Can we have a discussion?

BillyMollyEmmy

What do we think about this situation? 

Linky 

The basic story: In the early hours of July 27 a young man was gunned down by police in an empty streetcar in downtown Toronto. He had a knife in his hand and was asked to drop the knife and exit the street car. He did not. He was shot nine times by a single police officer. Six of those shots were fired after he had dropped to the ground. The officer in question has now been charged with second degree murder.
Thoughts? Appropriate? 

miss50

Based on the amateur video I don't see any reason for shots fired.   Way too many shots were fired.  And what in the hell was the reasoning for the taser?  I think those 7 questions need much more answering for me to even have any additional reaction to the story.

BillyMollyEmmy

I'm unsure how they came up with the charge. Also @miss50 - I think there are a LOT of unanswered questions regarding the entire incident, which is why it's so shady. 

Nine shots? for a teenager holding a knife on an empty streetcar? It just makes no sense to me. Like, pretty sure he was dead after the initial five, six, seven or eight... 

BillyMollyEmmy

LoisLayn23 said:

BillyMollyEmmy said:

I'm unsure how they came up with the charge. Also @miss50 - I think there are a LOT of unanswered questions regarding the entire incident, which is why it's so shady. 

Nine shots? for a teenager holding a knife on an empty streetcar? It just makes no sense to me. Like, pretty sure he was dead after the initial five, six, seven or eight... 

That's why I hesitate initial judgment on the event itself, we don't know the exact circumstances/conversation leading up to the shots fired. If he threatened an officer and refused to put it down and the taser did not control him, I could see it.

As far as the shots themselves, the 1 shooting DH has been involved in (and the other guy actually fired but DH was on scene) he shot 7 rounds. You are taught to shoot in rapid fire until the magazine is empty or the threat is removed.

So, what happens once the threat goes down? You shoot someone, they fall to the ground - are officers supposed to keep shooting until the threat is literally removed? As in not moving, potentially dead? 
No snark intended - genuine question. 

Hyaline

I'm with LL that the precedent scares me, and agree that police officers I know have shared the same as what she said--you're taught to shoot rapid fire.  I haven't seen the video, but to me if he keeps shooting as the guy falls, I can understand it being a muscle memory/training taking over thing.  If he changes positions or pauses, I'd want to know why he felt the need to keep shooting.

Also--technically speaking--do we know if the first few shots would have offed him anyway?

But--this is probably a jerky thing to say, I know--why didn't the kid drop the knife and do what the cop said?  This kinda reminds me of the old Chris Rock skit on "how not to get effed up by the police" in which the first is "obey the law."  I know, we can always come back to "didn't deserve to die for having a knife on the streetcar" but at the same time, "obey the law" and this wouldn't have happened. 

Hyaline

LoisLayn23 said:

Hyaline said:

I'm with LL that the precedent scares me, and agree that police officers I know have shared the same as what she said--you're taught to shoot rapid fire.  I haven't seen the video, but to me if he keeps shooting as the guy falls, I can understand it being a muscle memory/training taking over thing.  If he changes positions or pauses, I'd want to know why he felt the need to keep shooting.

Also--technically speaking--do we know if the first few shots would have offed him anyway?

But--this is probably a jerky thing to say, I know--why didn't the kid drop the knife and do what the cop said?  This kinda reminds me of the old Chris Rock skit on "how not to get effed up by the police" in which the first is "obey the law."  I know, we can always come back to "didn't deserve to die for having a knife on the streetcar" but at the same time, "obey the law" and this wouldn't have happened. 

After I watched the video, there is a solid 8-10 second pause between the first 3 rounds and the subsequent shots. Which is why I question that part, but I don't really question the decision to shoot in the first place. The premise is "get home to your wife and kids each night."

Well, and for me, as a citizen counting on the police to protect me if the need arises, I don't want delays in reacting to threats.  Obviously I don't want trigger-happy cops and I believe in diffusing situations whenever possible without violence, but if someone is posing a threat, I don't want the polices' job to be "hesitate, wait, hold on, fire one shot and wait thirty seconds, hold up--oh crap now five civilians are dead."