TPS officer killed

[Phil C. McNasty]

I'm getting the feeling cops charged Zameer out of spite. Thats not exactly a good reason.
Mandel has a good article on it:

MANDEL: An officer still haunted by her partner's death

Grilled by the defence, Det. Const. Jeff Northrup's partner maintains she saw driver run him over despite the lack of video evidence

torontosun.com

 

[SchlongConery]

I'm getting the feeling cops charged Zameer out of spite. Thats not exactly a good reason.
Mandel has a good article on it:

MANDEL: An officer still haunted by her partner's death

Grilled by the defence, Det. Const. Jeff Northrup's partner maintains she saw driver run him over despite the lack of video evidence

torontosun.com

From what is reported of the circumstances and the deceased officer's injuries, it seems her testimony is not consistent with the objective facts. To be generous, I'd say her testimony is shaded to be self-excusing of her conduct.

As for spite... nah.

I'd say more along the lines of the TPS, TPA and Crown's office feeling a political need to prosecute for public relations issues.

As much genuine sympathy I feel for the deceased officer, I also feel for the accused and his family.

After the facts are put into the record and he is inevitably acquitted, I would not be surprised if the accused brings a civil lawsuit for some sort of improper prosecution. Less than "malicious" prosecution because while there may be at-first-glance reasonable grounds for the prosecution, I think if they could get full disclosure /discovery of the internal communications relating to the charging and prosecuting decision, there may be some improper (ie: PR) purpose for the charge and prosecution.

I'll say one thing with more certainly, given what has already come out, I'm surprised the Crown, being a member of the Bar, did not withdraw or discontinue the charges as even now, there seems to be no reasonable prospect of conviction. If the defendant's lawyer is a good examiner, and the defendant well prepared and authentic, the defendant's testimony could be devastating.

Just defending this charge probably cost the guy $150,000.00 at a minimum.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Yeah, no winners in this case (except for the lawyers).

Zameer has one of the best lawyers in Canada working for him

Nader R. Hasan - The Top 25 Most Influential Lawyers of 2020 | Canadian Lawyer

The Top 25 Most Influential 2020 winner

www.canadianlawyermag.com

 

[SchlongConery]

Yeah, no winners in this case (except for the lawyers).

Zameer has one of the best lawyers in Canada working for him

Nader R. Hasan - The Top 25 Most Influential Lawyers of 2020 | Canadian Lawyer

The Top 25 Most Influential 2020 winner

www.canadianlawyermag.com

That's reassuringly good to hear he is well represented.

Like I have said many many times, the death of Constable Northrup was a horrible tragedy. As you said, he was out there working to serve and protect the good people of Toronto. As he had for 31 years! And seems he got caught flat footed so-to-speak when his partner's actions may have led to the accused instinctively trying to flee.

I am sure her partner Sgt Lisa Forbes is also deeply hurt and traumatized for life over this tragedy. She was also just trying to do her job the best she knew how.

I hope she is getting the help she needs and the public in this day of social media is not too cruel towards her.

I knew a copper who committed suicide TWENTY FIVE years after, and because of a fellow officer dying in his arms. Back in 1990 then PC Eddy Adamson (son of late MTP Chief Harold Adamson) rushed into an active gunfight in George's Bourbon Street restaurant on Queen St where PC Michael Sweet was shot and lay dying for 2 hours. He heroically went into rescue his brother officer against his supervisor's orders. Despite his heroic efforts, Constable Sweet died.

in 2005, 25 years of PTSD later, Eddy, the now S/Sgt Adamson took his own life with the very sidearm he protected the good people of Toronto with for so many decades. in 2005. (Seriously, this brings tears to my eyes right now)

There are a few outright bad cops out there. Some not as competent as they should be too. But, overwhelmingly, they are good, decent hardworking men and women who genuinely want to serve and protect us. Including Sgt Lisa Forbes.

May they be respected and their memories be honoured. Poor sonafabitch Jeff Northrup. Just trying to get back to his police roots on the street and then this crazy thing goes down.

Officer who killed himself after tragic rescue attempt denied spot on police memorial

The shocking murder of Const. Michael Sweet, would claim another victim: Staff-Sgt. Eddie Adamson himself. Suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, he ended his own life in 2005

nationalpost.com

 

[wigglee]

I get it that people are scared of being ambushed in underground parking lots. That's the immediate reaction from a large # of people who discuss this trial.

But the cops have to do their jobs as well and need to be protected by the law. If the accused was so scared, why did he park in an underground parking lot and not take an Uber?

Right... so he's guilty because he used an underground parking lot? I'm starting to understand your mind now.

 

[GameBoy27]

He drove a car into someone, knocking him to the ground and injuring him. Then reversed over the fallen body. Then drove forwards over the fallen body inflicting massive, fatal injuries.

Maybe he's a nice guy who'd rather be at home watching Netflix. But he still assaulted a cop repeatedly, inflicting injuries leading to his death. That's murder, legally defined.

Murder, legally defined? Of course the police were going to lay charges. You've made it very clear that you think the man is guilty of first degree murder. There's just one problem, he's being tried by a jury. This means the prosecution must convince the jury that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial. And the jury must come to a unanimous decision to convict. If I were a betting man, my money is on him being found not guilty.

 

[y2kmark]

The public's opinion of construction workers is not being coerced by main stream media the way it is with police officers though.

Has to be hard to wear blue these days.

I'm sure there won't be any protests over this killing...........

Sounds like the police chief protested pretty damn strongly. At a minimum the perp will face manslaughter and probably a wrongful death lawsuit as well (if he has anything to sue about). You seem dedicated to defending police (and attacking anyone who suggests some LE abuse power) even when the law defends them very adequately, thank you...

 

[SchlongConery]

More testimony today by another Officer who witnessed the event and was the first to speak to the wife after the car stopped.

Very interesting testimony.. (bold emphasis mine)

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/toronto-cop-details-chaotic-moments-following-death-of-const-jeffery-northrup-in-trial-testimony-1.6821271

"Testifying from the witness box in a downtown courtroom on Monday, a police officer who witnessed the death of Const. Jeffrey Northrup in the parkade under Toronto's Nathan Phillips Square in 2021 described a chaotic scene that ensued following the officer's death.

Const. Scharnil Pais with the Toronto Police Service said officers slammed their unmarked van into the back of the BMW that had just run over Const. Jeffrey Northrup immediately following the crash. As Pais jumped out of the vehicle, gun drawn, to arrest driver Umar Zameer, he found a female passenger. Pregnant and wearing a hijab, the woman screamed that there was a child in the vehicle, he told the Superior Court.

“She said, ‘We didn’t know. We didn’t know you were cops,’” Const. Pais testified. “She also asked me, ‘Is he okay? Please tell me he’s going to be ok.’”

Pais said the woman then retrieved her crying child, and he moved to the drivers' side of the BMW to find Zameer himself. Zameer didn’t respond to commands, so Pais said he struck him across the face.

“I said that’s my partner you just ran over,” Pais said. “I told him he was under arrest.”

....

“We were in shock as to what we had just seen. There was a moment of, just a split second, what do we do?” he said. “It all happened very quickly.”

Pais testified that another car in front of Zameer at the city hall gate had fled after the crash, taking out the gate arm as it took off.

As for whether the Forbes and Northrup had displayed their badges, he said, “At this point I had not noticed a police badge."



So... here are my evolving thoughts on this tragedy.

First off, let's consider the reliability of Const. Pais heresay testimony of the wife's 'spontaneous utterance' of "we didn't know, We didn't know you guys were cops" is mentioned in R. v. MacKinnon : in referring to R. v. Nguyen, 2015 ONCA 278,

"One of the traditional exceptions to the general rule that hearsay evidence is inadmissible is the exception for spontaneous declarations. The requirement that the statement be made spontaneously under the pressure of a dramatic event is specifically geared to minimize the danger of fabrication or distortion because the declarant’s faculty is so overcome by the harrowing event that there is no opportunity for reflection, speculation or concoction. “Statements made under pressure or emotional intensity give the guarantee of reliability upon which the spontaneous declaration rule has traditionally rested”: R. v. Nguyen, 2015 ONCA 278,"

So there's that. Notice she said "we"?

Then there is Const. Pais' testimony that the accused murderer (driver) was non-responsive to the police officer's commands such that the police officer admitted he hit him in the face. Now maybe he punched him in the face out of anger for running over a brother policeman. Or mayyyyyyybe this might be the driver experiencing an acute state of catatonic shock?

In fact, the veteran police officer Pais himself went on to say: “We were in shock as to what we had just seen. There was a moment of, just a split second, what do we do?” he said. “It all happened very quickly.”

Finally, while the absence of not seeing any badges doesn't prove that Sgt Lisa Forbes didn't have her badge visible but it does raise the spectre of reasonable doubt. As for whether the Forbes and Northrup had displayed their badges, he said, “At this point I had not noticed a police badge."

The article also foreshadowed what might be coming next: "Zameer has pleaded not guilty and is expected to testify that he thought his family was being attacked by criminals, just a month after a Muslim family had been run over and killed in London, Ontario."

 

[SchlongConery]

So far, and just yapping off here, it seems just from the first two Crown witness' that some careers in the Crown's Office gave green lighted this case are gonna get hurt real bad.

 

[GameBoy27]

Any criminal lawyers here? People have mentioned that he may not be found guilty of first degree murder, but may be found guilty of manslaughter. I want to know if that's possible. I thought you may be given the option to plea to a lesser charge which would negate going to trial, or something like that. But that's typically done before the trial. I think the jury will be charged with determining if he's guilty (beyond reasonable doubt) of first degree murder. I don't think they can convict him of a lesser offence if he hasn't been charged with that in the first place. Can the judge offer the jury an option of finding him guilty of a different charge? But I'm not a lawyer, so I haven't a clue.

 

[Scholar]

Any criminal lawyers here? People have mentioned that he may not be found guilty of first degree murder, but may be found guilty of manslaughter. I want to know if that's possible. I thought you may be given the option to plea to a lesser charge which would negate going to trial, or something like that. But that's typically done before the trial. I think the jury will be charged with determining if he's guilty (beyond reasonable doubt) of first degree murder. I don't think they can convict him of a lesser offence if he hasn't been charged with that in the first place. Can the judge offer the jury an option of finding him guilty of a different charge? But I'm not a lawyer, so I haven't a clue.

Not a lawyer, but I've been charged a bunch of times.

My understanding is that there is no lesser offence because, as @mandrill pointed out, any death of an on duty police officer is automatically first degree murder.

If there was a possibility of him being convicted of a lesser offence, he would have been charged with all of them. E.g. a drug charge. They will charge you with possession and possession with the intent. That way, if they can't prove you were trying to sell the drugs, they still have you on the possession.

Hopefully someone else can give a more detailed explanation if I got it wrong.

 

[mandrill]

Any criminal lawyers here? People have mentioned that he may not be found guilty of first degree murder, but may be found guilty of manslaughter. I want to know if that's possible. I thought you may be given the option to plea to a lesser charge which would negate going to trial, or something like that. But that's typically done before the trial. I think the jury will be charged with determining if he's guilty (beyond reasonable doubt) of first degree murder. I don't think they can convict him of a lesser offence if he hasn't been charged with that in the first place. Can the judge offer the jury an option of finding him guilty of a different charge? But I'm not a lawyer, so I haven't a clue.

It's all about s. 34 of the CCC.


Defence — use or threat of force

• 34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
  • (a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
  • (b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and
  • (c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.
• Marginal note:Factors
  (2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:
  • (a) the nature of the force or threat;
  • (b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;
  • (c) the person’s role in the incident;
  • (d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;
  • (e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;
  • (f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;
  • (f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;
  • (g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and
  • (h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.
• Marginal note:No defence
  (3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the force is used or threatened by another person for the purpose of doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.

So the accused has to show:

1. REASONABLE GROUNDS to believe that a threat of force was being made against him. - "I'm a nervous guy and those people who approached looked scary" probably isn't going to do it. He's going to have to show overt or implied threats that he was actually going to be struck, his wife struck, etc.
2. Running over the dead cop 3x was REASONABLE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. - Which is when a good Crown will talk to him about simply rolling up the windows, locking the doors and calling 911, instead of ramming the cop with your car. And how about the good old "If you're cops, show me ID and let me call your division and ask if you're legit" ??

Subsection 3 - Did the cops show ID? (Personally I can't think of a reason why a cop would not routinely show ID in any stop and I assume the cops introduced themselves as cops here. Why would they not?) If they introduced themselves as cops, the accused is gonna have some splaining why he didn't believe them. Or if he didn't, why the law would not choose to protect the cop over a hyper nervous civilian in this situation.

And yes, it's Murder One when you kill a cop. I don't think there's a manslaughter option. You ram a person with a car, you're legally presumed to know that bad things are going to happen to that person.

 

[mandrill]

Not a lawyer, but I've been charged a bunch of times.

My understanding is that there is no lesser offence because, as @mandrill pointed out, any death of an on duty police officer is automatically first degree murder.

If there was a possibility of him being convicted of a lesser offence, he would have been charged with all of them. E.g. a drug charge. They will charge you with possession and possession with the intent. That way, if they can't prove you were trying to sell the drugs, they still have you on the possession.

Hopefully someone else can give a more detailed explanation if I got it wrong.

Questions I'm biting back asking............

 

[Scholar]

Questions I'm biting back asking............

Just a bit of evidence of a misspent youth. No negative interactions with police in over 20 years now.

 

[GameBoy27]

It's all about s. 34 of the CCC.


Defence — use or threat of force

• 34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
  • (a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
  • (b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and
  • (c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.
• Marginal note:Factors
  (2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:
  • (a) the nature of the force or threat;
  • (b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;
  • (c) the person’s role in the incident;
  • (d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;
  • (e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;
  • (f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;
  • (f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;
  • (g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and
  • (h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.
• Marginal note:No defence
  (3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the force is used or threatened by another person for the purpose of doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.

So the accused has to show:

1. REASONABLE GROUNDS to believe that a threat of force was being made against him. - "I'm a nervous guy and those people who approached looked scary" probably isn't going to do it. He's going to have to show overt or implied threats that he was actually going to be struck, his wife struck, etc.
2. Running over the dead cop 3x was REASONABLE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. - Which is when a good Crown will talk to him about simply rolling up the windows, locking the doors and calling 911, instead of ramming the cop with your car. And how about the good old "If you're cops, show me ID and let me call your division and ask if you're legit" ??

Subsection 3 - Did the cops show ID? (Personally I can't think of a reason why a cop would not routinely show ID in any stop and I assume the cops introduced themselves as cops here. Why would they not?) If they introduced themselves as cops, the accused is gonna have some splaining why he didn't believe them. Or if he didn't, why the law would not choose to protect the cop over a hyper nervous civilian in this situation.

And yes, it's Murder One when you kill a cop. I don't think there's a manslaughter option. You ram a person with a car, you're legally presumed to know that bad things are going to happen to that person.

You may not be able to think of a reason why a cop wouldn't identify themselves, but the female cop's credibility has already been called into question. Keep thinking, beyond a reasonable doubt.

And all it's going to take is one of the 12 jurors to side with the accused for it to be declared a hung jury. Maybe there's one or two jurors who deep down, don't really like cops. Judging by the number of people in this thread who have serious doubts that he intended to kill the police officer, I don't think he'll be convicted.

 

[mandrill]

You may not be able to think of a reason why a cop wouldn't identify themselves, but the female cop's credibility has already been called into question. Keep thinking, beyond a reasonable doubt.

And all it's going to take is one of the 12 jurors to side with the accused for it to be declared a hung jury. Judging by the number of people in this thread who have serious doubts that he intended to kill the police officer, I don't think he'll be convicted.

That's possible of course. The key testimony is the accused's and how the Crown crosses him. I'm prepared to accept that he panicked, but the question is whether his reaction is reasonable within the meaning of s.34.

I read the report on the female cop's testimony and wasn't bothered by it. It's well known that a witness's detail recollection of a rapid, traumatic event is likely going to be inaccurate. But again, the jury may not know that science.

 

[mandrill]

You may not be able to think of a reason why a cop wouldn't identify themselves, but the female cop's credibility has already been called into question. Keep thinking, beyond a reasonable doubt.

And all it's going to take is one of the 12 jurors to side with the accused for it to be declared a hung jury. Maybe there's one or two jurors who deep down, don't really like cops. Judging by the number of people in this thread who have serious doubts that he intended to kill the police officer, I don't think he'll be convicted.

He doesn't have to intend to kill the cop btw. This is the definition of murder.

Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide
Marginal note:Murder

229 Culpable homicide is murder

• (a) where the person who causes the death of a human being
  • (i) means to cause his death, or
  • (ii) means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not;
• (b) where a person, meaning to cause death to a human being or meaning to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and being reckless whether death ensues or not, by accident or mistake causes death to another human being, notwithstanding that he does not mean to cause death or bodily harm to that human being; or
• (c) if a person, for an unlawful object, does anything that they know is likely to cause death, and by doing so causes the death of a human being, even if they desire to effect their object without causing death or bodily harm to any human being.

If you run over someone with a car and that person dies, it doesn't really matter if you really wanted him dead or not.

 

[SchlongConery]

So more testimony and video evidence released today.

First off, Const Pais was caught perjuring himself after he admitted in cross examination that he punched the driver in the face AFTER he had handcuffed him and he was kneeling on the ground! He said 'you just ran over a cop/my partner' when he punched the.handcuffed suspect in the face.

But yesterday (according to news coverage) the LYING FUCKING POS said in examination in chief that he hit him in the face while he was in the drivers seat because he was non-responding to his commands. Implying or shading his testimony that it was innocent and lawful to cause compliance with his ostensibly lawful order.

WHEN THE FUCK WILL THESE LYING FUCKING BULLIES WITH BADGES EVER GET CHARGED FOR ASSAULT, PERJURY and all the other criminal acts they get away with?

Second, you'll notice in this screenshot of the police body cam that this police officer does not himself seem to have any badge visible! He was wearing a zip up sweatshirt and crew neck black t-shirt that he'd really have had to struggle to pull his badge on a chain up and over to be visible. And before anyone says oh, maybe he had it in his badge wallet and just put it back... yeah right! In all that self-described split second action he would have dropped his walkie talkie (visible in his hand) or used his off-hand to pull out his badge and then put it back away? Pais testified he had his gun out so there's his dominant hand unavailable to have his badge out.



You an see also in the next screen capture that the fingerprint powder shows somebody with a big right hand had slammed once on the drivers window, and then the hand slid in a direction indicating that the door was being opened from the inside. Then multiple left hand prints on the door frame to pull it open! No hand prints visible on the door handle. This suggests to this CSI Miami amateur Detective that the driver opened the door from the inside once someone with a big hand put their hand on the window!

Notice no small hand prints that might have been from Sgt Lisa?




Now for Schlong Connery's next exhibit... notice that Det Lisa is notably short in stature. And has a nice rack ( o ) ( o ) on her!

And notice how low her badge is hanging? And that she has her oversized zippered sweatshirt open?

In the heat of the moment when her naturally shaded self-serving testimony was that she "approached the car with purpose", is it unreasonable for some mild mannered slightly built father and husband who has might have heard some fast footsteps approaching as he jumped into the car and slammed the door shut.. that her badge on the ballchain was swinging or not readily visible? Her T-shirt had some big metallic logo on it too. Easy for the lack of contrast or otherwise fail to identify the little badge bouncing around with her sweater puppies bouncing around. No?

Even if he saw some glance of what appeared to be a badge, in the heat of the moment and given the context of her scruffy appearance in an unexpected "approach with purpose" how can he ascertain if it was even an authentic police badge? Look at her. She is dressed roughly enough to look like a druggie aggressively panhandling ahem "approaching with purpose"? Same with the late Const Northrup. He looks scruffy, as he intended to in his old clothes role!

There is so much more to unpack in today's testimony alone. FFS, the two nice white cars waiting to pay to exit, fucking roared off and busted through the gates when they heard the commotion. It's gonna take some real action to cause two people to knowingly damage their own nice new cars to get the fuck outta there. Would be interesting to coordinate/match time stamps to see if the cars roared off on the sound of yelling or the BMW's tire squealing or the minvan blocking impact.


Anyways, for all the dirty dog coppers I know are lurking on this forum... I feel your pain more than I can let on. I support you good cops I feel for the Sgt, and even Pais. Especially for Officer Jeff Northrup and his family. Including his real family in blue.

But this was bad police work. Sorry to be so harsh sitting on the sidelines. I know it's easy to criticize when I'm not there or don't kknow all that happened in the moment.

Please guys...especially you old timers who'd remember Hill St Blues who probably are now wearing the nice white shirts... remind the younger coppers of Sgt Esterhaus's advice when they roll out...

 

[SchlongConery]

That's possible of course. The key testimony is the accused's and how the Crown crosses him. I'm prepared to accept that he panicked, but the question is whether his reaction is reasonable within the meaning of s.34.

I read the report on the female cop's testimony and wasn't bothered by it. It's well known that a witness's detail recollection of a rapid, traumatic event is likely going to be inaccurate. But again, the jury may not know that science.

Mandy, you seem to be stuck on the most negative interpretation of s.34 as the striking and driving over of Const Northrup by changing direction three times as some sort of active act of self defence.

Is there a differentiation between those three deliberate changes of direction possibly being simply evasive manouevers to escape the threat, rather than what you seem to have repeatedly implied were three deliberate assaults with the motor vehicle?

I read "the act" term used in s.34 but is there a difference between the same physical actions depending on the intention of the person carrying out those actions?

 

[mandrill]

Mandy, you seem to be stuck on the most negative interpretation of s.34 as the striking and driving over of Const Northrup by changing direction three times as some sort of active act of self defence.

Is there a differentiation between those three deliberate changes of direction possibly being simply evasive manouevers to escape the threat, rather than what you seem to have repeatedly implied were three deliberate assaults with the motor vehicle?

I read "the act" term used in s.34 but is there a difference between the same physical actions depending on the intention of the person carrying out those actions?

Here's what I'm stuck on.

If your route of escape necessarily involves a potentially serious assault on someone else, it's still an assault, even if you really just want to get tf out of there.