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

I think a lot of people completely missed my post or at the least, didn't think much of it.

Hence why the continued argument whether the last 6 shots were necessary.

So let me put it to you this way, so more can understand.

The police officers, some, arguably a lot, has been trained to shoot until the threat is completely eliminated.

You'd have to understand that sentence before you keep typing stuff like, "Was the last 6 shots really necessary?".

They are trained to kill... which part of that is hard for people to comprehend?

When a guy gets shot 3 times, he's on the floor twitching, they'd go over there and put 6 more into the suspect. That's called ... "Completely eliminating the threat." You don't shoot until they stop, you shoot until they're dead.

If you have a problem with that, you'd have to look for the core of the problem. Why were they enforcement officers trained this way in the first place.

Even though I don't feel that this is right but I do understand where they're coming from.

I mean, didn't you hear the news a while back about the robber went into a house and the Mom and Child were hiding in the closet. The guy got shot 4 to 6 times point blank and was still able to walk out, get back into his car, drive a little bit before crashing to the side due to the wounds.

So when someone is either on drugs or on some kind of adrenalin rush, you wouldn't know what they are capable of.

Sometimes, just sometimes, these guys that get put down pulls out another weapon hidden somewhere then kills the cop.

So on the streets, it's either the Cop dies or the Suspect dies. Which one would you prefer? For the police force, I don't think they're willing to put their lives on the line for a gamble. It's just too risky, so shoot them dead before they get a chance to get you dead.

That's how it works out there..... believe it or not.

Originally posted by defcon5
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.

Sorry, I was thinking inward. I often save the pages here I think that may be important, for whatever reasons. I didn't initially think your reply was, Then I thought, you took the whole context away from my remarks. Are you okay with that? BTW, we are both now are somewhat in the off topic area.

Originally posted by truthseeker84


They are trained to kill... which part of that is hard for people to comprehend?

Really?

That's Your justification?

If I wanted, I could KILL 50 people, and I am not trained. That is a Cop-Out, pardon the pun.......................

IF it takes 9 shots to kill someone?

They need more training.

The police officer's job is not to kill anyways.

To serve and protect is what their job is.

Originally posted by truthseeker84





So on the streets, it's either the Cop dies or the Suspect dies. Which one would you prefer? For the police force, I don't think they're willing to put their lives on the line for a gamble. It's just too risky, so shoot them dead before they get a chance to get you dead.

That's how it works out there..... believe it or not.

No, that's not always how it works. The LEOs have teams of negotiators trained in crisis intervention. They could have called the CI team and talked some sense into this kid. They had plenty of time but for some reason they wanted to kill him. Completely unnecessary. Believe it or not...
www.policeone.com...

Originally posted by defcon5
Again, you don't endanger innocent bystanders by launching bullets into random trajectories where they can go through some child’s bedroom window while they are sleeping, or hit a bone in a leg and ricochet to hit your partner.

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

So they fired 9 shots.
Are you saying that all 9 shots hit him?
Because if you say no, then they did put others including themselves in danger anyhow.


If you say yes, then it was certainly overkill.

reply to post by truthseeker84


Realizing that this case occurred in Canada - due to time constraints at the moment, I'm forced to quote a sight that deals with US law:

In police jargon, deadly force is also referred to as shoot to kill. The Supreme Court has ruled that, depending on the circumstances, if an offender resists arrest, police officers may use as much force as is reasonably required to overcome the resistance. Whether the force is reasonable is determined by the judgment of a reasonable officer at the scene, rather than by hindsight. Because police officers can find themselves in dangerous or rapidly changing situations where split second decisions are necessary, the judgment of someone at the scene is vital when looking back at the actions of a police officer.

The Supreme Court has defined the "objective reasonableness" standard as a balance between the rights of the person being arrested and the government interests that allow the use

of force. The Fourth Amendment protects U.S. citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, the category into which an arrest falls. The Supreme Court has said that a Search and Seizure is reasonable if it is based on Probable Cause and if it does not unreasonably intrude on the rights and privacy of the individual. This standard does not question a police officer's intent or motivation for using deadly force during an arrest; it only looks at the situation as it has happened.

For deadly force to be constitutional when an arrest is taking place, it must be the reasonable choice under all the circumstances at the time. Therefore, deadly force should be looked at as an option that is used when it is believed that no other action will succeed. The Model Penal Code, although not adopted in all states, restricts police action regarding deadly force. According to the code, officers should not use deadly force unless the action will not endanger innocent bystanders, the suspect used deadly force in committing the crime, or the officers believe a delay in arrest may result in injury or death to other people.

Circumstances that are taken into consideration are the severity of the offense, how much of a threat the suspect poses, and the suspect's attempts to resist or flee the police officer. When arresting someone for a misdemeanor, the police have the right to shoot the alleged offender only in self-defense. If an officer shoots a suspect accused of a misdemeanor for a reason other than self-defense, the officer can be held liable for criminal charges and damages for injuries to the suspect. This standard was demonstrated in the Iowa case of Klinkel v. Saddler, 211 Iowa 368, 233 N.W. 538 (1930), where a sheriff faced a Wrongful Death lawsuit because he had killed a misdemeanor suspect during an arrest. The sheriff said he had used deadly force to defend himself, and the court ruled in his favor.

When police officers are arresting someone for a felony, the courts have given them a little more leeway. The police may use all the force that is necessary to overcome resistance, even if that means killing the person they are trying to arrest. However, if it is proved that an officer used more force than was necessary, the officer can be held criminally and civilly liable. In Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S. Ct. 1694, 85 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for police officers to use deadly force to stop fleeing felony suspects who are nonviolent and unarmed. The decision, with an opinion written by Justice byron r. white, said, in part, "We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

Source

There are most definitely strict qualifiers for when and under what circumstances deadly force can be used. There is no law at all saying that cops have a right to empty their clips once they fire their weapons. If I am mistaken, I look forward to being proven wrong.

Contrast that with what happened in the U.K, when those two fanatics killed the soldier in public. Both were armed and full of blood had already killed but were shot but are still alive. How is it, that on a streetcar, a contained boy with a knife ends up dead with 9 bullets??? How about shooting the guy in the leg? Or just trying to talk to the guy? Let him cool off on the streetcar? Talking would have been the best weapon, better than yelling "If you take one step in this direction, you're finished," How about instead "none of us wants this situation, we all want to work this out, why don't you help us?"

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by DerekJR321
Can you please show me the law that says you have to obey police like a dog on a chain?

Sure:

Originally posted by DerekJR321
Basically you are advocating this kids murder because he didn't immediately "obey" these cops.

Its called a “Lawful Order”...
Its not called a “Lawful Request”, “Lawful Option”, “Lawful Negotiation”, or “Will you please”.

Hmm, these cops sure left a lot out between dialogue and deadly force.

in defcons defense it should be pointed out that he posted an outdated document from his leo days

here's the up to date version

What so a guy with a knife takes over a bus and you're pissed the police shot him to many times . Good for the cops . What part of that wrong . Bet the people that were on the bus when this guy first pulled the knife are glad he is dead . If a gun is pointed at and you get told to put the knife down listen to the guy with the gun .

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by RAY1990
And when somebody disobeys a direct lawful order is the typical reaction of a Law Enforcement Officer to shoot them?

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)

Yeah, how dare these mentally ill people not take responsibility for their own mental illness?

I guess a little hot lead will teach them a lesson. Amirite?

Originally posted by truthseeker84



.
Sometimes, just sometimes, these guys that get put down pulls out another weapon hidden somewhere then kills the cop.

So on the streets, it's either the Cop dies or the Suspect dies. Which one would you prefer? For the police force, I don't think they're willing to put their lives on the line for a gamble. It's just too risky, so shoot them dead before they get a chance to get you dead.

That's how it works out there..... believe it or not.

In this case it would have to have been several policemen each with multiple rounds, against a youngster with his willie in one hand and a two inch knife in the other, so not exactly Indiana Jones and the temple of doom scenario is it? So, "sometimes, just sometimes, these guys that get put down pull out another weapon" Feck me, that's another miracle. Who writes this stuff?

Wow , some of the responses here are discusting. 21 foot rule , aggravated assault, terorism, kid was mentally ill , he was on drugs bla bla bla . Who are you people ? Did you have a real life outside this keyboard?

That civilian biker on the beggining of the video felt nothing dangerous , guy who filmed felt nothing dangeorus, but some power trip police scumbag dude shot 17 year old kid because he was very dangerous .This is murder ! Clear and simple, and should be for every good normal human soul on this planet. Police officers are also human people , they are not mashines . You can't provide writen law 100 % on the streets and real life. You must have common sence , ethics , morality.... you must act like human.

This whole situation is so very sad and completely unnecessary.

My thoughts and prayers to the family.

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro

Now they have become more militarized, more suspicious, and more threatening and demanding than ever before. The question I have is who is going to reverse that trend, or will it just become more perverse?

edit on 29-7-2013 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)

There have only been a handful of terrorists attacks on this country from foreigners abroad, but from the stories I hear over and over in this country, every day, there are tens of terrorists attacks a year by those that are supposed to be our protectors and fellow countrymen.

They do not work for the common citizen anymore, but for their masters in DC, what with all the federal money and military toys to use against us. It never used to be this way, but everyone you talk to across America see's it getting out of hand and are afraid of them more than they are of the terrorists the government says we are supposed to be afraid of.

www.youtube.com/watch?fv=cGzeyO3pGzw

Never underestimate a guy with a knife, that's why it's still used in the infantry
Now the truth is, the officer already had his gun pointed at the victim, but still, the victim was closer than in this example, and I don't see him droping his knife in the video, maybe he did

Now that doesn't justify 9 shots AND the tasing

And from what I've seen, his knife was some kind of razor blade

Originally posted by MagesticEsoteric
This whole situation is so very sad and completely unnecessary.

My thoughts and prayers to the family.

I would say amen to that, something I forgot to mention earlier, I apologise for my ignorance in not getting things right in proper order.

reply to post by truthseeker84


Given a choice between 1 confused and sad 17 year old with a small knife obviously suicidal (he kicked the others off the bus) and these asshats who shot him over and over, who should live you ask?

The BOY!

That decision isn't hard to make. They're not even human.

Therefore, all the police need to be massively trained. Their first training should be at least 2 years counselor training and they should work as counselors for a few years before completing any other training.

I don't endorse this system and it answers to all of us in the end. Every one of these guys will face everyone they have enslaved, force fed ugly fascist systems to ,impoverished, and killed.

Such shame is going to fill them, they will be on bended knees with rivers of sorrow. They have to stop their tyranny and turn it around before its too late for them to avoid some of their purging, soul purification, whatever you want to call it. The police abusing power, the elected minion servants we hire as politicians who for some assinine reason think they can take their employers money and pensions and serve a shadow group. All of them, they will all answer.

Wow, dude with a tiny knife, on a bus all alone, nowhere near the swarm of cops..... Yeah a real threat there. Maybe back off a bit, keep the three whole doors covered?

Originally posted by jiggerj
I'm probably going to blow this all out of proportion, but I feel I have to say it. If any of you feel that my theory doesn't hold water, no harm - no foul.

Let's say I'm a cop. In this day and age I am probably trained to recognize a person's place of origin. In this case, a person from the Middle East. This young man cleared the passengers off the bus. Why? I don't know. Did he plan on taking the bus and crashing it into a highly populated area? I don't know. Did he have a bomb on the bus? I don't know.

Do I want to take a chance that this unstable person might get away with that bus, or set off a bomb right there? Would you take that chance?

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

Yeah, let's start shooting arabs because they might have a bomb.


I'm pretty sure that's one of the most ridiculous and poorly thought-out things I've ever seen you post. And that's quite an achievement.