The mandatory minimum sentence for attempted murder should NOT apply to a convicted criminal police officer? Under what twisted and perverse rationale could that argument possibly fly? Why the twisted and perverse rationale of defence lawyer Lawrence Gridin, of course.
The lawyer for convicted criminal James Forcillo, the cop who shot Sammy Yatim 9 times and killing him on a bus in July 2013, claims mandatory minimum sentences were never meant to apply to cops.
That argument didn’t fly with Justice Edward F. Then though, and thank God for that!
“It’s not a licence to kill. Police officers are entrusted with the use of a gun for a particular purpose. In this case the jury has found that it wasn’t to serve and protect but it was with the purpose of attempting to kill.”
Well said, Justice Then. Well said.
What isn’t well said is the defense lawyer’s idea of an appropriate sentence for killing Sammy Yatim.
No, that slimy mouthpiece says the appropriate sentence for killing Sammy Yatim by shooting him 9 times is, get this, house arrest, or if that’s not possible, a suspended sentence.
Did this guy get briefing notes from Monty Robinson’s lawyer?
Defense lawyer Lawrence Gridin also has the gall to argue that the mandatory minimum sentence for attempted murder is “cruel and unusual punishment“, but only when applied to cops convicted of crimes. For anyone else, he apparently contends, that prison term is just fine.
“If the objective of the legislation is to prevent the proliferation of firearms, putting people like officer Forcillo in prison for five years doesn’t advance that objective in any way.”
Why, pray tell, should it not?
As Justice Then so eloquently stated,
“If it’s applicable to ordinary citizens, as opposed to gang members and criminals, why is it not applicable to police officers?”
Why not indeed.
I like Justice Then. He clearly understands that cops should not be above the law, and that they ought to pay the same penalty when they break the law as any mere citizen.
Leave a Reply