Okay. Great. So you admit the Yatim made a move against the police officers.


Now the argument is that you've drawn an imaginary line where the police cannot defend themselves (in which case here as you say, until he exits the bus; or takes two more steps?).


The problem with that... is your opinions are gambling the lives of others; not yours. How you determine what distance is appropriate before one can start defending oneself is unfortunately made at the comfort of your own home, without the threat of a deadly weapon.

How much weight does that opinion hold now?







as for the underlined part... your recent participation in the Smart Meters thread in addition to this thread sure makes it look like you're speaking of yourself more than others. Whatever the case, a person who's lining his computer room with tinfoil shouldn't be calling others idiots. :)

Police gets a call for a domestic violence case. They make contact, a man who is mute and blind is holding a dinosaur, police order him to put it back in the cage, he doesn't comply. Police take out their samurai swords and slice him up. The supervisor comes and eats his heart and illegally seizes the poor dinosaur.

My example is as irrelevant as yours.

Your slippery slope argument is a fallacy. The case you mentioned is more likely an aberration, and isn't even close to the one we're talking about.

If you read back to everyone's post they break it down of what happened.

Public place, victims escape, knife, held onto weapon, and stepped forward. How simple is that?

You are right, I wasn't there. I never said the cop(s) were right/end of story. I stated more than once, that given the lack of information we have, I would give the police THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT, in this situation as they are trained to be in those situations. What I have been arguing against is people jumping on the media bandwagon saying that it was excessive and making statements out of pure ignorance without knowing how police are trained, and their use of force.
You can't say he does not deserve to be shot because you don't know what happened. What specific actions the kid said or did right before and after the initial shots. You also do not know how Police are trained, so you CANNOT say they should or shouldn't have had their guns out. You have NO idea. You, along with the media and majority of the public are basing their opinions from no knowledge whatsoever of Policing.

Since you seem to be the expert on verbal communication with a hostile subject wielding a weapon, how many "second" warnings should there be until police open fire? Exactly how many feet does the kid have to walk or advance before the police shoot? Maybe the police should calculate the kid's stature and predict how athletic he is so they can calculate how fast it would take the kid to be within striking distance with any of the officers. Maybe if he was wearing flip flops, they could add on 2 seconds to it...

End of the day, the kid had a knife. Police had their guns our and commanded him to drop it. He didn't. What does that tell you when someone refuses to comply with Police demands while holding a knife and verbally threatening Police? Any slight movement towards the Police, I would take as a threat where the kid is motivated to attack. You have seconds to decide whether you're going home to your family, or the kid is.

It's these kind of stories about police and fatal shootings that people how difficult almost every day of work can be for a cop.

Police sometimes need to make split second decisions involving life and death.
Talk about work related stress.

I know a guy, an RCMP constable, who says that work life for him at times is like seeing the darkness of humanity.

absolute beaut of a video.

Although I don't agree with the ending of the video, (shooting an unarmed man will probably land you in jail lol), it does demonstrate how effective at short/medium range a knife wielding guy is.

I'm in a third world country working and I don't even carry a knife in my car, too scared it might switch hands, just a collapsible baton.

It's refreshing to see someone who is rational and willing to logically discuss the matter for a change.
On the sample use of force continuum that you have cited, I do not agree that intermediate weapons are inappropriate while lethal force is "the best and correct choice given the circumstances" [sic]. Again, I continue to emphasize that as long as the teenager is in the street car (and not right at the door), there is no immediate danger or threat to anyone in the near vicinity. In this case, the most appropriate thing to do is to simply contain the situation until either:

1) some more appropriate support shows up to help resolve the situation. This could range from anywhere between having a mediator, additional arms support (tasers, rubber bullets, etc.), and so on, or

2) the situation deteriorates, in which case immediate action are required

It is true the teenager stepped forward. But I do not consider that as a deteriorating factor because his actions would still be entirely predictable and easily neutralized for at least another 2 steps forward. If it looks like he was aggressive (ie. getting ready to attack or initiating an attack) in those last 2 steps, then there is still plenty of time to react (ie. shoot). There is still a small margin before deadly force is required. Taking advantage of that difference might mean the teenager wouldn't have to die in this case.

Like you said, the OSIU is doing their investigation, and I seriously hope the report can offer the general public a plausible explanation as to why 9 rounds of bullets, with pauses in between, were required to take down the suspect, and why the officers on hand could not drag the incident out to a longer duration until a mediator arrives.

As to Mr. Noir and RSX, I am not even going to waste my time responding to your comments. The fact of the matter is, a young person is now dead at the hands of the police, and I am going to ask you -- how much weight does that fact hold, especially for the family of the deceased?

The police should hold their fire as long as the situation is still under control, and possesses no immediate danger. Until the teenager makes his way to the street car's doorway, his action is still going to be entirely predictable -- his only option if he wants to attack is to physically pass through the door. If the police cannot respond to that entirely predictable attack route, their training is seriously lacking.

Had the teenager already been at the doorway, and was still waving his knife around, that would change the entire situation and its risk assessment. By being at the doorway, he could proceed to any number of direction for his attack, and that would cause the situation to be out of the police's control. Because of this much higher risk, there would be a lot more justification for the police to take affirmative action.

Just throwing it out there. But, how do the police know he didn't have a bomb, or something?

I agree somewhat with both sides of the argument. Its easy to say they overreacted after the fact. But, I don't blame them for handling it like they did, either.
Posted via RS Mobile

You're not going to waste your time, or is that a euphemistic way of saying you can't refute our statements.

But since I love busting your arguments up like it's nothing more than a knitting hobby, let's keep going.


You ask this:


"The fact of the matter is, a young person is now dead at the hands of the police, and I am going to ask you -- how much weight does that fact hold, especially for the family of the deceased?"



My answer:

How much weight does it hold that some police officers are coming home to their wives and kids alive that night? Because you know... had things go Yatim's way, this would not be true.


So in short: It won't weigh as much if he's the one trying to kill somebody had somebody not have killed him first. Oh, but I guess you chose to ignore that.

You are making it too easy, Noir, which is why I did not want to bother wasting time to reply. There are any number of ways to refute your claim, so I am not going to bother.
Nobody is hung up on the exactly shot count. The only thing that matters is that the total number of shots fired is excessive, especially when there were at least 2 (if not 3) obvious pauses between the times when the rounds were fired. Had only the first 3 shots been fired, there would be a lot fewer people bringing up the total shot count as a point of contention. Police are trained to fire their guns multiple times in 1 burst, so had the officer stopped firing after his first 3 shots, the shot count could easily be explained as a single burst of reflexive action from the police's target shooting training -- and really, that's exactly what it is.

On the other hand, the 4th to 9th shots are a lot more difficult to explain. Why were the first 3 shots not enough? Why shoot again after the first pause? Why shoot again after the 2nd pause? Why fire so many shots? Why does an officer really need to fire 9 shots at that kind of distance to take a scrawny teenager down? There are too many possible questions that can be asked, and none of them puts the police in a favourable light.

But really, the fact that you have to ask me this question, and I have to explain this to you is precisely why I did not want to waste my time replying.

ok... so they shot too many times, that's after the fact. If it was a mistake that could have been prevented well... ok, they'll correct the mistake for the next time.

so the next time someone has a knife on a bus, they'll shoot him 1-3 times in the chest instead... or... just one time? or throw a dodge ball at his face and hope he doesn't catch it. cuz you know, then you'd be out.

I'm not going to address the other points you made because I've already addressed it.

It doesn't hold any weight. By the way, he's 18, don't try to gain sympathy with this "young person" BS. He pulled out a knife on a bus. He's a fucking weirdo, a crazy cunt and he deserved to be shot like a dog on the street. As for the family, they should be asking themselves, why they raised a psycho. The family should apologize to the people on the bus and the cops involved. Furthermore, they should compensate the city for grounding a bus and wasting everyone's time.

I don't know why you're defending this guy actually. If they did end up arresting him, he'll cycle through the judicial system, maybe go to jail and in the end waste time and taxpayer money.

Are you fucking kidding me? After watching the videos, and the posted use of force continuum, how are you still trying to say what constitutes using lethal force??? You weren't there! How are you able to judge exact movements and words the kid said prior to advancing however many steps he did. How are you going to know how the officer(s) felt while dealing with the kid? Stop armchair quarterbacking, and open your eyes.

I really people like you were there, so you can actually feel what it is like to be in a life death situation like that. Let's see how you do then. Every time you post, it is the same shit, they should've done this. They shouldn't have done that. You already said you weren't the expert, so stop posting shit that makes it seem like you know what you are talking about, because you don't.

The fact that you truly think the whole situation was "predictable" says enough. I am not going to reply anymore to your posts as you are just posting the same garbage every time. Maybe you should run your own Police dept.... or be hired by the IIO, since you seem to have been born KNOWING everything Police.

Clearly you have a problem with comprehension. The only "predictable part" that I was referring to is, if the teenager were to attack, he *must* walk through the street car's door first, regardless of the mode of attack he plans on taking. That is the completely predictable part, and because of that certainty, the cops will have the extra split second to respond however they choose to should the threat materializes (probably opening fire on him).

Until the teenager engages in that completely predictable move (to pass through the street car's door prior to mounting an attack), there is no immediate danger to anyone because the situation is entirely contained. And thus there is no immediate need for the police to open fire the way they did.

It's the meaningless loss of a life we are talking about here, but obviously you cannot wrap your head around that.

t4rawr's posts in these threads are great. i either learn something or get to read rational thought. either way i win :victory:

lol.. actually more like rofl

there are still issues with what you propose though. say that the officers wait for someone with non-lethal weapons to arrive. he/she would still be required to get onto the bus in order to deploy that weapon against the suspect. this would involve risking that officers life unnecessarily (i do understand that part of the job is to put themselves in harms way but this would be deemed unnecessary IMO). there is also the issue that should an officer get onto that bus, due to the closeness of the situation, the other officers would have a difficult time providing cover fire or direct fire in order to now potentially save the officers life who's now on the bus.

additional "arms support" as you put it, generally means ERT in these sorts of situations. ERT would do exactly the same thing, with the difference being that they now have fully automatic assault rifles and sub machine guns pointed at the suspect instead of a handgun. also, ERT as far as i understand it does not carry non-lethal weapons. if they're coming in, chances are they'll shoot to kill as well.

i suppose a negotiator could have been called, but for what purpose? he seemed deranged, exposing himself to people on the train with a knife held in his hand and teeth clenched. police issued him verbal commands to which he replied with berating comments. i dont think the suspect had any intentions of negotiating or being mediated. if that was the case he would have demanded things or tell the police to keep their distance rather than approach the front of the bus while constantly taunting them and calling them "fucking pussies."


waiting for the situation to deteriorate is exactly what police DONT want to do as this means the control over the situation has been lost. it doesnt matter whether he stepped forward half a step, a full step, 2 steps or 10 steps. at the end of the day he made an advancement while in an aggressive state.

the issue is that there is no such thing as "predictability" nor is there anything such as "plenty of time to react". people don't gamble their lives with "plenty of time to react". risks are taken on a calculated basis and the ones that don't usually wind up dead.

one thing that we havent taken into consideration is the location that the suspect was held up in the first place. it is possible that the suspect could have taken control of the trolley. this would have resulted in a vehicle chase where

A) the police have lost control of the situation and are now scrambling in their vehicles to try to stop a trolley bus

B) more officers lives as well as the publics safety is now in danger.

i stand by my opinion that the deployment of lethal force was the correct and necessary option. was the 9 shots necessary? probably not, but thats just speculation as their is no info on whether all 9 shots made contact. from the position that the officers were in and the situation they were controlling it is the best choice. its a shame that the suspect did not wait another minute or two for an officer with a taser to arrive. at the end of the day though, they still made the right choice.

i stated my reasons for why dragging out a situation longer would be a bad idea. as for the number of bullets and pauses? i would venture a guess that the first 3 rounds only temporarily stopped the suspect and the remaining rounds were used to put him down as he tried to get back up.

As far as non-lethal weapons and arms support are concerned, I was thinking more along the lines of tasers and rubber bullets (not ERT) because these would still have a range to them, so that would minimize the amount of risks the police officers are exposed to. The rubber bullets would obviously have a lot more range, but given where the teenager was standing at the time, it seems to me that he is still within range for a taser deployment.
Currently, we have no information suggesting that the teenager has clinical mental issues. As you said, it is possible that he is deranged. At the same time, it is also possible that the state of rage he was in is transient and temporary. If that were the case, a little extra time could allow for the rage and adrenalin to subside, at which point negotiation with a mediator could might be useful.

I understand these are all hindsights and what ifs. But post-mortem reviews are what we have to count on to improve the process for future incidents.

This logic is flawed.
It's "universal" language when a gun is pointed at you, you're not going to shout back and wave a screwdriver or hammer in a threatening way just because the police is using foreign language. Only an idiot would do that. Even you admitted you would drop whatever you're holding.

You're not trying to fight off a bear or coyote. Believe me, in this scenario against an officer with a gun, your "most likely minimize my chance of getting killed" will be to drop your shit and comply.

^^
Not sure what logic you are referring to that is flawed.

If it wasn't obvious to you, we're debating what should have been the right thing for the police to do in this case. When someone is pointing a gun at you, the obvious thing for normal people to do is to surrender. There is very little debate about that.

I think this is where the problem lies. To some people, they think the police was right to shoot the perp because he made an aggressive move by stepping towards the officers while holding a knife.
To some people, the police was right to shoot the perb, but to use 9 shots and then tazer him while he was down was excessive.
And to some people, the should have done more to de-escalate the situation or use some form of non-lethal method to subdue the perp.

To me, all are right and it is best for us to hold judgement until we know everything that happened and wasn't shown on the video.

honestly.. he brandished a knife in the public.. and challenged the officer.. so i'm going say he has problems in his head.. i have no problem with the police shooting and killing him although 9 shots maybe a little excessive.. although who knows how many actually hit him.. those that are saying should have tackled disarmed tasered him whatever.. and put him in jail.. so what happens later on once he's out of jail and goes out pulls the same stunt or say go on a mass killing spree.. then what? those that are bashing the police.. are you going to bash the police again and say why they didn't kill him the first time?

I meant your hypothetical scenario that you can apparently forsee:



Who knows if a man that doesn't obey will get shot 9 times if he only had a screw driver, instead of a knife.
But I see no problem with them being treated as a threat if they don't drop whatever they're holding.
It is universal language to freeze and put your hands up in the air when a gun is being pointed at you, especially by the Police, regardless of language barrier.
No sane person would wave a screw driver in the air or point it at the police.

Every scenario is different and to be judged differently, by the person at the scene, by the person being threatened.
You can't just use this particular incident, then slap on a hypothetical situation, and then say the police would have done the exact same thing.

Saying it's too easy so you don't retort is like saying you could've fucked this girl but didn't wanna. Right, like everybody will believe you there. Were it too easy, then it wouldn't have been a problem refuting.



Back on topic:

Yes you were hung up on 9 shots. You kept repeating this number was excessive.

Secondly, you already admitted there were pauses in between shots. So that means the police officer(s) were firing in bursts, assessing, then additional bursts if need be. What that says? That they weren't on a shooting rampage just mindlessly emptying their clip on a body. Wouldn't you have drawn this conclusion?



So now that brings us to your next beef, why was a second burst necessary? Well fuck if I know. I wasn't there, and I wasn't under the threat of an aggressor with a knife.

What you wanted? You wanted them to go up close on after the first round of bursts and try to apprehend Yatim. Reality, you nor I don't know if Yatim was still a threat even after being downed by the initial bursts.

You're assuming the following:
a) A person who has been shot 3 or 4 times is incapacitated and neutralized
b) All 3 or 4 shots hit something vital enough to disable the target
c) A person who is down is already incapable of harm.

Again, we go back to my argument which is: Your assumptions gamble the lives of police officers. For someone who pretends they value human life so much that they will give a would-be murderer, the benefit of the doubt, you seem really indifferent about the lives and safety that of the police officers who Yatim came at. I find it kinda ironic. :rolleyes: