Streetcar shooting: Toronto police officer suspended - Page 7 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

nik- · 07-30-2013, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

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

Think about what you're saying for a moment. Do you want police reacting with lethal force based on what could happen, or what's happening. Everyone in a hostile situation could have a bomb, I'd rather our police officers have the ability to think and not just light someone up.

valo403 · 07-30-2013, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

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

You don't need anything beyond common sense to get past the idea that police she be assuming the worst and then acting upon it regardless of the basis for the response.

Acey · 07-30-2013, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nik-

Shooting a guy with a knife who's contained in a streetcar is not an appropriate level of response.

If the investigation reveals this was justified, which is likely given past similar situations in Canada (including, but not limited to, the shooting in Lethbridge last year)... will you retract this statement?

Sorry, I was unaware that you are a legal expert and have the ability to conclude a year-long investigation after having several times watched a crappy video that starts more than halfway through the incident. Seems legit.

nik- · 07-30-2013, 10:20 AM

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.

Acey · 07-30-2013, 10:22 AM

Other than pretending to be a legal expert, there's no pretense under which you would conclude the investigation and definitively state that the response was inappropriate.

psyang · 07-30-2013, 10:25 AM

Quote:

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.

Agreed. One possible explanation for the pause and additional 6 shots is: In the first round of three shots, only one hit the target. He dropped immediately. During the pause, the target recovered and started to get up. The additional 6 shots were then fired, which may have all missed (or only grazed) the target. The target then began to get up again, during which the police began to shout again to drop the knife. Taser resulted in heart failure which killed the target.

Just too many unknowns to know what happened or why the police responded as they did.

nik- · 07-30-2013, 10:26 AM

You don't need to be a legal expert to realize that if a dude is standing there waving a knife, in an enclosed area, all you need to do is to stay back to not get stabbed. If the person then rushes you with it, shoot him ... but that's not what happened.

Jesus christ, I feel like I'm living in bizarro world.

Stay Golden · 07-30-2013, 10:28 AM

This guy would be alive if 1) He didn't pull out a knife and scare all the passengers on the street car and 2) He did what the police requested for 1 hour put down the knife and he refused. The police gave him dozens of chances to end this peacefully, HE refused.
How many times the police shot is disturbing and JMO was excessive, but the guy essentially caused his own death. And it is unknown what threats if any he said to the police.

They could have tased him and arrested the idiot yes, but what if he said i have a bomb or something like that. We really don't know.
I think this foolish guy would be alive if on that particular day/night he didn't decide to brandish a knife in public.
Does that mean anyone that pulls out a knife entitles the police to shoot and kill them no. But the guy increased his chances of being shot or beaten by even another passenger when he decided to do it. He decided to increase his chances of being shot when he looked at all the police with their guns drawn and still refused to obey their simple command "put down the knife"
I have no sympathy for this guy only his surviving family who he has put in this terrible situation.

Acey · 07-30-2013, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nik-

Jesus christ, I feel like I'm living in bizarro world.

It is indeed bizarro world, and the law is working against your entirely logical opinion here. Mine too, frankly... I kinda wish they had to resort to alternate methods here. But they don't. So that's the side I'm arguing from.

dissentowner · 07-30-2013, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zulu29

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.

And I know for a fact that in Ontario you are trained 3 initial shots mainly because many criminals wielding guns are wearing body armour. So you are saying you shoot for main mass once and then reassess? I am not sure who taught you that but I have never heard of that and it is a good way to get killed as an officer. While you take that first intial shot and start reassessing that guy if he has body armour on is killing your ass. If you draw your gun your intention on firing is lethal force period, you do not draw your weapon unless you are prepared to use that use of force. Officer safety and public safety are always priority number one. Your training exercises at OPC are always two main body mass, one head because if you are in a situation where you have to use your firearm the objective is to end the threat with lethal force. That is basic firearms training, in reality in the situation where you use your firearm you never worry about the number of shots it takes, you eliminate the threat even if you have to unload your mag. 1 shot, 3 shots, 30 shots, it does not matter as long as you can articulate why you were justified in using lethal force. I would certainly not recommend 1 shot.

Minnie · 07-30-2013, 10:35 AM

dissentowner · 07-30-2013, 10:38 AM

The above is correct however you still have to be able to articulate the use of any of the Use Of Force options. Lethal force is the last thing you want to use and I can't see the justification from that video. Then again, I was not there so we will have to wait for the SIU report.

Minnie · 07-30-2013, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissentowner

The above is correct however you still have to be able to articulate the use of any of the Use Of Force options.

Sorry, I didn't post that to make an effort to contradict you or anything. I just found it in that G&M article I linked and thought maybe it would give a clearer outline to police action. I apologize if you thought I was trying to contradict you.

Senator Clay Davis · 07-30-2013, 10:45 AM

It's interesting to look at that chart and see the massive decline in taser usage after 2008. Pretty sure that was right around when the guy got tased and died at Vancouver Airport. Wonder if thats why there's such a huge decline.

puckluck2 · 07-30-2013, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nik-

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

He's Muslim, obviously.

CaptainCrunch · 07-30-2013, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nik-

You don't need to be a legal expert to realize that if a dude is standing there waving a knife, in an enclosed area, all you need to do is to stay back to not get stabbed. If the person then rushes you with it, shoot him ... but that's not what happened.

Jesus christ, I feel like I'm living in bizarro world.

Question. were you on the train, in the area, watching video from the police, or just making an assumption.

your assuming a lynch mob mental set based on a theory that may or may not be true.

You probably have little real world experience in dealing with this kind of situation so your creating a theory to justify your argument.

The argument around threatening motion is that the person doesn't have to be rushing you with a knife. By the time that happens in a small space the bullet either might miss or might not stop the person with the knife and you have a dead cop.

Its a similar argument with a taser, there is a larger risk of equipment failure with a taser then a gun. They are ineffective if there is no skin contact, plus as with most non leathal weapons there is no guarantee that it will take a person down.

Flames_Gimp · 07-30-2013, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiteface

what are u smoking? go watch the video again he never charges the officer

better watch it again, moves towards the door, maybe the wordcharge was to harsh

CaptainCrunch · 07-30-2013, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by puckluck2

He's Muslim, obviously.

Yeah . . . the first person to bring up race and religion.

Awesome.

Acey · 07-30-2013, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

They are ineffective if there is no skin contact, plus as with most non leathal weapons there is no guarantee that it will take a person down.

Yes. This is what I was trying to say earlier but couldn't properly get the point across.

valo403 · 07-30-2013, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

better watch it again, moves towards the door, maybe the wordcharge was to harsh

He moves slowly maybe 2 feet, and nothing about his movement appears threatening. Maybe he has something in a hand we can't see, maybe he reaches for something, maybe he says something that creates the sense of threat, but his movement alone does not appear to be at all threatening. What it does do is expose him for a clean shot.