Canadian Police Officer sentenced to 6 years for attempted murder

[Tradewind]

Which is still murder.

Except it wasn't, but ok.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the problem is and I am not sure if its on purpose, what the OP posted doesn't exactly mesh with the article.

The only detail that succinctly explains it is that everything up until the officer goes back and shoots him another 6 times was "by the book."

[minteK917]

Canadian Self defense law is pretty much as perfect as it gets anyway. It does not stop anyone from legitimately using any means to save themselves, at the same time not promoting you murdering someone back.

[Yvaelle]

Canadian Self defense law is pretty much as perfect as it gets anyway. It does not anyone from legitimately using any means to save themselves, at the same time not promoting you murdering someone back.

Yea - which eliminates most of the "well, they started it!" defenses.

"Yea I killed him, but he stepped foot on my property, I feared for my life!"

"Yea I killed him, but he had a raised metal object in his hand, I could have died at any moment!" "It was a cell phone." "I could have died!"

But we're still perfectly comfortable with, for example:

"Yea I killed him, but he pointed a gun at me."

"Yea I killed him, but he was coming at me with a knife."

Or even:

"Yea I killed him, but he was <above> to someone else."

[Alcomo]

your prisons are a joke.

Spent a lot of time in them have you? Got anything more educated than "your prisons are a joke"? Or would that be too difficult a task?

[PosPosPos]

We had like 3 taser deaths by cops in the span of 6 months or something, all high visibility (ex. middle of airport security line, hundreds of people watching) - so it got a lot of coverage, and then happened again, and then again - it was really just a lack of training about where to taser people - because they kept headshotting/spineshotting people: which is lethal with the high-powered tasers our RCMP were using at the time.

So we went back to them using batons / guns, because the escalation from non-lethal to lethal force was more clearly understood by everyone involved: high-powered tasers with no training was a terrible middle-ground. I think they still have tasers, but I'm not sure anyone knows when they are the right call anymore - so everyone I'm aware of is just back to "either hit with stick, or shoot with gun".

So why can't they just train them to use tasers? They do gun training but tasers are not part of them? :/

[Tradewind]

So why can't they just train them to use tasers? They do gun training but tasers are not part of them? :/

Tasers are just a hidden shitshow waiting to happen. Like the Polish dude mentioned earlier who died because of a heart condition that the officer clearly would have never known about. At least with a baton or gun the outcome is somewhat predictable.

[PosPosPos]

TASERs aren't always effective.

Okay, and what does that have to do with griping about no training for tasers?

[PosPosPos]

Tasers are just a hidden shitshow waiting to happen. Like the Polish dude mentioned earlier who died because of a heart condition that the officer clearly would have never known about. At least with a baton or gun the outcome is somewhat predictable.

The unpredictability is just different. The scale not necessarily so.

Not to mention it still has nothing to do with why the police aren't trained to use tasers if guns are already part of their mandatory training?

[Tradewind]

The unpredictability is just different. The scale not necessarily so.

Not to mention it still has nothing to do with why the police aren't trained to use tasers if guns are already part of their mandatory training?

Because it's not necessary, when you can just decide not to bother with them at all.

There's no way to reliably predict the effects of 20,000 volts on every person. A good baton whack is pretty predictable, as is a gunshot (typically), unless they're just going South Central with it lol.

If the goal is a non-lethal intervention, a baton trumps a tazer. So, bye bye tazers.

[PosPosPos]

Because it's not necessary, when you can just decide not to bother with them at all.

There's no way to reliably predict the effects of 20,000 volts on every person. A good baton whack is pretty predictable, as is a gunshot (typically), unless they're just going South Central with it lol.

If the goal is a non-lethal intervention, a baton trumps a tazer. So, bye bye tazers.

A baton puts the officer in range of knifes and whatnot. A taser doesn't.

So if the goal is non-lethal intervention but you don't want to go up close, the only way to do it is use a gun, which causes more fatalities than tasers.

Unless of course, you can cite a source that says that 20000 volts can be more unpredictable than a gunshot(such as hitting major arteries). I am not interested in reading your one-sided assertions.

[PosPosPos]

I think the real issue with tasers is, people might underestimate how dangerous they are and use them when it's not really necessary just to subdue someone who's not actually threatening but needs to be arrested. We've all seen videos of tasers being used on streakers, the don't taze me bro guy, etc. If tasers are actually pretty deadly, those uses are totally inappropriate and tasers should only be used when faced with a threatening suspect. Even then, if I'm a cop and a guy is truly threatening me with a deadly weapon, I don't want to be stuck firing back with a taser.

So tasers are in kind of a weird place. When do you use them?

Hence the million dollar question, why isn't there training for tasers?

If people assert the problem is a lack of fundamental understanding of the weapon, why is the first reaction to remove it entirely instead of, you know, understanding it more?

Guns are more deadly and quite frankly comparatively "unpredictable" like the taser, but it's still in use today. Education is important, who knew?

P.S.

As for the words in bold, I can't see why this is a problem unique to tasers, when guns have been implicated in such incidents moreso than tasers.

[Tradewind]

A baton puts the officer in range of knifes and whatnot. A taser doesn't.

So if the goal is non-lethal intervention but you don't want to go up close, the only way to do it is use a gun, which causes more fatalities than tasers.

Unless of course, you can cite a source that says that 20000 volts can be more unpredictable than a gunshot(such as hitting major arteries). I am not interested in reading your one-sided assertions.

First off, why are you comparing lethal force to purported non-lethal force? That's facile as fuck.

A gun shot to the head is obviously bad news. A shot in the shin is not likely to kill someone, even center mass is not a guarantee of death.

A taser is marketed as being a non-lethal deterrent, but there's plenty of cases where it clearly was the cause of death. The DOJ stated in 2011 over 200 people died from tasers in the US. Not all of whom had cardiac problems. If that's not unpredictable behavior of a weapon designed to be non-lethal then idk what else to say. Fuckin biology is a pretty open source if you really want to be that stubborn about it.

Guns at least offer some measure of precision. Tasers are all or nothing. Fuckin roll the dice whenever you discharge it.

idk why so fuckin combative over this either...calm down.

[Varitok]

Spent a lot of time in them have you? Got anything more educated than "your prisons are a joke"? Or would that be too difficult a task?

I don't know, a lot of people have been quick to get on Canada's back lately. I don't really understand.

[PosPosPos]

First off, why are you comparing lethal force to purported non-lethal force? That's facile as fuck.

We use guns here for non-lethal enforcement as well. Which, surprise, works too. Tasers are much better at it though.

A gun shot to the head is obviously bad news. A shot in the shin is not likely to kill someone, even center mass is not a guarantee of death.

Ironic when you say my comparison is "facile" when I am talking about a bullet accidentally hitting a major artery.

A taser is marketed as being a non-lethal deterrent, but there's plenty of cases where it clearly was the cause of death. The DOJ stated in 2011 over 200 people died from tasers in the US. Not all of whom had cardiac problems. If that's not unpredictable behavior of a weapon designed to be non-lethal then idk what else to say. Fuckin biology is a pretty open source if you really want to be that stubborn about it.

I didn't say there wouldn't be "unpredictable" consequences, I said it's going to be lower than with guns. Also, you are obviously putting the cart before the horse, if there isn't training for taser use, then are the "unpredictable" consequences really unpredictable or just stemming from ignorance of the weapon?

Guns at least offer some measure of precision. Tasers are all or nothing. Fuckin roll the dice whenever you discharge it.

Is this before or after there's sufficient training and education on the use of tasers?

idk why so fuckin combative over this either...calm down.

Says the one who's punctuating nearly every sentence with either "facile" or "fuck". I am just pointing out I don't care for your unsupported and unjustified ravings. You know, statements without so much as a citation from some reliable source.

- - - Updated - - -

So assume training has happened. In what situation would you advocate using them? Dealing with a non threatening suspect or a threatening one?

The non threatening one, you're putting his life in danger unnecessarily. The threatening one, I personally would want a stronger weapon.

The threatening one. If not, why even bother with a baton at all when the logic is exactly the same?

One officer uses a taser, the others keep guns trained to shoot if necessary(assuming the taser fails).

Escalation of force can be a thing, you know, especially when police officers (should) never work alone.

[PosPosPos]

Interesting, I can see where that might make sense... but only in cases where it's a threatening perp without a gun. If he has a gun, I'm not hoping that the taser stops him before he gets a shot off too. That to me means that tasers are only useful in limited circumstances - where the perp poses a clear threat to either the officer or another person, but one that's not severe enough that you can afford to try a taser before using a gun.

It's obvious you wouldn't try to use a baton or a taser if the perp has a gun or something similar.

But if the perp is mentally deranged, or some cornered thief with a knife, then non-lethal enforcement should be the default choice there.

On a final note, those limited circumstances apply to batons too - except without putting the officer in an uncomfortable and risky range.

[Tradewind]

Not dealing with multiquotes on my damn phone lol.

You've watched too many movies, short of severing the carotid, piercing the heart, most "major arteries" can be controlled with a finger putting pressure on it, or a simple tourniquet to prevent or slow bleeding out until medics arrive.(1)

Tasers are inherently unpredictable as the effects of the high voltage cannot be estimated for every individual that they're used on(2). A 250lb huge dude is going to have a remarkably different reaction than a 110lb petite woman. But there's no way to modulate the device to account for those physiological differences.

I guess the DOJ isn't a source? (3)

Do you have a source that corroborates the notion that limited training is the main reason why people are dying to tasers? Are US police officers getting the proper training? If so, why so many deaths as the result of a purportedly non-lethal weapon by trained officers?

As for "raving", wut? All I said was that tasers are unpredictable. What is your argument anyway, or are you just being deliberately contrarian? I can't help but think you're assuming my preference is that cops just blast away at perps, which would be wrong. I just don't believe that tasers should be used as a LTL weapon. There's better options, such as bean bag rounds.

(1) 2 first aid certs.
(2) basic goddamn physics.
(3) google it if you think I'm making it up.

PS I swear a lot because I just do.

[Dadwen]

TL;DR: Const. James Forcillo was sentence to 6 years in prison for attempted murder of Sammy Yatim, though he was acquitted of second degree murder by a jury.

Forcillo shot Yatim 3 times, paused for 5 seconds then continues to fire another 6. The first 3 rounds, which an autopsy relieved is what killed him, were acquitted of second degree murder. The remaining 6, after the pause, is what he was prosecuted for.



https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2...-sentence.html

Good, hopefully this sets a precedent for future cops who decide to abuse their power. It won't, but I hope it does.

Hmm if one of the first three shots killed him, could he have just gotten off with abuse of a corpse?

[Tyrianth]

Hmm if one of the first three shots killed him, could he have just gotten off with abuse of a corpse?

No, because the first 3 shots didn't kill him immediately. He died later from injuries, but the autopsy revealed that it was the first 3 shots that led to his death.

[Rennadrel]

6 years lololol

Rather than your cops, getting off with no punishment.

Good on the courts for holding a higher standard than our neighbours to the south when it comes to our cops killing people. Sure, the sentence is lenient, but it is better than letting the guy off with no prison time.

[Endus]

Hmm if one of the first three shots killed him, could he have just gotten off with abuse of a corpse?

As pretty much everyone else has pointed out, charges are filed and sentences ruled on based on what the defendant thought they were doing, not what they actually did.

If I set up a dummy in my favorite chair, and you sneak up behind it and shoot it in the head, you're probably going to prison for attempted murder, and it doesn't matter that it was a dummy you shot. What matters is that you thought it was me. In this case, the cop saw Yatim was down, and chose to keep firing, to kill him, and there was no justification for that, hence the sentence. The only way "desecration of a corpse" would make any sense as the charge is if you're saying the officer KNEW Yatim was dead at the time he opened fire.