Const. James Forcillo shot Sammy Yatim - the trial | Page 8 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Const. James Forcillo shot Sammy Yatim - the trial

klr_guy said:
Crazy on top of crazy. Forcillo playing the role of Yatim ...

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2...-playing-himself-and-sammy-yatim-dimanno.html
Click to expand...

You only need to watch a few minutes of that video to see everything he is saying was given to him by his lawyers.
He's not even a convincing liar, total contradiction.
"I never wanted to kill him"
So are we to believe that firing 3 bullets at someone is not likely to kill them?
I assume police officers know that a gun is designed to kill someone and that it fires real bullets right?
Now try and explain how he "didn't want to kill him" with the next 6 bullets.
If he seriously expects us to believe that, then he's either the dumbest individual on earth or he's lying.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/toront...ar-wasn-t-thinking-like-a-cop-crown-1.2676574

Now we're getting down to the nitty gritty.

"In your mind, officers are entitled to bark orders and make demands and expect people to follow, and you were amazed when someone didn't follow," the Crown lawyer said.

"Police officers are entitled to choose what they think will work best in a particular situation," Forcillo contended.

Rupic also said that Forcillo intended to kill Yatim when he fired nine times, leading to a tense exchange.

"Are you suggesting that firing nine bullets at somebody is not likely to kill him?" Rupic asked.

"I fired the bullets at him because I thought he was a threat to my life," Forcillo said.

"I'm asking if you knew you were likely to kill Sammy Yatim," Rupic asked.

"I am not considering whether these bullets are going to kill him. I'm considering whether or not they're going to stop him."
 
I watch the video over and over again. And I can't help but see how the bus driver, unarmed, unprotected and without a mob of police officers behind him, was more calm than forcillo even when the guy is standing a couple feet away from him ON the bus.
 
So apparently in the history of SIU for 35 years, weve had 11 incidents of cops killing civilians and the were never indicted!
Are we really expecting a different outcome this time from our so called "justice system"?
We are asking the criminals if they think they are criminals. Fool proof system!!!
 
AGAVE said:
"I never wanted to kill him"
So are we to believe that firing 3 bullets at someone is not likely to kill them?
I assume police officers know that a gun is designed to kill someone and that it fires real bullets right?
Now try and explain how he "didn't want to kill him" with the next 6 bullets.
If he seriously expects us to believe that, then he's either the dumbest individual on earth or he's lying.
Click to expand...

Disclaimer: All I know about this case is from the videos shown here and commentary. I have not followed it in the news or any other social media.

He may well believe he didn't want to kill anyone, especially as he punched into work that day. The question is did he need to kill Sammy Yatim? Obviously yes judging by the threat he felt he was under.
Some people have commented that he will get off. Maybe precedence suggests he will but I'm betting this is different.
 
I hope you are right and he will not get off, because the line needs to be drawn somewhere. Otherwise next time it will be worse.
 
Boots said:
I watch the video over and over again. And I can't help but see how the bus driver, unarmed, unprotected and without a mob of police officers behind him, was more calm than forcillo even when the guy is standing a couple feet away from him ON the bus.
Click to expand...

I was shocked the first time I saw it. I immediately thought that this alone should get the cop in a lot of trouble. I couldn't understand how the cop could explain that he felt much more threatened than the bus driver ... I guess his defense will claim that the driver must be crazy himself hanging around.
 
ashkan said:
So apparently in the history of SIU for 35 years, weve had 11 incidents of cops killing civilians and the were never indicted!
Are we really expecting a different outcome this time from our so called "justice system"?
We are asking the criminals if they think they are criminals. Fool proof system!!!
Click to expand...

That's because the SIU is mostly former police officers.

I'm sorry, but that's no different from police investigating themselves. They can call themselves independent, but they're not.

I don't disagree that the SIU needs to have INPUT from police during investigations. But as far as I'm concerned, any person who has ever been a police officer should be excluded from the decision-making in the SIU. It has to be people who are explicitly NOT associated with the police.

The SIU has no teeth.
 
Sparkcycle said:
Actually, the whole trial is whether he will be punished for 1st or 2nd degree murder on each of his 2 volleys of shots.
Click to expand...

No. There is no first-degree component in the charges he is facing. The charge of second degree murder does carry the lesser and included charge of manslaughter, so he could get off on one and still be convicted on the other, or not convicted at all.
 
mxs said:
I was shocked the first time I saw it. I immediately thought that this alone should get the cop in a lot of trouble. I couldn't understand how the cop could explain that he felt much more threatened than the bus driver ... I guess his defense will claim that the driver must be crazy himself hanging around.
Click to expand...

Just by the fact that one guy is a cop and the other guy tells you who you should feel the most threatened by. I'd much rather have a bus driver whispering soothing things into my ear, I don't think a cop is even capable of that. Well, maybe if you're a 7yr old building a snowman.
 
Last edited:
"Pointing a firearm is considered a form of de-escalation" James Forcillo quote from court today.

Headshake. Is this what is taught at the college/on the job?
 
AGAVE said:
You only need to watch a few minutes of that video to see everything he is saying was given to him by his lawyers.
He's not even a convincing liar, total contradiction.
"I never wanted to kill him"
So are we to believe that firing 3 bullets at someone is not likely to kill them?
I assume police officers know that a gun is designed to kill someone and that it fires real bullets right?
Now try and explain how he "didn't want to kill him" with the next 6 bullets.
If he seriously expects us to believe that, then he's either the dumbest individual on earth or he's lying.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/toront...ar-wasn-t-thinking-like-a-cop-crown-1.2676574

Now we're getting down to the nitty gritty.

"In your mind, officers are entitled to bark orders and make demands and expect people to follow, and you were amazed when someone didn't follow," the Crown lawyer said.

"Police officers are entitled to choose what they think will work best in a particular situation," Forcillo contended.

Rupic also said that Forcillo intended to kill Yatim when he fired nine times, leading to a tense exchange.

"Are you suggesting that firing nine bullets at somebody is not likely to kill him?" Rupic asked.

"I fired the bullets at him because I thought he was a threat to my life," Forcillo said.

"I'm asking if you knew you were likely to kill Sammy Yatim," Rupic asked.

"I am not considering whether these bullets are going to kill him. I'm considering whether or not they're going to stop him."
Click to expand...

FYI his lawyer is not telling how to testify . Police are taught that in police college in Elmer . He is testifying as to what he is taught to say at the school .
 
pfbmgd said:
FYI his lawyer is not telling how to testify . Police are taught that in police college in Elmer . He is testifying as to what he is taught to say at the school .
Click to expand...

It's Aylmer, you're thinking Elmer Fudd College.
 
inreb said:
Disclaimer: All I know about this case is from the videos shown here and commentary. I have not followed it in the news or any other social media.

He may well believe he didn't want to kill anyone, especially as he punched into work that day. The question is did he need to kill Sammy Yatim? Obviously yes judging by the threat he felt he was under.
Some people have commented that he will get off. Maybe precedence suggests he will but I'm betting this is different.
Click to expand...

That's where i'm headed with this, he should have said "yes" if he truly felt his life was in danger, cops are authorized to take a life in that case.

pfbmgd said:
FYI his lawyer is not telling how to testify . Police are taught that in police college in Elmer . He is testifying as to what he is taught to say at the school .
Click to expand...

Thank you officer, you just made my point for me, they are taught to lie in court during police training, fantastic.
 
AGAVE said:
That's where i'm headed with this, he should have said "yes" if he truly felt his life was in danger, cops are authorized to take a life in that case.



Thank you officer, you just made my point for me, they are taught to lie in court during police training, fantastic.
Click to expand...


Not taught to lie . But to explain their actions in legal terms . BTW I'm not a cop. Your making assumptions . Just like other people commenting . When they have not been in a life and death situation .
 
pfbmgd said:
Not taught to lie . But to explain their actions in legal terms . BTW I'm not a cop. Your making assumptions . Just like other people commenting . When they have not been in a life and death situation .
Click to expand...
Forcillo wasn't in a life and death situation. He doesn't even describe it that way himself. At no point does he ever say that anyone was in any danger.

He gave two reasons for shooting. One, he testified that he figured Yatim had made the decision to attack, not that he figured anyone was in danger. He also testified that Yatim didn't follow his order to stay put, not that Yatim was placing anyone in any danger.

What life and death situation? Brandishing a knife when there's no one around is not a life and death situation.

What he testified about Yatim is “he was unafraid.” And that's the real reason Forcillo shot him. He didn't feel in control. Unfortunately, that's not what being a cop should be about.
 
Last edited:
fastar1 said:
Forcillo wasn't in a life and death situation. He doesn't even describe it that way himself. At no point does he ever say that anyone was in any danger
Click to expand...

That's not quite accurate.

"The Toronto police officer on trial in the shooting death of Sammy Yatim testified on Friday that his own safety was paramount in his mind that evening.“Police officers don’t get paid to get stabbed or get shot. They are paid to go home in one piece,” Constable James Forcillo said during the first day of his cross-examination. “One way or the other, I was going to go home that evening.”"

The implication of that is that Forcillo did in fact feel at risk of being stabbed by Yatim and that he fired the shots in order to stop what he saw as high potential for imminent attack. At the time of the first shot Yatim was less than 5 metres from Forcillo. Given that Yatim was also on "high ground" in the street car, he could have reached Forcillo within 2 or 3 seconds had he started with a leap to street level from the street car floor.

On that basis, the initial 3 shots at Yatim may be seen as justifiable if Yatim was, as shown by in in-streetcar surveillance cameras, moving towards the front door, was at the front door, and in position to make a quick exit from the streetcar. The remaining 6 shots are really what is in question in my mind.
 
Last edited:
griff2 said:
That's not quite accurate.

"The Toronto police officer on trial in the shooting death of Sammy Yatim testified on Friday that his own safety was paramount in his mind that evening.“Police officers don’t get paid to get stabbed or get shot. They are paid to go home in one piece,” Constable James Forcillo said during the first day of his cross-examination. “One way or the other, I was going to go home that evening.”"

The implication of that is that Forcillo did in fact feel at risk of being stabbed by Yatim and that he fired the shots in order to stop what he saw as high potential for imminent attack. At the time of the first shot Yatim was less than 5 metres from Forcillo. Given that Yatim was also on "high ground" in the street car, he could have reached Forcillo within 2 or 3 seconds had he started with a leap to street level from the street car floor.

On that basis, the initial 3 shots at Yatim may be seen as justifiable if Yatim was, as shown by in in-streetcar surveillance cameras, moving towards the front door, was at the front door, and in position to make a quick exit from the streetcar. The remaining 6 shots are really what is in question in my mind.
Click to expand...
My own safety is paramount when I go buy groceries. That doesn't imply anything about any actual or imminent risk of harm to anyone when I'm tapping on a melon.

And 2 seconds is a huge safety buffer. How long did it take from the time Yatim allegedly scrunched his eyebrows and raised his arm before Forcillo shot? Half a second?
 
Even if the first three shots could be justified, the second volley when Yatim was down was a deliberate act to finish him off. It was nothing more than an execution at that point. The taser at the end was a nice touch, though.

i understand being a cop is a tough job, but if Forcillo felt so threatened in that situation that he felt it necessary to fire nine shots - six of them after the subject was down - then he does not have what it takes to be afforded the special powers and responsibilities that comes with being a police officer. Sadly, good cops are being tainted by the likes of this poor excuse for an officer. IMHO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom