# Toronto ETF take out Gunman



## CDNBlackhawk (26 Aug 2004)

This happend yesterday morning, here are a few links

Story
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/08/25/hostage_union040825.html

If you scroll down you can click on the Media Coverage Link


----------



## shaboing (29 Aug 2004)

ya, saw that on tv, good shit. notice how they said(or at least on the channel i saw it on) that the 2 guys to the left with the c7 and sub machine gun were sharpshooters, haha, i laughed. but i dont know where the sniper was. it would be cool to see where he was and the angle of shot he had on the guy. i heard it was a clean headshot.


----------



## rcr (29 Aug 2004)

I wouldn't necessarily deem what was broadcasted to be "good crap." I'm sure the officers of the Metro Toronto Police who were on hand didn't find the situation too amusing.  Neither did the woman being held with a Sawed-off.  The Police handled the situation very well, and the ETF Sharpshooter was just doing what he's trained to do. Good on them all.


----------



## jonsey (29 Aug 2004)

Ok, what weapon was the guy holding? I heard some say it was a shotgun, and some say that it was a .22 rifle.


----------



## Ryan_Bohm (29 Aug 2004)

I commend the officer for what he had to do. Shaboing - In reference of your comment "good crap" why dont you try saying that infront of the officers who dealt with the situation or even better yet the the ETF member who had to take action. Somone getting killed regardless if it is a suspect or not is a trajic even.


----------



## clasper (29 Aug 2004)

Jonsey said:
			
		

> Ok, what weapon was the guy holding? I heard some say it was a shotgun, and some say that it was a .22 rifle.



It was a sawed off .22 rifle, and apparently it was jammed at the time of the hostage taking.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/08/27/hostagegun_040827.html


----------



## sgt_mandal (29 Aug 2004)

I was in Union station when all of this was happening. I was happily eating my Cinnamon bun when all of a sudden on the P.A. "All passengers are asked to exit using the TTC or Bay Street exits only due to an emergency situation". I didn't know how bad the situation was so I wen outside and waited between the TTC and GO station exits and I saw a bike cop standing there I didn't notice at first but his gun was drawn and he was yelling at people to stay back. I didn't realize the crazy guy was like just above him. Heck, I didn't even know there was a crazy guy there.


----------



## Lexi (29 Aug 2004)

Some things hit a little too close to home....


----------



## shaboing (29 Aug 2004)

archer said:
			
		

> I wouldn't necessarily deem what was broadcasted to be "good crap." I'm sure the officers of the Metro Toronto Police who were on hand didn't find the situation too amusing.   Neither did the woman being held with a Sawed-off.   The Police handled the situation very well, and the ETF Sharpshooter was just doing what he's trained to do. Good on them all.



no, i didn't mean it like that, i might become a police officer. i meant like it was good that only the bad guy got hurt in that part of the situation, his astranged wife didn't die, the hostage didn't die. its too bad he had to but he really didn't give the police any choice. i'm just glad to see the public can be kept safe even in downtown toronto


----------



## sgt_mandal (29 Aug 2004)

The time it took for them to respond to it was amazing! When we left teh station there wer at least 20 cruisers there.


----------



## 1feral1 (30 Aug 2004)

This even made the 6pm news here on Network 9 in Sydney. 

Maybe next time, someone takes a hostage in TO, they'll think twice. 

On the other hand, he may have wanted the police to kill him, as there is a term called 'suicide thru police' or 'police assisted suicide', or similar to that, where the bad guy might not have the guts to shoot himself, so with his actions, he gets the police to do it form him.

Either way, once less dangerous man off the streets for good, and no drain on the justice system.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## shaboing (30 Aug 2004)

good point^^^^ he was having a rough time with missing his kids and all, which is why he tried to kill his wife.


----------



## Tach9 (2 Sep 2004)

I heard that his gun was jammed and that it couldn't be fired anyway.

Mike


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (2 Sep 2004)

[qoute]I heard that his gun was jammed and that it couldn't be fired anyway.Yeah clasper mentioned that as well. Glad he wasn't big on weapon maintenance, might have been a different story.


----------



## Tach9 (3 Sep 2004)

Couldn't the police have seen that the gun wasn't working and had a couple of cops tackle him or something? Seems like they just wanted to shoot the guy rather than try and work it out! I mean the cop marksman must have been looking at the guy through a scope, right?

Mike


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Sep 2004)

What if the primer wasn't struck all the way?
What if he had the weapon on safety and forgot to take it off?

Can a cop really take that chance with someones life? I don't think so.


----------



## The_Falcon (4 Sep 2004)

Tach9 said:
			
		

> Couldn't the police have seen that the gun wasn't working and had a couple of cops tackle him or something? Seems like they just wanted to shoot the guy rather than try and work it out! I mean the cop marksman must have been looking at the guy through a scope, right?
> 
> Mike



And how pray tell were the officers on scene supposed to know that the suspects weapon was jammed?  ESP? Tarot cards? Or yelling "Hey bud, why don't you point that weapon in a safe direction and try to clear it while we wait" What exactly was the police sniper supposed to see through his scope? A deranged lunatic pointing a weapon and some poor women's head with his finger on the trigger?  I also take it you did not read the many news reports or watch it live on CP24.  If you had, then you would know the officers on scene spent almost 30 minutes trying to reason with him.  But he could not be reasoned with. He never spoke one word to the cops.  I take great exception to the fact you think the ETF officers were in a rush to shoot the guy.  They were not.  This not like stuff you see on TV and the movies, were cops (in particular SWAT teams) shot everyone.  Check the ETF's stats, with all the dangerous high-risk situations they have been involved with over the last 20 odd years (and they have been involved in thousands) they have fatally shot maybe less than a dozen people.  Before you go spouting off stupid lines like "Seems like they just wanted to shoot the guy rather than try and work it out!" get your facts straight and understand the whole situation.


----------



## 1feral1 (4 Sep 2004)

Tach9 said:
			
		

> Couldn't the police have seen that the gun wasn't working and had a couple of cops tackle him or something? Seems like they just wanted to shoot the guy rather than try and work it out! I mean the cop marksman must have been looking at the guy through a scope, right?
> 
> Mike



Its posts like this when I really begin to realise that some people really dont have a clue about reality.

What was happening was a man had a gun to a womans head in a public place, and was behaving erraticly. The police acted accordingly, and the man was STOPPED, and the woman survived.

Any loss of life is tragic, but if there was any hesitation, the man may have shot the woman, and others. So 'Mike' think twice before you post something as idiotic as the above  : . 

Wes


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Sep 2004)

TAch9 I hope you don't get to play with things that go boom, you are out of your league there guy.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (4 Sep 2004)

Stick to the playstation bud.


----------



## Slim (4 Sep 2004)

Tach9 said:
			
		

> Couldn't the police have seen that the gun wasn't working and had a couple of cops tackle him or something? Seems like they just wanted to shoot the guy rather than try and work it out! I mean the cop marksman must have been looking at the guy through a scope, right?
> 
> Mike



Hey Sunshine

Wake up and smell reality! The police had NO WAY OF KNOWING the weapon was jammed! Judging by your comments you know nothing about firearms, less talk more reading!

Slim


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Sep 2004)

The police wanted to shoot the guy? Well maybe. Who do you think the police would rather be shot. A psycho with a gun, an innocent woman or maybe one of their officers or a child running by. My bet is the psycho with the gun to someones head.

Couldn't police tell the gun wasn't working?   No.

I'll tell you what mike, if someone sticks a gun to your head and you start hearing CLICK CLICK because thats them trying to paint the sidewalk with your brains you'll be pretty thankful a sniper kills the psycho and doesn't dick around with trying to wrestle him to the ground. Hero shit like that is how good people die.


----------



## sgt_mandal (4 Sep 2004)

Tach9 said:
			
		

> Couldn't the police have seen that the gun wasn't working and had a couple of cops tackle him or something? Seems like they just wanted to shoot the guy rather than try and work it out! I mean the cop marksman must have been looking at the guy through a scope, right?
> 
> Mike



AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!!!!!
One day I hope computers will be able to record voice recordings   on message boards like this one. Then you can hear how much I'm laughing AT you!


----------



## commando_wolf63 (4 Sep 2004)

It was a tragic situation but in reality the estranged wife moved for a valid reason. Some men just cant handle it when their wives decide to leave them. The state of mind of the man in question shows he intened on killing his estranged wife. It is not an easy decision for the police to make when there is a hostage situation. For the Males what if the hostage had been your wife, girlfriend, sister etc


----------



## Tach9 (4 Sep 2004)

Hey, they're just questions! No one has to yell.

Does anyone suppose they would have handled it different if the victem had not been a woman?
Or an old person, or somrthing else equally as sensative?

I have a hard time believing that there was no other way to resolve that situation. There are plenty of things the cops can do to get someone to give up their gun and surrender. It just seems like no one wanted to take the time to explore other options. Maybe because it made them look good after all the bad press they have been under lately.

Or yelling "Hey bud, why don't you point that weapon in a safe direction and try to clear it while we wait"

As for that comment, why don't you all calm down a bit. I wasn't being sarcastic. No need for anyone else to be either.

Mike


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Sep 2004)

Yelling online is indicated by capitals...

If you read the posts above and watched the news reports _everything_ was done to get the man to surrender he chose not to and put the hostage life in danger, but the police and any bystanders in the area and beyond.

i think it was your insinuation that the police wanted to blow away this guy has everyone up in arms...choose your words more carefully next time and perhaps you might get a better reaction.


----------



## sgt_mandal (4 Sep 2004)

Ex-Dragoon you took the words right out of my fingertips.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Sep 2004)

> There are plenty of things the cops can do to get someone to give up their gun and surrender.



Like what?

If i have a gun pointing to your head, i have my mind made up that I want to kill you and then kill myself, what are some of the options the police can do?
Right, the police do not know the state this guy was in BUT is it worth risking that girls life?
your opinion will be different than mine. I say no. He put a gun to someone elses head. Some people do it just for attention and other people do it to make a statement. I say tough shit. He made the decision to put someone elses life at risk so he paid the price.

What are some other options you think the cops have at their disposal?

And wether you intended to or not you came across like the police were trigger happy gunmen, which is why people responded to your post like they did.


----------



## sgt_mandal (4 Sep 2004)

Maybe because you think the gun was jammed you are not taking in how serious this matter was. A live firarm, wether jammed or not, was pointed at someones head. Let that sink into you head. Have you ever fired a gun? If you have, I'm sure you would know that it is more than a little difficult to "see" if it is jammed. Another thing, after all the options the police used have been exhausted, what would you do? I'm guessing you are highly trained in this sort of thing so what would you have done?


----------



## The_Falcon (4 Sep 2004)

Tach9, since you are completely oblivious as to what happened that day, and seem fixated that the police were determined to blow this guy's head off, (cause you know all about police tactics, specifically those regarding the ETF :) here are a few links to enlighten you. I highly suggest you read them before you shout you mouth off again.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2004/08/26/602580.html

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2004/08/26/602556.html

http://www.pulse24.com/News/Top_Story/20040825-014/page.asp

http://www.pulse24.com/News/Top_Story/20040825-017/page.asp

http://www.pulse24.com/News/Top_Story/20040825-016/page.asp

http://www.pulse24.com/News/Top_Story/20040825-007/page.asp

http://www.pulse24.com/News/Top_Story/20040825-011/page.asp


----------



## Tach9 (4 Sep 2004)

Hello again

Look guys. I didn't mean to upset anyone. I was trying to suggest that there may have been a different course of action. If I chose my words uncarefully I apologize. Upsetting anyone was not what I had intended.

That being said I feel that several of you could have excesized some patience and understanding with someone who is new to the forum and not wise to the ways of the military or the police.

I am going to send a couple of you some personal messeges in order to try and sort out whatever problems may exist between us.

Once again no dissrespect intended. Please accept my apology.

Mike


----------



## muskrat89 (4 Sep 2004)

> That being said I feel that several of you could have excesized some patience and understanding with someone who is new to the forum and not wise to the ways of the military or the police.



Then you were in no position to suggest that there were "lots of other ways" they could have dealt with it.

New members learn more by reading than typing. Until a topic comes up that encompasses your particular areas of expertise, then you should read more and say less....


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (4 Sep 2004)

Can't wait to see how this ends up in the mess.
.


----------



## 1feral1 (4 Sep 2004)

Another page is about to be written in the LOEI book  :

Wes


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Sep 2004)

Already started lol


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Sep 2004)

Fair enough tach9, i don't think you need to PM anyone as i doubt they will hold it agianst you.
Honestly it looked like you were questioning the police officers professionalisim in one of your origional posts.

Questioning something is one thing, accusing is another.  Just a miscommunication.

You also never answered the questions posed to you. Since you feel there were alternitive methods that the police had, what do you think they are?


----------



## Tach9 (4 Sep 2004)

Well, could there be anything onthe weapon that would indicate that it wasn't working?
Is tackling from behind an option, maybe if another officer attracts, then holds, the gunman's attention?
Was there time to have a family member reached and spoken to so, perhaps they could talk the guy down or something?

Just some stuff I thought about.

Mike


----------



## Slim (4 Sep 2004)

Sucked in another one did we...?! :


----------



## NavyGrunt (4 Sep 2004)

Tach9 said:
			
		

> Well, could there be anything onthe weapon that would indicate that it wasn't working?
> Is tackling from behind an option, maybe if another officer attracts, then holds, the gunman's attention?
> Was there time to have a family member reached and spoken to so, perhaps they could talk the guy down or something?
> 
> ...



Im not even going to give these thoughts any consideration. Have one officer dance around in front of an armed man who wants to kill someone? His note left at home stated he wasnt going to be coming back. Why should we put others in jeopardy because he was a green tag? The cops went home the bad guy didnt and he didnt take anyone with him. Mission accomplished.


----------



## NavyGrunt (4 Sep 2004)

Tach9 said:
			
		

> Was there time to have a family member reached and spoken to so, perhaps they could talk the guy down or something?
> 
> Just some stuff I thought about.
> 
> Mike



He wanted to kill his family.......


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Sep 2004)

I have as much experience with law enforcement as you do but if I'll try to come up with counter arguments to your points.


1.-Is there a way to tell the weapon was broke? No way. Even if they had a 'feeling' it was broke, is it really worth taking that risk? Would you put that womans life in danger on a guess?
2.-Is tackling him from behind an option? It might be but i don't think so. What happens if he see's the cop comming and panics?? He can shoot the woman OR shoot the cop OR shoot the woman AND the cop.   Now instead of one dead gunman you have a dead police officer, maybe two, and a dead woman. If THAT happened i would be willing to bet the police come under fire (from people like you perhaps) who think the cops should have shot the bad guy instead of playing games with him.
3.-They could could have tried to call everyone from the guys family to his grade 3 teacher. Your working against the clock right? He's either going to calm down or he's going to blow her brains out. The POINT is that the police officers (and im sure the command to fire came from his boss) chose to ensure the safty of the innocent woman instead of gambling with her life and trying to save someone who was *breaking the law and threatening another human being with a gun*

Lastly I see you joined our illustrious little clan therefore I won't be responding to this thread again. Most likely any of yours in the future as well.
Cheers.


----------



## rcr (4 Sep 2004)

We're very lucky in this county to have top-notch Police forces making sure that we live our lives as safely as possible, and that order is upheld.  From Federal level to Municipal level.  They abide by very strict codes of conduct, training and law.  I don't think we should be questioning them, especially after they saved an innocent life (and possibly many more) from a very dangerous situation. If there's another way around, I'm sure they'll try to use it.  In this case they tried, but in the end there was no other way.


----------



## NavyGrunt (4 Sep 2004)

Thanks for spelling it out properly Ghost. The thing that needs to be understood is that hindsight is 20/20. We can take apart the incident all we want. We didnt "live the moment".


----------



## Scratch_043 (4 Sep 2004)

Ghost, I beleive that the decision to take the shot was that of the individual officer, and not an order, he saw that the woman was in immediate peril, because the gunman's behavior was suggesting it. and he eliminated the threat.  Just clarifying, and for Tach9, the fact that it was not an action in itself, but a reaction based on the gunman's action, is further justification for the conclusion.  I believe that the Police were most likely also attempting to find a less violent solution when the events unfolded. 

Very impressive is the fact that the ETF remained invisible to the public, and more importantly, to the gunman, which is a credit to their training.


----------



## sgt_mandal (4 Sep 2004)

It would have had to have been an order. What if they were becoming successful with the negotiations, and they shot him? I know this wasn't the case but I'm assuming the marksman was out of earshot of what was being said.


----------



## muskrat89 (4 Sep 2004)

It varies by Department. Some Departments have to give "an order". Some Departments -  once the snipers are deployed, they are on their own, and decide when to shoot (or not) based on several criteria.

In May, I attended a "Citizen's Academy" in which all aspects of our local police department were covered, including snipers, SWAT, etc. This is what we were told by the Departmental snipers, during their part of the demo.


----------



## The_Falcon (5 Sep 2004)

To ToRn and anyone else interested I posted several links regarding this event earlier in the thread.   As was stated in the media and by Chief Fantino, the decsicion to shoot the gunman was made by someone fairly high up in the chain of command (it was not stated who made the ultimate decsicion, but I would hazard to guess it was probably the Superintendent of the ETF or Fantino himself).   The sniper who made the shot was not the one who made the call, it was way above his head. As was stated in one of the articles I provided a link to our ETF do not rush into things.   They made a plan to try and de-escalate the situation and come up with contigencies.   They followed the Ontario use of Force model (Graphic below). After 30 minutes of trying to talk this lunatic down to no effect what so ever,   the commanders on scene realized thier only remaining option was lethal force.   Now I am sure people can come up with dozens of what ifs, and suggest idiotic things like "distracting him, and have someone tackle him from behind".   Obviously you have never seen the front of Union Station were this was taking place. It is a BIG FREAKING OPEN SPACE! You have seen SWAT and Die Hard one to many times. The cops had NO way of knowing his weapon was not working. Read and watch what happened then make a comment next time tach9.


----------



## Ryan_Bohm (5 Sep 2004)

Hatchet Man - that is not the current use of force model that police services use now. Also the model is not cut and dry as it may appear. You have also to include what is called "Tactical Considerations". Examples of these are: persons size/ablities, your size/abilities, time to when back up can arriver etc etc. On the new model they do not include disengage as a option as well. Also they have replaced firearm with "lethal force". If the officer has reasonable grounds (set of facts or circumstances that would cause a normal prudent person to have a strong beleivf that goes on beyond mere suspicion) to beleive death or seriious bodily harm would arrive he could use a chair, knife, asp strike to the head etc. Normally asp strikes can only to be arms, legs etc not the head due to the chance of killing someone whcih would be warranted if S.Bodily harm/death.   These are just some of the chages.   Also your model that you included is missinig the center part of assess, plan, act.


----------



## The_Falcon (5 Sep 2004)

I know the model is not cut and dry.  I never said it was.  It is a guide to ensure police (and certain security) take all appropriate steps when deciding what level of force to use.  I only included it here so some people have an idea as to what kind of thought processes police must go through before they come to the deciscion to use deadly force. When I was a Security officer with Intelligarde we spent about 6 hours learning use of force concepts, what considerations need to be made etc.  I am not qualified to teach that kind of stuff over the internet or in person.  I just posted the graphic to illustrate my point, and because one of the articles I linked to had used it in the print version but not on the internet.

P.S. This was the only graphic I could find, if you can put up an update version, be my guest.


----------



## muskrat89 (5 Sep 2004)

OK, guys - we get it. Back on topic, please....


----------



## Ryan_Bohm (5 Sep 2004)

Hatchet Man - I just wanted to provide a little more information to the people regarding the use of force model and to let people know it has changed.  It was not a personal attack on yourself.  I just wanted to show others that it wasnt as cut and dry as you might think just looking at it. I am doing security right now and we cover the model indepth as well I am a honours graduate of Police Foundations. Halfway through the course the new model came in to play so we had to re-learn everything. Kinda sucked because re-tests etc.


----------



## NavyGrunt (5 Sep 2004)

Those changes that were made dont change much. The principles havent changed since the first "use of force model". The only reason they add and revise is for court. As for "disengage"- I've never seen a model besides the one posted here that contains that. That would be a nightmare if you were a cop in a civil trial over you using lethal force. Most new "models" contain numbers for "threat assessment" as well. I've worked with a million different "versions" and it has never changed how I've reacted to someone hitting me or someone else.


----------



## Ryan_Bohm (5 Sep 2004)

Aaron White said:
			
		

> That would be a nightmare if you were a cop in a civil trial over you using lethal force.


what do you mean by that? how so? I would have to disagree with you on that point.
Also model's? there is only one sanctioned by the OACP for use of police services within Ontario. What Province are you from?


----------



## muskrat89 (5 Sep 2004)

*sigh*   OK - If you want to start a thread on the "Use of Force Continuum" feel free to do so in the Off Topic forum


----------

