TPS officer killed

[SchlongConery]

Prosecution/police fought for a publican ban on this case.. Wanted the story to just go down as "man runs over cop after stabbing downtown"...

Why are undercovers approaching general public in this manner? If he is spotted in a parking garage and you have an unmarked suv, why not follow him and have an officer in marked vehicle and uniform pull him over outside of parking structure then question / detain him...

When it was clear he was startled, attempted to flee, then was blocked by a large unmarked SUV, why did two human bodies stand infront / behind his vehicle...?

It was poor police work and lack of awareness that got this officer killed. This man was just a human trying to protect his family and these officers single handedly fucked his life.

You summed it up quite well.

I'd also note that characterizing the driving using the vehicle as "defending himself and his family" is mischaracterizing the circumstances and implying an intent that has been specifically denied by the defendant.

Attempting to retreat or extricate himself and family from what is clearly a frantic carjacking-like situation is congruent with the facts. Before employing force in the face of an imminent assault/robbery/car jacking, attempting to escape from the dangerous situation is the first course of action.

IMO, the only thing the defendant has to convince the Judge (jury?) to be acquitted is that he had a reasonable apprehension or fear for his and his family's safety and was simply attempting to extricate himself from the situation. It happens he was in his car and not on foot. If he were on foot and ran away and the 299lb police officer had a heart attack chasing him, would that also be first degree murder? Or if he threw a peanut butter smoothie in the perceived car jackers face, and the officer was allergic and died?

It is my understanding that the Crown has to prove that the accused knew, in his state of mind, that these were legitimately police officers and he intended to use his vehicle as a weapon to evade being lawfully detained. Proving state of mind is not easy. And since the accused was indeed not a suspect (therefore had no reason to beliive he may be subject to arrest), was a law abiding, quiet family man accountant driving an expensive conservative BMW etc he would have no criminal motive to flee anyone who he reasonably beleived were police officers. He would have no mens rea.

In my sea lawyers opinion anyways!

 

[SchlongConery]

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?

Seriously pal? If he was so scared maybe he should just stay home too?

Ever consider the only reason he became scared is because of the manner in which he was approached by masked OLD CLOTHES police officers, in a 'purposeful' manner?

 

[mandrill]

Seriously pal? If he was so scared maybe he should just stay home too?

Ever consider the only reason he became scared is because of the manner in which he was approached by masked OLD CLOTHES police officers, in a 'purposeful' manner?

Exactly what "purposeful manner" would that be?

They were pushy and asked a lot of questions and leaned in on the car?..... Hell, no wonder he killed them.

 

[mandrill]

You summed it up quite well.

I'd also note that characterizing the driving using the vehicle as "defending himself and his family" is mischaracterizing the circumstances and implying an intent that has been specifically denied by the defendant.

Attempting to retreat or extricate himself and family from what is clearly a frantic carjacking-like situation is congruent with the facts. Before employing force in the face of an imminent assault/robbery/car jacking, attempting to escape from the dangerous situation is the first course of action.

IMO, the only thing the defendant has to convince the Judge (jury?) to be acquitted is that he had a reasonable apprehension or fear for his and his family's safety and was simply attempting to extricate himself from the situation. It happens he was in his car and not on foot. If he were on foot and ran away and the 299lb police officer had a heart attack chasing him, would that also be first degree murder? Or if he threw a peanut butter smoothie in the perceived car jackers face, and the officer was allergic and died?

It is my understanding that the Crown has to prove that the accused knew, in his state of mind, that these were legitimately police officers and he intended to use his vehicle as a weapon to evade being lawfully detained. Proving state of mind is not easy. And since the accused was indeed not a suspect (therefore had no reason to beliive he may be subject to arrest), was a law abiding, quiet family man accountant driving an expensive conservative BMW etc he would have no criminal motive to flee anyone who he reasonably beleived were police officers. He would have no mens rea.

In my sea lawyers opinion anyways!

Except that's not what happened. He drove into a cop and then drove over him twice killing him. That's not retreat, that's attack.

 

[SchlongConery]

Different time and a different Toronto. Thank god.

having knowledge of that time and place (the word 'Trailers' might bring back some memories to a veteran Barrister like you my friend!), it is still not unheard of in some CIB's and other TPS units. Although techniques have evolved... or so I might have heard from time to time

But the point being is that bad things happen and police services and officers, like pilots, learn and evolve over time. What was thought to be good 51 Division practice back in the day, turns out not to be good. Now maybe as a result of this tragedy, TPS will come up with some other more readily identifiable, immediately deployable method of ID'ing themselves. Like how POLICE Raid Jackets came into standard practice.

And maybe police officers will think twice about using their bodies to block cars with erratic suspects in them. In fact, I don't know, but would not be surprised if current training and protocols advise against or prohibit such blocking? Pursuits are called off so as not to endanger the officers, not just the suspects. Maybe this 40 year veteran officer's original training and risk homeostasis kicked into action. Again, I am NOT casting aspersions on the late Officer. He was by all accounts a very good cop, one of the good ones. No offence is worth dying for.

 

[mandrill]

Why didn’t the cops take the plate # and follow them? Have uniformed officers in a marked car get them at home or on the road down the street?

The cops have more options and are suppose to be the professionals. It is not on the citizens.

I worry about getting into a car accident. I’m not scared all the time, I’m scared when something triggers me to be scared. So don’t blame them for being scared in the moment and try to put the false narrative that they should be Ubering instead. That is just a silly argument. They don’t have to be scared in underground parking lots all the time to be scared in that moment.

Hmmm. Probably because there were time constraints in the investigation they were doing and manpower constraints. Let's live in the real world here.

How many people are so scared of u/c cops that they kill one of them?..... Doesn't happen, except in this case.

 

[Jenesis]

Hmmm. Probably because there were time constraints in the investigation they were doing and manpower constraints. Let's live in the real world here.

How many people are so scared of u/c cops that they kill one of them?..... Doesn't happen, except in this case.

People get killed all the time in accidental ways. And I’m sorry but just because it makes the job harder doesn’t mean the job shouldn’t be done. They are the professionals. Period.

We get it. You think the did it purposely but there is plenty of evidence that says he didn’t.

I’m not going to really continue the back and forth style debate here since you have many others you are posting repeatedly too. They have this handled well I think

 

[mandrill]

having knowledge of that time and place (the word 'Trailers' might bring back some memories to a veteran Barrister like you my friend!), it is still not unheard of in some CIB's and other TPS units. Although techniques have evolved... or so I might have heard from time to time

The modern TPS has a large amount of female cops and reflects the ethnic composition of the population. The old setup where your average cop was 45 years old, white, small town and angry no longer exists.

Lots of cops have university degrees. And they have body cameras that they have to switch on when they arrest someone.

My client don't claim to be beaten up when they get arrested any more. It's changed.

 

[mandrill]

People get killed all the time in accidental ways. And I’m sorry but just because it makes the job harder doesn’t mean the job shouldn’t be done. They are the professionals. Period.

We get it. You think the did it purposely but there is plenty of evidence that says he didn’t.

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.

 

[Jenesis]

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.

I just wrote I’m not going into a back and forth debate but you quoted to fast.

I will leave with the fact that you were not there so you don’t know why he back up and drove forward again. You have no idea. Was the other cop in front of him or approaching from the front??? So he backed up? I don’t know. I wasn’t there either and to be honest - I haven’t even gotten into the evidence of the case. I have seen enough reasonable doubt so I stopped digging.

Anyways - I leave it to you and the others to debate. I’m not invested enough in this case.

 

[SchlongConery]

Except that's not what happened. He drove into a cop and then drove over him twice killing him. That's not retreat, that's attack.

I will have to re-read whatever reports there are available but as I understand it, the second roll over was when the BMW reversed in response to the unmarked police minivan attempting to block his car in. The third was forward in a changed direction to bypass the mini van in front of him.

But my memory and/or understanding may be off as I earlier thought the accused was driving the minivan and had three kids.

 

[SchlongConery]

I thought about this as well.

The first place I went to is the self defence provision of the CCC, which reads.....


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.

The accused has problems with subsection (3) and also 34(1)(c) and 34 (2).

If your reaction to maybe being carjacked is to ram the person and kill them, that may give you a challenge re "reasonableness". Jury might find the reaction excessive.

And 34(3) speaks for itself. But note the last phrase: "unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully." But you don't get to decide that a cop who just ID-ed himself isn't really a cop and kill him when he tries to detain you.

As I already mentioned, your premise of self defense is that his running over the police officer were affirmative, active measures and that he used the device at hand, the car, as a weapon to stop the threat.

It seems more reasonable and congruent with what seems to have occured that his mowing down the police officer three times was more of his attempts to remove himself and family from what he percieved as an immediate, current threat. He happened to be in his car.

 

[SchlongConery]

Law-abiding citizen might also have been a little asshole, who just finished slapping his wife and kids around and was throwing a tantrum when the cops appeared and told him what to do and annoyed him. And he acted out and figured he would lie his way out of trouble afterwards.

And yeah, IDK either. But it also fits the overall facts.

Ok, now this is where I'm going to call you out Mister!

Where did you pull this violent domestic violence scenario out of?

There is more historical evidence in the record that would support Det. Const. Lisa Forbes accosting the rich brown guy in his BMW to shake him down for some "mismanaged" cash to buy tickets to the Policeman's Ball down at Cherry Beach.

 

[mandrill]

As I already mentioned, your premise of self defense is that his running over the police officer were affirmative, active measures and that he used the device at hand, the car, as a weapon to stop the threat.

It seems more reasonable and congruent with what seems to have occured that his mowing down the police officer three times was more of his attempts to remove himself and family from what he percieved as an immediate, current threat. He happened to be in his car.

Let's draw a parallel. He's on foot and the officers hem him in. He's scared and he runs desperately at one of the officers and shoves him out the way. It's an attempt to flee, but it's also an assault.

Same diff, except in real life he does it with a car.

 

[SchlongConery]

If that's the case, what protects any scruffy looking undercover cop from simply being killed at random by any person who claims to be scared?

The manner in which the police officer approaches the person?

If you are deliberately in costume to to give the impression you are a scruffy criminal type to gain access to, confidence of or blend into the sketchy underworld, your wits are the only thing to protect you.

And if your mythical "any person" kills someone at random to claims to be scared, the law is there to charge them. And the Courts to decide if their claim of being scared, and actions thereafter is reasonable.

Cops don't have and can't have some magic invisible veil of protection. That's why they get trained and we as a society give them guns and the rights to kill us if we threaten their safety.

 

[Anbarandy]

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?

Bro, you're veering into Bud Plug cringe territory.

Your obsession with cop lollipop licking is nauseating.

 

[SchlongConery]

Let's draw a parallel. He's on foot and the officers hem him in. He's scared and he runs desperately at one of the officers and shoves him out the way. It's an attempt to flee, but it's also an assault.

Same diff, except in real life he does it with a car.

Sure. I agree. Same thing.

But what would make him want to run in the first place?

He's for all factual, uncontested evidence, a quiet, unassuming slightly built clean cut accountant who until he was "approached with purpose" and had his windows banged on... done nothing wrong.

Police admit he wasn't a suspect and there is no evidence he knew of any stabbing. And D. Const Cash admits they weere only approaching him to ask him as a witness. Why did she feel the need to "approach him with purpose"" and bang on his window?!?!? You and I and everyone knows that in these circumstances, police (and accused alike) tend to shade their testimony to put their actions in a more favourable light. So let's kick up her cop-speak "approached with purpose" to how the accused was actually approached. Now let's try to make a reasonable assumption on how the accused might have responded had the officer simply called from a distance "Hi there sir... my partner and I would like to ask you if you witnessed a stabbing earlier on. and approached in a manner that could not be misconstrued to be agressive or threatening.

Can we agree on one thing.... this whole unfortunate chain of events began as a direct result of the manner in which the surviving police officer approached a potential witness?

So being 'approached with purpose" as Sgt Cash King describes it in her own self interest, in an underground garage reeking of piss frequented by male and female vagrants for some unknown reason by masked police officers dressed not unlike said vagrants... WOULD kick in the medically undisputed fight or flight response. Once that kicks in, your lizard brain kicks in to various degrees and unique to individual. This is a real, hormone driven physiological/mental reaction.

I hope the accused counsel brings in an expert witness to testify to this medically recognized response so the Court can more fully consider the validity of his state of mind and see if the Crown can prove the requisite mens rea to convict on the charge of murder.


Sperber S. Fight or flight response: Definition, symptoms, and examples. Berkeley Well-Being Institute.

In response to acute stress, the body's sympathetic nervous system is activated by the sudden release of hormones. Fight-or-flight response hormones include adrenocorticotropic hormone and corticotropin-releasing hormone.2

These hormones cause the sympathetic nervous system to stimulate the pituitary gland and adrenal glands. This triggers the release of catecholamines, including adrenaline, noradrenaline, and cortisol.

This chain of reactions results in an increased heart rate, blood pressure, and breathing rate.3 Your body can stay in fight-or-flight for 20 to 60 minutes after the threat is gone, which is how long it takes for the parasympathetic nervous system to return it to pre-arousal levels.

The sympathetic nervous system promotes the fight-or-flight response

 

[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