Streetcar shooting: Toronto police officer suspended

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by polak

The cop was "ready" for a potential knife attack and already had his gun unholstered and and pointed at the guy. He was also surrounded by a ton of other cops and the guy was on a freaking bus. It takes a fraction of a second to pull a trigger so I'm not buying the whole "cover 20 feet before the officer could fire" thing.

Rewatch that video that nightfx posted and imagine how it would go if the cops came in fully knowing that the suspect has a knife, is dangerous and the cops had their gun drawn and pointed at the individual... Oh and the individual is on a bus.

Sorry, using the only piece of evidence we have available to us, there is no way you're convincing me that lethal force was necessary. Once more information comes out, my opinion might change.

So no matter what the investigation presents you're gonna be all about the coverup?

[polak]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

So you have made your mind up with only a very limited fact picture....

My mind is made up until more evidence comes out. I'm not a juror or a judge, I'm a guy sitting and watching a video on the internet. I'm allowed to make up my mind based on the evidence we have at the moment. Like I said, once more information is released, my opinion might change.

[polak]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

So no matter what the investigation presents you're gonna be all about the coverup?

Did everyone just ignore the last sentence?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by polak

My mind is made up until more evidence comes out. I'm not a juror or a judge, I'm a guy sitting and watching a video on the internet. I'm allowed to make up my mind based on the evidence we have at the moment. Like I said, once more information is released, my opinion might change.

Phew.......I try not to make up my mind on things until I get more information.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

So you have made your mind up with only a very limited fact picture....

He's made an assessment based upon the information currently available, and said that his position may change if more information became available. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

I agree with him that citing the 25ft standard is ridiculous. That standard clearly states that it applies to situations where a gun needs to be drawn, aimed and fired. This is a guy who has a gun drawn and aimed at him already. If he made an aggressive move towards the police I'd have no issue with the incident, but he didn't. He made a subtle move of maybe a foot or two and was still well inside the car. He looks to still be behind the 'yellow line' that most buses have near the doorway. As I said earlier, there could be plenty more to it, but based on the videos I don't see sufficient justification for use of lethal force.

[polak]

One thing is for sure, the kid was definitely wrong and the cop was not a p****.

Idiot.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by polak

Sorry, using the only piece of evidence we have available to us, there is no way you're convincing me that lethal force was necessary. Once more information comes out, my opinion might change.

It's actually the opposite. Based on the only piece of evidence we have, lethal force WAS justified, according to the law, especially if that bit about threatening the woman with the knife is true. At the moment we're waiting for something to say otherwise.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

He's made an assessment based upon the information currently available, and said that his position may change if more information became available. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

I agree with him that citing the 25ft standard is ridiculous. That standard clearly states that it applies to situations where a gun needs to be drawn, aimed and fired. This is a guy who has a gun drawn and aimed at him already. If he made an aggressive move towards the police I'd have no issue with the incident, but he didn't. He made a subtle move of maybe a foot or two and was still well inside the car. He looks to still be behind the 'yellow line' that most buses have near the doorway. As I said earlier, there could be plenty more to it, but based on the videos I don't see sufficient justification for use of lethal force.

I posted this earlier in response to one of your posts:

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

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".

He also used terms like "trigger happy cop" I think it was.....anyway in the initial outset of these type of situations the information not known greatly outweighs the information that is known.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Acey

It's actually the opposite. Based on the only piece of evidence we have, lethal force WAS justified, according to the law, especially if that bit about threatening the woman with the knife is true. At the moment we're waiting for something to say otherwise.

Alright you're going to need to walk we through your legal analysis on that. In particular, explain to me the relevance of a previous threat that is no longer present (hint: a threat that is no longer present cannot provide justification for the use of lethal force).

[valo403]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I posted this earlier in response to one of your posts:



He also used terms like "trigger happy cop" I think it was.....anyway in the initial outset of these type of situations the information not known greatly outweighs the information that is known.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Video of the incident is probably the best non-opinion evidence we'll ever see. There will be testimony that sheds some light to aspects of the video, but I can't think of anything that comes close to the evidentiary value of the video itself.

I don't see the problem with people coming to conclusions based upon available evidence where they explicitly say 'this is based on available evidence and may change when more evidence comes out'.

[octothorp]

So has there been any attempt to defend why the guy was tazered well after being shot? Because that's honestly the most troubling thing to me; I can accept that there may have been circumstances that made this situation more urgently dangerous than it appears in the video; I can accept that in the very high-stress job of policing, maybe this one cop just screwed up. Tragic, but it happens. But right now the only reason for the tazering seems to be to cover their own tracks. Attempting to doctor crime scene evidence (if that's what happened) is to me a less excusable action than any heat-of-the-moment overreaction.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

I'm not sure I agree with that. Video of the incident is probably the best non-opinion evidence we'll ever see. There will be testimony that sheds some light to aspects of the video, but I can't think of anything that comes close to the evidentiary value of the video itself.

I don't see the problem with people coming to conclusions based upon available evidence where they explicitly say 'this is based on available evidence and may change when more evidence comes out'.

His first summation:

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. 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.

There will always be information that comes out and if the officer acted outside the bounds of accepted response then he should face the appropriate consequences.

I just feel that both the deceased and the office deserve a proper investigation.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by valo403

Alright you're going to need to walk we through your legal analysis on that. In particular, explain to me the relevance of a previous threat that is no longer present (hint: a threat that is no longer present cannot provide justification for the use of lethal force).

How is it relevant? Pretty sure that's why they were called in the first place. When these things get investigated, they tend to look at absolutely everything. It's fair to assume the cop's lawyers will use the fact that he earlier threatened someone as a piece of their argument when they try to justify the cop's action.

You say the threat is no longer present... well yeah the woman's not there any more... but it's the same kid who 5 minutes prior had threatened her. Threat still there.

[sun]

Originally Posted by nik-

To people who keep posting things like "oh, I didn't realize you were such and such" ... do you honestly believe this is effective debate? It's childish, so please stop.

Oh sorry, I didn't realize you were a master debater.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Acey

How is it relevant? Pretty sure that's why they were called in the first place. When these things get investigated, they tend to look at absolutely everything. It's fair to assume the cop's lawyers will use the fact that he earlier threatened someone as a piece of their argument when they try to justify the cop's action.

You say the threat is no longer present... well yeah the woman's not there any more... but it's the same kid who 5 minutes prior had threatened her. Threat still there.

If the threat is no longer present then why shoot?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Acey

How is it relevant? Pretty sure that's why they were called in the first place. When these things get investigated, they tend to look at absolutely everything. It's fair to assume the cop's lawyers will use the fact that he earlier threatened someone as a piece of their argument when they try to justify the cop's action.

You say the threat is no longer present... well yeah the woman's not there any more... but it's the same kid who 5 minutes prior had threatened her. Threat still there.

Alright, I think it's pretty clear that you aren't going to provide me with your legal analysis, but let's just discuss the relevance of the supposed threat that occurred earlier.

We are talking about justification for using lethal force. The standard for using lethal force is that a "subject exhibits actions that are intended to, or likely to cause, serious bodily harm or death to any person". A threat that occurred earlier cannot possibly meet that standard in any way, shape or form. That threat no longer exists. It may provide context to the state of mind of the subject, but it cannot be the basis for use of lethal force.

[Acey]

He had a knife. Knives are lethal. He was told to drop it. He didn't. They shot him.

There's my legal analysis.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Acey

He had a knife. Knives are lethal. He was told to drop it. He didn't. They shot him.

There's my legal analysis.

I give you an F

[Acey]

It's a good as yours, which is...

He had a knife. Knives are lethal, but he was waving it because he needed a friend. He was told to drop it. They shot him.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Acey

It's a good as yours, which is...

He had a knife. Knives are lethal, but he was waving it because he needed a friend. He was told to drop it. They shot him.

Actually, mine uses the official standard adopted by the Toronto police department in such situations. You can see me apply it in a number of my posts.

Yours uses nothing. Under your thorough analysis anyone who has a knife who is told to drop it and does not immediately do so, regardless of anything else, can be neutralized with lethal force. That standard is quite obviously not anywhere close to reality, which we should all be pretty thankful for.