Const. James Forcillo shot Sammy Yatim - the trial | Page 2 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Const. James Forcillo shot Sammy Yatim - the trial

"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."


At the beginning, I don't think the cop had an intention to kill him. The constable just responded to the call, like many other cops did.


But why did he kept shooting after the guy was already floored? At that point, you can say that he was not trying to arrest him, he was determined to terminate him. That being said, the Crown will have problems demonstrating intent. Just like Forcillo will have problems demonstrating that he was actually justified. It can go either way.
 
MarcosSantiago said:
"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."


At the beginning, I don't think the cop had an intention to kill him. The constable just responded to the call, like many other cops did.


But why did he kept shooting after the guy was already floored? At that point, you can say that he was not trying to arrest him, he was determined to terminate him. That being said, the Crown will have problems demonstrating intent. Just like Forcillo will have problems demonstrating that he was actually justified. It can go either way.
Click to expand...

After the first 3 shots the "threat" had been neutralized.

The subsequent 6 shots were to make sure he was good and dead. Not sure how anyone could see that any other way.

If he'd shot him in the hand causing him to drop the knife, then moved in and shot him in the head, how would that be any different?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Since I've never shot and killed anyone, I could only speculate,
and to try and do so would be disingenuous.
 
Baggsy said:
Since I've never shot and killed anyone, I could only speculate,
and to try and do so would be disingenuous.
Click to expand...

This post is disingenuous.
 
Sadz said:
Overkill for sure...like scared kids. The second round of bullits baffled my mind...THE TAZER AT THE END????? Crazy...
Click to expand...

I noticed that Tazer at the end too.. A little late. Kid was already dead... Where was this Tazer wielding cop 30 secs earlier?
 
crankcall said:
it will be extremely interesting, I don't think a Canadian police officer has ever been convicted in a circumstance like this. My prediction is he will not be convicted of murder, possibly a lesser charge.
Click to expand...

If Forcillo was convicted of a lesser charge, how would this actually play out? Who would propose the lesser charge, and when?
 
caboose56 said:
From what I've read the kid was pretty high. Not in a right frame of mind and apparently didn't understand what was going on.

Empty the clip.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Just because someone is on drugs doesn't mean they should be excused from their actions. Same as how a drunk driver is not excused
 
The choice to go gun instead of taser to initially neutralize the threat seems like the right move. A cop with a Taser needs to be close and facing Yatim head on as Yatim is in the entry way of the bus. Then the cop needs to be willing to gamble that both probes will land and the shock will work well enough to prevent him from being stabbed. It is a real precarious position to be in if the probes don't find their target, a guy with a knife is on you and armed officers behind you are now shooting at him to prevent you being killed. Taser would be a good call as an initial attempt to subdue Yatim if someone could have flanked him for an element of surprise but he was wearing a bus at the time of contact and very focused on what was in front of him. I agree that the subsequent six shots look bad but I think the first three shots were definitely the right use of force option and as always it's shoot to kill not shoot to hurt.

Out of curiosity were there autopsy results that state which shot killed him? If the fatal shot was one of the first three it might go a long way in the cop's defence.
 
nobbie48 said:
Police officers armed with guns have been stabbed to death because they let their guard down. So many of our decisions are based on perception and who is to say what Forcillo saw that caused him to perceive a situation that needed lethal force.
Click to expand...
The "situation" was that Forcillo drew a needless line in the sand with his threat. When Sammy crossed that line Forcillo had to honor his word & shoot. The threat to Forcillo, even the potential threat, was nonexistent at the moment he first opened fire.
 
RockerGuy said:
Just because someone is on drugs doesn't mean they should be excused from their actions. Same as how a drunk driver is not excused
Click to expand...

You are correct. However, if you are drunk or high, it does not give anyone the right to kill you. Especially not the cops, who are supposed to have training.


This is a tricky situation, and I don't know what "justice" would actually look like (at the end of the trial).
 
MarcosSantiago said:
You are correct. However, if you are drunk or high, it does not give anyone the right to kill you. Especially not the cops, who are supposed to have training.


This is a tricky situation, and I don't know what "justice" would actually look like (at the end of the trial).
Click to expand...
I agree. But the kid put himself in harm's way.
This is what happens when 2 stupid people meet
 
RockerGuy said:
I agree. But the kid put himself in harm's way.
This is what happens when 2 stupid people meet
Click to expand...

One of those stupid people already paid the price. Now the 2nd one should pay as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Baggsy said:
Since I've never shot and killed anyone, I could only speculate,
and to try and do so would be disingenuous.
Click to expand...
lol, you seem to speculate out of your *** in every other thread, what happened this time?

I thing is that the kid had the opportunity to harm a lot of people and he let them all out of the bus, so my question is, who was in danger? the cops, well they should remove themselves from the immediate danger and keep a space between them and the kid until you could find a way to terminate the situation in a more peaceful way... lock the kid inside the bus and call the family to talk him out, etc.

But what do I know, I don't have a cop's ego and chip on my shoulder about the general public.
 
Last edited:
I agree the first three shots are arguable, but the rest were unnecessary. If they had grenades they probably would have thrown a few in after tasering him.
 
I think the taser was a panic attempt to cover a situation "We tased him and he didn't go down" we had to shot him... 9 times (or whatever times)
 
ZX600 said:
lol, you seem to speculate out of your *** in every other thread, what happened this time?

I thing is that the kid had the opportunity to harm a lot of people and he let them all out of the bus, so my question is, who was in danger? the cops, well they should remove themselves from the immediate danger and keep a space between them and the kid until you could find a way to terminate the situation in a more peaceful way... lock the kid inside the bus and call the family to talk him out, etc.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Once the potential victims were safe and the threat was isolated on the streetcar no one was in harms way. The police could have and should have kept him contained on the streetcar while professionals talk him down. Especially with him being high and mentally disturbed he is no harm to anyone but himself so contain and wait for someone with more expertise. There was no threat that needed to push up the timeline and force and extraction. If it was a hostage situation they would have worked to resolve it in a peaceful manor so why not when he is contained without a hostage? Or from the get go is the goal of police to exterminate him?
 
Last edited:
OK I will just jump in and say that if the kid really wanted to hurt someone, he had more than enough chances, the bus driver even stayed there against his wishes and talked with him. As for why the cops tazed him, I strongly suspect that they planned to say that they had tased him and he wouldn't go down, so they had to shoot him. When they found out that there were cameras all over the place, this plan evaporated. In my opinion, the constable was amped up and wanted to shoot the kid. Further, common cop etiquette says that if you're going to shoot someone, make sure you kill them, it makes the paperwork easier. Emptying the clip in him backs up my statement. But this is my personal level of trust and respect for cops after having known and dealt with them for years (and again I will point out that I have no criminal record so this is not a personal bias, it's personal observation).

OK, more arguing starts after this sentence (sigh):
 
ZX600 said:
I think the taser was a panic attempt to cover a situation "We tased him and he didn't go down" we had to shot him... 9 times (or whatever times)
Click to expand...
I would have to agree with you here...
Like that cop in the States that shot the guy that was running AWAY then got caught on video dropping a gun beside the guy. Maybe a little self preservation thoughts as far as a "story of incident"...
 
i'm surprised they didn't sprinkle crack on him after the taser
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom