A victory for a citizen’s right to reasonable self-defence
Jury acquits Umar Zameer in o cer’s death
On Canada Day 2021, having had their fill of festivities (such as they were) in downtown Toronto, the Zameer family — father Umar and eight-months-pregnant wife Aaida, recent immigrants from Malaysia, plus their two-year-old son — loaded up the family BMW in the parking garage beneath City Hall and planned to make for home in Woodbridge. Two men rushed the car, banging on the windows and demanding they halt. A minivan drove in and blocked their path forward. Zameer, reasonably certain that he and his wife and son were under attack — carjackings are all the rage in the GTA nowadays — fled in reverse.
In the process, Zameer fatally struck Toronto Police Det.-const. Jeff Northrup, who had been investigating a nearby stabbing with fellow officers, all in plain clothes, and felt the Zameer family were targets of interest. Zameer was charged with first-degree murder. On Sunday afternoon, a jury acquitted him, and Superior Court Justice Anne Molloy made no bones about agreeing with the verdict.
“You have our deepest apologies for what you have been through,” she told Zameer after the jury’s verdict, in an unusual gesture.
It’s a victory for every citizen’s right to reasonable self-defence. And Zameer was more forgiving about it than I’m inclined to be.
“I thought I and Aaida made a wrong decision when we thought we should go to Canada, that it’s a better place for our kids,” Zameer told reporters. “But I think today I see that Canada didn’t let injustice happen.
So I thank Canada.”
Zameer’s equanimity comes despite the judiciary’s clear disdain for the Crown’s case and the officers’ suspiciously identical version of events, which was contradicted on key points by crime-scene reconstructions and surveillance video.
When Zameer was let out on bail in fall 2021 — prompting howls of protest from Premier Doug Ford and then Toronto mayor John Tory, among others — details about the judge’s decision to do so were covered by a publication ban. We know now that Ontario Superior Court Justice Jill Copeland, the bail judge, had completely rubbished the idea of Zameer having any motive or intent.
“The Crown’s theory — that Mr. Zameer, who the evidence supports was out for a normal family evening with his pregnant wife and young son, who has no criminal record, who has a good work and education history, suddenly decided to intentionally kill or cause bodily harm that he knew was likely to cause death to a police officer — runs contrary to logic and common sense,” she wrote.
Clearly, the charges should have been dropped.
On Sunday, after the not guilty verdict, Toronto Police Chief Myron Demkiw waved away questions of potential consequences for any officers who might have colluded against Zameer. (Bet heavily on there being none.) Demkiw did not think it was too early on Sunday, however, to say this: “While we respect the judicial process and appreciate the work of the 12 citizens who sat on a very difficult case, I share the feelings of our members who were hoping for a different outcome.”
So either Demkiw and “his members” think the jurors got it wrong ... which would make their stated “appreciation” for the jury’s work a bit odd. Or they wanted Zameer convicted regardless of his innocence, for reasons we are left to infer ourselves. Either way, it strikes me as a wildly inappropriate thing for a police chief to say. And Mayor Olivia Chow’s response wasn’t super-appropriate either: “It’s really, at the end of the day, up to the chief to manage the police services and it’s not my place to comment on.”
“Mayors can’t comment on policing” is not a rule, never has been a rule, shouldn’t be a rule. The police chief operates under civilian oversight, nominally at least, through the Toronto Police Services Board. But despite that, alas, it’s more or less true the police nowadays do what they want, when they want, how they want, and no one is answerable when they drop the ball. And in a way that’s what makes Zameer’s acquittal such great news for everyone, not just him and his wife and children.
A key issue at trial was whether Northrup and his partner had identified themselves as police officers. The officers say they did; Zameer claims they didn’t or at least he didn’t hear them do so. In any event, though, I wouldn’t put impersonating a police officer beyond your average carjacker.
Maybe that’s one of the reasons police advise you deal with carjackers with total capitulation.
“Hand over the keys, walk away, it’s not worth it.” That’s their advice for pretty much everything nowadays, the most famous example being to keep your car keys near the front door so they’ll be easy for burglars to find after invading your home. Who needs them disturbing your children’s sleep or tracking mud across your nice clean carpets?
Shoplifters looting your store? Just let them. And don’t dare detain them, or you might wind up stripsearched, jailed and put on trial — as Chinatown grocer David Chen famously was by Toronto Police and Crown prosecutors back in 2010. It’s, of course, terrible that a police officer died in the line of duty that Canada Day, but Zameer’s acquittal reminds me a bit of Chen’s.
Police advice to consent and capitulate to lawlessness and disorder is just that: advice. Maybe even good advice. But it’s not a legal obligation. If a jury is willing to acquit someone for protecting himself and his family against what turned out to be plainclothes police officers, it can only be good news for those of us inclined to stand our ground against garden-variety thugs, robbers and oiks.
Not that I’m advising it, of course ...
ZAMEER WAS MORE FORGIVING ABOUT IT THAN I’M INCLINED TO BE.