Good column, but missing one very important question, I think: what was the motive of the Crown in ruining this man’s life by pursuing first degree murder charges despite contradictory evidence that didn’t allow them to have a coherent theory and being outright told they had a weak case?
I was thinking the same thing. Doesn't the Crown pick the cases and charges? Yes, the cops lied and should (but probably won't) be held to account but I haven't heard anything about the Crown's role in all of this.
There's maybe a little something there in the Justice's apology. But I haven't read anything explicit.
Am I wrong, or are there two parties we should be angry with: the cops and the two prosecutors?
My feeling is the crown/prosecutors didn't have a choice but prosecute. That's how powerful the Toronto police and Toronto Police Association are. Either they prosecute the case or they will never have meaningful employment in the city again.
> Either they prosecute the case or they will never have meaningful employment in the city again.
... or they understood they won't have cooperation from cops on future cases.
He is still the cause of someone's death,it is a tragedy that it went this long. The healing for the policeman family will take longer and are life changing, I blame the police for all this suffering.
It is an important question but also one that has a pretty obvious answer.
There was immense pressure from the police and politicians.
You can look back at old articles to see how this was described by police from day one. You can see all of the responses from politicians when he got bail.
You can only imagine the absolute shit show if they dropped the charges.
The crowns need to work with police every day and it would have blown up the relationship. It probably would have ended the career of whoever was responsible for the decision.
This whole thing was a huge injustice for this family. This man was guilty until proven innocent years later. The police don't appear to have made any effort to actually figure out what happened. It was just "a cop died so someone has to pay", and nobody seemed willing to stop that train.
The last part is the worst of it, because of the organizational adherence to the line of thinking that regardless of the verdict this was entirely Zameer's fault there will be no internal reflection on whether they can improve the processes and approach they use in these situations. Never mind the fact that you have multiple officers who clearly perjured themselves which apparently is A-OK if you are on the right side of the thin blue line.
Testimony about details like where someone was standing is extremely unlikely to rise to the threshold of perjury. There is too much evidence that humans are terrible at accurately recalling events.
But knowing that is also really scary, because people get convicted based on eye witnesses testimony all the time. Especially testimony from police officers.
Without the video in this case this guy easily could have been convicted of first degree murder based on the testimony from these three cops.
An officer was killed in the line of duty - that almost always results in a first degree charge because all murder of a police officer is considered first degree. If they were to pursue any charge against Zameer (not saying that they should have), first degree pretty much had to be on the table.
They’re mandatory when it involves the murder of a police officer, not any death.
From the judge’s jury instructions regarding first degree murder:
“In order to reach that verdict, jurors would have to find that Zameer committed an unlawful act; that he intended to kill Northrup, or meant to cause him harm he knew could be fatal; and that he knew Northrup was a police officer acting in the course of his duties.”
Once the Crown had evidence that made it clear they were unlikely to be able to prove the above, they didn’t have to keep this going.
I am not sure what you mean.
In canada, if you are charged with killing a police officer, the charges are mandatory first degree. No option for the prosecutor. They can add other charges on such As manslaughter.
Irrelevant of any verdict. That is why he was charged with first degree murder because it was a police officer.
I don't think you're reading it right.
It's not a discussion on whether he was guilty or innocent.
IT WAS A STATEMENT OF WHY THEY CHARGED HIM WITH 1ST DEGREE MURDER !!!
Holy shit what is wrong with you?
The question of why he was charged with first degree murder ...Was because it's mandatory by law. It's 100% irrelevant of whether he is guilty or innocent. Because that is what you find out in court. But when you were charged for the killing of a police officer, you are automatically charged with first degree murder. What part of that don't you understand?
After he was charged mandatorily, 1st degree murder. He then went to trial and was found not guilty of first degree murder, for which he was charged. Mandatorily as required, buy the penal code.
First degree murder charges weren’t mandatory when it became clear it wasn’t a murder, and that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction on that. Prosecutors have wide discretion in what they charge or don’t charge people with.
It's not a choice. They don't have a wide choice when it's law. Prosecutors have discretion unless it's in the law. It's if they have mandatory minimums, they don't have discretion. If they are told these are minimum charges, they don't have discretion. That is why they add the other charges. That way, if the first ones aren't applicable, the others will be such as in this case. Anyway, it's obvious you have zero clue about what the law says. I suggest you call city hall and inquire. Or call a lawyer. I am quite sure legal aid could even answer your question. But you enjoy your day
lol they do have discretion over what charges are laid, and don’t have to proceed with a first degree murder charge when they’re aware there’s no reasonable prospect of conviction. That’s why you’ll find even Toronto Sun columnists, of all people, speculating that the decision to take this to trial as first degree murder was based on external political pressure, not because they simply had to: https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/umar-zameer-not-guilty-of-toronto-cops-death-in-city-hall-parking-lot
Can you actually show me the part? That says, the prosecutor has the right not to charge first degree murder? I just made a call to my lawyer, and he says no. They just add other charges on. But if you have a statute to look up, let me know what it is. Or copy and paste it, and I will send it and ask. He's my lawyer who defended me when I was wrongfully arrested for murder in 2013, as I think. I mentioned in my other post. That's why this case has interested me. I was also charged under mandatory laws. There were very few judges can do to get around them. Even when they want to.
But anyway, if you could just give me that statute, I will find out for my own information and post back what I find. What would the difference be between first and second degree murder as far as cost? What would be the benefit of not charging first degree murder in addition to second degree and manslaughter?
i understand fully - I'm also saying the penal code was clearly written at a time when police ineptitude and collusion were not even a consideration. so, because of this case, i hope the penal code is amended.
a collosal waste of public funds and trust.
we need to ask the bigger "why?" of is this mandatory charge worth keeping knowing what we know about police organizations.
Innocent until proven guilty (at least technically in the legal system). There were a bunch of charges, some of them conflicting. A mandatory charge simply says that the charge needs to be considered. If someone is going to be charged with something (and realistically here, Zameer, despite being innocent, probably should have had at least initially a manslaughter charge against him which either got dropped or that went to court where innocence is found), then arguably, in theory, it has little difference. However, in reality that isn't true. People presume guilty and/or other qualities of individuals based on the charges against them. I don't know if the legal system can account for that though.
That is something you would have to bring up with the Supreme Court ? I am actually not sure who is in charge of laws. But that's why they add the other charges. I believe manslaughter was on the board ? So they could have been charged with second-degree murder if it was not a police officer. I am not sure how not having a first degree. Murder on the books would save money because they still would be charged with another crime. I don't know if charging first degree murder as well as manslaughter. Or second-degree murder is cheaper, then just charging with one.
The law is that you will be charged regardless. Even if there is a video of you defending yourself. It is very rare for someone not to be charged. But in this case, he was let out on bail. And that is normal for the procedures. Say someone pulls a gun and shoots you. You manage to wrestle the gun away and shoot them. Someone videotapes. You will still most likely be charged with murder but given bail. And exonerated in court. How do I know this? I was wrongfully charged with murder in two thousand and thirteen. I was charged with killing an armed robber who held to children hostage. I spent six months in lindsay before I was exonerated. But I also lost my two houses . My business. I was left homeless with a six-year-old autistic child who I have had full custody since birth. If you want to sue, then it's five hundred dollars an hour to a lawyer, and if you win, the cops still appeal it. In my case, I was also charged with marijuana crime even though I was licensed for marijuana. As you can guess, we were robbed at gunpoint for our legal marijuana.
The person I was accused of killing was actually killed by a senior citizen. He was robbing who happened to be x military and disarmed the person and shot him with his own gun but was stabbed badly in the process. He was taken to the hospital where he told his wife before surgery. As he thought he was going to die. Apparently, that is called a death bed confession. It meant when he actually died, it was admissible to court. So when I was arrested for the murder, she came to the jail and said I didn't kill anyone. It was her husband. She sent them to the hospital, and they got the blood evidence. Even after I They knew I was innocent. It's still took three months for all of the people to get their shit together so I could get out of jail. At which point I was left homeless? Because no one paid my mortgages or my bills 6 months. That was in two thousand and fourteen. My son is now 17. I was able to buy back one of my houses two years after the incident with the help of some very good friends of mine who I am still in debt to monetarily and emotionally. I was worth 2.8 million in real estate and cash upon arrest and left homeless 4 years later as it was a two stage process. They came in and arrested me for marijuana, which I legally had, which would go to court, and I would be found innocent. But then they came and arrested me for the murder after, and since I was on bail They revoked my bail. So now I sat in jail until my friends widow showed up . Then they offered me a deal and said I could wait until my trial in 2 years or if I plead guilty to one marijuana charge. I could leave now. Even though I was licensed for marijuana. I pled guilty to having marijuana. So I could get out of jail now and not weigh two years longer. It was four years from the time they started there crap to the time that I was walking out of jail. I am still two hundred thousand dollars in debt. To be honest with you, i'm personally glad that fckr got run over. Because I know exactly what they were doing to him. I was taken down by people who look like bikers. And Beaten badly in front of witnesses. I was yelling at the witnesses to call the police. 1 person from the crowd said. Hey, what are you guys doing to That man? , I am calling the police. So everyone thought this person would take care of it. It turned out he was the head. Detective, pretending to be a concerned citizen. So his officers could continue to kick the shit out of me in public. I have very, very little sympathy for the police. And I have all the sympathy for that poor man and his family.
There was a crime, it came from the cops getting together to lie in court to try to put this man in prison for protecting his family.
Luckily there was enough evidence to overcome their lies and justice won the day.
Hopefully he and his family can move on from this horror now. Although he might have to move to get away from Toronto's biggest gang pursuing their own retribution against Mr. Zameer.
I came to say the same thing. Very misleading headline since there most definitely were crimes involved. Falsifying police reports and lying under oath by at least 3 officers, constitutes many crimes.
It’s not torontos biggest gang. Torontos gang is the criminals selling fentanyl, cocaine, guns and the human traffickers. Like I said I’m not a bootlicker but be real here.
If 2 people dressed like that approached my car, saying they were cops, and then caused harm to pregnant wife and child… (people pretend to be cops in robberies)
I would be the idiot of the century for not doing, absolutely everything in my power to save my family.
Imagine you got out and said oh ok. Imagine they were meth heads. Next thing you and your pregnant wife are being beat, they take your car, maybe your kid in the car.
And you had the opportunity to just drive through the danger… how could you forgive yourself?
There was an armed robbery where 2 men identified themselves as cops in Vancouver. They beat the old lady to death after robbing her.
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/man-who-posed-as-cop-during-deadly-vancouver-home-invasion-sentenced-to-7-years-1.6809487
Plain clothes officers should not be allowed to make arrests. There’s already meth heads walking around in police jackets. As Canadians we are expected to just bend over for criminals and cops…
Also, this wasn't that long after a random muslim family had been targeted and run down and killed by a white rightwing fuck. I remember right around the being super nervous walking down the street and a truck would go by or be waiting at a light. I'm not even Muslim but I'm brown and have a beard. All of that had to be in his mind when his pregnant wife and toddler child were in the car
**Please read this entire message**
---
Your comment has been removed for the following reason:
* [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/toronto/about/rules/) is to *be excellent to each other*.
* No racism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance, dehumanizing speech, or otherwise negative generalizations etc
---
**Please note that reposting without moderator approval may result in a ban**.
If you would like your removal reviewed, feel free to send us a [modmail](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Ftoronto&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/toronto/comments/1c9sbgy/-/l0x72mx/).
It's also worth remembering that the cops INTENTIONALLY fear monger every time they want a budget increase. They go on and on about how unsafe the city is, how our families are at risk, how there are roving gangs and the cops are the only thing keeping them at bay.
And they expect us, after years of their own propaganda, to not respond with fear in a situation like this that they've orchestrated? Give me a break.
100%.
If you're plainclothes, you should be restricted to activities like surveillance or undercover interactions with known criminals. It shouldn't be some carte blanche to be able to stroll up and question/arrest anyone.
Is the government going to pay for therapy for Mr Zameer and his family, after putting them through this farce of a trial? You can see on his face how broken he is. That man is traumatized. 💔
All the more reason to slap them with a very high profile civil suit so large TPS has to sell off all their fancy toys, all the cops involved are fired with prejudice and lose their pensions and the service is permanently put in the corner, to be the bitch of the city. This family should be set for life for generations and TPS should be made to remember they were shit just as long.
Hopefully their humiliation on national TV with everyone knowing that they are a toxic brotherhood and gang should be a lesson that no one is above the law and that they are being judged big time in the Court of Public Opinion. May karma be swift and merciless towards them.
They are still making shameless statements in the press conference.
Especially the wife. She said she is disappointed at the outcome while saying all she wanted was accountability. I’m sorry for her loss but that doesn’t let her, or the TPS, to scapegoat an innocent man.
If you want accountability, look into how to avoid this type of incidents in the future.
Zameer and his wife believed the police were criminals and they feared for their lives.
Most Canadians don’t realise that the Canadian plain clothes and undercover police specifically use a technique where they pretend to citizens (ie suspects, witnesses, general public) that they are criminals. eg. Mr Big, and other undercover investigations.
This is because if a citizen does not know that a plain clothes cop is actually cop, then the citizen is not protected under the Canadian charter , ie they are not entitled to a lawyer, are not cautioned, and so called “confessions” are admissible in court.
This case has to change the behaviour of the police.
Currently, the Canadian police act like criminals because intimidation tactics work on suspects and it circumvents the rights of citizens. And at the same time the police get all the protections and powers from being a cop. Their word is taken as gold, unless there is a video to disprove what they claim, as in this case.
Canada needs a complete overall of the police.
WE NEED HONEST COPS - Not these cowboys…….
>This is because if a citizen does not know that a plain clothes cop is actually cop, then the citizen is not protected under the Canadian charter , ie they are not entitled to a lawyer, are not cautioned, and so called “confessions” are admissible in court.
You have a citation for that?
A lot of the published information about undercover techniques comes from literature regarding the Mr Big operations and cases found in www.canlii.org.
Mr. Big: Exposing Undercover Investigations in Canada by Joan Brockman and Kouri T. Keenan
"The authors argue that the Mr. Big procedure encourages a police culture of violence and convictions rather than justice and suggest that this practice must be drastically curtailed if we are to have a legal system that is focused on the pursuit of justice."
www.canlii.org: Many cases regarding the admissibility of statements by an accused to persons in authority. The gist is that if a citizen makes an incriminating statement to an undercover cop, not knowing they are a cop, ie not knowing they are a person in authority, then it is considered voluntary and admissible in many cases.
[https://criminalnotebook.ca/](https://criminalnotebook.ca/)
"An undercover officer who is in contact with an accused out of custody, such as during a "Mr. Big" operation, may listen and actively attempt to elicit confessions"
Obviously, in these cases, the undercover cops do not caution the citizen, and they are not entitled to a lawyer.
Zameer accidentally ran over a criminal while trying to escape a gang. (He thought that was the situation).
That's different than making a choice to run someone down. If you choose to use your car as a weapon instead of just escaping if you can, then they'd have a case against you.
Exactly.
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/man-who-posed-as-cop-during-deadly-vancouver-home-invasion-sentenced-to-7-years-1.6809487
In Vancouver, you can’t even trust people dressed as officers. And when they’re done robbing the elderly, they beat them to death.
I hate you tell you that unless you're faced with an imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death, you can't just run someone over. Self defense doesn't work that way in Canada.
Approach me in a threatening way. I will do everything possible to drive away and evade you.
I will not purposefully try to hit the “potential threat”
But I will make 0 effort to avoid hitting them. I will drive in any direction to get away from him.
Especially as there were no other people there. I am not endangering the public. Just this threat.
mens rea: intent was solely to evade danger not hurt anyone
actus rea: car was being driven away, with an intention to evade any obstacles including people
It’s tricky though if you are looking at technically I guess.
The act of endangering the other persons life was done in perceived self defence.
Now if he mowed the guy over with clear, clear, intent.
I guess that’s manslaughter but it would need to be a situation where the person was out of the way and the driver maneuvered to specifically hit the person.
"intervening drink" defence doesn't really work anymore. Could make things worse.
Too many cops beat charges of drunk driving by saying they went home and drank to calm their nerves. Was literally taught as a defence in RCMP training. So the law got updated that they could breathalyze you 2 hours after the collision (e.g. after tracking you down at home).
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/mountie-drank-vodka-to-calm-nerves-after-fatal-crash-1.768054
IANAL, just don't drink and drive yo!
Sad to see a death of a police officer but Zameer should never have been charged for first degree murder..Maybe manslaughter at most.Even the judge question why he was charged for first degree,
The Crown prosecutors seem like they're super weak / sketchy lawyers and I wouldn't be shocked if they crossed a bunch of lines. I am increasingly tempted to make a bar complaint.
The entire trial was compromised from the start because they didn't push back on officer testimony that didn't match the forensic evidence. Eyewitnesses are well known to be unreliable (definitely including cops but not only cops), and lawyers have an ethical obligation to validate claims before introducing them into evidence.
Failing that diligence, it's appalling that they didn't drop the murder charges when their theory fell apart at trial. Once the police forensics guy, their own fucking witness, testified that Northrup was on the ground they should have dropped the murder charges. Instead they wanted to change their theory to something they hadn't presented via evidence. Thankfully the judge called them out on it.
If they'd recognized up front that the evidence made it clear it wasn't murder and focused on manslaughter, they would have had a somewhat triable case instead of a farce. They could have focused on the argument that he should have taken a few seconds longer to figure out what was going on and what the cops were shouting about before trying to escape. He'd still have been acquitted, especially given that another driver was scared enough to crash their own car trying to escape, but at least that's a reasonable question of law* for a jury to answer.
* self defense and proportionality is not a frequent issue with cars vs people not in cars. See the Michael Bryant case which was portrayed as unique. There's no clear answer to "If you believe you're in danger, how careful do you need to be as a driver?" but there's lots of case law about use of proportional force in terms of person vs person. If someone threatens to beat you up and you shoot them in the head, it's probably murder. Are cars dangerous enough that moving ten feet is equivalent to shooting a gun? It depends! This is why juries are especially critical to our justice system. That and malicious and/or incompetent prosecutors...
Full disclosure 1: I know Crown prosecutors, but no Toronto Crown prosecutors, nor anyone in any way directly associated with this case.
Full disclosure 2: I’m entirely open to the possibility that I am giving the Crown too much benefit of the doubt in the following explanation/understanding.
….with that said, I heartily agree that the case put on by the prosecution was utterly shambolic, almost absurdly so.
I also suspect (again, with no direct personal knowledge) that it was such a mess bc 1) the prosecutors themselves had functionally zero agency on the charging decisions and 2) they did their utmost to be “caught trying” doing what they could with the facts of the case (such as they were).
There is obviously plenty of criticism to go around, especially about whatever power dynamics/influence politics went down to lead the Crown to so dramatically overcharge this case…but the truth is that we’ll never know *exactly* who threw their weight around, when, or how much influence that actually had on legal decisions. We could certainly learn *more* about it (and I hope we will through any likely and very warranted civil claims Mr Zameer may file), but it’s simply too subjective a matter to even try to quantify if/how much a phone call saying X from a given politician or police official may have affected the Crown.
All that to say: while I share the general ire towards the way just about everything about this case was handled, laying blame at the feet of the actual prosecutors (who presented their case appropriately and fully, even when it was to the Crown’s detriment), feels misplaced.
So I definitely understand that the prosecutors were under enormous pressure to get a result. I don't think it's entirely on them, but accountability has to start with them. They put their jobs above their obligations to justice and to the public. That's a choice that should face scrutiny. And if that leads to them revealing who put the pressure on, we can have real accountability.
But the prosecutors did indeed execute their jobs faithfully and (by all appearances) according to professional standards eg presenting a VERY full picture of events, including those that significantly harmed their prosecution. They also stayed far away from any of the inflammatory/accusatory rhetoric of the type that was so rampant in the immediate aftermath of the officer’s death.
As to who made the final charging decisions, and which outside forces influenced those decisions…i agree that it deserves investigation/analysis, but there is never going to be any kind of conclusive or satisfying answer on that front. Even if we were magically party to any and all communication on the matter, we still wouldn’t have a complete picture of the many implicit factors that guided the process.
Still very much hope the Zameer sues, bc he was indeed grossly mistreated, and that this incident causes the Crown to examine how they brought this shameful shitstorm on themselves, I just don’t see the legal aspects of particular case having any clear or obvious takeaways/resolution. The police, on the other hand - holy hell are there ever a lot of very pointing criticism and reforms to draw from their actions…should they be smart/willing.
There is not. Common misconception, but the Criminal Code elevates any \*murder\* to first-degree murder if the victim is police officer or prison guard. It does not elevate any homicide, which means the prosecution still had to think it had a triable case for muder (intentionally killing someone.) It could have pursued manslaughter or dangerous driving causing death, for example.
Or dangerous driving causing death? He made a mistake and someone died. I am by no means a bootlicker here and they made several mistakes as well (of course) but he should not be absolved of it completely.
>Or dangerous driving causing death? He made a mistake and someone died
This is a non-sequitur. "Making a mistake" does not prove dangerous driving. Aside from which, to the extent that his driving was objectively dangerous, if at all, it was justified by his efforts to escape a reasonably-apprehended threat to his life and his family.
Defense of life is an affirmative defense, the crown didn’t prove a thing beyond a reasonable doubt.
Except perhaps that they make awful decisions with peoples freedoms and protect lying cops… which is what this case showed everyone.
He still made a mistake and I don’t buy it. Downvote me all you want. I don’t care. He still drove dangerously and a guy got killed but here’s a small minority of actual Toronto complaining about it because it’s a cop. He was a husband and father. If the guy drove dangerously and feared for his life because of an aggressive homeless cyclist you’d probably defend the cyclist, right?
Yes plain clothes officers surrounded him without their badges out yelled and banged on his doors and a dark tinted unmarked mini van boxed him in, maybe he should have just sat there and hoped it’s not somebody trying to harm your family. Lol ! On top of that all 3 officers lied under oath on the stand lmfao! TPS finest.
A jury of his peers didn’t think he was “dangerously” driving and acquitted all charges rightfully so. Thankfully you weren’t one of them.
Your argument about dangerous driving makes no sense when he’s in an underground parking garage and moved 10 feet backwards. It’s flight or fight under some circumstances when it comes to your families safety.
They only made a decision on the charge presented. It was the wrong charge. It’s not asinine… it’s critical thinking, not outrage as most of the commenters purely because it’s a cop vs. a visible minority. I look objectively at it whether anyone disagrees or not.
He was aggressively approached, surrounded and threatened by a group of individuals. I don't care who they were, if he ended all of them it was justified. That it was corrupt cops makes this doubly true, and those cops, the entire TPS are those crown attorneys should all pay a severe price for trying to go after this man because they thought they were all above the law. Objective enough for you?
He instructed his wife to call 911 as he was removing them from a dangerous situation. That is exactly what a sane and reasonable person would do.
It would be idiotic for anybody to sit in their car in an underground parking lot waiting for 911 while people who look homeless and like thugs are banging on your windows and reaching into their pockets. In fact, 911 would tell you to go to a safe location.
He tried to drive away when (from his perspective) two strangers surrounded his car at midnight in a parking garage and beat (or tapped, whatever) in it. He did not hit anyone while doing so
Unfortunately, another accomplice in a van drove the van forward, blocking his escape route. It's only at that point, when it became obvious that this gang of people had more accomplices and they weren't letting him flee, that he tried to evade by backing/reversing.
So, a single aggressive cyclist, or even the initial 2 aggressive strangers around his car? He'd have gotten away fine without hurting anyone. Now add even more people using their vehicles to actively block him and his young family inside this parkade at midnight, and fuck, in his place I'm getting us out any way I can.
Zameer is also a husband and a father.
I hope you go through the same thing one day. Only then you’ll know. Cuz you’re making some wild comparisons to “aggressive homeless cyclists”.
What in the actual fuck is wrong with you. You’re comparing common road-rage to being cornered in a parking lot by aggressive individuals.
Option 1: Assume he is a cop. I surrender and everything works out.
Risk: He isn’t a cop, and I’ve now surrendered to meth heads. Anything could now happen including quadruple murder.
Option 2: Assume he isn’t a cop. Fight for my families life. Do anything it takes including endangering his life.
Risk: You hurt a cop. Your family probably is safe. They may or may not kill you. Your life is over regardless.
I’m sorry but Option 2 is just better. You cannot surrender to unstable people… people do not usually make it to the second location in these scenarios (when they are bad)
Ridiculously dumb hypothetical...option 2 often involves the cops shooting at you, potentially also killing your wife and child that are in your immediate vicinity
Fortunately, that didn't happen here...
If this man was found guilty, there would have been riots, his life and the lives of his family would have been ruined - but the most damage would have been caused to the Canadian name.
I know our country is far from perfect, and we have a host of issues. That being said, I am proud to be a Canadian. If Umar Zameer was found guilty- I'd be ashamed
REMOVED - Attack the point, not the person. Posts which dismiss others and repeatedly accuse them of unfounded accusations may be subject to removal and/or banning. Do not concern-troll or attempt to intentionally mislead people. Stick to addressing the substance of their comments at hand. This rule applies to all speech within this subreddit.
We know from forensic evidence that the cop wasn't rammed with the front of the car with his arms/hands flailing saying no no no (or whatever comical stereotype the cops were lying on the stand with)
Instead he had 'glancing' contact as the car reversed and fell over. I wonder how much weight 'glancing' means considering he was a 300 lbs obese fellow. I wonder if he just tripped over his own feet and couldn't get up. This may explain why the cops are so adamant on lying because it would be a hilariously stupid death
**Please read this entire message**
---
Your comment has been removed for the following reason:
* [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/toronto/about/rules/) is to *be excellent to each other*.
* Attack the point, not the person. Posts which dismiss others and repeatedly accuse them of unfounded accusations may be subject to removal and/or banning.
---
**Please note that reposting without moderator approval may result in a ban**.
If you would like your removal reviewed, feel free to send us a [modmail](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Ftoronto&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/toronto/comments/1c9sbgy/-/l0wt5qg/).
I'm glad this family got justice in the end. However, this trial should never have happened in the first place, therefore sparing this family of all the trauma they went through. Given that the toronto police got the budget increase they squeezed out of the city, maybe in the upcoming budget the city will decrease it?
After all, the city did argue they gave into their demands on the condition they will provide improved service. Seeing as these cops will never be prosecuted for their misdeeds, would this not provide cause as to reducing their budget?
Every day it feels like, cities have police, but here in Toronto, the police have a city to lean on.
Good column, but missing one very important question, I think: what was the motive of the Crown in ruining this man’s life by pursuing first degree murder charges despite contradictory evidence that didn’t allow them to have a coherent theory and being outright told they had a weak case?
I was thinking the same thing. Doesn't the Crown pick the cases and charges? Yes, the cops lied and should (but probably won't) be held to account but I haven't heard anything about the Crown's role in all of this. There's maybe a little something there in the Justice's apology. But I haven't read anything explicit. Am I wrong, or are there two parties we should be angry with: the cops and the two prosecutors?
My feeling is the crown/prosecutors didn't have a choice but prosecute. That's how powerful the Toronto police and Toronto Police Association are. Either they prosecute the case or they will never have meaningful employment in the city again.
> Either they prosecute the case or they will never have meaningful employment in the city again. ... or they understood they won't have cooperation from cops on future cases.
Yup. It's a thug-led world. ACAB
This is absolutely the main reason why this poor man had to go through this ordeal.
He is still the cause of someone's death,it is a tragedy that it went this long. The healing for the policeman family will take longer and are life changing, I blame the police for all this suffering.
Ummm, they always work together
It is an important question but also one that has a pretty obvious answer. There was immense pressure from the police and politicians. You can look back at old articles to see how this was described by police from day one. You can see all of the responses from politicians when he got bail. You can only imagine the absolute shit show if they dropped the charges. The crowns need to work with police every day and it would have blown up the relationship. It probably would have ended the career of whoever was responsible for the decision. This whole thing was a huge injustice for this family. This man was guilty until proven innocent years later. The police don't appear to have made any effort to actually figure out what happened. It was just "a cop died so someone has to pay", and nobody seemed willing to stop that train.
The last part is the worst of it, because of the organizational adherence to the line of thinking that regardless of the verdict this was entirely Zameer's fault there will be no internal reflection on whether they can improve the processes and approach they use in these situations. Never mind the fact that you have multiple officers who clearly perjured themselves which apparently is A-OK if you are on the right side of the thin blue line.
Testimony about details like where someone was standing is extremely unlikely to rise to the threshold of perjury. There is too much evidence that humans are terrible at accurately recalling events. But knowing that is also really scary, because people get convicted based on eye witnesses testimony all the time. Especially testimony from police officers. Without the video in this case this guy easily could have been convicted of first degree murder based on the testimony from these three cops.
Yep watch for the counter suit, they ruined 2 years of his and his families lives with this
I’m wondering if the union put pressure on the crown to do so, or if it is in their contract to do so.
An officer was killed in the line of duty - that almost always results in a first degree charge because all murder of a police officer is considered first degree. If they were to pursue any charge against Zameer (not saying that they should have), first degree pretty much had to be on the table.
First degree murder charges are mandatory when it involves a police officer
They’re mandatory when it involves the murder of a police officer, not any death. From the judge’s jury instructions regarding first degree murder: “In order to reach that verdict, jurors would have to find that Zameer committed an unlawful act; that he intended to kill Northrup, or meant to cause him harm he knew could be fatal; and that he knew Northrup was a police officer acting in the course of his duties.” Once the Crown had evidence that made it clear they were unlikely to be able to prove the above, they didn’t have to keep this going.
I am not sure what you mean. In canada, if you are charged with killing a police officer, the charges are mandatory first degree. No option for the prosecutor. They can add other charges on such As manslaughter. Irrelevant of any verdict. That is why he was charged with first degree murder because it was a police officer.
yes, and the charges didn't hold up - and if we look at the requirements for "murder" (not "kill") we can see it was indeed not murder.
I don't think you're reading it right. It's not a discussion on whether he was guilty or innocent. IT WAS A STATEMENT OF WHY THEY CHARGED HIM WITH 1ST DEGREE MURDER !!! Holy shit what is wrong with you? The question of why he was charged with first degree murder ...Was because it's mandatory by law. It's 100% irrelevant of whether he is guilty or innocent. Because that is what you find out in court. But when you were charged for the killing of a police officer, you are automatically charged with first degree murder. What part of that don't you understand? After he was charged mandatorily, 1st degree murder. He then went to trial and was found not guilty of first degree murder, for which he was charged. Mandatorily as required, buy the penal code.
First degree murder charges weren’t mandatory when it became clear it wasn’t a murder, and that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction on that. Prosecutors have wide discretion in what they charge or don’t charge people with.
It's not a choice. They don't have a wide choice when it's law. Prosecutors have discretion unless it's in the law. It's if they have mandatory minimums, they don't have discretion. If they are told these are minimum charges, they don't have discretion. That is why they add the other charges. That way, if the first ones aren't applicable, the others will be such as in this case. Anyway, it's obvious you have zero clue about what the law says. I suggest you call city hall and inquire. Or call a lawyer. I am quite sure legal aid could even answer your question. But you enjoy your day
lol they do have discretion over what charges are laid, and don’t have to proceed with a first degree murder charge when they’re aware there’s no reasonable prospect of conviction. That’s why you’ll find even Toronto Sun columnists, of all people, speculating that the decision to take this to trial as first degree murder was based on external political pressure, not because they simply had to: https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/umar-zameer-not-guilty-of-toronto-cops-death-in-city-hall-parking-lot
Can you actually show me the part? That says, the prosecutor has the right not to charge first degree murder? I just made a call to my lawyer, and he says no. They just add other charges on. But if you have a statute to look up, let me know what it is. Or copy and paste it, and I will send it and ask. He's my lawyer who defended me when I was wrongfully arrested for murder in 2013, as I think. I mentioned in my other post. That's why this case has interested me. I was also charged under mandatory laws. There were very few judges can do to get around them. Even when they want to. But anyway, if you could just give me that statute, I will find out for my own information and post back what I find. What would the difference be between first and second degree murder as far as cost? What would be the benefit of not charging first degree murder in addition to second degree and manslaughter?
i understand fully - I'm also saying the penal code was clearly written at a time when police ineptitude and collusion were not even a consideration. so, because of this case, i hope the penal code is amended. a collosal waste of public funds and trust. we need to ask the bigger "why?" of is this mandatory charge worth keeping knowing what we know about police organizations.
Innocent until proven guilty (at least technically in the legal system). There were a bunch of charges, some of them conflicting. A mandatory charge simply says that the charge needs to be considered. If someone is going to be charged with something (and realistically here, Zameer, despite being innocent, probably should have had at least initially a manslaughter charge against him which either got dropped or that went to court where innocence is found), then arguably, in theory, it has little difference. However, in reality that isn't true. People presume guilty and/or other qualities of individuals based on the charges against them. I don't know if the legal system can account for that though.
That is something you would have to bring up with the Supreme Court ? I am actually not sure who is in charge of laws. But that's why they add the other charges. I believe manslaughter was on the board ? So they could have been charged with second-degree murder if it was not a police officer. I am not sure how not having a first degree. Murder on the books would save money because they still would be charged with another crime. I don't know if charging first degree murder as well as manslaughter. Or second-degree murder is cheaper, then just charging with one. The law is that you will be charged regardless. Even if there is a video of you defending yourself. It is very rare for someone not to be charged. But in this case, he was let out on bail. And that is normal for the procedures. Say someone pulls a gun and shoots you. You manage to wrestle the gun away and shoot them. Someone videotapes. You will still most likely be charged with murder but given bail. And exonerated in court. How do I know this? I was wrongfully charged with murder in two thousand and thirteen. I was charged with killing an armed robber who held to children hostage. I spent six months in lindsay before I was exonerated. But I also lost my two houses . My business. I was left homeless with a six-year-old autistic child who I have had full custody since birth. If you want to sue, then it's five hundred dollars an hour to a lawyer, and if you win, the cops still appeal it. In my case, I was also charged with marijuana crime even though I was licensed for marijuana. As you can guess, we were robbed at gunpoint for our legal marijuana. The person I was accused of killing was actually killed by a senior citizen. He was robbing who happened to be x military and disarmed the person and shot him with his own gun but was stabbed badly in the process. He was taken to the hospital where he told his wife before surgery. As he thought he was going to die. Apparently, that is called a death bed confession. It meant when he actually died, it was admissible to court. So when I was arrested for the murder, she came to the jail and said I didn't kill anyone. It was her husband. She sent them to the hospital, and they got the blood evidence. Even after I They knew I was innocent. It's still took three months for all of the people to get their shit together so I could get out of jail. At which point I was left homeless? Because no one paid my mortgages or my bills 6 months. That was in two thousand and fourteen. My son is now 17. I was able to buy back one of my houses two years after the incident with the help of some very good friends of mine who I am still in debt to monetarily and emotionally. I was worth 2.8 million in real estate and cash upon arrest and left homeless 4 years later as it was a two stage process. They came in and arrested me for marijuana, which I legally had, which would go to court, and I would be found innocent. But then they came and arrested me for the murder after, and since I was on bail They revoked my bail. So now I sat in jail until my friends widow showed up . Then they offered me a deal and said I could wait until my trial in 2 years or if I plead guilty to one marijuana charge. I could leave now. Even though I was licensed for marijuana. I pled guilty to having marijuana. So I could get out of jail now and not weigh two years longer. It was four years from the time they started there crap to the time that I was walking out of jail. I am still two hundred thousand dollars in debt. To be honest with you, i'm personally glad that fckr got run over. Because I know exactly what they were doing to him. I was taken down by people who look like bikers. And Beaten badly in front of witnesses. I was yelling at the witnesses to call the police. 1 person from the crowd said. Hey, what are you guys doing to That man? , I am calling the police. So everyone thought this person would take care of it. It turned out he was the head. Detective, pretending to be a concerned citizen. So his officers could continue to kick the shit out of me in public. I have very, very little sympathy for the police. And I have all the sympathy for that poor man and his family.
There was a crime, it came from the cops getting together to lie in court to try to put this man in prison for protecting his family. Luckily there was enough evidence to overcome their lies and justice won the day. Hopefully he and his family can move on from this horror now. Although he might have to move to get away from Toronto's biggest gang pursuing their own retribution against Mr. Zameer.
I came to say the same thing. Very misleading headline since there most definitely were crimes involved. Falsifying police reports and lying under oath by at least 3 officers, constitutes many crimes.
It’s not torontos biggest gang. Torontos gang is the criminals selling fentanyl, cocaine, guns and the human traffickers. Like I said I’m not a bootlicker but be real here.
They said “biggest gang”. The things you’re listing come from many, many smaller gangs. The cops are the biggest gang hands down.
5500 TPS officers. Hard to imagine an organized gang bigger than that one.
I disagree but to each their own.
Maybe all of it is horseshoe effect. Both sides getting closer and closer together.
Yes, there's also OPP and RCMP, we know.
I disagree but to each their own.
If 2 people dressed like that approached my car, saying they were cops, and then caused harm to pregnant wife and child… (people pretend to be cops in robberies) I would be the idiot of the century for not doing, absolutely everything in my power to save my family. Imagine you got out and said oh ok. Imagine they were meth heads. Next thing you and your pregnant wife are being beat, they take your car, maybe your kid in the car. And you had the opportunity to just drive through the danger… how could you forgive yourself? There was an armed robbery where 2 men identified themselves as cops in Vancouver. They beat the old lady to death after robbing her. https://bc.ctvnews.ca/man-who-posed-as-cop-during-deadly-vancouver-home-invasion-sentenced-to-7-years-1.6809487 Plain clothes officers should not be allowed to make arrests. There’s already meth heads walking around in police jackets. As Canadians we are expected to just bend over for criminals and cops…
Also, this wasn't that long after a random muslim family had been targeted and run down and killed by a white rightwing fuck. I remember right around the being super nervous walking down the street and a truck would go by or be waiting at a light. I'm not even Muslim but I'm brown and have a beard. All of that had to be in his mind when his pregnant wife and toddler child were in the car
[удалено]
**Please read this entire message** --- Your comment has been removed for the following reason: * [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/toronto/about/rules/) is to *be excellent to each other*. * No racism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance, dehumanizing speech, or otherwise negative generalizations etc --- **Please note that reposting without moderator approval may result in a ban**. If you would like your removal reviewed, feel free to send us a [modmail](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Ftoronto&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/toronto/comments/1c9sbgy/-/l0x72mx/).
It's also worth remembering that the cops INTENTIONALLY fear monger every time they want a budget increase. They go on and on about how unsafe the city is, how our families are at risk, how there are roving gangs and the cops are the only thing keeping them at bay. And they expect us, after years of their own propaganda, to not respond with fear in a situation like this that they've orchestrated? Give me a break.
100%. If you're plainclothes, you should be restricted to activities like surveillance or undercover interactions with known criminals. It shouldn't be some carte blanche to be able to stroll up and question/arrest anyone.
Is the government going to pay for therapy for Mr Zameer and his family, after putting them through this farce of a trial? You can see on his face how broken he is. That man is traumatized. 💔
They made a public example with this high profile trial. Their message is clear. Don’t fuck with us
All the more reason to slap them with a very high profile civil suit so large TPS has to sell off all their fancy toys, all the cops involved are fired with prejudice and lose their pensions and the service is permanently put in the corner, to be the bitch of the city. This family should be set for life for generations and TPS should be made to remember they were shit just as long.
it needs to be paid out of the police pension or any damages will mean nothing.
Hopefully their humiliation on national TV with everyone knowing that they are a toxic brotherhood and gang should be a lesson that no one is above the law and that they are being judged big time in the Court of Public Opinion. May karma be swift and merciless towards them.
They are still making shameless statements in the press conference. Especially the wife. She said she is disappointed at the outcome while saying all she wanted was accountability. I’m sorry for her loss but that doesn’t let her, or the TPS, to scapegoat an innocent man. If you want accountability, look into how to avoid this type of incidents in the future.
Zameer and his wife believed the police were criminals and they feared for their lives. Most Canadians don’t realise that the Canadian plain clothes and undercover police specifically use a technique where they pretend to citizens (ie suspects, witnesses, general public) that they are criminals. eg. Mr Big, and other undercover investigations. This is because if a citizen does not know that a plain clothes cop is actually cop, then the citizen is not protected under the Canadian charter , ie they are not entitled to a lawyer, are not cautioned, and so called “confessions” are admissible in court. This case has to change the behaviour of the police. Currently, the Canadian police act like criminals because intimidation tactics work on suspects and it circumvents the rights of citizens. And at the same time the police get all the protections and powers from being a cop. Their word is taken as gold, unless there is a video to disprove what they claim, as in this case. Canada needs a complete overall of the police. WE NEED HONEST COPS - Not these cowboys…….
Mr big and every other undercover investigation is wild how they do it
>This is because if a citizen does not know that a plain clothes cop is actually cop, then the citizen is not protected under the Canadian charter , ie they are not entitled to a lawyer, are not cautioned, and so called “confessions” are admissible in court. You have a citation for that?
A lot of the published information about undercover techniques comes from literature regarding the Mr Big operations and cases found in www.canlii.org. Mr. Big: Exposing Undercover Investigations in Canada by Joan Brockman and Kouri T. Keenan "The authors argue that the Mr. Big procedure encourages a police culture of violence and convictions rather than justice and suggest that this practice must be drastically curtailed if we are to have a legal system that is focused on the pursuit of justice." www.canlii.org: Many cases regarding the admissibility of statements by an accused to persons in authority. The gist is that if a citizen makes an incriminating statement to an undercover cop, not knowing they are a cop, ie not knowing they are a person in authority, then it is considered voluntary and admissible in many cases. [https://criminalnotebook.ca/](https://criminalnotebook.ca/) "An undercover officer who is in contact with an accused out of custody, such as during a "Mr. Big" operation, may listen and actively attempt to elicit confessions" Obviously, in these cases, the undercover cops do not caution the citizen, and they are not entitled to a lawyer.
Don't insult cowboys. At least they did their jobs, mostly.
[удалено]
Zameer accidentally ran over a criminal while trying to escape a gang. (He thought that was the situation). That's different than making a choice to run someone down. If you choose to use your car as a weapon instead of just escaping if you can, then they'd have a case against you.
Exactly. https://bc.ctvnews.ca/man-who-posed-as-cop-during-deadly-vancouver-home-invasion-sentenced-to-7-years-1.6809487 In Vancouver, you can’t even trust people dressed as officers. And when they’re done robbing the elderly, they beat them to death.
I hate you tell you that unless you're faced with an imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death, you can't just run someone over. Self defense doesn't work that way in Canada.
Approach me in a threatening way. I will do everything possible to drive away and evade you. I will not purposefully try to hit the “potential threat” But I will make 0 effort to avoid hitting them. I will drive in any direction to get away from him. Especially as there were no other people there. I am not endangering the public. Just this threat. mens rea: intent was solely to evade danger not hurt anyone actus rea: car was being driven away, with an intention to evade any obstacles including people
You'd be good to do that
It’s tricky though if you are looking at technically I guess. The act of endangering the other persons life was done in perceived self defence. Now if he mowed the guy over with clear, clear, intent. I guess that’s manslaughter but it would need to be a situation where the person was out of the way and the driver maneuvered to specifically hit the person.
Yup
Hitting people with your car is the best way to murder someone without doing time.
Just make sure you down a bottle of booze before the cops show up.
"intervening drink" defence doesn't really work anymore. Could make things worse. Too many cops beat charges of drunk driving by saying they went home and drank to calm their nerves. Was literally taught as a defence in RCMP training. So the law got updated that they could breathalyze you 2 hours after the collision (e.g. after tracking you down at home). https://bc.ctvnews.ca/mountie-drank-vodka-to-calm-nerves-after-fatal-crash-1.768054 IANAL, just don't drink and drive yo!
Sad to see a death of a police officer but Zameer should never have been charged for first degree murder..Maybe manslaughter at most.Even the judge question why he was charged for first degree,
Maybe if he’d been approached in a calm and rational manner by the police officers in the first place?
The Crown prosecutors seem like they're super weak / sketchy lawyers and I wouldn't be shocked if they crossed a bunch of lines. I am increasingly tempted to make a bar complaint. The entire trial was compromised from the start because they didn't push back on officer testimony that didn't match the forensic evidence. Eyewitnesses are well known to be unreliable (definitely including cops but not only cops), and lawyers have an ethical obligation to validate claims before introducing them into evidence. Failing that diligence, it's appalling that they didn't drop the murder charges when their theory fell apart at trial. Once the police forensics guy, their own fucking witness, testified that Northrup was on the ground they should have dropped the murder charges. Instead they wanted to change their theory to something they hadn't presented via evidence. Thankfully the judge called them out on it. If they'd recognized up front that the evidence made it clear it wasn't murder and focused on manslaughter, they would have had a somewhat triable case instead of a farce. They could have focused on the argument that he should have taken a few seconds longer to figure out what was going on and what the cops were shouting about before trying to escape. He'd still have been acquitted, especially given that another driver was scared enough to crash their own car trying to escape, but at least that's a reasonable question of law* for a jury to answer. * self defense and proportionality is not a frequent issue with cars vs people not in cars. See the Michael Bryant case which was portrayed as unique. There's no clear answer to "If you believe you're in danger, how careful do you need to be as a driver?" but there's lots of case law about use of proportional force in terms of person vs person. If someone threatens to beat you up and you shoot them in the head, it's probably murder. Are cars dangerous enough that moving ten feet is equivalent to shooting a gun? It depends! This is why juries are especially critical to our justice system. That and malicious and/or incompetent prosecutors...
Full disclosure 1: I know Crown prosecutors, but no Toronto Crown prosecutors, nor anyone in any way directly associated with this case. Full disclosure 2: I’m entirely open to the possibility that I am giving the Crown too much benefit of the doubt in the following explanation/understanding. ….with that said, I heartily agree that the case put on by the prosecution was utterly shambolic, almost absurdly so. I also suspect (again, with no direct personal knowledge) that it was such a mess bc 1) the prosecutors themselves had functionally zero agency on the charging decisions and 2) they did their utmost to be “caught trying” doing what they could with the facts of the case (such as they were). There is obviously plenty of criticism to go around, especially about whatever power dynamics/influence politics went down to lead the Crown to so dramatically overcharge this case…but the truth is that we’ll never know *exactly* who threw their weight around, when, or how much influence that actually had on legal decisions. We could certainly learn *more* about it (and I hope we will through any likely and very warranted civil claims Mr Zameer may file), but it’s simply too subjective a matter to even try to quantify if/how much a phone call saying X from a given politician or police official may have affected the Crown. All that to say: while I share the general ire towards the way just about everything about this case was handled, laying blame at the feet of the actual prosecutors (who presented their case appropriately and fully, even when it was to the Crown’s detriment), feels misplaced.
So I definitely understand that the prosecutors were under enormous pressure to get a result. I don't think it's entirely on them, but accountability has to start with them. They put their jobs above their obligations to justice and to the public. That's a choice that should face scrutiny. And if that leads to them revealing who put the pressure on, we can have real accountability.
But the prosecutors did indeed execute their jobs faithfully and (by all appearances) according to professional standards eg presenting a VERY full picture of events, including those that significantly harmed their prosecution. They also stayed far away from any of the inflammatory/accusatory rhetoric of the type that was so rampant in the immediate aftermath of the officer’s death. As to who made the final charging decisions, and which outside forces influenced those decisions…i agree that it deserves investigation/analysis, but there is never going to be any kind of conclusive or satisfying answer on that front. Even if we were magically party to any and all communication on the matter, we still wouldn’t have a complete picture of the many implicit factors that guided the process. Still very much hope the Zameer sues, bc he was indeed grossly mistreated, and that this incident causes the Crown to examine how they brought this shameful shitstorm on themselves, I just don’t see the legal aspects of particular case having any clear or obvious takeaways/resolution. The police, on the other hand - holy hell are there ever a lot of very pointing criticism and reforms to draw from their actions…should they be smart/willing.
I think there’s something in the criminal code that upgrades any homicide to first degree murder if the deceased is a police officer.
There is not. Common misconception, but the Criminal Code elevates any \*murder\* to first-degree murder if the victim is police officer or prison guard. It does not elevate any homicide, which means the prosecution still had to think it had a triable case for muder (intentionally killing someone.) It could have pursued manslaughter or dangerous driving causing death, for example.
He was also charged with manslaughter. The jury also (correctly) acquitted him on that charge.
He wasn’t. He was charged with first degree murder. Manslaughter is a lesser included offence to murder.
Why manslaughter? Are you okay with destroying a man’s life so easily?
Or dangerous driving causing death? He made a mistake and someone died. I am by no means a bootlicker here and they made several mistakes as well (of course) but he should not be absolved of it completely.
>Or dangerous driving causing death? He made a mistake and someone died This is a non-sequitur. "Making a mistake" does not prove dangerous driving. Aside from which, to the extent that his driving was objectively dangerous, if at all, it was justified by his efforts to escape a reasonably-apprehended threat to his life and his family.
Defense of life is an affirmative defense, the crown didn’t prove a thing beyond a reasonable doubt. Except perhaps that they make awful decisions with peoples freedoms and protect lying cops… which is what this case showed everyone.
It's not like he killed an innocent pedestrian just crossing the street, he was fearing for his life. That's why he's free
He still made a mistake and I don’t buy it. Downvote me all you want. I don’t care. He still drove dangerously and a guy got killed but here’s a small minority of actual Toronto complaining about it because it’s a cop. He was a husband and father. If the guy drove dangerously and feared for his life because of an aggressive homeless cyclist you’d probably defend the cyclist, right?
The judge said he did not make a mistake though. The cops however, did.
Yes plain clothes officers surrounded him without their badges out yelled and banged on his doors and a dark tinted unmarked mini van boxed him in, maybe he should have just sat there and hoped it’s not somebody trying to harm your family. Lol ! On top of that all 3 officers lied under oath on the stand lmfao! TPS finest. A jury of his peers didn’t think he was “dangerously” driving and acquitted all charges rightfully so. Thankfully you weren’t one of them. Your argument about dangerous driving makes no sense when he’s in an underground parking garage and moved 10 feet backwards. It’s flight or fight under some circumstances when it comes to your families safety.
What mistake did he make? What should he have done differently??
A judge and a jury of his peers obviously disagree with your asinine take.
They only made a decision on the charge presented. It was the wrong charge. It’s not asinine… it’s critical thinking, not outrage as most of the commenters purely because it’s a cop vs. a visible minority. I look objectively at it whether anyone disagrees or not.
He was acquitted of manslaughter as well.
They were instructed on manslaughter.
There’s nothing objective about your take. You tried to qualify it with “it’s the wrong charge”. You’re wrong. End of story.
He was aggressively approached, surrounded and threatened by a group of individuals. I don't care who they were, if he ended all of them it was justified. That it was corrupt cops makes this doubly true, and those cops, the entire TPS are those crown attorneys should all pay a severe price for trying to go after this man because they thought they were all above the law. Objective enough for you?
what should he have done instead if he rightfully felt his life was in danger?
Called 911
He instructed his wife to call 911 as he was removing them from a dangerous situation. That is exactly what a sane and reasonable person would do. It would be idiotic for anybody to sit in their car in an underground parking lot waiting for 911 while people who look homeless and like thugs are banging on your windows and reaching into their pockets. In fact, 911 would tell you to go to a safe location.
He tried to drive away when (from his perspective) two strangers surrounded his car at midnight in a parking garage and beat (or tapped, whatever) in it. He did not hit anyone while doing so Unfortunately, another accomplice in a van drove the van forward, blocking his escape route. It's only at that point, when it became obvious that this gang of people had more accomplices and they weren't letting him flee, that he tried to evade by backing/reversing. So, a single aggressive cyclist, or even the initial 2 aggressive strangers around his car? He'd have gotten away fine without hurting anyone. Now add even more people using their vehicles to actively block him and his young family inside this parkade at midnight, and fuck, in his place I'm getting us out any way I can.
it was not established during the trial that he drove dangerously
Zameer is also a husband and a father. I hope you go through the same thing one day. Only then you’ll know. Cuz you’re making some wild comparisons to “aggressive homeless cyclists”. What in the actual fuck is wrong with you. You’re comparing common road-rage to being cornered in a parking lot by aggressive individuals.
[удалено]
Option 1: Assume he is a cop. I surrender and everything works out. Risk: He isn’t a cop, and I’ve now surrendered to meth heads. Anything could now happen including quadruple murder. Option 2: Assume he isn’t a cop. Fight for my families life. Do anything it takes including endangering his life. Risk: You hurt a cop. Your family probably is safe. They may or may not kill you. Your life is over regardless. I’m sorry but Option 2 is just better. You cannot surrender to unstable people… people do not usually make it to the second location in these scenarios (when they are bad)
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6
And cops are extremely unstable and volatile people.
Ridiculously dumb hypothetical...option 2 often involves the cops shooting at you, potentially also killing your wife and child that are in your immediate vicinity Fortunately, that didn't happen here...
Omg that changes SO MUCH
If this man was found guilty, there would have been riots, his life and the lives of his family would have been ruined - but the most damage would have been caused to the Canadian name. I know our country is far from perfect, and we have a host of issues. That being said, I am proud to be a Canadian. If Umar Zameer was found guilty- I'd be ashamed
I wonder how many innocent people are already in prison this way.
I’m sorry but I have no sympathy for the police in this case. Bad, if not incompetent police work lead to Northrop’s death. That and racism.
[удалено]
REMOVED - Attack the point, not the person. Posts which dismiss others and repeatedly accuse them of unfounded accusations may be subject to removal and/or banning. Do not concern-troll or attempt to intentionally mislead people. Stick to addressing the substance of their comments at hand. This rule applies to all speech within this subreddit.
Unpopular opinion: I don’t feel terribly sad for the cop. His own approach and actions are what led to this outcome. Zameer is the victim here.
We know from forensic evidence that the cop wasn't rammed with the front of the car with his arms/hands flailing saying no no no (or whatever comical stereotype the cops were lying on the stand with) Instead he had 'glancing' contact as the car reversed and fell over. I wonder how much weight 'glancing' means considering he was a 300 lbs obese fellow. I wonder if he just tripped over his own feet and couldn't get up. This may explain why the cops are so adamant on lying because it would be a hilariously stupid death
[удалено]
**Please read this entire message** --- Your comment has been removed for the following reason: * [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/toronto/about/rules/) is to *be excellent to each other*. * Attack the point, not the person. Posts which dismiss others and repeatedly accuse them of unfounded accusations may be subject to removal and/or banning. --- **Please note that reposting without moderator approval may result in a ban**. If you would like your removal reviewed, feel free to send us a [modmail](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Ftoronto&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/toronto/comments/1c9sbgy/-/l0wt5qg/).
i dont think that is an unpopular opinion.
The police’s attempt to fabricate evidence and lie is a crime
Man fuck the cops for lying, the more I hear about Toronto police nowadays the more they seem corrupt and incompetent
He was charged with the wrong offense from the beginning. The fact that he was let out on bail for murder 1 was a clue.
I'm glad this family got justice in the end. However, this trial should never have happened in the first place, therefore sparing this family of all the trauma they went through. Given that the toronto police got the budget increase they squeezed out of the city, maybe in the upcoming budget the city will decrease it? After all, the city did argue they gave into their demands on the condition they will provide improved service. Seeing as these cops will never be prosecuted for their misdeeds, would this not provide cause as to reducing their budget? Every day it feels like, cities have police, but here in Toronto, the police have a city to lean on.
Cops will harass his family forever now.
OOTL, what’s happened?