[OnTheIce]

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

I said from day one that this cop will not only not go to prison, but he will continue to work, running around the streets with a gun on him.

The conflict of interest and concern for democracy should be obvious here. They obviously are going to overcharge knowing that now he will walk since they won't be able to prove their case to the degree they are pretending to seek. Smoke and mirrors for all to witness, "see, we DO charge cops, but justice ran it's course, we had no control over that...".

It's disgusting and quite frankly more people should be concerned when this guy gets off. It will be further proof that as long as an officer has "logged in" for the day, he might as well be an assassin with no public recourse. Rule of Law, honesty and transparency always takes the back seat to optics and personal benefit when the Security Apparatus is concerned.

Your theory doesn't hold water.

This officer, like those before him, will receive a trial and will be judged by a civilian jury. The case for him to be innocent will have to be super strong for him to walk.

[DrCaleb]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

I said from day one that this cop will not only not go to prison, but he will continue to work, running around the streets with a gun on him.

The conflict of interest and concern for democracy should be obvious here. They obviously are going to overcharge knowing that now he will walk since they won't be able to prove their case to the degree they are pretending to seek. Smoke and mirrors for all to witness, "see, we DO charge cops, but justice ran it's course, we had no control over that...".

It's disgusting and quite frankly more people should be concerned when this guy gets off. It will be further proof that as long as an officer has "logged in" for the day, he might as well be an assassin with no public recourse. Rule of Law, honesty and transparency always takes the back seat to optics and personal benefit when the Security Apparatus is concerned.

Your theory doesn't hold water.

This officer, like those before him, will receive a trial and will be judged by a civilian jury. The case for him to be innocent will have to be super strong for him to walk.

You kind of have that backwards. He is innocent. The case to prove him guilty will have to be super strong.

[OnTheIce]

martin14 martin14:

He's been granted bail.

Wonder if now he is still getting paid ?

He should be paid.

He's not been found guilty of anything.

You don't punish people before they've been convicted of the crime.

[OnTheIce]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

You kind of have that backwards. He is innocent. The case to prove him guilty will have to be super strong.

Based on the minimal amount of video evidence we have seen and the formal murder charge from the SIU, I believe the Crown heads into the case quite strong.

The officers lawyers will have the more difficult job of justifying the use of the weapon.

[DrCaleb]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

You kind of have that backwards. He is innocent. The case to prove him guilty will have to be super strong.

Based on the minimal amount of video evidence we have seen and the formal murder charge from the SIU, I believe the Crown heads into the case quite strong.

The officers lawyers will have the more difficult job of justifying the use of the weapon.

The Crown wouldn't proceed if they thought they had no case, but:

From the link I posted on the last page:

$1:

In charging Const. Forcillo with second-degree murder, Ontario’s independent police review agency, the Special Investigations Unit, has set the bar high. The Crown must now prove that Const. Forcillo had the intention of killing Mr. Yatim and that he did not have any reasonable grounds to fear for his own life. And it’s important to note that he doesn’t need to establish that shooting Mr. Yatim was necessary, just that in the heat of the moment, he reasonably believed it was necessary. Proving that he didn’t have reasonable grounds to believe that, let alone proving it beyond a reasonable doubt, will prove a huge challenge.

. . .

But not one, among all the dozens of officers I’ve heard from these last three weeks, has expressed any glimmer of hope that Const. Forcillo would escape charges. One officer put it best when he told me that a situation like this is every officer’s nightmare, but no matter how many times he imagines himself in that situation, he just can’t imagine opening fire at that moment. He knew, he told me, that he would open fire if he had to. But as much as he wants to understand why Const. Forcillo pulled the trigger, he just can’t get there. Similar sentiments are strongly implied by other officers, who sigh, shake their heads and say, “I guess we’ll see what the investigation says.”

[shockedcanadian]

[/quote]

You kind of have that backwards. He is innocent. The case to prove him guilty will have to be super strong.[/quote]

This. Which is why a murder charge is not the proper charge...Zimmerman all over again...

[Regina]

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

This. Which is why a murder charge is not the proper charge...Zimmerman all over again...

Zimmerman wasn't a cop.............

[BartSimpson]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

You don't punish people before they've been convicted of the crime.

You might want to run that past Brenda in the George Zimmerman topic.

[BartSimpson]

Regina Regina:

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

This. Which is why a murder charge is not the proper charge...Zimmerman all over again...

Zimmerman wasn't a cop.............

And being a cop should not get anyone a pass on murdering anyone.

[Regina]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Regina Regina:

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

This. Which is why a murder charge is not the proper charge...Zimmerman all over again...

Zimmerman wasn't a cop.............

And being a cop should not get anyone a pass on murdering anyone.

Correct but in this country a cop is allowed to use deadly force in the line of duty.

[BartSimpson]

Regina Regina:

Correct but in this country a cop is allowed to use deadly force in the line of duty.

That latter part being in question in this case.

[Regina]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Regina Regina:

Correct but in this country a cop is allowed to use deadly force in the line of duty.

That latter part being in question in this case.

At first glance I would say he probably deserved to be shot. He chased a bus load of people off it by by trying to slash them. He apparently went after the police in a similar fashion. Shot 9 times then Tazed seems a bit much though. Twelve adults or one judge will decide if more dead is worthy of jail.

[BartSimpson]

The only justifiable reason I can come up with for the second set of six shots and the follow-on Tasering is:

"Just making sure."

And that one doesn't even fly on a battlefield these days.

[Regina]

I don't buy the "just making sure" argument although I would think an over aggressive and hyper attitude may be the case. The extra would no doubt not have made much difference in the outcome. Although the tool who Tazed him needs to go back to reading meters.

[OnTheIce]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The only justifiable reason I can come up with for the second set of six shots and the follow-on Tasering is:

"Just making sure."

And that one doesn't even fly on a battlefield these days.

Or maybe he missed. On all but the first and last.

The angle at which the shots took place isn't clear cut or direct.