Police In Toronto Are Public Enemy Number One

The shooting of a young man with a knife on the weekend in Toronto just makes me shake my head. Is it possible in 2013, after years of high profile given to “gun-control” that policemen are so out of control? Where do they find these guys?

The story, briefly:

  • young man scares people on a bus by displaying a knife,
  • passengers and driver evacuate,
  • police surround the empty bus,
  • the young man has nowhere to go, cannot threaten anyone,
  • one or more police officers fire 9 well-aimed shots at close range from outside the bus, 3 shots, a pause and six shots, and
  • TaserTM the guy…

See for yourself:

Now, in Canada, a police officer, or anyone else for that matter, is allowed to use lethal force in self-defence or defence of others, but no one was threatened by this guy. Other officers, not the shooters, were walking around the bus without a weapon drawn. Obviously, there was no emergency requiring lethal force. They could have Tasered the guy without shooting him. Once he was shot at least once, he was even less of a threat. Why the overkill?

If there is not prompt discipline delivered to this police officer by his superiors and prosecution under the Criminal Code of Canada, this incident will bring justice into disrepute in Canada, demonstrate clearly that “gun-control” laws don’t work and build a further divide between police and citizens. Without the consent and cooperation of citizens, governments and police forces are tyrannies. I wait and watch.

UPDATE There’s news an officer has been suspended with pay… The injustice continues. One man is dead for no reason and another is rewarded for killing him.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in firearms and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Police In Toronto Are Public Enemy Number One

  1. bw wrote, “Teaching is not a task with trust coefficients equivalent to enforcing laws with a gun. The immediacy is nowhere near as significant.”

    Students can be damaged by rogue teachers even if not killed. Teachers are regularly held to account to much higher standards than To. police apparently.

  2. oiaohm says:

    bw even in the time of the wild wild west the law man were meant to bring in the criminal a live if possible.

    Robert Pogson military is a special case. Even if a person is a murder they might still be of value in a high risk combat operation to military. Yes you know operations with 90+% chance that no one will come back alive but still need to be done to achieve objectives. So yes military keeping an murder paid is possible military confining a murder in military prison is also possible. It is also possible that the operation the military sends a murder on next will achieve natural punishment.

    Manning technically still should be paid he is not dismissed from the armed forces yet. Once dismissed he then goes back to a civilian prison and punishment system.

    Snowden would not be being paid at the moment because he is failing to turn up to work.

    bw as you said the rules of combat police should be using should be defined before they enter a fire fight. Just like mil offices and UN rules of engagement.

    Now my question is why does the police rules of engagement over there not seam to include tear gas and flash bangs. Confined space bus no one at risk other than target this meets all the conditions to use tear gas or flash bangs to disable target.

    bw take a look at the patent I gave link to that is currently not paid and will be 100 percent sure to be expired in 2 years. Its a tested bullet round that is a tazer.

    There is zero reason for police to get inside attack range of a criminal with gun.

    Old tech flash bangs and tear gas with the modern tech all the different forms of tazer there should be almost no reason for police to be using killing bullet rounds.

    Yes the only reason to be using a killing bullet round is if you need to penetrate threw a door or body armor. Police bullets currently used are not designed to penetrate.

    Yes Hollow point bullets are designed to harm. What police use because of there low odds of over-penetrating or ricocheted bullets. Same properties of not over-penetrating and not turning ricocheted bullets apply to tazer rounds. Tazer rounds are faster at achieving incapacitation.

    That fact the hollow point are designed not to over-penetrating you can fair much bet many of the bullets ended up stuck in the bus and never could hit target.

    So thinking we can make tazer rounds why don’t police have them. Robbert tell me truthfully would you had a problem if the police had from out side the bus let off 9 tazer rounds.

    Remember trailing wire tazer metal framing in the bus can short it out and make it not effective. The knife can breach the police offices body armour. Only way the police could use a tazer effectively is get target to leave bus. That is tear gas or flash bangs.

    Robert the problem is a equipment issue. From my point of view police should not have hollow points any more. Tazer rounds have almost identical ballistic properties and don’t kill.

    So police should have two types of bullets. Bullets that match UN rules for bullets that can breach body armour and tazer round bullets to drop like knife wielders alive.

    The design of tazer round bullets is almost 20 years old.

    The tazer round big advantage over a normal tazers is no trailing wires and no need to be close. It does not short out on metal objects near the target.

    Disadvantage of tazer round is limited time frame of effectiveness. So you might need to shot a person a few more times giving them a few more bruises than if you used a wired tazer. Ok what is a few bruises on a possible criminal if they are alive they can heal from that.

    Yes having tazer rounds does not remove a wired/close proximity tazer from police kit.

    bw this is my problem if you plan out police tattics on the best weapons we can give the police the police should kill almost no one. Of course tazer rounds will sometimes cause death by disrupting medical items. This is way should kill almost no one. Killing of a criminal should be an adverse reaction to weapon the police person used not part of the weapons intentional design.

    Time has moved on so does the police forces.

  3. bw says:

    If a police officer orders a citizen to kill another innocent, that is clearly wrong

    You misinterpret my poetic remark. All I meant was that a police officer, armed with a gun and charged with the responsibility of protecting the public is likely to be put in a position where he makes a life/death decision. I certainly didn’t mean that police have authority to order executions.

    Every contract I have ever had for teaching

    Teaching is not a task with trust coefficients equivalent to enforcing laws with a gun. The immediacy is nowhere near as significant.

  4. bw wrote, “They are essentially given the right to be judge, jury, and executioner when under duress and it is very important that they meet standards of conduct. But they also must have some confidence themselves in having the system protect them from retribution. The public has to recognize their authority and comply.”

    That is wrong on many counts. If a police officer orders a citizen to kill another innocent, that is clearly wrong in many ways. We have separation of powers to prevent police being judge, jury and executioner. Police belong to the executive branches of government. Their role is to keep the peace, not to break it.

    No employee of any organization that “goes postal” should be kept in employment and certainly should not be paid. An example of where that principle is broken is the guy who killed soldiers at a US military base. He is still on the payroll three years later waiting for trial. Does that make sense to anyone? Are Manning or Snowden still being paid?

    Guys like this are a danger to society and should be locked up or killed. They certainly should not be allowed to roam freely and be paid for their next outrage.

    bw wrote, “Due process comes to mind.”

    Every contract I have ever had for teaching clearly stated that the contract could be terminated unilaterly instantly for grave violations of policy. This is a prima facie case of violation of the Criminal Code of Canada. That warrants prompt dismissal. Dismissal is a civil matter. It does not depend on criminal law. The employer can decide on his own that an employee is dangerous and dump him. I have seen several teachers dismissed instantly for much less.

  5. bw says:

    Why isn’t he fired already?

    Due process comes to mind. Sworn law enforcement officers are a very special case in society. They are essentially given the right to be judge, jury, and executioner when under duress and it is very important that they meet standards of conduct. But they also must have some confidence themselves in having the system protect them from retribution. The public has to recognize their authority and comply.

    When they foul up and violate their trust, for whatever reason, the process of culling them out and correcting the problem has to be very public and fair so that citizens and law enforcement officers see the process as fair and just. That requires doing it in a fairly rigid process according to rules previously established and not made up in the heat of the moment.

  6. oiaohm says:

    bw really its the order of weapon selection. Notice they have tazers and its the last weapon they use.

    Now here are a few questions. Police there do they have flash bangs or tear gas??. Confined space like a bus is the ideal place for a few of them. Basically shell shock the guy into submission. Less properly damage ie 1 or 2 broken windows where you send them in. Bus could be back in service the next day.

    Lets consider here its increases property damage increase bystander risk by letting fly the way the did with guns. Did they do this because they were under supplied.

    A knife is a worry because it can breach body armour so I can understand police not wanting to get close.

    Part of not using lethal force is being armed with suitable non lethal weapons as options. Tazer for someone inside a bus is limited effectiveness. Tazers don’t make the best close quarters combat weapons particularly against a knife.

    Robert I would not say this is gun control not working. I would say poor police training or poor grade of equipment to police. Even in areas without gun control people with knifes get killed without valid reasons by police.

    Police kit requirements. Tazer, pepper spray, Stun and Tear Hand Grenade , body armor. Yes of course the gun.

    Yes confined spaces the Hand Grenade options are very effective. Basically come on out or face some nasty.

    http://www.google.com/patents/US5698815 Really in 2 more years we will be able to have wireless electronic stun rounds for your normal guns as the patent will be expired.

    This is the problem the tech to bring down a person holding a knife using a gun and not kill them exists. Problem is its not deployed.

    Our polices equipment is very dated. This is why I say we are at a time when we can build a judge dread gun. Every feature of a judge dread gun can be made. Yes the stun bullets the signature lock to owner. The under load of gas.

    So why are the police still using such poor weapons. Yes a electronic stun bullet has basically the same range as a normal bullet. Its just clear line of sight required.

    Gun control in a lot of ways will be not that effective once means to print and make own weapons become more possible. At some point governments will have to change over to ammo control.

  7. ray wrote, “Suspended with pay is not a reward or a punishment.”

    It’s a reward, getting paid for doing no work… Why am I on a meagre pension if I could be paid for watching the grass grow instead of working? Any employer watching that video and interviewing some of the close witnesses should have at least suspended the guy with no pay. Why pay a guy who is about to be fired and imprisoned? Why isn’t he fired already? It doesn’t take a criminal conviction to fire a guy who doesn’t do his job properly.

  8. ray says:

    Suspended with pay is not a reward or a punishment. It’s a get him off the street if he’s dangerous and pay him so he won’t sue us if he’s cleared while we investigate and deal out the appropriate response response.

  9. bw says:

    It would have been OK if he had some candy and a soda instead of a knife. Then the shooting could be justified.

Leave a Reply