Since he was still alive when sent to the hospital he still was possibly able to cause damage from the floor. They still didn't know if he had a gun or not, until they approached him. As said much earlier, I have no really good idea why the need for 9 shots, but I'll wait for the full facts, which of course will clear the cops because others on here proudly claimed the cops will lie and have already compromised the evidence.:Eek:
Man with knife on streetcar at Dundas and Grace, shot by police
- Thread starter Shrugged
- Start date
Your observations are totally correct.
They could've waited until he was tasered to approach or step on his arm (they have safety boots) and get another to grab the knife away.
They kid was down and no longer a threat. Verbal abuse or taunts is not enough to shoot him dead.
I know that generally it's not a rule to shoot at extremities but goddammit, Sammy's wearing white pants. Shoot at his thigh. How really hard can that be from up close? (No use debating this point).
Bottom line: I truly think the COP lost it. That's what it appears to me. Didn't anyone notice other cops trying to hold him back?
have you ever been in an army? been shot at? shot at anyone? i have seen firs hand a man with 4 shots taken and he still got up and fired 2 rounds off at a passing jeep. and the copa still didnt kniw what this dude had on him.
and yes.. i have been involved in all of the above. if you havent... thanks for the bleeding hearts... they do shit in the real world.
You shoot people if it was a gun but not necessarily a knife, since the armed cop's life is not in danger. This is not the Wild Wild West.
The amount of training police or security guards get doesn't seem to be the issue here, it's how they use or misuse it. Teaching people to shoot a gun isn't hard at all, but teaching them not to shoot is harder and that goes for police, security guards and even civilians.
My concern with bank guards specifically is they have a dull job, probably not paid all that well, and are carrying guns. They may never actually use them in a real life situation and could use them inappropriately as the cops did.
So you are 100% positive that he is no longer a threat? What happens if you are wrong, huh? Then what?
Oopps ... I think someone just got stabbed ....
He's down. He's not a gook in VietNam you crazy American. Wait it out. He's in a streetcar FFS and he can do no more harm. The police don't need cowboys like you.
Last edited:
That's right cowboy, make doubly sure. Heck, why don't we throw a grenade. This is not war time. You taze him. A few cops go in. He's down and you step on his bicep if he's still. You taze him if he's waving his arm. You like to rush to judgment don't you.So you are 100% positive that he is no longer a threat? What happens if you are wrong, huh? Then what?
Oopps ... I think someone just got stabbed ....
In Nazi Germany, you would get shot for calling an SS or Gestapo a pig (actually, you could get shot for much less). This is not Nazi Germany. The cop is in control because he's the one with the gun. If the kid had a gun, I say shoot him, but when's he's got a knife and not a real threat to anyone else or the cop, then alternate procedures must be used. Plain and simple.
But you can't reason out this subtle point. Your brain can't process the distinction here. (I wouldn't allow you to even be a security guard).
Alive. Sure, maybe with a low pulse and a hint of breathing. He could've been partially paralyzed too for all we know.
You are protecting your brotherhood. Now, I'm a friend of the TPS and support their actions virtually all of the time, but in this case, 6 extra shots were not required. It was sooooo simple to wait it out. If the guy got up and attempted to exit the bus in a dangerous rage holding that knife, then yeah, shoot to stop him.
You're saying that the cop had no other options but to shoot this kid dead while lying on the floor. This is fucking pathetic. (Someone else told me adrenaline is the culprit - give me a fucking break - they are professionals and they face adrenaline rushes in their job - he wasn't being shot at, nor did he get stabbed).
Oh yeah, we should really shoot him for what had transpired in the past. Duh!
You're the judge and jury and executioner here bamma.
It seems you're the one who's full of it.
(Okay Bamma, let's agree to disagree and leave it at that. It will be interesting what comes out of the investigation. Peace out.)
no. but prob one of the only ones here that has been threatened with a weapon. your experience in this type if situation?
Cops like anyone else that's been trained to shoot are told to aim for the largest part of the body, which is not the thigh. That's why the paper targets only show the torso and head area and not the whole body. Even if you want to say that cops should try to shoot for the leg, you still have adrenaline and survival instincts taking over and take the aim back to centre mass. Not to mention that it would be difficult to negotiate while aiming at his leg.
One thing I hope we can agree on is that we have (hopefully) never faced such a situation in our personal lives. It's too easy to analyse every possible detail and ask what if when you've never had someone pointing a knife at you. I know that police have body armour and backup, but we're still dealing with a human being i.e. the cop that has to somehow control his adrenaline and survival instincts.
Is this a loss of control situation for the cop? Probably, but that's for the SIU and psychologists to piece together based on the shooter's complete history and not just a series of grainy video clips.
