Streetcar shooting: Toronto police officer suspended

[worth]

Does the number of times he is shot have anything to do with it though? What is the difference if he is shot once or shot 12 times if the end result is the same?

The question is should the office have shot in the first place and I think it's pretty evident that that is up for debate.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I mean you could shoot him twice in both legs and he probably lives. 9 times is intent to kill without a doubt. You don't fire 9 times as a warning.

[Flames_Gimp]

The guy started to move towards the officers, then they fired.

if you charge at officers with a weapon, you get shot, duh.

[worth]

As far as I am aware, Police will never shoot to injure. If you are firing your weapon, the intent is to kill. I have to believe that the moment the first shot was fired, the intent to kill was there. And because of that, I don't have a problem with the number of shots fired since the decision was made by this particular Officer to terminate the suspect. Whether that determination is correct or not is the issue I see. Maybe i'm just splitting hairs here and it's all wrapped up in the same issue.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by fleury

IF this was determined that the kid had bipolar and never lunged at them, I hope the cop gets prison time. Mental issues are so misunderstood sometimes, and from the looks of it, this was poorly handled.

Yeah... aside from a bad PR perspective, it's not going to matter if they determine he was bipolar after the fact. Nor should it.

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I mean you could shoot him twice in both legs and he probably lives. 9 times is intent to kill without a doubt. You don't fire 9 times as a warning.

Police "shoot to neutralize the threat". Not to aim for the kneecaps hoping he drops. That'd be a dumb risk to take on their part, if you think about it.

[GGG]

The problem with this case is the cops putting themselves in a situation where lethal force was required. Even if the kid lunged at the cops and it was a good shoot the police should still be reprimanded as they appear to have caused the situation where lethal force was required.

To me the biggest problem with this incident is how the minutes leading up to the shooting.

In florida this would be a perfect example of how stand your ground is supposed to function. You arent threatened, you actively for no reason move into a position to be threatened, then you shoot.

I really hope this is adressed at the procedural level as this incident was handled terribly

[bluejays]

When you watch the video a few seconds before the shooting, then during the shooting, and even after, there's an officer much closer to the front doors of the bus who doesn't even see the threat and she pretty calmly (or shockingly) walks over to the officer presumably shooting and seems pretty shocked. If she's looking into the bus, is closer and doesn't see the immediate threat and a bozo is all of a sudden shooting, one would think she'd panic, but she doesn't. It was almost like a WTF look she gives, and even gauging the other officers, I don't think they expected that.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I can maybe understand one cop, but several cops can't subdue this guy without firing a whole clip in him? They know there is a good chance they would ultimately have been absolved had there not been the video, hence tasering him after the fact. That way you can claim the taser didn't work and you needed to use deadly force.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by worth

As far as I am aware, Police will never shoot to injure. If you are firing your weapon, the intent is to kill. I have to believe that the moment the first shot was fired, the intent to kill was there. And because of that, I don't have a problem with the number of shots fired since the decision was made by this particular Officer to terminate the suspect. Whether that determination is correct or not is the issue I see. Maybe i'm just splitting hairs here and it's all wrapped up in the same issue.

No, I think you're bang on. We've heard it before from cops and criminal experts. When you're in the moment and you've made a decision as an officer to "take out" a suspect, the number of shots kind of becomes irrelevant, as it takes very, very little to unload a bunch of shots in a tense situations, and I believe it.

I think people are a little too used to video games sometimes, thinking an officer can just nail the heart in one shot, and toss the gun back in the old holster. Now obviously there's a cut off where it starts to become excessive, but I don't think 9 shots with all those cops there is anywhere near that number.

But also like you said, although the amount of shots weren't the issue, there's definitely a huge debate over the call to start firing shots in the first place.

[bluejays]

In the States there is always racial tension and that stuff, but I've watched a lot of Cops and for some pretty serious situations where there are armed individuals, I've seen numerous times where some really good officers have told the suspects in a calm but firm manner, "put down the gun, son", without riling up the suspect. With adrenaline going it calms down all individuals and makes them think that what they've done is probably wrong. Idiots like this officer used escalating mannerisms and it cost the kid his life, when it wasn't necessary. Pretty sad.

[Peanut]

I dunno. How could they know for sure that all the guy had was a knife? What if he had a gun and/or a bomb. If he's not being compliant about dropping the knife, how do they know he's not going to pull a gun next? They can't really go storming onto the streetcar if they don't know what other weapons the guy might have (or can they? I don't know the protocol at all).

That being said it didn't really seem like 9 shots were required. I don't know how much adrenaline plays into that though.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

3 initial shots and a quick reassess is the training however in a scenario where you feel your life is threatened you can easily unload the whole mag. Take into the factors of stressors and the truth that most police officers can't shoot worth crap anyhow and I can see how 9 shots are fired.

Well, I don't know what agency you work for, but I know for a fact that it is standard training across Canada to shoot to stop the threat, re-asses the threat after each round and go from there. The re-assessment can be very quick, split seconds in some instances. You can't just say well your honour we shoot three times then re-assess, because one round may have been enough to stop the threat in the first instance.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by worth

As far as I am aware, Police will never shoot to injure. If you are firing your weapon, the intent is to kill. I have to believe that the moment the first shot was fired, the intent to kill was there. And because of that, I don't have a problem with the number of shots fired since the decision was made by this particular Officer to terminate the suspect. Whether that determination is correct or not is the issue I see. Maybe i'm just splitting hairs here and it's all wrapped up in the same issue.

Police are taught to shoot at the centre mass in order to stop the threat. They are not trained to "shoot to kill". Is there a good chance you'll die or be critically wounded from being shot in the centre mass of your body? Absolutely. However killing is not the intent. Try standing 10 metres from a piece of firewood and try and shoot it standing unsupported with a handgun. Then run 100 metres at a sprint and go try and do it. Pretty damn hard if not impossible and that's why police are trained to aim for centre mass. Police are responsible for every round that leaves their firearm. Frankly shooting for limbs is a huge liability because if you miss you put the general public in danger.

Now, the evidence from the video is another matter. None of us know all the factors surrounding the incident however I think we can all agree it doesn't look good and unfortunately a young kid lost his life.

[Bootsy]

Originally Posted by fleury

In the States there is always racial tension and that stuff, but I've watched a lot of Cops and for some pretty serious situations where there are armed individuals, I've seen numerous times where some really good officers have told the suspects in a calm but firm manner, "put down the gun, son", without riling up the suspect. With adrenaline going it calms down all individuals and makes them think that what they've done is probably wrong. Idiots like this officer used escalating mannerisms and it cost the kid his life, when it wasn't necessary. Pretty sad.

Actually the kid cost his own life when he started waving a knife around and hijacked a streetcar , then on top of that refused to drop it when prompted to numerous times by the officers.

Did the cop go overboard and overreact, resulting in a death that didn't need to happen? It certainly looks like it and he should be reprimanded accordingly.

It's a sad situation all around but let's stop pretending this was some innocent victim doing nothing wrong. This kid's own actions is ultimately the cause of this unfortunate incident.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by Bootsy

Actually the kid cost his own life when he started waving a knife around and hijacked a streetcar , then on top of that refused to drop it when prompted to numerous times by the officers.

Did the cop go overboard and overreact, resulting in a death that didn't need to happen? It certainly looks like it and he should be reprimanded accordingly.

It's a sad situation all around but let's stop pretending this was some innocent victim doing nothing wrong. This kid's own actions is ultimately the cause of this unfortunate incident.

You're absolutely right, and I never even implied he was absolved of all wrong doing. But just because an officer commanded him to drop it and he didn't, didn't mean he deserved to die. It was an unnecessary force when he wasn't an immediate threat. Their proximity to the bus was also not conducive to resolving the incident peacefully. Yelling at a person while in a state of stress causes people to react differently. It was an all out odd situation, but one that could have easily been handled differently mostly by the cops. Sure the kid should have put down the knife, but he didn't lunge at the cops from the video shown, so why was the officer so trigger happy. He unloads 3, pauses for a few seconds and unloads the rest. He's more to blame than the kid IMO. Some of the officers not even having their guns out before this occurs while beside him says a lot. Just another meathead in the police force I think.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Bootsy

It's a sad situation all around but let's stop pretending this was some innocent victim doing nothing wrong. This kid's own actions is ultimately the cause of this unfortunate incident.

Unless I'm missing something I think almost everyone is saying what you said; That it looks like the cop went overboard and hoping that he's reprimanded accordingly. I'm not seeing anyone saying the kid was innocent, doing nothing wrong.

[zamler]

Still does not explain why they deployed the taser after firing 9 shots. And does not explain why they didn't give the suspect some space and try to resolve this without deadly force.

And to the person that said what if he has a bomb? Well, if it's a bomb on his person then why would you get closer to the suspect? And is shooting going to prevent the bomb from going off? There might be dead man trigger. Congrats on the dumb comment of the month award.

[Montana Moe]

Originally Posted by Peanut

I dunno. How could they know for sure that all the guy had was a knife? What if he had a gun and/or a bomb. If he's not being compliant about dropping the knife, how do they know he's not going to pull a gun next? They can't really go storming onto the streetcar if they don't know what other weapons the guy might have (or can they? I don't know the protocol at all).

That being said it didn't really seem like 9 shots were required. I don't know how much adrenaline plays into that though.

Originally Posted by zamler

Still does not explain why they deployed the taser after firing 9 shots. And does not explain why they didn't give the suspect some space and try to resolve this without deadly force.

And to the person that said what if he has a bomb? Well, if it's a bomb on his person then why would you get closer to the suspect? And is shooting going to prevent the bomb from going off? There might be dead man trigger. Congrats on the dumb comment of the month award.

Easy there, turbo.

I'm pretty sure the statement was qualified in the bolded portion of the post. Plus, there are a couple of days left for someone to take that title.

[nik-]

I think fleury raises a good point. A bunch of these officers are standing around without their weapons even drawn, yet Rambo somehow decides he's an imminent threat and lights him up like Sonny Corleone. Yes the kid should have put down the knife, but obviously something isn't right with him, so leave him in the box. Such a severe overreaction.

[Peanut]

Originally Posted by zamler

Still does not explain why they deployed the taser after firing 9 shots. And does not explain why they didn't give the suspect some space and try to resolve this without deadly force.

And to the person that said what if he has a bomb? Well, if it's a bomb on his person then why would you get closer to the suspect? And is shooting going to prevent the bomb from going off? There might be dead man trigger. Congrats on the dumb comment of the month award.

Really? My question about what the protocol would be if he had a bomb wins dumb comment of the month? Did you venture into the vitamin thread at all?

I was thinking in my mind like a backpack bomb similar to Boston, not something strapped to his body. And was wondering if maybe that was why they didn't just swarm the streetcar and take him down - the unknown of what else he might've had for weapons.

Anyyyyyyways. Exiting thread now before I win any other awards.