I see, so people who have a problem with this incident are "ignorant and naïve"?


This video is also from Toronto. Another knife wielding suspect. Police take him down with minor injuries and no shots fired.

Now tell me, which of the two incidents poses a greater threat to police? A man on a bus with two known exits who's just standing there or a man out in the middle of the street running around confronting officers with a knife? Why is this man still alive while the man on the bus is dead?

Yes, I do remember this guy. He deserved to be shot, on the spot, there is no need for a trial or legal issues. There is no need to burden the tax payer with a court case, there is no need to take him anywhere but a morgue. HOWEVER, this did not happen and he was taken down.
Fast forward to today, another man on the bus with a knife threatening lives.

Like I said, there are ALWAYS other outcomes, but if you go somewhere and start threatening lives, then when cops show up you do not listen to anything being said and still pose a threat you should EXPECT TO BE SHOT. This is the correct action. Stop wasting tax dollars on these people, they have no care for other peoples live, why should we care for there's.

If I was put in the same situation, you can bet every penny you have that he would be shot. I have a family at home that I want to come home to I will not take ANY chance that I may not make it home to see them. If someone has made the choice to try and take lives and continue to refuse to obay commands that 10+ gun wielding police officers are giving him then expect to get shot.

What would the legal system do in the even this man was arrested rather than shot? There would be multiple trials, lawyers, doctors, witness' and jury all brought in to say the same thing. This takes month if not years to complete and in all that time you have to deal with a man who is unstable and has no value for the life of the people around him. In the end this amounts to money that the tax payer has to pay. IMO the cops did the 100% correct thing to do in this situation.

Coles notes: If 10+ cops yell at you to do something with there guns out and you don't listen EXPECT TO GET SHOT

Justice, simplified.

IMO... "clearly showing him walking forward" = translation = "advancing on police"


New security camera footage shows the moment Sammy Yatim was shot by Toronto police | National Post

^ Did you even watch the CCTV footage? You call that advancing?

Moving towards police, even a few feet, with hostile behaviour, without dropping the weapon after repeated demands. IMO... yea, that's advancing on police. :dead:

When you're waving around a deadly weapon (and yes, knives are considered as deadly weapon), you don't really get the benefit of the doubt.
Posted via RS Mobile

Don't wave a knife at cops don't get shot at, seems fairly simple
Posted via RS Mobile

we should all keep in mind that just like how every person with a knife is a unique person, those cops that deal with them are unique as well

both sides bring different temperment and experience, so the outcome will not always be the same

and lol, thats a pretty funny video. having the cruiser hit him :lawl:

Trance head answered your question for me perfectly. No 2 situations are the same, ever.

And yes, people who have a problem with this incident are ignorant and naive because they are basing their assumptions on one, or a combination of the following; not knowing the whole story (you CANNOT see the perp clearly. I don't know what secret video footage you are watching but there is no way you can see what the kid is doing), you were not there, you don't know how police are trained to react to certain situations, you believe in too much of the movies you watch, you actually believe the media is unbiased.

Sorry, it wasn't answered at all. If you were to show people both videos without letting them see the final outcome, and then tell them one of them was shot and killed, who do you think they'd pick? The kid on the bus who barely moves back and forth more than 3ft the whole time or the crazy in the street actively moving towards several officers while waving his knife?

Seems you want to avoid the obvious differences in threat to the officers in both videos by using a canned statement "no two situations are alike".

Do you want to discuss what happened, or resort to insulting people who have a different view from you? To state that my view is based on my ignorance or what I watch on TV/media is beyond asinine.

Wut did I even read? Stop pulling crap out of your own ass. Since where did I say he shouldn't have been shot? You are dodging all my points I made. Familiarize yourself with what happened during the Vince Li incident. So basically you are saying that since Vince Li murdered someone and he waved a knife around that this kid should have been shot? Officers were not harmed in the Vince Li incident, but also no shots were fired...

Judging from how you think the situation should be dealt, you think officers unloading 9 rounds and then being tased while dying is alright? This isn't excessive force? Wow, you might as well kick a suspect in the head multiple times while handcuffed on the ground too huh?

If the officers were in a dire situation what were they doing so close to the streetcar? I'm sure as hell they could of stepped back another 20 ft and had ALL THEIR guns drawn. I will say this again since you don't seem able to read, I'm not questioning whether he should have been shot or not, I'm more interested in why so many rounds were fired fearing the risk of stray bullets and why was he tased after being shot.

I'm no expert on how police handle stand off situations, but clearly you think you are smarter than these police analysts who are also questioning what happened.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle13495500/

Edit:

Another new video, 0:54, so it's clear he took a step forward, it looks like the first 3 shots hit him since he dropped, 6 more shots were unloaded and he was tased. Sounds like murder to me... No chance to to survive... Especially at this close of a range.

Just because a guy gets dropped by 3 bullets doesn't mean he's either dead or at the very least neutralized. So, since we're so hung up on excessiveness and the #9, can you please educate us what the appropriate amount of bullets are?

Is there an automatic # where if a human body receives X amount of bullets, said human is immediately dead/and or neutralized? This number can't be arbitrary can it?

Or perhaps you're some super doctor where you can asses a persons vital signs at the speed a bullet leaves its barrel so you can quickly stop at the correct neutralizing shot number?









Oh well, at least your camp has gone far enough to at least admit he took a step towards the police officers rather than keeping on painting him as a harmless innocent knife wielding by-stander.

Last time I checked, an officer is supposed to stop the threat, not kill him. Especially at that close of range. Kid isn't chuck norris, a blade isn't going to come out flying towards an officer. Remember that brief pause before more shots were unloaded? Forgot it already?

You volunteering for target practice? I sure as hell am a super doctor buddy :)

Once again where did I say he was harmless little boy? I was questioning the result. Where are you guys pulling this crap from? Wow...

But you know, that leg twitch is mighty dangerous, be very afraid

1) Officers are obliged to stop a threat even at the point of killing; especially when said threat is life threatening.

Sometimes, I wish you were stuck in that bus with that knife wielder and the cops and your colleagues refuse to help on the basis of... "well, it's just a knife." Lets see you downplay that.


2) How do you know the kid isn't Chuck Norris? How do you know that blade will not come flying out towards an officer?

Are you gambling your life or are you gambling theirs?


3) Is it a dying man's twitch? Or is his he struggling to regain himself?

Again, are we gambling your life here, or are you gambling someone else's?







Anymore machismo attempts at trying to make yourself look as if you could've concluded this incident better?

So easy to say excessive force behind your dinner table and not in front of some nutjob with a knife.

Still missing the point, I understand if it was 'life threatening', however I would think if it was a code red call all 20+ officers would have had their guns drawn along with staying away from the streetcar. If he wanted to step up and try to take him down himself good for him, I have no issues. The only problem I have is the end result and how much force was used.

I wouldn't have been stuck, kid didn't have any malicious intent towards anyone on the streetcar. Thanks though bro, makes me warm and fuzzy that you care :)

Oh please, now you are being silly, I'm still waiting for you to refute what should have happened. How many times do I have to keep repeating the same thing...

But let's just wait for the investigation to conclude, because it doesn't seem like the right measurements were in place in this standoff since everything ended under 5 minutes.

Why would you think that two "similar" incidents regarding a single male and a knife would result in the same way? Especially when the police and the perpetrator are different people? Do you think the Canucks will have the same result in every game against the same teams over and over? No.. because there are different factors that come into play. Experience of the players (police), and the different makeup of the other team (perpetrator). In REAL life, things are unpredictable, and Policing is exactly that. Real life. You will never experience the same thing even after pulling over 1000 cars, or attending 1000 break and enters, Assaults, etc. Two officers that have 6 years experience will not have had the same experience. What one officer saw/perceived will be different than another. Try to understand that before you compare incidents to on another, because realistically, you can't. period!

No one here can answer WHY he was shot as many times as he did or why he was even tazed. For you to yell bloody murder, and excessive force is unfair because, like you already said, you DON'T KNOW WHY. The points I have been making is that people should stop basing their opinion on a blurry video, which you cannot clearly see what the kid is doing, only parts of it. The one thing I do stand by is that I would give the officer(s) the benefit of the doubt at this point, with the limited information I know, because they are the ones that are trained to be in that situation, and the one that are risking their life to be in that situation.

And on the note of the officers being that close.... wow... just WOW... So the officers back off 50, 60. 70 feet... the kid is given so much time and distance, that he runs out and goes on a rampage and stabs innocent people that are close by watching/taping the situation.. Now the cops are F@CKED for giving the guy so much space he hurts/kills someone... Where do we end up? Oh yea, blaming the cops again. The cops were there within a certain distance to be able to order commands, and see what is going on. With all that they are ensuring their own safety and the safety of the public.

You don't need to be chuck norris to be able to throw a knife and cause damage. How do you know and how do the cops know what abilities this kid has with respect to what he is capable of doing? They had seconds to respond to the matter, and you really think they did a whole background check on him while en route to the call? They probably didn't even know his name until he was down. And as already mentioned, stopping a threat can mean killing.. Police aren't trained to shoot the knife out of people's hands, or "wound" someone. They are trained to shoot centre mass, which is where all the vital organs are. The RCMP use rounds that are jacketed hollow points, which mushroom upon impact.. which are made to severly damage the surrounding tissues it has pierced. I know the police here are TPS, but just giving you an idea that stopping the threat with a firearm more often than not, means critically injuring or killing someone.

LOL, you going to bring the bullshit of the police "analyst" eh? What makes them a "professional"? Yea sure, some may be former cops, but honestly, they should know better than to even second guess other cops' actions as they should damn well know they were not there and could not predict the outcome to any incident, especially one with so much adrenaline and on the spot decision making. "Professional Analysts" for any topic are useless armchair quarterbacks, just like in sports, they can't even make proper predictions 50% of the time, and will only criticize after the fact. Don't even get me started on self proclaimed "profession analysts". Are there lots of questions to be answered? Of course there is. But even the kid's family aren't saying or blaming anyone until the investigation is over.

I don't understand the debate.

Suspect has a deadly weapon, didn't drop when ordered, and advanced on an armed officer.

What dumb cunt would risk sticking his hand in front of a blade to try and subdue someone or even tackle someone and risk getting stabbed. Secondly, tasers work and sometimes don't especially with crazy dudes. Who knows! Glad they shot him. Who brandishes a fucking knife in public.

Please state the amount of experience that you have to make a judgment that there is a "time" recommendation for every situation a Police encounters? Please show me the chart that shows a knife brandishing male, you must spend at least 6 mins before opening fire or drawing your sidearm... or where it says, 8 mins must be spent if it is a female. I don't know what video you were watching but I didn't see 20 cops on scene.. nor did I only see ONE cop with his/her sidearm drawn.

i think none of us have actually seen a knife fight/stabbing go down in real life so this video presents an interesting dynamic on the subject.


i think that what those of us who are arguing it was excessive was pointing out is that the overwhelming amount of police present combined with the fact that there was no one on the train should have warranted a different response.

those of us who are arguing that the level of force applied was justified are trying to state that the behavior of the officers in the incident was correct.

we can't really speculate because we werent there and dont know the details. i'm sick of people who say, "oh shoulda shot him in the knee", or "shoulda shot him in the arm" or "shoulda deployed a taser". everything in hindsight is 20/20.

i'm of the opinion that the correct level of force was applied. as tragic as this event is the 18 year old man was in a public space and was threatening the lives of innocent people. dispite the fact that the train was empty i think you're all missing the point that the train actually had passengers when Yatim started threatening others with a knife.

Knife-wielding Yatim told people to stay on streetcar, witness says - Toronto - CBC News

its only because people were able to flee off the streetcar that this incident did not involve hostages. he pulled a knife out and ordered people to not get off the street car according to a witness who was inside the streetcar prior to the incident.

also, reports state that Yatim did not die on scene and died in hospital.

i think what the people who are calling this murder are lacking is comprehension of the law. this is a case of homicide and not murder. i could only assume that toronto police did not conspire to murder this man as they did not have the aforethought required for this to be murder. their intent was most likely not to kill Yatim. the only thing thats of importance here is whether this will be a case of justifiable homicide or simply homicide/man slaughter.

OSIU is doing the investigation so i'm looking forward to reading what they have to say.

Uh, you're the one who was dodging my questions. Like I mentioned earlier. You seem to be so hung up about 9 shots. Can you tell me what the textbook approptriate number of shooting an armed, aggressive and insubmissive person?

And can you please explain what supports this number?



So I'll answer your question
What should've happened:
1) kid should've never wave around a knife in public.
2) kid should've never come at a police officer with a knife.

Although I wish the kid didn't die, but when you when do either 1 or both of the above, there's no more guarantees of your safety.

Why?

Because at this point, the heirarchy of safety goes as follows:

1) The public
2) The police officers
3) The guy threatening people with a knife.

It is not:

1) The guy threatening people with a knife
2) The public
3) The police officers


It's easy for you to gamble on his intent because, well you're behind the keyboard, not in front of a guy with a knife :rolleyes:


How convenient this is now your argument; because you're not exactly waiting on this investigation to crucify the police for the outcome. :rolleyes:

they also do not know the level of force police are allowed to exert given their perception of a situation. the police aren't trained to match the force of the perp but to get a one up to win the fight, so to speak. They aren't going to deploy the OC spray or tazer ONLY when the perp has pepper spray or a tazer.

edited it for you, but other than that, you are bangon

police are trained to fire center mass and for the most part shoot to kill. there is no set number of rounds that they are trained to fire into a suspect.


the logic behind this as far as i understand it is that,

A) the police are issued pistols

and

B) pistols are hard to shoot accurately with at distance

thus

C) police are trained to shoot and fire at center mass

because

D) it has the highest likelihood of success (making contact)

however

E) center mass for the most part is/will most likely result in a kill shot

because

F) the majority of the human body's vital organs are located center mass.