News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 3.2K     11 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 1.1K     3 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 2K     0 

Sammy Yatim Shooting

Admiral Beez said:
I wouldn't trade my job for a police job any day.
Click to expand...
I believe you mention frequently enough for me to remember it that you're a homeowner in Cabbagetown, one of our more desirable neighbourhoods. So you probably consider yourself at an economic level beyond "survivable living wage" - whatever that redundancy as modifier was supposed to make that phrase mean. Will you admit that garbagemen probably work harder in a day also? Maybe wouldn't want to trade places with them either, even if they did make $100,000. But people seem quite at ease targeting the jobs and compensation of garbagemen as public servants. After the G20 and after episodes like this, is it not fair to ask in whose service the police services work? Men in the hero professions seem to be regarded as our ideal middle-class family men. So conservative types like the Fords see the need to pay them decent and beyond decent salaries to help them attain the increasing costs of the middle-class life with active children, a lifestyle a good bit past "survivable living". Meanwhile, they and many others are comfortable undercutting the support of lesser occupations in the cause of balancing the public budget.
 
I'm just curious, would you be saying the same thing if this was your brother or father that this happened to?
Click to expand...

All that does is point out that I am unbiased.



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.

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.
Click to expand...

Nice attempt at a smear campaign.
 
Roy G Biv said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why thank you for your well reasoned, and logical contribution.

</sarcasm>
 
Woodbridge_Heights said:
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?
Click to expand...

You may have misunderstood what your friend was trying to explain. That 21 feet range is applicable when your gun is holstered. An attacker with a knife can cover 21 feet much faster than most people can un-holster their gun, aim and fire.

At 21 feet, having a gun already pointed at knife wielding suspect is most likely going to stop him/her.
 
also at 21 feet it should give the Constable time to react, there is nothing wrong with retreating to maintain space from an armed assailant.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Assaultive involves kicking, punching, aggressive or threatening behaviour not likely to cause serious harm or death. In other words, an unarmed person. Having the knife clearly puts him in latter category. Why people have been saying he was not a danger is strange...of course he was effing dangerous...if he was so harmless, why wouldn't the cops just walk up and take the knife out of his hand.

Because of this, I don't see how a case of "excessive force" can be made. People have been arguing that the 9 shots make it "excessive", but that is incorrect. Employing lethal force doesn't matter how many times you shoot them. You would have to argue that "lethal force" was excessive, and it appears that is not the case here.

It was a tense situation, and it appears when Sammy made the sudden move toward the entrance and being told to not move, is when the officer decider to act.
Someones suggestion that the officers "retreat" is pretty absurd.

Sammy was a very troubled person who tragically died because of his actions.

The fact that you are all discussing salaries as if it has bearing on the issue leads me to believe that your opinions aren't worth much.
 
freshcutgrass, despite the fact that you only cited the first part of my argument, and left out the extenuating circumstances from which I concluded that "Assaultive" is the more appropriate scenario for this, let's assume that you are technically correct, and technically this killing is according to the letter of the law. Aside from the fact that we should perhaps change the letter of the law, your argument still doesn't have legs.

You say that lethal force is what it is. 1 bullet is no different from 100. I don't buy that. The goal of lethal force (or any use of police force, for that matter) is to contain the situation, subdue the assailant, protect the police officer involved and protect the public. The goal of lethal force is not to murder.

Hypothetical scenario, had the cop walked up to Sammy's body and put a 10th bullet in his head, execution style, just for kicks, would that fall into your definition of correct use of lethal force? Because for me (and seemingly the vast majority of forumers) those 6 extra rounds, plus that tazer at the end, really feels exactly like that. What the hell was the point, if not a sadistic adrenaline/power trip?
 
Last edited:
That's a bit too poetic for my taste. A cop is supposed to be working towards the public benefit in an emotion free fashion. Had Sammy not been killed but simply wounded, he would have recovered in a hospital and either he would have been tried or sent in for mental health treatment. And our collective trust in the police would have been restored and everything would be well. Unfortunately, the exact opposite of this happened.
 
M.R.Victor said:
That's a bit too poetic for my taste. A cop is supposed to be working towards the public benefit in an emotion free fashion. Had Sammy not been killed but simply wounded, he would have recovered in a hospital and either he would have been tried or sent in for mental health treatment. And our collective trust in the police would have been restored and everything would be well. Unfortunately, the exact opposite of this happened.
Click to expand...

Cops are human beings and cannot be expected to set their emotions aside when working. But they should recognize that someone with a weapon is more than a threat to neutralize. With the means that are given to them to protect themselves and the public come the responsibility of acting with restraint and, sometimes, compassion. That is what I got from Fiorito's column, but compassion is not in favour these days. (You can see this even in professions where one would think it is required, such as paramedics. Yet, a couple of years ago, when I called 911 for a health issue, the paramedics who responded volunteered that they were positively biased towards me because of where I live - meaning, not in poor neighbourhood.)
 
freshcutgrass, despite the fact that you only cited the first part of my argument, and left out the extenuating circumstances from which I concluded that "Assaultive" is the more appropriate scenario for this
Click to expand...

Your so-called extenuating circumstances aren't. That's why I didn't bother addressing them. He's still armed, dangerous and poses a deadly threat. The fact that he has no chance of escape (ok...possibly by hijacking the streetcar) yet still refuses to give up makes it even more likely he will use his weapon given the chance. The appears to have a death wish and that makes him even more dangerous.

He made a sudden move for the exit and that's when the officer opened fire. It's a split second decision he had to make and he made it. I'm not saying it was the "right" decision, and I'm also not saying it was the wrong decision. It was the right decision for him at that moment. And I think it's a tad premature to say the officer was just using that situation to carry out his sadistic fantasies, as some people here are suggesting.


The goal of lethal force (or any use of police force, for that matter) is to contain the situation, subdue the assailant, protect the police officer involved and protect the public. The goal of lethal force is not to murder.
Click to expand...

Why are you using the term "murder"?

I don't know where you are getting your definitions, but lethal force is nothing more than exactly what it implies....it has nothing to do with containing, or subduing. It means you have committed to killing them. This does not necessarily mean they have to be dead...they just need to be incapacitated enough in the process of using lethal force to not be any more of a threat than if they were dead.

Nobody knows for sure at this point, but from my observation of the vids, he did go down on the first 3 shots, but that officer did not move in yet fired more shots, leaving me to believe that Sammy was injured but still capable of causing harm in the eyes of the shooter. Even after all 9 shots are fired, the body language of all the officers still keeping their distance means the situation was still not clear. It was only after the one officer carefully approached and tasered him did the rest seem to look safe and they all rushed in.

Notice they were still ordering him to drop the knofe after he was shot, as well as when he was tasered. The suggestion that all of these cops concocted some silent conspiracy on the spot to pretend Sammy was still alive and dangerous when he was dead is a theory you can't possibly ask me to take seriously.


Hypothetical scenario, had the cop walked up to Sammy's body and put a 10th bullet in his head, execution style, just for kicks, would that fall into your definition of correct use of lethal force?
Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't. And do I really need to point out why? That isn't what happened. Not even close. There's a reason they didn't "just walk up to him". If you can just walk up to him, there's no need to employ lethal force.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top