• 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

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
607
Points
1,260
Container said:
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.

True.
"The Emergency Task Force was created in 1965. Officers worked out of a downtown station and their primary function was to deal with strike situations.":
http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/etf/

I got to see Metro Police in action many times over the years and was always impressed by their professionalism. They got the job done, even though it was not always pretty. The best word I can think of was "effective".
It is pretty shocking to recall that we had four Metro officers shot to death in less than one year in the early 1970's.

 

Container

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ive watched the controversial arrest video so many times now. I honestly dont see what everybody sees as proof of a coming police state. The arrested was arrestable for something. Thought he was getting away with it. Cop chases him to arrest him and he tries to take off. When you run from the police the ensuing arrest is always like that.

What is that he has in his hand? And the part where the one second missing is the most crucial [part of the video. If he turned and brandished anyhing including an air horn he would get similar treatment. Isnt it convenient that the second that might actually show why the response was the way it was is the second thats missing? I guess only when the "man" has footage its okay to accuse them of an agenda.

Here what I think happened. Buddy turned around and when it looked like the protestor was going to do something crappy the video guy turned it off. When it turned into a pig pile he turned it back on. Which is just as likely as his story about thinking the cop chasing the him when he is running the opposite direction.
 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
1,079
Points
1,160
Let us be a bit careful here:

1. Our police forces are made of human beings, not saints or robots. Being human they, our law enforcement officers, are very imperfect; and

2. We trust our police with great individual powers.

It would be amazing, unbelievable, indeed impossible if some (not many, but some) LEOs did not act improperly and, sometimes, even illegally – sometimes (usually, I think) in pursuit of what they see as being lawful goals, but occasionally because a very, very tiny minority of LEOs are assholes and bullies and, in fact, criminals.

It is impossible, for me, to believe that some abuses were not committed at the G20. Some protesters were trying very hard to provoke the police into over-reacting; some of those attempts almost certainly succeeded. Some LEOs were overstressed, overworked and so on and made mistakes. A very tiny minority of LEOs may have decided to take their frustrations out on the noisy, rude, provocative kids in the mobs.

We, Canadians, should always be carefully critical of our police services. We trust them with great power; we need – we have a duty – to ensure that they merit our trust. In my personal opinion we, Canadians – people in the West in general – have been mismanaging the police for more than 50 years. As with the military we should expect that discipline is the sine qua non of service and power. Discipline, in my opinion is incompatible with civilian management and trade unions. I think, for example, that William Elliott is 180o off course in his recommendations for the RCMP. It needs to be less civilian and more, a lot more para-military in organization, management, training and attitude. Ditto the provincial and city police forces.

In my opinion:

1. The police Some LEOs did abuse their powers and act in manners that betray the public trust. They did it at the G20 and here in Ottawa and elsewhere; and

2. The police need to know, and be proud of the fact, that they have to earn our trust by their own performance, not as a matter of right.
 

Container

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Wonderbread Edit- I reread my post and while my points are there I dont like my tone- its not meant to be disrespectful. Its a little strong but I dont know how to rephrase it. It isnt my intention to offend.

Wonderbread: You leave out the parts where the [police are joking with the protestors. You  leave out the fact that it was an area with a security perimeter. He wasn’t denied his freedom of movement- he had to go around. He was offered the option to enter the block if he proved he was safe. He chose not to. He wasn’t arbitrarily detained. He chooses to stay and argue with the officer. Just because he does it in a passive tone doesn’t mean he wasn’t being a prick.

That officer had a bad attitude. Cops sometimes say flippant things to people who are being pricks. If you don’t think that those kids weren’t trying to give those officers a hard time you are kidding yourself. The cop was more than likely concerned with the fact that this kid wanted to hang around a secure area for no good reason. The only reason to be in that area is to transition to the next. Someone shows up in the area and tries to proceed. Declines to follow the temporary rules of the area and stays. People ran at the secure area all day. Now you have an uncooperative individual with a backpack he doesn’t want you to look in to, loitering, waiting for you to turn your back so he can ape the system and run at the fence. (so you suspect)
So you are having a shitty day listening to these people squawk nonsense charter lines at you and you give the kid the gears. Its is poor attitude- it is not a charter violation. Sometimes you cant bring a backpack in to a street festival. Its not because Stalin ordered it.

Did you see the amount of people shoving cameras in the officers faces and arguing with the police- they don’t have time to care-bear stare everyone into compliance.

It is quite obvious that you have your mind made up. And maybe you have some reason for it- sometimes cops do bad things. But these videos are not evidence of anything but poor attitude to anyone who looks at them critically.

And E.R. Campbell while I agree with you on your points I disagree with your examples. I have had to cut the clothing off suicidal young women and had them scream rape at me. I have done so with a heavy heart but there are times where it is required. And it looks terrible on video and anyone who watches it should be uncomfortable but it is not comfortable for the officers either.

I'll give you an example. Female X is arrested by officers A and B. Both male. No females around. Female X is arrested only for public intox so no criminal charges are coming. Female X says to the officers Im going to kill myself in cells.Officers aA and B need to take her bra  from her. I actually have had several women hang themselves in cells with their bras. It is required. Dont for a second think its not.

And as for BC well....thats not something explainable on the interwebs.

Its kinda like....people like law and order. But they dont like reality of obtaining those things. Things get broken and bloody. Sometimes people get hurt. Just like people like steak- but they dont like seeing the inside of an abatoir. I find all this very interesting- Im the cop that is always calling for cops to be fired over criminal things that happen. Im amazed at the line people who arent police have. The suggestions Canadians have for police work are at times....outlandish.
 

Container

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Although- I dont know why they cut Stacy's shirt off. The court decision said it was a violation so perhaps it was- or the crown did a terrible job articulating to the judge why the police did it. I cant say. The lack of info in the news is frustrating .

As for the "violent knee strikes" the Judge mentions- those are standard tactics taught. And any SME, which the judge is not, nor is the defence or crown, on use of force can articulate why we do them. But they are pretty much the first go to move when you go hands on with someone. Its painful and takes their attention. Not in the head or spine though- but the environment is dynamic and these arewas can be struck accidently.
 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
1,079
Points
1,160
Container said:
Although- I dont know why they cut Stacy's shirt off. The court decision said it was a violation so perhaps it was- or the crown did a terrible job articulating to the judge why the police did it. I cant say. The lack of info in the news is frustrating .

As for the "violent knee strikes" the Judge mentions- those are standard tactics taught. And any SME, which the judge is not, nor is the defence or crown, on use of force can articulate why we do them. But they are pretty much the first go to move when you go hands on with someone. Its painful and takes their attention. Not in the head or spine though- but the environment is dynamic and these arewas can be struck accidently.


IF I properly understood what the judge said, and that is a Big IF, Ms. Bonds was improperly detained from the get-go. The judge said that the patrol officers on the street had no proper, lawful reason to stop much less detain her. The judge is the SME in that; (s)he is the only SME on the law, unless or until an appeals court judge weighs in.

Now it is clear that Ms. Bonds had options: being detained - and she had no way of knowing if her detention was lawful or not - she could have and, arguably, should have cooperated with the LEOs, on the street and in the lockup. But she didn't, and the use of force - which appears excessive pretty strong - resulted, but it was, in the judge's  legal opinion, improper (illegal?) because her arrest (is that what it was? was she "under arrest?") was improper and, therefore, everything else was equally or more improper. That's what I thought I heard the judge say, anyway.

Is that a difference of opinion between a judge and street level police officers or do street level police and lockup officer not understand the law?

 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
836
Points
1,060
E.R. Campbell said:
Is that a difference of opinion between a judge and street level police officers or do street level police and lockup officer not understand the law?

Or perhaps the ivory tower judges just don't understand what it's really like to be in the trenches with feces throwing baboons.
 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
1,079
Points
1,160
recceguy said:
Or perhaps the ivory tower judges just don't understand what it's really like to be in the trenches with feces throwing baboons.


I really don't think it's that simple.

It is true that not many judges have much "street level" experience but their job is to interpret the law, fairly and even-handedly. Judges don't deal with tipsy pedestrians at 0200 Hrs and police officers don't have to parse the laws to decide who is more and less "right" or who is more or less 'wrong."

We, I anyway, used to be able to clear a men's wet canteen at 2359 Hrs on a pay night without resorting to force (not that I had much to offer) or marching anyone to the guardroom. I'm not familiar with the streets of Ottawa at 0200 Hrs and I am prepared to concede that they are dangerous and violent but there was, I think, in the judge's opinion, no lawful reason to stop and question ms. Bonds, much less to detain her in the lockup.

The judge is, surely, second guessing the police (and so, I suppose, am I) but that is part of the legal process. We need someone to second guess everyone in authority, from the GG and PM down to the constable on Rideau Street.; and judges do that for us. I see the judges and the police as allies in contest with crime and public disorder.
 

Container

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
E.R. Campbell said:
IF I properly understood what the judge said, and that is a Big IF, Ms. Bonds was improperly detained from the get-go. The judge said that the patrol officers on the street had no proper, lawful reason to stop much less detain her. The judge is the SME in that; (s)he is the only SME on the law, unless or until an appeals court judge weighs in.

Now it is clear that Ms. Bonds had options: being detained - and she had no way of knowing if her detention was lawful or not - she could have and, arguably, should have cooperated with the LEOs, on the street and in the lockup. But she didn't, and the use of force - which appears excessive pretty strong - resulted, but it was, in the judge's  legal opinion, improper (illegal?) because her arrest (is that what it was? was she "under arrest?") was improper and, therefore, everything else was equally or more improper. That's what I thought I heard the judge say, anyway.

Is that a difference of opinion between a judge and street level police officers or do street level police and lockup officer not understand the law?

Police officers often come across scenarios where they are ignorant to the law. I can admit it. The law is just to vast for a cop to keep up with. However judges are NOT experts on use of force. Neither are the police officers themselves. People with more experience than I or the judge determine what effective "intervention" is. This filters down through police instructors to the cops.

If there is a question of excessive force a prudent judge needs to hear from an expert on the subject. Since it would be strange for a crown to call a use of force expert for a trial where the police use of force isnt the question in this matter he would make a determination for himself- but it would be ill informed. The crown should have done a better job articulating the use of force. X did Y so the police did Z. But if she should not have been arrested in the first place than all the force afterwards would have been bad. But the Criminal Code has protections built in it for when the police use force to make an arrest, and all the stuff that comes after it, if a police officer is acting in good faith. Somebody obviously believed she should have been arrested for something.

I would guess the reason she wound up in court at all on a public intox/ disturbance beef is because the officers used force and anticipated the scrutiny and laid a charge to "cover their bases" in case anyone questioned the force. Being totally convinced that they had acted appropriately and that the subsequent legal case would clear them. They were probably EXTREMLY surprised or shocked at this.

And in viewing the video- its an appropriate level of force for some scenarios. Apparently not for this one however. And I cant really speculate any further without ALOT more info. In the same manner that public is surprised when they see police use of force the judges are currently also experiencing similar growing pains. Reading that the officer applied two knee strikes in an effort to distract Stacy sounds alot better than seeing what that looks like. However the science behind the use of force hasnt changed- just the visibility of it. And its ugly.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
836
Points
1,060
Now it goes on the books as R. vs Bonds and will become a focal reference for every Clayton Ruby wannabe out there.
 

Container

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I ve spent a little time reading about this Stacy thing now. If the facts are as they are presented by the various law blogs I read then I believe the police made a mistake- a fairly serious one. The problem with public intox arrests is there is the ever present danger of abuse. If it was the way it is in the version of events as presented I would have to concede the police are wrong. However, just because someone says they were not drunk doesnt mean they were not. Every imparied driver I have ever charged has been "sober" once court came around. She may have been drunk and been on the line- the police engaged her to figure out her level of intoxication. She answered a few questions and it was determined that she could probably make it home. She however once the questions are done does not keep going- she gets accusatory about why the police stopped her. She fails the "attitude test" and the police no longer believe she'll make it home without casusing some other problem. She is arrested. This happens.

That doesnt mean the ones in the block are the officers that arrested her. They might be the paddy wagon cops who were just supposed to arrest and transport her. So according to their belief she is lawfully in custody. The absolute worst people to lodge are the ones who have never been to jail before. They are terrible. They kick and spit. The female special constable was kicked in the leg. That doesnt mean you get your clothes cut off.

I cannot for the life of me figure out why they took her clothes. Thats where they lose me- at the desk something happens and she resists whatever was asked of her- you can see the booking officer grab her handcuffed hand that was free- the prisoner is NEVER supposed to have control of the cuffs like that- the ONLY reason that happens is because they pull away and they are now ARMED with a handcuff. Therefore - the reaction is quick and violent in an attempt to regain control of the cuffs. She didnt like her hair pulled so she cow kicked the female special in the leg then its two knees in the back as a distraction and the struggle is moved to the floor. Once there I have no idea why the clothes are removed.

That is the only question I can see from the video. Anyway take it for what its worth. 10 years of fighting with drunks in a cell block. I' invite his Honor to come and strap on a vest. Ive worked with enough former social workers and teachers to know that in 6 months he'll be kneeing people to gain control as well or he will be losing fights and his partner will knee someones back to get them off him.
 

Bruce Monkhouse

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
2,128
Points
1,260
E.R. Campbell said:
but their job is to interpret the law, fairly and even-handedly.


I just laughed so hard I think I peed a little.......................

Sorry my friend but spend enough time around REAL court cases and read REAL CPIC alerts and not just the ones that make the media and you will see that your statement is not even close.
I would go with "thier job SHOULD be to, etc."
 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
1,079
Points
1,160
Bruce Monkhouse said:
I just laughed so hard I think I peed a little.......................

Sorry my friend but spend enough time around REAL court cases and read REAL CPIC alerts and not just the ones that make the media and you will see that your statement is not even close.
I would go with "thier job SHOULD be to, etc."


We will have to agree to disagree because if it was that simple then we wouldn't have these problems.

I have a few acquaintances who are lawyers, a couple work in criminal law: they (both a crown and a pair of defence attorneys) seem to think most judges are pro-police and automatically suspicious of defendants. To be sure, there are some judges who are soft on criminals and hard on law enforcement, but there are, also, some some dumb, careless and downright criminal cops and guards, too.

Fortunately neither group, weak judges or bad cops, is large - both are minorities in 'communities' that, by and large, serve and protect us all well.

 

Fusaki

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Technoviking said:
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...


Container said:
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....

Container said:
You  leave out the fact that it was an area with a security perimeter.

They weren't in 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:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&expIds=17259,27740,27744,27823,27868,27878&xhr=t&q=king+and+university+toronto&nfpr=1&cp=27&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=University+Ave+%26+King+St+W,+Toronto,+ON&gl=ca&ei=R4H1TO-LCJXNngenrenCCQ&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBYQ8gEwAA
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:
http://www.thestar.com/staticcontent/810896

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.
 

Container

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Do you see the orange barrels in teh background controlling movement? Do you hear the female officer talking about dealing with unlawful assemblies all day? Like it or lump it the police have the ability to kick a group of people called an unlawful assembly out of the street. They then have a duty to ensure that it doesnt just reform behind them. So they control movement in and out of the area for a while.

There is a FOUR SECOND time lapse. Most police gun fights dont last that long. 4 seconds is an eternity.

The cop has an attitude problem. Do you see how nice and friendly the other cops were? There is always the one guy. When he said "you dont have a choice" he was being a dick and is saying that if you want to transit the area you have to consent to a search. Its almost unbelievable that you cant see that. Dont you notice how he doesnt search his bag but sends him back the other way?

He shouldnt have touched the guy- it looks weird. He was beiong a crusty old cops and Ive seen convictions for assault over less, trivial though it is.

Ive already told you that lots of people are arrested for things like disturbing the peace without being charged. Its preventative and legal and needed to preserve the peace.  The charge is discretionary.

As I said pages ago- its fine to call bullshit and get an answer to your question. But you are not required to like the answer.

Anyways Wonderbread you have made your mind up. I admit the cop was a dick. And now we are just going in circles. I am a cop who admits when police screw up. And I guarantee that somewhere in the G20 security force a bunch of cops did stupid things they should be held accountable for. They are not proof of a police state, or your rights being eroded. They are examples of shitty cops that should be fired.

Any other conclusions are just simply out of touch with reality.
 

Journeyman

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,036
Points
940
Container said:
it's fine to call bullshit and get an answer to your question. But you are not required to like the answer
That tends to be a recurring issue in those threads where one poster will be the only one who "gets it" and everyone else is RTFO. Also known as "my boy is the only one on parade in step," or "mud-wrestling with a pig."

Sometimes it's best to just shrug and move on.
 

57Chevy

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
390
Report on G20 security law coming next week
The Gazette article link

TORONTO — A report about the so-called secret G20 law that gave police extra powers in enforcing security near the perimeter fence surrounding last summer’s summit site in downtown Toronto will be released next week.

Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin has spent the last 90 days looking into the law, passed by the provincial government days before the June 26-27 summit.

It was widely believed that the law gave police the authority to arrest anyone who came within five metres of the downtown fence if they refused to show identification. The three-metre high concrete and metal fence stretched 3.5 kilometres around the Metro Convention Centre, where the leaders from the 20 wealthiest nations were meeting.

But after the summit was over, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and Toronto police Chief Bill Blair corrected the erroneous reports and clarified that the law only allowed police to search people who were attempting to enter the security perimeter.

Marin’s findings, which will be released next Tuesday, were expected to conclude whether the regulation was necessary and how authorities communicated the law to the public.

More than 1,000 people were arrested during the weekend summit, making it the largest mass arrest in Canadian history. The majority of the arrests did not result in criminal charges.

A small group of protesters dressed in black terrorized the downtown core, smashing windows of businesses and burning police cruisers. It’s estimated that $2 million in property damage was caused that weekend. The federal government had set aside $1 billion for security costs for the G20 and G8 summits, the latter held in Huntsville, Ont., just before the G20.

A number of probes into the summit also have been launched.
                          ________________________________________________________

Also at link, see:
•SIU reopens G20 investigation of videotaped incident
•Police chief challenges probe of police misconduct at G20 summit
•Cops cleared of excessive force allegations at G20
                        _________________________________________________________

                              (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)



to correct article link
 

Fusaki

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Container said:
Do you see the orange barrels in teh background controlling movement? Do you hear the female officer talking about dealing with unlawful assemblies all day? Like it or lump it the police have the ability to kick a group of people called an unlawful assembly out of the street. They then have a duty to ensure that it doesnt just reform behind them. So they control movement in and out of the area for a while.

Those orange barrels mark the edge of the traffic control zone (Ref: the map I linked in my previous post), showing that they were well outside of the main protest area and nowhere even close to the 5 meter zone around the fence where the police had expanded powers to search people.

So, I ask again, are police allowed to lie to people in order to get the consent they need in order to conduct a search?
 

J.J

Full Member
Mentor
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Journeyman said:
That tends to be a recurring issue in those threads where one poster will be the only one who "gets it" and everyone else is RTFO. Also known as "my boy is the only one on parade in step," or "mud-wrestling with a pig."

Sometimes it's best to just shrug and move on.

Seriously, we get that the police are bad, we are one step away from the gulags and North Korea will complain to the UN about us....

Can you agree to disagree with everyone else?
 
Top