Sammy Yatim Shooting

[freshcutgrass]

Currently your only evidence for such is; because he fired 6 more shots that automatically means that Sammy was still viewed as threat to the officer. Logically that makes sense

Since I don't know the answer, is there anything wrong with applying a bit of logic while speculating? According to some people here, the officer is a sadistic murderer, and the rest of the cops are part of the conspiracy.

only if you assume that all officers apply good judgement and reasoning in all their actions at all times.

I'm not making any such assumption...the police force actually has an IQ ceiling. One of the few jobs where being too smart means you aren't qualified.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Since I don't know the answer, is there anything wrong with applying a bit of logic while speculating? According to some people here, the officer is a sadistic murderer, and the rest of the cops are part of the conspiracy.



I'm not making any such assumption...the police force actually has an IQ ceiling. One of the few jobs where being too smart means you aren't qualified.

I really think this is the big line being drawn in the sand. On one side we have people stating that Sammy was an poor innocent victim of a sadistic, trigger happy police force (some actually think this runs deeper than one officer who happened to pull the trigger be it one or nine times). As if somehow Sammy was targeted and profiled by the police for being 'ethnic'. Unfortunately they ignore the fact that a streetcar full of people were threatened and feared for their lives to such an extent that someone decided to call 911, not TTC supervisors, or TTC special constables, but the police, 911 (the purpose of calling 911 is in the event of a severe incident where life and safety are at risk). Unfortunately Sammy created this situation, him alone, did he deserve to be shot nine times? No. Once? Not likely. Then again he wasn't exactly being co-operative with the police was he?

It's ironic that we expect our police for to be unemotional robotic protectors of the public, while simultaneously being able to be compassionate and able to read and adjust to heated high stress situations and read who is harmless and who is harmful...

 

[js97]

I wonder what would have happened if Yatim was Black?

I think no matter if the cop was just 'reacting' or not, anyone that signs on to be a cop and carry a gun should be held fully responsible. Nerves or not.

2nd degree murder is simply having intent to kill, the first three volleys might be disputable as self defence, but the next 5 shots are pretty clear that there was intent. No man slaughter here (although he may plead his way to that).

I wonder if a good lawyer could make the argument that Yatim died in the initial 3 shots, and the 5 after didn't actually kill him.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

I wonder what would have happened if Yatim was Black?

Or conversely, if he was white.

 

[freshcutgrass]

I think no matter if the cop was just 'reacting' or not, anyone that signs on to be a cop and carry a gun should be held fully responsible.

section 26 of the Criminal Code:

Every one who is authorized by law to use force is criminally responsible for any excess thereof according to the nature and quality of the act that constitutes the excess.

2nd degree murder is simply having intent to kill, the first three volleys might be disputable as self defence, but the next 5 shots are pretty clear that there was intent. No man slaughter here (although he may plead his way to that).

I find it highly unlikely SIU would bring him up on any murder charges. Even if they did, I can't see a judge allowing it.

I can't even see a case of excessive force, as I think it will be shown that lethal force was justified. If you are authorized and justified in employing lethal force, it isn't "murder" or "manslaughter".

I think this is a clear cut case of justified lethal force.

The real iffy issue here, is whether the subsequent 6 shots after the initial 3 are going to be considered a separate incident of lethal force and will it be treated with scrutiny separate from the first 3 shots. This will depend on information "we" simply don't have.... the officers mindset, interpretation and articulation of the threat.

As for the tasering, that will also rely heavily on the testimony of the officer who discharged it. If it is shown that Sammy was still in possession of the knife, then he would certainly be justified in using such force to further incapacitate him to facilitate disarming him, as even with multiple gun shot wounds an armed person can still be a threat.

 

[nfitz]

... as even with multiple gun shot wounds an armed person can still be a threat.

With a pointed gun perhaps. But he was on the ground after 3 shots. Was he going to use telepathy to launch the knife at someone? Perhaps he was going to bleed on them.

 

[Irishmonk]

As for the tasering, that will also rely heavily on the testimony of the officer who discharged it. If it is shown that Sammy was still in possession of the knife, then he would certainly be justified in using such force to further incapacitate him to facilitate disarming him, as even with multiple gun shot wounds an armed person can still be a threat.

This is getting into Monty Python territory: "He's not dead, he's resting..." etc...

 

[vegeta_skyline]

My goal is not to kill you per say. My goal is to put live rounds into your chest cavity.

I have an electron microscope trying to find this important and clear distinction you speak of, and it isn't working. What a lovely bit of semantics.

Like I said, the concept is seemingly lost on you. It's more than a case of simple semantics. I'll reiterate, the goal of lethal force is to end the threat and not to cause death in and of itself. What your suggesting is that once lethal force becomes a viable option, then the officer has no limitations in its use. To put it another way... if an individual was once perceived as a threat, than even if that person is now on the ground and clearly incapacitated, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the officer pumping a few more rounds into him solely to ensure his death.

Since I don't know the answer, is there anything wrong with applying a bit of logic while speculating? According to some people here, the officer is a sadistic murderer, and the rest of the cops are part of the conspiracy.

I can understand your arguments against those suggestions. Based on the limited evidence we've seen and considering the officer should be given the benefit of doubt, its premature to be calling him a murderer at this point. While they could of used other tactics to deescalate the situation, I can see how Sammy could have be perceived as a threat initially and therefore at this point I believe the first salvo of shots appear to be justified. And without knowing the officers intent it would be difficult to conclude otherwise and even more difficult to disprove if he claims self-defense. The second salvo and the tasering is what concerns me, but still I have little reason to believe him to be a murderer. At least at this point, as by no means am I ruling out that possibility. But I'm inclined to believe based on the video alone that at a minimum bad judgement was applied and that there was perhaps some negligence involved or that the protocol itself may be at fault. And likewise I haven't ruled out the possibility that all of the officers actions were justified or that there are no faults with the police protocols for these situations, though I see that as unlikely.

 

[freshcutgrass]

I'll reiterate, the goal of lethal force is to end the threat and not to cause death in and of itself.

And what you fail to realize, is that the method of ending the threat is...you being killed. That's what it means...there are no other options. So the two are rather synonymous. Surviving the use of lethal force is just a case of luck, not intent.

I mean com'on...the term "lethal force" only has two words in it, and one of them is "lethal". Still not enough to convince you that the intent is to kill you? Lethal force is also more commonly refereed to in police jargon as....shoot to kill.

Fox to chicken: "my goal is not to end your life"
chicken: "what is your goal then?"
fox: "to have lunch"
chicken: "what's the difference?"
fox: "there's a subtle but important (and clear) distinction...don't you see it?"
chicken: "not really"

To put it another way... if an individual was once perceived as a threat, than even if that person is now on the ground and clearly incapacitated, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the officer pumping a few more rounds into him solely to ensure his death.

Lethal force must meet certain criteria for it to be justified. It either meets it or it doesn't. Your hypothetical scenario could be either.

If you are trying to imply that this was the scenario with Sammy, then the simple explanation is that he was not clearly incapacitated. Even after all 9 shots are fired, they are still clearly heard yelling at Sammy to drop the knife. Even as he is being tased, they are still saying drop the knife. I'm inclined to think he was still in possession of the knife. And if that is the case, you are still deemed a deadly threat.

 

[vegeta_skyline]

Lethal force must meet certain criteria for it to be justified. It either meets it or it doesn't. Your hypothetical scenario could be either.

That is precisely what my concern is, based on the video evidence I find it difficult to believe that the criteria was meet or if it somehow was, then the criteria itself is faulty.

If you are trying to imply that this was the scenario with Sammy, then the simple explanation is that he was not clearly incapacitated. Even after all 9 shots are fired, they are still clearly heard yelling at Sammy to drop the knife. Even as he is being tased, they are still saying drop the knife. I'm inclined to think he was still in possession of the knife. And if that is the case, you are still deemed a deadly threat.

Obviously someone holding a knife would be deemed a deadly threat, but the police did not start shooting the moment they came within 20 feet of Sammy, who was clearly holding the knife, did they? Why not? He's a threat to them at that point is he not? It was not until the officer felt provocation, Sammy disregarding his demands and moving towards him, that he determined lethal force was necessary. So what was the provocation for the subsequent 6 shots? Sammy still being in possession of the knife and refusing to let go of it? Obviously there are other possibilities for his supposed refusal to let go of the knife, namely that he was most likely in grievous pain and quite possibly too disoriented at that point to comply with such a demand.

Back to the hypothetical scenario I mentioned, since you didn't actually answer the question I posed. Do you believe a person who on the ground and clearly incapacitated is still a threat?

How about a individual, armed only with a knife who has been felled and is now recoiling in pain after being shot? What is the threat level of such an individual even if he is still considered to be in possession of the knife and the nearest officer is some 20 feet away? One that requires lethal force to immediately eliminate? I hardly find that to be the appropriate response and if current police protocol permits such action, then clearly there's something wrong with them. And it would seem as though Ontario’s ombudsman agrees, for they most certainly would not be moving towards an investigation into to how police are trained in dealing with potentially violent situations if there wasn't some concerns about whether or not the use of lethal force under these circumstances was appropriate.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Isn't it a little unusual that a week and a half after the event no preliminary autopsy results have been released? In high profile cases the ME usually issues something within two or three days after a suspicious death.

 

[W. K. Lis]

TTC streetcar going back to service after Yatim shooting
TTC officials won't say which route the car will serve.

See this link.

The TTC is putting streetcar 4058 — the car in which 18-year-old Sammy Yatim was killed — back in service this week.

But TTC officials won’t say whether the streetcar will return to the 505 Dundas route where the teen was killed in a police shooting early on July 27.

Streetcars aren’t necessarily assigned to specific routes and can move around, said TTC spokesman Brad Ross.

The streetcar’s serial number won’t be changed, as had been discussed in the immediate aftermath of the incident, he said.

The decision to put car 4058 back in service comes after TTC CEO Andy Byford spoke on the phone with a representative of the family.

Any damage that may have occurred to the streetcar will have been repaired before it returns to service, said Ross.

He would not say which day this week the streetcar returns to work, “out of respect for the family’s privacy.”

“They’ve asked for privacy. We respect that and will not elaborate any further on our discussion with them,” he said.

Provincial ombudsman André Marin will announce Thursday at Queen’s Park whether or not he plans to launch an investigation into how police are trained to handle similar situations with the potential for violence in the wake of Yatim’s killing.

Marin launched a case assessment, the first step in any ombudsman investigation, in the days following the shooting.

Yatim, who witnesses said waved a knife and exposed himself on the streetcar before police fired nine shots, has been described as acting out of character that night.

The driver and other passengers had exited the car before any shots were fired.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Obviously there are other possibilities for his supposed refusal to let go of the knife, namely that he was most likely in grievous pain and quite possibly too disoriented at that point to comply with such a demand.

It doesn't really matter, because it's not like this is a situation where they are going to give Sammy the benefit of the doubt.

Back to the hypothetical scenario I mentioned, since you didn't actually answer the question I posed. Do you believe a person who on the ground and clearly incapacitated is still a threat?

It's not a question that can be answered hypothetically. It would depend on the exact situation and the perception of the officer in question at the time. And your definition of "incapacitated" may be different than mine.

But I'll throw you a bone anyway. If the suspect was no longer in possession of a weapon, and appeared to be incapacitated to the point that I could be reasonably sure that I could put him into custody (cuff him), then I would see no reason to employ lethal force to do so.

How about a individual, armed only with a knife who has been felled and is now recoiling in pain after being shot? What is the threat level of such an individual even if he is still considered to be in possession of the knife and the nearest officer is some 20 feet away?

How many examples of wounded suspects killing or injuring people in that same scenario (with only a knife) do you need to understand that you simply don't take chances. You keep forgetting that Sammy's well being is the absolute lowest priority here.

Only a knife????

And it would seem as though Ontario’s ombudsman agrees, for they most certainly would not be moving towards an investigation into to how police are trained in dealing with potentially violent situations if there wasn't some concerns about whether or not the use of lethal force under these circumstances was appropriate.

Neither you or I are qualified to make such an assessment.

There are a lot of things everyone has to wait for before any of these questions can be answered.

But I will tell you one thing...the cops were there to do their jobs that night. It doesn't matter whether you think they did a good, bad or just average job on that particular night...they were there because Sammy forced them to be there. Confronting police in a irrational, dangerous and threatening manner with a deadly weapon, and not putting it down when asked to do so comes with serious consequences. One very likely one is that you are going to be shot and killed.

Despite what you may have heard, there is no after life...this is the only life we have. And Sammy pissed his away that night. You can't blame the cop who was there just trying to his job, and may or may not have done the best job he could have that night.

 

[urbandreamer]

^It's quite obvious from his tweets that Sammy was high on substances. When you're hammered or high you tend to behave rather differently. Should cops randomly shoot folks at parties who threaten neighbours with knives? I've been in situation like that and it's quite easy to simply leave.

 

[vegeta_skyline]

It doesn't really matter, because it's not like this is a situation where they are going to give Sammy the benefit of the doubt.

It does matter because simply clutching a knife but being no position to use it against anyone is not enough justification to essentially apply the ultimate penalty.

How many examples of wounded suspects killing or injuring people in that same scenario (with only a knife) do you need to understand that you simply don't take chances. You keep forgetting that Sammy's well being is the absolute lowest priority here.

Same scenario? Examples? I'd love to hear about these examples you speak of. Give us just one example where a knife wielding suspect was shot, fell to the ground and subsequently, from his position on the ground, managed to physically harm someone stand 20 feet away.

Neither you or I are qualified to make such an assessment.

There is no assessment to be made. André Marin has publicly stated that he has directed his office to proceed with the preliminary steps to initiate an investigation into the matter. Do you need a link or something? Here's one; http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...rotocol-on-handling-conflict/article13524836/
The ombudsman wouldn't be proceeding with the matter if his office had no issues with the incident.

You can't blame the cop who was there just trying to his job, and may or may not have done the best job he could have that night.

I'll let the SIU and our legal system ultimately make that determination. But obviously it goes without saying that Sammy was very much responsible for his death. But I see no reason at this point to disregard the possibility that the officer acted in a manner inconstant with the public's expectations. And if you don't think that's the case, then tell me when was the last time you saw thousands of people protesting in the streets of Toronto after a police shooting.