View Full Version: Toronto Police Kill People

U-Sector - The Original Toronto FC Supporters Group & Message Board > General Discussion > Toronto Police Kill People


Title: Toronto Police Kill People
Description: A.C.A.B.


BrennanFan - February 11, 2012 05:34 AM (GMT)

Police didn’t need to shoot man in hospital gown: witness
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/...al-gown-witness

The anguished renovator who alerted police to a dazed man clad in a hospital gown lurking in the backyard of an east-end house last Friday says police did not need to kill him."

What also bothers him is that after Eligon was shot three times at point-blank range, he said, the officers stomped on his prone body as he fell to the street.

“They were kicking him, stomping him. There was no need for that,” he said.



- Goddamn TPS at it again. Trigger happy bastards.

heather - February 11, 2012 05:58 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (BrennanFan @ Feb 11 2012, 12:34 AM)
Police didn’t need to shoot man in hospital gown: witness
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/...al-gown-witness

The anguished renovator who alerted police to a dazed man clad in a hospital gown lurking in the backyard of an east-end house last Friday says police did not need to kill him."

What also bothers him is that after Eligon was shot three times at point-blank range, he said, the officers stomped on his prone body as he fell to the street.

“They were kicking him, stomping him. There was no need for that,” he said.



- Goddamn TPS at it again. Trigger happy bastards.

cough cough

shit is real

north york - February 11, 2012 06:47 AM (GMT)
I'll wait till all the evidence comes out before determining if I take Martin's anti-cop stance.

FR12 - February 11, 2012 01:52 PM (GMT)
come on kris, what in that story gives you the idea that appropriate action was taken? you really think there was not one alternative way of diffusing the situation other then putting three holes in this guy? sounds to me like instead of following training and protocol, where a cop is supposed to keep a cool and clear head, someone panicked and fucked up. it does not sound like this officer was in a one on one situation where as a last resort he had to use his firearm.

people in those types of positions have a responsibility, and should be held to to a high degree of accountability.

Dman81 - February 11, 2012 03:16 PM (GMT)
i just read that in states they'll pass the law that you aren't allowed to film cops during takedowns

especially with g8 coming to chicago

ontarioiron - February 11, 2012 07:01 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Dman81 @ Feb 11 2012, 10:16 AM)
i just read that in states they'll pass the law that you aren't allowed to film cops during takedowns

especially with g8 coming to chicago

So its legal in Illinois to open carry a handgun but not use a video camera eh? Good luck with that in a day when almost everyone has a video camera in their cellphone....

nfitz - February 11, 2012 07:47 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (north york @ Feb 11 2012, 01:47 AM)
I'll wait till all the evidence comes out before determining if I take Martin's anti-cop stance.

What, when the gun comes out of the cops pocket, and get's put in the victim's hand?

Police in this city are very quick to break the law. This has been demonstrated time and time again. The G20 was appalling, with many officers removing their identification from their uniforms. Why each and every one of them who did that weren't terminated with prejudice I don't know ...

north york - February 13, 2012 05:29 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (FR12 @ Feb 11 2012, 08:52 AM)
come on kris, what in that story gives you the idea that appropriate action was taken? you really think there was not one alternative way of diffusing the situation other then putting three holes in this guy? sounds to me like instead of following training and protocol, where a cop is supposed to keep a cool and clear head, someone panicked and fucked up. it does not sound like this officer was in a one on one situation where as a last resort he had to use his firearm.

people in those types of positions have a responsibility, and should be held to to a high degree of accountability.

I did not say the police are or are not guilty. I simply will wait to hear how it plays out from the SIU/additional inquiry/courts to see how it pans out. Why are these cops automatically being perceived as guilty from you guys and why is the assumption that the entire TPS is guilty of 'jumping the gun' or always seemingly abusing power? I get that the overwhelming majority of this board and football supporters in general dislike the police so it's not surprising to have the bad always pointed out.

I have a ton of respect for the police service and definitely do hold them to a high standard of public service. I'm from the school that believes that when the few bad apples cross the line that there should be a much harsher sentence/penalty on them. I feel that way about other public servants such as teachers who touch their students and politicians that are on the take. But in no way shape or form do I sit and judge the entire force in a negative light thinking that they're all scumbags. The fact is not a single one of us would want to do their job and frankly most us couldn't handle the heavy weight that comes with it, even if we wanted to .

My point is that what is written in the media - the guys whose business is to sell headlines and often sensationalize it to make those sales - will lean towards a certain angle. Again, which is why I will wait to it all pans out. If one or more cops are guilty, fire him, fine him, or jail him, maybe all of them.

davidcfs - February 13, 2012 01:04 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (north york @ Feb 13 2012, 12:29 AM)
If one or more cops are guilty, fire him, fine him, or jail him, maybe all of them.

I laughed.

Chances are the officer(s) will get paid leave (vacation) and then be warming a desk until he/she retires. This is the worst thing that will happen, we all know it.

FR12 - February 13, 2012 01:50 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (north york @ Feb 13 2012, 01:29 AM)
QUOTE (FR12 @ Feb 11 2012, 08:52 AM)
come on kris, what in that story gives you the idea that appropriate action was taken? you really think there was not one alternative way of diffusing the situation other then putting three holes in this guy? sounds to me like instead of following training and protocol, where a cop is supposed to keep a cool and clear head, someone panicked and fucked up. it does not sound like this officer was in a one on one situation where as a last resort he had to use his firearm.

people in those types of positions have a responsibility, and should be held to to a high degree of accountability.

I did not say the police are or are not guilty. I simply will wait to hear how it plays out from the SIU/additional inquiry/courts to see how it pans out. Why are these cops automatically being perceived as guilty from you guys and why is the assumption that the entire TPS is guilty of 'jumping the gun' or always seemingly abusing power? I get that the overwhelming majority of this board and football supporters in general dislike the police so it's not surprising to have the bad always pointed out.

I have a ton of respect for the police service and definitely do hold them to a high standard of public service. I'm from the school that believes that when the few bad apples cross the line that there should be a much harsher sentence/penalty on them. I feel that way about other public servants such as teachers who touch their students and politicians that are on the take. But in no way shape or form do I sit and judge the entire force in a negative light thinking that they're all scumbags. The fact is not a single one of us would want to do their job and frankly most us couldn't handle the heavy weight that comes with it, even if we wanted to .

My point is that what is written in the media - the guys whose business is to sell headlines and often sensationalize it to make those sales - will lean towards a certain angle. Again, which is why I will wait to it all pans out. If one or more cops are guilty, fire him, fine him, or jail him, maybe all of them.

its not about being guilty or not, he put 3 bullets in the dude, thats pretty clear. its that with a bunch of of other officers on the scene, this one cop didnt see a single alternative but to shoot him. this is what i find hard to believe, and regardless of the cop acting according to the book or not, i dont think that this type of violence is acceptable. had this guy been going for the cop one on one with no backup and absolutely no other chance of defending himself you wouldnt hear a peep from me. it does not really sound like the scenario that happened though.

Enterprise Captain - February 13, 2012 08:28 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (north york @ Feb 13 2012, 01:29 AM)
I did not say the police are or are not guilty.  I simply will wait to hear how it plays out from the SIU/additional inquiry/courts to see how it pans out. Why are these cops automatically being perceived as guilty from you guys and why is the assumption that the entire TPS is guilty of 'jumping the gun' or always seemingly abusing power? I get that the overwhelming majority of this board and football supporters in general dislike the police so it's not surprising to have the bad always pointed out.

I have a ton of respect for the police service and definitely do hold them to a high standard of public service. I'm from the school that believes that when the few bad apples cross the line that there should be a much harsher sentence/penalty on them. I feel that way about other public servants such as teachers who touch their students and politicians that are on the take. But in no way shape or form do I sit and judge the entire force in a negative light thinking that they're all scumbags.  The fact is not a single one of us would want to do their job and frankly most us couldn't handle the heavy weight that comes with it, even if we wanted to .

My point is that what is written in the media - the guys whose business is to sell headlines and often sensationalize it to make those sales - will lean towards a certain angle. Again, which is why I will wait to it all pans out. If one or more cops are guilty, fire him, fine him, or jail him, maybe all of them.

I'm with you on this one. I rather wait to see what the SIU investigations results are then jump to conclusions. A police officer is automatically assumed guilty in a way even though technically it is innocent until proven guilty. The officer involved in the shooting should now be on leave until the investigation is concluded. After which if they're cleared they will be able to resume their duties or if they're found guilty they will not only be sentenced under Criminal Code of Canada but they will also be sentenced under the Police Services Act. The article says "Eligon was wielding what is believed to be two pairs of scissors after fleeing Toronto East General Hospital about four blocks away." "Nothing has been revealed about Eligon's mental condition at the time because the hospital is bound by privacy laws." I'm sorry but a potential mentally unstable person wielding two pairs of scissors could be extremely dangerous. Police are trained under Use of Force:
user posted image
To draw a firearm if a knife is being used as a weapon. Knives are more dangerous than firearms in many ways. The eyewitness Vince stated "I thought there could have been pepper spray or a Taser. Or shoot him in the leg." Well this isn't the movies were cops shoot people in the leg or shoot objects out of people's hands. They are trained to shoot for center of mass and in a human beings case that is the torso. Could pepper spray or a Taser have been used in this case? I don't know, that is for the SIU to determine. Vince also says "More than anything, he looked afraid. He was scared." I personally don't deal with many mentally unstable people on a regular basis and I don't know how much experiance Vince has with them but police have many dealings with them. They could probably better assess whether this person was afraid or had other issues. Either way many details are missing from the article and I will wait to see more details before I pass judgment.

SSK - February 13, 2012 08:59 PM (GMT)
I like when you said hey, the cop is innocent until proven guilty, but then repeat twice as a foregone conclusion that the victim was mentally unstable.

"I don't know, that is for the SIU to determine" doesn't do much to diffuse my anger because we know what the SIU will determine – that the cops followed procedure. The point that something is procedure doesn't make neither the act nor the procedure right.

Enterprise Captain - February 13, 2012 09:17 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (SSK @ Feb 13 2012, 03:59 PM)
I like when you said hey, the cop is innocent until proven guilty, but then repeat twice as a foregone conclusion that the victim was mentally unstable.

"I don't know, that is for the SIU to determine" doesn't do much to diffuse my anger because we know what the SIU will determine – that the cops followed procedure. The point that something is procedure doesn't make neither the act nor the procedure right.

QUOTE (Enterprise Captain @ Feb 13 2012, 03:28 PM)
a potential mentally unstable person wielding two pairs of scissors could be extremely dangerous.

QUOTE (Enterprise Captain @ Feb 13 2012, 03:28 PM)
I personally don't deal with many mentally unstable people on a regular basis and I don't know how much experiance Vince has with them but police have many dealings with them. They could probably better assess whether this person was afraid or had other issues.

I don't believe I said it was a foregone conclusion, it is a possibility. There are a lot of unknown facts in this case. The article says "A clerk at a convenience store near the hospital suffered a small cut on his hand prior to that fatal shooting, and an officer suffered minor injuries at the scene." Was the officer injured before, after, or during the shooting? How or who injured the officer? The article also says "The man then either lunged at the officer, or was pushed from behind, Vince said. That's when the officer fired three shots in succession." So is it possible that a mentally unstable person lunged at an officer with two pairs of scissors after being told repeatedly to drop them? Until further facts are revealed we don't know exactly what happened. I'm just trying to give another perspective from the majority conclusion in this thread.

rick.gladwin - February 14, 2012 08:00 AM (GMT)
1. I don't trust cops as far as I can throw them. Personal reasons.
2. Someone who's mentally unstable who has a weapon constitutes a deadly threat.

These guys don't get paid to get stabbed. They get paid to uphold law and public safety, as far as they can.

Every single one of us has a limit, a point where our perspective goes from leaning to the side of compassion to the side of self-preservation. It's easy for us to sit behind a keyboard and claim that the situation could have ended differently if only the cops had handled things better. But I suspect the hard truth of it is that for most of us, compassion would have given way to self (and public) preservation long before it did on the day in question.

And if it were any of you under threat, or anyone else I care about, I wouldn't have it any other way. Fact.

Shaughno - February 14, 2012 01:27 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (rick.gladwin @ Feb 14 2012, 04:00 AM)
1. I don't trust cops as far as I can throw them. Personal reasons.
2. Someone who's mentally unstable who has a weapon constitutes a deadly threat.

These guys don't get paid to get stabbed. They get paid to uphold law and public safety, as far as they can.

Every single one of us has a limit, a point where our perspective goes from leaning to the side of compassion to the side of self-preservation. It's easy for us to sit behind a keyboard and claim that the situation could have ended differently if only the cops had handled things better. But I suspect the hard truth of it is that for most of us, compassion would have given way to self (and public) preservation long before it did on the day in question.

And if it were any of you under threat, or anyone else I care about, I wouldn't have it any other way. Fact.

Well said Rick. I've had bad run-ins with the police, who hasn't really. My trust in the police, has little to no effect on the fact that I want them to do their job to the best of their ability. If that means shooting a mental patient who's holding a weapon and possibly attacking people... so be it.

Having dealt with some crazies before, they can be almost super human at times and have no concept of reality, good/bad, etc. obviously depending on many circumstances. Problem is, you can't know exactly what that person is thinking at that time, or whether they are thinking at all. If someone is weilding two potentially dangerous weapons, not responding to the police's requests and continues to move towards people/police officers, what else would you suggest they do?

davidcfs - February 14, 2012 03:23 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Shaughno @ Feb 14 2012, 08:27 AM)
QUOTE (rick.gladwin @ Feb 14 2012, 04:00 AM)
1. I don't trust cops as far as I can throw them. Personal reasons.
2. Someone who's mentally unstable who has a weapon constitutes a deadly threat.

These guys don't get paid to get stabbed. They get paid to uphold law and public safety, as far as they can.

Every single one of us has a limit, a point where our perspective goes from leaning to the side of compassion to the side of self-preservation. It's easy for us to sit behind a keyboard and claim that the situation could have ended differently if only the cops had handled things better. But I suspect the hard truth of it is that for most of us, compassion would have given way to self (and public) preservation long before it did on the day in question.

And if it were any of you under threat, or anyone else I care about, I wouldn't have it any other way. Fact.

Well said Rick. I've had bad run-ins with the police, who hasn't really. My trust in the police, has little to no effect on the fact that I want them to do their job to the best of their ability. If that means shooting a mental patient who's holding a weapon and possibly attacking people... so be it.

Having dealt with some crazies before, they can be almost super human at times and have no concept of reality, good/bad, etc. obviously depending on many circumstances. Problem is, you can't know exactly what that person is thinking at that time, or whether they are thinking at all. If someone is weilding two potentially dangerous weapons, not responding to the police's requests and continues to move towards people/police officers, what else would you suggest they do?

This guy wearing a hospital gown and holding two pairs of scissors. He was not wearing a trench coat or carrying a hunting knife. Police officers should be better trained to deal with the mentally unstable before they decide to rip three holes in their chest. If some of you don't agree, may I ask: where do we draw the line of when it is okay to fire at someone or not? If a 14 year old with autism behaved similarly would they suffer the same fate?

Last time I checked, and I could be terribly wrong, police officers have more than just guns available to defend themselves. Or are they just saving the pepper spray for peaceful protesters?

Enterprise Captain - February 14, 2012 03:33 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (davidcfs @ Feb 14 2012, 10:23 AM)
This guy wearing a hospital gown and holding two pairs of scissors. He was not wearing a trench coat or carrying a hunting knife. Police officers should be better trained to deal with the mentally unstable before they decide to rip three holes in their chest. If some of you don't agree, may I ask: where do we draw the line of when it is okay to fire at someone or not? If a 14 year old with autism behaved similarly would they suffer the same fate?

Last time I checked, and I could be terribly wrong, police officers have more than just guns available to defend themselves. Or are they just saving the pepper spray for peaceful protesters?

Scissors can be just as dangerous as a hunting knife. Was the officer that this guy lunged at male or female? How big was this guy? 6' 200lbs. or 300lbs.? How big was the officer? 5' 4" female 150lbs? How windy was it that day? Pepper spray isn't very effective if it's going to blow back in to your face or if you try to use it in an enclosed space.

herthabsc - February 14, 2012 04:01 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (rick.gladwin @ Feb 14 2012, 04:00 AM)
Every single one of us has a limit, a point where our perspective goes from leaning to the side of compassion to the side of self-preservation. It's easy for us to sit behind a keyboard and claim that the situation could have ended differently if only the cops had handled things better. But I suspect the hard truth of it is that for most of us, compassion would have given way to self (and public) preservation long before it did on the day in question.

As far as I'm concerned, that's a false equivalency.

You and I (and other non-law enforcement types) are not permitted to carry firearms, use guns, tazers, pepper spray, billy clubs or handcuffs on our fellow citizens. You and I do not have the automatic right to choose to take lives as necessary in our line of work, nor have we had the rigorous physical and psychological training and screening to make sure we are trustable to make those choices.

Police officers are endowed by society with rights to commit wide-ranging and often severe acts of violence against their fellow citizens on the basis that it serves a wider public good. When the balance is correctly maintained, I believe that it does serve such a good (ie I'm not an automatic ACAB type, or anti-police per se).

But in an instance where it looks fairly implausible that there was a greater public good being served in putting 3 bullets in a mentally ill man with scissors, as it does that there was a clear case of self-defense requiring killing on the part of the officer, I think we're right to be extremely skeptical. All the moreso in a city that has had a steady run of stories over the past decade that suggest that police killed people who were not a threat. This is not the first such incident.

And furthermore, in all but the most clearcut cases where police kill people I think we (as society) are morally obligated to put the burden of proof entirely on the police officer in question to justify their decision to kill someone. That is the logical quid pro quo of having a unique right to kill one's fellow citizens.

So the question asked should not be "what would I do in his shoes?", because I am not a police officer. Rather, it should be "am I comfortable that this was a situation that required the killing of one of my fellow citizens?" It's interesting how often we hear the former, and how infrequently the latter.

ThisIsAnfield - February 14, 2012 06:06 PM (GMT)
Does that article not imply the man killed had already attacked a convenience store clerk and a police officer prior to being shot?

Hmm.

Sounds to me like the folks who allowed him to leave the hospital are responsible for his death. Whether that be the doctors, the nurses, or hospital security. As soon as he's out there he's no longer safe from the police or the many people in our society who prey on the weak.

Of course, they're overworked and underpaid, so it's not their fault either.

I'll put the blame for this one solely at the feet of whatever creator people always give the credit for good stuff to. This man's death is all on you, Gawd.

nfitz - February 14, 2012 06:16 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (ThisIsAnfield @ Feb 14 2012, 01:06 PM)
Does that article not imply the man killed had already attacked a convenience store clerk and a police officer prior to being shot?

Hmm.

Sounds to me like the folks who allowed him to leave the hospital are responsible for his death. Whether that be the doctors, the nurses, or hospital security. As soon as he's out there he's no longer safe from the police or the many people in our society who prey on the weak.

Of course, they're overworked and underpaid, so it's not their fault either.

I'll put the blame for this one solely at the feet of whatever creator people always give the credit for good stuff to. This man's death is all on you, Gawd.

With injuries so minor, that they didn't require any medical attention. The man was clearly terrified. I don't think 3 bullets to the head was the solution.

Is our police force so poorly trained they couldn't have aimed for his leg?

Is our police force so poorly equipped that they own a noise cannon and horses, but don't own a taser?

People seem too quick to ignore police incompetence. There's along history of Toronto police executing mentally ill people, rather than using less deadly force.

If he was waving a gun around, I can see the point. But a pair of scissors ... really?

Enterprise Captain - February 14, 2012 06:21 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (herthabsc @ Feb 14 2012, 11:01 AM)
"am I comfortable that this was a situation that required the killing of one of my fellow citizens?"

I'm not comfortable answering that question with out further knowledge of the facts in this case which has been my point all along. One article from the Toronto Star, make me an expert, it does not.

QUOTE (nfitz @ Feb 14 2012, 01:16 PM)

The man was clearly terrified.

Were you there to witness that?

QUOTE (nfitz @ Feb 14 2012, 01:16 PM)
I don't think 3 bullets to the head was the solution.

How do you know this person was shot in the head?

QUOTE (nfitz @ Feb 14 2012, 01:16 PM)
Is our police force so poorly trained they couldn't have aimed for his leg?

I've taken a Use of Force course taught by a retired police officer and police are trained to shot for centre of mass in a human beings case that is the torso.

QUOTE (nfitz @ Feb 14 2012, 01:16 PM)

Is our police force so poorly equipped that they own a noise cannon and horses, but don't own a taser?

Good question. Was a taser an available option for this officer? If so how effective would it have been in this situation? Pepper spray, tazers, and firearms all have limitations. I'm not an expert on when to use which, are you?

QUOTE (nfitz @ Feb 14 2012, 01:16 PM)
People seem too quick to ignore police incompetence.

People seem too quick to judge this officers actions based on a Toronto Star article that is missing many crucial pieces of information to make a proper judgment in this case.

QUOTE (nfitz @ Feb 14 2012, 01:16 PM)
There's along history of Toronto police executing mentally ill people, rather than using less deadly force.

Please provide references.

north york - February 14, 2012 06:31 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (ThisIsAnfield @ Feb 14 2012, 01:06 PM)
I'll put the blame for this one solely at the feet of whatever creator people always give the credit for good stuff to. This man's death is all on you, Gawd.


"It's all in the game yo."

Shaughno - February 14, 2012 06:46 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (nfitz @ Feb 14 2012, 02:16 PM)
QUOTE (ThisIsAnfield @ Feb 14 2012, 01:06 PM)
Does that article not imply the man killed had already attacked a convenience store clerk and a police officer prior to being shot?

Hmm.

Sounds to me like the folks who allowed him to leave the hospital are responsible for his death.  Whether that be the doctors, the nurses, or hospital security.  As soon as he's out there he's no longer safe from the police or the many people in our society who prey on the weak.

Of course, they're overworked and underpaid, so it's not their fault either.

I'll put the blame for this one solely at the feet of whatever creator people always give the credit for good stuff to.  This man's death is all on you, Gawd.

With injuries so minor, that they didn't require any medical attention. The man was clearly terrified. I don't think 3 bullets to the head was the solution.

Is our police force so poorly trained they couldn't have aimed for his leg?

Is our police force so poorly equipped that they own a noise cannon and horses, but don't own a taser?

People seem too quick to ignore police incompetence. There's along history of Toronto police executing mentally ill people, rather than using less deadly force.

If he was waving a gun around, I can see the point. But a pair of scissors ... really?

I don't know the facts of the case, so I don't know where he was shot or anything else really other than what has been said in this thread....


...but my understanding is they are trained to aim for the torso as it's the biggest area, and less chance of you missing and hitting something/one else.

As for the taser bit, who knows, but I've seen people tasered by 2-3 cops and still keep charging towards them. People can do some fucking crazy things when high, mentally ill, etc. Some of that includes feeling zero pain, and at times, strength beyond any mans strength. Point in case, I saw 3 cops take down a crackhead that was 150lbs at max. They struggled, for about 5 minutes, before they finally got him down onto the ground. Shit gets crazy, and we have no real idea what they are trained to do, or what we would do in similar situations.

Here's a question for you. Three shots were fired at this guy. Was it three in succession? Like "PopPopPop" three quick shots all one after the other? Or was it one shot, then another, then another? These details make a MASSIVE difference in how it all played out.

If it's found to be that the cop was in the wrong, and could and should have used different methods to subdue the patient, then I hope he gets any and all reprocussions coming to him.

Furpo - February 14, 2012 06:51 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Enterprise Captain @ Feb 13 2012, 03:28 PM)
I personally don't deal with many mentally unstable people on a regular basis and I don't know how much experiance Vince has with them but police have many dealings with them.

I work with people who have serious mental illnesses on a daily basis. Even as an accountant at a community mental health agency I have had far better preparation than the police. If an incident arises where I work it is invariably dealt with quickly and effectively. Force is never needed. This is possible because all staff have good training and know exactly what to do as a team. (Incidents, I should add, are very rare: there is no inevitable correlation between violence and mental illness.)

The police make schoolboy errors. For example, in the latest incident a witness reported that 'the dazed-looking man was surrounded by shouting officers'. You do not surround, and you do not shout. This sort of paramilitary response will worsen any situation. But sadly it's how North American police perceive themselves, rather than as public servants.

The situation is very poor at the moment, but there is at least greater awareness of the need for specialized training. The introduction of Mental Health Mobile Crisis Teams is very helpful, though they could be better staffed and deployed. Deaths haven't made this a priority, perhaps a conviction will.



ThisIsAnfield - February 14, 2012 06:53 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (nfitz @ Feb 14 2012, 02:16 PM)
QUOTE (ThisIsAnfield @ Feb 14 2012, 01:06 PM)
Does that article not imply the man killed had already attacked a convenience store clerk and a police officer prior to being shot?

Hmm.

Sounds to me like the folks who allowed him to leave the hospital are responsible for his death.  Whether that be the doctors, the nurses, or hospital security.  As soon as he's out there he's no longer safe from the police or the many people in our society who prey on the weak.

Of course, they're overworked and underpaid, so it's not their fault either.

I'll put the blame for this one solely at the feet of whatever creator people always give the credit for good stuff to.  This man's death is all on you, Gawd.

With injuries so minor, that they didn't require any medical attention. The man was clearly terrified. I don't think 3 bullets to the head was the solution.

Is our police force so poorly trained they couldn't have aimed for his leg?

Is our police force so poorly equipped that they own a noise cannon and horses, but don't own a taser?

People seem too quick to ignore police incompetence. There's along history of Toronto police executing mentally ill people, rather than using less deadly force.

If he was waving a gun around, I can see the point. But a pair of scissors ... really?

I'll also await your response to EC's retort.

Though I want to mention it's amusing the same sort of people demanding police stop using tasers altogether also demand to know why they or some other form of non-lethal weapon wasn't used in cases like these.

Tasers are bad, but when guns are badder tasers are good. :huh:

It about sums up the way a lot of people think they think: without really thinking. :lol:

If the "victim" here has a side, I'm sure the family so far maintaining silence will share it.

Enterprise Captain - February 14, 2012 07:28 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Furpo @ Feb 14 2012, 01:51 PM)
QUOTE (Enterprise Captain @ Feb 13 2012, 03:28 PM)
I personally don't deal with many mentally unstable people on a regular basis and I don't know how much experiance Vince has with them but police have many dealings with them.

I work with people who have serious mental illnesses on a daily basis. Even as an accountant at a community mental health agency I have had far better preparation than the police. If an incident arises where I work it is invariably dealt with quickly and effectively. Force is never needed. This is possible because all staff have good training and know exactly what to do as a team. (Incidents, I should add, are very rare: there is no inevitable correlation between violence and mental illness.)

The police make schoolboy errors. For example, in the latest incident a witness reported that 'the dazed-looking man was surrounded by shouting officers'. You do not surround, and you do not shout. This sort of paramilitary response will worsen any situation. But sadly it's how North American police perceive themselves, rather than as public servants.

The situation is very poor at the moment, but there is at least greater awareness of the need for specialized training. The introduction of Mental Health Mobile Crisis Teams is very helpful, though they could be better staffed and deployed. Deaths haven't made this a priority, perhaps a conviction will.

We don't know if this person was mentally ill. I apologize I was just using it as an example of a possibility. Perhaps he was high and being treated for drug addiction, we don't know and that is the point. Like Shaughno I've heard of stories were people have "lost their minds" for lack of a better term due to whatever, drugs, etc. and gain "superhuman" strength. We don't know how much of a danger this guys was because we don't know all the facts, we weren't there to witness it and that is the main point. Whether police require better training with mentally ill people is another debate and may or may not be relevant to this case.

Furpo - February 14, 2012 08:54 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Enterprise Captain @ Feb 14 2012, 02:28 PM)
QUOTE (Furpo @ Feb 14 2012, 01:51 PM)
QUOTE (Enterprise Captain @ Feb 13 2012, 03:28 PM)
I personally don't deal with many mentally unstable people on a regular basis and I don't know how much experiance Vince has with them but police have many dealings with them.

I work with people who have serious mental illnesses on a daily basis. Even as an accountant at a community mental health agency I have had far better preparation than the police. If an incident arises where I work it is invariably dealt with quickly and effectively. Force is never needed. This is possible because all staff have good training and know exactly what to do as a team. (Incidents, I should add, are very rare: there is no inevitable correlation between violence and mental illness.)

The police make schoolboy errors. For example, in the latest incident a witness reported that 'the dazed-looking man was surrounded by shouting officers'. You do not surround, and you do not shout. This sort of paramilitary response will worsen any situation. But sadly it's how North American police perceive themselves, rather than as public servants.

The situation is very poor at the moment, but there is at least greater awareness of the need for specialized training. The introduction of Mental Health Mobile Crisis Teams is very helpful, though they could be better staffed and deployed. Deaths haven't made this a priority, perhaps a conviction will.

We don't know if this person was mentally ill. I apologize I was just using it as an example of a possibility. Perhaps he was high and being treated for drug addiction, we don't know and that is the point. Like Shaughno I've heard of stories were people have "lost their minds" for lack of a better term due to whatever, drugs, etc. and gain "superhuman" strength. We don't know how much of a danger this guys was because we don't know all the facts, we weren't there to witness it and that is the main point. Whether police require better training with mentally ill people is another debate and may or may not be relevant to this case.

But the crisis de-escalation techniques used with mentally ill people are the same as those used on prisoners, rioters, football crowds, angry customers, impatient travellers, any situation where you are trying to calm things down and avoid damage to person or property. (You may recall police assigned to BMO Field were supposed to receive special training). Those techniques should have been used on this man. They clearly weren't, possibly because the police frequently do not attempt to de-escalate. It's the hammer and nail problem. The police also didn't 'know' how much of a danger this man was. Does that mean you assume the worst and shoot?

Yes, we weren't there to witness it, but we know enough about police procedures and policy to comment. Besides, are we sure the SIU and police will conduct an open and honest investigation? They might, but a fundamental problem is that the bar for shooting is just too low:

"Deputy Chief Mike Federico explained when police encounter someone carrying a deadly weapon like a knife, “they’re expected, empowered, authorized and trained to use an appropriate use of force” to control and contain the situation."

They are expected to use "appropriate" force. As the SIU remind us after each death, shooting someone is entirely appropriate. What do the London police do I wonder? Or the general public for that matter?

nfitz - February 14, 2012 10:58 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (ThisIsAnfield @ Feb 14 2012, 01:53 PM)
I'll also await your response to EC's retort.

... cause I've got nothing better to do than go through the media articles relating to this, and find all the references that answer most of the questions. Okay, I'm exaggerating about the head shot.

Clearly executing mental patients isn't the way society is supposed to work. The guy was surrounded by ten police officers (or almost a dozen in a different report), and the solution is opening fire on him? That's not professional. Hopefully the murderer is dismissed. If a single officer was threatened by someone running at them with scissors pointing at them ... that might be different. But a guy who was walking at the police with the handles pointing at them, rather than the blade?

And really ... we don't know he was mentally ill? Because all the media reports reporting he was a dazed and scared looking patient running around in the middle of winter wearing a hospital gown raises questions to this?

This could have been dealt with better.



nfitz - February 14, 2012 11:10 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Shaughno @ Feb 14 2012, 01:46 PM)
Three shots were fired at this guy. Was it three in succession? Like "PopPopPop" three quick shots all one after the other? Or was it one shot, then another, then another? These details make a MASSIVE difference in how it all played out.

The news report says a witness clearly said "the officer fired three shots in succession ... (and) then stomping on Eligon, pinning his head to the ground."

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/...al-gown-witness

Surely if the guy who called over the cops, and witnessed them kill the victim has qualms about how the police acted, then we should too.

nfitz - February 14, 2012 11:21 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Enterprise Captain @ Feb 14 2012, 01:21 PM)
Please provide references.

This is at least the third case like this in Toronto in 6 months:

Sylvia Klibingaitis in October - http://www.torontosun.com/2011/10/10/help-...re-its-too-late

Charles McGillivary in August - http://www.torontosun.com/2011/08/09/death...-police-service

There was also that police shooting of someone who was mentally ill at Yonge/Shuter in September - http://www.torontosun.com/2011/09/19/man-s...-police-officer however he lived, and it was reported that he was charging at a single officer with a knife ... so I can see self-defence could well be justified.

The whole thing just doesn't seem right.


Enterprise Captain - February 15, 2012 07:28 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Furpo @ Feb 14 2012, 02:28 PM)
But the crisis de-escalation techniques used with mentally ill people are the same as those used on prisoners, rioters, football crowds, angry customers, impatient travellers, any situation where you are trying to calm things down and avoid damage to person or property. (You may recall police assigned to BMO Field were supposed to receive special training). Those techniques should have been used on this man. They clearly weren't, possibly because the police frequently do not attempt to de-escalate. It's the hammer and nail problem.

I'm confused by this statement. Are you saying police officers use only one technique to de-escalate situations?

QUOTE (Furpo @ Feb 14 2012, 02:28 PM)
The police also didn't 'know' how much of a danger this man was. Does that mean you assume the worst and shoot?

This is a good question. How do you know how dangerous someone is? Police often respond to calls with very little information given to them and they have to asses and respond to things on scene that can unfold in a matter of seconds. The article says "Officers were yelling: "He's got a knife. He's got a knife. Drop the knife." The man then either lunged at the officer, or was pushed from behind, Vince said. That's when the officer fired three shots in succession." How fast did this all happen? The guy was instructed to drop his weapon, it appears he did not and then possibly lunged at an officer.

QUOTE (Furpo @ Feb 14 2012, 02:28 PM)
Yes, we weren't there to witness it, but we know enough about police procedures and policy to comment.

We are free to comment but do we really know enough about police procedures and policy? I know a few things but I don't know enough to conduct a proper investigation.

QUOTE (Furpo @ Feb 14 2012, 02:28 PM)
Besides, are we sure the SIU and police will conduct an open and honest investigation? They might

If you have concerns with the SIU's investigative process perhaps you should take your concerns to them.

QUOTE (Furpo @ Feb 14 2012, 02:28 PM)
a fundamental problem is that the bar for shooting is just too low:

"Deputy Chief Mike Federico explained when police encounter someone carrying a deadly weapon like a knife, “they’re expected, empowered, authorized and trained to use an appropriate use of force” to control and contain the situation."

They are expected to use "appropriate" force. As the SIU remind us after each death, shooting someone is entirely appropriate.

Actually the Criminal Code of Canada's definition for self defense is as follows:

Defence of Person

Self-defence against unprovoked assault

(1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

Extent of justification

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

The key words in that definition are "no more then is necessary." They were actually changed from "as much as necessary." Deputy Chief Mike Federico's comment is not implying that it is always expectable to shoot someone. He is saying that police officers are trained to use the appropriate amount of force based on the situation.

QUOTE (Furpo @ Feb 14 2012, 02:28 PM)
What do the London police do I wonder?

I don't know.

QUOTE (Furpo @ Feb 14 2012, 02:28 PM)
Or the general public for that matter?

Call the police like Vince did.

QUOTE (nfitz @ Feb 14 2012, 05:58 PM)
Okay, I'm exaggerating about the head shot. But a guy who was walking at the police with the handles pointing at them, rather than the blade?

Where does it say that?

QUOTE (nfitz @ Feb 14 2012, 06:10 PM)
Surely if the guy who called over the cops, and witnessed them kill the victim has qualms about how the police acted, then we should too.

I'm just curious why Vince called the police in the first place? If this guy was not such a big threat why did Vince not confront him, himself?

QUOTE (nfitz @ Feb 14 2012, 06:21 PM)
Sylvia Klibingaitis in October - http://www.torontosun.com/2011/10/10/help-...re-its-too-late
QUOTE (nfitz @ Feb 14 2012, 06:21 PM)
Charles McGillivary in August - http://www.torontosun.com/2011/08/09/death...-police-service
QUOTE (nfitz @ Feb 14 2012, 06:21 PM)
There was also that police shooting of someone who was mentally ill at Yonge/Shuter in September - http://www.torontosun.com/2011/09/19/man-s...-police-officer
however he lived, and it was reported that he was charging at a single officer with a knife ... so I can see self-defence could well be justified.
QUOTE (nfitz @ Feb 14 2012, 06:21 PM)
The whole thing just doesn't seem right.

Like I said to Furpo perhaps you should take your concerns to the SIU.

ThisIsAnfield - February 15, 2012 09:00 PM (GMT)
Good point, EC. Why did Vince not handle the situation himself if he's an expert on how it should have been handled? If the guy in a gown with scissors was just confused, what warranted a call to the cops instead of the hospital? No wonder he feels responsible, by his own account he is. At the very least he's a giant coward and a liar.

Anyway, I stand by my original assertion that this is either solely the hospital staff and security's fault or a tragic accident, nothing more.

I assume like all hospitals in the province this one was required to have trained security and staff that is trained to contact that security when the situation warrants it.

Every article indicates that police were already dispatched to the area responding to this. Who (other than the convenience store clerk) contacted the police and who advised them to treat him dangerously? I bet it's not a wild assumption to put that on the hospital staff and security, no?

Furpo - February 15, 2012 11:13 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Enterprise Captain @ Feb 15 2012, 02:28 PM)
QUOTE (Furpo @ Feb 14 2012, 02:28 PM)
But the crisis de-escalation techniques used with mentally ill people are the same as those used on prisoners, rioters, football crowds, angry customers, impatient travellers, any situation where you are trying to calm things down and avoid damage to person or property. (You may recall police assigned to BMO Field were supposed to receive special training). Those techniques should have been used on this man. They clearly weren't, possibly because the police frequently do not attempt to de-escalate. It's the hammer and nail problem.

I'm confused by this statement. Are you saying police officers use only one technique to de-escalate situations?

QUOTE (Furpo @ Feb 14 2012, 02:28 PM)
The police also didn't 'know' how much of a danger this man was. Does that mean you assume the worst and shoot?

This is a good question. How do you know how dangerous someone is?....3. Police often respond to calls with very little information given to them and they have to asses and respond to things on scene that can unfold in a matter of seconds. The article says "Officers were yelling: "He's got a knife. He's got a knife. Drop the knife." The man then either lunged at the officer, or was pushed from behind, Vince said. That's when the officer fired three shots in succession." How fast did this all happen? The guy was instructed to drop his weapon, it appears he did not and then possibly lunged at an officer.

QUOTE (Furpo @ Feb 14 2012, 02:28 PM)
Yes, we weren't there to witness it, but we know enough about police procedures and policy to comment.

We are free to comment but do we really know enough about police procedures and policy? I know a few things but I don't know enough to conduct a proper investigation.

QUOTE (Furpo @ Feb 14 2012, 02:28 PM)
Besides, are we sure the SIU and police will conduct an open and honest investigation? They might

If you have concerns with the SIU's investigative process perhaps you should take your concerns to them.

QUOTE (Furpo @ Feb 14 2012, 02:28 PM)
a fundamental problem is that the bar for shooting is just too low:

"Deputy Chief Mike Federico explained when police encounter someone carrying a deadly weapon like a knife, “they’re expected, empowered, authorized and trained to use an appropriate use of force” to control and contain the situation."

They are expected to use "appropriate" force. As the SIU remind us after each death, shooting someone is entirely appropriate.

Actually the Criminal Code of Canada's definition for self defense is as follows:

Defence of Person

Self-defence against unprovoked assault

(1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

Extent of justification

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

The key words in that definition are "no more then is necessary." They were actually changed from "as much as necessary." Deputy Chief Mike Federico's comment is not implying that it is always expectable to shoot someone. He is saying that police officers are trained to use the appropriate amount of force based on the situation.

In order of your questions:

1. There are basic principles to de-escalation, two of which are do not surround and do not shout. If, however, you wish instead to employ your one clear advantage, i.e. force, you will probably provoke.

2. How dangerous is someone? Really, the officer was that close that a lunge was threatening? It just smacks of terrible self-defense. But again, if you've got a gun you don't need to know much about subduing someone or talking them down.

3. I only know what the police say. And they do acknowledge this is a problem area. (By this I mean shootings of people with mental illness by police. I am assuming the man was not compos mentis at the time.)

4. I'll politely assume you're joking about the SIU complaints procedure.

5. A reasonable law. But in all of the deaths in recent years the officers reasonably believed they were in danger of death or grievous bodily harm? That beggars belief: “ 'While the death of Ms. Klibingaitis is a tragic event, in my view, the subject officer was justified in discharging his firearm because he had a reasonable apprehension of death or serious bodily harm with no escape,' the SIU boss said". It seems a little odd that a police officer couldn't outrun a granny, especially one with a history of mental illness (and the physical deterioration that usually accompanies it). I ask you to read reports of those shootings in proper newspapers and seriously ask yourself, was there really no way for the officer to avoid death or grievous harm?





Furpo - February 15, 2012 11:21 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Enterprise Captain @ Feb 15 2012, 02:28 PM)
QUOTE (Furpo @ Feb 14 2012, 02:28 PM)
Besides, are we sure the SIU and police will conduct an open and honest investigation?

If you have concerns with the SIU's investigative process perhaps you should take your concerns to them.

Ombudsman slams SIU bias

If they don't listen to the Ontario Ombudsman I don't imagine they will listen to me:

In a scathing 121-page report, Marin hammered the SIU for allowing the police to control its investigations and adopting an "impotent stance" when challenged by police.

"There's no doubt in my mind that an SIU investigation is one which is currently done through blue-coloured glasses. There is no doubt that there is a police bias in their approach to investigations," Marin said at Queen's Park yesterday.

"The SIU has not only become complacent about ensuring that police officials follow the rules, it has bought into the fallacious argument that SIU investigations aren't like other criminal cases and it is acceptable to treat police witnesses differently from civilians," the report said.

bizzo steve - February 16, 2012 01:21 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Furpo @ Feb 15 2012, 06:21 PM)
QUOTE (Enterprise Captain @ Feb 15 2012, 02:28 PM)
QUOTE (Furpo @ Feb 14 2012, 02:28 PM)
Besides, are we sure the SIU and police will conduct an open and honest investigation?

If you have concerns with the SIU's investigative process perhaps you should take your concerns to them.

Ombudsman slams SIU bias

If they don't listen to the Ontario Ombudsman I don't imagine they will listen to me:

In a scathing 121-page report, Marin hammered the SIU for allowing the police to control its investigations and adopting an "impotent stance" when challenged by police.

"There's no doubt in my mind that an SIU investigation is one which is currently done through blue-coloured glasses. There is no doubt that there is a police bias in their approach to investigations," Marin said at Queen's Park yesterday.

"The SIU has not only become complacent about ensuring that police officials follow the rules, it has bought into the fallacious argument that SIU investigations aren't like other criminal cases and it is acceptable to treat police witnesses differently from civilians," the report said.



Funny you should write about the SIU.

In this article:

http://espn.go.com/espn/page2/story/_/id/7...life-care-admit

Gregg Easterbrook writes:

Internal Affairs is the most frequent mid-episode complication. In the real world, Internal Affairs departments avert their eyes from misconduct; on procedurals, the Rat Squad is devoted single-mindedly to shutting down cops. In "The Closer," a final-season subplot is the effort of Internal Affairs to take away the badge of the protagonist -- though she has cleared every case she's ever been assigned, and pretty much single-handedly rid Los Angeles of crime.

Easterbrook links to this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/nyregion...tself.html?_r=1

Of course in Toronto there are worse examples in the news of Police getting away with crimes. (Let's just hope those cops don't go by a school anytime soon, wired kids with scissors are a common sight).

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/...ng-officer-says

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1121235

And this:

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/...gal-search?bn=1


davidcfs - February 16, 2012 02:39 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (ThisIsAnfield @ Feb 15 2012, 04:00 PM)
I assume like all hospitals in the province this one was required to have trained security and staff that is trained to contact that security when the situation warrants it.

East General is a cluster fuck of a hospital. I wouldn't expect much from them.

ontarioiron - February 16, 2012 10:27 PM (GMT)
In the womans case the appropriate response to a knife attack is the billy club striking the arm of the attacker, breaking the arm if need be... they were forewarned by her own 911 call and a drawn gun should of only been the backup...

Enterprise Captain - February 23, 2012 07:07 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
A Toronto police officer has been charged with second-degree murder in the 2010 shooting death of a 26-year-old man.

The province’s Special Investigations Unit (SIU) announced Thursday it had upgraded its manslaughter charge against Const. David Cavanaugh after consulting with the Crown.

It’s the first time an officer in the city has been charged with murder for actions that happened on duty.

It’s alleged Cavanagh shot Eric Osawe during an early-morning raid at an apartment near Kipling and Bloor on Sept. 29, 2010.

Osawe was pronounced dead shortly after arriving at St. Michael Hospital.

A preliminary inquiry will begin on Oct. 1 in the College Park courts.

During the 2010 raid, police arrested a second Toronto man, 23-year-old Ebony Osawe, and charged him with several weapons offences.

The SIU is an arm’s length agency which investigates cases involving police where there has been death, serious injury or allegations of sexual assault.

bizzo steve - March 30, 2012 02:22 AM (GMT)


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinio...article2375587/

Read all three parts and discuss on your journey to Montreal.

BrennanFan - July 30, 2013 08:01 PM (GMT)
Happens again and again and again in this town.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi4In494rAg

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toront...rticle13476777/


Our tax dollars at work.




* Hosted for free by zIFBoards