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

reply to post by nightbringr


Comparing this incident to Vince Li is apples to oranges. There was nobody else on the bus with this young man.

reply to post by defcon5

Because armchair quarterbacking after the fact is easy because your not in the immediate situation. Would you suggest that the police pull out a couch, call in a psychiatrist, and wait for him to be psychoanalyzed?

Nope....just asking the question that's all.

I know you are an ex- LEO Deff and I understand that it's hard to be truly objective sometimes, but it's worth mentioning that even the Toronto Police Chief is "concerned" by this event.

Toronto police Chief Bill Blair says people "have every right to be concerned" after an 18-year-old man armed with a knife on a downtown streetcar was shot repeatedly and killed by police this weekend

I'm not "armchair quarterbacking" as you put it, but aren't you concerned by the fact that it took multiple police officers and the firing of 9 shots to bring down a contained 17 year old armed with a 3" knife?

reply to post by Jocko Flocko


What you just said applies here in the states too. Same doo-doo and no resolution.

I was watching a Youtube video on Toronto street crimes and gangs. I had no idea that certain parts of that city was off-the-walls with violence. So I can imagine the sweet ol' police officer helping granny with the groceries days are over.

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.

Originally posted by IamAbeliever
If this had happened in America there would be two fatalities, because after they had made sure the guy on the bus was good and dead they would have beat the living $h!t out of whomever filmed the incident.

You made me chuckle on that one because I don't think they have graduated to that level yet. Those officers were nervous as hell though. Obviously, some additional training must be conducted but I can't say too much because some u.s. leo's haven't learn nothing either.

reply to post by DerekJR321
I think that part of the problem here might be the misunderstanding that a police officer has to be legally correct to arrest you... Well he doesn't... He only has to legally BELIEVE he is right to arrest you. Once you are being arrested, your rights are suspended and you are required to follow the “lawful orders” of that officer.

This is where MOST of these situations start to go awry. The person decides that they don't want to be taken into custody, or the situation becomes “real”, and they want to start “negotiations” with the officer. You see though, at that point its too late, the officer has already started to arrest, and you are now resisting that arrest by “negotiating”. Whether that just be verbal, passive (refusing to cooperate), or active (pushing, pulling your hands out of the cuffs, etc), your now resisting, and that officer is allowed to use increasing levels of force to gain compliance from you. That is what the “use of force matrix” is, the levels he can counter your resistance with. The more you resist, the more he can hurt you until you comply.

The fact that you feel you were wrongfully arrested is something you battle in a court, not out on the street with the arresting officer.

Originally posted by defcon5
Because armchair quarterbacking after the fact is easy because your not in the immediate situation.

If I, an untrained person, without the luxury of a firearm and 8 buddies also carrying guns to back me up, can face down a guy holding a meat cleaver, with just a baton, then I expect far more from people who are supposed to be highly trained professionals.

reply to post by Jocko Flocko


Still better than parts of the US. I see a doctor ( a standard MD who works in a facility overseen by ONE psychiatrist ) once every 90-100 days. If you miss a single appointment, for any reason at all you are taken out of the system and sent back to square one.

Late last year my transportation caved in at the last second and I missed an appointment. My first "new" appointment will be on the fifteenth of August ( in just over two weeks ). A nine month wait.

Literally over kill.

A suspect armed with a knife versus 10-12 or more cops?

9 shots?

There is no excuse for that as already said cops have access to less lethal means, Taser, bean rounds etc.

In Toronto no less I think people really have not taken a good look at society lately it is a pretty messed up place.

I don't really believe in god or heaven, but those cops are definitely going to hell..

Originally posted by neo96
Literally over kill.

A suspect armed with a knife versus 10-12 or more cops?

9 shots?

You forgot the Tazer, AFTER the shots too.................

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by jaws1975
He was contained in the streetcar, no one else was in the streetcar, there was no way for him to escape. Why not wait for swat to extricate him?

Why not just wait until old age, or starvation?
That is not the polices job, their job is to get the situation under control and effect an arrest.
They tried, he resisted.
Under the “Use of Force Matrix” and the “21 foot rule” the police will be found to be justified.

Originally posted by jaws1975
If he was lunging for the police when he was shot, his forward momentum would have had him fall out of the streetcar, or at least onto the steps.

He was told to stop, and he didn't. He doesn't have to be “lunging for the police”. When the police give you a “lawful order” its not an option, like “maybe I'll comply when I calm down and sober up”, its an ORDER and it
means NOW...

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

This man was on a bus/tram and the officers were outside of it, I cannot see how the level of violence used can be justified even as self defense. He was most likely only a threat to himself, after all he ordered everyone of the vehicle not demand they stay putt or indiscriminately start stabbing people.

Their was a case here in the UK not too long ago where a man called Raul Moat had a lengthy stand off with police, he had a sawed-off double barreled shotgun and it was pointed at his own head. Now the officers were only about 20 foot away from this man at one point, it would have took him all of 2 seconds to point the gun at the officers and shoot. A very dangerous situation, but the officers on-scene ONLY discharged tasers on him when he was acting erratic and it was apparently used for his own defense... ended up seizing and pulling the trigger.

He was a known cop killer too, comparing the 2 cases that are very different I cannot help but come to a conclusion that these officers were in far too much of a hurry to end the situation.

Officers are supposed to enforce the law, not try to be it. In my opinion this is a big failure by those doing the shooting. If this man did for instance start approaching these cops then they shouldn't have felt obliged to give him his suicidal wish. It's not how you police civilians.

If a person is so eager to jump off a high-story building you don't push him off or shoot him in case he lands on somebody. You create a safe perimeter and then try to convince him that looking like a pancake is not a good look. These police officers should have been more in control of the situation and not trying to escalate it, regardless of lawful orders or not.

I'm not an officer though and not an expert in anyway relating to law so I may be well wrong. Maybe this was a perfectly reasonable outcome, I just can't help but think that this man should have had help not volleys of bullets.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
If I, an untrained person, without the luxury of a firearm and 8 buddies also carrying guns to back me up, can face down a guy holding a meat cleaver, with just a baton, then I expect far more from people who are supposed to be highly trained professionals.

You take a great person risk in doing so, including the risk that the person will come back and sue you for your actions and any resulting harm you caused.

The police don't play the game that way. They are not required to take those sorts of risks, and have rules governing what their actions are in various situations. If they don't follow those rules, THEN they risk litigation. If they follow those rules, they are in the clear.

So, for example, in this case if they had “shot him in the leg” as others have suggested, it would not have been a “clean shoot” and they would have gotten in trouble with their department for not following procedures, AND would have been legally liable for a civil lawsuit. If in doing so, it would have caused any personal or property damage, they could be legally sued for it.

If you don't like the way those rules are set, then lobby to have them changed.

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by DerekJR321

 

I think that part of the problem here might be the misunderstanding that a police officer has to be legally correct to arrest you... Well he doesn't... He only has to legally BELIEVE he is right to arrest you. Once you are being arrested, your rights are suspended and you are required to follow the “lawful orders” of that officer.

This is where MOST of these situations start to go awry. The person decides that they don't want to be taken into custody, or the situation becomes “real”, and they want to start “negotiations” with the officer. You see though, at that point its too late, the officer has already started to arrest, and you are now resisting that arrest by “negotiating”. Whether that just be verbal, passive (refusing to cooperate), or active (pushing, pulling your hands out of the cuffs, etc), your now resisting, and that officer is allowed to use increasing levels of force to gain compliance from you. That is what the “use of force matrix” is, the levels he can counter your resistance with. The more you resist, the more he can hurt you until you comply.

The fact that you feel you were wrongfully arrested is something you battle in a court, not out on the street with the arresting officer.

Seems like they know then that you are basically a lump of dodo, and they can do anything they want, and they can arrest you whether they truly believe it or not, it's the classic cop out, (pardon the pun)

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by neo96
Literally over kill.

A suspect armed with a knife versus 10-12 or more cops?

9 shots?

You forgot the Tazer, AFTER the shots too.................

So kill him
then kill him again
no hes not dead yet
shoot him again

And for good measure shoot him again and then nope he's not done yet taze him!

Then cuff him!.

All I can say are they '#' me?

Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post by defcon5

 

Guys who are on enough drugs or with enough adrenaline can withstand massive amounts of damage to their bodies and still present a threat. When someone is acting irrationally, such as rushing the police with a knife, the officers are going to assume that they are on something.

What protocols exist for dealing with potentially mentally ill suspects?.....why would officers assume "drugs" and not "mentally ill"?

I'm not saying this guy was or wasn't mentally ill....I'm just genuinely interested to know if there is a procedure for dealing with a mentally ill person in a similar scenario?

A peace officer has no way of knowing if a subject is mental ill when he/she commits an act of violence or crime unless they had prior contact with the individual and his medical history. With that been said, there are procedures in dealing with these types of situations if it can be contain as possible but I will promise you this, if that mentally ill person threatens an officer or another person with acts of violence, bodily injury or harm with the "intent" (not knowing what they're doing) that officer may use deadly force to protect the lives of the public and themselves.

Every situation is different and every p.d. has their own departmental polices in dealing with certain incidents.

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?

Maybe 17 year olds are not innocent anymore, maybe they had something on him, who knows these days. Two or three 17 year olds were involved in the Algeria gas plant bombing. Who knows if the police were't briefed on rising extremism as our #1 national threat. Apparently the report below was not fully reported by MSM and important threats omitted. This young man was Syrian was he not?

Syria Hub for Terrorism
Mr. Toews spoke after releasing the 2013 Public Report on the Terrorist Threat to Canada, which said Syria was becoming a “major theatre of operations” for terrorists and “reinvigorating” the extremist cause.

“Canada is concerned that the civil war is turning Syria into a hub for terrorist activities that will heighten the terrorist threat to Canada, Canadians and Canadian interests,” said the 30-page report, the first of its kind.

It said a prolonged conflict risked turning Syrian into a “training ground” for terrorists who could then “return to their home countries, including Canada, to attempt to radicalize others or conduct terrorist attacks.”

Link to the Official Report

reply to post by defcon5




Had a neighbor that threatened me once. I had children in the house. He was on medication, and was suicidal and threatening neighbors. He had a knife. They talked with him through the door. He opened it. They shot him with a Tazer. He was 5 feet away. No one died that day. The rules that are in place can be bent. It happens daily. From not giving a traffic ticket and giving warnings, to situations like this.

The "by the book" rule can be bent. Just ask any Politician.

Originally posted by whatnext21
Maybe 17 year olds are not innocent anymore, maybe they had something on him, who knows these days.

A 17 year old is essentially an adult. That is why they are allowed to enter the military with permission, drive, and can be charged with crimes as an adult. Do people honestly think that some switch gets thrown in a persons head at 12am of their 18th birthday that turns them from a child into an adult? I never got this "logic" with the martin case either.