"Toronto police officer charged in Sammy Yatim shooting"

[Nemo888]

Where do police derive their authority? Largely from their integrity. If that becomes questionable just look to the third world or even some inner cites in the US. He needs to be publicly punished for the good of the force. Crimes need to be reported and people have to want to call the police when crimes happen. Without public confidence effective policing becomes impossible. I am sorry he has to be thrown under the bus, but he will be.

 

[OldSolduer]

Where do police derive their authority? Largely from their integrity. If that becomes questionable just look to the third world or even some inner cites in the US. He needs to be publicly punished for the good of the force. Crimes need to be reported and people have to want to call the police when crimes happen. Without public confidence effective policing becomes impossible. I am sorry he has to be thrown under the bus, but he will be.

Does a moderator have to spell this out for you? He has been charged but not tried nor found guilty.

I find your comment to be insensitive.

 

[Nemo888]

In this case it doesn't really matter. The force is more important than one man. They need to get some good optics on this. It must look like the officer is punished as most of the public have already judged him. No commission or investigative report can make up for it this time. It's a video. Throw him a bone with a good private sector job and a generous payout. Even a pension on a psych eval. Policing Toronto is already a nightmare.

 

[J.J]

In this case it doesn't really matter. The force is more important than one man. They need to get some good optics on this. It must look like the officer is punished as most of the public have already judged him. No commission or investigative report can make up for it this time. It's a video. Throw him a bone with a good private sector job and a generous payout. Even a pension on a psych eval. Policing Toronto is already a nightmare.

I have you on ignore for a reason, but like a car accident I can't help myself from looking and I always regret it.

:trainwreck:

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

In this case it doesn't really matter. The force is more important than one man. They need to get some good optics on this. It must look like the officer is punished as most of the public have already judged him. No commission or investigative report can make up for it this time. It's a video. Throw him a bone with a good private sector job and a generous payout. Even a pension on a psych eval. Policing Toronto is already a nightmare.

You're the one in need of a psych evaluation..................I give you a lot of leeway because I truly believe you're troubled but tread lightly because my patience is wearing very, very thin.

Bruce
Staff

 

[George Wallace]

Where do police derive their authority? Largely from their integrity.

NO.  Integrity has nothing to do with where they derive their "authority".  Their authority is derived from the LAW as laid out by the statutes of the Province of Ontario in the Police Services Act. 

 

[Nemo888]

The history of policing is much more complex and profound than a piece of paper. They are moral arbiters who prevent mobs meting out punishments based on gossip, revenge and jealousy. They have a quasireligious function as fair and impartial tools of justice. Police fulfill what was once the role of priests centuries ago. When that role is functional society benefits beyond measure.  But primarily It's effectiveness is based on the social contract between the officers and the policed. Perceived corruption utterly destroys policing. In many place no one calls them or even thinks of doing so when crimes are committed.

I don't think he will be treated fairly for purely political reasons and yes I do see the irony in that.

 

[George Wallace]

The history of policing is much more complex and profound than a piece of paper. They are moral arbiters who prevent mobs meting out punishments based on gossip, revenge and jealousy. They have a quasireligious function as fair and impartial tools of justice. Police fulfill what was once the role of priests centuries ago. When that role is functional society benefits beyond measure.  But primarily It's effectiveness is based on the social contract between the officers and the policed. Perceived corruption utterly destroys policing. In many place no one calls them or even thinks of doing so when crimes are committed.

What are you smoking?

 

[Nemo888]

Crown Royal.

 

[George Wallace]

Well.  Stop smoking it.  It is for sipping.

 

[pbi]

Where do police derive their authority? Largely from their integrity. If that becomes questionable just look to the third world or even some inner cites in the US.

No and yes. Police derive their legal authority from the law, not from their character. A dishonest, corrupt cop has the same legal authority as the best officer on the street.

Their moral and social authority ("We obey them because we believe it's the right thing to do"), comes very much from how the public view them and the system they represent: this is where their integrity comes in.  When police no longer have the trust and respect of the public they serve, their job becomes much, much harder. Maybe impossible. For example: if everybody in a city the size of Kingston  (where I live) decides to break the law, our entire city police force of around 200 all ranks would not be enough to control it. The 20 or so PC's on the street during a shift definitely can't control any more than a tiny fraction of the population at any time. But that isn't really how it works. Society relies on people obeying the law and cooperating with the police because that's what we think we should do.

He needs to be publicly punished for the good of the force.

If he is found guilty by due process, with all the defences that any Canadian is provided under our legal system, and under the assumption of innocence, I agree that he must be punished. There is no question about this: an undisciplined, unaccountable police service is a huge threat to society: anybody who has served in any Third World place knows this.

I am sorry he has to be thrown under the bus, but he will be.

I hope not. That would be absolutely the wrong approach.  Don't confuse the common legal (and military...) practice of exemplary punishment with "..throwing under the bus.." If he is wrongly sacrificed like this, IMHO two unintended effects will result:

-good cops will lose heart,  go into "avoidance mode"; and perhaps second-guess themselves at the wrong moment, when they could rightly and legally use lethal force; and

-bad cops will be reinforced in their belief that it is all about "us against the world"; the system doesn't work, and they must continue to break the law in order to "uphold" it.

That said, I doubt very much that a court case will result in him being "thrown under" any bus.  It has been pointed out that in Ontario, juries are typically reluctant even to find police guilty on charges. I am sure that the Police Association will do all it can to give him a good lawyer, which is to be expected. The Crown will have to make a very good case if it wants to win this, especially for murder.

 

[Anakha]

Where do police derive their authority? Largely from their integrity. If that becomes questionable just look to the third world or even some inner cites in the US. He needs to be publicly punished for the good of the force. Crimes need to be reported and people have to want to call the police when crimes happen. Without public confidence effective policing becomes impossible. I am sorry he has to be thrown under the bus, but he will be.

The fact that you're supporting the violation of basic civil liberties (innocent until proven guilty and if found so then given a punishment fitting for the crime) in order to supposedly prevent the breakdown of the justice system is very disturbing. It doesn't matter if the armchair police officers of the general public have already decided he's guilty. That's why we have courts and a legal process and not lynch mobs. Those who are looking for him to be punished without trial and those who wish for him to be "made an example" of, such as yourself are, IMO, more of a threat to society than this LEO. You make it sound like he should be whipped in the town square. Your perspective is outdated and frankly rather warped.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Is making an example out of him different from someone suggesting that a kid facing off against a cop should be shot in the head in order to make an example out of what happens when you break the law with a weapon?

Thowing him under the bus is a bad idea for the reasons PBI wisely pointed out.  On top of that you would be naive to think that it would make a difference to the people you're suggesting.

 

[OldSolduer]

Furthermore - there is always a segment of the population who are anti authority. Any incident involving LEO and the public is always the LEO's fault.

 

[J.J]

Furthermore - there is always a segment of the population who are anti authority. Any incident involving LEO and the public is always the LEO's fault.

:goodpost:

 

[Jacky Tar]

Furthermore - there is always a segment of the population who are anti authority. Any incident involving LEO and the public is always the LEO's fault.

:goodpost:

This is why we need a "Like" button. I concur.  :nod:

 

[garb811]

...

Taken together, it seems that a fair number of people have serious, if somewhat misinformed, concerns about the police and our judicial system., and the Yatim case has brought them to the forefront.

I was brought up to respect and trust the police. While I believe that police must be held to a very high standard, and punishment of police offenders should serve an exemplary purpose, I still think that the majority of them do their jobs well, and rarely draw their weapons (and even more rarely ever shoot anybody, ever).

How did we get here?

We've gotten here for a number of reasons:

- The CSI effect.  Normally attributed to juries but this is also something I have noticed about police work in general.  A jury expects every possible investigative technique thrown at all manner of crime, whether applicable or not, and the general public have become experts in both the Use of Force continuum and what someone is realistically able to do.  How many times have we heard, "Well, they could have just shot the <insert weapons> out of his hand, they didn't have to kill him".  Realistically, police are not "trying to kill" the person, just like the military, they are putting rounds in the center of mass simply because it is the largest area to hit.

-  Combined with this there is the leakage from south of the border for everyone concerned.  The Canadian public sees high profile cases from the States and superimpose the beliefs and opinions they have formed from those cases onto actions here even when the cases are only superficially similar.  This is not simply a cops and robbers issue, we've seen people jumping the gun on CSEC based on possible illegal activities that may have occurred 13 years ago simply because the Chairman of the oversight committee deemed it worthy to put in his report that the proper paperwork could not be found or was incomplete.  Because NSA has been caught with its fingers in the cookie jar due to the Snowden leaks, ergo this is a smoking gun that says CSEC is actively and illegally targeting Canadians.

- The proliferation of technology.  Everyone has a camera and isn't afraid to use it. They also are predisposed to upload what they capture to social media.  This raw footage without informed commentary makes it easy for the naysayers to get the message out.

-  Technology also allows the naysayers to get the spun message out rapidly and very effectively to their target audience and their audience is already predisposed to believe what they are putting out.  That target audience subsequently forwards it on to their 500 Facebook friends, and out of those 50 will forward it and so on and so on...  This becomes the self licking ice cream cone with each of these people feeding their own information cycle to each other.

-  There are a few in the mainstream media who make it their goal to canonize the "victims" of police action.  I can count on one hand where a family member, friend or neighbour has come forward and said, "Yeah, Jimmy was a dirt bag".  Rather Jimmy is always the devoted father of two beautiful kids who was just trying to get by in the world and it's obvious the police overreacted and murdered him.  The police officer, on the other hand, has a tendency to go to ground and his supporters are much less likely to get out in front with the media because they want to respect the officer's privacy.

Fortunately, as Mr Campbell likes to say about the Canadian public's support of the military, the "disdain" or "mistrust" of the police is, in my perception, a mile wide but an inch deep during these instances.  How many people were they able to muster in Toronto, 3-500? out of 6 million?  Hardly overwhelming.

Finally, I find it ironic that some of the commentators were upset that the charge was 2nd Degree murder as opposed to manslaughter as they think it would be easier to get a conviction on manslaughter.  Obviously the intent in their mind is to just convict a cop as opposed to seeing justice truly served.

 

[Container]

The way I see it, and really who gives a crap what I think, people need to keep in mind. Cops are everyday people. 99% of them shoot their weapon once a year. And they dont shoot particularly well. .5% miss their quals that year, and the other .5% shoot more often...generally because they like it...and they drift into streams where they shoot more often.

Shooting is such a little portion of what police officers do that its a tick in the box. I know everyone is shocked when a police officer doesnt know how to clear a weapon. They arent soldiers. They are cultivated as social workers who have LIMITED arrest and control tactics exposure that rusts if they dont practice themselves after they graduate. They have limited exposure to firearms.

Of course thats opinion. But I do train police officers. I see the good and the bad.

I try and impart on them that they are more than a duty belt that shows up to a call. They are paid to be calm and make decisions. If they are not calm (to a reasonable level) then they haven't prepared well enough. We ve had convictions on police shoots where the officer is in a 1 second two round gun fight- the judge has found the first round justified but the second round excessive. If you are not CALM (as a person can reasonably be) you will not be taking in the information to make good decisions and planning. Not everyone subscribes to that theory.

I have no opinion on the video. I think that someone has to answer when they employ force like that. I havent heard it and the video isnt good so Ill let the jury do its thing. The charge was VERY fast however. Also- the issuing of a warrant was unusual. As was the high bail.

The ONE thing from the video that I noted is that once he was contained I didnt see a response being coordinated and plan happening. I saw lots of independent officers doing their own thing. I cant help but think that PERHAPS coordination could have assisted. But thats complete arm chairing

 

[2ndChoiceName]

I know some of you have experience in the LEO fields but for those who don't I found this video on Officer involved shootings quite enlightening.

http://www.forcescience.org/hollywoodvsreality.html

 

[2ndChoiceName]

In addition to that last link, the Ontario government is now allowing all officers to carry "conducted energy weapons" (Tasers), however each police service is responsible for the decision whether or not to issue them and must cover the cost. More at link:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ontario-to-allow-police-officers-to-carry-stun-guns-1.1428226