upl8tr
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2010
- Messages
- 6,531
- Reaction score
- 5,483
Have a read of the article below and let me know what you think, I don't really want to get into the right's and wrongs of this case, (tbh) I have no interest in what people's personal opinions are, the reason I'm posting this is to inquire just how these figures are worked out?
I will continue working, as I have done from my teens through to old age at least late sixties or early seventies and if I saved every penny I ever earned I wouldn't get withing a light year of earning 8.5 Million.
So where does that figure come from? is it just made up from case to case or is there a set criteria?
Toronto News: Toronto police had shooter in their sights - thestar.com
Kofi Patrong sits in his mothers living room with his mangled left leg up, watching an episode of Intervention on the television in which a man who had been shot in the buttocks developed a serious addiction to painkillers.
It has Patrongs undivided attention.
He was hit in his legs by three bullets while sitting in his backyard one afternoon in April 2004. The shooter, Tyshan Riley, one of Torontos most notorious killers, mistakenly believed Patrong, then 19, to be a member in a rival gang.
What Patrong did not know anything about at the time and only recently learned through a court ruling this spring is that Toronto police were watching Riley, a murder suspect in a drive-by shooting, believed him to be a serious threat to public safety, had opportunities to arrest him, yet did not.
Patrong, who was wounded in the shooting along with friend Christopher Hyatt, was floored when he learned this.
Somethings not right here, Patrong, now 26, said in an interview, and I realized that the situation that happened to me and Chris could have been prevented. I was in shock and I was hurt.
Patrong and his mother, Rose Patrong, launched a lawsuit this week, alleging police had opportunities to detain Riley for breaching probation conditions and failed to prevent the shooting.
The suit also alleges police put innocent members of the public, including Kofi, at risk so that they could pursue their investigation of Riley.
Patrong is seeking $8.5 million in damages and his mother, a bank worker, is seeking $525,000.
The suit names Al Comeau, a now retired homicide detective, homicide investigator Det.-Sgt. Wayne Banks, then chief of police Julian Fantino and the Toronto Police Services Board as defendants. A statement of defence has not been filed and the allegations have not been proven in court.
A police spokesperson said the service has no comment at this time.
Comeau and Banks are both experienced and well-respected investigators. At the time of the shooting, they were probing the earlier 2004 death of Brenton Charlton and attempted murder of Leonard Bell, innocent victims of a drive-by shooting motivated by the mistaken belief they belonged to a rival gang. Riley and two others were later convicted in that case.
Neither could be reached for comment.
In a 2008 pre-trial hearing, Comeau testified that officers feared Riley might shoot more people but felt that leaving him on the street was the best way to collect evidence.
He also acknowledged that despite our best efforts Riley shot the two teenagers. Had I known . . . I might have done things differently.
The allegations in this case are reminiscent of Jane Doe, a rape victim who sued Toronto police after they failed to adequately warn woman about an attacker in the 80s known as the Balcony Rapist.
I believe that Kofis case is much stronger than Jane Does case, said lawyer Barry Swadron, who along with Kelley Bryan is representing the Patrongs.
In this case, the police knew who Riley was and could have contained him. They took a calculated risk and Kofis life was shattered.
Much of the lawsuit is based on what became publicly known from Rileys unsuccessful bid to have wiretap evidence tossed out this spring in the attempted murder case that left Patrong and Hyatt, now in the witness protection program, wounded.
Justice Ian Nordheimer detailed the investigation in his June 15 ruling and concluded: The police undoubtedly made mistakes, many of which cannot be easily excused. It was not their finest hour in terms of the conduct of an investigation.
Police, according to a summary in the judges ruling, believed Riley of the Galloway Boys gang had participated in the shooting of Charlton and Bell and would likely try to shoot others he believed were members of the Malvern Crew. The two Scarborough gangs were at war, and innocent people were getting hit.
On March 17, Comeau made a request to Mobile Support Services for surveillance on Rileys vehicle and provided background and a warning in bolded capital letters that should the vehicle enter the Malvern area, the occupants would likely be armed and dangerous. If that were to happen, surveillance officers were advised to initiate a high-risk takedown.
The surveillance, however, was spotty. The unit had to prioritize cases, and there were gaps.
On March 24, a friend of Rileys gave Comeau and Banks information about shootings that involved Riley and vehicles that were used. The friend also told police she had seen Riley armed with a firearm on more than one occasion.
Riley was on a two-year conditional sentence at the time, and had to report to a probation officer and abide by rules, including a curfew and travel restrictions that forbade him from being anywhere east of Victoria Park Ave. except when with his father and for employment purposes.
On April 12, there was another shooting, and it was believed Riley was involved. Comeau received court permission that day to use mobile phone tracking on Riley.
Riley appeared in Oshawa court April 14 on another matter, and was being watched by police. He arrived and left without his father, a clear breach of his conditions. Yet, there was no arrest.
Also on that day, there was a meeting of senior officers who oversee all important investigations. Comeau, who was out of the country, was represented by Banks at the meeting, which dealt specifically with Riley.
It was universally recognized within this group that Mr. Riley was a dangerous man who posed a serious risk to public safety, Nordheimer noted in his ruling. The group expanded the directive that called for an arrest if Riley ventured into the Malvern neighbourhood to include all of Scarborough.
So concerned were police that the unit commander for the Intelligence Section came up with the idea of an emergency wiretap intercept to keep tabs on Riley, who was proving hard to track because of his use of multiple vehicles. From April 15 to 19, police listened in on Rileys phone calls, without judicial authorization.
It wasnt until the 19th that they located one of his vehicles, an Audi A6, behind his girlfriends apartment in Scarborough.
A man matching Rileys description drove away in the Audi and the team followed it, again through Scarborough. It increased its speed and sped away from the surveillance team. The car was headed for Malvern when the team lost the eye on the Audi.
Minutes later, Riley shot and wounded Patrong and his friend Hyatt. The wire room later intercepted a Riley call and, for the first time, relayed location information from the intercepts to the surveillance team.
The surveillance team picked up the Audi and followed it to Oshawa, where they were directed to stop the vehicle. They boxed it in, leading to the arrest of Riley and two others.
In his ruling, which allowed the wiretap evidence, Nordheimer concluded:
The (police) errors resulted from a combination of factors including a lack of experience in some instances, miscommunications in other instances and a failure to make reasonable inquiries in yet other instances.
However, none of these errors resulted from any institutional disregard for the rights of Mr. Riley nor from any individual disrespect for those rights.
With the wiretap evidence in, Riley pleaded guilty in June to attempting to murder Patrong and Hyatt and is serving an 18-year prison term.
Riley, who is suspected in other killings, was already serving a life sentence for the drive-by killing of Charlton and the attempted murder of Bell.
Patrong said he has not ventured into the backyard of his townhouse since the day he was shot. One of Patrongs bullet wounds became infected in hospital. There were painful skin grafts and it was half a year before he was mobile. He still walks with a limp.
He studied to be a natural gas technician but the work is too physically demanding.
He lives on Ontario Disability Support Program payments and has a family now.
Its been rough, financially and emotionally, Patrong said. Ive got two kids.
Of the police, he said:
I dont have any hard feelings against them. Theyre there to serve and protect, so I dont want to bash them.
But if they see a problem, they need to diffuse it quick. Look what happened to me.
I will continue working, as I have done from my teens through to old age at least late sixties or early seventies and if I saved every penny I ever earned I wouldn't get withing a light year of earning 8.5 Million.
So where does that figure come from? is it just made up from case to case or is there a set criteria?
Toronto News: Toronto police had shooter in their sights - thestar.com
Kofi Patrong sits in his mothers living room with his mangled left leg up, watching an episode of Intervention on the television in which a man who had been shot in the buttocks developed a serious addiction to painkillers.
It has Patrongs undivided attention.
He was hit in his legs by three bullets while sitting in his backyard one afternoon in April 2004. The shooter, Tyshan Riley, one of Torontos most notorious killers, mistakenly believed Patrong, then 19, to be a member in a rival gang.
What Patrong did not know anything about at the time and only recently learned through a court ruling this spring is that Toronto police were watching Riley, a murder suspect in a drive-by shooting, believed him to be a serious threat to public safety, had opportunities to arrest him, yet did not.
Patrong, who was wounded in the shooting along with friend Christopher Hyatt, was floored when he learned this.
Somethings not right here, Patrong, now 26, said in an interview, and I realized that the situation that happened to me and Chris could have been prevented. I was in shock and I was hurt.
Patrong and his mother, Rose Patrong, launched a lawsuit this week, alleging police had opportunities to detain Riley for breaching probation conditions and failed to prevent the shooting.
The suit also alleges police put innocent members of the public, including Kofi, at risk so that they could pursue their investigation of Riley.
Patrong is seeking $8.5 million in damages and his mother, a bank worker, is seeking $525,000.
The suit names Al Comeau, a now retired homicide detective, homicide investigator Det.-Sgt. Wayne Banks, then chief of police Julian Fantino and the Toronto Police Services Board as defendants. A statement of defence has not been filed and the allegations have not been proven in court.
A police spokesperson said the service has no comment at this time.
Comeau and Banks are both experienced and well-respected investigators. At the time of the shooting, they were probing the earlier 2004 death of Brenton Charlton and attempted murder of Leonard Bell, innocent victims of a drive-by shooting motivated by the mistaken belief they belonged to a rival gang. Riley and two others were later convicted in that case.
Neither could be reached for comment.
In a 2008 pre-trial hearing, Comeau testified that officers feared Riley might shoot more people but felt that leaving him on the street was the best way to collect evidence.
He also acknowledged that despite our best efforts Riley shot the two teenagers. Had I known . . . I might have done things differently.
The allegations in this case are reminiscent of Jane Doe, a rape victim who sued Toronto police after they failed to adequately warn woman about an attacker in the 80s known as the Balcony Rapist.
I believe that Kofis case is much stronger than Jane Does case, said lawyer Barry Swadron, who along with Kelley Bryan is representing the Patrongs.
In this case, the police knew who Riley was and could have contained him. They took a calculated risk and Kofis life was shattered.
Much of the lawsuit is based on what became publicly known from Rileys unsuccessful bid to have wiretap evidence tossed out this spring in the attempted murder case that left Patrong and Hyatt, now in the witness protection program, wounded.
Justice Ian Nordheimer detailed the investigation in his June 15 ruling and concluded: The police undoubtedly made mistakes, many of which cannot be easily excused. It was not their finest hour in terms of the conduct of an investigation.
Police, according to a summary in the judges ruling, believed Riley of the Galloway Boys gang had participated in the shooting of Charlton and Bell and would likely try to shoot others he believed were members of the Malvern Crew. The two Scarborough gangs were at war, and innocent people were getting hit.
On March 17, Comeau made a request to Mobile Support Services for surveillance on Rileys vehicle and provided background and a warning in bolded capital letters that should the vehicle enter the Malvern area, the occupants would likely be armed and dangerous. If that were to happen, surveillance officers were advised to initiate a high-risk takedown.
The surveillance, however, was spotty. The unit had to prioritize cases, and there were gaps.
On March 24, a friend of Rileys gave Comeau and Banks information about shootings that involved Riley and vehicles that were used. The friend also told police she had seen Riley armed with a firearm on more than one occasion.
Riley was on a two-year conditional sentence at the time, and had to report to a probation officer and abide by rules, including a curfew and travel restrictions that forbade him from being anywhere east of Victoria Park Ave. except when with his father and for employment purposes.
On April 12, there was another shooting, and it was believed Riley was involved. Comeau received court permission that day to use mobile phone tracking on Riley.
Riley appeared in Oshawa court April 14 on another matter, and was being watched by police. He arrived and left without his father, a clear breach of his conditions. Yet, there was no arrest.
Also on that day, there was a meeting of senior officers who oversee all important investigations. Comeau, who was out of the country, was represented by Banks at the meeting, which dealt specifically with Riley.
It was universally recognized within this group that Mr. Riley was a dangerous man who posed a serious risk to public safety, Nordheimer noted in his ruling. The group expanded the directive that called for an arrest if Riley ventured into the Malvern neighbourhood to include all of Scarborough.
So concerned were police that the unit commander for the Intelligence Section came up with the idea of an emergency wiretap intercept to keep tabs on Riley, who was proving hard to track because of his use of multiple vehicles. From April 15 to 19, police listened in on Rileys phone calls, without judicial authorization.
It wasnt until the 19th that they located one of his vehicles, an Audi A6, behind his girlfriends apartment in Scarborough.
A man matching Rileys description drove away in the Audi and the team followed it, again through Scarborough. It increased its speed and sped away from the surveillance team. The car was headed for Malvern when the team lost the eye on the Audi.
Minutes later, Riley shot and wounded Patrong and his friend Hyatt. The wire room later intercepted a Riley call and, for the first time, relayed location information from the intercepts to the surveillance team.
The surveillance team picked up the Audi and followed it to Oshawa, where they were directed to stop the vehicle. They boxed it in, leading to the arrest of Riley and two others.
In his ruling, which allowed the wiretap evidence, Nordheimer concluded:
The (police) errors resulted from a combination of factors including a lack of experience in some instances, miscommunications in other instances and a failure to make reasonable inquiries in yet other instances.
However, none of these errors resulted from any institutional disregard for the rights of Mr. Riley nor from any individual disrespect for those rights.
With the wiretap evidence in, Riley pleaded guilty in June to attempting to murder Patrong and Hyatt and is serving an 18-year prison term.
Riley, who is suspected in other killings, was already serving a life sentence for the drive-by killing of Charlton and the attempted murder of Bell.
Patrong said he has not ventured into the backyard of his townhouse since the day he was shot. One of Patrongs bullet wounds became infected in hospital. There were painful skin grafts and it was half a year before he was mobile. He still walks with a limp.
He studied to be a natural gas technician but the work is too physically demanding.
He lives on Ontario Disability Support Program payments and has a family now.
Its been rough, financially and emotionally, Patrong said. Ive got two kids.
Of the police, he said:
I dont have any hard feelings against them. Theyre there to serve and protect, so I dont want to bash them.
But if they see a problem, they need to diffuse it quick. Look what happened to me.
If I could escape without danger to me I would also do so but turning my back to the perp doesn't sound all that safe to me. They'd have the big yellow stripe as a target.
