Tag Archives: copaganda

Killer Toronto Cop James Forcillo Charged With Breaching Bail Conditions

Killer Toronto cop James Forcillo, who shot and killed teenager Sammy Yatim, who was alone on an empty streetcar, in 2013 and was later convicted of attempted murder in that case, was charged on Wednesday, November 15, 2017, for breaching his bail conditions. The Special Investigations Unit, the agency that examines cases of police harm to civilians in Ontario, has reported that Constable Forcillo, who has been out on bail while he appeals his conviction, was accused of breaching conditions related to his house arrest, but they have provided no additional details about the case.

Forcillo’s force, the Toronto police, have reported that Forcillo was charged with failing to comply with recognizance.  Forcillo was allegedly found at a new residence address in violation of his bail conditions. Constable Forcillo was arrested by Toronto police at around 7:30 AM and made a brief court appearance shortly after 11 AM before being remanded into custody. According to Forcillo’s lawyer, Peter Brauti, a bail hearing on this new charge has been put over to Friday, November 17.

Forcillo had his bail conditions extended in late September of 2017, only one day before he was set to appeal his 2016 conviction in the killing of Sammy Yatim. Forcillo, who shot Yatim multiple times, even after the youth had fallen to the ground from a fatal shot, was sentenced to six years in prison, one year more than the mandatory minimum.

The judge in Forcillo’s trial referred to video of the killing as “powerful evidence” that what the officer claimed occurred during the encounter did not actually occur. Ontario Superior Court Justice Edward found that Forcillo had abused his authority in a manner that served to undermine public trust in law enforcement and the justice system.

In despicable fashion, Constable Forcillo has sought an appeal in his case on the basis of the dubious claim that Yatim was attempting to commit “suicide by cop.” This is a nonsensical ruse used by killer cops to justify cases where they actively decide to kill someone, even if the victim they choose to kill is alone on a street car, away from anyone else, and posing not immediate threat to officers of the public. It is a pure piece of copaganda that serves to exonerate killer cops while blaming their victims. Of course, cops can choose not to shoot to kill. They decide, not the victim, which marks this as very distinct from suicide.

Ed Upenieks, a lawyer for the Yatim family, noted that the alleged breach of conditions by Forcillo shows the officer has a lack of respect for the system. According to Upenieks: “It calls into question his respect for the legal system and for the bail conditions” (quoted in Freeman 2017).

 

Further Reading

Freeman, Joshua. 2017. “Cop in Sammy Yatim Case Arrested After Allegedly Being Found at New Home.” CP24.com November 15. http://www.cp24.com/news/cop-convicted-in-sammy-yatim-case-arrested-after-allegedly-being-found-at-new-home-1.3679007

Advertisements

Trial for Killer Cop Simon Beaulieu Hears Cops Should Be Given More Consideration Than “Regular” Citizens

Quebec City police officer Simon Beaulieu drove into and killed Guy Blouin  on September 30, 2014, backing his police vehicle over the victim who was riding a bicycle at the time. We have already documented the base policing assumptions that led Beaulieu to act in the way that he did in killing Blouin (assuming Blouin was suspicious because he was riding the wrong way on a one way street; assuming he had something to hide because he did not obey an order allegedly given to stop, etc.).

On Monday, October 23, 2017, the court heard, during Beaulieu’s trial on charges of criminal negligence and dangerous driving causing death, that as a police officer he “could not be judged on the same level as a regular citizen” (Page 2017). Said Beaulieu’s defense attorney Maxime Roy: “We can imagine that being on patrol requires more manoeuvres than your average person” (quoted in Page 2017). And Roy concluded that Beaulieu was simply “trying to do his job and apprehend a suspect” (Page 2017). Never mind that the so-called suspect was a product of the officer’s authoritarian privilege and did nothing more than ride the wrong way and, the clincher, disobey a police order (which there is no way of knowing was either given or heard).

It is no surprise that police believe they are better than “regular” members of society and should be treated preferentially in all cases. This is a rather common approach to getting killer cops off in the rare cases in which they are actually brought to trial. That it could be confidently uttered as an element of defense in a killing of a civilian who did no wrong shows the nature of the criminal justice system in the Canadian state context.

 

Further Reading

Page, Julia. 2017. “Defence Attorney Calls for Acquittal on all Charges Against Quebec City Police Officer.” CBC News. October 23. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/simon-beaulieu-defence-closing-arguments-1.4367741


Killer Cop Simon Beaulieu and the Policing Assumptions that Take Lives

Quebec City police officer Simon Beaulieu killed 48-year-old  Guy Blouin when he struck the cyclist with his police vehicle on Sept. 3, 2014. During Beaulieu’s ongoing trial for criminal negligence and dangerous driving causing death, Yves Brière, a crime scene reconstruction expert with the Sûreté du Québec (the provincial force), earlier testified that he estimated Beaulieu to be traveling in reverse at 44 km/h when the cruiser hit and drove over Blouin on his bicycle.

On October18, 2017, officer Beaulieu took the stand. His testimony was interesting in revealing several generally held police assumptions about people that contribute to the killing of civilians by police.

First, cops assume everyone is a criminal (except themselves). Beaulieu testified that he was on a routine patrol in the Saint-Roch neighborhood when he observed Guy Blouin cycling toward him. But Blouin was riding his bike on a one-way street in the wrong direction. So Beaulieu assumed something was up and maneuvered his police car to block the cyclist.

Second, cops assume that everyone respects their authority unquestioningly, so anyone who does not listen to an officer’s orders must be up to something or hiding something. So, when Blouin rode his bike around the car and appeared to ignore the police order to stop, Beaulieu immediately suspected the cyclist had been involved in criminal activity. Not that he did not hear the order or had no reason to be stooped by police. In Beaulieu’s own words: ”In my experience, someone who doesn’t stop has something to hide” (quoted in Page 2017). So Beaulieu backed the police car into and over Blouin.

Third, cops assume that victims will be grateful for help offered initially from the very officers who hurt them. Beaulieu heard Blouin scream in agony from being driven over and excited his police car and saw the stricken man on the ground with leg and shoulder injuries. According to Beaulieu, the victim was agitated and refusing help from the officers. Did they call for medical help right away?

Fourth, and incredibly, cops assume that telling someone they are under arrest will calm them down!?! In Beaulieu’s words: “He was not collaborating, so I tried telling him he was under arrest to get him to calm down,” (quoted in Page 2017).

Fifth, cops assume that traveling in an ambulance with someone they have injured only moments before will make the victim less agitated. In this case both officers went with Blouin to hospital because , in their view, he was visibly agitated. And why wouldn’t he be?

In this case, Blouin remained agitated as the officers accompanied him . He lost consciousness en route and died only 20 minutes after being driven over by officer Beaulieu.

It turns out that the bike Blouin was riding at the time, which Beaulieu assumed was stolen because the rider was going the wrong way on a one way street and did not stop when an officer ordered him to, had been purchased by Guy Blouin at a local pawn shop. Police assumptions kill. An do so with frequency in the Canadian state context.

 

Further Reading

Page, Julia. 2017. “Quebec City Police Officer Accused of Running Over Cyclist Says Speed Wasn’t Over 25 km/h.” CBC News October 18. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/simon-beaulieu-testimony-guy-blouin-death-1.4360387

 


SIU Investigates What Cops Claim as “Sudden Death” of Shawn Davis in Chatham

Killer cops, their forces, and their police associations are regularly coming up with euphemisms and bogus “conditions” to excuse or legitimize their killings. The litany includes “excited delirium,” “suicide by cop,” and the mystical “sudden death.” The Special Investigations Unit (SIU), the agency that examines cases of police harm to civilians is investigating a case that police are calling “sudden death” in Chatham, Ontario on July 26, 2017.

Sometime on the night of July 25, Chatham-Kent police responded to a 911 call allegedly involving a domestic dispute. According to the SIU police remained outside the house on Greenfield Lane for quite some time.

Then the storyline jumps dramatically with no explanation. The SIU reports police entered the house at around 7:00 AM and—huge jump here—a 52-year old man, since identified as Shawn Davis, was pronounced dead at the scene (killed?, found dead?, etc.?). No one is saying. But sudden death does not cut it.

CKPS Constable Kelly Helbin said police would not release any other information. This only adds to the sense of police acting suspiciously in this case.


Bogus “Excited Delirium” Excuse Gets Killer Cops Off for 2015 Alberta Death

The finding of “excited delirium,” which makes its primary appearance in medical contexts usually only ever as justification for police killings of civilians, is an ideological tool used to excuse lethal police force. It has been used by police forces as a way to simultaneously blame victims for their own killings and give killer cops an answer where no real answer exists.

This dubious piece of copaganda has been offered up once again in Alberta to excuse Edmonton Police Service officers who killed a 25-year-old man on April 29, 2015. This despite well established debunking of the notion of excited delirium. The Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) offered the excited delirium defense in findings released on April 18, 2017, two years after the young victim died after being subjected to force by multiple officers while in police custody.

Sadly, the victim was targeted by police for the trivial act of supposedly trespassing in the City Centre Mall after nervous security staff called them. The security staff had tweaked to him because they suspected him of being under the influence of alcohol or drugs. So an effort at moral regulation by private security ultimately resulted in a young man having his life taken by police. The ASIRT report added to the moral regulatory approach by suggesting the man had been uncooperative with police, saying he refused to follow directions.

For many police officers refusing to follow directions is an invitation to a beating or worse an extrajudicial execution. In this case ASIRT reports that at least four officers used force on the man supposedly to get him into restraints. After being violently removed from the mall and taken into Downtown Division the man was placed on the floor in the detention area. At this point Edmonton Police Services officers noticed he was unconscious, and in medical distress. Paramedics took the man to hospital but he could not be stabilized and was declared dead there.

Notably, the ASIRT reports makes clear that the man was acting in a way that suggested both to private security and police that his issue was health related not criminal. According to the ASIRT release the man “exhibited bizarre behaviour” (ASIRT). The report continues: “He was observed twisting and attempting to pull away. He was observed to be breathing heavily, mumbling and yelling, mostly incoherently” (ASIRT). Yet the intervention was, once again, repressive violence and thuggish force rather than health care.

This is a case in which private security and police intervene against someone who is, at most, dealing with substance abuse issues. Police should not be intervening in this situation. Yet they do so with force. And when force becomes lethal they turn to “excited delirium” in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable. And it routinely gets them off. And mainstream media repeat the claim uncritically.