that to mean that a verdict of manslaughter is “available” for the judge or jury, even if not stated explicitly, if judge/jury don’t find evidence to justify a murder conviction?
Case in point:
Despite being a “crazy guy with a knife” (a much bigger knife, I might add,) somehow, they manage to subdue him without a gun and without killing him. And he was in a open area, no less, not confined inside a trolly.
Just to clarify, The Other Waldo Pepper, you’re ok with the police issuing an instruction, starting a clock and specifying how much time someone has to obey, and opening fire at the end of the time if the order hasn’t been obeyed, regardless of whether the person is a threat to the police or anyone else?
In Spain a guy confronts and attacks three cops but the cops just run around dodging him until more cops arrive and subdue him. In America this guy would be dead in the first three seconds of the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpntXYbP7RM
Correct. The judge or jury first must decide whether the Crown has proved the charge of second degree murder, beyond a reasonable doubt. If they conclude that the charge has not been proven, they then consider whether the evidence supports the charge of manslaughter, again beyond a reasonable doubt.