Canadian Cop kills man, convicted attempted murder

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
They need psychological tests to weed out the control freaks and power trippers. I'd be willing to bet about 30% fall under those categories.

Stop with the 99% are good people [censored].



Given your position on the issue, I assume you've got your application in so you can replace one of the control freaks.
 
I think they got this right.

The officer fired the first round of shots in self defense, which was completely justified. The suspect was then laying on the ground and no longer a threat when the officer fired the second round of shots, so that second round of shots was not justified.
 
Trust me when I say this case isn't done yet. The officer wasn't allowed to introduce certain evidence in his own defence, and we're going to see appeals based upon that alone. The whole situation is a Charlie Foxtrot. It could have been handled differently, but hindsight is always 20/20.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Trust me when I say this case isn't done yet. The officer wasn't allowed to introduce certain evidence in his own defence, and we're going to see appeals based upon that alone. The whole situation is a Charlie Foxtrot. It could have been handled differently, but hindsight is always 20/20.




I'm curious what the certain evidence is. That is a tragedy (well, it's really something else, but can't say it here) that evidence can excluded to strengthen the prosecution's case.
 
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
So a jury of sheep who have never TOUCHED a firearm in their entire lives decide this? What a travestry of justice.


Well, it's hard to say for sure ... jurors are prohibited from discussing deliberations in Canada, including after the trial, and as such are almost never contacted by journalists. But I would be surprised if none of the jurors have "never TOUCHED (sic) a firearm in their entire lifes"


Ontario, and the city of Toronto, have a relatively low firearms ownership rate, compared to the rest of Canada. However, statistically just over every 18th adult resident of Toronto has a Firearms Acquisition and Possession licence (PAL) according to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), which means they are active shooters since the licence is required to purchase ammunition and has been in existence for only about 15 years (a different license was used before that, the Firearms Acquisition License or FAC).

There are also a number of gun owners who do not comply with the law and do not have a PAL.

So, although it's statistically possible that no-one on the jury has "ever" fired a firearm, it's likely at least one and possibly more have.
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: SOHCman
Originally Posted By: Boomer
Ayoob, the gun writer, has said on numerous occasions, that people have been hit with premeditation after cocking a revolver and then shooting an intruder. Cocking the gun implies a premeditated state. I always carry a hammerless (concealed hammer) revolver that can be fired DAO as a result. Cannot be cocked, just fired.


A good case for on in the chamber on autos...
No. A good case to shut your trap and get a lawyer when police are questioning you in a criminal investigation.


Never speak to the police in a state of un-calm regardless of circumstance. Whatever you say will be used against you.
 
Originally Posted By: madRiver
Whatever the case this guy should not own a gun, work as an officer ever again and have some mental evaluation. Good riddance.....


+1

At least in Canada they do something about it. Here he would have been a hero.
 
This is justice. I watched the videos, the cop escalated the situation without using the best tool in his toolbag = time.

The kid was distraught, drugged, and at risk of only harming himself with the knife. They could have waited it out, talked him down, but no they went full bore and killed the kid. Only because Sammy's body continued to twitch, the cop dumped his clip into him? this action was what got him charged, but in my opinion the 1st shot was murder as much as the rest.

I respect that cops don't have an easy job, but this cop was not alone, he could have received some advice from others at the scene to avoid rushing the situation. I think more of the cops at the scene should be strongly disciplined.
 
Originally Posted By: KGMtech
the cop dumped his clip into him?


Magazine-vs-Clip-Firewoodhoardersclub.jpg


Originally Posted By: KGMtech
I respect that cops don't have an easy job, but this cop was not alone, he could have received some advice from others at the scene to avoid rushing the situation. I think more of the cops at the scene should be strongly disciplined.


I agree that the situation had the ability to be played out much differently with the end result of somebody perhaps not being dead. That said, the jury didn't feel that his use of lethal force was excessive. it was continuing to fire into what was at that point a corpse that they've condemned him. It's a very odd situation but with a ruling that is probably as "right" as can be expected given the circumstances IMHO.
 
Originally Posted By: xfactor9
Did any of you actually read the article? (Rhetorical question, I know the answer)

He fired 3 times, at which point the suspect fell to ground motionless and was harmless (he was dead). Then the cop paused 6 seconds, thinking about it some more, and fired 6 more times. The jury ruled that the final 6 shots were not justified.




Let me start by saying I read it( briefly - enough to get the gist of things ).

1st off Police are trained to shoot until the threat is eliminated( not down, injured, less of a threat, etc.... = eliminated ). That many times leads to the Officer emptying their gun completely even when it is overkill( no pun is intended ). That is not the case here though it appears. The Officer fired 3 times, killing the guy, then paused before firing more shots into the dead body. I assume I have that right.

While I agree the final shots were not needed I don't see them being a crime. I say that for one simple reason and not as any kind of LEO defender. If the 1st 3 shots killed the guy, and the jury felt they were justified, how can they then convict the Officer of attempted murder? That makes it attempted murder of a corpse! Corpse = ALREADY DEAD! That is like running over a dead body( let's say a jogger at night had a heart attack and died in the street )with your car and then being charged with vehicular homicide.

If I was the Officer's lawyer I would take that approach in an appeal. You can't murder someone, or try to murder them, if they are already dead and the jury felt the 1st 3 shots were all justified. Sounds to me like the jury wanted to punish the Officer for the extra shots( moral outrage, LEO hate, or something )and this was how they did it. I don't see how the Judge didn't step in and over rule their decision but for sure I don't see it holding up to an appeal( it shouldn't )unless there is definitive proof the 1st 3 shots didn't kill the guy. Unless they can prove those 1st 3 shots didn't kill him then you can't attempt to murder him as he was already dead. If they didn't kill him then you can reasonably apply charges to the extra shots.

Now, with that said, clearly the Officer has some issues and I would like to see him removed from his duties for good. Something isn't right in his head. If there are any laws on the books about desecration of a body that would apply as well and it is reasonable to make him face charges for that. Attempted murder charges, for shooting a corpse, though is just nuckinfuts. Sorry and with all respect to the deceased it is just ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: xfactor9
Did any of you actually read the article? (Rhetorical question, I know the answer)

He fired 3 times, at which point the suspect fell to ground motionless and was harmless (he was dead). Then the cop paused 6 seconds, thinking about it some more, and fired 6 more times. The jury ruled that the final 6 shots were not justified.




Let me start by saying I read it( briefly - enough to get the gist of things ).

1st off Police are trained to shoot until the threat is eliminated( not down, injured, less of a threat, etc.... = eliminated ). That many times leads to the Officer emptying their gun completely even when it is overkill( no pun is intended ). That is not the case here though it appears. The Officer fired 3 times, killing the guy, then paused before firing more shots into the dead body. I assume I have that right.

While I agree the final shots were not needed I don't see them being a crime. I say that for one simple reason and not as any kind of LEO defender. If the 1st 3 shots killed the guy, and the jury felt they were justified, how can they then convict the Officer of attempted murder? That makes it attempted murder of a corpse! Corpse = ALREADY DEAD! That is like running over a dead body( let's say a jogger at night had a heart attack and died in the street )with your car and then being charged with vehicular homicide.

If I was the Officer's lawyer I would take that approach in an appeal. You can't murder someone, or try to murder them, if they are already dead and the jury felt the 1st 3 shots were all justified. Sounds to me like the jury wanted to punish the Officer for the extra shots( moral outrage, LEO hate, or something )and this was how they did it. I don't see how the Judge didn't step in and over rule their decision but for sure I don't see it holding up to an appeal( it shouldn't )unless there is definitive proof the 1st 3 shots didn't kill the guy. Unless they can prove those 1st 3 shots didn't kill him then you can't attempt to murder him as he was already dead. If they didn't kill him then you can reasonably apply charges to the extra shots.

Now, with that said, clearly the Officer has some issues and I would like to see him removed from his duties for good. Something isn't right in his head. If there are any laws on the books about desecration of a body that would apply as well and it is reasonable to make him face charges for that. Attempted murder charges, for shooting a corpse, though is just nuckinfuts. Sorry and with all respect to the deceased it is just ridiculous.


If you don't know a person is dead, you could attempt to murder them. However, since they're already dead, you couldn't actually murder them.

That's the argument in this case. The officer, not knowing the suspect was already dead, was intending to kill him with the second round of shots but couldn't kill him because he was already dead. Hence the attempted murder charge.
 
Originally Posted By: KD0AXS


That's the argument in this case. The officer, not knowing the suspect was already dead, was intending to kill him with the second round of shots but couldn't kill him because he was already dead. Hence the attempted murder charge.


In the heat of the battle and with how quickly events like this happen how does anyone, including the officer really know the perp is dead, it wouldn't be the first time a dangerous threat played possum and ended up murdering an LEO.
 
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
I'm curious what the certain evidence is. That is a tragedy (well, it's really something else, but can't say it here) that evidence can excluded to strengthen the prosecution's case.

I don't recall off the top of my head, but maybe I'll come across it again. I think it was something to do with the victim's medical history. Excluding something like that as defence evidence up here is a recipe for an appeal.
 
Originally Posted By: KD0AXS
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: xfactor9
Did any of you actually read the article? (Rhetorical question, I know the answer)

He fired 3 times, at which point the suspect fell to ground motionless and was harmless (he was dead). Then the cop paused 6 seconds, thinking about it some more, and fired 6 more times. The jury ruled that the final 6 shots were not justified.




Let me start by saying I read it( briefly - enough to get the gist of things ).

1st off Police are trained to shoot until the threat is eliminated( not down, injured, less of a threat, etc.... = eliminated ). That many times leads to the Officer emptying their gun completely even when it is overkill( no pun is intended ). That is not the case here though it appears. The Officer fired 3 times, killing the guy, then paused before firing more shots into the dead body. I assume I have that right.

While I agree the final shots were not needed I don't see them being a crime. I say that for one simple reason and not as any kind of LEO defender. If the 1st 3 shots killed the guy, and the jury felt they were justified, how can they then convict the Officer of attempted murder? That makes it attempted murder of a corpse! Corpse = ALREADY DEAD! That is like running over a dead body( let's say a jogger at night had a heart attack and died in the street )with your car and then being charged with vehicular homicide.

If I was the Officer's lawyer I would take that approach in an appeal. You can't murder someone, or try to murder them, if they are already dead and the jury felt the 1st 3 shots were all justified. Sounds to me like the jury wanted to punish the Officer for the extra shots( moral outrage, LEO hate, or something )and this was how they did it. I don't see how the Judge didn't step in and over rule their decision but for sure I don't see it holding up to an appeal( it shouldn't )unless there is definitive proof the 1st 3 shots didn't kill the guy. Unless they can prove those 1st 3 shots didn't kill him then you can't attempt to murder him as he was already dead. If they didn't kill him then you can reasonably apply charges to the extra shots.

Now, with that said, clearly the Officer has some issues and I would like to see him removed from his duties for good. Something isn't right in his head. If there are any laws on the books about desecration of a body that would apply as well and it is reasonable to make him face charges for that. Attempted murder charges, for shooting a corpse, though is just nuckinfuts. Sorry and with all respect to the deceased it is just ridiculous.


If you don't know a person is dead, you could attempt to murder them. However, since they're already dead, you couldn't actually murder them.

That's the argument in this case. The officer, not knowing the suspect was already dead, was intending to kill him with the second round of shots but couldn't kill him because he was already dead. Hence the attempted murder charge.


Doesn't or shouldn't work that way. If the guy was already dead, whether the Officer knew it or not, you can not attempt to murder him. That is legal smoke and mirrors and it should not be allowed to stand.
 
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: KD0AXS
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: xfactor9
Did any of you actually read the article? (Rhetorical question, I know the answer)

He fired 3 times, at which point the suspect fell to ground motionless and was harmless (he was dead). Then the cop paused 6 seconds, thinking about it some more, and fired 6 more times. The jury ruled that the final 6 shots were not justified.




Let me start by saying I read it( briefly - enough to get the gist of things ).

1st off Police are trained to shoot until the threat is eliminated( not down, injured, less of a threat, etc.... = eliminated ). That many times leads to the Officer emptying their gun completely even when it is overkill( no pun is intended ). That is not the case here though it appears. The Officer fired 3 times, killing the guy, then paused before firing more shots into the dead body. I assume I have that right.

While I agree the final shots were not needed I don't see them being a crime. I say that for one simple reason and not as any kind of LEO defender. If the 1st 3 shots killed the guy, and the jury felt they were justified, how can they then convict the Officer of attempted murder? That makes it attempted murder of a corpse! Corpse = ALREADY DEAD! That is like running over a dead body( let's say a jogger at night had a heart attack and died in the street )with your car and then being charged with vehicular homicide.

If I was the Officer's lawyer I would take that approach in an appeal. You can't murder someone, or try to murder them, if they are already dead and the jury felt the 1st 3 shots were all justified. Sounds to me like the jury wanted to punish the Officer for the extra shots( moral outrage, LEO hate, or something )and this was how they did it. I don't see how the Judge didn't step in and over rule their decision but for sure I don't see it holding up to an appeal( it shouldn't )unless there is definitive proof the 1st 3 shots didn't kill the guy. Unless they can prove those 1st 3 shots didn't kill him then you can't attempt to murder him as he was already dead. If they didn't kill him then you can reasonably apply charges to the extra shots.

Now, with that said, clearly the Officer has some issues and I would like to see him removed from his duties for good. Something isn't right in his head. If there are any laws on the books about desecration of a body that would apply as well and it is reasonable to make him face charges for that. Attempted murder charges, for shooting a corpse, though is just nuckinfuts. Sorry and with all respect to the deceased it is just ridiculous.


If you don't know a person is dead, you could attempt to murder them. However, since they're already dead, you couldn't actually murder them.

That's the argument in this case. The officer, not knowing the suspect was already dead, was intending to kill him with the second round of shots but couldn't kill him because he was already dead. Hence the attempted murder charge.


Doesn't or shouldn't work that way. If the guy was already dead, whether the Officer knew it or not, you can not attempt to murder him. That is legal smoke and mirrors and it should not be allowed to stand.


It probably wouldn't stand here in the US, but this case is in Canada. Different country, different laws, and different interpretations of the law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

X
  • Locked
This Year's Darwin Nominees
Replies
9
Views
5K
tinmanSC
dave1251
  • Locked
Exxon Mobil
Replies
19
Views
16K
MolaKule
Back
Top Bottom