Toronto Police Kill 18 Year Old Alone On Streetcar. Caught on Video. I Am Speechless.

Originally posted by Rocker2013

Regardless of what you think, he was alone, there was no one else at risk by this point, there is absolutely NO JUSTIFICATION for killing him, none at all, and you are completely wrong in your opinions.

You bring up a good point.
The guy was alone on a bus, threatening no one.
He has nowhere to run to either since there are only 2 exits with cops in shooting distance of them.

The cops chose to be close to the entrance and in doing so, rather than defusing the situation and giving the guy some time to think this through, they egged it on and murdered him.

Originally posted by Carreau
reply to post by minkmouse

 

I think one or two shots to the legs would have sufficed.

What Law Enforcement Academy did you graduate from that taught legs shots on a person and what was your range score?

I know that's not SOP anywhere, but maybe it should be. That and more advanced hand-to-hand training. Anything but racking up a greater and greater body count.

Originally posted by defcon5
He was under 21 feet, so the fact that the officers had their weapons drawn already will not matter here. The rule also states that the distance is to include enough time for an officer to get off TWO rounds before the person can come into physical contact with the him.

Who was it that was closing the distance?
The cops moving closer to the entrance or the man that had nowhere to go?

Originally posted by defcon5
They will justify this under the “21 foot rule”, I assume Canada has similar rules as the US police.
The “21 foot rule” is how many feet a suspect can cross in the amount of time it would take an officer to recognize a threat from a suspect wielding an edged weapon, draw his weapon, and fire before the suspect can cross the distance to the officer.

Except their weapons were already drawn and trained on their target.

If you can't pull the trigger on someone advancing on you in under 21 feet, when you already have your weapon in your hands and aimed, you have no business carrying a firearm.

Originally posted by Stealthwatch
reply to post by smurfy

 

If that copper is so devistated he should do society a favour and go blow his brains out

I'm only giving what the article says, you can read it for yourself in the link. I do think that the officer went over the line big time, as the article says he should not have been allowed to shoot even if the youngster was presumed to be taking the vehicle away. My own thoughts are that paramilitary police authorities everywhere need to seriously look at what they are doing, and what is happening. And, as the secondary article points out, this is not the first time the local police have taken away life from the mentally impaired, and from that point of view it is obvious they do not yet know how to deal with it in the wider context of today with all the buzzwords of terrorism, and multiculturism, and people with funny hats and robe. What police need so badly today, is educators in all fields, not just drilled to death muscle bound Ex-marines who only know about orders.

Originally posted by smurfy
Second sentence, is INVESTIGATION and if rightly done, is much more than an officer's after effects. Thanks a bunch.

There is always an investigation, the same way there is always a major investigation after a police involved traffic accident. It is done to look for any negligence on the officers part, but also to collect evidence in the event of a possible civil lawsuit brought against the department. In other words I wouldn't read any admission of “guilt” into them conducting an investigation.

Originally posted by smurfy

It also mentions that the streetcar is equipped with CCTV, as well as the youngster having some problems.

Wonder when the CCTV will be available.

Before or after the investigation?

Originally posted by jacobe001
Who was it that was closing the distance?
The cops moving closer to the entrance or the man that had nowhere to go?

Sorry but that is their job, it in no way justifies the actions of the guilty party here.

BTW... Where did you expect him to be able to go?
He was offered the option of going to prison, all he had to do was put the weapon down.

Originally posted by iwilliam
If you can't pull the trigger on someone advancing on you in under 21 feet, when you already have your weapon in your hands and aimed, you have no business carrying a firearm.

We've already been through this.
If the person is hopped up on drugs, 21 feet even with your weapon drawn may not be enough.
Its also designed to give the officer a chance to fire multiple shots in case one is not enough to knock them down.

Yeah... Try stopping someone on bathsalts coming at you in 21 feet, no matter how great of a shot you think you are.

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by Ghostcooler
Broken down and simplified for all those the are stuck looking to hard or are not looking close enough.

Man with a gun kills Teenager with a knife.
Man with gun was obviously scared and in fear of his (own) well being,considering there were no hostages and Teenager with knife obviously was no threat to anyone but himself,and the Man with the gun that did the shooting.
Should a police officer be so scared of a teenager with a knife as to shoot him 9 times,i think not and this officer in question ether wasn't trained properly in the psychological aspect of situations of this nature allowing himself to be used for as some in this thread think [suicide by cop]=(most likely) or he just plain saw an opportunity to settle an old grudge,but i am sticking with ,he was of improper mental capacity to be behind the barrel of a weapon!

Any and all other conclusions have some other personal feelings or emotional response to such and effect that it has twisted your logical reasoning capabilities!!!

No actually...
1) Man with knife hijacks public transportation. (terrorism)
2) Man with knife confronts police. (aggravated assault on law enforcement officers)
3) Man with knife repeatedly refuses to put the knife down. (aggravated resistance)
4) Man with knife breaks 21 foot rule for police to use lethal force.

Anything else is speculation based on emotion rather then the law.

He stayed in the street car did he not? Was he a threat to the cops at that instant?

There was no need to use lethal force at that moment in time. Did the teen break the law, yes - but the cops had the discretion on how to bring the kid in.....and the nine shots to me makes me believe that the cop was scared and was hyped up on adrenaline which affected his judgement.

That many cops and a 3 inch knife - the cops wear anti stab armor - the kid wasn't a huge threat. They could have tried to deescalate the situation. Cops in Toronto have a bad rep for killing people with mental problems.

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by smurfy
Second sentence, is INVESTIGATION and if rightly done, is much more than an officer's after effects. Thanks a bunch.

There is always an investigation, the same way there is always a major investigation after a police involved traffic accident. It is done to look for any negligence on the officers part, but also to collect evidence in the event of a possible civil lawsuit brought against the department. In other words I wouldn't read any admission of “guilt” into them conducting an investigation.

I think you should have quoted me in full in that reply, as well as your particular words, and there were not that many words said. I should not have to repeat myself. Let's not be simplistic, people are not so stupid. But I have saved the page anyway.

Not sure how anyone can justify this at ALL. If you out number a guy by that much, have firearms (aimed and ready) to his 3 inch knife and aren't able to resolve the situation without it resulting in death then you have no business being in law enforcement FULL STOP/

All these fancy non-lethal weapons they have *exactly* for this kind of scenario and you put 8 or 9 bullets in him? Unbelievable.

Were there any innocent bystanders in danger of harm? No, the guy let everyone off the bus...

And for anyone defending the officers here, refer to the links posted on the last page or so that already has the Toronto police calling this more less for what it is along with a suspension. Not even the authorities agree with you.

reply to post by smurfy
Save the page to your hearts content, what do you think you're proving with it?
As far as my quote goes I only need to quote the pertinent bit to what I am commenting on, and since it didn't make much sense to begin with the rest was really not that helpful.

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by Carreau

My point was the ignorant posts of "shoot him in the leg" made by members who are not/never were LEO's, watch too many movies, have a predetermined hatred of police to begin with and will take the opposing side regardless of facts.

"Drop the knife!" and "If you take one step in this direction, you’re finished,"

Sounds like a movie line, hey?

The EXACT words the officer used.

Agreed. And honestly, I think that's a relevant factor, in many of these cases. I've heard language like this from cops many times. Some of these guys think they're big action star heroes. Combine that with years of being desensitized to violence via the aforementioned movies, TV shows, video games, and suddenly they're in a scenario that's more unreal and dramatic, and hollywood than reality.

And then you have them saying dumb stuff like this, seconds before engaging with excessive violence.


"Don't do it, man, I'll blow you to kingdom come...."

"One more move and you're dead meat..."

"Don't test me, pal, I'll take you out..."

"Are you feeling lucky, punk? Well are ya?"


Here's the point where I'd insert a ( ) if I wasn't genuinely so disgusted.


These scared little men with big egoes need to come up with some other way to play out their Dirty Harry fantasies. Preferrably some way that's safer for the public. Maybe this is just the anger talking, but forget officer safety you pansies. You didn't sign up to be milk men. This is not a video game.

PUBLIC safety should come first. And that clearly "not right" kid on the bus, the one that's innocent until proven guilty? He's a member of the public. And until he goes to injure another member of the public, his safety should be a priority.



Yes... even now I recognize those words as overly harsh. In reality I do care about officers' safety. But this crap is ridiculous, and needs to stop.

Originally posted by goou111
I don't really believe in god or heaven, but those cops are definitely going to hell..

Or at the very least, reincarnate into another life where they are mercilessly killed.
What comes around goes around.

Originally posted by Runciter33
And for anyone defending the officers here, refer to the links posted on the last page or so that already has the Toronto police calling this more less for what it is along with a suspension. Not even the authorities agree with you.

You need to go back and check that again.
The police are giving the same “canned response that they give for any officer shooting. An instigation, and suspension with pay is standard OP in any police agency following an officer involved shooting. The officer will also have to go through a psyc eval before going back to duty as well.

All the other remarks either came from citizens, family members, or politicians.

Originally posted by defcon5

If the person is hopped up on drugs, 21 feet even with your weapon drawn may not be enough.
Its also designed to give the officer a chance to fire multiple shots in case one is not enough to knock them down.

But......

There were MULTIPLE officers there.



They Tazed him AFTER he was down.

They "could" have blocked the entrances of the buses with squad cars. They "could" have brought in a PROFESSIONAL negotiator. Was the situation Fluid? Yes. But, with the money spent on LE Worldwide, I would think that being prepared for ANY situation should be in their best interest, especially in Toronto. Being unprepared for these situations is NO excuse.

Tactical strategies refer to the use of nonlethal and lethal force.There are five possible ways that a hostage or barricade incident can be resolved (a) negotiated surrender, (b) SWAT team tactical assault and apprehension of perpetrator, (c) perpetrator killed, (d) perpetrator suicide, and (e) perpetrator escape . Generally nearly 75% of these evens are resolved through negotiated surrender, and fewer than 10% result in loss of life of the perpetrator through lethal force or suicide.Only 3% of the hostage incidents in one study resulted in death to a hostage at the hands of the perpetrator. While precise statistics are not available since there is no centralized database,Butler (unpublished dissertation) indicated that there were a total of approximately 625 hostage and 2742 barricade incidents handled by the 684 law enforcement agencies that responded to his survey during 1989±1990.

the role of the psychologist in crisis hostage negotiations .pdf

There are people who really want to kill somebody. Unfortunately, some of them become cops. With multiple guns drawn and aimed, the kid with the small knife posed almost no risk--even if he jumped and ran for the cops. This wasn't suicide by cop, this was just being murdered by cop.

Originally posted by defcon5

It can be.
You can turn a traffic citation into getting yourself shot through your own actions, if you act up enough.

You know, it always amuses me that its the “cops fault”, how about the personal responsibility of the person causing the situation for their actions resulting in them getting shot?

edit on 7/29/2013 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)

You know, every post of yours DEF has been one of "Procedures and Policies" including documents to back it up, but nothing about common sense, moral, nor ethical considerations in regards to the actions many of these LEO's take.

You would have been a perfect candidate in Hitler's Gestapo where "just following orders", via procedures and policies would have been your excuse just before a bullet was put into your brain by the liberators of that time.

Think man, THINK.

reply to post by defcon5

I will give you#1

#2 the Officer cam upon him and confronted him ,he never left the front door of the street car i clearly heard the officer speaking to him but never heard the teenager speaking at all it did not appear that the Teenager was waving the 3 inch knife around in an assaulting manner ,he might have verbalized his intent something on the lines of (leave me alone ,don't come any closer or ill cut,stab you),or he could have had the knife to his own throat this much is not apparent in the video,so no #2 for you!

#3 Sure ill bite and even give you #3

#4 21 foot rule lol,the Teenager never left the doorway of the street car and from what i could see of this video he was stationary,the police officers did advance on him closing the distance from themselves to over 21 feet to less then 21 feet ( this action alone could be construed to enact the ability to fire at will,considering he was no immediate treat to anyone withing striking distance of his brandished 3 inch knife)!!! And no#4 for you!

As for "Anything else is speculation based on emotion rather then the law".because we are all human yourself and all humans fall into this pretense based on watching an inconclusive video then trying to fill in the blanks with regards to our past experiences in relation to said video!

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by jaws1975
He was contained in the streetcar, no one else was in the streetcar, there was no way for him to escape. Why not wait for swat to extricate him?

Why not just wait until old age, or starvation?
That is not the polices job, their job is to get the situation under control and effect an arrest.
They tried, he resisted.
Under the “Use of Force Matrix” and the “21 foot rule” the police will be found to be justified.

Originally posted by jaws1975
If he was lunging for the police when he was shot, his forward momentum would have had him fall out of the streetcar, or at least onto the steps.

He was told to stop, and he didn't. He doesn't have to be “lunging for the police”. When the police give you a “lawful order” its not an option, like “maybe I'll comply when I calm down and sober up”, its an ORDER and it means NOW...

It's funny that when you want to justify a cop pumping round after round into a prone suspect, you say

"Seems legit to me-- I mean he could have been on PCP or something? Those guys can bench press a house when they're out of their minds like that."


But when it comes to having the mental clarity or control to be able to clearly understand and comply with police instructions, you have no such consideration for their mental state or ability to understand. A mentally ill or severely intoxicated person may not respond the same as you or I would, to a cop's orders.

But of course we can't weigh this point equally on both sides-- then how would you make the cops look justified? Typical apologist tactics.



Your use of hyperbole above is just as ridiculous. "Wait until old age." Yes, they should have waited. A life was at stake. They were on no time limit, unless, as another member suggested, their coffee and doughnuts were getting cold somewhere.. .or they were just a little too close to shift change and didn't want to bother anymore. Give me a break. It was a human life.


Disgusting.