Const. James Forcillo ended his frightening shift on July 27, 2013, segregated from colleagues as a subject officer, stomach churning, hands shaking and overwhelmed with adrenaline pumping.

Teenager Sammy Yatim ended his night on a morgue slab, shot eight times.

But that could have been him instead, stiffening with rigor mortis, Forcillo has spent the last two days insisting from the witness stand. Had he not responded to the heart-pounding situation with what the officer has repeatedly described as the “appropriate’’ level of force required to neutralize the threat a non-complying Yatim presented. Had he not put into effect the training received at Ontario Police College and, subsequently, the Toronto Police Service. Had he not applied the crisis-management instincts learned from three years policing in 14 Division, with its alleged over-representation of druggies, alcoholics and the mentally ill.

Having done the right thing, the only sensible thing under the circumstances — Forcillo has steadily maintained — he was eventually restored, many hours later, to the bosom of his wife and two young daughters.

Yatim, with switchblade in hand, mocking and disobedient, was standing inside an empty Dundas streetcar surrounded by nine officers.

Forcillo fired nine times, in two volleys separated by a few seconds.

In cross-examination Friday, Crown attorney Milan Rupic accused the defendant witness of failing to take any interim steps which might have defused the standoff with a young man who, even Forcillo acknowledged, appeared to be in crisis — drugs, he thought, at several points even using the term “excited delirium,” a syndrome which can manifest itself in psychotic behavior and extreme fight-or-flight response.

Rupic suggested Forcillo could have de-escalated the panicky encounter by calmly posing questions to the suspect, rather than immediately drawing his gun, pointing it at Yatim and bellowing orders.

“This is not a case where you tried even once … to establish a connection through communication, to try to calm the person down in some way,’’ the prosecutor said in his day-long — and not yet completed — cross-examination.

Forcillo countered: “If you are pointing a knife and are refusing to do what I say, why will things magically be OK if I ask if he wanted a glass of water?’’

The prosecutor observed: “When you said that, your voice was dripping with scorn, as if real officers don’t negotiate, don’t ask a visibly troubled person what their name was, if there was anything wrong, if they need a phone. That was not part of your job as you saw it.’’

Forcillo: “I disagree completely.’’

Civilians such as Rupic clearly don’t understand the challenges, the risk, of policing.

“Sometimes doing nothing will allow the temperature to drop,” Rupic suggested.

Depending on the circumstances, Forcillo agreed. “I felt that would be inappropriate in these circumstances.’’

Forcillo: “You’re trained to win, to survive, so that everybody can go home to their families. Police do not get paid to get stabbed or get shot. We get paid to go home in one piece.’’

Rupic demurred. “Your job is not to win.’’

Forcillo: “When I was dealing with Mr. Yatim, I was going home that night. You want to call that winning? That’s fine. But I’m going home that night. A situation that’s resolved without anyone getting hurt, that’s a win, Mr. Rupic.’’

But of course somebody did get hurt; somebody got dead.

Forcillo was charged with second-degree murder by the Special Investigations Unit. He has pleaded not guilty.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

The officer was derisive, as well, when Rupic proposed that he could have used pepper spray as a first resort.

“There’s a saying among us that pepper spray works only on cops,” Forcillo retorted.

With a motivated individual, the witness continued, pepper spray might have had “no effect,” or “enrage a person, making them rush forward’’; thus it was an “unreasonable’’ option.

“Pepper spray is considered ineffective against people who are highly intoxicated, who are high on drugs, mentally ill, panicked, in excited delirium,” the officer said. “So pepper spray, when you consider the number of people police deal with … that narrows it significantly.’’

Pepper spray was one of the alternatives to lethal force put forward earlier in the trial by a prosecution use-of-force expert.

Rupic: “What I am suggesting to you is that your answers here on pepper spray really not being effective against people in crisis on drugs … that’s a false, self-serving explanation as to why you did not think of using pepper spray at all, whether at the time of the first volley or the second volley, when Yatim was on his back on the floor of the streetcar.’’

Forcillo: “No, I’m giving you the reality of the situation. I don’t believe it would be effective.’’

The Crown also took Forcillo through training videos the jury has already seen, including a domestic assault simulation. In that scene, a suspect armed with a knife pushes cops away, falls to the floor, almost immediately gets up and charges at the officers, who then shoot him.

“Your read of this video is that once that person has dropped to the ground, they could have shot that man while he was down on the ground,” Rupic probed.

Forcillo: “He was attacking them, he pops up, he is down for a second, then he pops back up.’’

Popping back up is how Forcillo described Yatim reacting after he’d been hit by three bullets in the first volley of gunfire — shots that had shattered the 18-year-old’s spine, fractured his right arm (which had been holding the knife) and damaged the boy’s heart — the fatal wound.

Rupic raised his voice, shooting back: “Forget about when he pops up. When he is down on the ground, he was not attacking them. You’re saying they could have shot him while he was down on the ground. Correct?’’

Forcillo: “Yes.’’

Rupic: “Thank you. My suggestion to you is, that answer you gave is completely contrary to the spirit and letter of the Toronto Police Service training.’’

Forcillo: “I disagree.’’