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

Originally posted by votan


Sure they could have used non lethal force, but at that point it was up to their discretion as to what to use. If you don't want to give them the opportunity to use deadly force on you DON"T GIVE THEM A REASON.

Their "discretion" was to use Lethal force, and after that use a Tazer. As Skeptic said, WHY use a Tazer after the fact? Giving them a reason? There are too many LEO's "using" their trigger happy "discretion", whenever they want. I have many LEO friends, but this is what gives them the reputation as "trigger happy", regardless if the guy "gives them the reason." In the end, a LEO can make up ANY reason. Seen it first hand.

Originally posted by Wookiep
Gun Vs Knife? Hmmm I think this is a situation where a taser could have been utilized. That would just make too much sense, however.

i believe they did tazer him..after they shot him 9 times..dont worry though in sure the toronto pd will investigate themselves to the fullest extent

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
If we're going to be nitpicky, it's not actually a rule, it's more of a guideline.

Yes, but its still what officers are trained to do.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
The point is, if you are pointing your gun at someone already, it doesn't matter how fast they are, if they are more than arm's length away, your bullet will reach them before they reach you, and if you also have the luxury of being able to move backwards or away from the threat, all the better.

All it takes is for the person to make any movement that shows he has any intent to charge an officer, even if an unintentional movement, and the officers will use this to justify their actions. 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.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


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. The he was shot 9 times because they heard 9 shots in the video remarks.

Posters stating a non-lethal weapon (taser) be used against an individual holding a lethal weapon (knife).

There are so many examples of REAL police abuse to comment on and address but to not wait for the autopsy and police report is prejudice. If it was an illegal use of force THEN lets talk smack and charge the cops, but wait till there's proof. And anyone who claims murder from that video is an idiot.

Isn't it incredible when you compare this case to what happened to Lee Rigby in London?

In that instance, two men armed with knives murdered someone in the street, and then rushed towards the officers who then opened fire TO INJURE THEM.

Both are now facing murder charges and the family get some justice.

In this case, a seemingly emotionally disturbed teenager held a knife, didn't hurt anyone, and couldn't have hurt anyone by the time the police got there, and they all opened fire in a hail of bullets, murdering him.

I think London should send some trained firearms officers over to Toronto to show them HOW TO DO THEIR F'ING JOBS!

They had no plan other than point a gun at his face and tell him to drop the knife. It seems police these days lack critical thinking skills and they just approach situations thinking their gun will solve the problem.

There were so many different options those officers could of taken. Instead the murderer gunned down the "threat" while the rest watched. You have to be pretty level-headed to be a good cop or else these things happen.

reply to post by defcon5


It's not like anybody is suggesting a shot to the leg should be the ideal shot for all occasions. In circumstances such as those here, where all civilians have been removed from the area, and the potential threat was stood right in front of the officers with guns, how could it have been more harmful than what they did?

Hmmm, about a dozen jittery cops it takes to execute a 17 year old dazed teen with a 3 inch butter knife. What a bunch of sissies.

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.

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy
what ever happened to shooting someone in the leg or arm to slow em down.

That has NEVER been accepted practice outside of movies and TV.
The leg is terrible place to shoot someone. Its thin. It has little “meat” and a large bone. Its a great place to have a round ricochet or pass through, and hit an innocent bystander.

Most police agencies use hollow points or hydro shok ammo so when an officer decides to neutralize a suspect in his leg or arm there is no ricohet. This type of ammo will "mushshroom up" cause more damage than a full metal jacket and its a lot safer. I encourage gun owners to use this type of ammo.

Originally posted by DeepVisions
They had no plan other than point a gun at his face and tell him to drop the knife. It seems police these days lack critical thinking skills and they just approach situations thinking their gun will solve the problem.

Lack of training, lack of common sense, an inflated ego, a hero complex, and a system designed to protect them from actually being held responsible for their own actions.

It seems that there are far too many people in uniforms who should never have been given a gun.

I'll be watching Toronto carefully after this, there should be massive protests coming up. There is no justification for what happened here and I wouldn't be waiting around for a whitewash either, I doubt the people of Toronto will be waiting to be told the officers just need more training.

People should be enraged by this and out on the streets already.

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

The 21 foot rule is for any time a suspect is wielding and edged weapon.
That is why the officers told him not to come any closer.

The bus itself would be a possible obstacle to negotiate out of, if the youngster was going for any of the 'at the ready and armed police'
Have today's police no notion any more of containment, a couple of squad cars at the bus doors would make it very difficult for the youngster to go anywhere fast.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
It's not like anybody is suggesting a shot to the leg should be the ideal shot for all occasions. In circumstances such as those here, where all civilians have been removed from the area, and the potential threat was stood right in front of the officers with guns, how could it have been more harmful than what they did?

Officers don't use their guns as toys, or non-lethal weapons. They are taught to fire “center mass” when they shoot. Center mass is not only the largest area of the body, making it the easiest to hit while in a stressful situation, but it contains the largest number of vital organs, and is the “thickest” part of a human. It has the greatest potential for stopping the round, and for keeping a tumbling, ricocheting round inside the person.
Police don't use guns to “wound”.

I'm going to point out something many of you don't understand, since you have never been in law enforcement.

When a person does not comply, with repeated commands something is very very wrong with the individual and the whole situation.

In past years I have seen officers disarm an individual, only to have them pull a boot knife out and seriously injure an officer.

We had an officer here in the Detroit area a few years back, almost lose his life, because a mentally ill woman would not give up her kitchen knife.

She cut his juggler, while 4 officers tried to wrestle her to the ground, right after they maced her.

I am not saying the officer, in the OP, was justified or not, but please understand when someone has a knife and will not drop it bad JuJu is about to happen, from either end.

Many officers have died because they let there guard down on people who were under severe duress, drugs, or mentally ill.

So what would your decision be if you had to get the knife away from him? Could you trust that he didn't have more weapons hidden?

reply to post by sonnny1


I also heard on the video one of the cops yell "Don't do it" right before the shooting started. What was the suspect doing? You don't know either.

reply to post by smurfy
If his intent had been innocent, he would have dropped the knife.
If you are inside 21 feet of an officer, armed with a knife, approaching them, and refusing orders to drop the knife, they will open fire on you.

It won't be much longer before people in mass turn on the police like this.


We will see these jackboot thugs running like a bunch of scared little babies, how much longer will we stand for this bs?

Originally posted by sylent6

Originally posted by Carreau
reply to post by sylent6

 

What I do like about Canada's LEA's is that they are very thorough with departmental policies and will investigate any misconduct or use of force. I can't say the same here in California.

edit on 29-7-2013 by sylent6 because: (no reason given)

dont kid yourself..they are no better, they generaly investigate themselves and only very recently have outside entities been used or formed to investigate in some area,s, mostly due to the robert dziekanski killing where the police were clearly caught lying their pants off from the top of the organization down, they cleared themselves..those c@cksuckers wouldnt even let the emt's try to treat him..only after a witness sued to get his video back did we all learn the truth. and now the 4 officers are under trial for perjury..only because of the video
cbc article
www.cbc.ca...

Originally posted by sonnny1
"Drop the knife!" and "If you take one step in this direction, you’re finished,"

Right here he's telling you he's using the 21 foot rule...
If the person continues in that direction still holding the weapon, and is under 21 feet, then this will be ruled justified under the way police are trained to deal with it.

To those defending the cops actions...

That is all fine and good. Now please explain the final six shots to me. It is fairly obvious that the kid was dropped by the first three shots.

Or was the kid dying in an inappropriate manner that somehow would justify deadly force?

"Your honor, he had a knife and he twitched....