Support NeoGAF

[Lexxism]

done.

You forgot to put the 1st sentence.

 

[Indicate]

You forgot to put the 1st sentence.

Oops. I fixed it. I knew something felt different when re reading the op.

 

[Afro Samurai]

Do you want to shoot somebody without much repercussions? Become a Police Officer!

How bad are the cops in US? Are they that bad compared to the rest of the world?

 

[MegaManTrigger]

The officer, at the time, was in no position to determine whether the suspect was dead or alive. All that was certain was he was no longer a threat. And, the officer shot six more rounds into him.

While true, the fact is that Yatim was still incapacitated by the first three shots and did enough damage that according to Dr. Pollanen, it was a matter of seconds to mere minutes before he died.

Please put post 22 in the OP so people stop being confused.

It's not quite that simple. If you want to argue that the first three shots fired is justified then fine, but how do you determine that the second volley is an "attempt" at murder when the medical evidence clearly stated that the first volley of bullets punctured his lung, opened up the main chamber of his heart, and left him paralyzed in his dying moments? The conclusion that the jury arrived at makes zero sense and runs on confusing logic. Furthermore, The legal definition of attempt in relation to criminal code requirements to satisfy the charge makes this complicated.

 

[Indicate]

While true, the fact is that Yatim was still incapacitated by the first three shots and did enough damage that according to Dr. Pollanen, it was a matter of seconds to mere minutes before he died.



It's not quite that simple. If you want to argue that the first three shots fired is justified then fine, but how do you determine that the second volley is an "attempt" at murder when the medical evidence clearly stated that the first volley of bullets punctured his lung, opened up the main chamber of his heart, and left him paralyzed in his dying moments? The conclusion that the jury arrived at makes zero sense and runs on confusing logic. Furthermore, The legal definition of attempt in relation to criminal code requirements to satisfy the charge makes this complicated.

Good point.

 

[Kinitari]

It's not quite that simple. If you want to argue that the first three shots fired is justified then fine, but how do you determine that the second volley is an "attempt" at murder when the medical evidence clearly stated that the first volley of bullets punctured his lung, opened up the main chamber of his heart, and left him paralyzed in his dying moments? The conclusion that the jury arrived at makes zero sense and runs on confusing logic. Furthermore, The legal definition of attempt in relation to criminal code requirements to satisfy the charge makes this complicated.

From my simple understanding, I think intent has a large part to play. As in - you could argue that as he was a 'threat' before the first few shots, so the intent was to incapacitate him and render him no longer a threat. If we then assume that from the perspective of the officer, Yatim once on the ground, could no longer reasonably be assumed a threat (as there was no indication of him being armed with a gun) - the second volley couldn't of had the intention of incapacitation. Thus, it was 'attempted murder'. That's my best guess.

 

[Later Alligator]

the way the sentencing reads is confusing if you dont read the explanation

as someone from ontario, i think they got this one right though

 

[EloquentM]

Verdict makes sense,

however attempted murder should be a MUCH longer sentence.

 

[trebbble]

For context, a relatively untrained and unarmed security guard recently took down a man who was attacking people with a machete here in Toronto, and did so without harming anyone.

Yet somehow, this police, with the benefit of training, resources and with backup that security guard could only dream about, couldn't find a way to de-escalate or subdue Yatim without causing his death.

I also found the other police changing their testimony and being caught in apparent lies to be quite suspect. Amazing how there's no prosecution there either.

The officer is suspended with pay as well, even after being found guilty.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Only semi-related, but I always get really annoyed by the idea that we should show respect to police officers as a general rule. Standards for becoming one are not terribly high, and they get special privileges and the benefit of the doubt more often than not.

 

[RaySpencer]

Do you want to shoot somebody without much repercussions? Become a Police Officer!

How bad are the cops in US? Are they that bad compared to the rest of the world?

Toronto is in Canada, not in the USA.

Canadian Police Officers that I have seen or talked to have been outstanding so far.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

Sounds like they got it as right as they could. Whether or not attempted murder should carry a harsher charge for him is another story.

 

[Afro Samurai]

Toronto is in Canada, not in the USA.

Canadian Police Officers that I have seen or talked to have been outstanding so far.

My bad, I was thinking of a city in Texas.

 

[Subpar Scrub]

I think they got the verdict right on this one. Still a fucking shame though. Refusing to relinquish a weapon when speaking to any police just never ends well.

 

[The Faceless Master]

how can he be guilty of attempted murder when the guy he shot was already dead? he should walk on that charge.

 

[Mechanized]

Just heard about this on ctv, this is crazy. He shot the kid multiple times after he was down. He's a fucking nutcase, how did he get away with this at all? Really disappointed in our legal system. Attempted murder? What a fucking farce.

 

[gabbo]

How can it be attempted murder when he actually succeeded in killing the guy?

I alwas thought attempted murder was when you attempt to murder someone but you fail and the person doesn't die.
But when the person dies it can't be attempted murder.

First shots could, and were judged to be within the line of duty. When he waited several seconds and shot him again, that's what he was convicted on. Even if I feel it was excessive force the first time he fired, I wasn't in the jury. Besides, it's exceedingly rare for a police officer to be convicted for Office Involved Shooting here, so hopefully this make us take a long hard look at police response procedures and training.

I'm not happy he only got the attempted charge, but it's better this than they try him the other way around and he end up not getting anything. He deserves to rot in jail, and hopefully he will.

how can he be guilty of attempted murder when the guy he shot was already dead? he should walk on that charge.

I agree, he should be getting murder 2, but it's unlikely theyd convince a jury that the first three shots couldn't have been justified beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

He has no business owning a gun as a police officer if he can't control his own adrenaline while wielding it. He's not supposed to act like a nervous civilian - he's supposed to act like a damn cop, trained in these scenarios thoroughly and continuously.

Blame should not just fall on the cop but inadequacy of scenario training too.

 

[oneils]

While true, the fact is that Yatim was still incapacitated by the first three shots and did enough damage that according to Dr. Pollanen, it was a matter of seconds to mere minutes before he died.



It's not quite that simple. If you want to argue that the first three shots fired is justified then fine, but how do you determine that the second volley is an "attempt" at murder when the medical evidence clearly stated that the first volley of bullets punctured his lung, opened up the main chamber of his heart, and left him paralyzed in his dying moments? The conclusion that the jury arrived at makes zero sense and runs on confusing logic. Furthermore, The legal definition of attempt in relation to criminal code requirements to satisfy the charge makes this complicated.

The jury probably concluded that the cop should have known that his first three shots incapacitated him. That first volley was "necessary." The second volley was unnecessary, and so is attempted murder. The second volley was attempted murder because yatim was already dead. The logic seems fine to me as long as you agree that th first volley was necessary to defend the cops life.

 

[joms5]

This entire case makes me sick. There's almost nobody on earth that would feel threatened given how far away he was, what he had in his hand and how many other officers were at the location. It's an excuse to kill plain and simple.

Aren't officers taught how to incapacitate an individual without a killing shot? Why not hit him in the legs? Or how about just 1 shot to see if that put an end to this?

It's a good thing our tax dollars are going towards non-lethal weapons for our police force. Hope they eventually put it to use.

 

[Indicate]

This entire case makes me sick. There's almost nobody on earth that would feel threatened given how far away he was, what he had in his hand and how many other officers were at the location. It's an excuse to kill plain and simple.

Aren't officers taught how to incapacitate an individual without a killing shot? Why not hit him in the legs? Or how about just 1 shot to see if that put an end to this?

It's a good thing our tax dollars are going towards non-lethal weapons for our police force. Hope they eventually put it to use.

The Toronto Police service is set to buy at least 50 C8 carbine assault rifles from Colt Canada, which is based in Kitchener, Ont. The rifles, which cost $2,000 each, will be carried in patrol cars in all of the city's 17 divisions beginning in May.

Sorry to be the bearer of the bad news.
I also believe TPS' $1 billion budget is outrageous considering the training and services they provide.

 

[minx]

Aren't officers taught how to incapacitate an individual without a killing shot? Why not hit him in the legs? Or how about just 1 shot to see if that put an end to this?

 

[Tekomandor]

Attempted murder should not carry a lesser sentence than murder in a case like this, where the offender was clearly capable and willing to kill but prevented by some outside factor (namely, that he'd already killed Yatim).

This man is just as much a danger to society as a man convicted of murder, yet he will face a lesser charge. Punitive justice is a joke.

how can he be guilty of attempted murder when the guy he shot was already dead? he should walk on that charge.

He thought Yatim was still alive, and attempted to kill him, not knowing that he'd already killed him.

 

[Zekes!]

Some how I missed this story out here in BC, not sure how.

 

[NumberThree]

For those curious, Wikipedia has a list of all police killings, justified or no

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_Canada

We had 22 last year in Canada, although I think it's incomplete, probably closer to 25.

Is this just a case of the table being more complete for recent years or what the hell happened? Before 2010 there are several years without a single killing and if there is it's just one or two, but after 2010 it's constantly 5+ killings with the last two years jumping up to 20+.

Then there's this page that's just something else.

 

[MWS Natural]

Canadian Cops jealous of the US Police Thugs decide to get in in the action?

 

[oneils]

This entire case makes me sick. There's almost nobody on earth that would feel threatened given how far away he was, what he had in his hand and how many other officers were at the location. It's an excuse to kill plain and simple.

Aren't officers taught how to incapacitate an individual without a killing shot? Why not hit him in the legs? Or how about just 1 shot to see if that put an end to this?

It's a good thing our tax dollars are going towards non-lethal weapons for our police force. Hope they eventually put it to use.

They are taught to shoot at centre mass to incapacitate.

 

[Sniffynose]

Canada adopting recent US police practice?

No see the kid actually had a knife, in the US he would have been holding a pizza slice.

The charges make sense, he had a weapon and was being a fuckwad, so he got shot, not guilty for that charge. Buuuut then the cop went and plugged a few more off, that's where he fucked up and the excessive force got him attempted murder.

 

[trixx]

Still don't understand the explanation. I've read it but it doesn't make sense to me.

Defence lawyers did their job, managing to spin shit

 

[AzureRonin]

Still don't understand the explanation. I've read it but it doesn't make sense to me.

Defence lawyers did their job, managing to spin shit

Actually this is more a case of the crown attorney being smart. They knew a jury would see the first attack as justified, so instead of charging him with indignity to a human body they went with attempted murder which has a minimum sentence. It's pretty genius. This guy's life is pretty much done if the sentence sticks.

 

[Dryk]

There's actually precendent for this in Australia. Someone accidentally killed shot someone during a struggle and then fired a second shot into a person that the prosecution couldn't prove was already dead, so they could only get him on attempted murder. For some reason he was found not guilty of manslaughter, I guess self-defense?

Verdict makes sense,

however attempted murder should be a MUCH longer sentence.

Honestly unless there are mitigating factors attempted murder shouldn't be treated more leniently than murder. You can make a case for situations where a person has a chance to stop and face an attempted murder charge but decides to finish the job if they're both the same but I would prefer that those are the exceptions accounted for in sentencing.

 

[trixx]

Actually this is more a case of the crown attorney being smart. They knew a jury would see the first attack as justified, so instead of charging him with indignity to a human body they went with attempted murder which has a minimum sentence. It's pretty genius. This guy's life is pretty much done if the sentence sticks.

I've read an explanation by someone in an article and it makes sense. Yeah the way the crown attorney set it up is smart.

 

[gutter_trash]

attempted murder is a bit harsh, maybe involuntary manslaughter would have been better

 

[KurtSloane]

A couple of weeks ago two security guards took down a full grown man who was attacking another man with a machete. You're telling me a bunch of cops couldnt take down a kid with a switchblade? He had to shoot him 9 times?

Why should they put themselves in danger by attempting restrain someone who had already displayed intent to harm and erratic behaviour?

The deceased put themselves in that position taking a weapon on to the streets and attacking people.

He deserved to be put down.


How about you go and tackle a madman with a knife? You talk a good game, I guess who you would be calling if a maniac with a knife came at you.

 

[AzureRonin]

Also attempted murder carries the same sentence as murder in Canada. The judge used the minimum sentence because of the lack of criminal record and the circumstances around the case.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

Why should they put themselves in danger by attempting restrain someone who had already displayed intent to harm and erratic behaviour?

The deceased put themselves in that position taking a weapon on to the streets and attacking people.

He deserved to be put down.


How about you go and tackle a madman with a knife? You talk a good game, I guess who you would be calling if a maniac with a knife came at you.

Why should someone be shot 6 more times after they are completely incapacitated. This dude had every. Opportunity to actually harm people on that bus but he didnt. You're trying to claim multiple armed police officers couldn't disarm this situation withiut shooting? I really doubt that. And if it had to come to a shooting, it sure as hell was bit necessary at when it actually occurred.

 

[boiled goose]

Why should they put themselves in danger by attempting restrain someone who had already displayed intent to harm and erratic behaviour?

The deceased put themselves in that position taking a weapon on to the streets and attacking people.

He deserved to be put down.


How about you go and tackle a madman with a knife? You talk a good game, I guess who you would be calling if a maniac with a knife came at you.

I want police to take that risk. We pay them to. I know this is not in the US,but in other countries cops manage to kill less people.

This case is more subtle, because the deceased was actually armed and dangerous.

Deserved to be put down? What was he a fucking rabid dog? We pay the police to apprehend subjects, not sentence or execute.

As usual, "disobey and die" mentality prevails. A guy is slashing at people in the middle of the street is suddenly going to obey a verbal command by a cop? The guy is clearly mentally ill or in complete distress. More effort should be made to apprend rather than murder.

If this was a cops relative or even a celebrity would they be murdered so nonchalantly? Doubtful.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

Why should they put themselves in danger by attempting restrain someone who had already displayed intent to harm and erratic behaviour?

The deceased put themselves in that position taking a weapon on to the streets and attacking people.

He deserved to be put down.


How about you go and tackle a madman with a knife? You talk a good game, I guess who you would be calling if a maniac with a knife came at you.

Because they are cops, that's their job., the job they were trained for. He deserved to get help not to be shot and wtf is up with your choice of words? Put down, are you serious???
Hell yeah I'd be calling the cops and you can bet they wouldn't shoot the guy where I live.

 

[Sch1sm]

Why should they put themselves in danger by attempting restrain someone who had already displayed intent to harm and erratic behaviour?

The deceased put themselves in that position taking a weapon on to the streets and attacking people.

He deserved to be put down.


How about you go and tackle a madman with a knife? You talk a good game, I guess who you would be calling if a maniac with a knife came at you.

That's extreme.

 

[crimzonflame]

Why should they put themselves in danger by attempting restrain someone who had already displayed intent to harm and erratic behaviour?

The deceased put themselves in that position taking a weapon on to the streets and attacking people.

He deserved to be put down.


How about you go and tackle a madman with a knife? You talk a good game, I guess who you would be calling if a maniac with a knife came at you.

uh Im not a cop who I assumed are trained for these type of scenarios?

 

[jstripes]

For context, a relatively untrained and unarmed security guard recently took down a man who was attacking people with a machete here in Toronto, and did so without harming anyone.

Yet somehow, this police, with the benefit of training, resources and with backup that security guard could only dream about, couldn't find a way to de-escalate or subdue Yatim without causing his death.

For context, it was a completely different situation.

The mall incident was two security guards in an open space. I think they managed to get him from behind, or from the side, with a running tackle.

This was an officer in a face-off with someone in a streetcar. You can't exactly manoeuvre or sneak up on someone in that narrow aisle.

If you wanna go running head-on into someone on hard drugs pointing a knife at you, go right ahead.

 

[Jisgsaw]

how can he be guilty of attempted murder when the guy he shot was already dead? he should walk on that charge.

Because as the name implies, the murder being successful or not is irrelevant for an attempted murder. Shooting a corps (without knowledge of the death of the prrson) is nothing else than a failed murder. What is tried is the sole intent of killing.

The jury apparently concluded the cop couldn't have known the victim to be already dead/fataly shot, which makes the second round of shots an attempt to kill a non threatful person; the suspect being already dead, the killing was not fulfilled. Hence attempted murder.

 

[gabbo]

Still don't understand the explanation. I've read it but it doesn't make sense to me.

Defence lawyers did their job, managing to spin shit

The first three shots killed Yatim, but Forcillo didn't know that. Argued as reasonable force, thus not found guilt of actually killing him (I don't necessarily agree with this, but it wasn't my case to argue, and good luck convicting a police office on this). Forcillo waited something like 5-6 seconds.

For whatever reason, Forcillo decided that incapacitation wasn't enough for him after the short break and shot at Yatim's corpse (again, unbeknownst to him) another 6 times - in essence to make sure he was dead/going to die. Thus he shot a corpse, but attempted murder holds a harsher sentence than disturbing a corpse or whatever the charge would be in that scenario, and the Crown decided to go that route.

 

[BeesEight]

Only semi-related, but I always get really annoyed by the idea that we should show respect to police officers as a general rule. Standards for becoming one are not terribly high, and they get special privileges and the benefit of the doubt more often than not.

While the minimum requirements for applying to the force are "low," it is by no means easy becoming a police officer. My brother failed the application processed and during university I worked with someone who was trying to get in. The background checks are extensive and the training required afterwards is not negligible.

And outside of the standards in place, what would you require for a job applicant?

This entire case makes me sick. There's almost nobody on earth that would feel threatened given how far away he was, what he had in his hand and how many other officers were at the location. It's an excuse to kill plain and simple.

Aren't officers taught how to incapacitate an individual without a killing shot? Why not hit him in the legs? Or how about just 1 shot to see if that put an end to this?

It's a good thing our tax dollars are going towards non-lethal weapons for our police force. Hope they eventually put it to use.

Whoa, looks like we've got ourselves a tough guy here! I'm glad that you'd never feel threatened by an individual that had threatened an entire streetcar, was high out of his mind and in no state to be reasonably negotiated with and wielding a weapon. You're right, I can't possibly see how anybody on earth might even feel the slightest ounce of concern in a situation like that!

And no, police officers are not trained to shoot for a leg. Life isn't the movies. A police officer is trained that, if they are discharging their firearm they are to aim for the largest target on the subject--the centre of mass. A leg, especially in motion, is an incredibly tough shot not to mention the huge pile of shit you'll be in if you miss that target and hit a civilian because you were trying to be John Wayne or some nonsense. And yes, they are trained to incapacitate so if they're firing their weapon at a person's chest it will be with enough force to stop them.

Hence the three shots into the victim.

They are not trained to go full Rambo after the fact, however and the following six shots was grossly excessive. The crown was incredibly shrewd in framing the charges as they did. Personally, I feel--given the information of which I'm aware--that the use of a firearm constitutes excessive force in this situation to begin with but there is no way that a civilian court system is going to be educated enough to make that judgement call on their own. This is why getting the murder charge on the first three shots would be so difficult. A jury does not have the police training to judge whether the officer was acting in accordance with reasonable procedure or not.

Long story short, it's a good thing you aren't in charge of police procedure because there would be far worse scenarios that occur if protocol was "Shoot for the legs! Or just once and see how far that gets you!"

The question of the case surrounds whether there is reasonable justification for the officer to draw his weapon in the first place. I doubt that anyone could prove either way beyond a reasonable doubt. Getting him on the follow-up six shots feels fair.

 

[joms5]

Whoa, looks like we've got ourselves a tough guy here! I'm glad that you'd never feel threatened by an individual that had threatened an entire streetcar, was high out of his mind and in no state to be reasonably negotiated with and wielding a weapon. You're right, I can't possibly see how anybody on earth might even feel the slightest ounce of concern in a situation like that!

And no, police officers are not trained to shoot for a leg. Life isn't the movies. A police officer is trained that, if they are discharging their firearm they are to aim for the largest target on the subject--the centre of mass. A leg, especially in motion, is an incredibly tough shot not to mention the huge pile of shit you'll be in if you miss that target and hit a civilian because you were trying to be John Wayne or some nonsense. And yes, they are trained to incapacitate so if they're firing their weapon at a person's chest it will be with enough force to stop them.

Hence the three shots into the victim.

They are not trained to go full Rambo after the fact, however and the following six shots was grossly excessive. The crown was incredibly shrewd in framing the charges as they did. Personally, I feel--given the information of which I'm aware--that the use of a firearm constitutes excessive force in this situation to begin with but there is no way that a civilian court system is going to be educated enough to make that judgement call on their own. This is why getting the murder charge on the first three shots would be so difficult. A jury does not have the police training to judge whether the officer was acting in accordance with reasonable procedure or not.

Long story short, it's a good thing you aren't in charge of police procedure because there would be far worse scenarios that occur if protocol was "Shoot for the legs! Or just once and see how far that gets you!"

The question of the case surrounds whether there is reasonable justification for the officer to draw his weapon in the first place. I doubt that anyone could prove either way beyond a reasonable doubt. Getting him on the follow-up six shots feels fair.

Clearly by the hostility in your comment you are pro police no matter what which already paints your opinion as biased but i'll bite.

Nowhere did I ever say that what I was suggesting was 100% fact or how it should have been done. Hence why I put question marks after my statements. Did you see those? You're right that shooting for a leg is a risk. I've never shot a gun nor do i attempt to know what kind of training that police go through. Having said that I think that if an officer is allowed to carry a weapon, it shouldn't be out of the question that they are able to aim properly with it. Yatim wasn't in motion when he was shot, and the officer had his gun aimed at him during the altercation which one would assume he had a decent shot of his leg. But let's just throw all that out the window. It's not safe. Fine.

One thing I can say with confidence is that given the distance from the subject, and the fact that no civilians were near Yatim at the time of the shooting, the first THREE shots were excessive. He should have shot once and awaited the outcome. Hell people have been killed by one carefully placed shot before.

I am not even arguing the verdict anymore. I am more so angry with the conduct of the police officer himself. He was never in danger, him nor any of his fellow officers. Look at the distance between them.

You don't have to be a "tough guy", as you referred to me as, to not be scared of someone that far away. Had he been running towards the police, a few feet from them or holding a firearm of some sort I am fine with any use of force. But a switch blade at that distance. I think it's time to take a course on making logical decisions under pressure. Yatim had no chance of hurting anyone at that point in time, regardless of what he did prior, which again led to no one being harmed.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Why should they put themselves in danger by attempting restrain someone who had already displayed intent to harm and erratic behaviour?

The deceased put themselves in that position taking a weapon on to the streets and attacking people.

He deserved to be put down.


How about you go and tackle a madman with a knife? You talk a good game, I guess who you would be calling if a maniac with a knife came at you.

Fucking hell....

 

[jorma]

All i know is that in countries where police ARE trained to shoot people in the legs, less people die in police shootings. You can post 4300 words describing how it doesnt work as much as you like, but reality doesn't concur.

 

[darscot]

I would just like to add he has not been sentenced yet, that could take a while I believe he will get a minimum 5 years. Unless the defense can get him out of the weapon issue, which I think is possible then he will get 4. He could still get life but I doubt it.

 

[MegaManTrigger]

The jury probably concluded that the cop should have known that his first three shots incapacitated him. That first volley was "necessary." The second volley was unnecessary, and so is attempted murder. The second volley was attempted murder because yatim was already dead. The logic seems fine to me as long as you agree that th first volley was necessary to defend the cops life.

The logic for the bolded is what I've been saying makes zero sense. How can attempted murder be attempted murder when Yatim is dead? Is it a shrewd move by the crown to reach a compromise? Yes. But I think the compromise comes at a cost by making this more of a legal grey area than it needed to be. And it's critical when we're talking about potentially a precedent-setting case for police officers in Ontario, and Canada. Why the grey area? Because the Criminal Code doesn't really have a section devoted to a situation like Forcillo's. The Criminal Code has some very black/white charges listed, but doesn't take into account a situation where there is a peace officer utilizing excessive force, causing death, at least as far as I know. Even the Criminal Code doesn't go into proper detail when it comes to excessive force on its own, simply stating:

26 Every one who is authorized by law to use force is criminally responsible for any excess thereof according to the nature and quality of the act that constitutes the excess.

It doesn't go into the degree of excessive force (obviously this case would be excessive just by the volley of shots alone), how a public/peace officer should be punished. Taking all of that into consideration, these reasons related to law application are primarily why I don't agree that this should be an attempted murder charge.

If, instead, we had a situation where Yatim was hit/grazed by a couple of bullets but was still visibly breathing and alive, and Forcillo kept on shooting and missing, then I can see the attempted murder charge making sense because the number of shots in relation to perpetrator status would demonstrate a visible intent to kill but ultimately failing to succeed in his action.

 

[IISANDERII]

Why should they put themselves in danger by attempting restrain someone who had already displayed intent to harm and erratic behaviour?

The deceased put themselves in that position taking a weapon on to the streets and attacking people.

He deserved to be put down.


How about you go and tackle a madman with a knife? You talk a good game, I guess who you would be calling if a maniac with a knife came at you.

Police officers in Canada are paid to face danger and are paid pretty well. They are not trained to open fire at the first sign of a weird teenager, hence why Foolcillo is going to prison. Foolcillo was a coward who panicked at the first sign, like many of his counterparts across the border.
If police were just supposed to gun down anybody who appears threatening, they wouldn't need years of training before they work unsupervised.