Sammy Vatim Shooting Verdict

[Malthus]

This is an odd one.

The story, in summary: Sammy Yatim got on a streetcar, high as a kite on X; he whipped out his dick, and a knife; everyone ran off the streetcar.

Cops showed up. The first cop on the scene drew his gun and ordered Sammy to drop the knife. Sammy refused. The cop ordered Sammy not to step forward. Sammy stepped forward. The cop shot Sammy three times. Sammy collapsed. A few seconds later, the cop shot at Sammy - six more times (one missed). Sammy died. Later, it turned out that one of the first three severed his spine. Cop claimed he shot Sammy again because he looked like he was getting up.   

Cop went on trial. The jury delivered its verdict: the cop was not guilty of anything for the first three shots; guilty of attempted murder for firing the following six.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/jury-has-reached-verdict-in-trial-of-toronto-cop-charged-with-murder

What do you guys think?

[dps]

It's bullshit.  Sammy's dead at the cop's hand.  It was either murder or a justified shooting;  it can't be attempted murder.

[Malthus]

It's bullshit.  Sammy's dead at the cop's hand.  It was either murder or a justified shooting;  it can't be attempted murder.

It certainly seems very odd. I'd be interested in BB's take.

Without knowing the legal details, it looks the Crown divided the charges into "murder" for the first three, and "attempted murder" for the following six. Why they did that, I dunno. The jury is saying that the first three were justified but the following six were not - which is fair enough, but does that really ad up to "attempted murder"?

[grumbler]

It's bullshit.  Sammy's dead at the cop's hand.  It was either murder or a justified shooting;  it can't be attempted murder.

It certainly seems very odd. I'd be interested in BB's take.

Without knowing the legal details, it looks the Crown divided the charges into "murder" for the first three, and "attempted murder" for the following six. Why they did that, I dunno. The jury is saying that the first three were justified but the following six were not - which is fair enough, but does that really ad up to "attempted murder"?

I am also interested in hearing BB's take on this. I am sure there was some water cooler talk in his office about this.

[MadImmortalMan]

Even trained cops can miss at close range when jacked on adrenaline.

[alfred russel]

Maybe a jury deal, but it can make logical sense. The first three shots were justified, and probably fatal. The other shots were unjustified, the guy incapacitated, and the only purpose was to try to kill him.

[Malthus]

Maybe a jury deal, but it can make logical sense. The first three shots were justified, and probably fatal. The other shots were unjustified, the guy incapacitated, and the only purpose was to try to kill him.

Makes a kind of sense. It just strikes me as unusual to convict someone for attempted murder, when the victim was definitely killed by that person.

[The Minsky Moment]

If one of the first three shots caused death, then the following six shots could not have been the cause of death.  Thus if the first three shots were justified, no murder.  If the following six shots were unjustified, still no murder assuming causing death is an element.

[DGuller]

Is the keyword here "attempted"?  Or that you can be guilty for some shots and not guilty for others?

[LaCroix]

I know this concept was talked about in torts class. can't remember if a crim professor mentioned it too. but yeah, minsky has it. why would the six bullets constitute murder if they didn't murder the guy?

[alfred russel]

If one of the first three shots caused death, then the following six shots could not have been the cause of death.  Thus if the first three shots were justified, no murder.  If the following six shots were unjustified, still no murder assuming causing death is an element.

If you are saying the second 6 shots couldn't have killed him because the first three shots did, is it attempted murder to try to kill a dead guy?

[DGuller]

Hypothetical example:  I sneak into someone's bedroom at night, take out my silenced pistol, and fire 5 .22 shots into the target's head.  Because it was dark, I did not realize that one hour earlier someone already strangled my target to death.  Am I in the clear?  Let me know ASAP.

[The Minsky Moment]

In the US this would be framed as whether there is a viable impossibility defense for the "inchoate crime" of attempt.  I.e. I may have tried to kill him unlawfully (attempt) but failed because he was already dead.

In New York a leading case is People v. Dlugash - similar sort of facts where the defendant shot the victim in the head even though already fatally wounded.  Court ruled guilt could be sustained if the shooter believed the victim was still alive at the moment of the shots, even if he was already dead or would have died anyway.

[CountDeMoney]

You use the force necessary to reduce, eliminate or otherwise neutralize a threat based on its urgency, severity and the ability of the suspect to offer resistance.

If three rounds puts a threat on the ground, he is on the ground and the threat environment has now changed.  Still a threat?  Of course, to some degree.  But still possessing the same threat level that warranted the application of deadly force in the first place?  That's a tough sell.

So no, I don't buy the "because he looked like he was getting up" argument as a good and compelling reason to continue employing the same level of deadly force.  I have seen my share of individuals with very recently introduced bullets in them, and with rare exception they are surprisingly preoccupied with their blood lead levels.

Contrary to popular belief among law enforcement officers, employing deadly force does not--surprise!--actually require death to be the only outcome.  But no, let's just skip that whole continuum of force thing and all that reasonable and objective threat evaluation stuff we learned about in the Police Academy movies. 

[dps]

If one of the first three shots caused death, then the following six shots could not have been the cause of death.  Thus if the first three shots were justified, no murder.  If the following six shots were unjustified, still no murder assuming causing death is an element.

But from what was posted, the first 3 shots weren't determined to have caused his death.  It says that his spine was severed, but that's not necessarily fatal.  Sure, he'd be paralyzed, but paralyzed is a bit different from death.  So as I read it, if the second group of shots weren't justified, it was murder, not attempted murder.