Path: utzoo!utgpu!lsuc!ncrcan!ontenv!soley From: soley@ontenv.UUCP (Norman S. Soley) Newsgroups: tor.general Subject: Re: Toronto Police Message-ID: <381@ontenv.UUCP> Date: 25 Jan 89 04:42:34 GMT References: <157@aimed.UUCP> <4674@hcr.UUCP> <4744@hcr.UUCP> Distribution: tor Organization: Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Toronto Lines: 68 In article <4744@hcr.UUCP>, jim@hcr.UUCP (Jim Sullivan) writes: > > I does seem to me that some cops are a little gun happy. In the > Lawson case, the police should have arranged for some backup and then > used the police force to track and apprehend the criminals. Good point! but... > What if Lawson did not realize that the police was chasing them? His > passenger claims that he was not aware that the police were after them. > I'd hate to think that the police shoot first and fill out the forms later. Lawson was never "chased" and whether he may have known the police were after him at all is a moot point, as soon as a uniformed police officer became illuminated by his headlights, he should have had all the information he needed to guide his actions, instead he stepped on the gas and turned the car towards the officer. > What if the police made a mistake and fingered the wrong car? What if that > was me or you in that car? Wouldn't you want the police to 1) Identify > themselves and 2) Explain the charges? > > I can't help but think about the gentleman in Sarnia who was shot by the OPP > assault team due to confusion. The OPP though that he was a ``criminal'', > armed and dangereous, and he thought they were someone attacking his house. > Apparently the police did not identify themselves, despite his repeated > requests for identification. A tragic error. (on both parts, the OPP for > not identifing themselves, the gentleman for taking the law into his own > hands) This points out the worst aspect of what has been going on recently which is media irresponsiblity in its reporting of these cases. I don't believe it's intentional, but a story like this is rarely interesting enough to last on the front page until the real facts come out, All I heard or read about this case was that the OPP true team shot the wrong man, what got testified at the enquiry tells a very different story. The OPP was searching for a known armed and violent criminal (not the dead man) who was last seen on foot making his way through back yards, over fences and so on. This was no quiet operation lots of flashing lights and sirens, it would have been pretty difficult to not know that something was going on. The deceased, heavily intoxicated thought he heard a prowler, so he gets his gun and goes out onto the back porch, swearing loudly and incoherently and stands under a floodlight, there are two officers in his yard, outside the pool of light, they are wearing jumpsuits with POLICE in 3 inch high reflective tape on their chests, from where he is standing 1 police van with flashing red lights is visible, one of the officers says "look out, he's got a gun" the other calls out "Police, drop your weapon", nothing happens so he steps into the light, holds up his badge and says again "Police, drop your weapon" (here accounts differ, some witnesses claim the officer identified himself a third time) at this point the man shot (witnesses say once, physical evidence reveals that at least two shots must have been fired, there were shotgun pellets in the garage wall several feet away from the officer who was hit) only then did the second officer return fire. In addition to attempted murder (or more likely aggrevated assault) the dead man broke practically every gun law this country and province has. Its unfortunate that the man was killed, that is true, but I can't find it in me to think that it was wrong. -- Norman Soley - Data Communications Analyst - Ontario Ministry of the Environment UUCP: uunet!attcan!lsuc!ncrcan!ontenv!soley VOICE: +1 416 323 2623 OR: soley@ontenv.UUCP " Stay smart, go cool, be happy, it's the only way to get what you want"