Streetcar shooting: Toronto police officer suspended

[flylock shox]

It looked to me like he didn't actually charge forward towards the door, but rather looked to - and then moved to - his left as if he was going for something else, presumably an object of some kind.

It will be interesting to see what threats the guy was making, whether he implied he had other weapons, and what the firing officer perceived him to be about to do just before the first shot was fired. If the suspicion was the guy was going for some other more lethal weapon, and persisted even after the first volley of shots, that might explain the additional shots and, potentially, the taser.

If it does turn out to just be a dude with a knife and no other suspected danger though, it does not look good. The sooner the department makes a statement the better.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Peanut

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.

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.

[valo403]

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.

Where's the support for that? The video certainly doesn't show it.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

that's why we have to wait for the SIU investigation. We know very little about what happened on the vehicle.

There are apparently TTC camera's on most or all streetcars. Obviously if there was in this case it becomes critical evidence.

[CaptainCrunch]

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 kind of disagree with that. There are no absolutes.

I'm not convinced of it, but lets just say that the kid says to the cops, I have a bomb, hand grenade whatever. then reaches into his jacket or the seat beside him that the cop can't see from his position. The cop has two choices, one is to wait and see which means that if he's wrong people will die. Or he can choose to believe the person and end their life.

I am in no way defending the cop here, I don't know enough.

None of us were on the train, due process has to be carried through.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Could be true.



Disagree with all of that.



Disagree with that as well. The 'female' officer might have been readying her cuffs or giving direction to other officers who had their eyes on the guy with the knife. She appears to be communicating with someone.



Not sure why you are quoting comments from some other website.

You disagree that they didn't secure the rear door? On what basis?

Man, you just love taking up positions without support don't you?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I kind of disagree with that. There are no absolutes.

I'm not convinced of it, but lets just say that the kid says to the cops, I have a bomb, hand grenade whatever. then reaches into his jacket or the seat beside him that the cop can't see from his position. The cop has two choices, one is to wait and see which means that if he's wrong people will die. Or he can choose to believe the person and end their life.

I am in no way defending the cop here, I don't know enough.

None of us were on the train, due process has to be carried through.

You need a reasonable basis for your conclusion was my point, as opposed to coming up with a hypothetical and using that to justify a lethal response.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by valo403

You need a reasonable basis for your conclusion was my point, as opposed to coming up with a hypothetical and using that to justify a lethal response.

Don't disagree, maybe I misread your post. the answer will come out in the investigation.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Security camera footage of the incident.

http://globalnews.ca/video/748601/se...-ttc-streetcar

[Minnie]

I don't know if the G&M still has it (I think it was the G&M), but one of their online articles had the head of the police board saying he was absolutely shocked at the rapidity of how things went down.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by nik-

even more reason to stay back ... I don't know why people keep bringing up a bomb.

Well in hindsight bringing up a bomb doesn't make sense, has he did not have one. But at the time of the showdown and in the heat of the moment if you as a police officer don't prepare for the worst - you're the one dead.

The police have a duty not only to protect themselves and the public but also property.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

1) The firing of three shots, a pause, and then six more shots fired. The pause is the key here.

He must have been still moving. Of everything that happened, this will be the easiest to justify because he's just following procedure of fully neutralizing the threat once you have started shooting. The only question is whether or not he should have started shooting in the place.

Originally Posted by valo403

Where's the support for that? The video certainly doesn't show it.

Which is why I said allegedly, because I don't know, and don't care to watch the video closely enough to find out. I was trying to make the argument from a perspective of it not mattering whether or not he charged at them.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Well in hindsight bringing up a bomb doesn't make sense, has he did not have one. But at the time of the showdown and in the heat of the moment if you as a police officer don't prepare for the worst - you're the one dead.

The police have a duty not only to protect themselves and the public but also property.

You don't implement lethal force based on what could happen. You deal with the current situation with an appropriate level of response. Shooting a guy with a knife who's contained in a streetcar is not an appropriate level of response.

If the cops thought process was "he might have a bomb, we better shoot him" then he's unfit to serve and he should be facing charges.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Well in hindsight bringing up a bomb doesn't make sense, has he did not have one. But at the time of the showdown and in the heat of the moment if you as a police officer don't prepare for the worst - you're the one dead.

The police have a duty not only to protect themselves and the public but also property.

The police have a duty to react based upon reasonable cause, not hypotheticals. If the standard was to react to the worst possible scenario regardless of having a sound basis to believe that was the case every situation would call for the use of lethal force.

You also don't use deadly force to prevent property damage.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by nik-

You don't implement lethal force based on what could happen. You deal with the current situation with an appropriate level of response. Shooting a guy with a knife who's contained in a streetcar is not an appropriate level of response.

If the cops thought process was "he might have a bomb, we better shoot him" then he's unfit to serve and he should be facing charges.

sorry didn't realize you have a background in criminal justice and policing,my bad

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Acey

He must have been still moving. Of everything that happened, this will be the easiest to justify because he's just following procedure of fully neutralizing the threat once you have started shooting. The only question is whether or not he should have started shooting in the place.

The video link I just posted a few posts from a security camera, not a YouTube video, shows the kid was on the ground after being shot 3 times, the office waits about 5 seconds and then unloads 6 more shots. Isn't he neutralized once he's shot three times and on the ground? Who is he a threat to at that point with his knife, while he is surrounded by many officers who have much more powerful weaponary than he does?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Security camera footage of the incident.

http://globalnews.ca/video/748601/se...-ttc-streetcar

Looks to me like he moved fairly slowly to an area that exposed him to a clean shot and the officer took it. You can't really see his hands that well, but it certainly doesn't appear that he lunged at officers or made any aggressive movement. Unless something shows him reaching for something I don't see where the justification lies.

[Acey]

Well I don't know, but I can say that there are plenty of police shootings where the officers have been cleared, and I've watched the video thinking... dang, did they really need to shoot that guy 10 times?

[Minnie]

Globe and Mail article I read last night. Interesting, to me at least.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Acey

He must have been still moving. Of everything that happened, this will be the easiest to justify because he's just following procedure of fully neutralizing the threat once you have started shooting. The only question is whether or not he should have started shooting in the place.



Which is why I said allegedly, because I don't know, and don't care to watch the video closely enough to find out. I was trying to make the argument from a perspective of it not mattering whether or not he charged at them.

But it does matter, so what's your point? A person standing still with a knife is not a threat that requires lethal force as a response. A person moving slowly isn't either when officers have established an appropriate buffer. If that person keeps moving slowly, or makes an aggressive move, things change.