News   Mar 23, 2026
First Rushden Station Crane Coming Down as Construction Advances
 466     1 
News   Mar 23, 2026
Towers Up to 53 Storeys Proposed Near Aldershot GO in Burlington
 757     0 
News   Mar 23, 2026
Scarborough Subway Extension Tunnelling Marks Milestone
 972     0 

Homelessness on the TTC (catch all)

nfitz said:
When was the last time the police needed a gun on TTC?
Click to expand...
This is a very valid question.

It's not that I think they'll need a gun every day, but it's the status quo for vast majority of police here. I don't see that paradigm changing anytime soon, even if I think it's suboptimal for many roles.

"In 1998, RNC officers were authorized to begin carrying their handguns on their belt.[12] Previously, officers were required to keep their firearms locked in the trunk of their car unless they were needed."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Newfoundland_Constabulary
nfitz said:
Offhand I can think of at least one police execution of someone on a TTC vehicle - but nothing that was necessary (or even expedient had it been necessary, given there was plenty of time to bring in gun officers).
Click to expand...
And that Toronto Police officer, was convicted of attempted murder (hey, at least he didn't walk free with qualified immunity) and served ~2 years. They were obviously not adequately trained in de-escalation as I assume TTC Special Constables are, or dedicated transit police should be.

See 9.1, 9.2, 10.1, 10.2 of TTC's Use of Force Policy
https://www.ttc.ca/transparency-and-accountability/policies/Use-of-Force-Policy

Transit is a unique situation that most cops aren't trained to deal with, mostly mental health, addictions, and homelessness.

"This incident was the only time an on-duty Ontario officer was charged and convicted in the death of a person since the inception of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) in 1990."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Sammy_Yatim
 
Last edited:
I think it’s important to note that using a gun to disable a person in psychosis holding a deadly weapon wasn’t the issue in the Sammy Yatim case, it was the officer’s decision to subsequently execute him as he lay on his back, with a second round of shots. If I, a civilian, was cornered in a streetcar with an armed suspect, I would absolutely want the responding officer to have a gun.
 
ownthesky said:
I think it’s important to note that using a gun to disable a person in psychosis holding a deadly weapon wasn’t the issue in the Sammy Yatim case, it was the officer’s decision to subsequently execute him as he lay on his back, with a second round of shots. If I, a civilian, was cornered in a streetcar with an armed suspect, I would absolutely want the responding officer to have a gun.
Click to expand...
And what would’ve the police in the UK have done? One of the few countries to have unarmed police.
 
ownthesky said:
I think it’s important to note that using a gun to disable a person in psychosis holding a deadly weapon wasn’t the issue in the Sammy Yatim case, it was the officer’s decision to subsequently execute him as he lay on his back, with a second round of shots. If I, a civilian, was cornered in a streetcar with an armed suspect, I would absolutely want the responding officer to have a gun.
Click to expand...
Hard to believe the system was overrun with countless "Sammy Yatims" (and worse individuals) that it's become the new norm now...
 
ownthesky said:
I think it’s important to note that using a gun to disable a person in psychosis holding a deadly weapon wasn’t the issue in the Sammy Yatim case, it was the officer’s decision to subsequently execute him as he lay on his back, with a second round of shots. If I, a civilian, was cornered in a streetcar with an armed suspect, I would absolutely want the responding officer to have a gun.
Click to expand...
No one was cornered on the streetcar. It was completely empty otherwise. Had there been police on the streetcar at the time, they'd have plenty have time to call in one of their friends to do the execution.

Once again I ask. When was the last time the police needed to use a gun on the TTC?

Even in London the police have used guns to execute innocent commuters on the Tube (only guilty of going to work while not white). It's easy enough to bring in their toys when they "need" to.
 
nfitz said:
Once again I ask. When was the last time the police needed to use a gun on the TTC?
Click to expand...
There have been plenty of situations where they needed to have guns with them, including some where they decided to bring out the long guns, and it can't always be known in advance. You can't say they only need a gun if having to shoot someone.
 
Voltz said:
There have been plenty of situations where they needed to have guns with them, including some where they decided to bring out the long guns, and it can't always be known in advance. You can't say they only need a gun if having to shoot someone.
Click to expand...
They couldn't have brought in the long guns later?

Still, no one has answered the question. When was the last time?
 
nfitz said:
They couldn't have brought in the long guns later?

Still, no one has answered the question. When was the last time?
Click to expand...
After the situation? What would be the point.

Who knows when the last time was, we're not keeping track of police incidents here, but the point is they have needed them.
 
nfitz said:
How did it come about that they were at the scene with long guns when the incident happened? Which incident was.

That was kind of my point. I can identify one in London in 2007. I'm struggling for ANY here, let alone one.
Click to expand...
Whatever information was provided to them when they were called, I've seen such incidents appear on the news,

My point was we are not keeping track of security incidents on the TTC like we are keeping track of Line 6 downtime, such incidents happen far more often than you are suggesting.
 
Voltz said:
My point was we are not keeping track of security incidents on the TTC like we are keeping track of Line 6 downtime, such incidents happen far more often than you are suggesting.
Click to expand...
And yet you don't have even a single example.

Especially of those first on the scene carrying long guns.
 
I think pushing back on guns (agree not necessary) as the issue or bringing up if it is homeless or people with extreme mental health issues or drug addition is a distraction from deciding how big a problem this is and how much can you accept to try to fix it. For me - a cursory scan of the TTC alerts will show that this is one of the top issues facing the millions of riders on transit in the GTA (and I would suggest you could extrapolate it laterally to our hospital emergency rooms, legal system, etc.). It also severely degrades the public realm - a lot of the time being downtown (which I am in every day) is just a whole lot less pleasant. There is a tiny minority of people are unwilling to accept even the most basic of civic norms. Dont leave your trash and food and drugs lying around, dont swear at or abuse fellow citizens, dont go to the bathroom in public, dont lay on the TTC seats made for people with real disabilities, dont take over public space and make it your private home... I dont think the current approach is at best trying to manage the situation but personally I actually think parts are making it worse and the incentives are misaligned to try to actually solve the issue in a substantive way. I would be interested in the stats of $spend per "homeless" person in the GTA. We made a big change 50 or 60 years to close facilities designed to manage these individuals (the One Flew Over the Cuckoos Next years) - but I think we went to far the other way by just pushing them on the street where they die in front of our eyes. I am ready for us to take the money we spend trying to manage the issue and instead spent on keeping them in a heal them, but with some associated restrictions on their personal freedoms. There will be complications and the Toronto Star will find anecdotal examples of where things are not working - but I am ready for us to try something different. Some will say I am trying to start the new Canadian Nazi party or something - but I just think the current approach is not the right one.
 
Mr.Tang said:
I think pushing back on guns (agree not necessary) as the issue or bringing up if it is homeless or people with extreme mental health issues or drug addition is a distraction from deciding how big a problem this is and how much can you accept to try to fix it. For me - a cursory scan of the TTC alerts will show that this is one of the top issues facing the millions of riders on transit in the GTA (and I would suggest you could extrapolate it laterally to our hospital emergency rooms, legal system, etc.). It also severely degrades the public realm - a lot of the time being downtown (which I am in every day) is just a whole lot less pleasant. There is a tiny minority of people are unwilling to accept even the most basic of civic norms. Dont leave your trash and food and drugs lying around, dont swear at or abuse fellow citizens, dont go to the bathroom in public, dont lay on the TTC seats made for people with real disabilities, dont take over public space and make it your private home... I dont think the current approach is at best trying to manage the situation but personally I actually think parts are making it worse and the incentives are misaligned to try to actually solve the issue in a substantive way. I would be interested in the stats of $spend per "homeless" person in the GTA. We made a big change 50 or 60 years to close facilities designed to manage these individuals (the One Flew Over the Cuckoos Next years) - but I think we went to far the other way by just pushing them on the street where they die in front of our eyes. I am ready for us to take the money we spend trying to manage the issue and instead spent on keeping them in a heal them, but with some associated restrictions on their personal freedoms. There will be complications and the Toronto Star will find anecdotal examples of where things are not working - but I am ready for us to try something different. Some will say I am trying to start the new Canadian Nazi party or something - but I just think the current approach is not the right one.
Click to expand...

God forbid we try to help the chronically addicted and homeless with involuntary treatment. That would be a huge violation of our rights and freedoms.

But apparently internet censorship, extrajudicial fines of up to $50,000, and even house arrest to combat hate speech, wrongthink, and pre-crime is totally ok... (Online Harms Bill)

Thanks Toronto Star.

"The [Digital Safety] Commission is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence. It must deal with all matters that come before it as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and considerations of fairness and natural justice permit."

Government Bill (House of Commons) C-63 (44-1) - First Reading - An Act to enact the Online Harms Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons wh

Government Bill (House of Commons) C-63 (44-1) - First Reading - An Act to enact the Online Harms Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make...
www.parl.ca

The existing Canadian Human Rights Tribunal would've been empowered to issue up to $50,000 in fines to individuals. The Tribunal is also "not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence".

Canadian Human Rights Act

Federal laws of Canada
laws-lois.justice.gc.ca laws-lois.justice.gc.ca

www.theglobeandmail.com

Justice Minister defends house arrest power for people feared to commit a hate crime in future

Arif Virani said new power could restrain behaviour of someone with a track record of hateful conduct
www.theglobeandmail.com www.theglobeandmail.com

www.thestar.com

The Online Harms bill will not chill free speech

The new bill will put internet hate-mongers on ice, where they belong.
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com

www.thestar.com

Star Editorial Board: Online harms bill a promising start to tackle the internet’s dark corners

The legislation would target specific harmful content, including the sexual victimization of children and content that foments hatred.
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com

Those clowns would sooner welcome the Minority Report than a return to the institutionalization of the pre-1980s.

Most people don't realize how authoritarian the Online Harms Bill was, in any of its iterations. If the Canadian version of the Spray Tan User showed up, would you want their admin to fine or sentence people to house arrest (or worse) for wrongspeak?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top