nick@aimed.UUCP (Nick Pemberton) (01/20/89)
I'd be interested to see some discussion on what folks out there think
of the current problems the metro police, and police forces in general,
are having with various groups, be they race related or otherwise.
I've been appalled (and I can't spell) at the recent sensationalism in
the media about the cops. Having lived in various parts of Canada, I find
Toronto's cops to be really good people - they've always been friendly when
you chat with them (which I do often because I live near a police station),
and, for a city as large as this one, they do a pretty good job making
you feel comfortable to live in it.
Any thoughts, opinions, flames, etc?
Nick
--
Nick Pemberton UUCP: !{utzoo,utai}!lsuc!aimed!nick
AIM, Inc Bus: (416) 429-4913
Home: (416) 690-0647paulg@hcr.UUCP (Paul Gooderham) (01/20/89)
In article <157@aimed.UUCP> nick@aimed.UUCP writes: >I'd be interested to see some discussion on what folks out there think >of the current problems the metro police, and police forces in general, I can't believe the public whining that has been going on. People seem to be siding with the criminals against the police. - a knife weilding man rushes a policeman who then shoots the man. - the youthful driver of a known stolen car tries to run down two policemen and ends up shot In both these cases currently popular in the press, the criminal is trying to kill the policeman and the policeman strikes back. People seem to expect policemen to risk injury or even death for the sake of a criminal. But if the men had just followed police instructions, they would be alive to whine for themselves today. I wouldn't argue against investigations intended to uncover the truth, but I wouldn't condem the policemen until the truth that they did something wrong was known. Condemnation any earlier is baseless conjecture but the press seems to gobble it up. Anything to sell more papers or to get better ratings, I suppose. --- Paul J. Gooderham (std. disclaimer)
jdd@db.toronto.edu ("John D. DiMarco") (01/20/89)
I've never had a bad experience with the police. Whenever I've had occasion
to deal with them, I've found them friendly, helpful, and professional.
But I don't belong to a visible minority.
John
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John DiMarco * We will live in the light * jdd%db.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net
jdd@db.toronto.edu jdd@db.utoronto.ca jdd.db.toronto.cdn
{uunet!utai,watmath!utai,decvax!utcsri,decwrl!utcsri}!db!jdd jdd.utcsri.UUCP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------sean@lsuc.uucp (Sean Doran the Younger) (01/21/89)
In article <4674@hcr.UUCP> paulg@hcrvax.UUCP (Paul Gooderham) wrote: > > - a knife weilding man rushes a policeman who then shoots the man. > > - the youthful driver of a known stolen car tries to run down two > policemen and ends up shot > >In both these cases currently popular in the press, the criminal >is trying to kill the policeman and the policeman strikes back. In both cases, there is no criminal. The Presumption of Innocence (Section 2 (f) of Part I of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Section 11 (d) of Schedule B of the Constitution Act, 1982) should be granted to both the victims in both cases, and it is unwise to call them criminals. Moreover, it is even less wise to point out that (referring to the police constables involved) 'Condemnation any earlier is baseless conjecture', while still labelling and thus condemning the two dead men as criminals. It is my understanding of the Police Act and departmental and ministerial directives that police guns may not be removed from the holster or belt unless a person is threatening the PC or another person with a brandished gun, or unless the PC has reasonable grounds to believe that a person is carrying a concealed gun. Police revolvers and other guns are not to be displayed in order to threaten any person, nor to restrain an arrested person who is unarmed. Moreover, the police are not to discharge firearms unless acting in self defence and in accordance with the other regulations concerning police guns. They are certainly not allowed to shoot at someone brandishing a knife (Police Constables are well trained in the use of truncheons and are all taught how to disarm an opponent who is using a knife or other weapon), nor are they allowed to fatally wound any person for any reason with impunity from the courts. Common law is very clear on claiming self-defence as a means of establishing no mens rea in cases of battery and related crimes, as well as manslaughter. One can take no self-defensive action after the immediate threat to one's life and safety has ended. According to the testimonies offered at the Police Hearing, the car driver had been shot through the head from directly behind, while the car was moving forward very quickly. It is highly unlikely that any claim to self-defence can be made taking into consideration that the immediate risks to the PCs' lives and to any bystanders' safety had passed -- it is difficult not to conclude that the driver of the motor car had been retreating from the scene of the crime. I fear that unless the PCs involved have another defence, or unless evidence not presented to the Police Hearing is offered to the court trial, the charge of manslaughter will be upheld. I hope, however, that the pressure and stress of being nearly run down and the consequent difficulty in judging the actions of the driver will be taken into consideration by the court if and when the court publishes a sentence against the P.C. charged. >People seem to expect policemen to risk injury or even death >for the sake of a criminal. If you mean 'for the sake of an alleged criminal', or 'for the sake of an accused person', or even 'for the sake of a person caught while committing an indictable offence', then Correct: see 2 (f) of Part I of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and 7-11 of Part I of Schedule B of the Constitution Act (1982). Moreover, the various regulations and statutes concerning the police as well various Common law precedents make it clear that even a convicted criminal deserves protection from the police, even if such protection may entail a risk to life or safety of the police involved. It would be quite ghastly to expect a Police Constable who is being assaulted or attacked not to defend himself or herself. Self-defence, however, can only excuse crime if the force used in self-defence is reasonable. Physical forced used against verbal assault is unreasonable. Disarming someone by breaking an arm, wrist or hand (i.e., committing the offence of wounding in order to prevent the offence of battery) is not considered reasonable. Using a gun on someone brandishing a knife has also been deemed in court as using unreasonable force. Using ANY force on a retreating opponent (i.e., retribution) is NEVER considered reasonable force. No police constable or officer can use more force than is reasonable, even to subdue an unruly or dangerous suspect or someone who is actively resisting arrest -- under pain of reprimand, suspension, or dismissal and of course the civil suit. >But if the men had just followed >police instructions, they would be alive to whine for themselves >today. If the Police had followed proper procedure, and behaved in a lawful and professional manner, the two victims would be alive to-day, and both would probably soon find themselves in a very nasty prison after being charged and found guilty of attempted murder or at least assault with a deadly weapon. >I wouldn't argue against investigations intended to uncover the >truth, but I wouldn't condem the policemen until the truth that >they did something wrong was known. The Police hearings established that there is evidence of impropriety on the part of the P.C.s involved. The Attorney-General's Department have decided that the evidence is enough to proceed to a full criminal trial. That they did something wrong (killing anyone is not allowed in any situation) is clear. That they did something unlawful cannot be known until verdicts are published. >Condemnation any earlier is >baseless conjecture but the press seems to gobble it up. Anything >to sell more papers or to get better ratings, I suppose. Conjecture is often not entirely baseless. There are evidence in loads and court documents readily available to anyone, even journalists. Whether the journalists can be accused of sensationalising for the purpose depends upon a value judgement based upon personal tastes -- there are no set standards defining good reporting and sensationalism, but as with pornography, one can recognise it when one sees it. For my part, I think that in this rare case, the press and other media have behaved quite reasonably considering the possibilities open for exploitation. It is when allegations of racism are made in editorials and by hired reporters that I shall change my mind. (Nota bene: I am not a Lawyer of any sort and have no plans to be one.) ----------- Sean Doran the Younger <sean@lsuc.UUCP> | Using the Law Society's computer a/s The Law Society of Upper Canada | does not mean I use their opinions. Computer Education Facility | However, all those barristers and Osgoode Hall, Toronto, Canada | solicitors would come in very handy lsuc!sean@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu | if someone decided to sue me. {uunet!attcan mnetor att pyramid!utai utgpu utcsri utzoo ncrcan}!lsuc!sean -- -
clewis@ecicrl.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (01/22/89)
In article <1989Jan20.201648.20385@lsuc.uucp> sean@lsuc.UUCP (Sean Doran the Younger) writes: >(Nota bene: I am not a Lawyer of any sort and have no plans to be one.) Thank heavens for that... Some of your legal comments are right on the mark and some of them are completely off... Paul may be a little hasty in calling the two men who died "criminals", but since the facts in at least one of these are fairly clear and undisputed, chastising him for stating what's obvious is at least pompous and a little silly no? >It is my understanding of the Police Act and departmental and ministerial >directives that police guns may not be removed from the holster or >belt unless a person is threatening the PC or another person with >a brandished gun, or unless the PC has reasonable grounds to believe >that a person is carrying a concealed gun. Police revolvers and other >guns are not to be displayed in order to threaten any person, nor >to restrain an arrested person who is unarmed. > >Moreover, the police are not to discharge firearms unless acting >in self defence and in accordance with the other regulations concerning >police guns. They are certainly not allowed to shoot at someone >brandishing a knife (Police Constables are well trained in the use >of truncheons and are all taught how to disarm an opponent who is >using a knife or other weapon), nor are they allowed to fatally >wound any person for any reason with impunity from the courts. I'm afraid your understanding is somewhat off. The "halt or I'll fire" doctrine is well understood and widespread in Canada. Secondly, I find it extremely hard to believe that they would blanket disallow the use of police guns except in self (or other person) -defence against a gun. There are many occasions where a policeman could have no other recourse than the use of his gun even if the opponent was completely unarmed. *EVEN IF* such a police doctrine existed, it would have no bearing on a possible conviction in the courts - the legal system at least *attempts* to treat everyone the same - citizen, suspect/"criminal" or police. The legal concept of "justifiable" force is a lot more complicated than simply balancing weaponry or probable injury. Frankly, we know almost completely *nothing* about either of these cases. The media is inadvertantly whipping the whole city into a frenzy with one unsubstantiated rumor after another. One is unable to separate fact from fiction in the media reports. Come on guys, let's *COOL* it. Discussing the *supposed* facts of the case can only make things worse. Let's wait and see what the trial goes like. Charging the officers involved with manslaughter was the best possible thing for the AG to do. I personally don't think that the charges have a chance of sticking, but a trial: - gives the officers a chance to defend themselves in a forum where unsubstantiated rumor shouldn't get much attention, - and deflates any validity to a charge of "coverup". I support our cops to the hilt, BUT this trial is absolutely necessary. Okay? Let's not prejudice the trial or start a race war by spewing nonsense - we all should just simply shut up and wait. -- Chris Lewis, Markham, Ontario, Canada {uunet!attcan,utgpu,yunexus,utzoo}!lsuc!ecicrl!clewis Ferret Mailing list: ...!lsuc!gate!eci386!ferret-request (or lsuc!gate!eci386!clewis or lsuc!clewis)
rae@geaclib.UUCP (Reid Ellis) (01/22/89)
paulg@hcrvax.UUCP (Paul Gooderham) writes about a point of view that is probably fairly common in Toronto at the moment. sean@lsuc.UUCP (Sean Doran the Younger) writes a very well-informed rebuttal which should be read by a large number of people. Boy, did you two set this up, or what? :-) Reid -- Reid Ellis geaclib!rae@geac.uucp
lamy@ai.utoronto.ca (Jean-Francois Lamy) (01/22/89)
I was a jury member in a trial for assault where citizen A punched citizen B and injury resulted. Citizen A was acquited, but there was a trial. When citizen A pulls a trigger and citizen B dies (which I don't is not what is being disputed here) my gut feeling is that there should be a trial as soon as there is reasonable evidence that citizen A did pull the trigger. What I would like to know is under what circumstances it would have been possible for a) a person admitting to pulling the trigger to a gun that killed not to be charged at all and b) the same for a policeman on duty, if they are any different. The only charge "weaker" than manslaughter I can see applying to cases where death results is criminal negligence, which I don't think would apply here (does it even apply to hunting accidents and the like?). So what is being disputed here? - that charges were laid? (I see that as hard to avoid) - that too strong a charge was laid? (how could a weaker one be laid?) - that it took too long to lay the charge? - that charges would not have been laid save for political manipulations? Jean-Francois Lamy lamy@ai.utoronto.ca, uunet!ai.utoronto.ca!lamy AI Group, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4
nick@aimed.UUCP (Nick Pemberton) (01/23/89)
In article <1989Jan20.201648.20385@lsuc.uucp>, sean@lsuc.uucp (Sean Doran the Younger) writes: > In article <4674@hcr.UUCP> paulg@hcrvax.UUCP (Paul Gooderham) wrote: > > - a knife weilding man rushes a policeman who then shoots the man. > > - the youthful driver of a known stolen car tries to run down two > > policemen and ends up shot > >In both these cases currently popular in the press, the criminal > >is trying to kill the policeman and the policeman strikes back. > [well-written explanation deleted (tossing 'verbiage', as news likes to call it)] > > >But if the men had just followed > >police instructions, they would be alive to whine for themselves > >today. > > If the Police had followed proper procedure, and behaved in a lawful > and professional manner, the two victims would be alive to-day, > and both would probably soon find themselves in a very nasty > prison after being charged and found guilty of attempted murder > or at least assault with a deadly weapon. > Here is something that is only becoming clear to me through this discussion: no where has it been stated, in the media, what the facts in these particular cases are. That, I suppose, is what really bothers me: it is likely that in any organization there will be members who do not follow 'the rules', as may be the case with the police force. However, the impression one gets from the media coverage is that the police have widespread problems, rather then rare, isolated problems. What is the real situation? Is it, as I suspect, that there are small, isolated problems, or is there a much larger problem. In the same breath (ok keystroke), I should point out that I am not trying to belittle the anguish the families involved must go through in these cases. It is a difficult problem, but it is one which I would have hoped the media could have handled in a more responsible manner. Almost reminds me of election coverage, but that is another thread.... Nick -- Nick Pemberton UUCP: !{utzoo,utai}!lsuc!aimed!nick AIM, Inc Bus: (416) 429-4913 Home: (416) 690-0647
larry@hcr.UUCP (Larry Philps) (01/23/89)
In article <1989Jan20.201648.20385@lsuc.uucp> sean@lsuc.UUCP (Sean Doran the Younger) writes: >In both cases, there is no criminal. The Presumption of Innocence >(Section 2 (f) of Part I of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms >and Section 11 (d) of Schedule B of the Constitution Act, 1982) >should be granted to both the victims in both cases, and it is unwise >to call them criminals. Moreover, it is even less wise to point out >that (referring to the police constables involved) 'Condemnation >any earlier is baseless conjecture', while still labelling and thus >condemning the two dead men as criminals. What people seem to forget is that to the policeman who is being assulted, calling the assulter the "alleged assuaulter" is ridiculous. The court, the members of which were not there at the time, will have to consider the crime "alledged", but the policeman who sees the knife coming towards him cannot consider it an alleded attack, he knows the person is guilty and must defend himself or be injured/killed. >In article <4674@hcr.UUCP> paulg@hcrvax.UUCP (Paul Gooderham) wrote: >> >> - a knife weilding man rushes a policeman who then shoots the man. >... >... They are certainly not allowed to shoot at someone >brandishing a knife (Police Constables are well trained in the use >of truncheons and are all taught how to disarm an opponent who is >using a knife or other weapon), ... > By making it illegal for a policeman to defend himself with a gun while being attacked with a knife, you are assuming that the policeman will always be a much more expert knife fighter than the attacker, and thus is in no danger while he is in the process of disarming the attacker. I am sure this is often not the case, and thus the policeman is risking his life to avoid hurting the attacker. The attacker, on the other hand, if he knows the law, will realize that he is in no danger of being shot while attacking the policeman with a knife, and thus is much more likely to do it instead of giving himself up. The whole thing disgusts me! In my opinion, when a criminal decides to use a weapon (even if that weapon is a moving car) to attack a policeman, I want him to be "trembling in his boots" at the likelyhood that the policeman will shoot and kill him. Right now, a person attacking the policeman, especially if he already knows he has committed a murder, attacks with the knowledge, "I can't make things any worse, so I might as well try it." Larry Philps HCR Corporation 130 Bloor St. West, 10th floor Toronto, Ontario. M5S 1N5 (416) 922-1937 {utzoo,utcsri,lsuc}!hcr!larry
derome@ai.toronto.edu (Philippe Derome) (01/23/89)
In article <4674@hcr.UUCP> paulg@hcrvax.UUCP (Paul Gooderham) writes: > >I can't believe the public whining that has been going on. People >seem to be siding with the criminals against the police. > > - a knife weilding man rushes a policeman who then shoots the man. > > - the youthful driver of a known stolen car tries to run down two > policemen and ends up shot > >In both these cases currently popular in the press, the criminal >is trying to kill the policeman and the policeman strikes back. In my uderstanding, the policemen (man?) shot in the back of the car. Perhaps, this was not self-defense. We will see what the justice has to say. >--- >Paul J. Gooderham (std. disclaimer) Philippe Derome
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (01/24/89)
In article <1989Jan20.201648.20385@lsuc.uucp> sean@lsuc.UUCP (Sean Doran the Younger) writes: >... They are certainly not allowed to shoot at someone >brandishing a knife (Police Constables are well trained in the use >of truncheons and are all taught how to disarm an opponent who is >using a knife or other weapon)... Let us not forget that knives are lethal weapons, and that disarming someone with a knife is much easier said than done. I'm not familiar with the level of training that Toronto police get, but my understanding is that disarming anyone carrying anything is generally considered to be an expert-level procedure, and I would be very surprised if the normal Toronto policeman has the kind of training needed to do it without grave risk. Especially since he'd need constant practice to maintain that kind of skill. -- Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology toast to comrade Van Allen!!" | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (01/24/89)
In article <89Jan22.092537est.38021@neat.ai.toronto.edu> lamy@ai.utoronto.ca (Jean-Francois Lamy) writes: >...What I would like to know is under what circumstances it would have been >possible for a) a person admitting to pulling the trigger to a gun that killed >not to be charged at all and b) the same for a policeman on duty, if they are >any different... (Disclaimer: I'm not familiar with the details of the local laws, this comes from general knowledge.) With the *possible* exception of a policeman on duty, shooting someone will pretty much invariably result in criminal charges. The police are not in the business of deciding whether the shooter had adequate legal reasons; that is a court decision, although in a sufficiently clear-cut case of self-defence, charges might perhaps be dismissed without a full-blown trial. The possible exception for policemen on duty arises because this sort of situation is somewhat predictable for them, and it's worth having preliminary procedures to decide whether the hassle of formal charges is likely to be justified. (This is not to say that such procedures can't be abused, just that their existence is not without reason.) -- Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology toast to comrade Van Allen!!" | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
paulg@hcr.UUCP (Paul Gooderham) (01/24/89)
In article <89Jan23.093655est.38021@neat.ai.toronto.edu> derome@neat.ai.toronto.edu.UUCP writes: >In my uderstanding, the policemen (man?) shot in the back of >the car. Perhaps, this was not self-defense. We will see what >the justice has to say. In my understanding, the police shot at the *tires* of the stolen car and that a ricocheted bullet struck the young driver. If it is police procedure to stop a stolen car fleeing from the scene of a crime by shooting at its tires and if someone is killed by accident, then no charges should be laid. Of course a case could be made to change police procedure. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the details of police procedure. In any case, an *investigation* should lead to charges. Not a politician's fear of losing the ethnic vote. Paul J. Gooderham
sarathy@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Rajiv Sarathy) (01/24/89)
In article <4742@hcr.UUCP> paulg@hcrvax.UUCP (Paul Gooderham) writes: > >In my understanding, the police shot at the *tires* of the stolen car >and that a ricocheted bullet struck the young driver. > Somehow, I doubt that a bullet can hit a car tire and ricochet up about 3 feet and forward (if the back tire was shot) or backward (if the front tire was shot), go through the window (or metal) and hit the driver anywhere near the head. I don't think physics will allow it, considering the fact that it was a hollow-tip bullet (designed to cause the most amount of damage to the victim by fragmenting into many pieces). The Toronto Star reported that the bullet went directly through the window and into the the back of the driver's head. (A bullet banned by the Police Act). -- _____________________________________________________________________________ | Disclaimer: I'm just an undergrad. | | All views and opinions are therefore my own. | | | | Rajiv Partha Sarathy sarathy@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca | |_____________________________________________________________________________|
tff@na.toronto.edu (Tom Fairgrieve) (01/25/89)
(Paul Gooderham) paulg@hcrvax.UUCP writes: >In any case, an *investigation* should lead to charges. Not a >politician's fear of losing the ethnic vote. I am not aware of any cases where charges have been laid without an investigation being made by a police force or a Crown council. To which case were you refering?
jim@hcr.UUCP (Jim Sullivan) (01/25/89)
In article <4742@hcr.UUCP> paulg@hcrvax.UUCP (Paul Gooderham) writes: >In article <89Jan23.093655est.38021@neat.ai.toronto.edu> derome@neat.ai.toronto.edu.UUCP writes: >>In my uderstanding, the policemen (man?) shot in the back of >>the car. Perhaps, this was not self-defense. We will see what >>the justice has to say. > >In my understanding, the police shot at the *tires* of the stolen car >and that a ricocheted bullet struck the young driver. > >If it is police procedure to stop a stolen car fleeing from the scene >of a crime by shooting at its tires and if someone is killed by >accident, then no charges should be laid. Of course a case >could be made to change police procedure. Unfortunately, I >am not familiar with the details of police procedure. From what I've read about this case, it is not police procedure to ``shoot out the tires'' of a car. I does seem to me that some cops are a little gun happy. In the Lawson case, the police should have arranged for some backup and then used the police force to track and apprehend the criminals. What if Lawson did not realize that the police was chasing them? His passenger claims that he was not aware that the police were after them. I'd hate to think that the police shoot first and fill out the forms later. What if the police made a mistake and fingered the wrong car? What if that was me or you in that car? Wouldn't you want the police to 1) Identify themselves and 2) Explain the charges? I can't help but think about the gentleman in Sarnia who was shot by the OPP assault team due to confusion. The OPP though that he was a ``criminal'', armed and dangereous, and he thought they were someone attacking his house. Apparently the police did not identify themselves, despite his repeated requests for identification. A tragic error. (on both parts, the OPP for not identifing themselves, the gentleman for taking the law into his own hands) Jim Sullivan No Guns No Butter, both can kill you!
soley@ontenv.UUCP (Norman S. Soley) (01/25/89)
In article <1989Jan23.184709.8098@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article <1989Jan20.201648.20385@lsuc.uucp> sean@lsuc.UUCP (Sean Doran the Younger) writes: > >... They are certainly not allowed to shoot at someone > >brandishing a knife (Police Constables are well trained in the use > >of truncheons and are all taught how to disarm an opponent who is > >using a knife or other weapon)... > > Let us not forget that knives are lethal weapons, and that disarming > someone with a knife is much easier said than done. I'm not familiar > with the level of training that Toronto police get, but my understanding > is that disarming anyone carrying anything is generally considered to > be an expert-level procedure, and I would be very surprised if the normal > Toronto policeman has the kind of training needed to do it without grave > risk. Especially since he'd need constant practice to maintain that > kind of skill. Certianly true. Add to that the fact that it can take several officers to subdue a desparate man, (for lack of a better term) crazed from adreniline. I know that the OPP (I don't know about metro) does not carry on ongoing weapons/combat training. There are yearly courses but no tangible encouragement to practice throughout the rest of the year (most good officers do, for their own protection) this is hardly enough to maintain the kind of proficiency needed to disarm a violent attacker. I also see little distinction between gun and nightstick, the standard truncheon carried by the Metro police is a very nasty weapon indeed and can, in close combat, kill as easily as a pistol. My understanding of the policies and standing orders governing the police suggests that the conditions under which a firearm MIGHT be used include any situation in which there is a REASONABLE risk of death or injury to himself or a member of the public, some stretch this as far as allowing an officer to shoot a fleeing suspect who is know to be armed and violent. The essential decision which the courts will be faced with in both the Donaldson and Lawson cases is whether the respective officers were correct in their interpretation of reasonable risk. -- Norman Soley - Data Communications Analyst - Ontario Ministry of the Environment UUCP: uunet!attcan!lsuc!ncrcan!ontenv!soley VOICE: +1 416 323 2623 OR: soley@ontenv.UUCP " Stay smart, go cool, be happy, it's the only way to get what you want"
soley@ontenv.UUCP (Norman S. Soley) (01/25/89)
In article <89Jan23.093655est.38021@neat.ai.toronto.edu>, derome@ai.toronto.edu (Philippe Derome) writes: > In article <4674@hcr.UUCP> paulg@hcrvax.UUCP (Paul Gooderham) writes: > > > > - the youthful driver of a known stolen car tries to run down two > > policemen and ends up shot > > > >In both these cases currently popular in the press, the criminal > >is trying to kill the policeman and the policeman strikes back. > > In my uderstanding, the policemen (man?) shot in the back of > the car. Perhaps, this was not self-defense. We will see what > the justice has to say. Yes it was men. In all six shots were fired at the moving car, two by the officer who was at risk of being run down, the other by his partner who was standing on the driver's side, about even with the driver when the shooting started. Remember, the officers were investigating a stolen car in an area where a known gang of car theives, reported as armed might have been involved. Officer 1 determines (correctly or otherwise, that the courts will determine) that he was in danger of being run down and shoots 2 shots at the car, officer 2 cannot see his partner and does not know who was doing the shooting, assumes at least one of shots came from the car theives, draws his weapon and shoots 4 shots into the car as it speeds by hitting first the drivers door then further along the car, the last bullet he fired ricohets off something and hits Lawson. -- Norman Soley - Data Communications Analyst - Ontario Ministry of the Environment UUCP: uunet!attcan!lsuc!ncrcan!ontenv!soley VOICE: +1 416 323 2623 OR: soley@ontenv.UUCP " Stay smart, go cool, be happy, it's the only way to get what you want"
nusip@maccs.McMaster.CA (Mike Borza) (01/25/89)
In article <4742@hcr.UUCP> paulg@hcrvax.UUCP (Paul Gooderham) writes: >In my understanding, the police shot at the *tires* of the stolen car >and that a ricocheted bullet struck the young driver. In spite of the overwhelming odds against this possibility, it could be true. >If it is police procedure to stop a stolen car fleeing from the scene >of a crime by shooting at its tires and if someone is killed by >accident, then no charges should be laid. [....] >In any case, an *investigation* should lead to charges. Not a >politician's fear of losing the ethnic vote. In all of this discussion, I note that the allegation that the officer involved was using ammunition which is prohibited for general use under the Police Act has been conveniently ignored or forgotten. I believe that Canadian law holds that a death which occurs during the commission of a crime is considered a crime in itself. If the investigation of the incident in question in fact determined that the officer was using illegal ammunition, then there is no question that charges must be laid. Not being a lawyer myself, I don't know how the Police Act relates to the Criminal Code of Canada; therefore I don't know what charge is appropriate. Knowing a few police officers myself, I am hard pressed to come to a blanket defence of an entire force. Some are exemplary citizens; others would be in jail themselves were it not for the fact that they are officers of the law, I suspect. If the report that banned ammunition was used is true, I would ask myself, "Do I believe an officer who purposely loaded his/her service revolver with banned ammunition which served only to magnify the gravity of a wound inflicted with it be predisposed to use it?". For me the answer is probably. Now I ask myself, "Do I want an individual who knowingly violates the law to uphold the law?". My answer is no. You may well disagree with my position, but I'd have to ask how much latitude you give police in their own obeyance of the law. Would an automatic pistol have been acceptable? An automatic rifle? I expect officers of the law to uphold the law themselves. This morning driving in on the highway, I travelled behind an OPP cruiser at 130 km/h for a distance of about 10 km. He was chatting amiably with his companion in the front seat, making unsignaled lane changes and an occasional lane change across two lanes. All of these are offences under the Highway Traffic Act. How does this officer enforce the HTA with a clear conscience? How does the OPP maintain its credibility in its enforcement of the HTA? What does this say about the current "Speeding Slows You Down" crusade? (It doesn't if you're behind a cop is the right answer, I believe:-) Similarly, I have watched officers who couldn't be bothered sitting through a red light go through with their lights on. It was painfully obvious that they simply couldn't be bothered waiting. I don't recall anything about officers obeying the law at their own discretion, but then it's been a while since high school Law. mike borza <nusip@maccs.uucp or antel!mike@maccs.uucp>
soley@ontenv.UUCP (Norman S. Soley) (01/25/89)
In article <4742@hcr.UUCP>, paulg@hcr.UUCP (Paul Gooderham) writes: > In article <89Jan23.093655est.38021@neat.ai.toronto.edu> derome@neat.ai.toronto.edu.UUCP writes: > >In my uderstanding, the policemen (man?) shot in the back of > >the car. Perhaps, this was not self-defense. We will see what > >the justice has to say. > > In my understanding, the police shot at the *tires* of the stolen car > and that a ricocheted bullet struck the young driver. Nope, The killer bullet was a ricochet but the officer was shooting at the occupants (I've seen the bullet holes from a distance, they are all higher than would indicate that the tires were being shot at). No matter what you see on TV police do not try to shoot out tires. -- Norman Soley - Data Communications Analyst - Ontario Ministry of the Environment UUCP: uunet!attcan!lsuc!ncrcan!ontenv!soley VOICE: +1 416 323 2623 OR: soley@ontenv.UUCP " Stay smart, go cool, be happy, it's the only way to get what you want"
soley@ontenv.UUCP (Norman S. Soley) (01/25/89)
In article <4744@hcr.UUCP>, jim@hcr.UUCP (Jim Sullivan) writes: > > I does seem to me that some cops are a little gun happy. In the > Lawson case, the police should have arranged for some backup and then > used the police force to track and apprehend the criminals. Good point! but... > What if Lawson did not realize that the police was chasing them? His > passenger claims that he was not aware that the police were after them. > I'd hate to think that the police shoot first and fill out the forms later. Lawson was never "chased" and whether he may have known the police were after him at all is a moot point, as soon as a uniformed police officer became illuminated by his headlights, he should have had all the information he needed to guide his actions, instead he stepped on the gas and turned the car towards the officer. > What if the police made a mistake and fingered the wrong car? What if that > was me or you in that car? Wouldn't you want the police to 1) Identify > themselves and 2) Explain the charges? > > I can't help but think about the gentleman in Sarnia who was shot by the OPP > assault team due to confusion. The OPP though that he was a ``criminal'', > armed and dangereous, and he thought they were someone attacking his house. > Apparently the police did not identify themselves, despite his repeated > requests for identification. A tragic error. (on both parts, the OPP for > not identifing themselves, the gentleman for taking the law into his own > hands) This points out the worst aspect of what has been going on recently which is media irresponsiblity in its reporting of these cases. I don't believe it's intentional, but a story like this is rarely interesting enough to last on the front page until the real facts come out, All I heard or read about this case was that the OPP true team shot the wrong man, what got testified at the enquiry tells a very different story. The OPP was searching for a known armed and violent criminal (not the dead man) who was last seen on foot making his way through back yards, over fences and so on. This was no quiet operation lots of flashing lights and sirens, it would have been pretty difficult to not know that something was going on. The deceased, heavily intoxicated thought he heard a prowler, so he gets his gun and goes out onto the back porch, swearing loudly and incoherently and stands under a floodlight, there are two officers in his yard, outside the pool of light, they are wearing jumpsuits with POLICE in 3 inch high reflective tape on their chests, from where he is standing 1 police van with flashing red lights is visible, one of the officers says "look out, he's got a gun" the other calls out "Police, drop your weapon", nothing happens so he steps into the light, holds up his badge and says again "Police, drop your weapon" (here accounts differ, some witnesses claim the officer identified himself a third time) at this point the man shot (witnesses say once, physical evidence reveals that at least two shots must have been fired, there were shotgun pellets in the garage wall several feet away from the officer who was hit) only then did the second officer return fire. In addition to attempted murder (or more likely aggrevated assault) the dead man broke practically every gun law this country and province has. Its unfortunate that the man was killed, that is true, but I can't find it in me to think that it was wrong. -- Norman Soley - Data Communications Analyst - Ontario Ministry of the Environment UUCP: uunet!attcan!lsuc!ncrcan!ontenv!soley VOICE: +1 416 323 2623 OR: soley@ontenv.UUCP " Stay smart, go cool, be happy, it's the only way to get what you want"
john@hcr.UUCP (John R. MacMillan) (01/25/89)
In article <1989Jan24.133658.23930@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> sarathy@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Rajiv Sarathy) writes: |In article <4742@hcr.UUCP> paulg@hcrvax.UUCP (Paul Gooderham) writes: |>In my understanding, the police shot at the *tires* of the stolen car |>and that a ricocheted bullet struck the young driver. | |Somehow, I doubt that a bullet can hit a car tire and ricochet up about 3 feet |and forward (if the back tire was shot) or backward (if the front tire was |shot), go through the window (or metal) and hit the driver anywhere near the |head. Note that Paul said "shot *at*" (emphasis mine), not "hit". Hitting the tire of a moving vehicle from behind is no mean feat. -- John R. MacMillan "Life is like a baseball bat. It's long and HCR Corporation hard and hurts when you drop it on your foot" {utzoo,utcsri}!hcr!john - Christopher J. Rotherforth
soley@ontenv.UUCP (Norman S. Soley) (01/25/89)
In article <1841@maccs.McMaster.CA> nusip@maccs.McMaster.CA (Mike Borza) writes: > > In all of this discussion, I note that the allegation that the officer > involved was using ammunition which is prohibited for general use > under the Police Act has been conveniently ignored or forgotten. > I believe that Canadian law holds that a death which occurs during > the commission of a crime is considered a crime in itself. If the > investigation of the incident in question in fact determined that the > officer was using illegal ammunition, then there is no question that > charges must be laid. Not being a lawyer myself, I don't know how > the Police Act relates to the Criminal Code of Canada; therefore I > don't know what charge is appropriate. > > Knowing a few police officers myself, I am hard pressed to come to a > blanket defence of an entire force. Some are exemplary citizens; > others would be in jail themselves were it not for the fact that they > are officers of the law, I suspect. If the report that banned > ammunition was used is true, I would ask myself, "Do I believe an officer > who purposely loaded his/her service revolver with banned ammunition > which served only to magnify the gravity of a wound inflicted with it > be predisposed to use it?". For me the answer is probably. Now I ask > myself, "Do I want an individual who knowingly violates the law to > uphold the law?". My answer is no. You may well disagree with my > position, but I'd have to ask how much latitude you give police in > their own obeyance of the law. Would an automatic pistol have been > acceptable? An automatic rifle? You've raised some very good questions, it's not been publically established as yet that "illegal" bullets were used, although I believe it is the case. If it turns out to be true then in the very least he should receive the maximum penalty provided for in the police act (which would be dismissal). As far as other criminal charges go there are several possiblities: 1) The officer (except for the use of banned bullets) acted correctly and within the line of duty - No further charges or Criminal Negligence causing death. 2) The officer acted incorrectly, but without malice and was not shooting to kill (unlikely) - Manslaughter 3) The officer acted incorrectly but without malice and was shooting to kill - 2nd Degree Murder 4) The officer acted incorrectly with malice, and intent to kill - 1st Degree Murder It is my contention that #1 applies to the officer who fired the killer shot, the other officer on the other hand is probably guilty of the charge of aggrevated assault which has been layed against him. outside of any legal consideration there are moral questions here, I think the moral boundry represented by hollow point bullets has already been crossed. Until a few years ago, police in Ontario could only use copper jacketed bullets, small hole going in, small hole going out, tumble resistant and ricochets somewhat predicably, however they had little change of actually stopping a criminal from doing anything unless aimed very accurately. Then they were allowed their current load, the lead semi-wadcutter, small to medium hole going in, larger hole going out, flat nosed so they tumble easier, thus ripping an even larger hole or bouncing unpredicably, impact is frequently sufficient to put the shootee into immediate shock. The "banned" hollow point bullet is very similar to the current load, sure it does a little more damage but it's of the same type and effect of the current load. This doesn't change the fact that the officer should be punished under the police act. But to me at any rate it suggests that any consideration of the criminal nature of the officers acts should not be affected by the load he had in his gun. -- Norman Soley - Data Communications Analyst - Ontario Ministry of the Environment UUCP: uunet!attcan!lsuc!ncrcan!ontenv!soley VOICE: +1 416 323 2623 OR: soley@ontenv.UUCP " Stay smart, go cool, be happy, it's the only way to get what you want"
soley@ontenv.UUCP (Norman S. Soley) (01/25/89)
In article <89Jan24.160527est.10808@ephemeral.ai.toronto.edu>, tff@na.toronto.edu (Tom Fairgrieve) writes: > > (Paul Gooderham) paulg@hcrvax.UUCP writes: > > >In any case, an *investigation* should lead to charges. Not a > >politician's fear of losing the ethnic vote. > > I am not aware of any cases where charges have been laid without > an investigation being made by a police force or a Crown council. > To which case were you refering? In the Donaldson case the investigations by both the crown council and the OPP recommended that no charges be laid due to insufficient evidence, someone somewhere in the Ministry of the Attorney General has chosen to IGNORE this advise. There are some serious questions to be asked about the Donaldson Case, but this charge of manslaughter is working against the interest of real justice, it's quite likely that the officer in question acted correctly in the day of the shooting, what should really be called into question is the apparent harrassment (by other officers if I'm not mistaken) that led up to this case, but now that the charge has been layed any chance of a proper investigation of the events leading up to the Donaldson killing is now very slim. -- Norman Soley - Data Communications Analyst - Ontario Ministry of the Environment UUCP: uunet!attcan!lsuc!ncrcan!ontenv!soley VOICE: +1 416 323 2623 OR: soley@ontenv.UUCP " Stay smart, go cool, be happy, it's the only way to get what you want"
john@hcr.UUCP (John R. MacMillan) (01/26/89)
In article <380@ontenv.UUCP> soley@ontenv.UUCP writes: |In article <4742@hcr.UUCP>, paulg@hcr.UUCP (Paul Gooderham) writes: |> In article <89Jan23.093655est.38021@neat.ai.toronto.edu> derome@neat.ai.toronto.edu.UUCP writes: |> >In my uderstanding, the policemen (man?) shot in the back of |> >the car. Perhaps, this was not self-defense. We will see what |> >the justice has to say. |> |> In my understanding, the police shot at the *tires* of the stolen car |> and that a ricocheted bullet struck the young driver. | |Nope, The killer bullet was a ricochet but the officer was shooting at |the occupants (I've seen the bullet holes from a distance, they are |all higher than would indicate that the tires were being shot at). |No matter what you see on TV police do not try to shoot out tires. Most of the holes were in the back of the car, all but one (the lethal one) lower than would indicate that the occupants were being shot at. Either way, he missed what he was shooting at. I've heard several reports that the officer claims he was shooting at the tires, and I've heard you claim he was shooting at the occupants. No offense, but I think I'll believe the reports and the officer unless something new turns up. -- John R. MacMillan "Life is like a baseball bat. It's long and HCR Corporation hard and hurts when you drop it on your foot" {utzoo,utcsri}!hcr!john - Christopher J. Rotherforth
sarathy@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Rajiv Sarathy) (01/26/89)
In article <4761@hcr.UUCP> john@hcrvax.UUCP (John R. MacMillan) writes: >In article <1989Jan24.133658.23930@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> sarathy@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Rajiv Sarathy) writes: >|In article <4742@hcr.UUCP> paulg@hcrvax.UUCP (Paul Gooderham) writes: >|>In my understanding, the police shot at the *tires* of the stolen car >|>and that a ricocheted bullet struck the young driver. >| >|Somehow, I doubt that a bullet can hit a car tire and ricochet up about 3 feet >|and forward (if the back tire was shot) or backward (if the front tire was >|shot), go through the window (or metal) and hit the driver anywhere near the >|head. > >Note that Paul said "shot *at*" (emphasis mine), not "hit". Hitting >the tire of a moving vehicle from behind is no mean feat. I've never tried shooting the tires of a moving vehicle myself, and I believe you if you say that it "is no mean feat". However, policemen often practice shooting at stationary and moving targets in their shooting ranges, from what I've seen on TV (I'm no Toronto Police expert). So if they were aiming at the tire, how did they hit the driver at the back of the head? I seriously doubt that the bullet richocheted off something and then hit him. You took out the line I had in my original posting saying that the bullet was HOLLOW-TIPPED. I've read that these bullets do VERY LITTLE damage once they hit something because their velocity diminishes to relatively VERY LOW once they hit something, and their mass is much less than a regular bullet. Hence, if you know anything about physics, you know that their kinetic energy will be even lower than the ratio of differences between the velocity and mass, since they're being multiplied (the product of two small fractions is a smaller fraction). CONCLUSION: THE BULLET WENT STRAIGHT THROUGH THE GLASS AND INTO THE DRIVER'S HEAD. THIS IMPLIES THAT THE COP WAS EITHER A VERY POOR SHOOTER OR HE AIMED AT THE DRIVER. Of course, this is based on absolutely no legal evidence, and is very circumstantial. But it's fuel to the fire. -- _____________________________________________________________________________ | Disclaimer: I'm just an undergrad. | | All views and opinions are therefore my own. | | | | Rajiv Partha Sarathy sarathy@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca | |_____________________________________________________________________________|
dave@lsuc.uucp (David Sherman) (01/27/89)
> > I am not aware of any cases where charges have been laid without > > an investigation being made by a police force or a Crown council. > > In the Donaldson case the investigations by both the crown council and > the OPP recommended that no charges be laid... I don't normally make an issue of spelling mistakes, but this is one which should be clarified for informational purposes. It's "Crown counsel", not "council". A council is a group of people who meet and make decisions. Counsel is the word for a Canadian lawyer who is in court or who is representing a client in a case which is going to court. Crown counsel is counsel for the Crown; Her Majesty, as you no doubt know, is nominally the party who brings all criminal charges to court. So there is no "council" making the kinds of decision under discussion. There is Crown counsel, also known as a Crown attorney, who is a lawyer who works for the government. Incidentally, "Crown attorney" and "Attorney-General" are the only cases where one refers to a Canadian lawyer as an attorney. It's a U.S. term for the generic lawyer, but definitely not a Canadian one. All members of the Law Society of Upper Canada (i.e., lawyers entitled to practise in Ontario) are "barristers and solicitors". These are separate professions in England but merged here. So you can refer to thatcharacterwhochargestoomuch as a lawyer, barrister, solicitor, or counsel, depending on the circumstances, but don't ever use "attorney" or we'll know you've been watching too much American TV. ("Counselor" is also an Americanism.) In court, a lawyer will refer to the opposing lawyer as "my friend", or if the opposing lawyer is a Q.C., "my learned friend". But I digress. As a further aside, almost all lawyers who work as lawyers in the federal government are officially employed by the Department of Justice, and in the Ontario government by the Attorney-General's office. These are the two largest "law firms" in the country, and they act as counsel to all of the other (federal) departments and (provincial) ministries. The relationship is often very much a lawyer-client relationship, as for example where income tax litigation is handled by the Department of Justice on behalf of its client Revenue Canada Taxation. In the more normal criminal cases, including the police shooting question, Crown counsel is an employee of the Attorney-General's office, which is the ministry responsible for bringing criminal prosecutions. David Sherman -- Moderator, mail.yiddish { uunet!attcan att pyramid!utai utzoo } !lsuc!dave
tff@na.toronto.edu (Tom Fairgrieve) (01/27/89)
Norman S. Soley (soley@ontenv.UUCP) writes : >In the Donaldson case the investigations by both the crown council and >the OPP recommended that no charges be laid due to insufficient >evidence, someone somewhere in the Ministry of the Attorney General >has chosen to IGNORE this advise. I believe that the Globe and Mail said that the initial investigation was reviewed by two criminal lawyers at the Crown Law Office, and their decision that there was sufficient evidence was examined by the director of criminal division of the Crown Law Office (who is the "top" (or very close) criminal lawyer at the Ministry). The lawyers in this Office handle all appeals to the Ontario and Canadian Supreme Courts and are supposed to be more "learned" than those in local offices. Perhaps "IGNORE" is a bit too loaded. How about "came to a different conclusion"?
john@hcr.UUCP (John R. MacMillan) (01/27/89)
In article <1989Jan26.112904.22906@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> sarathy@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Rajiv Sarathy) writes: |However, policemen often practice shooting at stationary and moving targets in |their shooting ranges, from what I've seen on TV (I'm no Toronto Police expert). |So if they were aiming at the tire, how did they hit the driver at the back of |the head? If they were aiming at the driver, and they're such good shots, why did they only hit him once? Because nobody's perfect. One shot went through the rear window. So whether they were aiming at the tires or the passengers, their accuracy was not too good. |I seriously doubt that the bullet richocheted off something and then hit him. I'm seriously convinced of it. Reports I've read indicate the bullet ricocheted off a support column and struck the driver in the neck. |You took out the line I had in my original posting saying that the bullet was |HOLLOW-TIPPED. I've read that these bullets do VERY LITTLE damage once they |hit something because their velocity diminishes to relatively VERY LOW once |they hit something, and their mass is much less than a regular bullet. Hollow-point bullets deform on impact, in an attempt to do MORE damage to the target. Because they deform, ricochets are "wilder" and are moving some slower. However, the mass is not "much" less than a regular load, and there will still be plenty of kinetic energy to kill if the bullet strikes a dangerous area like the head or neck. As I recall, the driver wasn't killed instantly, as would be expected if the shot was a direct hit in the head or neck. |CONCLUSION: THE BULLET WENT STRAIGHT THROUGH THE GLASS AND INTO THE DRIVER'S | HEAD. THIS IMPLIES THAT THE COP WAS EITHER A VERY POOR SHOOTER | OR HE AIMED AT THE DRIVER. Well, despite the way those capital letters make your conclusion more convincing, I have to disagree. And even if it did go straight through, there's a good argument that the cop was a lousy shot. -- John R. MacMillan "Life is like a baseball bat. It's long and HCR Corporation hard and hurts when you drop it on your foot" {utzoo,utcsri}!hcr!john - Christopher J. Rotherforth
clewis@ecicrl.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (01/28/89)
HEY EVERYBODY! This is getting out of hand. If you think that the media can totally screw up a story, just carefully go thru all of the conflicting rumors here. The media can't screw up anything near as bad as USENET does. What I'm seeing going past here makes the newspaper stories about rec.humor.funny look like gospel from the mount. I strongly recommend that everyone stop further speculation. There seem to be just as many stories as there are people. The media is not doing a good job in telling what happened or is claimed to have happened. From the complete mismash of stuff here, you'd almost think people are inventing their own versions. This is an extremely sensitive issue - let's wait for the hearing where everyone gets to tell their story under oath. Spreading unsubstantiated rumor like this discussion is doing won't do anyone any good. Especially if someone from the net ends up on the jury.... The AG is keeping his mouth shut for a reason - to not prejudice the trial - let's not make the job harder than it already is. If you want to talk fine points of law (eg: procedure leading up to trial) or more general issues, fine. Just no more speculation on what might have happened. Okay? I'm not singling the article I'm following up on out for any particular reason, except for the following statement - which is simply an example of how twisted this story is getting: In article <1989Jan26.112904.22906@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> sarathy@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Rajiv Sarathy) writes: >I seriously doubt that the bullet richocheted off something and then hit him. >You took out the line I had in my original posting saying that the bullet was >HOLLOW-TIPPED. I've read that these bullets do VERY LITTLE damage once they ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Wrong. Hollow-tipped is the same thing as "mushroom". Any hollow tip round larger than 22 caliber will take half your head off. You ever see "The Day of the Jackal", where he's testing his bullets on a watermelon and practically the whole thing disappears in a cloud of pink spray? Or, slow motion footage of the carnage that Lee Harvey Oswald caused? Or what even a .22 short mushroom will do to a bar of soap? (great fun, BTW ;-} *That's* hollow tip. The media was referring to soft-point *NOT* hollow-tip. If the police officer had used hollow-tip he would have been charged *immediately* with murder. "Soft-point" is something somewhat different: the bullet deforms on impact. These can be "optimized" for several different results: 1) minimal penetration (so it doesn't go thru walls and three other people you didn't know were there) 2) Maximal damage. 3) Maximal shock. The bullets that hit Bastien (the OPP shooting discussed previously) were (1) - police bullets specifically designed for the purpose of hitting one and only one person. Good ol' Bob Rae made a big thing about soft-point and their prohibition. Far from it - they *do* have a place. Even those designed for "max damage" or "max shock". These are hunting bullets - to ensure as quick a kill as possible of large animals. The use of anything but mushroom or soft-point rounds for big game hunting is extremely cruel and stupid. >hit something because their velocity diminishes to relatively VERY LOW once >they hit something, and their mass is much less than a regular bullet. Hence, >if you know anything about physics, you know that their kinetic energy will >be even lower than the ratio of differences between the velocity and mass, >since they're being multiplied (the product of two small fractions is a smaller >fraction). Exactly - most mushroom rounds will almost completely disintegrate when they hit anything solid, thus making your conclusion: >CONCLUSION: THE BULLET WENT STRAIGHT THROUGH THE GLASS AND INTO THE DRIVER'S > HEAD. THIS IMPLIES THAT THE COP WAS EITHER A VERY POOR SHOOTER > OR HE AIMED AT THE DRIVER. nonsensical. Not to mention problems of glass refraction and the abysmal lighting conditions that were present. In perfect lighting conditions, with near-zero refraction in the window, constant velocity (eg: the driver conveniently lets up on the gas), and a *hard* point round, a policeman just *might* be able to hit something the size of someone's head on purpose. *Nobody* shoots as good as Dirty Harry. -- Chris Lewis, Markham, Ontario, Canada {uunet!attcan,utgpu,yunexus,utzoo}!lsuc!ecicrl!clewis Ferret Mailing list: ...!lsuc!gate!eci386!ferret-request (or lsuc!gate!eci386!clewis or lsuc!clewis)
sarathy@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Rajiv Sarathy) (01/29/89)
In article <4800@hcr.UUCP> john@hcrvax.UUCP (John R. MacMillan) writes: >In article <1989Jan26.112904.22906@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> sarathy@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Rajiv Sarathy) writes: >|However, policemen often practice shooting at stationary and moving targets in >|their shooting ranges, from what I've seen on TV (I'm no Toronto Police expert). >|So if they were aiming at the tire, how did they hit the driver at the back of >|the head? > >If they were aiming at the driver, and they're such good shots, why >did they only hit him once? Because nobody's perfect. One shot went >through the rear window. So whether they were aiming at the tires or >the passengers, their accuracy was not too good. An eye witness on the net said that the majority of bullet holes in the car were in the upper part indicating that they were aiming at the driver. I don't know -- I wasn't there and didn't see any photos. >|You took out the line I had in my original posting saying that the bullet was >|HOLLOW-TIPPED. I've read that these bullets do VERY LITTLE damage once they >|hit something because their velocity diminishes to relatively VERY LOW once >|they hit something, and their mass is much less than a regular bullet. Oops. My original posting did talk about hollow-tipped/hollow-point bullets, but here I guess I meant soft-tipped/soft-point bullets. Now I don't even remember which one the officers were purportedly using. Says a lot for rumours on the net, I guess. -- _____________________________________________________________________________ | Disclaimer: I'm just an undergrad. | | All views and opinions are therefore my own. | | | | Rajiv Partha Sarathy sarathy@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca | |_____________________________________________________________________________|
dave@lethe.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) (01/30/89)
In article <1989Jan26.112904.22906@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> sarathy@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Rajiv Sarathy) writes: |However, policemen often practice shooting at stationary and moving targets in |their shooting ranges, from what I've seen on TV (I'm no Toronto Police expert). |So if they were aiming at the tire, how did they hit the driver at the back of |the head? If you've ever fired a pistol, you'd know. (No, I'm not attacking the questioner... read the next paragraph before you think I'm being nasty to him) I admit being a **terrible** shot with a rifle (ie, I can only hit things within a few hundred yards), but if I could shoot that well with a pistol I'd be placing in the top target-pistol shots in the world. A pistol is a point-blank defensive weapon, intended as a means of protecting a soldier's life in extreme circumstances. Police and criminals use them as general-purpose weapons, at the cost of not being able to hit what they aim at a large part of the time. And that's on the first shot. On the second or third, the muzzle is pointing off in some implausible direction (usually up and to one side) and the shooter is trying very hard to get it to point the same direction as her arm... One of the good things, though, is the poor penetration of a pistol bullet. They tend to be deflected by tempered glass and/or thin sheet metal, slowed by wooden walls and stopped by brick. This tends to make them somewhat less dangerous to those nearby who end up at risk whenever anyone touches off one of those !#&%$!! hand-cannons. [The only thing less desirable as a police sidearm is the light SMGs used by some security forces. They have all the accuracy of a pistol with an extra handgrip (ie, they're not **quite** as bad), and they fire multiple rounds very quickly, which means it's very hard to keep them on target. And they often fire hard-tipped military-short rounds, which penetrate walls, cars, etc surprisingly well...] Therefore I can well imagine a policeman firing several shots at the car from the rear and side, and having one of the later rounds enter the (now smashed) window an strike the driver. Or, optionally, smash the window and be reflected into the driver's head. Or maybe (as was claimed) ricochet off some part of the bodywork and strike the driver in the head. What I would actually **expect** is rounds fired at the car would ricochet and end up lodged in nearby buildings, policemen and passers-bye. --dave (late of HM Canadian Forces) c-b [from the above, you can probably guess the origins of my dislike of pistols]
mike@ists.ists.ca (Mike Clarkson) (01/31/89)
In article <3615@geaclib.UUCP>, dave@lethe.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) writes: > A pistol is a point-blank defensive weapon, intended as a means of > protecting a soldier's life in extreme circumstances. Police and > criminals use them as general-purpose weapons, at the cost of not > being able to hit what they aim at a large part of the time. When I was in Vancouver some years ago, qn armed robber walked into a bank to hold it up. By chance, ununiformed detective was in the manager's office on an unrelated matter. He drew his gun and tried to arrest the robber. A firefight ensued at point-blank range. 13 shots were fired at less than 10 feet. If I recall correctly, the officer was the only one to be hit, and even then, only grazed by one bullet. > What I would actually **expect** is rounds fired at the car would > ricochet and end up lodged in nearby buildings, policemen and > passers-bye. This basic fact of ballistic life makes police much more reticent to fire than most people are aware. They only shoot the tires out in Hollywood - real policeMEN aim for the gas tank! -- Mike Clarkson mike@ists.UUCP Institute for Space and Terrestrial Science mike@ists.ists.ca York University, North York, Ontario, uunet!mnetor!yunexus!ists!mike CANADA M3J 1P3 +1 (416) 736-5611
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (02/08/89)
In article <358@ists.ists.ca> mike@ists.ists.ca (Mike Clarkson) writes: >> A pistol is a point-blank defensive weapon, intended as a means of >> protecting a soldier's life in extreme circumstances. Police and >> criminals use them as general-purpose weapons, at the cost of not >> being able to hit what they aim at a large part of the time. > >[Vancouver bank stickup] >A firefight ensued at point-blank range. 13 shots were fired at less than 10 >feet. If I recall correctly, the officer was the only one to be hit, >and even then, only grazed by one bullet. What this demonstrates is that standard police training does not lead to a useful standard of pistol marksmanship, especially if not backed up by persistent practice. (Pistol marksmanship fades quickly unless maintained.) A police officer with proper pistol training and a proper pistol -- both very rare in normal police departments, unless the officer sought them out (and probably paid for them) himself -- would probably have fired two shots, which would have ended the "firefight" with no return fire. (Actually, the first shot would usually suffice, but firing twice is safer.) Yes, Virginia, it is possible to fire a pistol accurately, even under stress. However, it takes proper training, which is too lengthy (i.e. expensive) for most police departments (and, for that matter, most armed forces), and serious continuing practice. A well-built pistol is capable of being quite accurate, but it doesn't come for free. -- Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology toast to comrade Van Allen!!" | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu