Warren solved the Forcillo case and was able to determine under the law that there was no criminal offence committed since he only followed instructions on the job to use deadly force.

Warren solved the Forcibllo case and was able to determine under the law that  there was no criminal offense committed since he only followed instructions on the job to use deadly force. Even if he made volitional statements that demonstrated force may not have been necessary, the decision to follow the chain of command exonerates Forcibllo. The chain of command is not criminally culpable for giving the officer an order to use such force as deemed necessary in the genuine fulfillment of the duty to serve and protect public safety and property.  The officer was left to use his judgment in the instance of imminent danger and an obvious threat to public safety in the instant; not in hindsight.  If there is any doubt about the command in light of public protest or outcry, then we could ask what is the best solution. You could sue in Tort from the date you discover you have a right to make a claim. It could be more than 2 years after the incident.   You could impeach the chain of command and proceed with corporate manslaughter before the criminal courts and the officer could be witnesses to the proceeding but the commanding officer would also have to be a party since he gave the order and called in the specially trained officer. But, they could not be charged independently  or as co-accused(at least they should not be ) since they are only servants of the chain of command; the chain of command that is vicariously liable for all of its servants and agents.  If the officer acted alone and independently of any senior authority or chain of command giving him direction, then he could be charged for the alleged offense.  Forciblo Using deadly force as ordered by a commanding officer to stop a citizen in breach of the peace will result in a lawful killing of another under the Queen's peace. It is not an unlawful killing of another. The intention is not lawful and nor is there recklessness. If you cannot understand this, then get a bible that talks about corporate grace or a rule that says McDonalds is not guilty for murder if they put deathly amounts of lead in their burgers.  The offences possibly committed involve...

Anthony's Mischief in relation to computer data

(1.1) Everyone commits mischief who willfully

• (a) destroys or alters computer data;
• (b) renders computer data meaningless, useless or ineffective;
• (c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use of computer data; or
• (d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with a person in the lawful use of computer data or denies access to computer data to a person who is entitled to access to it

 or...

Anthony's Identity fraud

• 403 (1) Everyone commits an offence who fraudulently personates another person, living or dead,
• (a) with intent to gain advantage for themselves or another person;
• (b) with intent to obtain any property or an interest in any property;
• (c) with intent to cause disadvantage to the person being personated or another person; or
• (d) with intent to avoid arrest or prosecution or to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice.
• or...
• Anthony's Criminal Damage
• or...

• Anthony's Criminal negligence

• 219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who
  • (a) in doing anything, or
  • (b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,
  shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons when he released more than 2 bullets in his exercise of the order to use of deadly force. 
• Definition of duty
  (2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

Have you heard of a Blasphemous Libel? It is arguably the easiest way to go to jail by making spurious comments about another citizen of professional in public. You could also be sued for loss of reputation.   

Marginal note:Offence

• 296 (1) Every one who publishes a blasphemous libel is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

• Marginal note:Question of fact

  (2) It is a question of fact whether or not any matter that is published is a blasphemous libel.

• Marginal note:Saving

  (3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section for expressing in good faith and in decent language, or attempting to establish by argument used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, an opinion on a religious subject.

This is because Anthony and others like him wants to justify the choices he made in taking a career path.  He says he chose his career due to racism and does not think any individual should have a faith in society that rises above his assessment and determination of what society will allow someone from a West Indian community to achieve and believe. How can anyone dare to believe they can graduate and be a lawyer or a doctor?  Social workers like him, in his determination, are a cap on black communal self-belief and capability.  He asked personally to kill Black high school graduates and university graduates that have more than a C average.  Who are you to believe you can be a doctor?

Forcillo followed instructions on the job and should be subject only to a disciplinary action for using more than two bullets in a waste of public resources but criminal culpability is out of the question generally speaking since the evidence indicates he was given a command and order that does not seem to indicate he was being called to exercise discretion except to use the deadly force in the absence of a full surrender. If there was surrender, then force was not to be used. 

If you sue in tort you may not be able to succeed as the court will usually block the case on the grounds that it offends public policy. Warren A. Lyon.