Const. James Forcillo shot Sammy Yatim - the trial

"There can be no doubt that while Mr. Yatim may not have been a perfect young man, he is missed by his family. The answer in this case is not to take officer Forcillo away from his family. That is not justice." Brauti said.


Groan
 
Googling shows me nothing of value.... has there been a verdict? What's up with this trial?
 
klr_guy said:
"There can be no doubt that while Mr. Yatim may not have been a perfect young man, he is missed by his family. The answer in this case is not to take officer Forcillo away from his family. That is not justice." Brauti said.


Groan
Click to expand...

So bank robbers, rapists, child molesters, bike thieves, muggers etc shouldn't do time because it affects their families.

Fact: When you commit a crime it affects your family. There is no "Nice" punishment. You go to prison not Disney World with the kids.
 
nobbie48 said:
So bank robbers, rapists, child molesters, bike thieves, muggers etc shouldn't do time because it affects their families.

Fact: When you commit a crime it affects your family. There is no "Nice" punishment. You go to prison not Disney World with the kids.
Click to expand...

+1 ^
 
klr_guy said:
"There can be no doubt that while Mr. Yatim may not have been a perfect young man, he is missed by his family. The answer in this case is not to take officer Forcillo away from his family. That is not justice." Brauti said.


Groan
Click to expand...

da fuk... that's exactly what justice is
 
mmmnaked said:
da fuk... that's exactly what justice is
Click to expand...

Not exactly. Forcillo's lawyers is right to say that you don't necessarily punish because a family grieves the death of a son. You punish if that death came as a wrongful act. The feelings of Yatim's family are irrelevant in that regard.

Forcillo's lawyer maintains that Forcillo did not act criminally that night, and rightfully claims that if such is true then Forcillo should not be punished to simply try and give some compense to Yatim's grieving family.
 
He should be punished for killing a person who posed him no direct threat.
 
I can't see how anyone will believe Yatim was a threat to Forcillo at the moment he was shot. Even less so for the 2nd round of bullets. Its on camera. Everyone can see what the threat was and the lack of a sense of threat by the other officers.
 
I said it 18 pages ago, regardless if Forcillo is an idiot, he will not be 'punished' nor will he be convicted of the murder charge. He may not be/remain a cop when the dust settles, but no Canadian cop has ever been convicted of this, and he wont be the first
 
griff2 said:
Not exactly. Forcillo's lawyers is right to say that you don't necessarily punish because a family grieves the death of a son. You punish if that death came as a wrongful act. The feelings of Yatim's family are irrelevant in that regard.

Forcillo's lawyer maintains that Forcillo did not act criminally that night, and rightfully claims that if such is true then Forcillo should not be punished to simply try and give some compense to Yatim's grieving family.
Click to expand...

Good point in that if a person had no friends or family there would no need to compensate so the issue goes back to wrongful act.

I carry numerous tools in my service vehicle that are capable of killing if misused. I have the right (IMO) to use those in self defense if I am being attacked and have no other options. (Remember this is not a "Stand your ground" country.)

Similarly a cop carries a firearm to be used in defense of himself or the public. Who was under immediate threat of harm or death?

Is it not unlawful to kill someone if there are other options and there were many?
 
AdRath said:
I can't see how anyone will believe Yatim was a threat to Forcillo at the moment he was shot. Even less so for the 2nd round of bullets. Its on camera. Everyone can see what the threat was and the lack of a sense of threat by the other officers.
Click to expand...

If "experts" drill it into the jury that this oinker was indeed in a life-threatening situation, they may just get them on his side.
 
mmmnaked said:
If "experts" drill it into the jury that this oinker was indeed in a life-threatening situation, they may just get them on his side.
Click to expand...

Very true. Of the part I did read about the case they were talking about how in police training they are taught that there is no such thing as a safe distance from a knife which is completely false and doesn't pass any sort of common sense test.

I guess only basic security guards can successfully arrest a man armed with a knife (machete) but dozens of police are incapable.
 
AdRath said:
Very true. Of the part I did read about the case they were talking about how in police training they are taught that there is no such thing as a safe distance from a knife which is completely false and doesn't pass any sort of common sense test.

I guess only basic security guards can successfully arrest a man armed with a knife (machete) but dozens of police are incapable.
Click to expand...

If there is no safe distance then maybe that's why they chose such a close range to target.

If someone had ever bothered to explain during training that if you're farther away from a knife wielding suspect you're safer..... Maybe they wouldn't have been so close.

For $100G/yr I'd expect someone to be good at their job. Maybe I'm being unreasonable.

(I'm being sarcastic)
 
^

FTP

There was Const. Robert Furyk, who testified seeing Yatim trying to get back up after the first volley — which had severed his spine. But Furyk arrived on scene at 12:01:10


Sent from my clear iPhone 31SS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom