Streetcar shooting: Toronto police officer suspended

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I would love to know how the SIU investigations vs. charge rate vs. conviction rate compares to that of civilians for police investigations. I would be willing to bet that the SIU gives the police more of the benefit of the doubt and express less open bias than the police give ordinary civilians when the tables are turned.

Well, in fairness the courts have established that police just need to be acting in good faith when in the execution of their duties. They deal with a lot of unknowns. In general, a person who breaks into a home, sucker punches someone at the bar etc, knows what they are doing and probably has a bit of pre-planning done.

Also, in certain jurisdictions such as BC, it is the Crown who decides whether charges are laid or not. In BC the standard is having a reasonable likelihood of conviction, so essentially the case must be air tight or no charges.

[Acey]

I'll eat my words on this one... pending the outcome of the trial.

[Regorium]

Worst part about cases like this is that the vast majority of people have already decided whether he's guilty or innocent, and no evidence will sway that opinion either way.

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Worst part about cases like this is that the vast majority of people have already decided whether he's guilty or innocent, and no evidence will sway that opinion either way.

Goes for just about any high profile criminal case though.

[Canuck-Hater]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Worst part about cases like this is that the vast majority of people have already decided whether he's guilty or innocent, and no evidence will sway that opinion either way.

Well there's already video evidence of the event taking place so that's probably why people have formed that opinion. Its not like the public is completely in the dark here.

[CaptainCrunch]

The right step to do, there was no way there weren't going to be charges at least based on the tape.

At least it will be tried in what could be considered a public forum.

[Kjesse]

Who was the moron who tased this guy? The assailant takes 3 bullets, clearly falls to the ground, then 6 more bullets, I guess just to make sure the threat of death was carried out.

And then some vigilant officer runs in and tazes him? Whoever that was needs some serious retraining, or better yet, a permanent desk job. That person does not have what it takes to respond to the critical situations officers can expect from time to time.

On the criminal charges, this is not 2nd degree murder, though I'd want to hear a justification for those 9 shots... even with none, 2nd degree is a stretch since he's innocent until proven guilty and was an officer on duty. Manslaughter is likely from a conviction point of view.

Either way, neither this officer nor the one who used the taser should ever be licensed to carry both a gun and a badge at the same time. They simply don't know how to exercise restraint, whether or not their actions were criminal.

[Northendzone]

^ i beleive it was officer hightower or mahoney

[Montana Moe]

The shooter was obviously Tackleberry.

[Kjesse]

The worst part is those comparisons fit their actions. Except Hightower. He was awesome.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Who was the moron who tased this guy? The assailant takes 3 bullets, clearly falls to the ground, then 6 more bullets, I guess just to make sure the threat of death was carried out.

And then some vigilant officer runs in and tazes him? Whoever that was needs some serious retraining, or better yet, a permanent desk job. That person does not have what it takes to respond to the critical situations officers can expect from time to time.

On the criminal charges, this is not 2nd degree murder, though I'd want to hear a justification for those 9 shots... even with none, 2nd degree is a stretch since he's innocent until proven guilty and was an officer on duty. Manslaughter is likely from a conviction point of view.

Either way, neither this officer nor the one who used the taser should ever be licensed to carry both a gun and a badge at the same time. They simply don't know how to exercise restraint, whether or not their actions were criminal.

It was speculated by some that tazing him was a way to try and cover-up what the other officer thought was an unjustified shooting. If not for the recordings, they could have argued that they tazed him first and tried a non-lethal approach before having to resort to shooting him 9 times. It's harder these days to get away with such shenanigans due to the ability for almost anyone to create decent recordings quickly.

I am not saying that I disagree or agree with that speculation, but these guys aren't idiots and I wouldn't put it past them for thinking of that and attempting a cover-up even if the odds were against it working.

[puckluck2]

Doesn't look too promising...

http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/3779471





If convicted, Forcillo would be the first Toronto cop to go to prison on an SIU charge. Since the agency's inception in 1990, 10 other police officers have been charged with second-degree murder or manslaughter, but only one was convicted, and that was overturned on appeal.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

Doesn't look too promising...

http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/3779471





If convicted, Forcillo would be the first Toronto cop to go to prison on an SIU charge. Since the agency's inception in 1990, 10 other police officers have been charged with second-degree murder or manslaughter, but only one was convicted, and that was overturned on appeal.

There was a great quote on the Global story last night that pretty much said that even though it may seem the courts are biased in letting police officers go, there needs to be the understanding that police officers, while on duty and in the execution of their duties, are viewed differently under the criminal code and are afforded a lot of power when it comes to use of force. There's a very valid reason why cops are rarely convicted on murder charges, cause most cops are acting in good faith.

Further to that, force science studies are full of information regarding situations exactly like this. A lot of information on use of force encounters, the 21 foot rule, etc. can be found here (http://www.forcescience.org/index.html) and have widely been accepted as use of force experts in Canadian and American court cases where cops have been charged while using use of force.

[jar_e]

I'll also post this video from force science...very interesting breakdown regarding some common myths when it comes to officer involved shootings. It gets to probably what's applicable on this matter on myth 3 and myth 4.

[Boblobla]

Why would they go for a second degree murder in this instance, rather than man slaughter? Public pressure? Does the video show it was this officer that took all 9 shots?

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

Why would they go for a second degree murder in this instance, rather than man slaughter? Public pressure? Does the video show it was this officer that took all 9 shots?

My understanding is that they can aim for 2nd degree murder, but the jury/judge can convict on manslaughter if it fails to meet the threshold for 2nd degree (but does meet the threshold for manslaughter).

Basically, if he is found not guilty of 2nd degree murder, he can still be found guilty of manslaughter.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

My understanding is that they can aim for 2nd degree murder, but the jury/judge can convict on manslaughter if it fails to meet the threshold for 2nd degree (but does meet the threshold for manslaughter).

Basically, if he is found not guilty of 2nd degree murder, he can still be found guilty of manslaughter.

This is correct. You can always go down to a lesser charge, you cannot go up to a more serious one.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by jar_e

There was a great quote on the Global story last night that pretty much said that even though it may seem the courts are biased in letting police officers go, there needs to be the understanding that police officers, while on duty and in the execution of their duties, are viewed differently under the criminal code and are afforded a lot of power when it comes to use of force. There's a very valid reason why cops are rarely convicted on murder charges, cause most cops are acting in good faith.

Further to that, force science studies are full of information regarding situations exactly like this. A lot of information on use of force encounters, the 21 foot rule, etc. can be found here (http://www.forcescience.org/index.html) and have widely been accepted as use of force experts in Canadian and American court cases where cops have been charged while using use of force.

Does it say to shoot 9 times (6 after the person is already down), and then taze them? Force is one thing, but this is another.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Does it say to shoot 9 times (6 after the person is already down), and then taze them? Force is one thing, but this is another.

No, but police shoot to stop the threat in a lethal force encounter. This isn't the movies where one shot does it, blowing away the offender. Who am I to judge the officer on how many shots he felt were necessary to stop the threat?

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Does it say to shoot 9 times (6 after the person is already down), and then taze them? Force is one thing, but this is another.

You don't count the shots, you shoot until the threat is stopped. That is why it is called lethal force.