The attack isn't (a) an attack or (2) ad hominem.
You said that I'm the kind of guy who thinks "that the police are out to 'get us poor law-abiding civilians'" with the implication
that my argument is less valid because of that. In any case, by picking that one word and arguing the semantics of it, you've avoided the meat of my post entirely...
I still havent watched the video. Ive watched the "edited" one. There appears to be a lapse which even the videographer says is there.
Fair enough. I posted the video just to add context to Blair's comments. He's saying that the video was edited, while the videographer said that he started filming, turned his phone off to run - which he said was a ~5 second time lapse, then turned it on again when he felt safe. We'll never know for sure and I'm not going to try and argue one way or another.
But, as for the video I posted earlier....
They weren't in a security perimeter.
You leave out the fact that it was an area with a security perimeter.
The "secret law" gave the police the authority to search anyone within five meters of the security fence. From the video, you can tell that this incident is happening on the north-east corner of King and University - well outside of the area of expanded search powers.
For those not familiar with Toronto:
and drag the "street view man" to the north east corner of the intersection and look south to see where the road is closed off in the video, and then north to see the subway stop (St. Andrew Station) in the video.
G20 Security Zone Map:
So why, at 1:33 in the video, when the guy says "I don't consent to being searched" does the cop grab him and respond with "You don't get a choice"?
Why, at 1:47, does the cop say "The rule is, we either look in the bag, or you leave" when clearly, that is not the rule.
Why are the police not allowing him to pass, when legally there should be nothing stopping him? At 2:23 the guy asks "Is it because I didn't consent to a search?" and the cop responds "Yeah."
The "secret law" of expanded search powers came in the middle of the night, and no one at the time really knew what the police were and were not allowed to do. In this video, we see how the police not only exploited people's confusion, but full on lied
in order to conduct arbitrary searches contrary to the Charter, and Canadian values in general.
Combine that with the fact that while over 1100 people were detained, less than two dozen are facing charges. What are we to make of all the allegations of arbitrary arrest?
Combine that with the fact that police officers removed their nametags so they could not be held accountable, and that the SIU concluded that they would have grounds to investigate individual officers for using excessive force, but cannot due to the fact that they can't identify them.
And combine that with the fact that I'm
telling you guys, as someone who's been posting on this forum since 2002 and who's shown over time to be a more or less reasonable dude, that what happened on that weekend in June was wrong.
Look guys, I'm not an anarchist, or a terrorist, or some stupid hippy who's never left his parent's basement. I don't particularly agree with any of the causes
of the G20 protesters. Believe it or not, I actually tend to like cops. I recently posted in another thread in this forum asking for help from the LEOs here. But that doesn't mean that I can't, or shouldn't, call bullshit when I see people who are supposed to be protecting us acting outside of what the law and our western values deem as acceptable. I wouldn't tolerate that in the military, and we shouldn't tolerate that with our police forces.