Preliminary inquiry commits James Forcillio to stand trial for 2nd degree murder.

[Anbarandy]

Most likely, the added charge of 'attempted murder' means they're covering themselves in case there is a doubt whether the bullets killed him.

Perhaps the forensics can't rule it out that he might have died from the tasering.

Attempted murder is an automatic 'default' charge/indictment of a 'murder charge/indictment' that is available even without the formal indictment of 'attempted murder' as the crown now has processed.

 

[buttercup]

Most likely, the added charge of 'attempted murder' means they're covering themselves in case there is a doubt whether the bullets killed him.
Perhaps the forensics can't rule it out that he might have died from the tasering.

Attempted murder is an automatic 'default' charge/indictment of a 'murder charge/indictment' that is available even without the formal indictment of 'attempted murder' as the crown now has processed.

Of course. But if the evidence shows that it was the tazering that killed Yatim, the tazerer (not Forcillo) would then be guilty of manslaughter.

Forcillo would still be guilty of attempted 2nd degree murder.

But the included offences provision of the CCC (S.662) implies (it doesn't actually say!) that, in order for the included-lesser-offences to kick in, both offences have to be committed by the same person. That being so, Forcillo would have been proved not to have committed 2nd degree murder, and would simply walk -- free to step back into his police unifrom, and free to brag about how he'd got away with 2nd-deg murder.

My thought was that they included the attemped charge in case it turned out that somebody else actually killed Yatim.

 

[GPIDEAL]

I am surprised there were not charges against the guy with the tazer, after all, why would one use a tazer on an unconcious and blood soaked person? At least criminal assault. But of course they just want to white wash this so no point in charging anyone else when the public is focused on the shooter.

I think that's more along the lines of negligent homicide or manslaughter.

 

[lovelatinas]

Where are all the people saying cops are above the law, judges and lawyers always side with them and no one will ever go to trial for anything?

Bill Blair takes the fail. No longer renew his contact.

 

[buttercup]

Of course. But if the evidence shows that it was the tazering that killed Yatim, the tazerer (not Forcillo) would then be guilty of manslaughter.
Forcillo would still be guilty of attempted 2nd degree murder.
But the included offences provision of the CCC (S.662) implies (it doesn't actually say!) that, in order for the included-lesser-offences to kick in, both offences have to be committed by the same person. That being so, Forcillo would have been proved not to have committed 2nd degree murder, and would simply walk -- free to step back into his police unifrom, and free to brag about how he'd got away with 2nd-deg murder.
My thought was that they included the attemped charge in case it turned out that somebody else actually killed Yatim.

The more you think about it, there's a great idea here for a movie.

Kid waves gun around on streetcar. Cop gets pissed that kid doesn't bow down to his authority. Plugs kid (nine times).) Several videos of the killing, shown on internet. Videos even show a second cop tazering the kid as he lies dying.

Great public outcry. Especially because of the nine bullets.

Cop gets charged, 2nd deg murder. Cynics say it's a slam dunk for murder, but still the cop will walk, the courts always find a technicality to free a cop, when was the last time a cop was convicted of murder? City, nation, in uproar.

Provincial government is unpopular for spending money unwisely. Federal government is unpopular for deliberately making unconstitutional laws. The City happens to have a surprisingly popular mayor who's a world-famous wanker.

Trial starts. Public comes round to thinking, finally, maybe this time, a rogue cop will get his desserts. He can't possibly walk away from this.

Lots of interesting legal questions, limits of self-defence doctrine. Much made of the nine bullets - which sounds important, but in fact is irrelevant legally. Back and forth - guilty - self-defence - guilty - as the trial unfolds.

The defence cross-examines the forensic experts. Picks up on the medical evidence - "Can you be certain, doctor, that the kid died as a result of the nine bullets? I put it to you that you cannot rule it out as a real possibility that the kid actually died from a heart attack brought on by the tazering." Dramatic silence. Then, "I cannot rule it out."

Judge steps in. "The prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the cop killed the kid. I'm gonna set the cop free."
Prosecution: But the evidence shows the cop attempted to murder the kid.
Judge: Yes, it's very clear. But the cop is not charged with attempted murder.
Prosecution: We didn't need to charge him separately. Attempted murder is an included offence to a charge of murder.
Judge: But in this case, someone else stepped in at the last moment and actually killed the kid, after the cop attempted to kill him.
Prosecution: Yes, but . .
Judge: Obviously, it's very unusual for one party to be in the act of attempting to kill the victim, and then someone else steps in and actually kills him. But that is what happened here. The person who actually killed him is not the same person who attempted to kill him. The lesser charge only kicks in if the same person commits both offences.
Prosecution: Judge, if you let the cop go on a technicality, there'll be riots in the streets.
Judge: Not my fault. You should have charged him with attempted murder.

The cop walks. Puts his uniform on, straps on his gun. Back out on patrol duty.

Street riots - make the Rodney King riots seem like a sunday picnic. The governments mishandle the situation. Some policemen tear off the identification marks on their uniforms. Illegal searches and arrests. Public has had enough. More riots. Civil War. The end of democracy.

Like it? IMO, it's sure to be a smash hit. The stars will be falling over themselves for parts in such a meaty drama.

 

[GameBoy27]

Yatim shooting: Forcillo's side of the story.

It would seem Forcillo is counting on video not seen by the public.

Const. James Forcillo claims he shot Sammy Yatim in two bursts of gunfire on an empty streetcar because the defiant 18-year-old tried to get up with a knife still in his hand.

The Toronto Sun obtained Forcillo’s statement of defence in an $8-million lawsuit launched by the deceased’s mother, Sahar Bahadi.

It says Forcillo and his partner responded to a radio call that a knife-wielding man attacked a woman on a westbound TTC streetcar near Dundas St. W. and Grace St. shortly before midnight on July 26, 2013.

Forcillo stopped his cruiser and blocked the stationary westbound streetcar.

He spotted Yatim “holding a switchblade ... with a narrow blade approximately five inches long, held upright in the air” at the top of the streetcar’s stairs, the document says.

The officer claims he wanted to apprehend Yatim on the empty streetcar, where he posed less of a threat.

Forcillo “perceived himself to be in a vulnerable position with little time to react given the short distance between them,” the document says.

“With his service firearm pointed at the suspect, Forcillo ordered Yatim to drop the knife. He appeared to be physically in control of himself and to hear and understand the police commands.”

Yatim showed no signs of co-operating and instead “responded several times in an aggressive and defiant manner,” the document says.

The statement of claim says Yatim appeared to be “emotionally disturbed,” but Forcillo alleges the cause of Yatim’s behaviour wasn’t apparent.

He called for a Taser and warned Yatim to freeze. Yatim “paused, remained stationary for several seconds,” the statement of defence says, then suddenly “moved in a deliberate motion towards the open front streetcar door with his knife held out.”

Forcillo claims he shot Yatim to protect himself and others.

Yatim collapsed, the document says, “then began raising himself, looking at Forcillo and continuing to hold the knife upright” despite the officer’s orders to drop it.

That’s when he shot at Yatim again, the document says.

Forcillo’s statement disputes Yatim’s “emotional illness” triggered his bizarre behaviour.

None of the allegations in the statements of claim and defence have been proven in court.

“This is, in the broadest terms, his response to the civil case, but it certainly doesn’t include all of the details of the incident, which will most certainly be revealed in the criminal trial,” Forcillo’s criminal lawyer, Peter Brauti, said.

Forcillo’s second-degree murder trial is expected to begin in October.

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/09/18/yatim-shooting-forcillos-side-of-the-story

 

[GPIDEAL]

All legal statement of defence jargon.

Did he think Yatim was the Frankenstein Monster or Jason from Friday The 13th, wherein bullets have little effect, and who gets up to continue their attack?

Once he was down, did he really have to shoot him just because he held the blade up while he was flat on the floor?

What a P.O.S. He doesn't deserve to be a mall cop.

 

[surferboy]

When you look in the dictionary under coward there should be a picture of Forcillo. Just a cowardly piece of shit that should sit behind bars for a long time

 

[GPIDEAL]

When you look in the dictionary under coward there should be a picture of Forcillo. Just a cowardly piece of shit that should sit behind bars for a long time

lmao

 

[Aardvark154]

Once he was down, did he really have to shoot him just because he held the blade up while he was flat on the floor?

Those are the heavy questions which juries have to weigh. Was it reasonable for the constable to still consider him a threat or not. It quite literally can be the twinkling of an eye: on one side the use of deadly force is legal on the other it is not.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Those are the heavy questions which juries have to weigh. Was it reasonable for the constable to still consider him a threat or not. It quite literally can be the twinkling of an eye: on one side the use of deadly force is legal on the other it is not.

The 'twinkling of an eye'? As a possible excuse to pump more bullets? Aardie, Yatim was on the floor already bleeding from other bullet wounds. He had some life left in him. It doesn't matter if he waved his knife in defiance. There was no way he could attack Forcillo at that point from the sound of things.

Forcillo would not have been charged if the SIU did not think he was guilty after viewing all the videos.

 

[Aardvark154]

The 'twinkling of an eye'? As a possible excuse to pump more bullets? Aardie, Yatim was on the floor already bleeding from other bullet wounds.

May I merely remind you as to why the U.S. Army developed the .45 ACP cartridge and the pistol (the M1911) to fire it.

Not saying that this will be shown at trial, but on the ground does not necessarily mean no longer a threat.

 

[jcpro]

The video will secure the conviction. His statement of defense disintegrates when confronted by the video of the event. At the time of the shooting, no member of the public or the TPS was in any danger.

 

[Aardvark154]

The video will secure the conviction. His statement of defense disintegrates when confronted by the video of the event. At the time of the shooting, no member of the public or the TPS was in any danger.

We shall see.

 

[nottyboi]

The video will secure the conviction. His statement of defense disintegrates when confronted by the video of the event. At the time of the shooting, no member of the public or the TPS was in any danger.

Utter nonsense. 2nd degree murder CANNOT stick in this case, just not technically possible. As I have said before, to prove 2nd degree murder there has to be some intent of malice, since Forcillo ended up at the scene because he was sent by dispatcher, he CANNOT be found guilty of second degree murder. Its a false charge to placate the public and engineer a walk at the same time.