The attempt murder change relates to the 2nd volley of shots.
But as a criminal lawyer, I don't understand this verdict. If you attempt to kill someone and are successful, then doesn't it make it murder?
His unjustified action, the second volley, never killed anything.
The case is that Yatim died in the first volley and in the eyes of the jury was justified. Extremely poor conduct for the officer to escalate the situation, but justified. Then he attempts to kill Yatim, who's dead, when he poses no threat (unjustified). Nobody dies from this action. So he attempted to kill someone but never actually killed anything in the action. Which, at least from my very sketchy understanding of the different definitions in law, is attempted murder.
It kind of feels like the Redford surplus budget: it makes sense if you walk through the details but it's silly at first glance.
His unjustified action, the second volley, never killed anything.
The case is that Yatim died in the first volley and in the eyes of the jury was justified. Extremely poor conduct for the officer to escalate the situation, but justified. Then he attempts to kill Yatim, who's dead, when he poses no threat (unjustified). Nobody dies from this action. So he attempted to kill someone but never actually killed anything in the action. Which, at least from my very sketchy understanding of the different definitions in law, is attempted murder.
It kind of feels like the Redford surplus budget: it makes sense if you walk through the details but it's silly at first glance.
I guess I didn't realize that you could attempt to kill someone who was already dead.
Yeah, I find it a little strange. I think we just naturally think of the difference between murder and attempted murder being that with attempted murder, the victim is still alive at the end. But it sounds like the legal distinction is more that for attempted murder, a life is not actually ended as a result of the action.
I guess I didn't realize that you could attempt to kill someone who was already dead.
My understanding is that if you're not aware that they're dead, it treated the same as attacking a person who's alive.
That's why this is so difficult to understand...from Forcillo's perspective, Yatim is alive. In reality, he's dead. So the jury claims that Forcillo attempted to kill someone with the second volley but qualifies only as attempted murder since they (the jury) believe Yatim is dead at that moment. It takes a couple runs at that logic to understand the jury's decision.
A consequence of this for me is that the jury's decision assumes that Yatim was dead after the first volley. I wonder if there is autopsy information I'm unaware of...
I guess I didn't realize that you could attempt to kill someone who was already dead.
Wait...You're a criminal defense attorney who doesn't understand the intricacies of the different murder charges and how they are defined under law, both code and case law?
Remind me never to hire you....
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to BigNumbers For This Useful Post:
It sounds like to me, the charges and convictions were laid out in such a way that makes for an easy appeal. His defense team is probably going to look at it in a similar way that a lot of the people here are.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
I'm really glad the jury convicted him. I don't get how he could be out on the street until sentencing though. He was a hothead, had an ego, and shot the kid cold blood. Hope the judge gives it to him hard to set a precedent for future cops who are easy on the trigger. There was nobody in imminent danger when the kid was on the bus. At that point they should have kept him at bay and brought in someone to calm him down and surrender. They aggravated the situation and a young life was lost. Then they tried covering it up. I hope those others involved in falsifying information also get charged.
Wait...You're a criminal defense attorney who doesn't understand the intricacies of the different murder charges and how they are defined under law, both code and case law?
It kind of feels like the Redford surplus budget: it makes sense if you walk through the details but it's silly at first glance.
Strikes me as still being silly. I'm decidedly not a criminal lawyer, but by the same reasoning, let's say that Joey Guns decides he's going to murder Bob McVictim, and goes looking for him. Instead of finding Bob, he happens upon a very lifelike cardboard cutout, which he mistakes for Bob, and destroys with a shotgun blast.
Would that be attempted murder, and if not, what's the logical distinction?
Here are the relevant Code provisions (sorry if they've already been quoted)
Quote:
229 Culpable homicide is murder
(a) where the person who causes the death of a human being
(i) means to cause his death, or
(ii) means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not;
...
Attempt to commit murder
239 (1) Every person who attempts by any means to commit murder is guilty of an indictable offence ...
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The appeal will be interesting to watch for sure. Especially since the jury didn't get to hear some evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fleury
I'm really glad the jury convicted him. I don't get how he could be out on the street until sentencing though. He was a hothead, had an ego, and shot the kid cold blood. Hope the judge gives it to him hard to set a precedent for future cops who are easy on the trigger.
He was convicted of actions he took after the initial engagement; if he had not engaged a second time, there would have been no conviction. The jury found the initial engagement (which killed Yatim) to be lawful and justified. All this does is reinforces that when engaging an individual, the response must be proportionate to the threat presented at the time the actions take place.
Last edited by llwhiteoutll; 01-26-2016 at 01:37 AM.
The appeal will be interesting to watch for sure. Especially since the jury didn't get to hear some evidence.
He was convicted of actions he took after the initial engagement; if he had not engaged a second time, there would have been no conviction. The jury found the initial engagement (which killed Yatim) to be lawful and justified. All this does is reinforces that when engaging an individual, the response must be proportionate to the threat presented at the time the actions take place.
I'm not sure what is proportionate about shooting a kid for the sole reason he is holding a knife, juries don't like convicting cops so they took the easy way out but clearly the cop murdered the kid.
I'm not sure what is proportionate about shooting a kid for the sole reason he is holding a knife, juries don't like convicting cops so they took the easy way out but clearly the cop murdered the kid.
Being an officer I am not going to get into discussions in this thread. I will just say the officers actions in the initial shooting are justified because that is what in fact he is trained to do. I will leave this video here and walk away.
The attempt murder change relates to the 2nd volley of shots.
But as a criminal lawyer, I don't understand this verdict. If you attempt to kill someone and are successful, then doesn't it make it murder?
I had to ask my wife (she's a criminal defense lawyer as well) you keep shooting at a dead body (that you don't know is dead), it is considered attempted murder.
Being an officer I am not going to get into discussions in this thread. I will just say the officers actions in the initial shooting are justified because that is what in fact he is trained to do. I will leave this video here and walk away.
There was no reason for this officer to get that close though. Other officers were staying back and you can clearly hear one them suggesting that they get a taser on him. But Yatim was antagonizing this particular officer by calling him a ##### and daring him to do something about it.... which he did unfortunately. But officers should have better training than to fall for that.
Apparently there was evidence to show that Yatim was suicidal and may have wanted to go down in gun fire, but killing a suicidal person is still murder. This is why the judge said that the jury should not consider Yatim's state of mind in their verdict. The defense was pretty upset about that apparently and I think that will be part of the basis for their appeal (not that I agree).
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
There was no reason for this officer to get that close though. Other officers were staying back and you can clearly hear one them suggesting that they get a taser on him. But Yatim was antagonizing this particular officer by calling him a ##### and daring him to do something about it.... which he did unfortunately. But officers should have better training than to fall for that.
Apparently there was evidence to show that Yatim was suicidal and may have wanted to go down in gun fire, but killing a suicidal person is still murder. This is why the judge said that the jury should not consider Yatim's state of mind in their verdict. The defense was pretty upset about that apparently and I think that will be part of the basis for their appeal (not that I agree).
Go back to post #1 and watch the video. The suspect was told multiple times to drop the knife and does not. The suspect threatens the officers. The suspect has a clear lane to the officers as can be seen in the video and the officers are at a reasonable distance. So what are you saying? The officers should have just said screw it, there is a guy out of his mind with a knife who has threatened multiple people, we should just walk away? So they give him plenty of space, he flees the scene and kills somebody. Are you happy then? I love how people are so damn eager to take the side of a guy who had posted on his FB pictures of weapons and bragged about how he would kill cops, threatens the public with a weapon, but as usual the cops are the bad guys. Do you think the officers at that moment knew he was suicidal? How do you think you would react with an aggressive person threatening you with a knife in the heat of the moment? Again, he had every justification to shoot that individual according to his training and the law. It is people like you that make officers so damn jaded about the public. Oh look, we go out and risk our lives every day while you guys s**t on us. This is why I want nothing to do with this thread from this point on.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dissentowner For This Useful Post:
I think this training video proves Forcillo went nuts and killed the guy.
How so?
The outcome of this case is clear. The initial use of force that killed Yatim was found to be legal and justified, the actions that took place after were found to not be justified.
While I can understand the "21 foot rule" in the video, in this case, multiple officers had their weapons drawn and their fingers on their triggers. The video does a good job at demonstrating why the distances is required for an unexpected attack, weapon holstered, etc., but that distance is obviously reduced when the weapons are ready.
And to dissentowner: I haven't really participated in this thread much, but I will say this: I'm quite supportive of police in general, even when lethal force is required. But I also don't think that the actions of officers are beyond criticism. Please don't interpret valid discussion and criticism as being anti-police. I can only speak for myself, but being supportive of police and being able to discuss/criticize their actions are not mutually exclusive.
There are valid questions about how this was handled, the character of the police officer, etc. One thing that we can probably all agree on is that this is far from over. Appeals, civil action, etc. are all still likely.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Jimmy Stang For This Useful Post:
The outcome of this case is clear. The initial use of force that killed Yatim was found to be legal and justified, the actions that took place after were found to not be justified.
I didn't see Yatim charge anyone. Forcillo said he believed he was about to charge. However he was sill confined in a train car when he was shot. The video shows only charging knife attackers. Yatim was surrounded by a bunch of cops, only one of whom decided it was necessary to shoot. The video shows one on one contact only. There was literally no chance of fleeing the scene and killing someone. Experts testified that there were several other options available. I get why he's innocent of murder. But I don't think the above training video suggests cops are supposed to shoot in this exact scenario. Also, the defensive tactics instructor a the Ontario police academy testified under oath that neither the training nor this particular officer was perfect. So he's innocent but not perfectly so. I just don't think this is the kind of thing cops can point to and say "our job is really hard so we should be given the benefit of the doubt". There are some great examples of cops making the right decision under stress that should be exemplified as correct and justified.
