Sammy Yatim Case Analysis

1126 Words5 Pages
In today’s modern society, many feel that is okay for a police officer can kill a man armed with a harmful weapon at any cost. On many news channels, there are various amounts of articles and reports about a police officer committing this act. Even though a police officer has the right to take action against an armed man, this could be argued in many circumstances. In the 2013, Sammy Yatim was a young adult with a mental illness and was armed with a weapon on a streetcar in Toronto. Yatim was confronted by Const. James Forcillo, who took action against Yatim, shot multiple times and killed him. After an extensive trial, Const. James Forcillo was convicted with attempted murder and no additional charges were laid against him. For the reason…show more content…
In the past few years, there have been some tragic outcomes for police cases involving individuals with a mental illness. Before the Sammy Yatim case, there have been cases involving; Michael Eligon, Sylvia Klibingaitis, Robert Dziekanski, and Paul Boyd. Each of these individuals posed a threat to the community and each also had a mental illness, and initially shot by a police officer. A recent case that has been raising awareness for police shootings resulting death involving an individual with a mental illness is the Sammy Yatim case. As like the other related cases, Yatim had a mental illness and posed a threat to the community. Const. James Forcillo was the police officer who took charge against Yatim and shot him a total of nine times. Many would argue that the first three shots were to paralyze Yatim and keep him on the floor of the streetcar, although the other six shots were unnecessary. It was proven that, Yatim had consumed about 3-4 types of illicit drugs and had a mental illness. With Yatim on a dosage of multiple drugs and having a mental illness Forcillo and the rest of his unit should have taken charge easily…show more content…
There are many early legal systems although one that should have played a role in this verdict was mosaic law. Mosaic law is one of the greatest influences on Canadian law and it is fixated in the bible and can also be known as the ten commandments. One of the mosaic laws that relates to this case is, “Thou shalt not kill”. Under the mosaic law, it was forbidden to commit murder and those who did would receive a punishment. The Sammy Yatim case should be the same and the charges should follow the mosaic law. Forcillo got the minimum amount of charges he could get which makes the verdict too lenient. I believe that, if the mosaic law was one of the biggest influences to our law that the charges should have been followed. The influence of the early legal system helps the judges look back to their decision on Forcillo’s verdict and makes them analyse the real impact Forcillo’s actions had, in the future for the

More about Sammy Yatim Case Analysis

Open Document