Crown calls for longer sentence
Five-year term not enough for Const. Forcillo, lawyers argue
The attempted murder of Sammy Yatim is “one of the most egregious examples of unjustified violence by a police officer in Canada” and deserves a prison sentence longer than the mandatory five-year minimum, the Crown wrote in submissions filed with the court Wednesday.
The Crown was responding to a constitutional challenge launched by Const. James Forcillo’s lawyers to allow Forcillo to receive house arrest instead of jail time.
Forcillo was acquitted of second-degree murder for shooting 18-year-old Yatim three times — causing fatal damage to the heart — as the knifewielding teen was on a stopped, empty streetcar in July 2013. The jury convicted Forcillo of attempted murder for firing another round of six shots at Yatim seconds later, five of which struck Yatim’s paralyzed lower body as he lay dying on his back on the floor of the streetcar.
Forcillo’s lawyers argue the second volley was a mistaken use of too much force by a police officer tasked with protecting the community, making the five-year minimum sentence for attempted murder with a restricted weapon (the policeissued handgun) “grossly disproportionate.”
In their 92 pages of submissions, Crown prosecutors Milan Rupic and Ian Bulmer vehemently disagree.
Forcillo, as a police officer, should actually receive a harsher sentence than an ordinary person who committed the same crime, the Crown wrote.
The second volley was a “grave breach of trust by a police officer against a defenceless person by means of extreme violence,” the Crown wrote. “Such an abuse of authority undermines the public’s confidence in the integrity and professionalism of the police, and ultimately, in our justice system.”
The impact of the six shots on Yatim was minimal, Forcillo’s lawyers argue. They did not cause or accelerate Yatim’s death or cause him pain. If he had died before the second round of shots was fired, there would be no attempted murder charge.
It is a matter of luck and “mere inches” that none of the shots caused or contributed to Yatim’s death, the Crown responded. The injuries caused by hollowpoint bullets striking Yatim’s genitals and bladder were “exceptionally severe and completely unnecessary” and would have required surgery if he had survived the shot to his heart.
Yatim was conscious throughout, the Crown added, both during the second volley of shots and when he was gratuitously Tasered by Sgt. Dan Pravica.
Whether Forcillo’s response starting from his arrival at the scene was appropriate and compliant with police training will be a contentious issue at the sentencing hearing later this month.
Despite being acquitted of murder, Forcillo bears “moral blameworthiness” for failing to use de-escalation tactics on a person in crisis, or the non-lethal options available to him, the Crown argues.
“What happened instead is that (Forcillo) escalated the situation by means of profanity and intimidation,” the Crown wrote in its submissions. Mandatory minimum sentences have been repeatedly challenged at the Supreme Court of Canada, but have notably been upheld for charges involving deaths caused by firearms, the Crown wrote.
In perhaps the closest parallel to Forcillo’s case, a Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer who was convicted of manslaughter with a firearm for shooting a prisoner after an altercation in a jail cell had his fouryear mandatory minimum sentence upheld in 2008.
That case shows there is no special exception for police officers who commit manslaughter with a firearm in the course of their duties, even after being attacked, the Crown wrote.
And Forcillo’s crime is more egregious, the Crown wrote.
Forcillo fired at Yatim intending to kill him. He was trained in de-escalation techniques but failed to use them.
And unlike the RCMP officer who was alone, Forcillo was surrounded by other police officers would could have assisted him in controlling the situation with the use of non-lethal force.
The Crown dismissed as “irrelevant and ambiguous” the hypothetical situations presented by the defence, including a soldier who shoots an enemy combatant one too many times or an abused woman who shoots her husband once, then still fearing for her life, continues to fire at him.
The sentencing hearing is scheduled for May 16.