There are two defences available to Const. James Forcillo on the charge of second-degree murder, Superior Court Justice Edward Then said Tuesday as he continued his instructions to the jury on the law they must use in their deliberations.

It is not disputed that Forcillo fired nine shots at 18-year-old Sammy Yatim in two separate volleys as the teen was on a stopped, empty streetcar holding a switchblade in July 2013.

Yatim collapsed after being fatally wounded by three bullets in the first volley. He was struck five times in his lower body in the second round of shots fired five-and-a-half seconds later.

Forcillo has pleaded not guilty to charges of second-degree murder and attempted murder.

The murder charge pertains to the shots fired in the first volley, the attempted murder charge to the second volley.

The first defence outlined by Then is whether Forcillo had reasonable grounds to believe lethal force was necessary to protect himself or someone else from death or grievous bodily harm, as set out in section 25(3) of the Criminal Code.

The jury will have to consider what a reasonable police officer would do in the same circumstances, bearing in mind the training Forcillo received, his three-year experience as a police officer with one gunpoint arrest and his physical attributes, Then said.

The second defence is whether Forcillo acted in self-defence, as per section 34 of the Criminal Code.

In considering self-defence the jury will need to answer three questions, Then told the jury.

1. Did Officer Forcillo believe on reasonable grounds that force was being used or threatened against him or another person?

2. Did Officer Forcillo shoot Mr. Yatim for the purpose of defending himself or another person from the use or threat of force?

3. Was Officer Forcillo’s conduct reasonable in the circumstances?

Justice Then has told the jury that Forcillo was not aware of events that had happened prior to his confrontation with Yatim, and that only Forcillo’s state of mind — not Yatim’s — is relevant to their deliberations.

The defence has argued Forcillo believed Yatim was going to attack him with a knife when he fired, and that he used lethal force to save himself and others from death or serious bodily harm.

Forcillo said his belief came from Yatim’s aggressive body language — that he was unafraid, had a clenched jaw and took a deep breath as if preparing to “fight to the end” before moving forward.

The Crown has said it was not self-defence or self-preservation that motivated Forcillo to shoot Yatim, but anger that the teen violated the ultimatum he set: you take one step in this direction and I’ll shoot. The Crown argued that while Yatim was holding a knife, his behaviour as captured on the video was mocking not threatening.

They have argued Forcillo manufactured his testimony about Yatim’s threatening appearance and behaviour and that it is not corroborated by the video evidence.

Though the jury was instructed to consider all the evidence they heard, Then listed certain factors for the jury to consider in both defences including that Yatim had taken a “moderate to moderately-high” amount of ecstasy, what alternatives options to lethal force were available to Forcillo, and whether there was a threat posed by Yatim and if it was imminent.

Then told the jury that the Crown must prove both these defences do not apply in this case beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury accepts one or both of the defences or have reasonable doubt, they must find Forcillo not guilty, Then said.

If the jury reject both defences they can go on to consider whether Forcillo’s actions meet the criteria for second-degree murder, Then said.

Forcillo’s lawyer has conceded that Forcillo knew that by shooting Yatim with hollow point bullets at close range he was likely to cause death or bodily harm. However, because Forcillo testified he did not consider whether the shots he fired were going to kill Yatim, Then said the jury would still have to determine whether he had the intent required for murder.

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

If the jury finds that Forcillo did not have the intent for murder because he acted impulsively or without thinking of the consequences, the jury could find him guilty of manslaughter, Then said.

Then will spend Tuesday afternoon instructing the jury on the defences available to the charge of attempted murder: justification, self-defence and mistake of fact.

The jury is expected to begin deliberations this week.