The problem isn't the 20 feet. That distance cannot be maintained indefinitely.
And why is that? Do the Toronto police have some sort of quota in terms of the time required to deal with an armed individual? There was absolutely no urgent need to immediately resolve(which was 6 seconds) the situation once Sammy was felled. If he stood up again that is one thing, but being in that position he's not any threat to the public or the officers surrounding him.
Someone has to approach him and get him into custody.
Which is what the supervising officer accomplished a mere
40 seconds after the initial 3 shots that felled Sammy, somehow
magically accomplishing this without having to resort to shooting him despite his apparent possession of the knife.
Even after all 9 shots are fired, the approaching officer with the taser (I assume the supervising officer since they are the ones who carry tasers) decides to tase him. This is interesting. You can hear them still saying drop the knife. If he still has the knife, and there is no way to tell how incapacitated he is (just because you are laying there doesn't mean you can't cause harm if approached at close distance), the officer could consider this still a case of using lethal force to take him into custody, as he could easily still be considered a deadly threat. The point I am making is, that it's possible this officer could have shot him, rather than tase him, as the use of a lower level force option, like the taser, in a deadly force encounter can be a dangerous proposition.
Perhaps the supervising officer could of considered that Sammy was a threat requiring lethal force to subdue, especially since he was far closer to the suspect than officer Forcillo ever was prior to that point. But to the contrary he didn't make that determination instead choosing to use a less lethal means of disabling him. So what changed? Sammy may have been hit by up to 6 additional shoots, or he may have been hit by none. Still the most important considerations did not change; That he is still in the same position on the ground of the streetcar and he was still apparently somehow holding the knife. So why did officer Forcillo determine he could not wait any longer and needed apply lethal force to immediately subdue the suspect? I'm eagerly awaiting to hear officer Forcillo's statements on the matter.
You're being very selective about when you choose to let those who might have a clue make determinations.
Neither do I. But which expectations are you defending?
My comment was in response to yours about blaming the officer;
You can't blame the cop who was there just trying to his job
As you are no doubt aware, my general feeling is that the subsequent 6 shot were not necessary at that point based on the evidence we have available, which while not telling us everything we need to know, is none the less very substantial. Therefore I'm of the opinion that there is some fault to be had. The question which remains to be answered is whether or not officer Forcillo was acting on impulse or if he was simply applying one of the options available to him according to police protocol's for such a situation. Not being acquainted with police regulations a I cannot make a determination on where that fault lies. Which is why I said it will be up to the SIU and subsequently the justice system to determine if the fault lies with officer Forcillo.
Also, it may seem insignificant to you in light of the fact that I've acknowledged that lethal force was probably necessary at an earlier point.
But I absolutely do not agree with the police shooting a wounded individual lying on the ground in no position to immediately threaten anyone and who could still be saved, simply because that individual is no longer physically capable of responding to their commands due to grievous injury's already sustained and because such a situation must seemingly be resolved with the utmost expediency.
Hey...I live in a city that voted in Rob Ford for its mayor...so go ahead and ask me what I think of the opinions of the uninformed public. Those protesting probably fall into three categories.....grieving family and friends, those who just have hostility towards law enforcement in general, and people acting on emotion and uninformed opinion.
I shouldn't even respond this. Your comparing politics to the death of an individual, which is just absurd. The only thing they have in common is that they happened in the same city. So then you must think this city is filled with a bunch of idiots and nutters then? Is that about right? Would that include yourself, assuming you live in the city? And does that just apply exclusively to Toronto? Don't even answer that, because you missed the point altogether. The fact that there are large organized protests to begin with is telling. It signifies a degradation of public trust in the police force. Regardless of their motives that's not exactly a good thing. But keep on living in your little bubble world thinking that the opinions of these people don't matter and that the erosion of trust in our police forces won't have any negative effects on our society as a whole.
