The first was the initial, 3-round salvo that took two seconds.
After that there was a pause of nearly 5-seconds.
Only after that pause did Forcillo resume firing the remaining six rounds in his sidearm. He fired 4-rounds, paused, the eighth round, paused, and then the final, ninth round.
That the pause is of critical significance is explained by Toronto defence counsel, Reid Rusonik, in the Toronto Star:
...there may also be grounds in the second volley of shots fired by the officer to have charged first degree murder. Regardless of his reason for firing the first volley, there was opportunity according to the law for the requisite planning and deliberation to kill to have taken place in the pause before the second volley. Shooting at someone a number of times — then pausing and shooting at them a number of other times — can be seen as some evidence of deciding and preparing to kill.
Unless the evidence is clear the young man on that streetcar was not rendered harmless by the first volley, it should be for a jury to decide if the second volley wasn’t specifically intended to kill him.
Legal history is replete with examples of people wounding someone without an intention to kill but then deciding to go further. A jury may well acquit of first degree murder, but that would make a second degree murder compromise finding of guilt more likely.