# Toronto van/sidewalk attack (terrorism?)



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

There was an attack in Toronto this afternoon. A man in a rented van drove at high speed on the sidewalk in Yonge/Finch area. At least 7 were hospitalized. The man is in custody.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/pedestrians-struck-white-van-1.4631564


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

Sick ******* out to hurt innocent people, the news media should completely ignore it and not give him any airtime.


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

At times like these, I'll filled with sympathy for the victims and their families and friends.

I also try to keep these words from Mr. Rogers in mind:

_Fred Rogers often told this story about when he was a boy and would see scary things on the news: “My mother would say to me, ‘Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.’ To this day, especially in times of disaster, I remember my mother’s words, and I am always comforted by realizing that there are still so many helpers — so many caring people in this world.”_


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

9 dead from the attack.

Too early to know much details. The suspect's last name appears to be Armenian (someone correct me if I'm wrong). I'm not aware of any Armenian terrorist incidents since attacks they conducted during the 1980s.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

*Way *too early to start speculating motive for any ethnic, religious, political, or philosophical belief. At least, maybe with him alive and in custody, we may find out why he acted this way. It does appear that he wanted to be killed by the cops; but perhaps the Sammy Yatim incident has made TO police less likely to shoot someone once the situation is under their control.

Had this happened in the U.S. of A, he would be dead now. Pointing a cell phone at the cops is apparently justification for deadly force. _"Show me your ha.. gun-gun-gun... bang!"_


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

This is unbelievable. I'm listening to the coverage of the confrontation with police. The suspect claims he has a gun, holds an object pretending it's a gun, even does a mock gun-drawing motion ... looks like an attempt at death-by-cop.

The Toronto Police officer just holds his gun aimed at the suspect, shouts instructions, but doesn't fire a shot. Amazing restraint. Wow.

Americans must be losing their minds!


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

Yeah, that encounter probably would have gone differently, had it occurred in the us.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

james4beach said:


> 9 dead from the attack.
> 
> Too early to know much details. The suspect's last name appears to be Armenian (someone correct me if I'm wrong). I'm not aware of any Armenian terrorist incidents since attacks they conducted during the 1980s.




the fact that tomorrow is the 103rd anniversary of the armenian genocide coupled with the dramatic upheaval going on in armenia right now might possibly have something to do with the toronto vehicle ramming attack.

in yerevan, hundreds of thousands of mostly younger armenians have been protesting how former president Serzh Sarkisian changed the constitution after 10 years in power so as to deliver head-of-state powers to a prime minister, then recently got himself elected PM in what his opponents said was a massively rigged election to prolong his dictatorship.

today, pro-kremlin Sarkisian abruptly resigned, saying the protest opposition was "right" while he had been "wrong."

the above has nothing to do with canada. It might be enough to push an already unhinged person with a connection to armenia over the top into murderous rage, though.


.


----------



## milhouse (Nov 16, 2016)

Terrorism or not terrorism it doesn't matter in that it's just incredibly sad that so many people just going about their day lost their lives or had their lives changed dramatically today due to an incredibly selfish individual.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

This guy was not all there mentally. Closest parallel is the Nice disaster. Best not to compare to the US. Their cops are paranoid. Plus it is too low a standard.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

At least this cop used his eyes and head. Too many of them are bullies with a badge and gun.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

Pluto said:


> At least this cop used his eyes and head.


Yes, he did a great job! Watching the video, the suspect pretends to pull a gun and aims it at the cop. He then does it a second time with the same hand. The cop had to be thinking "What the ***; why would someone pull the same gun twice?" I think it was at that point, the cop knew he was dealing with someone who wanted to be killed, and denied him of that gift - let him rot in prison ( if he doesn't get NCR'ed ).


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Cops have a tough job. Imagine deciding on the correct reaction to that within a fraction of a second... the attacker could have been pulling out a gun on him and might have shot the cop.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

james4beach said:


> Cops have a tough job. Imagine deciding on the correct reaction to that within a fraction of a second... the attacker could have been pulling out a gun on him and might have shot the cop.


precisely, i have to offer a minority opinion here and say that the the notion that i see in the thread that canadian police officers are smarter or more restrained is kind of laughable

the cop made absolutely the wrong move from a public safety point of view ... the van driver announces that he has a gun in his pocket and then appears to pull it out ... the officer should have dropped the guy on the spot

it shows his lack of experience in facing these kinds of situations and in the usa he would have almost certainly been disciplined by senior officers for putting himself and the public at risk

also, to even try and compare american policing to canadian policing is a non-starter since they are two different universes

american police often have more officers killed in the line of duty in a single year than all of canada combined in the last 50 years
and the odds of a big city american cop facing an armed suspect are infinitely higher

it worked out ok but the cop made absolutely the wrong move


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

fatcat said:


> it worked out ok but the cop made absolutely the wrong move


I don't think we can make that assessment. The cop might have seen more details. Maybe he already saw that the guy was holding nothing in his hands (or that he clearly had a cell phone). This is way too specific a detail... it might have been the right or wrong move by the officer.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

The guy was apparently yelling at the cop to shot him so the cop figured out fast what was going on.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

I think the cop should be commended for his actions

He instinctively kept his distance and the car between them while he quickly assessed the situation. He resisted to shoot when the suspect gestured a gun (although he probably had the legal justification to shoot at that point, Canadian officials are trained to de-escalate and use minimum force when possible, and few civvies can quick draw and aim pistol from that range with the body posture of a failed recruit) He even took the time to turn off the siren so the suspect could hear his warnings before closing in

The glaring issue I see is where is his partner? A partner should have handled the siren and backed him up in case things did escalate. This is a huge red flag to any armed professional and it's a sorry state if cops are patrolling alone in Canada let alone GTA. If the suspect had a gun and managed to take out the cop (as unlikely as it would be to yell shoot me shoot me then actually shoot the cop) there needs to be backup to take out the shooter. The cop was most likely aware of what just happened and that he couldn't wait for backup to arrive..

It all comes does to good judgement and intuition (reading body language, assessing the situation, among many things) which this cop displayed here IMO


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

How about the cop determined that anyone who uses a van to kill people probably lacks a gun and ammo?


----------



## STech (Jun 7, 2016)

fatcat said:


> precisely, i have to offer a minority opinion here and say that the the notion that i see in the thread that canadian police officers are smarter or more restrained is kind of laughable
> 
> the cop made absolutely the wrong move from a public safety point of view ... the van driver announces that he has a gun in his pocket and then appears to pull it out ... the officer should have dropped the guy on the spot
> 
> ...




Sooner or later, inevitably a keyboard cowboy pops up and offers his/her expert opinion on just about everything, while sipping back his coffee or latte.




kcowan said:


> How about the cop determined that anyone who uses a van to kill people probably lacks a gun and ammo?


Or the fact a mass murderer that just mowed down dozens of people, doesn't get out of a vehicle with a loaded gun, and pauses to have a chat with a cop pointing a gun at him.

Kudos to the cop and his training. Under a tense situation that was changing rapidly, he still went back in his cruiser to turn off the blaring siren to de-escalate the situation. Just like Captain Sullenberger, the term hero is a little much IMHO, but they're damn great professionals at their jobs.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

absolutely Ken Lam should be/will be commended for his extraordinary courage


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

STech said:


> Sooner or later, inevitably a keyboard cowboy pops up and offers his/her expert opinion on just about everything, while sipping back his coffee or latte.
> 
> Or the fact a mass murderer that just mowed down dozens of people, doesn't get out of a vehicle with a loaded gun, and pauses to have a chat with a cop pointing a gun at him.
> 
> Kudos to the cop and his training. Under a tense situation that was changing rapidly, he still went back in his cruiser to turn off the blaring siren to de-escalate the situation. Just like Captain Sullenberger, the term hero is a little much IMHO, but they're damn great professionals at their jobs.


it's actually irish breakfast tea ... my horse is named buttermilk

a cops first duty is to protect the public and if he had guessed wrong more people could have been killed ... the cop put the public's life at risk by not dropping the guy on the spot ... he should be fired

now go away ... you can only come back when you have finally found an original thought


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

7 minutes from the 911 call to arrest, and a 37 second interaction from PC Lam on the scene with the suspect -- including turning off the sirens is nothing short of impressive.

On the civvie front as a competitive pistol shooter myself, here are some times to consider. Your world class shooters such as Jerry Mickulek are drawing a firing with accuracy at the 1 second mark in practice at the distance you see the constable engaging. That leaves this "amateur" PC 36 seconds left to make that decision to not shoot, if he was a world class shooter. This is all under real world pressures without a stand by command, and a beeper to start your course of fire. 

Yes, police have to keep public safety as priority number one, but it is not their duty to shoot and kill those that break the law. We have a legal justice system in place, and that is not his job to be the judge, jury, and executioner. It is in everyone's best interest to have a suspect alive to answer questions vs dead with nothing but the scenario to investigate.

Impressive self control, training, and decision making. BZ to this service man.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

fatcat said:


> it's actually irish breakfast tea ... my horse is named buttermilk
> 
> a cops first duty is to protect the public and if he had guessed wrong more people could have been killed ... the cop put the public's life at risk by not dropping the guy on the spot ... *he should be fired*




perhaps you'd like to re-think the above. Those ^^ are not appropriate comments in the circumstance.


.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Yeah, that's pretty rude fatcat. Not a violation of site rules or anything, but rude IMO.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

rude ? ... rudeness requires another person toward whom i would be "offensively impolite or ill-mannered." ... abrupt ... blunt ... terse ... fine but not rude

the truth is that you guys just don't like my interpretation of the facts, fine, you are entitled to your opinions

this murderous assault ended without the killer dying and more importantly nobody in the public getting hurt, i don't celebrate the fact that the killer didn't die in any way, he appears to be a pathetic, misogynistic sad sack with extremely violent tendencies which he will no doubt hone and sharpen in prison

this could have gone completely differently

i read that the guy announces a) he has a gun in his pocket and b) he is going to pull it out ... he has just killed or injured two dozen innocent people ... the right thing to do would be to err on the side of not putting the public at risk

but really the subtext here is the implication that somehow canadian cops are better than american cops because they aren't crazy yahoo's with guns and this is horseshite ladies and gentlemen ... pure horseshite ... 

you are all giving in to the unseemly tut-tutty moral superiority that canadians display toward their more rowdy cousins to the south from time to time and i can't let that pass

american cops live in a completely different world and would not have had the luxury of displaying that kind of restraint

in the usa that cop would have almost certainly faced disciplinary hearings ... here he is celebrated only because we are fortunate enough to live in a country that is markedly less violent


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

Deleted


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

recently the world has seen at least 2 other uniforms who have performed with equally stunning courage. One is Tammie Jo Shults, the southwest air pilot who guided her aircraft loaded with passengers to safe emergency landing in philadelphia after an engine exploded.

what is striking about the audio recording of captain shults's landing minutes is her jaunty tone of voice, as she fearlessly takes instruction from & reports back to control tower. There wasn't even a tremor in shults's voice as expertly she was able to turn & lower her crippled plane to a safe landing.

evidently schults had started her aviation career as an F-18 fighter pilot, one of the very first women to fly combat planes in the US.


another policeman who recently displayed the same extraordinary courage was the french elite special force Arnaud Beltrame, who volunteered to replace a female hostage being held as a human shield by a terrorist in a french supermarket.

the terrorist surrendered the female hostage, took beltrame prisoner, then stabbed & shot beltrame to death.

evidently the french special force cop had had had a long & distinguished career, was known as a top combat rescue officer in france. His loss was a staggering national tragedy.


there is another one close to here who is equally brave. I wonder whether, reading between the lines, he might recognize himself.

what appears to distinguish these heroes from us ordinary mortals is that - more than any of us have ever done - they have already profoundly dealt with the possibility of their own deaths. Unlike all the rest of us, they are not afraid to die.

i don't mean to imply for a minute that super-heroes are reckless enervated drones. What i sense is that, for some reason possibly rooted deep in their childhoods or early adolescence, they have already confronted, wrestled with & moved well past the moment when they might die.

in a life-threatening emergency, they don't suffer from the panic, fear & confusion that typically beset all us ordinary human beings. Instead they become super calm, more alert & more efficient than ever.

i suppose training can enhance or even instill some of these rare & precious hero behaviours. But still i think that the predisposition for battlefield heroics has to be rooted very deep in the developmental history of the child & the young ado. Part of it might even be purely physical - heroes are simply born with faster, better, more accurate reflexes than the rest of us.


.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

I think the fact is that both opinions have some merit. When I saw the video, I was thinking about fatcats position. Also in Canada, he might have been brought up on charges had he shot the guy.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

Humble _pie many of us have worked in situations that required putting our own safety last. It comes from training and becomes second nature I can relate to the pilot she did what she was trained to do the same as I was trained to preform under great stress and put emotion to the side. 

When others are running away from danger I put my SCBA on and headed straight in because I was trained to deal with the situation someone has to and that was my job. Its not a question of being afraid to die its what the job is, I've responded to many life threatening emergencies over the course of thirty years till retirement. We do suffer its called PTSD yes its nice to hear from others say wow amazing what you did but we do carry it.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Ag Driver said:


> On the civvie front as a competitive pistol shooter myself, here are some times to consider. Your world class shooters such as Jerry Mickulek are drawing a firing with accuracy at the 1 second mark in practice at the distance you see the constable engaging. That leaves this "amateur" PC 36 seconds left to make that decision to not shoot, if he was a world class shooter. This is all under real world pressures without a stand by command, and a beeper to start your course of fire.


You probably noticed how the suspect draws and aims one handed. Not quite "shooting from the hip" but anyone who's shot a pistol in real life and doesn't base their knowledge of pistol accuracy and aiming techniques off hollywood gagster movies would recognize he aint likely to hit a person at that range. He's not standing weaver or isosceles or anything someone would know with any basic shooting training at all. He left basic long before any weapons training

The cop may have recognized this instinctively with only mere seconds to process. Notice how he maintains a safe distance from a likely amateur shooter as the suspect approaches. Good training/experience in similar scenarios may allow him override the fight-or-flight physiological response that results in things like tunnel vision, shaking, and the relaxation of the bladder. This is accomplished by perceiving that he is not endangered by keeping a safe distance


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

guys and gals, the job of the police is to protect the public, period, that is what they do every day ... and like the military they must follow certain rules and protocols

they are tasked with making life or death decisions in split seconds and in the usa i would venture with strong certainty that the policeman would have fired and would have been rightfully absolved, in canada, as kcowan says, he could be brought up on charges ... you have two different systems

my point is that ... in my opinion ... from a procedural point of view he made a serious technical mistake by giving the killer time to ... possibly ... kill again, either the cop himself or innocent bystanders ...

i don't doubt that the policeman is a brave man and indeed he may have keen sight hearing and so on, all to the good ... my comment about firing him was hyperbole

i am not anti hero, i like heroes, i suspect that the outpouring of love for the cop is likely a result of trying to find something positive, something good in a situation that is just so unremittingly awful

why don't we have a decent mental health system in this country and maybe this could have all been prevented ?


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

The cop was totally incompetant probably because the TO police dept probably made him watch the Sammy Yatim outcome as group therapy.

In the vehicle attacks in Europe, the attackers have a secondary and tertiary attack plan. Drive down as many as you can, when you vehicle is disabled exit and try to gun down or stab as many as you can and if you see yourself about to get arrested, its time to take one for Allah and detonate your vest. 

In the video, there are no other police officers near by. If he shot that one guy, he could have easily continued his rampage, maybe even make it inside a building where there are lots more soft targets.

No, you take the target down, period and the hell with all else. Use a taser if you dont want to kill the guy but you need to incapacitate him right away.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

fatcat said:


> why don't we have a decent mental health system in this country and maybe this could have all been prevented ?


Because a mental evaluation is a violation of your charter rights.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

fatcat said:


> ... american cops live in a completely different world and would not have had the luxury of displaying that kind of restraint
> 
> in the usa that cop would have almost certainly faced disciplinary hearings ... here he is celebrated only because we are fortunate enough to live in a country that is markedly less violent


Makes you wonder why as recently as 2016, at least one *did* show such restraint - despite being in a different world. The "discipline" was firing.
https://www.rt.com/usa/418606-cop-wins-lawsuit-not-shooting/

The Dallas police force seems to have missed this "shoot those who are armed" philosophy as from 2013 to 2016, they seemingly put the public at risk 77 percent of the time by *not* shooting the suspect. http://theconversation.com/dont-sho...ir-guns-they-usually-choose-not-to-fire-94372

This doesn't fit the "American cops always shoot" or the "American cops have no choice" POVs.


Cheers


*PS*
The Dallas police disciplinary committee must have been busy over that three year period dealing with most of the officers that dealt with an armed suspect.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> Makes you wonder why as recently as 2016, at least one *did* show such restraint - despite being in a different world. The "discipline" was firing.
> https://www.rt.com/usa/418606-cop-wins-lawsuit-not-shooting/
> 
> The Dallas police force seems to have missed this "shoot those who are armed" philosophy as from 2013 to 2016, they seemingly put the public at risk 77 percent of the time by *not* shooting the suspect. http://theconversation.com/dont-sho...ir-guns-they-usually-choose-not-to-fire-94372
> ...


the debate is whether or not in this situation the cop should have shot the guy who just ran down and killed or maimed 24 people

your example of the West Virginia officer has come upon a desperate man who clearly wants to commit suicide by cop

the two situations are in no way equivalent 

it is worth noting that in your example since the officer had no way of knowing that the gun wasn’t loaded the suspect certainly could have hurt or killed the other two responding officers and i am not surprised that he was disciplined

here is a video by the new york times that shows the confrontation step by step and watching it i am more convinced that i am have this right, the cop took a foolish risk with a suspect who just killed 10 people and injured even more

https://www.nytimes.com/video/world...l=morning-briefing&nlid=6281094220180425&te=1


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

fatcat said:


> the cop took a foolish risk with a suspect who just killed 10 people and injured even more


How would the cop know the suspect just killed 10 people when he just arrived? Many things could have happened for all he knows. We know in hindsight from the comfort of our armchair. The cop knows what he sees that moment and assessed the situation in front of his own eyes.

You don't give any justification for shooting him and I don't see an argument for that from the NY Times? Shooting him doesn't jive with any armed conflict training in this country. Although it could have been justified with the handgun gestures and situation.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

fatcat said:


> here is a video by the new york times that shows the confrontation step by step and watching it i am more convinced that i am have this right, the cop took a foolish risk with a suspect who just killed 10 people and injured even more
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/video/world...l=morning-briefing&nlid=6281094220180425&te=1




how differently different people can view the same video & see opposite events.

the NY Times video is by far the best one to appear. To me it appears that officer Ken Lam was extraordinarily well-integrated, able to process several million dangerous details with lightning speed. He was able to react accurately & appropriately to a split second.

even the way the suspect slowly exits his vehicle, clumsily trying to point an object in his right hand, taking several seconds to get the hand up, looks hesitant. This Minassian person - whoever he may turn out to be - does not look like a desperado intent on shooting his way out with a firearm. Instead we hear him pathetically begging to be "shot in the head."

a key moment occurs surprisingly early in the video, when the policeman holsters his gun & takes out his baton, then starts to dance forward on the offensive like a prize fighter. This proves that the officer knew the suspect was unarmed & could be subdued with physical force.

i for one would never have been able to own that knowledge so rapidly. Like most ordinary citizens with zero knowledge of crowd control, i would have still been waving my gun around, would have still been stuck in the mindset of 15 seconds prior.

this Ken Lam video should become a classic in training officers for crowd control.


.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

fatcat said:


> it is worth noting that in your example since the officer had no way of knowing that the gun wasn’t loaded the suspect certainly could have hurt or killed the other two responding officers and i am not surprised that he was disciplined
> 
> here is a video by the new york times that shows the confrontation step by step and watching it i am more convinced that i am have this right, the cop took a foolish risk with a suspect who just killed 10 people and injured even more
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/video/world...l=morning-briefing&nlid=6281094220180425&te=1


Since hindsight is 20/20 remember it was not a thing. But a mobile phone. Looking at the video, it affirms to me that the officier did exactly they right thing. Even watching a video which is filmed from a further a different viewpoint than the officer, it shows he did the right thing. F on this video, when it isn’t partially obscured from hiding behind the car or ducking, it may look like a gun. From the officers point of view he was able to see that it was a mobile. That is further confirmed by the the three people walking behind the scene near the end of the video. They would be able to see the other side of the suspects hand and see its not a gun. 

I have to assume that these police officers are better trained than we are in dealing with situations like this. In this specific case, the officier showed calmness and assessed the situation correctly. How do we know it was right because no else got further hurt. Saying this or that can happen is irrelevant.

It’s easy to sit safely and criticize what you would have done better. No one knows until they are in the situation.


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

The part I find the most impressive is that apparently Officer Lam is a traffic enforcement officer. He spends most of his days giving out speeding tickets, presumably. And he was able to make this arrest in a very professional manner.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

Plugging Along said:


> ... That is further confirmed by the the three people walking behind the scene near the end of the video. They would be able to see the other side of the suspects hand and see its not a gun.


I couldn't believe how those people, leisurely walking past, seemed totally unaware of the situation ( the girl is looking at her phone, duh ), and didn't pick up the pace, or run! Sure they might have seen that it was a mobile phone, but could they be sure it wasn't being used as the trigger to blow up the van?

To me, it appears that the officer did the right thing, but I don't think I'm qualified to make that determination. In the news, they mentioned that the Toronto police had been given additional training since the Sammy Yatim shooting; that might have tempered the cops actions.

Now we're hearing this whole horrible killing rampage was because the guy couldn't get laid? What a f**ed-up world!


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

tygrus said:


> Because a mental evaluation is a violation of your charter rights.


 ...+1

To fatcat: And what is considered a "decent" mental health system? Also, can you prevent hatre or pure evil?


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

Userkare said:


> Now we're hearing this whole horrible killing rampage was because the guy couldn't get laid? What a f**ed-up world!


Yeah its just great we have another radical identity group to deal with. Frustrated guys who dont know how to approach women.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

tygrus said:


> Frustrated guys who dont know how to approach women.


He knew you could rent a van if you didn't have one, so.... just saying.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

tygrus said:


> Yeah its just great we have another radical identity group to deal with. Frustrated guys who dont know how to approach women.


Virtually all young men have frustration with women. I don't like the media focus on the "trouble with women" angle, when he clearly had more serious issues going on.

The trouble with women is a symptom, not a cause. I'll bet that other symptoms were trouble making friends and trouble in school... doesn't mean those are causes either.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

Some men due to their upbringing, have more trouble than others with women. They havent reconciled womens place in the west yet compared to other places in the world.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

police offers work under standards of training and under fairly strict protocols especially when it comes to suspects with weapons, they are protect the public and themselves at all costs

to m3s's point, i am assuming that this officer was aware of what had just happened and that this wasn't a guy who had a traffic warrant, i am assuming that he knew this suspect was particularly dangerous ... if that turns out not to be the case then i would modify my position but not overturn it

the officers does several things when he appears to be confronted my a man who ... repeatedly ... reaches into his pocket and points "something" at the officer who then moves away from the cover of his car, exposes himself to direct fire and then actually backs away while the suspect is pointing something at him and then holsters his gun ... at this point he hears the suspect yelling shoot me in the head and he (the officer) hasn't been shot so he takes charge of the situation recognizes it for what it has become: suicide by cop and does a good job of subduing a suspect who has by now rolled over and given up

its the first fews seconds where he a) comes out from behind his car and b) does nothing while a guy appears to continually reach into his pocket ... we and he (the officer) would have no idea what else the guy might have in his pocket ... none ... he could well have a small handgun that i think is a critical mistake

to those who say i am sitting back and criticizing the situation, isn't that what we all do on this forum to keep our selves entertained  ... i am not disrespecting the police officer who appears to be a good guy


Beaver101 said:


> ...+1
> 
> To fatcat: And what is considered a "decent" mental health system? Also, can you prevent hatre or pure evil?


lets start with dedicated 24 hour mental health walk-in clinics in every city above 100K for start

is the guy evil ? i think he is clearly mentall ill and acts out his suffering in violence unlike most of the rest of us ... who knows maybe he could have been helped ?


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

fatcat said:


> the debate is whether or not in this situation the cop should have shot the guy who just ran down and killed or maimed 24 people
> your example of the West Virginia officer has come upon a desperate man who clearly wants to commit suicide by cop
> 
> the two situations are in no way equivalent ...


While no situation is exactly the same, these two have:
a) a cop having to evaluate a threat based on whatever info came across the police radio as well as interacting with the suspect
b) a suspect asking to be shot
c) a suspect that was not immediately shooting (one because he did not have a gun and one because he had an unloaded gun).
d) a suspect who moves to make it look like they would shoot.

The only difference I can see is that the Toronto cop *may* have known people were injured and killed. The WV cop *may* know that other cops have been killed on domestic dispute calls. 
It seems similar enough to me.




fatcat said:


> ... it is worth noting that in your example since the officer had no way of knowing that the gun wasn’t loaded the suspect certainly could have hurt or killed the other two responding officers and i am not surprised that he was disciplined ...


If as you say earlier, the WV officer came "upon a desperate man who clearly wants to commit suicide by cop" - why do the other officers arriving later need to shoot him?
If the risk is there - why isn't the first officer's choice to try to talk an example of the restraint that is alleged to be a luxury in the US?




fatcat said:


> ... here is a video by the new york times that shows the confrontation step by step and watching it i am more convinced that i am have this right, the cop took a foolish risk with a suspect who just killed 10 people and injured even more


Both are out of their vehicles so it does not start early enough IMO.

At that range, at the point the video starts - I suspect the cop could see that a cell phone was being pointed instead of a gun. Throw demands to be shot to make it likely that it was an attempt at suicide by cop.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> tygrus said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah its just great we have another radical identity group to deal with. Frustrated guys who dont know how to approach women.
> ...


Trouble is ... he isn't the first to take this frustration out by killing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings

He has been alleged to have posted that he agree with Roger.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/what-...k-post-linked-to-toronto-van-attack-1.3900226


Regardless of causes - some are expressing themselves this way, with chat areas devoted to similar minds, like conspiracy theorists, stamp collectors or Canadian Finance enthusiasts. http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens...ating-accused-in-toronto-van-attack-1.4633057


Cheers


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

fatcat said:


> the officers does several things when he appears to be confronted my a man who ... repeatedly ... reaches into his pocket and points "something" at the officer



the subject did *NOT* reach "repeatedly" into his pocket. He gestured exactly two times, with an unreal straight-armed jerk that appeared to have been copied from TV cartoons.

one of canada's top combat rescue experts has already told you that everything in Minassian's gestures & in his rigid body posture - feet & legs not in firing position, singlehanded extension of an object that could not fire accurately even if it were a gun - was shouting out No Weapon No Firearm No Danger.






fatcat said:


> its the first fews seconds where he a) comes out from behind his car and b) does nothing while a guy appears to continually reach into his pocket ... we and he (the officer) would have no idea what else the guy might have in his pocket ... none ... he could well have a small handgun that i think is a critical mistake



ditto as above. Minassian did *NOT* reach "continually" into his pocket. He gestured twice. His hand did not appear to enter any pocket.






fatcat said:


> ... if that turns out not to be the case then i would modify my position but not overturn it



wondering what significance or importance you believe your *position* could possibly have?

you've already stated that your *position* is to punish the police officer by firing him, because he did not follow what you imagine to be US police protocols. Cat you are so far out of touch here that there is nothing left to say. Rave on, if you must.



.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> While no situation is exactly the same, these two have:
> a) a cop having to evaluate a threat based on whatever info came across the police radio as well as interacting with the suspect
> b) a suspect asking to be shot
> c) a suspect that was not immediately shooting (one because he did not have a gun and one because he had an unloaded gun).
> ...


fair points ... i will let you have the last word on this since i have blabbed enough


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

fatcat said:


> ....
> lets start with dedicated 24 hour mental health walk-in clinics in every city above 100K for start


 ... I don't think that will work as he's not going to "voluntarily" admit he is "mentally ill". Moreover, there have been no indications that he was mentally ill nor disturbed. In fact, he held an IT job, went to school with training for all that and basically had characteristics of a successful career guy. Being "socially awkward" or having autism or Asperger's syndrome or whatever other syndrome as described by his classmate/colleague/family doesn't instigate as being "mentally ill". Therefore, having a mental walk-in clinic is not going to work, let alone 24 hours accessible. In addition, the government is going to stipulate there're no resources to fund such clinics. But convolutedly, there's enough fundings to shoot-up (free needles, et al) at injection sites for drug addicts. Go figure.



> is the guy evil ? i think he is clearly mentall ill and acts out his suffering in violence unlike most of the rest of us ... who knows maybe he could have been helped ?


... for sure alot of hatre in a deranged mind to act out like that ... no regards for the livings, including himself. Just evil.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

Beaver101 said:


> ... I don't think that will work as he's not going to "voluntarily" admit he is "mentally ill". Moreover, there have been no indications that he was mentally ill nor disturbed. In fact, he held an IT job, went to school with training for all that and basically had characteristics of a successful career guy. Being "socially awkward" or having autism or Asperger's syndrome or whatever other syndrome as described by his classmate/colleague/family doesn't instigate as being "mentally ill". Therefore, having a mental walk-in clinic is not going to work, let alone 24 hours accessible. In addition, the government is going to stipulate there're no resources to fund such clinics. But convolutedly, there's enough fundings to shoot-up (free needles, et al) at injection sites for drug addicts. Go figure.
> 
> ... for sure alot of hatre in a deranged mind to act out like that ... no regards for the livings, including himself. Just evil.


according to this interesting article https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-can-the-radicalization-of-incels-be-stopped/ minasian is part of an emerging quasi-terrorist group

he believes that "incels" are actually an emerging threat at the level of white supremicists so maybe minasian is better thought of as an ideologue much like an isis recruit rather than someone who is mentally ill ... i don't know


----------



## blin10 (Jun 27, 2011)

Spudd said:


> The part I find the most impressive is that apparently Officer Lam is a traffic enforcement officer. He spends most of his days giving out speeding tickets, presumably. *And he was able to make this arrest in a very professional manner*.


I disagree, he just got lucky due to his inexperience in these type of situations. If somebody is pointing gun at the cop he needs to be taken down period. In the video, cop was by himself and if he got shot, killer could of easily killed few more people.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

fatcat said:


> he believes that "incels" are actually an emerging threat at the level of white supremicists so maybe minasian is better thought of as an ideologue much like an isis recruit rather than someone who is mentally ill ... i don't know


I hate to point this out, but instead of renting vans, you can rent women for a night and pay them to like you for a few hours. No need to get all pent up and violent. This is the one form of terrorism we have an immediate solution for.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

So maybe legalization of prostitution is the solution?


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

james4beach said:


> So maybe legalization of prostitution is the solution?


Could be, but if these guys are after girlfriends and wives that could be a problem. But any contact with a woman will help their self esteem and help them learn more normative behaviors with the opposite sex. 

But that being said, the incels as they are called are not entirely wrong. We know there are large demographic of women who get caught up with the wrong types who are then often abused or abandoned with families.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

tygrus said:


> I hate to point this out, but instead of renting vans, you can rent women for a night and pay them to like you for a few hours. No need to get all pent up and violent. This is the one form of terrorism we have an immediate solution for.


I was headed in that 'thought direction' in Post #43 but it is a simplistic viewpoint to a more complicated problem. 

Not to blame social media, but it is a factor - in that the algorithms that suggest new websites tend to push people to more and more radical viewpoints. At the endpoint, or bottom of the barrel, is this group of sick individuals who have given themselves the moniker "incels" while using pejoratives like "Chads and Stacys" for people with normal sexual relationships. They feed each other's envy and hate to violence, rather than try to find some constructive way to perhaps improve their personalities. I don't know how they view the concept of prostitution, but I can imagine it might just reinforce their feelings of being socially inadequate.

No matter what happens to this guy, he has done what he set out to do, and as such attained the adoration of his 'community'. Now we can only hope that nobody else takes up the call.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

tygrus said:


> But that being said, the incels as they are called are not entirely wrong. We know there are large demographic of women who get caught up with the wrong types who are then often abused or abandoned with families.


Yup, even back in the early 19th century, Victor Hugo's "Hunchback" plot was exactly about that! Ugly incel guy is shown compassion from beautiful woman. He saves her life, but still she wants no part of him. She falls in love with the handsome captain of the guard who rescues her. All the captain wants from her is a quick roll in the hay because he's already engaged. He stands by and lets her get hanged for his murder, although he's not really dead. She would have been much better off if she stayed with the ugly guy, who now is so devastated that he lies down and dies next to her body.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

james4beach said:


> So maybe legalization of prostitution is the solution?


kindly hookers could save lives ...


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

fatcat said:


> kindly hookers could save lives ...


I quite sure that ISIS, Hamas and Hezbollah are sexually frustrated too:tongue:

http://canoe.com/news/world/isis-bloopers-seized-footage-shows-terrorists-fighting-tumbling


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> the subject did *NOT* reach "repeatedly" into his pocket. He gestured exactly two times, with an unreal straight-armed jerk that appeared to have been copied from TV cartoons ...


The video starts with what looks like the suspect holding out the cell phone as if it was a gun.

Without knowing what happened before - my opinion may change in the future - but it seems that the cop would have a clear view that it was a phone. There is no reason I can think of to point it like that ... other than attempting suicide by cop.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

blin10 said:


> I disagree, he just got lucky due to his inexperience in these type of situations. If somebody is pointing gun at the cop he needs to be taken down period. In the video, cop was by himself and if he got shot, killer could of easily killed few more people.


Maybe ... but the video starts with the cop looking like he is close enough to see that a phone is being pointed at him instead of a gun.

If the suspect really wanted to get away instead of suicide by cop - why waste time with the cell phone, tell the copy about the alleged gun in a pocket and ask to be shot?
Seems more effective to go for the gun and shoot earlier.


Either way - a lot depends on what we don't have ... what happened before the video starts.


Cheers


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> Either way - a lot depends on what we don't have ... what happened before the video starts.
> 
> Cheers


and this really is the crux of my argument ... the cop may have thought "that's a cellphone" and he may have been right ... in the intense mayhem and confusion, "the fog of violent police encounters" to coin an unwieldily term, it's hard to know ... exactly ... what a suspect is actually carrying, but you can see something being pointed at you and you can hear the threats and you have no idea what other weapons he might have that are unseen

the safest protocol to follow is to give the suspect a fraction of a second to comply and if he doesn't you have to put him down

this is why suicicde by cop works generally so well ... this protocol works the best in the long run for all of us, public and cops

following established protocol saves police lives, they remember the protocol and their job is then to assess how well the situation fits the protocol, you really do not want to encourage to much creative thinking on the job when encountering armed, violent men, 

that can get people killed ... innocent people, never-mind the suspect

and it gets cops put in prison for doing something outside established department protocol

it resonates exactly with the "uniform code of military justice" which is what keeps servicemen and women safe, you follow the code and that keeps you from ending up in leavenworth


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> The video starts with what looks like the suspect holding out the cell phone as if it was a gun.



how strange ... the version of the video i saw showed the van with the suspect inside, just starting to open the van door. Which he did veree slowly & awkwardly. holding his thingee out with a straight arm & moving hesitantly with a kind of goose-step

meanwhile the cop had just pulled up

on 2nd thought i would add that the suspect never put his hand into any pocket. He just snapped a ramrod stiff & straight right arm down to his hip, then back up to point the thingee again. Then he immediately repeated, once only.

there wasn't anything else to see. M3S should have the last word. He'd know more about armed crisis intervention than the rest of us will ever hear in a lifetime. See above - m3 explained why the cop knew what he was doing, was following best canadian police practice.


.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

From watching that video it really doesn't appear like either decision the cop could have made would have been "wrong", and while my first though is it would have saved Canada a lot of money shooting this Alek loser instead of life in prison that we'll now all pay for, my second thought is it's nice to see that our cops are not robot soldiers, as the general direction of policing appears to be going. 

I did question one thing, that the cop took his second hand off the gun after a mere 2 seconds of the the suspect exiting the van with his phone pointed. That seems a bit premature and possibly a bad decision to fumble with your radio instead of keeping your gun solidly pointed at the suspect for a little while longer as you assess the situation for a few more seconds at least... But someone upthread pointed out that we don't even know that this officer knew that the suspect had just purposefully ran down all those people. He could have just stumbled onto the scene and thought he was dealing with a drunk driver or other erratic person behind the wheel. That changes the perspective of the encounter quite a bit.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

peterk said:


> ... we don't even know that this officer knew that the suspect had just purposefully ran down all those people. He could have just stumbled onto the scene and thought he was dealing with a drunk driver or other erratic person behind the wheel. That changes the perspective of the encounter quite a bit.




we do know, though. The siren. Police don't drive around on regular beat with their sirens blaring. Officer Lam had to have been despatched. Despatch would have briefed him everything. He knew.

notice that other police cars arrived within what looks like 120 seconds. They were despatched too.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

it's worthwhile to capture them alive imho. As with alexandre bissonette whose evidence & psychological assessment are being heard at trial right now, these quasi-terrorists are living laboratories.  An opportunity to study them is priceless. How did they get that way? what can be learned to prevent recurrence?

marc lepine, kamveer gill, michel bibeau all died by police fire at the scene of their rampages. Bissonnette & minassian have survived.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> Eclectic12 said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe ... but the video starts with the cop looking like he is close enough to see that a phone is being pointed at him instead of a gun ...
> ...


The version posted in post # 35 is the one I was working from as it was quoted as confirming not shooting was a foolish risk.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

fatcat said:


> Eclectic12 said:
> 
> 
> > ... Either way - a lot depends on what we don't have ... what happened before the video starts.
> ...


What we haven't seen is part of your argument?

AFAICT ... the first several posts were more concerned about American cops being branded as trigger happy while Canadian cops are seen as having better restraint. In these posts, the statement that Canadian cop made "absolutely the wrong move".

If I missed your post that makes any allowance for Toronto cop to have made the right move - please point them out.




fatcat said:


> ... the cop may have thought "that's a cellphone" and he may have been right ... in the intense mayhem and confusion, "the fog of violent police encounters" to coin an unwieldily term, it's hard to know ... exactly ...


Let me get this straight.

The cop who is closer than the videographer and has been onsite longer than when the video was running - can't know for sure it was a cell phone to the point of confidence that you have been repeatedly stating it was the wrong move, regardless of the results.

You OTOH are sure that it was the wrong move based on less than the full encounter, guesses as to what the cop knew when the encounter happened and from a farther distance than the cop had.


Sorry ... until I see or hear anything to show me other wise, it seems more likely the cop had a good reason to hold his fire.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

m3s said:


> I think the cop should be commended for his actions ...


Thanks for the description.




m3s said:


> ... The glaring issue I see is where is his partner?
> A partner should have handled the siren and backed him up in case things did escalate. This is a huge red flag to any armed professional and *it's a sorry state if cops are patrolling alone in Canada* let alone GTA ...


I can understand the perceived risk but it appears you are out of touch.

This article discussing Winnipeg for one or two officer police cars is from 2001 where North American police forces said to differ. 

Exclusive users of one officer police cars in the article are Indianapolis USA (the country that is a totally different situation), Ottawa and the RCMP.
Other police forces such as Saskatoon, Halifax, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Montreal, Calgary, Toronto and Vancouver have a mix. The times when a two officer police car are listed as been mandatory are typically evening/early morning hours.

Toronto is outlined as being:


> *Toronto* requires that only two-officer cars be dispatched between 7:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. *During the balance of the day, the police force may allow up to 80% of its vehicles to be operated by one officer*.


https://fcpp.org/2001/02/01/one-officer-versus-two-officer-police-cars-in-winnipeg/


The "two officer patrol car being required, especially during the day" ship seems to have sailed decades ago.


Cheers


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

eclectic, let me try another time: i don't think we can really know what happened even with the video(s) and we certainly don't know what the officer experienced and even if we did, he was certainly so jacked up on adrenaline we would have to take his account with a grain of salt

i am basing my opinion (and that's all it is) on the first few seconds of the video in post 35, in it the suspect gets out of the car while the officer is behind his squad car though perhaps in view of the shooter since he may have been behind the hood, the shooter then advances and the officer leaves whatever safety the car represent and then backs into the open and the suspect makes a series of sharp moves down and up with the object in his hands 

i simply don't believe that the officer had a full grasp of the situation, there could have been another gun in the guys pocket, the object in his hand could have been an unknown kind of weapon, there was too much that was unknown, yet the officer keep moving away from the safety of the squad car, refrained from firing and then turned off his siren and walked around in full view while the guy was pointing the object at him and ultimately backed away from the suspect and holstered his gun

he should have stayed behind the safety of the squad car and given the guy a warning and then had the guy not dropped the object and surrendered, the cop should have shot him

the cop simply gave the guy too many chances to harm him and other innocent people

the fact that it turned out as it did says nothing to me ... it could have gone very differently

i think the cop made a mistake and put himself and the public in jeopardy ... but this is just my opinion, others are welcome to disagree

procedures and protocol matter a great deal in policing for the cops and for us


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> The version posted in post # 35 is the one I was working from as it was quoted as confirming not shooting was a foolish risk.



yes, that's the video i mentioned. It's true that the first few frames are unstable. However if you work the video you should be able to get it to start with the first frame showing suspect still inside the van, just starting process of opening the door. The policeman is already on the scene, siren is blaring.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

fatcat said:


> the cop may have thought "that's a cellphone" and he may have been right ... in the intense mayhem and confusion, "the fog of violent police encounters" to coin an unwieldily term, it's hard to know ... exactly ... what a suspect is actually carrying



wondering where there is "intense mayhem and confusion" on the part of the police?

please don't coin meaningless phrases like "the fog of violent police encounters"

if a video ever showed an individual who is utterly, absolutely, intently focussed on his operation, it's this video showing officer Ken Lam as he works to capture the violent offender. Lam doesn't waste a single muscle movement.

it's true he didn't have a helmet or a polycarbonate shield. But he was on regular police patrol & presumably responding to a top code emergency from despatch, so he arrived as is.

it's also true he moved out from behind his squad car early, but probably he had already seen that the pointed object was a cell phone. The weird goose-step shuffle that minassian used to exit his vehicle, along with his non-shooter amateurish body language that m3s discusses in detail upthread, also told the policeman that the suspect was not much of a threat.

.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I don't understand why people are fixating on this.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

It is poor method to try and determine what the cop knew and didn't know just from watching the video. Its obvious he quickly and accurately sized up the situation and acted accordingly. It is blazingly clear that if the perp is aiming a cell phone at him, he doesn't have a gun. Elementry, dear Watson. If this cop is any indication, policing just reached a higher level of skill. 

I'm recalling some documentries by 5th Estate, or maybe W5 in the last few years on RCMP shootings that appeared to be excecutions. Really disgusting. One situation, many cops were at the scene. They had a well trained dog, a beanbag gun, taser, none of which were used. Instead the individual was shot dead in the back with a rifle. Upon investigation, the cop who pulled the trigger could not be interviewed by the comission. He was protected by law from having to be interviewed. Wouldn't be surprised if the cop running that "arrest" is a psychopath.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

fatcat said:


> i am basing my opinion (and that's all it is) on the first few seconds of the video in post 35, in it the suspect gets out of the car while the officer is behind his squad car though perhaps in view of the shooter since he may have been behind the hood, the shooter then advances and the officer leaves whatever safety the car represent and then backs into the open and the suspect makes a series of sharp moves down and up with the object in his hands


Maintaining separation from a potential threat is a common tactic for many reasons in many situations. It builds decision space, relative safety from short range weapons, protects your own short range weapons, maintains effective range and it lets you assess what the threat will do when you try to de-escalate etc. In this case he assessed the suspect as a low threat and backs away so he had time/space to switch to non-lethal weapons.



fatcat said:


> i simply don't believe that the officer had a full grasp of the situation, there could have been another gun in the guys pocket, the object in his hand could have been an unknown kind of weapon, there was too much that was unknown, yet the officer keep moving away from the safety of the squad car, refrained from firing and then turned off his siren and walked around in full view while the guy was pointing the object at him and ultimately backed away from the suspect and holstered his gun


I'm quite confident he had a much better grasp of the situation than you do. There are always many unknowns in these situations as they happen. A lot of it comes down to intuition which comes from training and experience. There is no time to "gather all the facts and process everything" when something is happening in "real time" rather than after the fact. There is no relying on reported information to 911 as 100% truth either.



fatcat said:


> he should have stayed behind the safety of the squad car and given the guy a warning and then had the guy not dropped the object and surrendered, the cop should have shot him


Hindsight is 20/20. But again, the suspect's body posture, gestures, words, and supposed "weapon" tell a lot to someone with real world professional experience or training with armed conflict. What real world experience exactly do you have with law enforcement or armed conflict, fatcat?



fatcat said:


> the cop simply gave the guy too many chances to harm him and other innocent people


Cops have to take calculated risks every day. Walking up to any car is a risk. I wouldn't expect every internet warrior to be able to fathom this.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Remembering the victims, with profiles:
https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/longform-custom/lives-remembered

Live video broadcast is here:
https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/live-blog/toronto-van-attack-vigil


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

peterk said:


> But someone upthread pointed out that we don't even know that this officer knew that the suspect had just purposefully ran down all those people. He could have just stumbled onto the scene and thought he was dealing with a drunk driver or other erratic person behind the wheel. That changes the perspective of the encounter quite a bit.


Yes he could potentially shoot the wrong person who happened to crash there by coincidence etc. Responder needs to assess the situation based on what's in front of him in that moment, not what we all know is fact from the safety of our armchairs in hindsight. The event that just happened plays into the assessment but you don't just shoot the first suspect you see

Even if he did know immediately with absolute certainty that this suspect is guilty beyond reasonable doubt or possibility of medical condition, mental illness, sabotage, any other unknown circumstance, there is no need for him to be the judge/jury/executioner if he can avoid it. Many cases of fratricide when armed professionals make rogue decisions based on assumptions and/or incomplete knowledge of the situation.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The officer issued verbal commands. The suspect ignored the commands and wandered around. The suspect is very lucky he wasn't shot.


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

Deleted


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Interestingly, nobody is advocating banning trucks because "trucks cause murder".


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Ag Driver said:


> Among my reasons stated previous. Here is some more food for thought. There is a risk that bystanders get shot from stray/inaccurate police engagement. This is more common then you think. I have also wondered how well trained police are in firearms. I know a couple of police officers that have handled my own personal firearms and they seem to pick them up like a dirty dish cloth. You have to shoot often to maintain the skill set .... I would be surprised if an Officer shoots 1000 rounds a month in training. I manage to squeeze off that many rounds a month with my full time job -- I have always wondered how much practice they get.


Yeah I was gonna bring up risk to bystanders as well but it does look pretty clear behind, although a ricochet could easily hit those people walking away casually in the background of the videos..

When I actually carried a sidearm on flights we trained bi-weekly in an indoor range with a special video screen and a wall that let you reuse bullets and ex operators for instructors. Any more than that and you wouldn't have much time to do your real job, yet a seasoned female colleague managed to shoot herself in the leg and an experienced fighter pilot almost shot a colleague by accident in the rooms. I doubt any more training would have prevented that as their primary skillset is not weapons handling. I recently saw a bullet proof guard tower full of bullet holes.. from the inside.. not everyone can be ERT or JTF2

Nowadays I get one day a year with sidearms and that's basically enough to remember how to load and fire. We pretty much consider it a backup negotiating piece (a deterrent) rather than an effective weapon.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Pluto said:


> Interestingly, nobody is advocating banning trucks because "trucks cause murder".


Well, people are talking about automating vehicles to take humans out of the equation. This is mostly because of accidental death, because vehicles are very seldom used for intentional harm, particularly compared to single-purpose weapons like guns.


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

andrewf said:


> ... particularly compared to single-purpose weapons like guns.


LOL. Single purpose, alluding to only using firearms for harm? You sir, are delusional and ignorant. What kind of a statement is that?


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

the NY Times lauds toronto policeman Ken Lam with hosannas, quotes former US police chief who says the NYT video of Lam arresting vehicle murderer Minassian is going to become a classic cop training module.




> "This is going to be a great training video in the future,” said Ronal Serpas, who led police departments in New Orleans and Nashville and is now a professor at Loyola University in New Orleans. “It almost gives you chills how well he handled himself.”




https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/24/world/americas/toronto-van-police-constable-lam.html

.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

andrewf said:


> Well, people are talking about automating vehicles to take humans out of the equation. This is mostly because of accidental death, because vehicles are very seldom used for intentional harm, particularly compared to single-purpose weapons like guns.


Vehicles are involved in 90% of all crime.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

humble_pie said:


> the NY Times lauds toronto policeman Ken Lam with hosannas, quotes former US police chief who says the NYT video of Lam arresting vehicle murderer Minassian is going to become a classic cop training module.
> .


I'm very happy to see this.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Ag Driver said:


> LOL. Single purpose, alluding to only using firearms for harm? You sir, are delusional and ignorant. What kind of a statement is that?


He's just being his usual thoughtless self.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Ag Driver said:


> LOL. Single purpose, alluding to only using firearms for harm? You sir, are delusional and ignorant. What kind of a statement is that?


Only purpose is to kill or threaten to kill things.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Pluto said:


> Vehicles are involved in 90% of all crime.


In the way that oxygen is involved in 100% of all crime.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I have to wonder at the pro-gun people... they argue that objects should not be controlled because it is about the person using the object. So, we should eliminate driver licensing, licensing of vehicles, legalize all drugs, eliminate prescription requirements, etc... that way lies madness. 

We require extensive training and testing to allow people to own and use cars, which are designed to minimize accidental or intentional harm to humans either inside or outside the vehicle, while we believe controls on the ownership of firearms should be eliminated despite their lethality being a feature, not a bug.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

andrewf said:


> In the way that oxygen is involved in 100% of all crime.


this is strange. A guy uses a vehicle to kill 10 people and the truck is as benign as oxygen. Good grief. 

An individual used their hands to kill someone, and then used the victims car to transport the body to a remote location to hide it. To you the use of hands and auto is just like oxygen. This is strange.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

andrewf said:


> I have to wonder at the pro-gun people... they argue that objects should not be controlled because it is about the person using the object. So, we should eliminate driver licensing, licensing of vehicles, legalize all drugs, eliminate prescription requirements, etc... that way lies madness.
> 
> We require extensive training and testing to allow people to own and use cars, which are designed to minimize accidental or intentional harm to humans either inside or outside the vehicle, while we believe controls on the ownership of firearms should be eliminated despite their lethality being a feature, not a bug.


I have to wonder at the pro automobile people...they argue that driver licensing, licensing of vehicles prevents illegal use of automobiles...That way lies madness. 
When people get a drivers license, and then rent a van, they are not screened and tested concerning their purpose. You don't advocate for any screening: just pass the test then go out and run people down is your view. Amazing you don't advocate keeping trucks and cars out of the hands of crazy killers. Strange. Here is a mass killing with a truck, the only gun at the scene was used for good, yet you are against guns, and you are pro truck in the hands of killers. wow. 

The police officer had a gun which was used appropriately, but you say he shouldn't have it since his only purpose was harm. Strange.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

A lot of people don't actually know much about their guns or how to use them properly.

My best buddy was an avid hunter and knew what he was doing. He told me a story about some of the guys at work who he went moose hunting with.............once, and only once.

He said they all showed up with the latest catalogue hunting gear and shiny rifles. 

They were out hunting and walking in a line through the bush, when there was a loud rustle off a bit in the distance.

All the guns went blazing......shots fired, major mayhem. After the smoke cleared one turned to the others and asked........"Did you see what it was" and nobody had.

My buddy never went with them again and if he couldn't get a moose tag to go up north with his long time hunting buddy........he just stayed home.

Many people should not be permitted to own guns.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

sags said:


> My buddy never went with them again and if he couldn't get a moose tag to go up north with his long time hunting buddy........he just stayed home.
> 
> Many people should not be permitted to own guns.


But crazies, according to you, should have no problem getting a truck for a mass murder.


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

Deleted


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Very good point about firearms for sports & competition, Ag Driver.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Andrew, is there something wrong with me killing quickly and cleanly with a rifle when I hunt and put moose in the freezer?
Out of interest, how do you kill your beef, pork, or poultry? Oh wait, we don't have to think or worry about that, we just go down to the grocery store and buy it.


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

Deleted


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

The hunting and target shooting, I get... But what about a handgun with conventional ammo?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Ag Driver said:


> Freedom of speech if a wonderful thing. It allows people to really display ignorance to their fullest extent.
> 
> I want to gauge how ignorant you really are about firearms and your perception that they are single use - only used for harm.
> 
> ...


I don't like guns being carelessly controlled. They have legitimate uses (not sure I agree that toy shooting is really a compelling one, except as practice), such as hunting/animal control, policing etc. If you recall, my comment was in response to a flippant remark about banning rental vans as a critique on gun control. I think guns should be at least as tightly controlled as cars. Individually registered to owners, mandatory training and government licensing in the safe use thereof...

I think people would rightly be concerned about javelins or fencing foils if they were used to kill thousands every year. They don't make very effective weapons, though.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Andrew, is there something wrong with me killing quickly and cleanly with a rifle when I hunt and put moose in the freezer?


Nope. 

Is there something wrong with society taking an interest in requiring your weapons to be registered and you to be licensed in the safe operation and storage of your weapons?


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

andrewf said:


> Nope.
> 
> Is there something wrong with society taking an interest in requiring your weapons to be registered and you to be licensed in the safe operation and storage of your weapons?


Licensing and training are required. Specific types of guns are registered. Society has already taken an interest. 
How come you are not interested in preventing murder by truck?


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

andrewf said:


> If you recall, my comment was in response to a flippant remark about banning rental vans as a critique on gun control.


It wasn't flippant, nor was it a critique on gun control. Obviously you missed the point.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Pluto said:


> Licensing and training are required. Specific types of guns are registered. Society has already taken an interest.
> How come you are not interested in preventing murder by truck?


My interest in preventing murder by truck vs guns is proportionate to the rate of murder by both means. I think police and cities have taken appropriate measures by installing bollards at high risk areas and using blocking vehicles at public events.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

I dont need a license or oversight by the govt to exercise my right to self defense and self preservation. 

Driving is a privilege, self defense is a right.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

tygrus said:


> I dont need a license or oversight by the govt to exercise my right to self defense and self preservation.
> 
> Driving is a privilege, self defense is a right.


Why guns but not, say, land mines, bombs, nerve agents, etc.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

andrewf said:


> Why guns but not, say, land mines, bombs, nerve agents, etc.


When the criminals start arming themselves like that, then we would need to too. Guns are the weapon of choice for the criminal element.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

andrewf said:


> My interest in preventing murder by truck vs guns is proportionate to the rate of murder by both means. I think police and cities have taken appropriate measures by installing bollards at high risk areas and using blocking vehicles at public events.


Obviously "appropriate measures" haven't stopped them from murder by vehicle. Why are you giving the vehicle murderers a pass?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

tygrus said:


> I dont need a license or oversight by the govt to exercise my right to self defense and self preservation.
> 
> Driving is a privilege, self defense is a right.


Also, freedom of movement is guaranteed in the Charter.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Pluto said:


> Obviously "appropriate measures" haven't stopped them from murder by vehicle. Why are you giving the vehicle murderers a pass?


You're just trolling. No passes given... It is infeasible to completely eliminate murders using either guns or vehicles, though Australia has demonstrated that tough gun control can dramatically reduce the rate of mass gun murder, and America has demonstrated that liberal gun control can result in ROUTINE mass gun murder. 

Vehicles create enormous social value. Guns, by any measure, provide orders of magnitude less value.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

tygrus said:


> When the criminals start arming themselves like that, then we would need to too. Guns are the weapon of choice for the criminal element.


You mean we don't need to control rental vans to the same extent as guns because guns are the weapon of choice for violence?


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

andrewf said:


> You're just trolling. No passes given... It is infeasible to completely eliminate murders using either guns or vehicles, though Australia has demonstrated that tough gun control can dramatically reduce the rate of mass gun murder, and America has demonstrated that liberal gun control can result in ROUTINE mass gun murder.
> 
> Vehicles create enormous social value. Guns, by any measure, provide orders of magnitude less value.


We already have gun control. But no vehicle control. Here again, you give vehicle mass murderers a pass. Why? What's the great social value in running people down? Or using vehicles for getting to and from robberies and other crimes, disposing of victims bodies out in the wilderness and so on? You really love to minimize the use of vehicles in crime for your own personal gain, don't you?


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

andrewf said:


> It is infeasible to completely eliminate murders using either guns or vehicles, though Australia has demonstrated that tough gun control can dramatically reduce the rate of mass gun murder,
> .


Not only Australia, but Jamaica too. Strict gun control in Jamacia got their homicide rate really low: They now only have the 5th worst homicide rate due to gun control.


----------

