Constable Forcillo Trial Results

[fmahovalich]

For all the wanna be Shrinks, Sleuths and Psychiatrists. Add to that, professional journalist wannabe's and professional observationists!

Whats the the outcome of the trial? Let's see if we get it right!

 

[red]

He is guilty but will be acquitted

 

[PornAddict]

He guilty ..even without the video. Fact are cop have to be very proficient in target shooting they have to passed the target shooting exam score in order to be a cop ..I think. So you think about it these trained cop they can hit a bulleye target 50 feet or more away .. How can a teenage holding a knife less then 50 feet away inside a empty bus be a threat to anyone except himself. The cop is a scumbag who dishonour his badge and put all other cop who do good work to sham! Plus all the other cop at the scene didnot feel threaten by the teenager in the bus and they didnot discharged their firearm at the victim and some of them still have their gun still in the gun hosetier

 

[Frosty]

He's a pig. They get away with everything.

 

[nottyboi]

designed to fail

 

[fmahovalich]

He is guilty but will be acquitted

Should we assume how you voted? Lol

 

[maverick0219]

Totally guilty but unfortunately will get away with a suspension with pay for 1 Year

 

[Worf]

For all the wanna be Shrinks, Sleuths and Psychiatrists. Add to that, professional journalist wannabe's and professional observationists!

Whats the the outcome of the trial? Let's see if we get it right!

You need some more voting options. We all know he is guilty. But we also know that he will never be acquitted. There is no way he will go to prison for anything. That will never happen.

 

[Worf]

Totally guilty but unfortunately will get away with a suspension with pay for 1 Year

Ditto ... And he is already getting paid while waiting.

 

[fmahovalich]

You need some more voting options. We all know he is guilty. But we also know that he will never be acquitted. There is no way he will go to prison for anything. That will never happen.

Well if he will 'never be acquited' , then your vote would be appropriately in one of the GUILTY options.

 

[IM469]

You need some more voting options. We all know he is guilty. But we also know that he will never be acquitted. There is no way he will go to prison for anything. That will never happen.

Agreed - that is why my vote was a prediction not a reflection of his guilt.

 

[buttercup]

F is charged with second degree murder and attempted murder.
Clearly, these are the correct charges (as far as we can tell from the published evidence).

Obviously F did not premeditate the killing, which would be required for first degree.

Manslaughter requires the killing to be unintentional -- obviously, F cannot claim "I didn't mean to kill him."

So, not first deegree, and not manslaughter.

The attempted murder charge is good, because of the tasering -- which might cast doubt on whether the bullets or the tasering actually killed Y.

Reducing to the lesser offence of manslaughter would be completely inappropriate.
That's not so say it can't happen. But if it does happen, that will be a sure sign of a carve-up -- just as sure a sign as if the murder charge were reduced to parking on the sidewalk.

 

[cunning linguist]

He guilty ..even without the video. Fact are cop have to be very proficient in target shooting they have to passed the target shooting exam score in order to be a cop ..I think. So you think about it these trained cop they can hit a bulleye target 50 feet or more away .. How can a teenage holding a knife less then 50 feet away inside a empty bus be a threat to anyone except himself. The cop is a scumbag who dishonour his badge and put all other cop who do good work to sham! Plus all the other cop at the scene didnot feel threaten by the teenager in the bus and they didnot discharged their firearm at the victim and some of them still have their gun still in the gun hosetier

LOL

 

[GPIDEAL]

F is charged with second degree murder and attempted murder.
Clearly, these are the correct charges (as far as we can tell from the published evidence).

Obviously F did not premeditate the killing, which would be required for first degree.

Manslaughter requires the killing to be unintentional -- obviously, F cannot claim "I didn't mean to kill him."

So, not first deegree, and not manslaughter.

The attempted murder charge is good, because of the tasering -- which might cast doubt on whether the bullets or the tasering actually killed Y.

Reducing to the lesser offence of manslaughter would be completely inappropriate.
That's not so say it can't happen. But if it does happen, that will be a sure sign of a carve-up -- just as sure a sign as if the murder charge were reduced to parking on the sidewalk.

Couldn't the attempted murder charge be from his initial attempt at shooting him, IF it is established that Yatim was not a threat in the first place?

 

[basketcase]

From my extensive background in watching cop shows, I doubt any court would convict him of attempted murder for (the first) shooting of an armed, agitated, and mentally unstable man. I doubt they would agree beyond a reasonable doubt that Forcillo did not feel the required threat as defined in police guidelines. Even if he emptied his clip in a continual round of shooting he probably wouldn't earn criminal charges, just dismissal for failure to apply regulations appropriately.

On the other hand, the second round of shots after he put the guy down likely don't fit anything in the regulations and so are fair game for criminal persecution.

 

[buttercup]

Couldn't the attempted murder charge be from his initial attempt at shooting him, IF it is established that Yatim was not a threat in the first place?

Don't see how. There's no point in the attempted charge re any actions F actually provably did.

The attempted charge is in case F's actions did not actually result in Y's death. In other words, if something else happened to cause Y's death, other than F's bullets.
Perhaps Y had a fatal heart attack, or he was bitten by a rabid dog, or he was struck by lightning, or he was in a fight earlier in the day and died from a brain haemorrhage -- or, of course, he might have actually died from the tasering that was administered by another policeman.
If there's any doubt whether F's actions casued Y's death, F walks on the murder charge -- but not on the attempted charge.

 

[buttercup]

From my extensive background in watching cop shows, I doubt any court would convict him of attempted murder for (the first) shooting of an armed, agitated, and mentally unstable man. I doubt they would agree beyond a reasonable doubt that Forcillo did not feel the required threat as defined in police guidelines. Even if he emptied his clip in a continual round of shooting he probably wouldn't earn criminal charges, just dismissal for failure to apply regulations appropriately.
On the other hand, the second round of shots after he put the guy down likely don't fit anything in the regulations and so are fair game for criminal persecution.

The police guidelines on appropriate use of firearms are NOT a Licence to Kill.

The prosecution have the task of proving that F's bullets actually killed Y; that F himself aimed the gun and pulled the trigger; and that F actually intended to kill Y -- but I assume these things follow straight from the video.

The guidelines do not change the law. They explain what self-defence (or justifiable homicide) actually means, when it comes to protecting the public from a threat, i.e what are the limits of what is allowed by law. They refer to previous police killings, and explain how the courts decided those cases. Again, the guidelines do not change the law.

If F had only fired one shot, he might have got away with claiming that he only meant to wound Y, or even that the gun went off accidentally -- either of which might get the charge reduced to manslaughter. But eight shots rule out any kind of "I swear I didn't mean to kill him, your honour".

F's only hope is to prove he acted in self defence.

The facts that F fired 8 shots, and that he fired the shots in two bursts, are not relevant. They do however rule out any chance that F could argue that he didn't mean to kill Y.

Again, the "attempted" change is in case it turns out that the evidence does not prove that F's bullets were the actual direct cause of Y's death.

 

[cunning linguist]

The police guidelines on appropriate use of firearms are NOT a Licence to Kill.

The prosecution have the task of proving that F's bullets actually killed Y; that F himself aimed the gun and pulled the trigger; and that F actually intended to kill Y -- but I assume these things follow straight from the video.

The guidelines do not change the law. They explain what self-defence (or justifiable homicide) actually means, when it comes to protecting the public from a threat, i.e what are the limits of what is allowed by law. They refer to previous police killings, and explain how the courts decided those cases. Again, the guidelines do not change the law.

If F had only fired one shot, he might have got away with claiming that he only meant to wound Y, or even that the gun went off accidentally -- either of which might get the charge reduced to manslaughter. But eight shots rule out any kind of "I swear I didn't mean to kill him, your honour".

F's only hope is to prove he acted in self defence.

The facts that F fired 8 shots, and that he fired the shots in two bursts, are not relevant. They do however rule out any chance that F could argue that he didn't mean to kill Y.

Again, the "attempted" change is in case it turns out that the evidence does not prove that F's bullets were the actual direct cause of Y's death.

Cops don't shoot to wound, their pistols have 9 lbs triggers, can't play the "gun went off" card. Number of shots is generally irrelevant, nobody keeps track in the heat of the moment and means little in court. The two volleys is relevant, shooting someone one the ground is pretty bad.

 

[basketcase]

The police guidelines on appropriate use of firearms are NOT a Licence to Kill.

The prosecution have the task of proving that F's bullets actually killed Y; that F himself aimed the gun and pulled the trigger; and that F actually intended to kill Y -- but I assume these things follow straight from the video.....

Actually they have to do more than that. They have to prove that the actions at various points were not a part of a police officers duty because whether you like it or not, police do have a license to kill under certain circumstance. It will be easily argued that when faced with a mentally unstable man with a knife it is reasonable for a police officer to discharge his weapon if he reasonably considered a threat.

I see it as likely that waiting and then unloading the rest of your clip at a downed subject will not be seen as reasonable and he will be held criminally liable for that.

If the first shots were seen as reasonable actions for a police officer, a murder charge won't be successful unless the coroner can prove conclusively that the original shots were not lethal. We'll be left with attempted murder and not purely because of the merits of the case but rather because Forcillo seems like a class A ass and a loose cannon.

 

[Worf]

Well if he will 'never be acquited' , then your vote would be appropriately in one of the GUILTY options.

Oops ... that was meant to be NEVER will be convicted ...