Streetcar shooting: Toronto police officer suspended

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

yesterday the toronto sun published the name of the officer (not sure if they got his name, or were reporting that the name was published elsewhere). Not sure if that was the right thing to do given the sensitivity around this situation.

Sun Media ladies and gentleman!

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

yesterday the toronto sun published the name of the officer (not sure if they got his name, or were reporting that the name was published elsewhere). Not sure if that was the right thing to do given the sensitivity around this situation.

Here he is, complete with the sterotypical sunglasses. He was probably just itching to have a "have you ever had to use your weapon" locker room story.

[CaptainCrunch]

That might be a stretch

[mariners_fever]

Originally Posted by nik-

Sun Media ladies and gentleman!

I'm actually pretty certain that the Toronto Star leaked the name first and the Sun picked up on it.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Here he is, complete with the sterotypical sunglasses. He was probably just itching to have a "have you ever had to use your weapon" locker room story.

Your words say far more about you than sunglasses.

[burn_this_city]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...r-charged.html

The officer has been charged with second degree murder.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Hopefully they actually have enough evidence to get a conviction. Certainly deserves to be charged at least given the evidence out there.

[puckluck2]

Great news. Hopefully the scumbag gets convicted.

[dissentowner]

Typical SIU and I hope the officer beats the charge. The suspect had a knife and was non compliant and was in the mandated 21 foot range where an officer is authorized to use lethal force. Officer safety and public safety are supposed to be priority #1 and all this will do is make officers hesitate to defend themselves and sadly the outcome is that officers are going to get stabbed and possibly killed. Bare in mind that just because the SIU has come to this conclusion does not mean he will be found guilty, Toronto P.D. will throw all of their resources they can behind the defence of this officer. This is the problem with the SIU, many of the members are not big fans of the police to start with. You want to charge somebody charge the idiot who came in and tased him after for police misconduct. Instead they are trying to ruin an officers life for soing his job.

[FlamesAddiction]

I'm shocked, but glad they are actually charging him.

I just hope that the more severe 2nd degree murder charge instead on manslaughter, doesn't prove too much of a burden to prove in court.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Typical SIU and I hope the officer beats the charge. The suspect had a knife and was non compliant and was in the mandated 21 foot range where an officer is authorized to use lethal force. Officer safety and public safety are supposed to be priority #1 and all this will do is make officers hesitate to defend themselves and sadly the outcome is that officers are going to get stabbed and possibly killed. Bare in mind that just because the SIU has come to this conclusion does not mean he will be found guilty, Toronto P.D. will throw all of their resources they can behind the defence of this officer. This is the problem with the SIU, many of the members are not big fans of the police to start with. You want to charge somebody charge the idiot who came in and tased him after for police misconduct. Instead they are trying to ruin an officers life for soing his job.

Why? Shouldn't you hope that the evidence or lack thereof leads to the appropriate verdict? Or is justice not something you're interested in when police officers are involved?

And it seems to me that the seconded bolded portion results in wash. Even if I accept your claim of a biased investigation from the SIU, the police force will defend it's officers vociferously, so where's the issue?

[puckluck2]

What do you mean "typical SIU"?

Do they have a history of charging officers?

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by valo403

Why? Shouldn't you hope that the evidence or lack thereof leads to the appropriate verdict? Or is justice not something you're interested in when police officers are involved?

I know the evidence. I know that everything the officer did in the situation according to the laws set out by the CC and the PSA was lawful. I know that the director of the SIU is a cop hating dick and that the organization is broken and that they are doing this under pressure from the public. I also know that this officer is going to win, I guarantee he will be found not guilty. Do you honestly believe they will set a case law precedence where police when confronted with a hostile suspect with a knife will not defend themselves or protect the public because they are afraid of a murder charge? What did the officer do wrong here?
Suspect had a knife. Suspect was told repeatedly to drop weapon. Suspect was told he would be shot if he approached and moved toward officer. Suspect moved toward officer. Officer eliminated the threat which is what he was taught. He was not taught to shoot and then check to see if suspect was hurt, maimed, compliant or anything else, he was taught to eliminate the threat.
When a cop has to kill somebody (and believe me that officer did not want to, no officer does) everybody is in this I hate the police state but when somebody personally needs one they are ok. It pisses me off. What the hell was the police officer supposed to do, wait for the guy to stab somebody?

[Tinordi]

To quote one of my favorite video games: You don't know Jack

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

What do you mean "typical SIU"?

Do they have a history of charging officers?

That is their job. To investigate any situation where a person has been hurt or killed and the police were involved. The SIU will always lay the charge when they think they have the most minute grounds to do so. If an officer takes down a non compliant person and that person complains about the officer even though he was trying to assault the officer the SIU does an investigation and 99% will lay a charge. 98% the SIU lose. I understand why they exist, you should not have police policing police but the SIU is broken because they are supposed to investigate the facts in issue from both sides and make an unbiased judgement call. That never happens.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

That is their job. To investigate any situation where a person has been hurt or killed and the police were involved. The SIU will always lay the charge when they think they have the most minute grounds to do so. If an officer takes down a non compliant person and that person complains about the officer even though he was trying to assault the officer the SIU does an investigation and 99% will lay a charge. 98% the SIU lose. I understand why they exist, you should not have police policing police but the SIU is broken because they are supposed to investigate the facts in issue from both sides and make an unbiased judgement call. That never happens.

No, I asked if they have a history of charging officers not that their job is to investigate whether charges should be laid.

Since you know a lot about the SIU, do they have a history of charging officers upon their investigations?

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I know the evidence. I know that everything the officer did in the situation according to the laws set out by the CC and the PSA was lawful. I know that the director of the SIU is a cop hating dick and that the organization is broken and that they are doing this under pressure from the public. I also know that this officer is going to win, I guarantee he will be found not guilty. Do you honestly believe they will set a case law precedence where police when confronted with a hostile suspect with a knife will not defend themselves or protect the public because they are afraid of a murder charge? What did the officer do wrong here?
Suspect had a knife. Suspect was told repeatedly to drop weapon. Suspect was told he would be shot if he approached and moved toward officer. Suspect moved toward officer. Officer eliminated the threat which is what he was taught. He was not taught to shoot and then check to see if suspect was hurt, maimed, compliant or anything else, he was taught to eliminate the threat.
When a cop has to kill somebody (and believe me that officer did not want to, no officer does) everybody is in this I hate the police state but when somebody personally needs one they are ok. It pisses me off. What the hell was the police officer supposed to do, wait for the guy to stab somebody?

I have a hard time believing that the charges are brought against him for the first three shots, but rather the last six, which were made a significant period of time after the first three shots. I doubt that the police officer wanted to kill anyone but his direct actions lead to someone dying. I think it is possible to justify the first three shots but the last six were where most everyone would find the issue. The guy wasn't at risk of stabbing anyone at the time, he was on a streetcar and didn't make any sudden lunging movements or do anything which would cause me as an armchair quarterback to think that the officer was at risk at any time. It was just a weird situation in general.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

I have a hard time believing that the charges are brought against him for the first three shots, but rather the last six, which were made a significant period of time after the first three shots. I doubt that the police officer wanted to kill anyone but his direct actions lead to someone dying. I think it is possible to justify the first three shots but the last six were where most everyone would find the issue. The guy wasn't at risk of stabbing anyone at the time, he was on a streetcar and didn't make any sudden lunging movements or do anything which would cause me as an armchair quarterback to think that the officer was at risk at any time. It was just a weird situation in general.

Not just that, but also that an eye witness said that the officer told him that if he didn't comply, that he would kill him (or that he will die). Nine shots, combined with a death threat pretty much means they have to charge him.

Charges against Toronto police on the advice of the SIU have been extremely rare. I'm not sure how anyone can say bias is playing a role in this one situation when most of the time, they don't recommend charges.

I think this is only the 2nd time ever that an officer has been charged with murder since the SIU began in Toronto.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

No, I asked if they have a history of charging officers not that their job is to investigate whether charges should be laid.

Since you know a lot about the SIU, do they have a history of charging officers upon their investigations?

In regards to murder not really. In regards to everything else, yes. There is no surprise here that this charge came, there would be riots in the streets of Toronto if it did not. This way it diffuses the situation over time, the case will come, the officer will walk from the murder charge but probably get a police misconduct charge to help placate the masses and Toronto PD will get him to voluntarily resign.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Charges against Toronto police on the advice of the SIU have been extremely rare.

This is simply not true. Murder charges against a police officer are extremely rare. Assault charges happen all the time, you just don't hear about them.