A SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SAMMY YATIM ATTACK BY JAMES FORCILLO

Sammy Yatim’s Fatal Encounter

Sammy Yatim made a scene while riding the 505 Dundas streetcar while brandishing a dagger. Only 18 years old, he. He could not stop, despite the passengers’ best efforts to settle him down. The cops were then called. James Forcillo was the first police officer to appear. Sammy Yatim insulted the police officer when he was told to submit. James Forcillo then began to shoot at him. Within a few seconds of his arrival at the site, this incident happened. Three bullets were fired in the opening round. Sammy Yatim stumbled. Immediately, within five to six seconds, the officer fired another six shots form his gun on the body of the young man who was now lifeless.

James Forcillo’s Arrest and Charge

James Forcillo was arrested and charged with murder. However, his lawyers argued that the shots at Yatim were made in one round. The defense lawyers were thus suggesting that the police officer had no intention of killing Yatim. Nonetheless, the events that led to the death of Yatim and the consequential court case and verdict suggest that Yatim did not get justice when the offence of first degree murder was reduced to a mere attempt of murder. This paper seeks to critically discuss and analyze the sociological perspective of the case against James Forcillo involving the shooting of Sammy Yatim and argue that the killing and court decisions favored Forcillo due to his social status.

The Conflict Perspective Theory

According to Conflict Perspective Theory, conflict emanates from the difference in wealth and power. This is a theory based on the differences in class of individuals. The upper class is made up of people who have access to wealth, those who own corporations and means of undertaking industrial activities, and politicians who direct governance and political decisions. These upper class control the lives of the people in many ways so that they can benefit at the expense of the lower class who are poor. In other words, the upper class use their wealth and influence to make laws which suit their needs. Consequently, like in a capitalist society, the laws made bring together and strongly hold the upper class on one hand as a force of economic, political and social change and/or stability. This is what can be termed as the consensus outcome of the actions. On the other hand, as the upper class enjoy control of the society, the poor suffer. They often do not agree with the decisions of the upper class and their lives show that they are in disagreement with such systems of governance. Therefore, as the wealthy continue to enjoy capitalism, the poor lavish in hardship.

Inequality in the Case of Forcillo and Yatim

This is the exact picture created in the case of James Forcillo and Sammy Yatim. The police are favored by the laws governing their services and operations. A close scrutiny of the Canadian laws shows that there are many occasions in which the police commit offences but they are not punished according to the law which applies to people who are not police officers. In this case, it was admitted that in normal circumstances, a police officer who commits such crimes is to be subjected to a different set of laws and procedures and not the common criminal trials. Forcillo had argued that his act was lawful; he was defending himself against the deceased who was carrying a weapon. If a similar act was committed by a non-police officer, the arguments that the charge or the trial process were improper would not arise. The laws on which Forcillo and his lawyers relied on to defend the case were purely created to favor the elites and people in power or the control of state over the people. In light of the circumstances of the crime, the defence, and the outcome of the case, it is undeniable that Sammy was certainly not an elite, but law enforcement are representatives of the elites. So, when police who are people in power get into legal problems get privileges which common people do not enjoy. This is backed up by the fact that although Forcillo committed a heinous crime, he was subjected to a less strict examination in addition to being given less jail term. It indicates that no matter how the gravity of crimes police officers commit, court cases have and will always favor them over the poor and lower class members of the society.

The Critical Legal Studies Theory

Besides, the case study can be explained from the perspective of Critical Legal Studies Theory. This theory posits that legal matters are independent of legal thinking. When a case is brought before court, the outcomes of the trial are often dictated by its circumstances such that a similar case would have a different result. This is due to the difference in what the proponents of this theory refer to as ’indeterminacy of law.’ Of more importance is the fact that external factors such as politics, dynamics of economy, and social structure and issues dictate how law is interpreted. In fact, Critical Legal Theory posits that when social values are recognized by law, law makes them authentic. In essence, law can make a morally wrong and/or unacceptable behaviors become normal. So, the elite, wealthy, and powerful individuals who control society can accept that a particular wrong is no longer invalid and gives it legal power. This is the case with current media and politics.

Influence of External Factors on Forcillo’s Trial

This theory aptly applies in the case of Forcillo. First, the defense lawyers were able to convince the court that the interpretation of the law could not apply as in ordinary circumstances as was in the charge. They argued that all the nine shots of the gun were made in a single round. This interpretation was meant to remove the element of intention to kill, which is an essential requirement for the offence of murder. Thus, the law worked in favor of the defendant to remove him from liability. Secondly, the case of Forcillo was marred by both political and media interferences. The case was covered by mainstream media from the start to the end. The resultant exposure to the public eye affected the trial process and the sentencing. This happened in two ways.

Media and Political Interferences

Media made it appear that the police would get away with the murder as evidenced in the reports and news articles. The public was allowed to give their comments. Those who watched the trial on television also had a lot to say. In the end, the society created a sort of expectation which had to be met. The police, as affluent members of society, are often found to dodge the law. Sometimes, they are helped by state corporations and resources to find their way out of legal problems. However, in this case, the court could not attempt to set Forcillo free. Almost everybody, if not all people, expected that he be found guilty and sentenced for the death of Yatim. Accordingly, the court sentenced him to six years imprisonment. This jail term is more than the statutorily provided sentence for the crime he committed.

Nonetheless, due to political meddling and influence of the elite, Forcillo was convicted of a lesser offence of attempted murder. The offense attracts a lesser punishment as compared to that of murder. By introducing, propagating, and defending Forcillo of attempted murder, the defense lawyers were able to find a way out for Forcillo to be free, albeit after some years as sentenced. If they left they proceeded to defend him of the murder, there is a high probability that they would lose the case and/or subject the police officer to aggravated punishments. Through reliance on pressure from the media and political affluence, the court made it appear that Yatim was given justice but in real sense, Forcillo was unpunished.

Conclusion

In summary, the trial of the murder of Yatim was affected by external factors which sociological theories offer appropriate means of explanation. Both Conflict Perspective Theory and Critical Legal Theory argue that the society is set in such a manner that those who are in power and the law determine how individuals relate and/or resolve disputes. While the first theory explains that wealth sets individuals into two classes with different positions and rights, the second theory posits that the law and politics also affect legal results. Conflict Perspective Theory explains that the upper class, which consists of wealthy individuals who are also in control of power, are able to manipulate the laws and circumstances to suit their needs and wants. On the other hand, Critical Legal Theory indicates that the use of politics and communication media has the ability to change how courts make decisions. Thus, Forcillo’s case was affected by the affluence of his caliber as a police officer, elite, and economically able, media exposure, and politics of the day.

Bibliography

CBS News. “Toronto Constable Guilty of Attempted Murder in 2013 Streetcar Shooting of

Teen.” CBC News. Last modified January 25, 2016. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/james-forcillo-verdict-1.3414974.

Gillis, Wendy. “Lawyers for Cop Who Shot Sammy Yatim Argue Nine Shots Were ’single’

Occurrence | Toronto Star.” Thestar.com. Last modified October 3, 2017. https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2017/09/29/lawyers-for-cop-who-shot-sammy-yatim-argue-nine-shots-were-single-occurrence.html.

The Globe and Mail. “The Sammy Yatim Case: When Policing Goes Wrong.” The Globe and

Mail. Last modified July 28, 2016. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/the-sammy-yatim-case-when-policing-goes-wrong/article31174172/.

Vago, Steven, and Adie Nelson. “Law and Society: Fourth Canadian Edition.” (2013).