Sammy Yatim Shooting

[freshcutgrass]

Just for reference, here's the expect police response in dicey situations. You can judge for yourselves whether you feel that protocol was followed

Looks fairly cut and dried that lethal force was justified.

I think people are confused as to what the priorities are. Sammy's safety is not the priority. Once he became the cause of potential danger to other people's safety, his became unimportant. In fact, killing you becomes the point, as that is the sure way to ensure everyone's safety. Armed crazy people are dangerous. Wounded crazy armed people are dangerous. Dead people not so dangerous.

Tasering is for unarmed people.

When crazed armed person fails to comply when ordered to drop weapon, and fails to comply when told not to move....lethal force is justified. And as stated, lethal force means you intend to kill. One bullet or nine...it doesn't really matter. You can't be more than dead, so "excessive" is an non issue.

 

[Torontovibe]

I'm just curious, would you be saying the same thing if this was your brother or father that this happened to? My guess is, probably not. In fact, I bet you'd be screaming your head off about the injustice of it all. It's fine when it happens to other people but as soon as the tables are turned, well, that's another story. I've encountered lots of people who operate just like that.

If it's so "cut and dry" why are so many people upset about it? Obviously this execution has touched a nerve and most of us find it unacceptable but of course, you will always find the defenders of the police, who will do anything they can to justify the most blatant abuses of power. It happened during the G 20 and it will continue to happen, when people have an agenda to carry out.

 

[Admiral Beez]

When crazed armed person fails to comply when ordered to drop weapon, and fails to comply when told not to move....lethal force is justified.

Wrong, as you know it. Lethal force is only justified when there is an immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death.

Simply holding onto something (like a stapler, small hammer or 3" knife) and refusing to drop it when ordered to by a police officer is not a death sentence.

 

[M.R.Victor]

I don't think it's so cut and dry, although I will agree that, according to that chart, the situation was somewhere between "Assaultive" and "Likely to Inflict Serious Bodily Harm or Death," in that the perpetrator was wielding a knife. However, Yatim's ability to deal any damage at that point was extremely limited. Here are my arguments that lethal force was unwarranted:

1. The physical distance between Yatim and the police officers, including the 3 or 4 steps of the streetcar, as well as the relatively narrow entrace of the vehicle
2. The imbalance in force between Yatim and the police
3. The fact that there was nobody else on that streetcar that could have been injured by Yatim

 

[gabe]

Looks fairly cut and dried that lethal force was justified.

I think people are confused as to what the priorities are. Sammy's safety is not the priority. Once he became the cause of potential danger to other people's safety, his became unimportant. In fact, killing you becomes the point, as that is the sure way to ensure everyone's safety. Armed crazy people are dangerous. Wounded crazy armed people are dangerous. Dead people not so dangerous.

Tasering is for unarmed people.

When crazed armed person fails to comply when ordered to drop weapon, and fails to comply when told not to move....lethal force is justified. And as stated, lethal force means you intend to kill. One bullet or nine...it doesn't really matter. You can't be more than dead, so "excessive" is an non issue.

I wonder if you would be defending the trigger happy cop, if you had someone in your family who was mentally ill, or as you call them "crazy people"

Tasering is for unarmed people? Unless there is a flammable liquid around, tasers, if used properly, are a safe and effective way to disarm someone with a deadly weapon.

The police are trained to deal with people who have mental health issues. There was a standoff in my neighbourhood years ago involving a mentally ill man who was threatening to commit suicide in his house. The standoff ended peacefully after about 2 hours and the guy's life was saved, thanks to the two officers who did the negotiating. It rarely makes the news but Police deal with these situations peacefully every single day.

 

[doady]

If all that's needed to deal with some crazy, knife-wielding, mentally ill person is shoot them to death, why bother having any policemen at all? Give me a gun, I could have shot Sammy Yatim or Sylvia Klibingaitis or whoever to death myself. We don't need the police for that.

 

[Roy G Biv]

When crazed armed person fails to comply when ordered to drop weapon, and fails to comply when told not to move....lethal force is justified. And as stated, lethal force means you intend to kill. One bullet or nine...it doesn't really matter. You can't be more than dead, so "excessive" is an non issue.

Because you say so? There are already regulations governing the use of lethal force by police, so you don't have to invent your own.

Also, this is the stupidest thing I've ever read on this forum. Congrats.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

FWIW I have a friend who is involved in police training, not in the force but involved in training for self defense etc. He said that at a distance of 21 feet police are trained that guns are ineffective against a suspect wielding a knife. 1) that police vests are designed to stop a bullet not a knife and 2) that at 21 feet if a suspect lunged at someone that one could not fire a weapon fast enough to prevent the knife wielding suspect from causing harm.

Should this training element be revised?

 

[Marko]

FWIW I have a friend who is involved in police training, not in the force but involved in training for self defense etc. He said that at a distance of 21 feet police are trained that guns are ineffective against a suspect wielding a knife. 1) that police vests are designed to stop a bullet not a knife and 2) that at 21 feet if a suspect lunged at someone that one could not fire a weapon fast enough to prevent the knife wielding suspect from causing harm.

Should this training element be revised?

In this particular case, the distance of 21 feet was closed in by the officer, not the suspect. He may have moved forward on the streetcar, but I would suggest that if the police remained at least 20' from the streetcar doors, that would have given them about 25' and a set of steps to keep themselves safe and prevent from escalating the situation too rapidly.

 

[Roy G Biv]

FWIW I have a friend who is involved in police training, not in the force but involved in training for self defense etc. He said that at a distance of 21 feet police are trained that guns are ineffective against a suspect wielding a knife. 1) that police vests are designed to stop a bullet not a knife and 2) that at 21 feet if a suspect lunged at someone that one could not fire a weapon fast enough to prevent the knife wielding suspect from causing harm.

Should this training element be revised?

3) After being knocked down by initial fire, knife-wielding suspects are known to transform into knife-wielding zombies. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the suspect is dead by littering his/her body with bullets. Finally, the corpse must be burned within 24 hours.

 

[BurlOak]

Wrong, as you know it. Lethal force is only justified when there is an immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death.

Simply holding onto something (like a stapler, small hammer or 3" knife) and refusing to drop it when ordered to by a police officer is not a death sentence.

I see this is the first reference to Robert Dziekański and the Vacouver Airport incident - or at least I think it is. The use of "non-lethal" force in that case has probably lead to more shootings by police since their choices become limited to Baton or Gun.

 

[Jonny5]

We do so many people vilify those who are making a "survivable" living wage? $100K with overtime and good benefits is really nothing special. However, as CEO's get richer on our backs, good paying jobs continue to disappear along with wages of the masses continuing to decline (along with benefit reductions), I suspect there's simply a level of jealously at play here.

"$100K with overtime and good benefits is really nothing special."

BWUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

 

[Admiral Beez]

We do so many people vilify those who are making a "survivable" living wage? $100K with overtime and good benefits is really nothing special. I suspect there's simply a level of jealously at play here.

I'm a marketing manager at a consumer packaged goods company. With annual bonus I hit about $100K, with defined benefit pension and co-pay into TFSA. I certainly don't have a union or any job protection other than my own merit, negotiating abilities and job performance, but I work a lot less, and enjoy much better hours than the police I know, and baring a car crash, I am guaranteed to return to my family each afternoon for dinner. I wouldn't trade my job for a police job any day.

 

[doug]

I'm a marketing manager at a consumer packaged goods company. With annual bonus I hit about $100K, with defined benefit pension and co-pay into TFSA. I certainly don't have a union or any job protection other than my own merit, negotiating abilities and job performance, but I work a lot less, and enjoy much better hours than the police I know, and baring a car crash, I am guaranteed to return to my family each afternoon for dinner. I wouldn't trade my job for a police job any day.

Were you making over 100K at age 24?

 

[Marko]

He has only 6 years on the force, but if Forcillo was in Grade 12 in 1999, that puts his age around 31 or 32.

Apparently he was in the fitness industry prior to getting into police work.