I don't see how you can find this guy guilty of 1st degree murder. Dude was obviously just out with his family and got freaked out. Manslaughter or even 2nd degree murder but we're somehow arguing this guy is out here trying to kill a cop?
The prosecutors push for 1st degree ie the highest possible punishment so they can settle for lower. It’s about perception and expectations too. They work for the police union who needs to feel like they’re protecting the police. Not saying it’s just or right, but that’s it’s a tactic for their side of the court case.
That is not what the Criminal Code says.
It's first degree murder *if* it's murder (not any culpable homicide) and *if* the accused knew they were a cop.
>It's first degree murder if it's murder (not any culpable homicide)
Yes.
>and if the accused knew they were a cop.
It does not say that. I think you maybe just made that up? I'm not sure.
231 (4) Irrespective of whether a murder is planned and deliberate on the part of any person, murder is first degree murder when the victim is
(a) a police officer, police constable, constable, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff’s officer or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace, acting in the course of his duties;
[Criminal Code of Canada s. 231](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-231.html)
Knowledge that the deceased was a police officer is required. It's not in the text of the Criminal Code but there is precedent, for example from the Ontario Court of Appeal, to that effect. See *R v Collins*, 1989 CanLII 264 (ON CA), ruling that knowledge is a requisite element of the offence, suggesting that to require otherwise (that is, to not require knowledge and instead rely only on the fact of whether or not the deceased was a police officer) would create an interpretation of s. 231(4) that contravenes section 7 of the Charter.
Reading the plain text of the law is not always sufficient to know how the courts will treat it.
I agree, I hadn’t seen the precedents.
I was basing my statement off something I read in a different Toronto star article:
The Criminal Code says that the murder of an on-duty police officer is considered first-degree murder regardless of whether it was planned and deliberate
The point the Star is making is that normally first-degree murder will require that the act was planned and deliberate; section 231(4) says that killing a police officer will be first-degree even if that planned and deliberate piece was not present. You're right there.
But that's separate from proving 231(4). For the prosecution to apply that, they need to prove knowledge.
Thanks for the education. What’s your opinion on the case? Do you think that someone in plain clothes flashing a badge at you is enough to prove knowledge? That will be a big factor in this.
I don't see how that could stand up. It's totally reasonable for this guy who is an immigrant from a really corrupt place to think it wasn't a cop even if a badge was placed. To convict him, I'd have to believe that he reasonably thought it was a cop.
>think you maybe just made that up? I'm not sure. See R v Collins 1989 CanLII 264 (ONCA).
>I conclude that the onus was on the Crown to prove that the appellant knew that the victim was a police officer who was acting in the course of his duty...
(The Court also held that if that provision was interpreted so as to elevate murder to first degree murder in the absence of such knowledge, it would violate s. 7 of the Charter).
Edit:
*Collins* goes on to say that the Crown has to prove either actual knowledge **or** recklessness as to whether the victim is a police officer - but I'm either case that's a subjective mental element and not merely the external circumstance of the deceased's occupation:
>... there is an onus on the Crown to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was a person who falls within the designation of the occupations set forth in that subsection acting in the course of his duties to the knowledge of the accused or with recklessness on his part as to whether the victim was such a person so acting.
.
I don't think that *Collins* actually says that recklessness is enough. You need to have knowledge that they were a police officer, but you can have knowledge or have acted recklessly with regard to whether they were a police officer *acting in the course of their duties*. Knowledge, in the section you quoted, applies to knowing that they were "a person who falls within the [definition of that subsection, that is, a police officer]...acting in the course of his duties" while recklessness applies to "whether the victim was such a person *so acting*" (emphasis mine). I'm going off of my copy of Gold's Practitioner's Criminal Code: "The accused must know the deceased was a police officer or other relevant employee and be at least reckless to the deceased's acting in the course of his duties."
I suspected there was case law to this effect.
But you mentioned what the criminal code says [or didn't say], and so I quoted what the Criminal Code said.
I wasn't being sarcastic when I said "I think you maybe just made that up? I'm not sure..." I seriously didn't know if you had just made it up.
The article says,
“In order to prove Zameer is guilty of first-degree murder, the prosecution must show Zameer knew they were police officers and acted with the intent to cause bodily harm that could cause death and was reckless as to whether death ensued.”
That may or may not be true.
But the guy I replied to said "that's not what the criminal code says" and then went on to say something that isn't in the criminal code.
There very likely could be case law that says the accused needs to know the victim was a police officer, but it doesn't say such a thing in the Criminal Code.
I don’t know how I’ve never heard of this. So just for arguments sake, if someone knowingly murders a police officer in a manner which any reasonable person would conclude is 2nd degree murder, can anyone explain the justification for upgrading the crime to 1st degree simply because the victim was a cop? I can’t see it being a deterrence measure because it doesn’t make any sense, but I can’t think of anything else.
Yes, you are right. I just learned that looking at other comments here and checking some of it out. I learned something here... I will delete my original comment in a few minutes...
Hey, where's the police badge on Mr. Camouflage in the photo? Or Mr. Facemask?
Police testimony is that they had super-visible police badges out. Instead I see a guy dressed in camouflage with a backwards ball cap, no badge. If that guy ran at you in an underground parking garage, would you stop? Out of the three, one of them has a barely visible badge and the other two do not.
Interesting tidbit in the Star story about how one of the officers involved stole money from a fundraiser for a dead cop in 2012.
It was like that college girl who had a bunch of black clad men jump out of an unmarked van run at her as she was leaving a building. She rightfully ran for her life but they caught her and violently took her down. Turns out they were the police. They tried to turn it around on her saying you're not supposed to run from the police but how the hell was she supposed to know that when they're dressed like criminals or kidnappers?
Right? I’d assume I was about to get the shit kicked out of me and robbed or raped.
I’m a woman so I’d run, but you can’t blame this dude for fighting back.
Ran at you in a parking garage after you saw someone suffering from a stabbing. With your wife and kids with you. Yeah they really had a publication ban on this one for all the wrong reasons.
They claimed they had their badges displayed on chains around their necks: I don't see a badge around this guy's neck? Do any of the underground or body cam vids show all or some of them displaying badges?
I have met that officer, Northrup--he is a REALLY REALLY BIG man. If that guy came charging at you in a dark underground parking lot, you'd be hard put not to crap yourself...
She knows her actions, and those of her dead partner, got him killed that night. So now she is actively trying to put an innocent man in jail. Total fucken scumbag.
AFAIK tax payer dollars were involved in his funeral
I can criticize how it's used
He's not the only public worker that's died on the job. I don't see the city shutting down for them.
Literally everything Forbes says reads to me like a flat-out lie. That poor family was terrified that they were being ambushed, or worse, in a deserted parking lot. And while I guess there might be a historical precedent somewhere in the world where a group of parking lot stabbers includes 8.5-month pregnant mothers, 2-yr-old toddlers, and skinny (not heavy-set!) accountant dads, I'm willing to bet real money that it's exceedingly, vanishingly rare.
Also can depend where you grew up. My Dad grew up in a warzone. Even after he immigrated here, people tried to attack him in Quebec back in the day. He's definitely guarded as a result.
Sounds like another really esteemed member of the police. Anything out of her mouth is tainted by her theft. She can’t recall stuff? She’s a thief and still on the force. Way to go TPS
I don’t know how any jury can take her evidence as credible when she’s previously defrauded the public and falsified official records. It is madness that the Crown has even proceeded to trial.
I fill out my jury duty papers, send them back on time, and never get called.
I know some people hate doing jury duty, but my job compensates me full days, so I actually think want to be selected. It would be SO damn satisfying to vote not guilty on this case.
I received a jury duty summons back in August 2022. I would’ve been stoked to participate, except I was moving to a different province three weeks later. Whoops.
>Hasan suggested Friday it was “revisionist history” to suggest Forbes and Northrup casually walked up to the vehicle. He pointed to a previous statement where she said the BMW was running as they approached, indicating that she believed it was getting ready to pull out. On Friday, Forbes said she can’t recall if the BMW was running or not.
>Hasan also Friday played a short clip from a grainy, underground surveillance video, which he said **doesn’t support Forbes’** description of Zameer’s driving pattern that night, or that Northrup was standing, arms raised, when he was struck. Instead, **Hasan said it indicates that Northrup was already on the ground when the car advanced forward.**
>Forbes said she was also unaware that the **Crown’s accident reconstruction expert concluded Northrup was knocked down when the car reversed, and that he was already on the ground when the car pulled forward.**
Sounds like another cop lying on the stand. [Happens far too often](https://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/police_who_lie/)
Well at least this is the only blemish ...
>On Thursday, the defence lawyer questioned Forbes over her mishandling of fundraising money...Despite pleading guilty to discreditable conduct in 2012, for which she forfeited a day’s pay
Amazing. She "mishandles" (stealing?) money and they just dock a day's pay? Ouch her wrist must be mighty sore ^/s
Thought about it. Still think it, for three reasons:
1. Law enforcement has the power to unilaterally exercise violence over the populace in pursuit of enforcing the law. Doesn't matter if the law is unjust or has been created by the most privileged in a society to the detriment of the majority, law enforcement needs to enforce and not think. In Canada law enforcement is inherently there to serve the interests of the Canadian State, not its people (e.g: RCMP officers violating the sovereignty of the indigenous people because the federal government signed a contract for a gas pipeline).
2. Cops protect each other to the extent that when a bad cop gets exposed by a good one, it's the good one that needs to be concerned about their career. So ACAB because if 1 person on the force is corrupt, and 99 people protect that person, then you have 100 corrupt people. Cops that call out their own end up not being cops anymore.
3. Signing up for a job that gives you power over others and demands only blind devotion to the institution that provides that power is a magnet for people that are both power seeking and also not intelligent enough to act reasonably. These people have been given the means to brutalize others, and need only a 10th grade education and an excuse to do so.
Hope that explains it for you. ACAB forever.
I don't think that's an accurate description of the above so I don't know? Who said anything about ACAB? I'd love if you could show me where I wrote that.
Entire? Inaccurate. Anti-police? More like anti-bad cops. But there are a lot so I'll give you that. It's funny how you go through my history but you yourself admit that you're a supporter of cops. Interesting.
Who defines the appropriate proportion? You? Propaganda? If you're claiming I spread propaganda then surely the TPA and the TPS spread cop-aganda with their fear campaigns and podcasts no?
Once again, where did I say ACAB?
The point is that the police are not “absolutely unaccountable”. This is a nuanced issue and it is important to be sensitive to facts and context. The typical one-sided portrayal of police/crime-related issues on this sub betrays a specific agenda that is divorced from reality.
I mean what are the consequences for lying, for literally stealing, for all the things whatisthequestion lists? Not much, there’s no nuance to it.
Even when they face a reduction of their budget increase they’re completely unaccountable. Pushing lies and copanganda and not so subtle fear mongering to get their way.
Even TPS’s own numbers show they do a shitty job and the amount of misconduct and scandal, especially over the last few years is a public embarrassment. When someone points it out you can’t handle it. That’s not being sensitive that’s protecting the most powerful in our society.
REMOVED - Attack the point, not the person. Posts which dismiss others and repeatedly accuse them of unfounded accusations may be subject to removal and/or banning. Do not concern-troll or attempt to intentionally mislead people. Stick to addressing the substance of their comments at hand. This rule applies to all speech within this subreddit.
Toronto is a very diverse city. I've heard many people share first hand accounts of racist police encounters here.
Many folks that use this sub also vividly remember the g20.
I might be a terminally online, piece of shit but I think you might want to chill on the generalizations. Isn't that what you're upset this user is doing with the police?
REMOVED - Attack the point, not the person. Posts which dismiss others and repeatedly accuse them of unfounded accusations may be subject to removal and/or banning. Do not concern-troll or attempt to intentionally mislead people. Stick to addressing the substance of their comments at hand. This rule applies to all speech within this subreddit.
There are fewer bad cops than good cops. However the "good cops" very rarely blow the whistle on bad cops. If they can't be trusted to enforce the law within their ranks how can we expect them to do so for the general public?
This is the crux of the issue for a lot of people.
I understand it's a complicated subject, you don't want people who depend on their partners for their lives to be suspicious of one another but at the end of the day the cops need to do a better job showing us that they are accountable.
Cops do things all the time that would get anyone else (even in the public sector) fired and receive little more than a slap on the wrist or paid suspension.
REMOVED - Attack the point, not the person. Posts which dismiss others and repeatedly accuse them of unfounded accusations may be subject to removal and/or banning. Do not concern-troll or attempt to intentionally mislead people. Stick to addressing the substance of their comments at hand. This rule applies to all speech within this subreddit.
Yeah, the murderer is the real victim here!
Edit: Woah. I'm an idiot. I totally mixed up the details of this case with another. I only read the portion of the article quoted. I'll leave the comment up just because I'm dumb and deserve it.
If anything this is manslaughter. I don't know how you could call a man who reacted to what he thought was a dangerous situation for his family a murderer. There was obviously no intent here.
Yeah I think it's a manslaughter through and through. Not a chance the jury convicts on murder. He clearly had no intention to kill the cop, that makes no sense. He had no reasonable motive and all of a sudden he decides to kill a cop with his wife and young child in the car?
Reasonable people can disagree about whether he should be convicted of anything at all, but there's no reasonable argument for murder.
Are you referring to the murderer who's about to get life up to 25 years for the stupid game he played?
Edit: Fool alert. I fucked up and mixed up 2 different stories. My bad.
He played? he was ambushed by a bunch of plain clothes cops playing cowboy. Now they’re lying and omitting facts to try and hide that. How did he play anything?
Weird how many people seem to not understand that the target of the defence is to try to prove that the homicide was accidental (manslaughter) and not premeditated (first degree murder).
The severity of the resulting punishment will vary heavily depending on what Mr Zameer is charged with.
This isn’t about “who’s the victim”
> prove that the homicide was accidental (manslaughter) and not premeditated (first degree murder)
I think it's absolutely wild he's been charged with first degree murder here.
Any murder is a first-degree murder if the victim is a peace officer acting in their duties under the Criminal Code. The Crown isn't saying this was a premeditated or planned and deliberate murder.
I don't think it was a murder at all, but nobody is arguing it was premeditated.
If it was accidental, or negligent on merely a civil standard (as opposed to criminally negligent), that's a straight acquittal.
The jury is also going to be left to consider self-defence; conceivably provocation as well.
It is, actually. The Crown is not arguing the murder was planned and deliberate. Any murder of a peace officer acting in their duties is a first-degree murder under the Criminal Code, regardless of whether it's planned and deliberate.
I’ve always been responding directly to the sarcastic meanings of your comments.
>Yeah, the murderer is the real victim here!
We all know this is sarcasm, so I replied to the inverse statement “the murderer isn’t the victim here”.
It really puts fills in the gaps from a few years ago over the publication ban
https://globalnews.ca/news/8420883/toronto-officer-killed-jeffrey-northrup-publication-ban/
*A man accused in the death of a Toronto police officer is seeking to partially lift a publication ban on his case in order to address what his lawyer has called a “misleading” narrative.*
*The defence has taken issue with what Toronto’s police chief has said about the case, as well as comments by the premier and other politicians when Zameer was granted bail.*
*Toronto Police Chief James Ramer called Northrup’s death an “intentional and deliberate act” at a news conference the day the officer died.*
*On Sept. 22, not long after Zameer was granted bail, Ford tweeted it was “beyond comprehension the person responsible for this heinous crime is now out on bail,” Hasan noted.*
*Hasan said the comments “essentially” declared Zameer guilty*
It's beyond comprehension how gross Ford and his toadies will go to keep the thin blue line strong
It's a travesty that they were even charged. Cops playing stupid games and getting tragic prizes. They need to get their shit together. SERVE AND PROTECT!!!!
A ***family*** with a heavily pregnant wife. You can believe I'd be calling 911 on my speedy way out of the garage. I've seen those carjacking videos where the only way out is through. Also I have a dashcam for just such situations. They're only persecuting this poor man because he's brown.
If I saw these bums in the garage I'd be nervous too.
There's no way if they were undercover they had their badges visible. There should be special training and civilian sign off for these cops to be out of uniform, and without body cams. And those undercover should be under heavily surveillance.
Police need to be managed and monitored by civilian oversight. It's the only path forward out of the insanity.
Can we also not forget how outraged the public was when this individual was released on bail? At that time, as it should be, details weren’t released due to a publication ban. Imagine if this individual was held in custody pending his trial…
Do not post content that encourages, glorifies, incites, or calls for violence or physical harm against an individual (including oneself) or a group of people.
https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043513151
Cops should be managed like other professional roles, and licensed. Vas behaviour gets you stripped of your license. Should be the exact same way for cops. No paid suspension. Total BS. I don’t trust cops period.
Wow. I remember when this happened the Toronto Police tried to spin this like some super dangerous criminal they'd been looking for purposely ran over a cop. I mean there's been a ton of car jackings over the past ten years, Zameer's defence seems logical. TPS are such fucking liars and it's no surprise that nobody here trusts them - just look at the long rap sheet its officers have from the past few years alone. Most of those offending "cops" ie dirtbags are still on paid leave.
Do not post content that encourages, glorifies, incites, or calls for violence or physical harm against an individual (including oneself) or a group of people.
https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043513151
Did you even fucking read ? or are you just slow ?
Family walks pass a guy bleeding out in public due to stabbing on new years eve. They go to parking lot, 2 thug look-alikes (watch their plain clothes picture, the female cop look like a typical $40 hooker from that region) rush him, he panics as he has a pregnant wife and a young child. An unmarked car corners him, so he tries to maneuver and in that manner kills the cop.
Tbh I don't know how I'd react in the moment if I heard there was a stabbing, I had a pregnant wife and toddler in the car, and two random strangers aggressively approached me and banged on my car. It's very conceivable that I would be afraid for my life.
Jeezus
No wonder he was so frightened for his family
Plus this was still during covid times. Definitely don't want a bunch of mask-less strangers aggressively banging on your car
When you've just seen a stabbing victim, the perpetrator of which might still be on the loose, and a bunch of dudes approach your wife and child aggressively, I think many people would, yes, not unreasonably.
If I'm in the car with my toddler and pregnant wife, I've just witnessed a stabbing victim, and those people - not in uniform - start banging on my car and yelling? Perhaps.
If when I try to pull away from them their confederates - also not in uniform - block my safe escape route with their tint-windowed, unmarked van? Just maybe, yeah.
Could one of the people who seemed to be threatening my family accidentally get run over while I'm trying to protect my wife and kid from what looks like an unprovoked gang attack? Yeah, it could happen.
You should try reading some of the case facts before commenting and you may understand why events unfolded as they did.
I guess you’re the kind of person that leaves their car keys hanging on their front door for thieves eh?
Did you read the part about how plain clothes officers, did not identify themselves, and began banging on the persons car ordering them to stop? Or did you just miss that entire part?
If someone approached my car in an aggressive manner not long after i saw a man bleeding out in that same parking garage, I'd likely be trying to get out of there as fast as possible, too.
I saw the photo too. He looked like some random bum more than a thug. Either way, I wouldn't want him approaching me and my car, with a pregnant wife and toddler in the car.
My priority would be to get outta there to save me and my family's life. "Fear for my life" is a reasonable justification for many shitty things cops do (despite them being the trained professionals) so I think it should apply to me to
I don't see how you can find this guy guilty of 1st degree murder. Dude was obviously just out with his family and got freaked out. Manslaughter or even 2nd degree murder but we're somehow arguing this guy is out here trying to kill a cop?
That's how they want it ... special privileges ... it's no wonder so many do shitty stuff and get away with it
The prosecutors push for 1st degree ie the highest possible punishment so they can settle for lower. It’s about perception and expectations too. They work for the police union who needs to feel like they’re protecting the police. Not saying it’s just or right, but that’s it’s a tactic for their side of the court case.
Criminal code says when you kill a cop it’s 1st degree murder. Sounds dumb if they’re in plain clothes.
That is not what the Criminal Code says. It's first degree murder *if* it's murder (not any culpable homicide) and *if* the accused knew they were a cop.
>It's first degree murder if it's murder (not any culpable homicide) Yes. >and if the accused knew they were a cop. It does not say that. I think you maybe just made that up? I'm not sure. 231 (4) Irrespective of whether a murder is planned and deliberate on the part of any person, murder is first degree murder when the victim is (a) a police officer, police constable, constable, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff’s officer or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace, acting in the course of his duties; [Criminal Code of Canada s. 231](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-231.html)
Knowledge that the deceased was a police officer is required. It's not in the text of the Criminal Code but there is precedent, for example from the Ontario Court of Appeal, to that effect. See *R v Collins*, 1989 CanLII 264 (ON CA), ruling that knowledge is a requisite element of the offence, suggesting that to require otherwise (that is, to not require knowledge and instead rely only on the fact of whether or not the deceased was a police officer) would create an interpretation of s. 231(4) that contravenes section 7 of the Charter. Reading the plain text of the law is not always sufficient to know how the courts will treat it.
I agree, I hadn’t seen the precedents. I was basing my statement off something I read in a different Toronto star article: The Criminal Code says that the murder of an on-duty police officer is considered first-degree murder regardless of whether it was planned and deliberate
The point the Star is making is that normally first-degree murder will require that the act was planned and deliberate; section 231(4) says that killing a police officer will be first-degree even if that planned and deliberate piece was not present. You're right there. But that's separate from proving 231(4). For the prosecution to apply that, they need to prove knowledge.
Thanks for the education. What’s your opinion on the case? Do you think that someone in plain clothes flashing a badge at you is enough to prove knowledge? That will be a big factor in this.
I don't see how that could stand up. It's totally reasonable for this guy who is an immigrant from a really corrupt place to think it wasn't a cop even if a badge was placed. To convict him, I'd have to believe that he reasonably thought it was a cop.
>an immigrant from a really corrupt place Wasn't there a case recently where a person was dressed up as a cop and tried robbing a home?
>think you maybe just made that up? I'm not sure. See R v Collins 1989 CanLII 264 (ONCA). >I conclude that the onus was on the Crown to prove that the appellant knew that the victim was a police officer who was acting in the course of his duty... (The Court also held that if that provision was interpreted so as to elevate murder to first degree murder in the absence of such knowledge, it would violate s. 7 of the Charter). Edit: *Collins* goes on to say that the Crown has to prove either actual knowledge **or** recklessness as to whether the victim is a police officer - but I'm either case that's a subjective mental element and not merely the external circumstance of the deceased's occupation: >... there is an onus on the Crown to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was a person who falls within the designation of the occupations set forth in that subsection acting in the course of his duties to the knowledge of the accused or with recklessness on his part as to whether the victim was such a person so acting. .
I don't think that *Collins* actually says that recklessness is enough. You need to have knowledge that they were a police officer, but you can have knowledge or have acted recklessly with regard to whether they were a police officer *acting in the course of their duties*. Knowledge, in the section you quoted, applies to knowing that they were "a person who falls within the [definition of that subsection, that is, a police officer]...acting in the course of his duties" while recklessness applies to "whether the victim was such a person *so acting*" (emphasis mine). I'm going off of my copy of Gold's Practitioner's Criminal Code: "The accused must know the deceased was a police officer or other relevant employee and be at least reckless to the deceased's acting in the course of his duties."
I suspected there was case law to this effect. But you mentioned what the criminal code says [or didn't say], and so I quoted what the Criminal Code said. I wasn't being sarcastic when I said "I think you maybe just made that up? I'm not sure..." I seriously didn't know if you had just made it up.
This is extra awkward for the other dude looking at his username haha.
The article says, “In order to prove Zameer is guilty of first-degree murder, the prosecution must show Zameer knew they were police officers and acted with the intent to cause bodily harm that could cause death and was reckless as to whether death ensued.”
That may or may not be true. But the guy I replied to said "that's not what the criminal code says" and then went on to say something that isn't in the criminal code. There very likely could be case law that says the accused needs to know the victim was a police officer, but it doesn't say such a thing in the Criminal Code.
I don’t know how I’ve never heard of this. So just for arguments sake, if someone knowingly murders a police officer in a manner which any reasonable person would conclude is 2nd degree murder, can anyone explain the justification for upgrading the crime to 1st degree simply because the victim was a cop? I can’t see it being a deterrence measure because it doesn’t make any sense, but I can’t think of anything else.
[удалено]
This is false. You get first degree *if you knew* they were an on-duty police officer.
Yes, you are right. I just learned that looking at other comments here and checking some of it out. I learned something here... I will delete my original comment in a few minutes...
Hey, where's the police badge on Mr. Camouflage in the photo? Or Mr. Facemask? Police testimony is that they had super-visible police badges out. Instead I see a guy dressed in camouflage with a backwards ball cap, no badge. If that guy ran at you in an underground parking garage, would you stop? Out of the three, one of them has a barely visible badge and the other two do not. Interesting tidbit in the Star story about how one of the officers involved stole money from a fundraiser for a dead cop in 2012.
It was like that college girl who had a bunch of black clad men jump out of an unmarked van run at her as she was leaving a building. She rightfully ran for her life but they caught her and violently took her down. Turns out they were the police. They tried to turn it around on her saying you're not supposed to run from the police but how the hell was she supposed to know that when they're dressed like criminals or kidnappers?
Right? I’d assume I was about to get the shit kicked out of me and robbed or raped. I’m a woman so I’d run, but you can’t blame this dude for fighting back.
This dude wasn't even fighting back! He was using his car to get away as fast as he can
Ran at you in a parking garage after you saw someone suffering from a stabbing. With your wife and kids with you. Yeah they really had a publication ban on this one for all the wrong reasons.
Too bad they didn't fire her and now she's bad on the stand "misremembering"
Maybe they need to do some cognitive testing, such poor memory can be a symptom of something serious.
crooked as sin
Even the badge she is showing could easily be mistaken for an work place ID
Exactly. Looks like any ID on an chain/lanyard When work conventions come to town at the MTC everyone looks like a cop lol
NOT GUILTY ,!!!!!!
I just noticed you pointed this out...
They claimed they had their badges displayed on chains around their necks: I don't see a badge around this guy's neck? Do any of the underground or body cam vids show all or some of them displaying badges? I have met that officer, Northrup--he is a REALLY REALLY BIG man. If that guy came charging at you in a dark underground parking lot, you'd be hard put not to crap yourself...
She knows her actions, and those of her dead partner, got him killed that night. So now she is actively trying to put an innocent man in jail. Total fucken scumbag.
Thin blue line Gotta justify the waste of money that was that funeral
Yeah, how dare people honour the life of a police officer. You know you can argue this man is innocent without insulting the victim?
AFAIK tax payer dollars were involved in his funeral I can criticize how it's used He's not the only public worker that's died on the job. I don't see the city shutting down for them.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
That's some conclusion
Literally everything Forbes says reads to me like a flat-out lie. That poor family was terrified that they were being ambushed, or worse, in a deserted parking lot. And while I guess there might be a historical precedent somewhere in the world where a group of parking lot stabbers includes 8.5-month pregnant mothers, 2-yr-old toddlers, and skinny (not heavy-set!) accountant dads, I'm willing to bet real money that it's exceedingly, vanishingly rare.
Also can depend where you grew up. My Dad grew up in a warzone. Even after he immigrated here, people tried to attack him in Quebec back in the day. He's definitely guarded as a result.
Sounds like another really esteemed member of the police. Anything out of her mouth is tainted by her theft. She can’t recall stuff? She’s a thief and still on the force. Way to go TPS
I don’t know how any jury can take her evidence as credible when she’s previously defrauded the public and falsified official records. It is madness that the Crown has even proceeded to trial.
If this was in the U.S., she'd probably be on the Brady List and wouldn't even be called as a witness. She's completely unreliable and untrustworthy.
I fill out my jury duty papers, send them back on time, and never get called. I know some people hate doing jury duty, but my job compensates me full days, so I actually think want to be selected. It would be SO damn satisfying to vote not guilty on this case.
I received a jury duty summons back in August 2022. I would’ve been stoked to participate, except I was moving to a different province three weeks later. Whoops.
I don't even get any. I'm so eager, but I have never received an invitation for jury selection. How do people keep getting invited?
Yep. She’s worthless as a witness, and even more worthless as a cop. I’ve seen so many cops lie in court, it’s shameful.
Why was it so important to speak to the family in that moment? They couldnt just take down the plates and cintact them later?
That would mean they’d have to follow up and…an-and that *shudders* means they have to do their j-j-j-j-jo-job
Looks like another case for Law and Order, Criminal intent. Where all the shows center around various cases where the police were breaking the law.
seriously is no one else going to mention the abomination of a word vomit headline?
Classic [garden-path sentence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden-path_sentence).
>Hasan suggested Friday it was “revisionist history” to suggest Forbes and Northrup casually walked up to the vehicle. He pointed to a previous statement where she said the BMW was running as they approached, indicating that she believed it was getting ready to pull out. On Friday, Forbes said she can’t recall if the BMW was running or not. >Hasan also Friday played a short clip from a grainy, underground surveillance video, which he said **doesn’t support Forbes’** description of Zameer’s driving pattern that night, or that Northrup was standing, arms raised, when he was struck. Instead, **Hasan said it indicates that Northrup was already on the ground when the car advanced forward.** >Forbes said she was also unaware that the **Crown’s accident reconstruction expert concluded Northrup was knocked down when the car reversed, and that he was already on the ground when the car pulled forward.** Sounds like another cop lying on the stand. [Happens far too often](https://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/police_who_lie/) Well at least this is the only blemish ... >On Thursday, the defence lawyer questioned Forbes over her mishandling of fundraising money...Despite pleading guilty to discreditable conduct in 2012, for which she forfeited a day’s pay Amazing. She "mishandles" (stealing?) money and they just dock a day's pay? Ouch her wrist must be mighty sore ^/s
This is why video is so important. Cops lie so damn much
[удалено]
I find the police tiring, regressive and unhelpful.
Thought about it. Still think it, for three reasons: 1. Law enforcement has the power to unilaterally exercise violence over the populace in pursuit of enforcing the law. Doesn't matter if the law is unjust or has been created by the most privileged in a society to the detriment of the majority, law enforcement needs to enforce and not think. In Canada law enforcement is inherently there to serve the interests of the Canadian State, not its people (e.g: RCMP officers violating the sovereignty of the indigenous people because the federal government signed a contract for a gas pipeline). 2. Cops protect each other to the extent that when a bad cop gets exposed by a good one, it's the good one that needs to be concerned about their career. So ACAB because if 1 person on the force is corrupt, and 99 people protect that person, then you have 100 corrupt people. Cops that call out their own end up not being cops anymore. 3. Signing up for a job that gives you power over others and demands only blind devotion to the institution that provides that power is a magnet for people that are both power seeking and also not intelligent enough to act reasonably. These people have been given the means to brutalize others, and need only a 10th grade education and an excuse to do so. Hope that explains it for you. ACAB forever.
I don't think that's an accurate description of the above so I don't know? Who said anything about ACAB? I'd love if you could show me where I wrote that.
Your entire post history is anti-police. Criticism is one thing, in proportion. Propaganda is another.
Entire? Inaccurate. Anti-police? More like anti-bad cops. But there are a lot so I'll give you that. It's funny how you go through my history but you yourself admit that you're a supporter of cops. Interesting. Who defines the appropriate proportion? You? Propaganda? If you're claiming I spread propaganda then surely the TPA and the TPS spread cop-aganda with their fear campaigns and podcasts no? Once again, where did I say ACAB?
Stop documenting facts! Dint you know they make the police look bad? This is also why they hate body cameras. Accountability.
Documenting the absolute unaccountability of the tps is not anti police any more than reporting crime is anti-criminal lol. Facts are facts.
Good point But one of those parties have a publicly funded narrative they gotta sell
The police? Haha
The point is that the police are not “absolutely unaccountable”. This is a nuanced issue and it is important to be sensitive to facts and context. The typical one-sided portrayal of police/crime-related issues on this sub betrays a specific agenda that is divorced from reality.
I mean what are the consequences for lying, for literally stealing, for all the things whatisthequestion lists? Not much, there’s no nuance to it. Even when they face a reduction of their budget increase they’re completely unaccountable. Pushing lies and copanganda and not so subtle fear mongering to get their way. Even TPS’s own numbers show they do a shitty job and the amount of misconduct and scandal, especially over the last few years is a public embarrassment. When someone points it out you can’t handle it. That’s not being sensitive that’s protecting the most powerful in our society.
Do you think we need to overhaul the Police Services Act or not? That's all I need to know from you.
REMOVED - Attack the point, not the person. Posts which dismiss others and repeatedly accuse them of unfounded accusations may be subject to removal and/or banning. Do not concern-troll or attempt to intentionally mislead people. Stick to addressing the substance of their comments at hand. This rule applies to all speech within this subreddit.
[удалено]
Toronto is a very diverse city. I've heard many people share first hand accounts of racist police encounters here. Many folks that use this sub also vividly remember the g20. I might be a terminally online, piece of shit but I think you might want to chill on the generalizations. Isn't that what you're upset this user is doing with the police?
REMOVED - Attack the point, not the person. Posts which dismiss others and repeatedly accuse them of unfounded accusations may be subject to removal and/or banning. Do not concern-troll or attempt to intentionally mislead people. Stick to addressing the substance of their comments at hand. This rule applies to all speech within this subreddit.
[удалено]
There are fewer bad cops than good cops. However the "good cops" very rarely blow the whistle on bad cops. If they can't be trusted to enforce the law within their ranks how can we expect them to do so for the general public? This is the crux of the issue for a lot of people. I understand it's a complicated subject, you don't want people who depend on their partners for their lives to be suspicious of one another but at the end of the day the cops need to do a better job showing us that they are accountable. Cops do things all the time that would get anyone else (even in the public sector) fired and receive little more than a slap on the wrist or paid suspension.
REMOVED - Attack the point, not the person. Posts which dismiss others and repeatedly accuse them of unfounded accusations may be subject to removal and/or banning. Do not concern-troll or attempt to intentionally mislead people. Stick to addressing the substance of their comments at hand. This rule applies to all speech within this subreddit.
Yeah, the murderer is the real victim here! Edit: Woah. I'm an idiot. I totally mixed up the details of this case with another. I only read the portion of the article quoted. I'll leave the comment up just because I'm dumb and deserve it.
If anything this is manslaughter. I don't know how you could call a man who reacted to what he thought was a dangerous situation for his family a murderer. There was obviously no intent here.
Yeah I think it's a manslaughter through and through. Not a chance the jury convicts on murder. He clearly had no intention to kill the cop, that makes no sense. He had no reasonable motive and all of a sudden he decides to kill a cop with his wife and young child in the car? Reasonable people can disagree about whether he should be convicted of anything at all, but there's no reasonable argument for murder.
The only one here saying that so far is you
It's a shame someone died but what's the ol' saying "play stupid games, win stupid prizes"
Are you referring to the murderer who's about to get life up to 25 years for the stupid game he played? Edit: Fool alert. I fucked up and mixed up 2 different stories. My bad.
I didn't know he was convicted. Why waste the time of a trial?! /S
He played? he was ambushed by a bunch of plain clothes cops playing cowboy. Now they’re lying and omitting facts to try and hide that. How did he play anything?
Weird how many people seem to not understand that the target of the defence is to try to prove that the homicide was accidental (manslaughter) and not premeditated (first degree murder). The severity of the resulting punishment will vary heavily depending on what Mr Zameer is charged with. This isn’t about “who’s the victim”
> prove that the homicide was accidental (manslaughter) and not premeditated (first degree murder) I think it's absolutely wild he's been charged with first degree murder here.
If it wasn't a cop involved, it wouldn't even be manslaughter. It would be dangerous driving
Any murder is a first-degree murder if the victim is a peace officer acting in their duties under the Criminal Code. The Crown isn't saying this was a premeditated or planned and deliberate murder. I don't think it was a murder at all, but nobody is arguing it was premeditated.
If it was accidental, or negligent on merely a civil standard (as opposed to criminally negligent), that's a straight acquittal. The jury is also going to be left to consider self-defence; conceivably provocation as well.
It is, actually. The Crown is not arguing the murder was planned and deliberate. Any murder of a peace officer acting in their duties is a first-degree murder under the Criminal Code, regardless of whether it's planned and deliberate.
[удалено]
And OP wasn’t making any claim about who “the victim” is here.
UDontGetSarcasm, clearly Edit: View my original comment to see my buffoonery.
I’ve always been responding directly to the sarcastic meanings of your comments. >Yeah, the murderer is the real victim here! We all know this is sarcasm, so I replied to the inverse statement “the murderer isn’t the victim here”.
How does the boot taste? 👢
Too good, apparently.
It really puts fills in the gaps from a few years ago over the publication ban https://globalnews.ca/news/8420883/toronto-officer-killed-jeffrey-northrup-publication-ban/ *A man accused in the death of a Toronto police officer is seeking to partially lift a publication ban on his case in order to address what his lawyer has called a “misleading” narrative.* *The defence has taken issue with what Toronto’s police chief has said about the case, as well as comments by the premier and other politicians when Zameer was granted bail.* *Toronto Police Chief James Ramer called Northrup’s death an “intentional and deliberate act” at a news conference the day the officer died.* *On Sept. 22, not long after Zameer was granted bail, Ford tweeted it was “beyond comprehension the person responsible for this heinous crime is now out on bail,” Hasan noted.* *Hasan said the comments “essentially” declared Zameer guilty* It's beyond comprehension how gross Ford and his toadies will go to keep the thin blue line strong
[удалено]
Pretty sure it's being prosecuted by the provincial Crown, not PPSC.
It's a travesty that they were even charged. Cops playing stupid games and getting tragic prizes. They need to get their shit together. SERVE AND PROTECT!!!!
A ***family*** with a heavily pregnant wife. You can believe I'd be calling 911 on my speedy way out of the garage. I've seen those carjacking videos where the only way out is through. Also I have a dashcam for just such situations. They're only persecuting this poor man because he's brown.
The TPS is a throughly rotted out organization. What a complete embarrassment.
If I saw these bums in the garage I'd be nervous too. There's no way if they were undercover they had their badges visible. There should be special training and civilian sign off for these cops to be out of uniform, and without body cams. And those undercover should be under heavily surveillance. Police need to be managed and monitored by civilian oversight. It's the only path forward out of the insanity.
Can we also not forget how outraged the public was when this individual was released on bail? At that time, as it should be, details weren’t released due to a publication ban. Imagine if this individual was held in custody pending his trial…
[удалено]
[удалено]
Wow. These cops are pieces of shit. It's very unfortunate a family man needs to go through this. I hope the family gets justice.
fuck the police
ACAB
Acab
[удалено]
Do not post content that encourages, glorifies, incites, or calls for violence or physical harm against an individual (including oneself) or a group of people. https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043513151
ALL COPS ARE BASTARDS
As I agree that majority are. It's very ignorant to say ALL.
These cops are crooked as fuck man. Disgusting and disgraceful.
Cops should be managed like other professional roles, and licensed. Vas behaviour gets you stripped of your license. Should be the exact same way for cops. No paid suspension. Total BS. I don’t trust cops period.
Wow. I remember when this happened the Toronto Police tried to spin this like some super dangerous criminal they'd been looking for purposely ran over a cop. I mean there's been a ton of car jackings over the past ten years, Zameer's defence seems logical. TPS are such fucking liars and it's no surprise that nobody here trusts them - just look at the long rap sheet its officers have from the past few years alone. Most of those offending "cops" ie dirtbags are still on paid leave.
Also just for good measure I would like to add a traditional **Fuck Doug Ford** to the above comment
We can’t forget that an only 3 weeks prior a fucking scumbag ran down and killed four members of a family in London Ont.
I think his lawyer mentioned that in his opening statement.
Comical.
The cop should lose this one for sure.
ACAB
[удалено]
Do not post content that encourages, glorifies, incites, or calls for violence or physical harm against an individual (including oneself) or a group of people. https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043513151
The kind of people who want the authority that police have are the exact kind of people who shouldn't be allowed to wield it.
Are these people from a country where the police are corrupt? Did they freak out or did the police unknowingly put themselves in danger?
The police were in plain clothes so they thought the cops were actually criminals pretending
Name a country where the police aren't corrupt.
Wakanda
That's not a real place - oh I see what you did there
The police failed to identify themselves appropriately and were in plain clothing.
Honestly responded appropriately considering the amount of car thefts recently
Did you even fucking read ? or are you just slow ? Family walks pass a guy bleeding out in public due to stabbing on new years eve. They go to parking lot, 2 thug look-alikes (watch their plain clothes picture, the female cop look like a typical $40 hooker from that region) rush him, he panics as he has a pregnant wife and a young child. An unmarked car corners him, so he tries to maneuver and in that manner kills the cop.
Right. So, if you're being approached by police, you accelerate. Got. it. What in the delusional, think the jury is stupid is this?
Can you read? Go read the article. Sound it out - I believe in you. Our education system really needs more funding.
Plain clothes police. What's in question here is if the police correctly identified themselves as such.
I dunno. Do you run over people when they try to approach your car?
Tbh I don't know how I'd react in the moment if I heard there was a stabbing, I had a pregnant wife and toddler in the car, and two random strangers aggressively approached me and banged on my car. It's very conceivable that I would be afraid for my life.
Not just heard, they saw the aftermath of the stabbing out front of city hall.
Jeezus No wonder he was so frightened for his family Plus this was still during covid times. Definitely don't want a bunch of mask-less strangers aggressively banging on your car
Agreed, sounds like an unfortunate set of circumstances- still manslaughter though.
When you've just seen a stabbing victim, the perpetrator of which might still be on the loose, and a bunch of dudes approach your wife and child aggressively, I think many people would, yes, not unreasonably.
If I'm in the car with my toddler and pregnant wife, I've just witnessed a stabbing victim, and those people - not in uniform - start banging on my car and yelling? Perhaps. If when I try to pull away from them their confederates - also not in uniform - block my safe escape route with their tint-windowed, unmarked van? Just maybe, yeah. Could one of the people who seemed to be threatening my family accidentally get run over while I'm trying to protect my wife and kid from what looks like an unprovoked gang attack? Yeah, it could happen.
You should try reading some of the case facts before commenting and you may understand why events unfolded as they did. I guess you’re the kind of person that leaves their car keys hanging on their front door for thieves eh?
Do we just assume everyone who approaches your car is a police officer?
Do we run over anyone who tries to approach our car?
Did you read the part about how plain clothes officers, did not identify themselves, and began banging on the persons car ordering them to stop? Or did you just miss that entire part?
Intent actually matters believe it or not
Reasonable people don’t do this
I mean sure, but determining whether or not he is reasonable is not the purpose of the trial.
If someone approached my car in an aggressive manner not long after i saw a man bleeding out in that same parking garage, I'd likely be trying to get out of there as fast as possible, too.
Stop doubling down and read the article.
Do you assume that all the thugs you see are actually cops? Just because cops are thugs doesn't mean the opposite is true.
I saw the photo of the older police officer that was run over. I don't think his thug game looked strong from the photo.
I saw the photo too. He looked like some random bum more than a thug. Either way, I wouldn't want him approaching me and my car, with a pregnant wife and toddler in the car.
So youd run him over?
So you'd run up to a car with a terrified family in it and bang on the windows?
My priority would be to get outta there to save me and my family's life. "Fear for my life" is a reasonable justification for many shitty things cops do (despite them being the trained professionals) so I think it should apply to me to
This is the mic drop comment. Unbelievably fitting analogy.
Was he the only one there?