Streetcar shooting: Toronto police officer suspended

[polak]

Yeah, I don't buy that the guy was a serious threat to anyone unless he had something else with him and considering that they continued to yell "drop the knife", I don't think that was the case.

The guy had a knife. A knife. You can't harm anyone with a knife unless they're within arms reach. Considering he was far from within arms reach and on an empty bus, he was not a threat that justified lethal force.

Just a trigger happy cop that will most likely be protected by the system.

As for the kid, I have absolutely zero sympathy for him. He's the idiot who put himself in that situation.

[Peanut]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

and if he had a bomb strapped to him?

Watch out Mel. That's apparently the stupidest question that's been asked all month on CP.

Originally Posted by valo403

Police officers shouldn't be reacting to maybes. What if he had a rocket launcher? You don't make up hypotheticals and then shoot someone just in case your fantasy was reality.

I'm not justifying anything that happened. I think I was pretty clear stating I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE POLICE PROTOCOL IS in that very same post. I was just wondering about "what if's". I'm not looking to engage in a legal or law enforcement expertise debate, because I don't have any expertise in either area.

I was simply wondering to myself "why didn't they storm the streetcar? There seemed to be about 10 cops and only 1 guy with a knife? Maybe they were worried he had a bomb?" and I thought I'd join the discussion with my (apparently) idiotic questions and see if someone more qualified than me might have an informed opinion as to why they didn't just tackle or taser the guy. Or bring in a negotiator. Or really do anything else other than shooting the guy 9 times.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Peanut

Watch out Mel. That's apparently the stupidest question that's been asked all month on CP.



I'm not justifying anything that happened. I think I was pretty clear stating I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE POLICE PROTOCOL IS in that very same post. I was just wondering about "what if's". I'm not looking to engage in a legal or law enforcement expertise debate, because I don't have any expertise in either area.

I was simply wondering to myself "why didn't they storm the streetcar? There seemed to be about 10 cops and only 1 guy with a knife? Maybe they were worried he had a bomb?" and I thought I'd join the discussion with my (apparently) idiotic questions and see if someone more qualified than me might have an informed opinion as to why they didn't just tackle or taser the guy. Or bring in a negotiator. Or really do anything else other than shooting the guy 9 times.

They probably didn't storm the streetcar because there was a guy with a knife on it, and they didn't feel like getting stabbed.

Your initial post gave 'maybes' as a possible reason for shooting, I simply pointed out that 'maybes' aren't good enough.

Btw, I didn't say that your question was idiotic. Don't go tarring everyone because one person responded to you in a certain way.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by polak

Yeah, I don't buy that the guy was a serious threat to anyone unless he had something else with him and considering that they continued to yell "drop the knife", I don't think that was the case.

The guy had a knife. A knife. You can't harm anyone with a knife unless they're within arms reach.

Interesting article actually about this below. I wonder how movies/video games/mainstream culture has (erroneously) affected our and frankly, my perception of things like this.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...ng-assailants/

A member of the public, lacking combat experience or training, would probably assume that if a police officer is facing off against a suspect with a knife, and they are separated by, say, 20 feet, that the police officer is safe. A gun beats a knife, and 20 feet is a lot of room. But common sense, in this case, is wrong. In 1983, Sgt. Dennis Tueller of the Salt Lake City, Utah, police department, designed a simulation to test how close someone armed with a knife has to be to a police officer to pose an imminent danger to that officer’s life.Tueller found that anyone armed with a knife could charge a police officer and inflict potentially fatal wounds from anywhere within seven yards — 21 feet — of the officer, before that officer could draw his or her firearm from its holster, aim it, and fire two accurate shots. (Shots that miss don’t help the officer much.) The time to cross the 21-foot distance to get within stabbing range was only 1.5 seconds. It was the rare police officer who could react quickly enough to recognize the threat and defend himself or herself in that period. Twenty one feet became, in effect, the zone of immediate danger, where officers might — but might not — be able to react quickly enough to save their lives.

[Aleks]

There's a lot of armchair police officers in here. CP, second only to Beyond in terms of everyone knowing it better than the person who's actually in the situation. Bravo!

[valo403]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Interesting article actually about this below. I wonder how movies/video games/mainstream culture has (erroneously) affected our and frankly, my perception of things like this.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...ng-assailants/

A member of the public, lacking combat experience or training, would probably assume that if a police officer is facing off against a suspect with a knife, and they are separated by, say, 20 feet, that the police officer is safe. A gun beats a knife, and 20 feet is a lot of room. But common sense, in this case, is wrong. In 1983, Sgt. Dennis Tueller of the Salt Lake City, Utah, police department, designed a simulation to test how close someone armed with a knife has to be to a police officer to pose an imminent danger to that officer’s life.Tueller found that anyone armed with a knife could charge a police officer and inflict potentially fatal wounds from anywhere within seven yards — 21 feet — of the officer, before that officer could draw his or her firearm from its holster, aim it, and fire two accurate shots. (Shots that miss don’t help the officer much.) The time to cross the 21-foot distance to get within stabbing range was only 1.5 seconds. It was the rare police officer who could react quickly enough to recognize the threat and defend himself or herself in that period. Twenty one feet became, in effect, the zone of immediate danger, where officers might — but might not — be able to react quickly enough to save their lives.

Two important steps that weren't in the equation here.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Aleks

There's a lot of armchair police officers in here. CP, second only to Beyond in terms of everyone knowing it better than the person who's actually in the situation. Bravo!

At least no one gets shot by a trigger happy armchair cop.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Interesting article actually about this below. I wonder how movies/video games/mainstream culture has (erroneously) affected our and frankly, my perception of things like this.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...ng-assailants/

A member of the public, lacking combat experience or training, would probably assume that if a police officer is facing off against a suspect with a knife, and they are separated by, say, 20 feet, that the police officer is safe. A gun beats a knife, and 20 feet is a lot of room. But common sense, in this case, is wrong. In 1983, Sgt. Dennis Tueller of the Salt Lake City, Utah, police department, designed a simulation to test how close someone armed with a knife has to be to a police officer to pose an imminent danger to that officer’s life.Tueller found that anyone armed with a knife could charge a police officer and inflict potentially fatal wounds from anywhere within seven yards — 21 feet — of the officer, before that officer could draw his or her firearm from its holster, aim it, and fire two accurate shots. (Shots that miss don’t help the officer much.) The time to cross the 21-foot distance to get within stabbing range was only 1.5 seconds. It was the rare police officer who could react quickly enough to recognize the threat and defend himself or herself in that period. Twenty one feet became, in effect, the zone of immediate danger, where officers might — but might not — be able to react quickly enough to save their lives.

But there were like 8 officers right there. It wasn't like a one-on-one confrontation. There is no way that kid could make it 20 feet without getting taken down in that situation. There is also no reason why the police couldn't back off and give themselves even more space.

If they were afraid of a bomb as some people stated, the last thing you would want to do is shoot him and cause the whole thing to blow up.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

and if he had a bomb strapped to him?

And if he had superpowers? Unless there was a reasonable basis for believing he had a bomb that should not factor in. For like the 20th time, make believe scenarios are not justification for using lethal force.

[chemgear]

Not sure if posted elsewhere in piecemeal but more information/video/viewpoints.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/07...oronto-police/

[Peanut]

Originally Posted by valo403

They probably didn't storm the streetcar because there was a guy with a knife on it, and they didn't feel like getting stabbed.

Your initial post gave 'maybes' as a possible reason for shooting, I simply pointed out that 'maybes' aren't good enough.

Btw, I didn't say that your question was idiotic. Don't go tarring everyone because one person responded to you in a certain way.

Again, I'm not using maybe's to justify anything. My question is still not really answered. What is the protocol? I genuinely don't know. They can't approach him because he has the knife and they don't want to get stabbed. But the majority seem to also be saying they shouldn't have shot him because he wasn't in a position to imminently hurt anyone.

So should they have brought in a negotiator or something to try and talk the guy down?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

But there were like 8 officers right there. It wasn't like a one-on-one confrontation. There is no way that kid could make it 20 feet without getting taken down in that situation. There is also no reason why the police couldn't back off and give themselves even more space.

In a confined space like a bus, numbers are not an advantage. there is only so much space to maneuver for a cop and to pull his gun get his aiming points and fire.

[QUOTE=FlamesAddiction;4346161If they were afraid of a bomb as some people stated, the last thing you would want to do is shoot him and cause the whole thing to blow up.[/QUOTE]

Too much hollywood. Must simple bombs aren't created with a deadman's switch. That's why in the London Bombing tragedy the police procedure for someone with a potential bomb is to prevent someone from detonating it by destroying that person.

Most simple bomb detonators are by closing a circuit, or pulling a pin or whatever. Usually the bomb won't blow up if the person can't do that simple act.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

In a confined space like a bus, numbers are not an advantage. there is only so much space to maneuver for a cop and to pull his gun get his aiming points and fire.

I think most people are suggesting that they didn't need to storm the bus though. I don't feel they should have charged him in the bus because someone is for sure getting stabbed that way.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

And if he had superpowers? Unless there was a reasonable basis for believing he had a bomb that should not factor in. For like the 20th time, make believe scenarios are not justification for using lethal force.

I am sure you can agree that all posters in this thread are working with an incomplete fact picture and as such their opinions/thoughts/scenarios are conjecture.


It is a sad situation no doubt, but nobody on here has enough information to say if the shooting was justified or not.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Peanut

Again, I'm not using maybe's to justify anything. My question is still not really answered. What is the protocol? I genuinely don't know. They can't approach him because he has the knife and they don't want to get stabbed. But the majority seem to also be saying they shouldn't have shot him because he wasn't in a position to imminently hurt anyone.

So should they have brought in a negotiator or something to try and talk the guy down?

I have no idea what the protocol is for bringing in a negotiator, but I do know that a response of lethal force requires that a "subject exhibits actions that are intended to, or likely to cause, serious bodily harm or death to any person". I don't see anything on either video that reaches that level, but there could be something that justifies it that we don't see.

[Canuck-Hater]

Originally Posted by Acey

Tasers are not an effective method of neutralizing a threat, I'll patiently wait for Canuck-Hater to list the plenty of non-lethal options you have when a kid is allegedly coming at you with a knife. The officer is well within his rights to neutralize the threat.

I agree that this is like the Trayvon case in that people have beef with the police officer, instead of with the law that authorizes him to shoot.

Do I really have to list non-lethal tactics they could of used? Negotiating? Tear gas? Tazer? Water cannon? Shooting the kid several times should have been a last resort, or not even considered. Also, notice in the video none of the other officers draw their weapons which would indicate he wasn't a significant threat.

[CaptainCrunch]

The only thing that I can say is that I would have dumped enough tear gas in that bus that it would form a solid wall.

Just me though.

Anyone else thinking that this was a possible case of suicide by cop?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I am sure you can agree that all posters in this thread are working with an incomplete fact picture and as such their opinions/thoughts/scenarios are conjecture.


It is a sad situation no doubt, but nobody on here has enough information to say if the shooting was justified or not.

Agreed. My point is that the police response can't be justified by 'what ifs'.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

In a confined space like a bus, numbers are not an advantage. there is only so much space to maneuver for a cop and to pull his gun get his aiming points and fire.



Too much hollywood. Must simple bombs aren't created with a deadman's switch. That's why in the London Bombing tragedy the police procedure for someone with a potential bomb is to prevent someone from detonating it by destroying that person.

Most simple bomb detonators are by closing a circuit, or pulling a pin or whatever. Usually the bomb won't blow up if the person can't do that simple act.

It happens. The town I grew up had a bank robbery where the police shot the robber and caused him to blow-up. It doesn't matter if it's a deadman switch, it just isn't a good idea to fire a gun at explosives in a pedestrian area.

Honestly, if they thought that a bomb was a realistic threat, they would have started evacuating the area and not fired at him 9 times, and then taser him. That is not a logical response to a bomb threat.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

Agreed. My point is that the police response can't be justified by 'what ifs'.

Agreed.

But it goes both ways, if their actions can't be justified by "what if's" their actions shouldn't be vilified by "didn't appears".