Closing Ranks Behind Officer Forcillo

The right wingers seem to have settled on their talking points for Jimmy Forcillo, the Toronto cop who executed Sammy Yatim on a Toronto streetcar last month.

The first point is to contend that there's no justice in convicting Forcillo of the execution.

The second point is the claim that Yatim died in a "hail of gunfire."  It's a "hail" of fire, a blur, who can tell, who can judge?  Except that's a lie as anyone who has watched the videos knows.

The third point is that Forcillo is being thrown to the mob.  Public emotion is riding so high there's no way he can be treated fairly.  Hence the executioner is now the victim.

And it's all bollocks, especially the "hail of gunfire" linchpin on which this rests.




Forcillo took his time emptying his automatic's nine-round clip into Yatim.  It was no hail of gunfire.  He fired over a very extended 13-seconds, first round to last.

Forcillo dropped Yatim to the floor of the streetcar with his first, 3-round salvo that took all of two seconds.  Yatim went down, apparently with the first of those three rounds, never to get back up.  Call it the First Event.

What followed was a nearly 5-second long pause.  No movement, no gunfire.  No hail of any description.   Call that the Second Event.

The remaining almost six seconds were filled with the remaining rounds in Forcillo's handgun.  A salvo of four shots, a pause, the eighth shot, a pause, the ninth and final shot.   Call that the Third Event.

I saw these events.   You saw them.   So did Blatchford et al.  It's easy to say that the eyes play tricks on us.  Fortunately I didn't use my eyes to hear those gunshots.   I used my ears to hear them and my mind plus the YouTube counter to log them, to time the three events.

The right and its greasy minions like Blatchford are quietly coming to Forcillo's defence and it speaks volumes that they're bringing arguments based on lies.  It's people like Blatchford playing on emotions because of just one thing - Forcillo is a cop.  He's one of her tribe and he thus deserves the "hail of gunfire" defence.

Madam Justice Blatchford Weighs in on Bryant Case

Oh to be Christie Blatchford or at least to have her uncommon, unquestioning, even unyielding belief in her own brilliance. Rarely has that been more powerfully displayed than when she gave her "two cents worth" on the criminal negligence and dangerous driving causing death charges against former Ontario AG Michael Bryant.

Bryant, claims Blatchford, got "special" treatment which she implies was a curious sort of favouritism that spared him the courtroom trial any average Joe would have faced in this situation:

...Everyone agreed the charges were appropriate when they were laid, but that now, after all that had been learned since, withdrawing them was also the right thing.

Here’s what usually happens: the Crown gets the case if not the night before at best a couple of weeks before, has a quick read, and it goes to a preliminary hearing. There, the evidence is called, although not nearly as thoroughly as it was here, and the Crown might conclude, correctly, that it’s a weak case, but odds are he’d let it go to trial. At trial, the average guy probably would be acquitted
.
Mr. Bryant said at a press conference later Tuesday that, “Nobody is above the law. But no one’s below the law, either.”

He didn’t add that some folks get the old beater version, and some the Saab: T’was ever thus."

Sorry, Christie, but once again you're abusing the privilege of stupidity. Bryant got the full treatment. Every aspect of this awful incident was scrutinized. I've known Richard Peck and bringing him in to prosecute was no demonstration of favouritism toward Bryant. Peck was there to ensure that the Crown case was above reproach. The "old beater version" of prosecution never would have been enough. If the sort of prosecutor she or I would face was given the Bryant case there'd be a howl of outrage.

Bryant was a noted public figure, a former Attorney-General. When a person of that stature gets mixed up in an incident like this, the public expects safeguards to ensure that any crimes that were committed are prosecuted and punished. That wasn't done for Mr. Bryant's benefit and its disingenuous, dishonest even, to imply otherwise.

This case, however, does illustrate one enormous failing in our legal system. To put it crudely, you get as much law as you can afford. Money gets you the best lawyers, the most thorough investigators and so on. Money can greatly improve one's chances of a successful outcome before the Courts. Bryant went into this case with those advantages. It's hard to fault the "system" for levelling the playing field by bringing in a big gun like Richard Peck.