221. Trial by YOU-tube

VIEWS@15007

"A chilling message to our members." (Police chief?)

By using a 'real' example I am going to draw an analogy between what in essence could be a comparative of most all self-serving systems. Pick one; pick any...

This  then concerns the Ontario, CA, verdict of the officer who killed the disturbed young man brandishing a knife on a Toronto streetcar. The YOUtube footage shows the fella standing in the front entrance of the main-deck of the bus. (i.e. some three steps up)

Let's 'walk' through the highly disturbing footage shot from a distance of some, I'd say100 feet?
This, from behind were the officer in question was shooting from; i'd say at a 50 feet distance?

1) We see the fella centrally located, in full view, in the doorway of the bus.
2) The verbal, i.e. 'human' audio I can't decipher. Likely the officer shouting to drop the knife...
3) I then hear a shot, the man falls down; then several more shots...
4) Then a number more. I think there were some 7 shots...

Added facts: The man goes down with the first shot, and NEVER seems to move much, let alone getting up to 'continue to be a threat to the policeman, or anyone else in the vicinity.'

This apparently was a trial by Jury. (How I wish there were MORE trials by Jury, even though that does not mean they will be always perfect. Still, if it's a democracy, let at least the people judge, not the insiders).

I heard on the news last night that apparently the first 3 shots fired had been considered "acceptable,"
where the additional FOUR then, were possibly what? OVERkill?
overkill |ˈōvərˌkil| nounthe amount by which destruction or the capacity for destruction exceeds what is necessary: the existing nuclear overkill.• excessive use, treatment, or action; too much of something:animators now face a dilemma of technology overkill.
"To serve and protect"  I remember seeing written on Ontario Police cars many years ago.

 5) The verdict is out and, indeed, the officer is being held responsible for having used an excessive amount of bullets, 'in the circumstances.'

Apparently now the defence is asking for a 'STAY' in the proceedings. Apparently they want to argue the fact the officer merely did his duty; that he was 'trained by the state to do so'; ergo, HE wasn't responsible, those who TRAINED him are responsible!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To recap:

1) A disturbed young man (On drugs? Emotionally un-balanced?), I/we don't know,
gets on a bus and at some point brandishes a knife, clearly to do harm, what else?
The bus is stopped, driver and people all get out unharmed (I believe?) and the man is left on the bus.

2) The police show up, and an officer pulls out his gun (at some 50 feet?) The officer shouts at the man to drop his knife and tells him to get off the bus.... (I presume this is the text; I could not hear it on the video)

3) The man does NOT, and keeps standing there...(I don't know if he 'says anything)

4) The policeman fearing for his life (and potentially others) "To serve and protect" himself and the people, kills the man, firing 7 bullets to do so, when it is clear that ONE has already floored the fella.

Here's my (training) script:
(I'm jumping straight to where the officer shouts at the fella):

1)  Officer: (with revolver aimed at young man) "DROP YOUR KNIFE AND HANDS UP ; COME OUT OF THE BUS!"  (.... Pause....;  Nothing happens).......(something like that?)
- The man ignores/refusing the command. (I don't hear him say anything)

2) Officer: I ordered you to drop your knife, and come out of the bus with your hands up; this is my second and last order.....(pause) If you don't do as I tell you, I'll shoot!  
- The man  ignores/refusing the command. (I don't hear him say anything)

3) Officer: (shouting) OK! You are refusing to do as I say, so I am going to shoot now > RIGHT NOW!...(PAUSE of 3 seconds?) Police officer SHOOTS!

4) But WAIT! > Remember this is MY training > IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES:
a) The young man is brandishing a KNIFE! NOT A GUN!
MY Rules "in the circumstances" would train the officer to SHOOT ; NOT at the MAN, but maybe the glass of the door of the bus?! What a shattering experience that would have been! What a WAKE UP call THAT could have been!

b) AND, if the fella still doesn't come to grips with the situation, maybe advance about 10 feet, and see what he does? Then if he STILL just stands there, in a daze ...

5) Officer: (less shouty) OK fella, I'm not getting anywhere here, I'm going to hurt you now, is that what you want? 
(In psychology, oftentimes distraught people, who snap, when all else has failed, in fact are in some way 'asking' to be heard and 'HURT.'

- If the young man STILL does not change his composure, I would suggest the Officer (we are assuming he is the hot-shot he proved to be, since I believe all 7 shots entered the body) would shout at the arm, or hand brandishing the knife. OR, if the position of the hand is in front of the body at that time, my suggested training instruction would be:
SHOOT HIM IN THE LEG!

6) Even if the culprit had a gun, a sound, well-trained marksman could have shot him in the arm, or leg, and repositioned. It was at a fair distance, and it appeared no one in the immediate vicinity was in  danger....

Lastly, to bring the argument full circle and pertinent to my own case:

QUESTION?
Equating the Police Officer by representing his Police force, there to serve and protect the people;
- with the Officer Judge, representing her Justice Ministry, there to serve and protect people:

ARE THEY NOT THE SAME? 
Maybe the time has come for ALL COURT CASES TO BE YOU TUBED!

It is high-time to draw our attentions to ALL our self-policing, self-serving institutions and make them FAR MORE accountable for their actions! That time is NOW. NOW, or NEVER, I say!

If NOT now, the species is surely doomed. Since nothing is making sense anymore.
We are imploding! Maybe, for the sake of those species still alive, Just as well.