nfitz
Superstar
LOL ... I have no idea where that came from. Sometimes I fear senility starts like that ...
|
|
|
Sammy Yatim Shooting
- Thread starter M.R.Victor
- Start date
vegeta_skyline
Senior Member
Reexamining this thread I stumbled upon these classics;
Might be time to update that last statement. Something along these lines perhaps;
That has a better ring to it, does it not?
Might be time to update that last statement. Something along these lines perhaps;
That has a better ring to it, does it not?
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Well said. The high ratio of guilty verdicts in the USA (IIRC, more than 95% of cases result in guilty verdicts) is due to the plea bargain process, where you're pressured (in many cases by your own lawyer) to plead guilty to something in order to avoid a trial where the full sentence may be massive (in part due to mandatory minimums).
Here's a quick summary of the USA system, titled INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY http://www.stimmel-law.com/criminaljustice_us.html
A system where more than 90% of the people selected by the State for prosecution are found guilty is not a just system, IMO. To put it another way, the State knows that once it arrests you, the odds of a convictions are massively in the State's favour.
Last edited:
W. K. Lis
Superstar
At the trial, they will have to find 12 (plus alternates) impartial jurors who have not heard, read, or have an hard option on this case. If you were in the marches, count yourself out.
TOareaFan
Superstar
Well, that is how it works on TV....having recently served on a jury that is not quite how it works in our system. A jury pool is selected by total random selection....from that massive pool they (again randomly) select groups of people who are split (randomly again) into sub groups of (IIRC) about 20. The groups then take turns appearing one by one in front of the judge, the defense and the crown.....they are asked a question (pre-agreed by the parties involved) that deals with their ability to be impartial (in my case, for example, the defendant was from a visible and identifiable minority group so the question was +/- "since the defendant is from a specific ethnic group, does his ethnicity in anyway affect your ability to be impartial".....in this case it might be "since the defendant is a police officer, does his employment in anyway affect your ability to be impartial")....if you give the wrong answer to the question (pretty obvious which is the wrong answer) you are thanked for your attendance and excused from jury duty.....if you give the right answer, you are then subject to two further tests.....either the crown or the defense can use one of their challenges to have you excused (no need to justify why just say "challenge") if neither challenges you, the judge looks to the last two people selected to the jury and if they accept you into their jury you are "in".
Movies like Runaway Jury have painted a picture that does not exist in our court system....potential jurors do not have to account for their past months of media watching, they do not have to have their pasts investigated (in fact until the day of jury selection, no one knows who is going to show up in the courtroom as part of the pool of potential jurors) you simply state your name, age, occupation and answer the one question and wait for a few seconds to see if you are "challenged" out.
nfitz
Superstar
With second degree murder? Only one other Toronto police officer has ever been charged with second degree according to the CBC. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...o-yatim-shooting-officer-surrender-court.html
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
Who's opinion is it that conviction rates of police officers equate to an unfair judicial system?
The only other two cases of a Ontario police officer having been charged with 2nd degree murder never made it to trial...the judge threw it out, and an acquittal. Forcillo couldn't be charged with manslaughter, as it clearly wasn't accidental, so murder2 is the only option available for any charges to be laid.
Murder2 implies the intent to kill, and it is clear that this is the case. The problem is that The Criminal Code of Canada dictates police officers are justified in using deadly force when they believe on “reasonable grounds” that they, or any person under their protection, is in danger of suffering death or grievous bodily harm.
So, the difference between murder2 (unlawful use of deadly force) and the lawful use of deadly force comes down to was this a case of Sammy presenting himself as a lethal threat, and proving he wasn't will be very difficult (impossible in my irrelevant opinion). The main difference being it doesn't matter what you...the Youtube Warrior thinks, but what the contact officer and other officers on site at the time were perceiving it as.
I think what will happen is that this will present itself as an example of the "fringes" of police protocol in such matters, with the prerequisite study to determine if training/protocols need to be altered.
Sammy's family and Forcillo's lives have been forever changed, and that is tragic. But making a martyr out of Sammy is also a mistake, because it implies the world needs more people like Sammy, and that is simply not the case. All this is the fault of a sick f*ck named Sammy...and don't forget that. The only silver lining to this mess is that no innocent people were harmed/killed in the process.
nfitz
Superstar
So your basically saying it's okay to murder someone who is mentally ill?
If the accused murderer had done his job, rather than putting 9 bullets into a mentally ill person who wasn't an imminent threat, then we wouldn't be here. Putting all the blame on the person who was murdered, rather than the accused murderer ignores that Forcillo made a huge error.
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
And yet again you make it painfully obvious why your opinion is laughable.
It has not been determined that...
1: Sammy suffered from mental illness
2: Sammy was not an imminent threat
3: Sammy had 9 bullets in him
4: Sammy was "murdered"
5: Forcillo was not doing his job
6: Forcillo made an "error"
So yea....this means it's definitely ok to murder the mentally ill. <scratches head>
nfitz
Superstar
My opinion from day one is this looked like a bad shooting, and should be treated as a murder. It appears now that both the SUI and the Crown agree with me.
Your opinion seems to have been that it was a good shoot, and very unlikely that the SUI would seek any charges.
And MY opinion is laughable?
Do you laugh at the SUI and the Crown as well?
I'm curious as to why you are so eager to whitewash what is now being treated by the authorities as a homicide.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
YOU have a really sick mind if you genuinely believe what you just said. Simply committing a crime does not entitle the police or anyone else to kill you, unless you are endangering the lives of others.
By time TPS came to the scene, Sammy was on the streetcar by himself with his knife. The exact amount of people who were in danger at that point was exactly zero. TPS had no justification in shooting him once, let alone eight times and murdering him.
Now I agree that we shouldn't make Sammy out to be some kind of martyr. He wasn't exactly and angel. But to suggest that his killing is somehow justified is completely and utterly absurd. In you world, police would have the right to murder anyone who has ever committed a violent crime, even if they're not endangering anyone.
Last edited:
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
Oh yea...in fact I'm sure their entire case will be based solely on your posts. ha ha
You have no clue why they decided to press charges. It could be based completely on the last 6 shots fired. It could be based on evidence obtained exclusive of the video you saw. It could be a bad call on their point. In any event, it's unlikely to be based on any of the misinformed excuses you gave (I noticed you chose to ignore the 6 points of yours I challenged).
It has never been disputed that a homicide took place.
Since you are obviously oblivious as to what constitutes "danger", I wonder how you can be so sure of yourself. But ask yourself one simple question....why would multiple police officers have their weapons drawn and pointed at someone if they were not considered dangerous?
nfitz
Superstar
Points you challenged? You went on about all these things that haven't been proven. Not sure your point, nothing has been proven. However you've been ridiculing anyone who suggests that this looks wrong, and that it's possible that this was murder. And yet both the SIU and the crown also believe it was possibly murder.
Ah, dodge the question on a technicality. I'm curious as to why you are so eager to whitewash what is now being treated by the authorities as murder.
In danger at that point. It's pretty clear that people could be in danger at a later point, if he tried to exit the streetcar. With the number of officers surrounding the front door of the streetcar, with guns pointed at him, he would clearly have been shot if he tried to exit the streetcar holding a knife.
It's not what constitutes "danger" but what constitutes "imminent danger". Yes there was danger, but it wasn't imminent. He made no attempt to leave the streetcar, and remained on the main floor (not the stairs, but the main floor) of the streetcar. There was no one standing near the door, and several police officers standing back from the door with guns drawn.
From what I can tell, not only did Yatim not attempt to leave the streetcar, he also communicated with Forcillo's demands by noting that Forcillo was a "fucking pussy". Unfortunately, his assessment appears to have been accurate ... a professional would have used this as an opportunity for further dialogue, rather than opting for murder.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
I smell a rat in this one.
As soon as I heard they were charging him with 2nd degree murder I rolled my eyes. Second degree murder requires intent and that will be hard to prove. They basically have to prove that he wanted to kill Sammy. In other words, that is going to be difficult and this may look good for the press and public consumption but it may be the back door to getting him off the hook.
Manslaughter in the first degree would basically be guaranteed as a guilty verdict. I bet the defense is ecstatic that he was charged with murder as they will have a far easier time defending him against that than they would against manslaughter.
As soon as I heard they were charging him with 2nd degree murder I rolled my eyes. Second degree murder requires intent and that will be hard to prove. They basically have to prove that he wanted to kill Sammy. In other words, that is going to be difficult and this may look good for the press and public consumption but it may be the back door to getting him off the hook.
Manslaughter in the first degree would basically be guaranteed as a guilty verdict. I bet the defense is ecstatic that he was charged with murder as they will have a far easier time defending him against that than they would against manslaughter.
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
You made a statement which drew conclusions based on evidence that doesn't exist or that you couldn't possibly know. What's my point????
The "technicality" was yet another example of your incorrect assessment of the situation. Nice way to dodge being wrong.
As for your question, I'm not "eager" to do anything. Unlike you, I have no bias against the police one way or the other. I'm just presenting the devil's advocate against what I see as stupid opinions of anonymous internet chat forumers.
And I wish you'd stop presenting the charge as somehow validating everything you have said. You don't know why they chose to lay charges, or based on what evidence they found as grounds. Being charged doesn't make you guilty, and being an on-duty police officer charged murder or manslaughter has a zero conviction rate. So call me when he is convicted, and we'll compare notes.
Yea...exactly. Which is sweet piss all
All you have is a Youtube video and an anti-cop hatred which you wear on your sleeve.
Were you there in the heat of the moment...were you looking in his eyes, watching his body language, possibly hearing him say things...all things not available to you?
Bah...this is why I stated earlier that "debating" the subject with a blathering cop-hater was a waste of my time.