Article content continued

Bleeding heart that I am, I could sympathize with Forcillo if he genuinely feared for his life, or thought he was following his training, and is remorseful for the outcome. (Obviously he would not be top of my sympathy list.) But we don’t know. Indeed, we know precious little for certain that we can use to wring some good out of this tragedy.

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

tap here to see other videos from our team. Try refreshing your browser, or

Forcillo was cleared of murder in connection with an initial volley of bullets that evidence later showed was fatal; he was convicted of attempted murder in connection with a second volley, fired in ignorance of the first’s outcome. “What the jury must have found was that during the first volley … Forcillo was acting reasonably, in fear for his safety or the safety of others,” criminal defence attorney Joseph Neuberger told CBC. Thereafter, however, “Forcillo knew that Yatim was on the ground and incapacitated, and therefore the second volley … was meant to kill (him).”

That’s plausible enough. But it will never be more than that, because Canadians are not entitled to hear from the jurors. That’s especially frustrating in this case because the justice system itself was really on trial. With the considerable but incomplete evidence they have at their disposal, many Torontonians believe Forcillo’s first volley was totally unjustified, and they deserve to know for certain why jurors thought otherwise.

Did they believe Forcillo reasonably feared for his life, or was following his training? Some officers feel he was. They deserve clarity as much the citizens they serve and protect. It’s not just officers’ lives potentially in danger if we’re sending cops into the field who aren’t quite sure when force is justified and when it isn’t.