Lethal force should be used as a last resort, officer tells Forcillo trial
Multiple factors at play when deciding to fire, expert says
Toronto police officers are taught lethal force must only be used as a last resort, and that it’s only justifiable when an officer reasonably believes there is an imminent risk of death or serious bodily harm, court heard Friday in the ongoing murder trial of Toronto Const. James Forcillo.
But that vital decision to pull the trigger — or to hold off — must be informed by multiple factors, defence lawyer Peter Brauti told court, while cross-examining Toronto police deputy chief Mike Federico.
“We’ve got to consider the individual that we’re dealing with, we’ve got to consider the environment we’re in, we’ve got to consider the nature of the call, we’ve got to consider the use of force options that we have, we have to consider which ones are the most appropriate to use at the time. . .
“I can keep going, but the problem is that sometimes we only have 30 seconds, 50 seconds to think about all of those different things,” Brauti said .
Forcillo is charged with second-degree murder and attempted murder in the July 2013 shooting death of 18-year-old Sammy Yatim. He has pleaded not guilty.
For the last two days, the officer’s trial has detailed the training Toronto police officers receive on justifiable use of force: first as recruits, then again on an annual basis. Before heading out on patrol, officers must understand that they may only use lethal force when it is necessary to stop serious injury or death, Federico has told the court.
But in his cross-examination Friday, Brauti said that officers sometimes must make key decisions in a split second, and what is expected is that the officer make that decision in good faith. Federico concurred with that statement.
Brauti also raised the Ontario use-- of-force model, which breaks down the appropriate police response to various levels of threat, ranging from someone who is being co-operative to someone who poses a risk of causing fatal injury. He pointed out that, according to the model, the officer’s perception of danger is considered “very important.”
“The officer could be mistaken — correct? But their mistake in perception could be understandable,” Brauti said. “Yes,” Federico responded. Federico, a 43-year veteran of the Toronto Police Service, was a subject-matter expert in the trial, testifying about use of force, training and policing and mental health. Because of a conflict of interest — he is a representative of Forcillo’s employer — he was not giving opinion on Forcillo’s use of lethal force against Yatim. He was instead testifying more generally about training in use of force.
Earlier, Federico testified that officers are trained to clearly and unequivocally communicate when called to a scene where someone poses a danger to themselves or others, including issuing the so-called “police challenge” where officers yell simple instructions such as “drop the knife” or “police, don’t move.”
However, their training stresses that officers should switch gears if it is apparent the message is not getting through, Federico told court.
Depending on the situation, a police officer should attempt to engage the person in conversation in a reassuring tone — perhaps ask them their name, offer them help, inquire about what’s troubling them, Federico said.
“We’re constantly trying to tell our officers to talk to the subject,” said Federico.
“That has proven to be very successful in gaining compliance.”
That is especially true when the encounter is with someone in crisis, which Federico defined as someone who is unable to cope with their current situation. The reason may be because of a mental-health condition, because he or she is under the influence of drugs and alcohol, or other reasons, Federico said.
Officers are trained to recognize if a person is in such a crisis, and if it is consistent with officer and public safety, they should attempt to engage this person in conversation, and build a rapport through asking questions and offers to help.
When encountering a situation where they may need to use force, officers must have a “thoughtful, analytical and logical approach,” Federico said, and they are expected to constantly reassess the situation.
Above all else, the “guiding principle is the preservation of life,” including of the person posing the threat, the public and the officer himself.
Lethal force must be the officer’s last resort, Federico said, and they are taught that it can only be used when they reasonably believe that serious injury or death is about to occur.
This threat should not be merely possible — for example, a person possesses a weapon, but does not appear to be ready to use it — but imminent. “They must be able to make this distinction,” Federico said.
The trial continues Monday.