Signals.Cpl

If I am following your logic and I fear I am stretching that term in this case, every Muslim is a terrorist because of a small minority, Every Catholic priest is a pedophile again because of a small minority, or maybe Every German is a mass murder because of what the NAZI's did, I can go on and on and on, this is not logic, you believe what you want but the admission of one person or group of people in one province of the country does not necessarily mean that everyone else holding the same. you have one piece of evidence that is not relevant to this case due to the aforementioned reasons. Once again as you seem to lack the understanding, The actions of Quebec police officers has no bearing on the actions of Toronto police officers unless you can prove a direct link and/or provide evidence that Toronto Police Service used the same tactic, then your argument is a joke.

First of all, they cannot detain you for an indefinite amount of time, at some point they will have to charge you or let you, the only time they had the power to hold you for an extended period of time is under the War Measures Act where police were given powers to detain a suspect without a warrant or a charge. Maybe the protestors did not want to commit violence, after all the rioters are thugs therefore when they see superior police presence they lose the will to fight as most rioters prefer fighting when there is little opposition and when confronted by overwhelming numbers they might just be pacified. I am sorry for the people who happened to be there and where in no way involved with the protests, but there is a reason they were searching them one by one as they wanted to make sure and get all the dangerous people out and they had to search everyone. Well, ok so we are talking about Toronto, and you keep bringing the one incident where police admitted to something. If that is the ONLY piece of evidence you have and I assume it is as you keep bringing it back I'm sorry but one incident in Quebec does not make every police officer and police department guilty of the crime, Should we judge Quebecers as criminals and murderers because the FLQ was from Quebec?

We live in the same kind of democracy where a police officer is allowed to detain you if he believes that you are about to commit a crime, and hold you until he or she is satisfied that the danger of you committing a crime has passed. If you read the evidence you would see that they were well within their rights to detain people that they had a reasonable belief were going to commit a crime. I feel that someone should have to answer why the police did not stop the protestors in the first place but when they did not act during the first day they acted the second and PREVENTED the violence. Please show me WHERE my argument failed? It seems to me that Ive posted ample evidence to back up my argument but you seem to be arguing with little more the accusations. It seems that you informed me my argument failed, when I asked where the first time you mentioned it, you dodged the question and say it again. I really love your style, you can't win an argument so you repeat some BS line until people get tired of you and leave. If you can't win with facts you seem to annoy people until they give up.

So who do you think thinks for me? I don't approve of police officers who go over the top, but the issue was that there was a justification. Just because they were not charged/convicted of the crimes does not mean they had innocent intentions. The police were not going after the legitimate protestors, it was an attempt to crackdown on the violence of the day before. I dot believe that the police municipal, provincial and federal should have civilian oversight but I don't agree with the go to reply of police brutality whiteout proof. The fact neither side is innocent but my personal belief is that the police were justified in the majority of their actions. No one knows for sure what the intention of the protestors was, they might have been preparing to start up the violence or they might have been peaceful and excuse me for not believing them when they say they were just the most innocent and non-threatening at all. The reality is if you go to a jail the majority of convicted criminals are "innocent". Few people will admit their intentions, the reality is during other G7,G8 or G20 protests people have died and police in Canada prevented deaths and the widespread injuries associated with other protests. And please give some reliable evidence of the sexual assaults that you claim were committed by officers(preferably third party).The violence the police officers committed should be punished but the fact that there was no widespread violence therefore the police must have done something to prevent it.

I love your explanation except: -2009 Tamil protests which were peaceful for the most part and no violent police crackdown -First Nations protest during the G20 where again you guessed it no violence -February 2002 mass protest no violence -November 2002 Anti-war protests in toronto and yet again no police violence Its funny how there are a number of protests for a verity of causes, and no major issues yet at the point where the G20 protestors come the police just goes nuts and authoritarian on them. I believe that Toronto Police showed restraint in dealing with protestors and since there is no rock solid evidence that there were police officers involved in instigating what happened, then the rioters are the only one to be blamed and thus assume responsibility. Also I love the argument that the Police presence was overkill as there was and still is ample evidence when you have animals amongst the protestors there is never enough police officers. when you defend the rioters and accuse police of being violent you ignore the groups of "protestors" who went there for the sole reason of causing damage, when police arrest a group of "protestors" with weapons they tend to become cautious and make attempts to make the protests safe by removing those who would do violence. http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/07/08/showdown-in-the-streets/ And more: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/the-politics-of-policing-reform-post-g20/article2255102/ http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Calls+action+some+protest+websites/3183669/story.html

I am still wondering why you are avoiding the issue, G20 and occupy Toronto are 2 events that are less then one and a half years apart, yet they ultimately have different outcomes.

I love how your argument falls apart. I guess the brutes you described do not exist as during the whole protest there were very few arrests and injuries. But sure lets talk about Egypt and Libya, I don't see how we can compare them to Toronto police, but hey whatever makes you happy, at this point this is becoming a very entertaining place seeing as you are trying to prove that Toronto Police a violent by providing proof from a different country. Ill take your argument seeing as I hold your opinion at a very low value so I will accept proof that I would otherwise not accept from a 5 year old let alone from a "adult".

We can always move on to occupy Toronto, I'm wondering though, where was the violent rights violating police that we hear so much about?

Just because you say it was destroyed does not make it so, but then again for you maybe the normal seeing as it seems to work for the criminals you support.

You avoid uncomfortable questions like a pro.

Looks to me like none of them were prepared for a riot those damn cops, starting a riot full of this peaceful well meaning innocent "protestors". We should give them a medal for all the damage they did to the property of hardworking individuals, unlike themselves most people build and improve rather then destroy. But do go on blaming police for the riots, looks like the rioters didn't come prepared for anything http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20100626/416_CP24_blackbloc_100626.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_vMQfeVSYbqk/TCgjEC7AZOI/AAAAAAAABJw/0IBjbPoFlWk/s1600/g20burrows5.bmp http://www.moonbattery.com/toronto-G20-riot.jpg http://shot7.com/wp-content/gallery/g20toronto1/g20friblackbloc.jpg

Ok, I will take the bait, what irrefutable evidence do you have that there were police officers in the crowd in TORONTO? How can you prove that the intent of those people who were arrested was peaceful? The fact is, certain events transpired on the first day, and the police acted as best they could to prevent a repetition, its easy to be an armchair general, smug and arrogant but the reality is people are responsible for their actions, if police officers were using excessive force, sure pursue legal action but how do you explain the history of this protestors? Everywhere they go there is violence unless police really crackdown, and obviously that can't happen in Canada, as people like you are crying that they arrested a bunch of criminals about to commit a crime as was their right as police officers. This is why all those "innocent" people were detained, and not arrested. They were detained thus preventing them from committing a crime and the police released them when they were satisfied that they will not have the opportunity to go through with the crime. http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/371/ille/library/powers-e.htm#B.%20Arbitrary%20Detention All those jokers should thank the Police Officers who worked hard to keep their records clean even though for most of them it woudlent have mattered as welfare probably does not exclude criminals.

I am not defending criminals or their behaviour you are. The vast majority of police are good people with some bad apples in the bunch, you and a number of other people on this boards speak about rights, yet when it comes to the rights of the police you deny them even the most basic. When someone is arrested, and claims police brutality, the police are judged without any balanced argument. A protestor is arrested and injured in the process along with 2 police officers, yet the police officers get 1 line in the article about being injured and the rest of the article is about judging how violent and brutal they, and when it is proven that they are innocent, the arrested individual was guilty and resisted arrest not one of the critics apologizes. I don't support police unconditionally, but I support them when they are right, the police department is not perfect just like any other organization there are deficiencies but most of them do their best to make sure the rest of us are safe and our rights are safeguarded. Reality is law and your cherished rights are attached. If you have a lawless society you definitely have your right limited or removed all together.

I guess you don't have the intellectual capacity to understand the argument. Now how about you go and play with your dolls and let the adults have a discussion.

Lets break this down, if it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck then chances are it is a duck. If a "protestor" and I use that work lightly, looking at previous events of the same caliber (G7,G8,G20) and the outcomes, and considering the same criminal elements go from protest to protest causing the same kind of problems in other locations then it is logical to assume they would do so in Toronto. No I was not referring to a single event or video, I was referring to the people who expect society in general to take care of them, people who do not believe that their actions should carry consequences, people who decide they will act on a whim and when something goes wrong they always find every one else at fault but themselves and then there is always a group of well-meaning but naive individuals who tend to back them up. The police bait them in order to have the events in a controlled environment, in essence prevent the crime or damage before hand rather then punish later on. So that excuses war crimes then? The SS was under the influence of a mob mentality? The Hutu Extremists in Rwanda were under the influence of mod mentality when they murdered 800,000 people in cold blood. You are saying that innocent and peaceful protestors can be turned within minutes in to a riot? If there is no fuel source present a spark most likely will not light a fire. Its time to have people take responsibility for their actions and realize that there are consequences.

The definition of wrong can differ from person to person.

Maybe there is no evidence that they stopped further violence, umm I don't know because they did their jobs?

It seems you are holding the police responsible for the actions that would have taken place weather they are or are not present. I find it disgusting that so many people of my generations, many of them I have worked with or gone to school with unable to take responsibility for their actions. If you go to a protest bent on committing crimes, and the police bait you, you would have committed the crimes anyway, one way no adult supervision(police) the other way the adults(police) are there and thus able to minimize or altogether prevent the incident once the criminal presents his/her hand. I don't see the complication, we all agree on the right to protest, we all agree that the rioting paints the whole protest in a negative light when the majority of the protestors are peaceful. The issue is that police suggest some form of action, the person of interest to them commits to the action and thus, is bought. You could use the argument about the mob mentality in any case whatsoever in an attempt to have people escape responsibility, example would be the Riots in Vancouver, unless you think the police provoked that one as well. Honestly, during a similar event, the police should identify the area where protestors could be, and then promptly read the Riot Act to any other area of the city in question where "protestors" are gathering. Every human being is responsible for their actions, otherwise we can look back in history and start acquitting people who have been held responsible for their crimes because of the "mob mentality"

To me it seems you are trying to justify why you have conflicting opinions as to the tactic in question. You either support it for all or you support it for none, as everyone involved in a crime or the intention of committing a crime has the same rights. And I believe that the whole point of police officers baiting potential rioters is to remove them as soon as they show their intentions and not let it escalate to a riot.

There is something wrong with you, I don't think you comprehend the concept of not making shit up and presenting it as facts.

What do you smoke again?

There is a book out, that describes in more detail what you are thinking of, but the idea is less sinister. Republic Lost by Lawrence Lessig. although it is about the US congress it has certain application to Canada as well.

In other words, you are making this up. Wow the value of your posts went down even further, I did not think it was possible but damn you are talented.

They are the exactly the same, In one the police throw out some bait and see who bites it, and in the other the police throw out some bait and see who bites it. No one forced the guy in BC to go and try to have sex with an underage girl, the story itself says when most men heard it was about an underage girl they turned it down. Likewise if the police say, umm lets light this car on fire, if you have no interest in doing that, you will turn around and walk away, if you do it, you would have done it with or without police prompt and you are guilty. You now what, you are entitled to your opinion no matter how stupid it is.

And who exactly are they?