Way. Way way way.
Const. James Forcillo shot Sammy Yatim - the trial
- Thread starter MarcosSantiago
- Start date
So you would only accept her testimony if it was to the detriment of Forcillo's defence?
Or if it was true
What if the testimony she gave in court, seeing as she was standing right beside Forcillo, was exactly what she saw and felt? Can anyone here really dispute anything she testified to?
MarcosSantiago
Well-known member
You're making an assumption there.
You are assuming that she is telling the truth now.
Source: National Post
She re-holstered her gun, but she never actually called for a Taser.
Source: The Star
So why did she change her story?
First she said she did not remember, now she said she re-holstered her weapon to make a call, it is just that she didn't actually made that call.
You seem to be assuming that she is lying.
Being unsuccessful in being able to get through on the airwaves is not inconsistent with her stating that she holstered her weapon to make a call.
"There's no way you'll ever understand the heart-pumping, hand-shaking reality when you're involved face to face in a lethal force encounter," she said.
"That night was and remains the most terrifying moments of my night."
I guess that's the polite way of saying she almost defecated in her uniform by the site of a lone teen wielding a 3"(75mm) saber on an empty streetcar. If she's telling the truth she's not one of the more brilliant police hires. I hope she got PTSD counselling.
"Lethal force encounter" rolls right off the tongue
And this is jut one part of why the prosecutor said she was lying
I guess that's the polite way of saying she almost defecated in her uniform by the site of a lone teen wielding a 3"(75mm) saber on an empty streetcar. If she's telling the truth she's not one of the more brilliant police hires. I hope she got PTSD counselling.
"Lethal force encounter" rolls right off the tongue
The prosecutor said she was lying because that's part of the job description of being a lawyer.
There's no reason to disbelieve anything she said. Certainly not merely because she's defending Forcillo. She hasn't actually said his actions were justified, nor that there was any imminent danger AFAIK. Those are the issues that matter and such claims would be verifiably false. Her reasons for holstering her weapon, however, are plausible and not even all that interesting. Actually I don't even see how it's relevant to the case, so using that statement against her somehow, seems like nothing more than petty bickering right now.
However, the fact that her highest state of preparedness was having her weapon at "low ready" (as alert as seemingly every other cop on scene) actually serves to highlight the excess of force that Forcillo applied by pointing and firing his weapon.
There's no reason to disbelieve anything she said. Certainly not merely because she's defending Forcillo. She hasn't actually said his actions were justified, nor that there was any imminent danger AFAIK. Those are the issues that matter and such claims would be verifiably false. Her reasons for holstering her weapon, however, are plausible and not even all that interesting. Actually I don't even see how it's relevant to the case, so using that statement against her somehow, seems like nothing more than petty bickering right now.
However, the fact that her highest state of preparedness was having her weapon at "low ready" (as alert as seemingly every other cop on scene) actually serves to highlight the excess of force that Forcillo applied by pointing and firing his weapon.
Yes because then it would DEFINITELY be true.
Surely you know what happens to cops who go against their own. And a woman cop no less lol
She'd be fried.
Agreed on all points. But I bet she's heavily downplaying certain aspects of the night and leaning harder on the "we felt threatened" fallacy. Ultimately it makes no damned difference. He could've felt threatened all night long, the video makes it obvious that there was no immediate threat.
Best case: the guy is an absolutely ****** cop. Worst case, power tripping murderer. Either way, prison time.
Verifiably false? Maybe.
She did happen to go on to say:
Fleckeisen provided her own interpretation of that moment, saying Yatim made a "very deliberate, intentional motion forward" in the moments before he was shot. "Mr. Yatim looked like he was coming off the streetcar," she said, adding that Forcillo's shots were consequently not unexpected.
She was the closest eyewitness to Forcillo's actions that night. She testified (in-streetcar video shows the same) that it looked like Yatim (who was still waving a knife) was going to come off the streetcar, which would have turned a contained and somewhat static situation that could have been waited out into a dynamic and dangerous situation with an armed and unstable person with a knife headed towards police. She also testified that the resulting shots (at least the first round) were not surprising given the situation as she described it.
There are still several more days of trial to come. More witness evidence to come.
So Forcillos strategy of escalating and baiting achieved the desired result? Good job.
MarcosSantiago
Well-known member
??
It is not an assumption. She changed her initial version of the story, that is a fact.
What do you call that?
Lol what a load of bull. The video disagrees. Blue line at work.
-D-
Banned
From the news piece I saw she also said she now doesn't remember if Fuwacko cursed at the kid....which is a sing that he lost control.
the more they talk...wow the insight.
"A deliberate motion forward" is true, but it doesn't describe anything remotely threatening.
But if she said it "looked like he was coming off the streetcar" then that's definitely either a lie or a serious misjudgement, given that Yatim was closer to the steps when Forcillo arrived than when he fired his gun. "Coming off the streetcar" would require some kind of motion down a step, even just a foot over the ledge. He did neither.
Just gonna leave this here
"Last Sunday, Montreal police responded to a 911 call regarding a stabbing. They arrived to find a 65-year-old man, who had allegedly stabbed two people inside the house, harming himself with a knife. After attempting to negotiate with the man, police shot him with rubber bullets. They could have used live rounds and needlessly increased the likelihood of killing their target, but they rightly deemed that level of violence unnecessary.Montreal police went much further to preserve life in July of 2013, during a 20-hour armed standoff with 72-year-old Isidore Havis, who was barricaded in his residence with more than 150 firearms. Havis had reportedly threatened two Hydro workers with a handgun, then barricaded himself indoors before police arrived. During the standoff, police claim Havis shot at them and grazed an officer’s foot with his bullet.
Police waited Havis out, employed tear gas, and eventually shot him with rubber bullets that shattered several of his bones. The elderly man, whose family said was suffering from dementia, died in hospital three weeks later. (A coroner concluded Havis died of natural causes.)
One of Havis’s neighbours told the media, “We didn’t want him to die, just for him to get the help he needed.” The police seemed not to want to kill Havis either, even though he fired at them and threatened two civilians. They proved that police often do put their lives on the line, and can do so without needlessly jeopardizing the lives of the people they serve — that Sarah Yatim’s wish for a city without fatal police confrontations is within the force’s power to fulfil."
"Last Sunday, Montreal police responded to a 911 call regarding a stabbing. They arrived to find a 65-year-old man, who had allegedly stabbed two people inside the house, harming himself with a knife. After attempting to negotiate with the man, police shot him with rubber bullets. They could have used live rounds and needlessly increased the likelihood of killing their target, but they rightly deemed that level of violence unnecessary.Montreal police went much further to preserve life in July of 2013, during a 20-hour armed standoff with 72-year-old Isidore Havis, who was barricaded in his residence with more than 150 firearms. Havis had reportedly threatened two Hydro workers with a handgun, then barricaded himself indoors before police arrived. During the standoff, police claim Havis shot at them and grazed an officer’s foot with his bullet.
Police waited Havis out, employed tear gas, and eventually shot him with rubber bullets that shattered several of his bones. The elderly man, whose family said was suffering from dementia, died in hospital three weeks later. (A coroner concluded Havis died of natural causes.)
One of Havis’s neighbours told the media, “We didn’t want him to die, just for him to get the help he needed.” The police seemed not to want to kill Havis either, even though he fired at them and threatened two civilians. They proved that police often do put their lives on the line, and can do so without needlessly jeopardizing the lives of the people they serve — that Sarah Yatim’s wish for a city without fatal police confrontations is within the force’s power to fulfil."
