Toronto shootings

[Thorns_Embrace]

The evidence speaks for itself - and why would anyone cover it up when there are other actual cases of terrorism being reported as well? No one official is claiming that Infowars made him do it - just because you may feel uncomfortable about these combinations doesn't make the evidence false - or that the attack is somehow an organized plot of intrigue. What does a person of Muslim background have to do with these facts?

It's like the whole kerfuffle around Alek Minassian case - assuming one's background is the driver of their actions.

AoD

Look anything is possible. But I mean there are a lot of signs that point to Muslim terrorism in this case. People make assumptions all the time. For example any time a white police officer shoots a black man people always assume race was a factor rightly or wrongly. Somehow the Danforth attacker traveled to a Greek neighborhood to commit the shooting which at least raises question marks. If it was a random attack why not commit in in Thorncliffe Park? I am pretty sure if a white shooter committed a shooting in Thorncliffe park people would assume racism was a factor.

The government is on the hot seat with regards to immigration right now and if public perception starts too turn it will be bad news. The government has a lot of motivation to cover up a successful terror attack. While I don;t think he was necessarily an "ISIS member" I do think he was likely ISIS inspired much like the failed Canadian Tire attacker.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Look anything is possible. But I mean there are a lot of signs that point to Muslim terrorism in this case. People make assumptions all the time. For example any time a white police officer shoots a black man people always assume race was a factor rightly or wrongly. Somehow the Danforth attacker traveled to a Greek neighborhood to commit the shooting which at least raises question marks. If it was a random attack why not commit in in Thorncliffe Park? I am pretty sure if a white shooter committed a shooting in Thorncliffe park people would assume racism was a factor.

The government is on the hot seat with regards to immigration right now and if public perception starts too turn it will be bad news. The government has a lot of motivation to cover up a successful terror attack. While I don;t think he was necessarily an "ISIS member" I do think he was likely ISIS inspired much like the failed Canadian Tire attacker.

This is called making stuff up to fit your narrative, facts be damned. People make assumptions all the time doesn't mean it is reality - and then to put more weight on these fanciful assumptions over actual police investigation is well, Truthers-ish.

AoD

 

[44 North]

Look anything is possible. But I mean there are a lot of signs that point to Muslim terrorism in this case.

To me it seemed like an incel situation. You have a guy probably on the spectrum who's anti-social and working at a grocery store. Younger girls that he wants to be with completely ignore him, go out after work, perhaps with other guys that work there, on the Danforth. Resentment builds. Normally nothing comes of it. That is unless a perfect storm presents itself. For example having a brother who happens to deal firearms, and being hardwired with a lack of sympathy/empathy. Maybe there's some degree of racial motive, along the lines of skin colour, class difference, and resentment towards the divide. But I don't see a "Muslim terrorism" case. Seems more angry loner.

 

[Videodrome]

His father said that he didn't like going to Mosque and had to be forced to go.

 

[dom rem]

The solution may be easier than people think. Its called GUN DETECTORS, not metal detectors, "smart" gun detectors on all street corners, at entrances of buildings, shopping malls, schools, etc. Isnt it illegal for citizens to walk the streets armed?? These gun detectors will put a stop to this or at least alert the police or public as to whos carrying a gun and where.

 

[BurlOak]

UPDATE: JURY DECIDING FATE OF EATON CENTRE SHOOTER ASKS ABOUT NOT CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE FINDING

"Part of the question [in Forcillo] is that there were two volleys of shots - one of them was in self defence, the other was intentional - but you couldn't prove that either caused death," she said.

"One of the jury's questions here suggests a similar problem. Some shots could have been fired in a non-criminally responsible state, some in an intentional state, but it's impossible to say which caused death."

From following this case not that closely, it appears obvious that Husbands fired shots 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10 and 14 as a premeditated act, while shots 2, 7, 10 and 13 were clearly from PTSD. Shots 8 and 12 there is still some doubt on.

That ridiculous ruling from the Forcillo trial is coming back to bite us. Too bad Forcillo was such a jerk, otherwise the ruling would (should) have been overturned.

 

[lenaitch]

The solution may be easier than people think. Its called GUN DETECTORS, not metal detectors, "smart" gun detectors on all street corners, at entrances of buildings, shopping malls, schools, etc. Isnt it illegal for citizens to walk the streets armed?? These gun detectors will put a stop to this or at least alert the police or public as to whos carrying a gun and where.

Are you aware of a technology that I have not heard of? I am aware of various 'smart gun' technologies that are supposed to limit firing only to an 'identified' user. They are several and very much in their infancy,

 

[lenaitch]

UPDATE: JURY DECIDING FATE OF EATON CENTRE SHOOTER ASKS ABOUT NOT CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE FINDING

From following this case not that closely, it appears obvious that Husbands fired shots 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10 and 14 as a premeditated act, while shots 2, 7, 10 and 13 were clearly from PTSD. Shots 8 and 12 there is still some doubt on.

That ridiculous ruling from the Forcillo trial is coming back to bite us. Too bad Forcillo was such a jerk, otherwise the ruling would (should) have been overturned.

I haven't followed the Husbands trial at all so can't comment, but are you saying that Forcillo should have been acquitted of all charges? Are you saying he was convicted (upheld on appeal) because he was a "jerk"?

 

[BurlOak]

I don't recall the case and the trial well enough, but I can't believe that shots separated by a few seconds would count as 2 separate incidents.

1. One option was that Forcillo was guilty of 2nd degree murder.
2. The other, that Forcillo put himself into a bad location that precipitated the need to shoot. The jury seemed to find this. however, they appeared to charge him with the wrong thing, so the jury found this the only way to punish him. Obviously, guilty of some police act conduct rules. I think dangerous use of a firearm would have been one option - arguing that knowing one has a gun, it is there responsibility to position themselves properly to not be put in a situation where they must shoot for no reason. I would think a similar argument might be made for manslaughter - didn't intend to cause unlawful death, but was responsible. maybe there just isn't an appropriate charge in our criminal code.

A loose analogy is Bruce McArthurs, who did not get consecutive sentencing - which essentially says that the murders spread over several years were basically 1 (prolonged) incident.

I am not sure when Forcillo's breach of bail conditions first occurred, but I think it likely weighed on the Supreme Court decision not to look at case. Even though SC only looks at a small fraction of cases, I would have thought this might have been one, since law enforcement, who are working to protect society, should get the full benefit of the legal system. The converse, I suppose, is that this case is quite unique, so it wouldn't set a precedent. But now we know that every case will try to parse different shots within the same incident.

 

[Admiral Beez]

It frustrates me how the media and police release these vids but never follow up to tell us if they’re still at large.

 

[lenaitch]

I don't recall the case and the trial well enough, but I can't believe that shots separated by a few seconds would count as 2 separate incidents.

1. One option was that Forcillo was guilty of 2nd degree murder.
2. The other, that Forcillo put himself into a bad location that precipitated the need to shoot. The jury seemed to find this. however, they appeared to charge him with the wrong thing, so the jury found this the only way to punish him. Obviously, guilty of some police act conduct rules. I think dangerous use of a firearm would have been one option - arguing that knowing one has a gun, it is there responsibility to position themselves properly to not be put in a situation where they must shoot for no reason. I would think a similar argument might be made for manslaughter - didn't intend to cause unlawful death, but was responsible. maybe there just isn't an appropriate charge in our criminal code.

A loose analogy is Bruce McArthurs, who did not get consecutive sentencing - which essentially says that the murders spread over several years were basically 1 (prolonged) incident.

I am not sure when Forcillo's breach of bail conditions first occurred, but I think it likely weighed on the Supreme Court decision not to look at case. Even though SC only looks at a small fraction of cases, I would have thought this might have been one, since law enforcement, who are working to protect society, should get the full benefit of the legal system. The converse, I suppose, is that this case is quite unique, so it wouldn't set a precedent. But now we know that every case will try to parse different shots within the same incident.

I'm certainly no prosecutorial strategist, and also did not follow the case that closely, but my guess is the Crown decided to separate the volleys because the expected defence would be that Forcillo was in fear of his life. It doesn't have be proven, just sufficiently raised as his personal perception at the time to convince a jury. If the defence had been successful, he would have either walked or been found guilty of a lesser included charge (but, in my view, if that defence had worked, it likely would have worked against all the other lesser charges). The successful attempted murder conviction (that charge was added by the Crown before trial) was founded on forensic evidence that the first volley was ultimately the cause of death. The chances of a defence of necessity would have been, in my humble view, much less successful given the events. It admittedly sounds quite bizarre, but the legal system is often like that.

The SCOC never gives reasons why is doesn't accept a case, but it usually limits itself to constitutional matters or matters of national significance. Jury convictions are extremely difficult to overturn unless there is procedural issue, which apparently the Court of Appeal felt there was not. I highly doubt that his bail violation was part of their thinking.

There might have been breaches of Police Services Act codes of conduct or Force policy but they were overshadowed by the criminal charges and, ultimately, not necessary.

 

[dom rem]

Dude, I've been trying to fight the war on the war on drugs for almost two decades. I've volunteered with harm reduction organisations, helped at CAMH, spoken to anyone who will hear me (by being close enough to hear, not by actually listening). I've converted some people to the reasonable side of the whole mess.
Good times.

I've been trying to come up with legal arguments for why the war on drugs is unconstitutional as it limits the individual's right to sovereignty over their own faculties and criminalises benign behaviour, ruining people's lives. I've always dreamed of taking it to the Supreme Court and having our drugs laws struck down. Of course, these cowardly politicos would probably just go mad notwithstanding on anything like that in their fits of moral panic and ignorance (or being owned by tobacco, alcohol, and pharmaceutical companies).

Well, not to mention it's the actual cause of our shooting problems in our cities (poverty is a cop-out used by those who don't want to admit to themselves that these shooting are fuelled by the war on drugs).

I'm not interested in any drugs, but of those who desire it because "it feels so good", shouldn't it be their option or choice to take drugs or not and not alot of people in power? If taking in moderation what harm can it cause? Alcohol is legal but a person can over take it to the point that it causes harm but its legal for them to drink it. In the event that they harm themselves maby thats when they should be arrested or better yet sent to the hospital because harming yourself is not a rightful reason to be thrown in a cage like a vicious animal when they are so mellow and at peace. Question, are the ones in power at peace about this? Answer- NO. Maby they should educate people about the harms of over taking drugs instead of treating those poor people who just want to feel good like vicious animals when they are not.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The weekend’s mass shooting in Mississauga continues the GTA wide wave of gun violence. How do we fix this? You can’t stop guns getting in, anyone can drive to a gun show in the US and load up their car and drive back. The shootings seem focused on public housing complexes, seemingly, by looking at the victims and most wanted, most impacting our young black male population. The TPS chief says there are hundreds of people out on bail in Toronto for gun charges. The recent shooting was due to some disrespect given in an online rap video.

How can we fix this? Starting with, what’s changed since the 1970s and 80s when I was growing up in Mississauga and Toronto’s Beach, when we rarely if ever heard of shootings.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I know many here will disregard or discount this list because it comes from the Sun, but there are some points worth looking at, IMO. I like how the Sun brings some perspective to the issue, reminding us that unnecessary deaths are far more prevalent involving alcohol, drugs and medical mistakes than the tiny amount of gun deaths, especially when excluding gang related gun deaths.

TOWHEY: Really want to end gun violence? Try these 7 things to save lives

The next time you hear a politician speak about banning handguns, think about what he or she’s not saying.

torontosun.com

The Toronto Star wants more outreach workers...

Star Editorial Board: How to stop gun violence in Toronto

Funnel money into youth intervention programs, not more policing.

www.thestar.com

 

[BurlOak]

To solve the problem, you need to know the cause. 3 factors converged at about the same time:

1. Black Lives Matter formed - which promoted violence against, and distrust of, the police.
2. Ontario government banned carding.
3. Canada elected a soft on crime government.

1. I have not heard much from BLM lately, so this couldn't have been the main factor, although possibly created the start of the chain reaction that will take time to sort itself out.
2. Although carding was banned, this increase in violence is a national thing. Based on anecdotal stories, it appears to be a big factor - but it wouldn't explain all of Canada's increase in violent crime. I have not looked into the exact statistics to see if Ontario crime has gone up more or less than Canada's. I believe Toronto's homicide rate went up about 40% in the past 4 years - which does seem higher than the ~15% increase in Canada crime severity index. So again, it looks like this is a factor but not the only reason.