• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

G8/G20 June 2010 Protest Watch

Container

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
"The Crown agrees police had "reasonable and probable grounds" to make the arrests, but it couldn't find a "reasonable prospect of conviction" against any of them, said spokesman Brendan Crawley"

From the article indicates that they would have had enough for the warrant. As information involved in warrants is based on this weight as well. Reasonable prospect for conviction is a seperate evaluation conducted later.

I would suggest, as with all recent, similar arrests and seizures that have been tossed because of a lack of a warrant, that it was laziness where someone in charge decided they didnt need one.

Warrants are the new fad in courts and the police are getting charges tossed all over the place because there was no warrant. The rules on which types of circumstances/offences require them are changing to the point where books 6 months old about writing informations to obtain are out of date.

Your suggestion that they could not have gotten a warrant doesnt jive with statements from the Crown.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
335
Points
1,010
I actually heard an interview with Chief Bill Blair on CBC Radio this morning (I know, I know) and I may be wrong but I thought I heard him say that there was a problem with the interpretation of there being a warrant required for the arrests.  Something along the lines of a determination being made (by the Crown or by a Judge?) that the Gym they were staying at would be considered a residence requiring a particular type of warrant for them to search (as opposed to a public place?).

I only had time to do a quick search to see if I could confirm what I thought I heard but big surprise there are a "couple" of items that come up when you use the keywords "G20", "arrest", "thrown out" and "warrant type"!  LOL
 

Fusaki

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Container said:
"The Crown agrees police had "reasonable and probable grounds" to make the arrests, but it couldn't find a "reasonable prospect of conviction" against any of them, said spokesman Brendan Crawley"
...

...
Your suggestion that they could not have gotten a warrant doesnt jive with statements from the Crown.

Oops!  I missed that.  My bad!
 

Container

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
That would make sense. If the police investigator had made the call that they were not dealing with temporary "residences" then the warrant mistake could be made.

*OPINION FOLLOWS*

But it is certainly lazy. That would be a case where if you were serious about your investigation and people were staying "residing" in a gym you would want a judicial authorization.
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
378
Points
1,130
Ottawa— The Canadian Press
Friday, Nov. 05, 2010
"RCMP watchdog launches G20 probe: The RCMP watchdog has launched a public-interest investigation into policing of the G8 and G20 meetings, the latest in a string of probes of violent summit clashes and mass arrests.":
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/rcmp-watchdog-launches-g20-probe/article1787768/
 

Fusaki

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
An interesting video that I think sheds some light on some of the topics we've touched on in this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjVtsuoPlzk

1:34 A guy states that he does not consent to being searched.  Cop grabs him and states "You don't get a choice" and then tells him that "the rule is" he either has to consent to be searched or leave.  He then asks the police what they think he's doing that is illegal, and they refuse to tell him.

3:25 A bystander asks "I thought as long as he's not within the 5 Meters [of the security fence] than he's fine." The cop responds that "This is our area" and tells them they people they have to leave.

4:00 The cop again tells the guy that he has to open his bag.  The guy responds that "This is Canada and I shouldn't have to do that."  The cop responds: "This ain't Canada right now...
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
378
Points
1,130
Nov. 10/2010
Sounds like some PTSD claims coming up.
"Did you suffer post-traumatic stress after this experience?":
http://www.thestar.com/news/torontog20summit/article/888798#article

Looks like they even made a movie about it:
http://www.torontog20exposed.ca/

Sun:
Joe Warmington:
November 12, 2010:
"Video exposes ugly truth about G20: Like you would expect in North Korea, it doesn’t look like we are going to get a federal inquiry into what the hell happened during the G20. But thanks to independent documentary filmmaker Derek Soberal we do have a comprehensive record they can’t quash.
It’s called Toronto G20 Exposed and it’s an A to Z video rundown of all that occurred — from Officer Bubbles, to the overlooking of the real criminals, to disgraceful torching of police cruisers, to the embarrassing arrest (assault?) of a peaceful one-legged protester, to the rubber bullets and covered name tags, to alleged beatings and the disgraceful kettling exercise at Spadina and Queen.":
http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/joe_warmington/2010/11/12/16116486.html

"Your G20 table for 66 is waiting":
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/890273--your-g20-table-for-66-is-waiting

CTV Montreal:
"Group demonstrates against police handling of G20 protesters":
http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20101112/mtl_protest_101112/20101112/?hub=MontrealHome








 

zipperhead_cop

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The talk about a "warrant" is a bit of a misnomer.  What they lacked was a Feeny endorsement to enter the premise.  Likely, the police felt that since it was a public access building and the persons within were not permanent residents there, they were good to go.  One would have hoped they could have found someone that would provide consent to go in, however when you have 100+ armed people in a place you might not want to tip them off that the hammer is about to fall.

For backgrounds sake, R vs Feeny is a pivitol case in Canada where officer went into a trailer to arrest a guy for murder but ultimately it was tossed when it was found that they shouldn't have entered on the grounds that they did. 

IMO, the Court and Crowns just wanted to find a way to make all the charges go away and relieve themselves of a time consuming process.  Doesn't matter that it will simply embolden more protester idiocy in the future.  It just goes to reinforce my idea that these G8, 20, 37 get togethers should happen on a custom built luxury Gucci aircraft carrier that is in the middle of an ocean near the host nation. 
 

Fusaki

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
http://www.thestar.com/news/torontog20summit/article/896777

SIU clears officers in G20 probe

Published On Fri Nov 26 2010

Brendan Latimer was knocked down by a herd of fellow protesters during a G20 demonstration at Queen’s Park.

Lying on the ground, police moved in and arrested the delivery worker. That’s when one of the officers allegedly struck him in the face, causing a fracture.

The 19-year-old’s case is one of six from the June G20 summit that has been probed by Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit.

On Thursday, the agency announced no charges will be laid against police officers for injuries to civilians during the G20 protests.

In Latimer’s case, the agency interviewed nine witness officers from the Toronto Police Services as well a civilians. SIU director Ian Scott concluded that while there was “reasonable ground” to believe excessive force was used, they were unable to tell which officer caused his injuries.

“I’m let down, I’m very frustrated,” said Latimer, who says he also suffered two broken ribs and a deep cut to his head.

“They spent all this money installing cameras and surveillance devices . . . I’m enraged that they could use that stuff to catch protesters but not to catch police.

“It just seems like a double standard,” he added.

The SIU has a mandate to probe incidents involving police that result in death, allegations of sexual assault or serious injury.

Frank Phillips, an SIU spokesperson, said that only six complaints from the G20 were investigated by his agency because, “these cases met our mandate of serious injury.”

Dorian Barton, 29, was at a demonstration near University Ave. and College St. when he turned around to take pictures of mounted police officers with his cellphone. He was allegedly taken to the ground by a male anti-riot officer and suffered a fracture to his right arm.

Like Latimer, the officer could not be identified. Scott also said that Barton could not fully explain how the injury occurred.

“I ended up suffering a lot because of what happened to me and it’s frustrating no one is going to be held accountable,” said Barton.

In another incident, a YouTube video titled “Toronto G20, Peaceful Protester Tackled and Roughed Up,” shows Adam Nobody being chased by a group of about six uniformed police officers.

He is then tackled to the ground.

Because the officers all wore identical helmets and uniforms, it was impossible to identify which one is responsible for causing a fracture below Nobody’s right eye, said Scott.

Two officers were identified as having something to do with the incident, but exercised their rights, declining an interview with the SIU.

Nobody, 27, also alleged that two plainclothes officers took him behind a van, and repeatedly kicked him in the head. Scott said he found “no corroborative evidence.”

“It’s disappointing that the SIU felt that they were unable to get sufficient evidence to lay charges against any of the officers given the fact that all six of the complainants investigated did receive serious injuries,” said Toronto lawyer Peter Rosenthal.

“One would have thought the SIU would have been able to identify some of the officers.”

The Star recently ran a series of investigative reports examining a lack of results and accountability for police officers probed by the SIU over two decades. The series, “Above the Law,” found evidence that Ontario’s criminal justice system heavily favours police and concluded that officers are often treated far differently than civilians when accused of shooting, beating and running over and killing people.

“The record of the SIU has not been very good at pursuing charges against officers who have seriously injured people,” added Rosenthal.

Norm Morcos, whose complaint was also being investigated, said he wasn’t surprised. But not because the SIU was ineffective.

“The (SIU) officers I was dealing with were diligent and motivated,” said Morcos, who suffered a hand fracture, possibly from a police baton, while being corralled at Queen’s Park during the summit.

“I did not think that it would be likely that police officers would come forward and identify themselves as having contributed to my injury,” he said.

Toronto Police Association President Mike McCormack said it’s important to remember there were officers from across the country who came in to police the G20, “not just ours.” Responding to the SIU’s conclusions, he said: “Mr. Scott put it the best. There was insufficient evidence for him to the lay the charges.”

For Brendan Latimer, it’s all very frustrating.

“Just to know that they can say ‘Yes, we know this happened, but there’s nothing we can do about it,’ ” he said.

“If they can’t do anything about it, who can?”
b204d4c74f69bb80047c7a5c949f.jpeg


I'd also like to bump the youtube video I previously posted for comments.  I think it shows quite clearly the kind of arbitrary searches I personally saw and described here back in July when I first started posting in this thread.

Wonderbread said:
An interesting video that I think sheds some light on some of the topics we've touched on in this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjVtsuoPlzk

1:34 A guy states that he does not consent to being searched.  Cop grabs him and states "You don't get a choice" and then tells him that "the rule is" he either has to consent to be searched or leave.  He then asks the police what they think he's doing that is illegal, and they refuse to tell him.

3:25 A bystander asks "I thought as long as he's not within the 5 Meters [of the security fence] than he's fine." The cop responds that "This is our area" and tells them they people they have to leave.

4:00 The cop again tells the guy that he has to open his bag.  The guy responds that "This is Canada and I shouldn't have to do that."  The cop responds: "This ain't Canada right now...
 

Container

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/11/29/toronto-police-g20-siu542.html


Toronto's police chief says an Ontario police watchdog used unreliable evidence to conclude that excessive force was likely used during the arrest of a civilian at a G20 summit protest.

Bill Blair on Monday questioned the legitimacy of a YouTube video that was a part of a probe by the Special Investigations Unit in the case of Adam Nobody, who suffered a facial fracture while being arrested by police at a protest at Queen's Park on June 26.


SIU defends investigation
But the SIU is standing by its investigation.

"What I can say is that if the chief has relevant information that will assist us in furthering these investigations, we'd certainly be willing to take them and review them and take any necessary action," SIU spokesman Frank Phillips said.

The SIU concluded that excessive force was "probably" used against Nobody. But after reviewing the video, interviewing a civilian witness and eight officer witnesses, they were unable to identify who was responsible for using that force. The SIU also identified two "subject" officers who were the focus of their investigation.

But those two unidentified officers declined to be interviewed by the SIU, a right that is enshrined in the constitution.

Blair did not specify whether those two subject officers were members of the Toronto Police Service, or affiliated with one of the many other forces that helped police the summit, which was held in downtown Toronto on June 26 and 27.

The SIU, which investigates cases where civilians are seriously hurt or killed in interactions with police, investigated five other cases where people alleged mistreatment at the hands of police during the G20. In one of those other cases, the SIU found officers had likely used excessive force. But the watchdog is not proceeding with criminal investigations on any of the complaints, citing a lack of evidence or an inability to determine how exactly the complainants sustained their injuries.

The video shows about a half-dozen police officers chasing and then tackling Nobody at Queen's Park. SIU director Ian Scott said the video appeared to show one of the officers striking Nobody repeatedly while he was on the ground.

Police forensically examined the tape and found it had been altered, Blair said.

"The evidence that they're relying on is false. It's been edited. A significant portion of it has been removed," he told CBC's Metro Morning.

"And I think that portion ... removes any opportunity for a reasonable explanation of the force that was used."

Blair said his impression was that the officers were arresting a "violent, armed offender. The use of that weapon has been removed from that tape."

SIU defends investigation
But the SIU is standing by its investigation.

"What I can say is that if the chief has relevant information that will assist us in furthering these investigations, we'd certainly be willing to take them and review them and take any necessary action," SIU spokesman Frank Phillips said.

The SIU concluded that excessive force was "probably" used against Nobody. But after reviewing the video, interviewing a civilian witness and eight officer witnesses, they were unable to identify who was responsible for using that force. The SIU also identified two "subject" officers who were the focus of their investigation.

But those two unidentified officers declined to be interviewed by the SIU, a right that is enshrined in the constitution.

Blair did not specify whether those two subject officers were members of the Toronto Police Service, or affiliated with one of the many other forces that helped police the summit, which was held in downtown Toronto on June 26 and 27.

The SIU, which investigates cases where civilians are seriously hurt or killed in interactions with police, investigated five other cases where people alleged mistreatment at the hands of police during the G20. In one of those other cases, the SIU found officers had likely used excessive force. But the watchdog is not proceeding with criminal investigations on any of the complaints, citing a lack of evidence or an inability to determine how exactly the complainants sustained their injuries.
 

Container

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ill watch that video when I get home Wonderbread...

However, I can't stand the Star. It is the least veiled in its anti- authority sentiment with such gems as " “Above the Law,” found evidence that Ontario’s criminal justice system heavily favours police and concluded that officers are often treated far differently than civilians when accused of shooting, beating and running over and killing people."

The SIU is reveiled by police in the way it handles its investigations. Anybody that suggests that the Police and SIU are cozy are completely insane. They would hang a cop on any nail they could find- I would suggest that the reason for SIU's crappy track record is the fact that the vast majority of police behave within the law. SIU has a super broad mandate that includes alot of scenarios where people get hurt (like hand fractures) fighting with police. Thats a pretty common injury- and in my experience (not at the G20) it the knucklehead who gives it to themselves.

The Star however concludes, erroneously, that a lack fo convictions means that its because they are a) inept and b) cop-lovers. Their logic requires you accept that the police are routinely beating people. Which I dont. And when they do, like in Alberta right now- where a cop pleads guilty to betraying the public trust, and straight up assault they should be run up the flag pole and drummed out of town. I have no patience for criminal cops. Be it DUI or assault.

Im gong to make a complete left field guess- SPECULATION>>>>The SIU made this "statement" to avoid looking like they were on the police officers side. In the past SIU lays shotgun charges. They would charge the group of officers involved and see how it played out in court. Its part of why their record is so bad.

In this instance the investigator knows this is a deadend and lays it on the weak, already unpopular, cop not wearing ID badge and it gets them off the hook for being on the wrong end of the inquiry.

As an aside- I cant stand the fact that some of the officers took their badge numbers/ or ID off. I dont believe it was so they can beat the tar out of people but there was no way it was going to "look good". The crowd control guys should do like in Britain where they wear little ID numbers for easy recognition. But thats not the most popular suggestion.
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
649
Points
1,060
Yeah, the cop in that video obviously isn't an accomplished public speaker, he made some bonehead comments. However, all the guy had to do was let them look in the bag. If he had nothing in there, then he can stand and protest all he wants. Instead, he instigated something to make a grand statement on the Internet in a really crappy attempt to make the cops look bad.
 

Fusaki

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Container said:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/11/29/toronto-police-g20-siu542.html


Toronto's police chief says an Ontario police watchdog used unreliable evidence to conclude that excessive force was likely used during the arrest of a civilian at a G20 summit protest.

Here is the video in question.  You can judge for yourself what you think about any editing that may have been done and, more importantly, what you think may or may not have been cut out.

http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=Hym0afc03pE

PuckChaser said:
However, all the guy had to do was let them look in the bag. If he had nothing in there, then he can stand and protest all he wants.

No, the guy didn't have to let the cop look in his bag.  As far as I can tell, the guy was well within his rights to refuse consent to be searched and it's wrong to try and find fault in him for that.

What makes this country worth fighting for is that the police can't arbitrarily search us, and that the cops have to obey the law just like everyone else.
 

vonGarvin

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
19
Points
430
Wonderbread said:
What makes this country worth fighting for is that the police can't arbitrarily search us, and that the cops have to obey the law just like everyone else.
Know what makes me sick to my stomach about this country?  People who seem to think that the police are out to "get us poor law-abiding civilians".  Makes me want to vomit, actually.



(Yes, I'm talking about you, Wonderbread, and people like you.  I'm sick to death to hear about all these "abuses".  Want some advice?  Steer clear of areas where thugs will attempt to hijack legitimate protests, or, better yet, tell the police about "them" and assist them in stopping those thugs from stealing attention away from those who would educate us.)
 

J.J

Full Member
Mentor
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Technoviking said:
Know what makes me sick to my stomach about this country?  People who seem to think that the police are out to "get us poor law-abiding civilians".  Makes me want to vomit, actually.



(Yes, I'm talking about you, Wonderbread, and people like you.  I'm sick to death to hear about all these "abuses".  Want some advice?  Steer clear of areas where thugs will attempt to hijack legitimate protests, or, better yet, tell the police about "them" and assist them in stopping those thugs from stealing attention away from those who would educate us.)

:+1:
 

Fusaki

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Technoviking said:
Know what makes me sick to my stomach about this country?  People who seem to think that the police are out to "get us poor law-abiding civilians".  Makes me want to vomit, actually.



(Yes, I'm talking about you, Wonderbread, and people like you.  I'm sick to death to hear about all these "abuses".  Want some advice?  Steer clear of areas where thugs will attempt to hijack legitimate protests, or, better yet, tell the police about "them" and assist them in stopping those thugs from stealing attention away from those who would educate us.)

Yes, but what about the points I'm raising?  The videos? The photos? The SIU investigation? The doctors and lawyers who go arrested on their way home from work?  The moral fabric of this country?

Ad hominem attacks and sticking your head in the sand doesn't make the issues I'm raising untrue.
 

vonGarvin

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
19
Points
430
Wonderbread said:
Yes, but what about the points I'm raising?  The videos? The photos? The SIU investigation? The doctors and lawyers who go arrested on their way home from work?  The moral fabric of this country?

Ad hominem attacks and sticking your head in the sand doesn't make the issues I'm raising untrue.
The attack isn't (a) an attack or (2) ad hominem.  I'm not sick of you, and I'm not commenting in any way about you.  I'm sick of your actions and commenting about them.  If you are unsure of what "ad hominem" means:
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
So, if I refuted your claim by stating something along the lines of "Wonderbread is just a loon" or "Wonderbread can't be given credit, because his name begins with a consonant", then that would be ad hominem.

And trust me, the sky isn't falling in our country, unless we were to allow thugs to try to take over our nation through intimidation and force.
 

Container

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Wonderbread said:
Yes, but what about the points I'm raising?  The videos? The photos? The SIU investigation? The doctors and lawyers who go arrested on their way home from work?  The moral fabric of this country?

Ad hominem attacks and sticking your head in the sand doesn't make the issues I'm raising untrue.

I still havent watched the video. Ive watched the "edited" one. There appears to be a lapse which even the videographer says is there. The SIU investigation is a sham. I said that. There is insufficient evidence to lay a charge. Just like everybody else in Canada would enjoy and if the cop had been wearing a nametag I guarantee there would still not be a charge. Crowd control is crowd control.

There is a time tested method of dealing with crowd control- one that creates less injured people and cops. And its fast and hard. Get over it. People used to die in these confrontations and actions all the time. Im sorry if it looks like being arrested is uncomfortable- the truth is that being arrested sucks. It hurts. The photos mean nothing- no application of force looks good. Its ugly. 60 years ago if you were in a labour dispute you could expect for someone to die. And the police would be at fault. The police were used to break the backs of labour disputes. We dont do that anymore. Canada is not becoming a police state no matter who suggests it. Its better now than it was.

I will watch the one about the unreasonable detention and seizure though and get back to you.
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
649
Points
1,060
Wonderbread said:
No, the guy didn't have to let the cop look in his bag.  As far as I can tell, the guy was well within his rights to refuse consent to be searched and it's wrong to try and find fault in him for that.

What makes this country worth fighting for is that the police can't arbitrarily search us, and that the cops have to obey the law just like everyone else.

But if you have nothing to hide, why worry about being search arbitrarily? What about airports? Bags are searched completely arbitrarily for everyone's safety. It wasn't like this cop was only trying to get in his bag, they checked everyone there equally.
 
Top