The Trial Of Officer James Forcillo
- Thread starter twizz
- Start date
Yup, that's why I think if any of those other officers that were there that night, dealing with it as opposed to Forcillo, we wouldn't even be talking about this today.Bravo!
However, it suggests that had he truly followed police protocol, as repeatedly referred to in this thread (to shoot only if there's a threat and at center-mass), he would have not been charged at all.
Although, I believe that he was NOT following protocol by considering Sammy Yatim a threat. This is where the real problem lies with this case. If police protocol includes defusing a situation as opposed to escalating it, which is what Forcillo did, then that's another violation.
Canada is not the country for you. Here we have laws.Want my cops to shoot first. Ask if they are ok after.
Of course it will work. Don't you watch Criminal Minds? But you have to take the shot one handed, preferably without using the sights.Or, a shot to the leg might not stop it, as there are many documented cases of subjects surviving head shots, shots to vital organs and the CNS, so if those aren't guaranteed to stop the threat, why even fuck around with something even less effective, with a much, much higher risk of collateral damage, in a life or death situation? Shooting legs is movie fantasy crap that people who don't know anything about ballistics, anatomy, law, use of force, or police training think should be a given. They don't understand the implications of judicious lethal force and have even less understanding about the real world.
Well, here is the f....It's as a result of the provisions of the Police Services Act, a provincial law. The cops can't stop paying him until either he is a) sentenced to a term of incarceration, or b) is convicted under the Police Services Act, and receives the penalty of dismissal as a result. Don't blame TPS for the suspension with pay, it's the law. To change it, it's the government's job. The police chief's want it changed, but they aren't the ones who do it.What is outrageous is that he is STILL getting paid, even though he was convicted of a serious crime. WTF.
That law is just offensively wrong. It should be rewritten to eliminate paid leave in these cases. It is obnoxious.Well, here is the f....It's as a result of the provisions of the Police Services Act, a provincial law. The cops can't stop paying him until either he is a) sentenced to a term of incarceration, or b) is convicted under the Police Services Act, and receives the penalty of dismissal as a result. Don't blame TPS for the suspension with pay, it's the law. To change it, it's the government's job. The police chief's want it changed, but they aren't the ones who do it.
In fact it should be overhauled to hold police to a higher standard than the criminal law. Currently it is weak sauce and officers whose use of unnecessary force doesn't rise to the level of criminal are not terminated under the police service acts.
The bar for police isn't "don't be criminals".
Naw, you can get by with an enhanced driver's license.
I just want Mr. Know-it-all to admit, but he probably never will :biggrin1:
Right, assuming one has an enhanced driver's license.
That law is just offensively wrong. It should be rewritten to eliminate paid leave in these cases. It is obnoxious.
In fact it should be overhauled to hold police to a higher standard than the criminal law. Currently it is weak sauce and officers whose use of unnecessary force doesn't rise to the level of criminal are not terminated under the police service acts.
The bar for police isn't "don't be criminals".
So what if a cop is found not guilty? Does he have to get a job as a security guard while due process takes its course?
Jesus, it's like talking to a retarded brick wall. I saw that video too, and it was actually a dude sitting on a lawn with a gun in his hand, by himself and after a long unproductive stand off, a police sharp shooter shot the pistol out of his hand. How many times has something like that happened, where they had the time to set something like that up? How many cops can shoot that well? What if it went horribly wrong and a bystander was injured or killed, would a criminal's life be worth an innocent civilian's? What you're expecting is for the majority of cops to have a skill which few people in the world possess and which was made possible by the extenuating circumstances of that one event. How are cops going to become that proficient if the majority of them only shoot their firearm once a year to qualify? All of that because your sheltered, bleeding heart is reaching out to some stranger that you some how feel affinity to because of some social media inspired, manufactured outrage? Where was your bleeding heart when that guy was killed by a TPS sharp shooter outside of the Eaton Centre?
No it's not impossible, but it's "prescribed" because it's extremely difficult, highly improbable, less effective, requires quite a bit of luck and puts bystanders at unnecessary risk. Why would you expect something like that to be guaranteed in this case?
I gave an example where lethal force was used responsibly to not kill, which you did not acknowledge as being possible.
Then you apply that skill threshold for every cop in your rebuttal, but that's not what I'm saying, and clearly, you know that shooting a leg from 15 feet away is nowhere near the skill set of that sharpshooter example.
Ignoring your silly bleeding heart comments, which have nothing to do with my argument (but which influences how you are responding), you finally acknowledge in your last sentence that it's "not impossible" but "prescribed", but I don't think many people will agree with you that "it's extremely difficult", when we are talking about the Sammy Yatim situation all alone in that streetcar.
You wouldn't need to fire off many rounds since he's not stopping an attack. Just one to take him down.A leg might stop it, but legs are hard to hit, so most likely many of the rounds would miss the leg and then go right through the flimsy paper thin aluminum siding on the streetcar.
Wrong. The jury's options were whether they had enough proof to believe his actions were legal, or not enough proof. They were never asked to decide whether his actions were acceptable or not. Also, acceptable is not the same thing as legal.
In particular, if the jury believed his actions were entirely unacceptable and probably illegal that is a not guilty verdict, because "probably" isn't enough, it isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
All you know if that they had a doubt as to whether his actions were criminal.
Under other legal systems a jury can declare someone innocent but in Canada they can only find you not guilty.
Fuji, what happened to the manslaughter option?
I bet if you got a bullet in your knee or leg, that you wouldn't be able to jump off a streetcar and stab anyone (police protocol aside).Or, a shot to the leg might not stop it, as there are many documented cases of subjects surviving head shots, shots to vital organs and the CNS, so if those aren't guaranteed to stop the threat, why even fuck around with something even less effective, with a much, much higher risk of collateral damage, in a life or death situation? Shooting legs is movie fantasy crap that people who don't know anything about ballistics, anatomy, law, use of force, or police training think should be a given. They don't understand the implications of judicious lethal force and have even less understanding about the real world.
Right. And when retards break them By waving kinves and guns around to scare people the cops enforce those laws by whatever means to keep us all safe. Not the criminals.Canada is not the country for you. Here we have laws.
Now i can take streetcars knowing that kid wont be pulling a knife on me or my kid anytime soon.
I feel safer . Cops did their job.
So now we live in a movie? Shoot in the leg? Hope your never held hostage and the cops decide to grab a few doughnuts insteadI bet if you got a bullet in your knee or leg, that you wouldn't be able to jump off a streetcar and stab anyone (police protocol aside).
Doesn't look like you've ever shot a pistol before; it's not as easy as how they make it look like in the movies. If I shoot 200 rounds every weekend (I used to do that), yeah, maybe I can hit the leg. But maybe not if he's got baggy pants, and if he's moving, even at 15 feet. As was said before, if you do miss, that bullet could very well go straight through the street car and put a bystander in jeopardy.I gave an example where lethal force was used responsibly to not kill, which you did not acknowledge as being possible.
Then you apply that skill threshold for every cop in your rebuttal, but that's not what I'm saying, and clearly, you know that shooting a leg from 15 feet away is nowhere near the skill set of that sharpshooter example.
Ordinary cops normally qualify every year. OPP constables shoot 200 rounds. Montreal cops shoot 50, if at all because many don't even bother showing up. Many many cops have trouble qualifying; what that means is that they are likely to miss when they shoot, even with practice. The skill set required for a sniper is very different than for an ordinary police officer. Shooting the gun out of a person's hand involves practice, skill, but still a lot of risk, but maybe that risk is justified. An ordinary cop shooting someone in the leg can be very challenging due to the high probability that the ordinary cop lacks recent experience. As with any skill, they go down without practice. If I don't practice before an action shooting competition, I'm not going to do well. For example, the success of a shot will depend on where exactly your finger goes on the trigger (in the middle between the tip and the first joint), but there are other factors as well. You will likely not do that if you haven't shot in 8 months, so you'll likely miss if you're trying to hit within 6 inches at 15 feet. If you really have to shoot, you shoot in the centre of mass, because you're less likely to miss. If you don't really have to shoot (because there is no immediate danger) then you simply don't.
Good luck, you'll miss.I bet if you got a bullet in your knee or leg, that you wouldn't be able to jump off a streetcar and stab anyone (police protocol aside).
All that being said, Forcillo was just part of the problem. Who was in charge? There didn't seem to be anybody. What about the senior constable on the scene? Forcillo just arrived, pulled out his gun and started shouting to drop the knife.
If there had been somebody in charge, wouldn't it be normal to get out of your cop car, ask who's in charge, and ask 'what do you want me to do?'. Doesn't appear so.
Wasn't there a lady cop just beside him when he started shooting? I have the impression that he was going to show her how it's done. Once he started shouting to drop the knife with his gun drawn and pointed, there was no going back, as that would have been a loss of face. But I didn't hear anyone shout at him to stand down, as there was no one in charge. Maybe no one is allowed to take charge until the sergeant shows up? Just wondering.
If there had been somebody in charge, wouldn't it be normal to get out of your cop car, ask who's in charge, and ask 'what do you want me to do?'. Doesn't appear so.
Wasn't there a lady cop just beside him when he started shooting? I have the impression that he was going to show her how it's done. Once he started shouting to drop the knife with his gun drawn and pointed, there was no going back, as that would have been a loss of face. But I didn't hear anyone shout at him to stand down, as there was no one in charge. Maybe no one is allowed to take charge until the sergeant shows up? Just wondering.
Not just the skill disparity, but look at the circumstances that led up to that gun being shot out of the subject's hand; they had time and opportunity to set up a sharp shooter (as in a guy that shoots more than once a year), clear bystanders and finally set up and execute that extraordinary shot.Doesn't look like you've ever shot a pistol before; it's not as easy as how they make it look like in the movies. If I shoot 200 rounds every weekend (I used to do that), yeah, maybe I can hit the leg. But maybe not if he's got baggy pants, and if he's moving, even at 15 feet. As was said before, if you do miss, that bullet could very well go straight through the street car and put a bystander in jeopardy.
Ordinary cops normally qualify every year. OPP constables shoot 200 rounds. Montreal cops shoot 50, if at all because many don't even bother showing up. Many many cops have trouble qualifying; what that means is that they are likely to miss when they shoot, even with practice. The skill set required for a sniper is very different than for an ordinary police officer. Shooting the gun out of a person's hand involves practice, skill, but still a lot of risk, but maybe that risk is justified. An ordinary cop shooting someone in the leg can be very challenging due to the high probability that the ordinary cop lacks recent experience. As with any skill, they go down without practice. If I don't practice before an action shooting competition, I'm not going to do well. For example, the success of a shot will depend on where exactly your finger goes on the trigger (in the middle between the tip and the first joint), but there are other factors as well. You will likely not do that if you haven't shot in 8 months, so you'll likely miss if you're trying to hit within 6 inches at 15 feet. If you really have to shoot, you shoot in the centre of mass, because you're less likely to miss. If you don't really have to shoot (because there is no immediate danger) then you simply don't.
Not justified in possibly taking a life? That's what less lethal options are for; like CEWs, bean bag rounds or even negotiation, there's your "middle ground". Wanna argue that Forcillo could have put more effort in trying to deescalate the situation? Cool. Want to talk about taking more time to set up a less lethal option and takedown like a CEW? Fine. But when you talk about fantasy shit like shooting people in extremities or shooting weapons out of hands, you're and idiot and have no place in the conversation.
So somehow a rewriting of a provincial act will hold the police to a higher standard in a criminal case ( federal jurisdiction), and survive a Charter challenge of the equity of law? Apples and oranges. Change the act to allow for suspension without pay...sure. Use it to increase penalty upon a criminal conviction? Not gonna happen. If they violate their departments use of force policy, even if not convicted criminally, they can be charged under the PSA .That law is just offensively wrong. It should be rewritten to eliminate paid leave in these cases. It is obnoxious.
In fact it should be overhauled to hold police to a higher standard than the criminal law. Currently it is weak sauce and officers whose use of unnecessary force doesn't rise to the level of criminal are not terminated under the police service acts.
The bar for police isn't "don't be criminals".
