Const. James Forcillo: Bully, hothead, liar.

And, if Crown attorney Milan Rupic can convince a jury: Murderer.

The mild-mannered prosecutor wasted no time getting to the searing crux of his case against the Toronto officer charged with second degree murder in the shooting death of 18-year-old Sammy Yatim.

Before addressing the nuts and bolts of witness testimony, of audio and video evidence that captured the lethal July 2013 confrontation as the knife-wielding teenager stood at the front of a Dundas streetcar and Forcillo fired off nine rounds from the street, Rupic gave jurors an astonishingly harsh summation of the why and the how Crown theory of a shooting that ignited public outrage across the city.

“The reason that Sammy Yatim was shot is because he violated the ultimatum put to him by the defendant, ‘You take one step in this direction and I’ll f-----g shoot you, I’m telling you right now,’ ” said Rupic, condemning the accused with his own words.

It was the cop, not the victim, who unnecessarily escalated that showdown, Rupic emphasized. Because Yatim was defiant and called Forcillo a“pussy,” provoking an “emotional tug-of-war with the teenager over who was in control.”

But that was no reason for the officer to discharge his Glock in two volleys, the second burst of six shots when Yatim was already on his back, spine shattered and perishing from a bullet that had struck his heart.

Yatim’s cocky posture in the face of repeated commands that he “Drop the knife!” was appalling, Rupic acknowledged. But he’d uttered no threats, evinced merely “sarcastic teenage bravado.” This, said Rupic, is what enraged Forcillo and got Yatim killed.

“But he did not deserve and he did not need to be shot.”

Forcillo, sitting at the defendants’ table, remained impassive as Rupic shredded his judgment, dissected his drastic response to the situation and ravaged his character. “I do not know where the defendant got his idea of ‘winning’ from,” said Rupic, “but in Canada police officers are not authorized to adhere to the folklore of the police locker-room.”

The Crown was referring to Forcillo’s testimony that “you are trained to win the situation so we all go home safely.”

No such premise in the training manual, Rupic countered, where the paramount objective is to use the minimum force required, especially with subjects in crisis — as Yatim apparently was — to de-escalate a fraught episode, with lethal force only a last resort.

“They (police) do not, and cannot, enjoy an exemption from those requirements.’’

Further, in an accusation that caused jaws to drop in the packed courtroom: “The defendant Forcillo wore the uniform of a police officer, but he did not act like a police officer.”

He acted, rather, in the manner which Forcillo had described Yatim — like a guy in a bar spoiling for a fight.

There was never a fight. Yatim hadn’t used his switchblade to injure any of the passengers on the streetcar, though he’d certainly made threatening gestures and terrified some. Yatim, who’d taken Ecstasy earlier that night, had also exposed himself. Forcillo was unaware of that when he drew his firearm as he raced along the side of the car and took a shoot-ready position just beyond the front exit.

The constable testified Yatim took one pace backward and then one pace forward, a 50-centimetre shift, after Forcillo ordered him to not move. But at that point — the entire encounter lasted only some 50 seconds — Yatim was safely contained inside an empty streetcar, Rupic reminded. “Yatim was not running or charging or lunging forward in attack. On top of that, there were multiple guns pointed at him in the event he were to commence an attack.”

The situation was well in hand, Rupic argued, with no sense of urgency other than the abrupt escalation that Forcillo created.

Forcillo barked orders and profanities that were counter-effective, the jury was told, ultimatums that turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy. The officer all but corroborated that view when he said under cross-examination that “Mr. Yatim got shot because Mr. Yatim came forward when he was told not to.”

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

Rupic cut to the prosecutorial quick: “During his standoff with Sammy Yatim, the defendant was a hothead and a bully and he demanded, and expected, immediate submission . . . The defendant tried to take control solely by pointing his gun and shouting commands. The techniques he used in trying to take control were nothing more than intimidation and bullying.

The Crown added: “When bullying and intimidation did not work, the defendant upped the ante by delivering an ultimatum … He drew an unreasonable, unwarranted, dangerous line in the sand.’’

Forcillo never attempted any from the myriad of alternative options available to him, from pepper spray to a calming verbal exchange. For Forcillo, Rupic said accusingly, “verbal escalation was no better than magical thinking.’’ And while pepper spray may not always be effective, the officer had an obligation to attempt it. “Just because there’s a possibility pepper spray might not work, that doesn’t mean it should not be tried.’’

In his submission yesterday — the prosecution’s closing continues Friday — Rupic drew heavily on the testimony of Crown witness Deputy Chief Michael Federico, whose portfolio includes officer training.

Police are taught to use distance and time to resolve a crisis, Federico had explained, to effect the least violent outcome. “The gun is there for back-up.”

Forcillo had the “luxury’’ of time that night, said Rupic, because Yatim’s movements were constrained. “When an officer makes a decision, there is no cookbook, no chart, that tells them the best thing to do,” continued Rupic, paraphrasing the deputy’s evidence. “Officers are always expected to make a judgment call, in keeping with the law, using their discretion.’’ Federico had testified: “We try to give them principals and process so they can adapt to a situation.’’

Forcillo, however, had not weighed any of the other options or considered the process of ratcheting down the tense scene. He went immediately in the opposite direction — though Rupic agreed it was entirely appropriate for the officer to draw his weapon.

Rupic also more than implied that Forcillo was inventing details when he claimed to have seen pre-assaultive indicators in Yatim’s outward appearance — clenched jaw, wild look in his eyes, sweating. “In order to breathe life into his story, he gave these details. Those details have been made up in the defendant’s testimony.’’

Said the Crown of the accused: “He was aggressively asserting his authority over Yatim who was, in his view, not showing respect, mocking him and his partner and not taking him seriously. When the defendant saw Yatim was being disrespectful, not being deferential, it got under his skin.”

And Forcillo was hell-bent on a “win” in the standoff of wills.

Rupic: “A juvenile, macho slogan is not a substitute for duty, training and the law.”