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?
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.
Quote from: dps on January 25, 2016, 05:17:27 PM
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"?
Quote from: Malthus on January 25, 2016, 05:23:53 PM
Quote from: dps on January 25, 2016, 05:17:27 PM
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.
Even trained cops can miss at close range when jacked on adrenaline.
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 25, 2016, 06:05:40 PM
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.
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.
Is the keyword here "attempted"? Or that you can be guilty for some shots and not guilty for others?
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?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2016, 07:05:42 PM
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?
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2016, 07:05:42 PM
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.
Quote from: dps on January 25, 2016, 09:16:48 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2016, 07:05:42 PM
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.
From what I understand of the evidence, he had collapsed and was dying when the next set of three shots hit him. The jury seems to have given the officer the benefit of the doubt as to whether the first three shots was the cause of death.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 25, 2016, 07:32:40 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2016, 07:05:42 PM
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?
That's a law school classic. You pump bullets into an already dead body, believing the person is still alive - you're still guilty of attempt murder.
Quote from: Barrister on January 25, 2016, 09:33:14 PM
That's a law school classic. You pump bullets into an already dead body, believing the person is still alive - you're still guilty of attempt murder.
What if you know he's dead and shoot him for emphasis?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 25, 2016, 10:15:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 25, 2016, 09:33:14 PM
That's a law school classic. You pump bullets into an already dead body, believing the person is still alive - you're still guilty of attempt murder.
What if you know he's dead and shoot him for emphasis?
No longer attempt murder. It all has to do with
mens rea.
What if you try to tackle a dead body?
You know, I wonder if Marty meant real tackling, or just tripping somebody with your foot like they do in soccer. :hmm:
I sympathise with the police officer, as he was in a difficult position. I agree that the first three shots were justified. The guy was not stable, he wielded a weapon and refused to obey reasonable orders. But I also have to agree that the next volley was not justified. The guy was down on the floor, no longer a significant threat. There has to be other ways to disarm him other than firing a further six shots at him.
Quote from: Barrister on January 25, 2016, 09:33:14 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 25, 2016, 07:32:40 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2016, 07:05:42 PM
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?
That's a law school classic. You pump bullets into an already dead body, believing the person is still alive - you're still guilty of attempt murder.
I guess what makes this case unusual (at least to me) is the fact that the shooter is the same person who just killed the guy. However, when you guys explain it, it makes sense.
Is the Languish verdict overall that the jury got it right?
Yes what makes this case different from Dlugash or the typical hypothetical is that the person who caused the death is the same person who fired the shots into the already dead (or fatally wounded) victim, AND that the two events are very close in time. So one could argue, e.g., that it is arbitrary to split the event into two groups of shots - rather, look at the entire event - 9 shots which resulted in death and at least some of which were unjustifiable. However, the response to that is that the division between justified and unjustified shots is quite logical, and not arbitrary at all.
More generally, "attempt" crimes are a bit odd because you are punishing someone even though no harm may have resulted from the conduct. But someone who shoots with intent to kill and misses is not engaging in very socially desirable behavior and therefore application of criminal sanctions can be a sensible response. If you accept that proposition, the logic applies just as well to shooting someone who you think is alive but is in fact dead.
The general consenus a day later is that it was a compromise verdict, and that the crown was very shrewd in pushing for an attempted murder verdict by splitting the nine shots into two groups, knowing there was little chance the second degree charge would hold.
In short, to summarize, the jury felt the policeman was justified in firing at him the first time. Once was was incapacitated, the second volley was unwarranted. I think the article says the victim was still alive at that point but the bullets were not fired into areas that would have killed him, and he still died of the earlier shots.
Still a strange decision.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/verdict-forcillo-guilty/article28370386/