Signals.Cpl

You mean the political masters that were democratically elected?

You cannot say it is perfectly fine to use this tactic on some people yet not on others. At this point you are saying that if a pedophile, drug dealer, gang banger or any other criminal has less rights then a rioter? Are any of these cases different? Case 1: http://m.winnipegsun.com/2011/12/02/jail-time-for-mother-daughter-murder-plotters http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2618836&archive=true Case 2: http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100806/bc_online_child_sex_100806?hub=BritishColumbiaHome http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Court+upholds+Craigslist+lure+seeking/6213003/story.html If you notice both cases have officers involved, the first one the officer pretended to be a hit man, while in the second one the officers were looking child predators, if you read the second one, entrapment was brought up and subsequently dismissed because there was none. Please elaborate, with evidence.

See, here is the thing, there are times where breaking the rules is a necessity. There are plenty of times where there is a grey area for a person as well, where the judicial system views all of the factors and then deals with the person based on the facts. And yes, you are criticizing the police for doing a job, when you don't have a clear alternate plan of action where this riot could have been avoided. It is easy to criticize now, but at the point in time the local police CO was working with the information on hand which might or might not be complete. If you have a plan where this could be avoided in the future, be my guest write it up nicely and pass it off to the public relations staff of the TPS, I am sure they would appreciate the input of an armchair general. And yes I am safely typing away behind my keyboard, but see, when I go to work I always tend to meet nut cases like you, who judge me and the uniform I wear without knowing a thing about either. People that are mis informed or uninformed tend to make the loudest critics.

Well if you take it out of context sure. I stated that the police use the tactic on many occasions to catch unsavoury people who are bent on doing harm one way or another. I was comparing that just like in any other crime, police will not likely start at an arbitrary place and start probing the leaders for violent intent. Just like they will not go to a random forum/chat room that has had no issues nor is there no evidence of illegal activity and try and catch pedophile. And once again bringing down drug dealers and the like. They find the likely place, and the people that are most likely to commit the violence and go from there. A police officer will not come to my house and try and push me to get in the drug trade just so he can arrest me, an officer will find someone who already is a drug dealer and engage them in a deal in order to catch them. So If I am a protestor during say the G20, and I was holding my placard and doing my chant with no reason for an officer tho suspect me, then I would not expect an officer to come and try to push me to commit violence.

Have you seen the attire the police officers were wearing? I am assuming that the attire was worn by many of the protestors and the reason police were dressed like that was to fit in. Now seeing as the explanation was that police were wearing issued boots and thus they were caught the way they were dressed was normal for that protest. Now lets be fair, if you saw 10,100 or 1000 people dressed like criminal, would you assume that this was going to be a peaceful protest or would you assume that something was going down. If the majority of the protestors are dressed like they are on their way to rob a bank I think you need to rethink your main argument.

Please quote exactly where I said at random? Its simple, just like police officers do an operation where they pretend to be a young teen or preteen and lie and attempt to get a meeting with a pedophile, or having undercover officers arranging a drug deal hint hint the most likely person in the most likely location. You wouldn't have police trying to go on a random street corner and try to persuade someone to import drugs they investigate and place themselves in the most likely location to be in proximity with the most likely people to commit the crime. Just like there won't be an undercover officer on this boards pretending to be a 14 year old girl in an attempt to flush out pedophiles having started from an arbitrary location. My entire argument states finding the most likely persons to commit the actions and using police officers to push them in to action, and consequently stoping the action immediately before they can spread and cause harm. It might not be the preferred tactic, but it needs to be used when the alternative is to wait until someone throws the first punch and then use riot police to quell everyone weather they are involved or not.

Since you are an expert, please outline a detailed plan on how to prevent the events during G20, without taking anyone's right. But I guess you cannot come up with anything mainly because its a lot easier and safer sitting behind a keyboard and criticizing while someone else does the heavy lifting.

How in the world could you possibly know that? That they "did the best they could"? That's idle speculation, and faith-based at that. And I would mock him, and try to "instigate" violence on his part, and then have him charged with assault if he committed it against me. All with your support and applause, of course. All I have to say is, internet tough guys, generally don't have the nerve to go and say anything to a police officer. You seem really naive and ignorant, and I guess you are one of the people who tend to complain about their crappy life and blame everyone around them. I have seen the tough guys like yourself, mock and instigate from afar, but when the person is close not a peep is heard.

Bleeding Heart, lets go rob a bank.

I'm sorry, I was repeating something I had said previously with different example. The basic concept is if you go prepared for violence, the police will not be prompting you to do anything you weren't already ready,willing and prepared to do. They have zero right to break the law, I agree, but I see the act in question as protecting my family, and the other 5million Toronto Citizens. I have nothing but the upmost respect for the police as when its weapons free, everyone starts running AWAY from the gunfire, while police run towards it thats precisely why I believe they deserve the benefit of the doubt and the grey area. They risk their lives to protect us, so why not give them leeway to remove dangerous UNPRODUCTIVE people from a potentially explosive situation thus saving lives. I prefer they bend the rules and keep people alive then have them look my parents in the eyes and inform them that I was killed by a protestor and it was "illegal" to stop them. And to be fair, I will give you your argument, because it is easy to argue from the safety of your home, two years after the events in question, the police did the best they could in a bad situation. If they needed to use a dirty trick or two to keep those useless pieces of garbage from doing worse then by all means I applause them and would by each officer involved a coffee if given a chance.

You are right, I come to a protest with any home made weapon, I am going for peaceful reasons. If the protestors can police themselves and assist police in identifying the troublemakers then there would be no problem at all. But when Police face a wall of silence at every turn then they have to resort to some tactics that are controversial in order to do their job, I agree with them. I am not a police officer and I assume neither are you, therefore I do not have the experience nor knowledge to be able to tell them how they do their job. As long as the result is positive and they catch people who are bent on violence before they commit the violence I am satisfied. There are legal tactics and illegal tactics, but also there is a grey area, as long as the public is protected and the offenders are apprehended or the violence in prevented I am satisfied.

I think that you are an idiot, I never suggested to carry out the violent acts, but to prompt people who are bent on committing violent crimes to do said crime and be stopped in time. If someone is incapable of resisting any suggestion or provocation, maybe they should not be a part of a Civilized society Violence is wrong and to be avoided as much as possible, but when a minority defies to disrupt the majority then I would suggest tat violence is needed. Being peaceful in the face of animals bent on violence solves nothing and would actually embolden them. Thats precisely why peacekeeping never works by itself. When one side wants violence the answer is violence. Just because you are frustrated by the government you should not take it to the streets with violence, go to the polls, if the party you support does not win, maybe it is a statement that democracy works and your fellow citizens do not agree with your idiotic support for a bunch of animals that destroyed property that was owned by people who had nothing to do with the protests.

I agree with you, protestors are idiots, so we should ban all protests from now on since they themselves cannot restraint themselves when someone suggests violence. But then again, I should probably stop talking to you, because you might take one of my comments as suggestion and then go and cry to someone that the big scary guy online suggested you do something or other. I have the intelligence to know when something is right or wrong, and thus no amount of suggestion can prompt me to do something illegal unless I had already planned to do said illegal action. And yes, I support a wide verity of tactics because police are responsible to the government and the government is responsible to the people. The police is not responsible to take orders from a small segment of society that happen to disagree with the mainstream choices. What this boils down to is that people who cannot take responsibility for their actions blame the police on any and every occasion in order to escape blame. That is officially the most idiotic thing I have EVER heard. I don't know if you are aware of this, but the Police like the military have a rank structure and a chain of command. Individual officers might or might not agree with you but they are not supposed to express their personal beliefs about certain things while in uniform. Orders are passed down from the top, police officers joining the protesters would mean that the government would simply bring in the RCMP, and the military under the Emergencies Act as this would be a national emergency. Police in a democratic nation have the power and responsibility to uphold the laws of the nations weather they support or oppose the standing DEMOCRATICALLY elected government. If every body believes that the Conservative government was and is screwing them over, Why did the Conservatives get a majority?

I do believe it is distasteful but when all is said and done, it is in my mind a legitimate tactic to out potential violent protestors. If a cop walks in to a protest under cover and starts prompting people to commit violence, do you think that the officer hold blame for those actions? It may be a great tactic that is successful or it may be extremely unsuccessful but that is to be determined by people with much more experience in this matters then me. I personally support the police in their fight to defend every citizen from the few violent criminals in a protest. Sometimes the end justifies the means. And again if I go to a protest with the intention of being peaceful there would be virtually nothing that anyone can say to me to make me commit violent acts, people who fall for those actions should be arrested because they a. intended to commit violence anyway b. or they are just so exceptionally stupid and taking them out of the protest might just be a good deed for the protestors in general. I for one prefer if police goad someone intend on destruction so that they can be arrested in a safe and controlled environment before they commit the actions they already intended to commit. If I was at the protest with a molotov cocktail, and a police officer suggested I do something, well, once I pull it out and the cop arrests me in a quick and safe manner so as to allow the protest to continue without the destruction and potential bloodshed that could have resulted. To me there is a line, if the line has not been crossed then the action is legitimate, albeit distasteful. If the police suggest violence to arrest the violent protestors, great, but the line is when the police provide intellectual and/or material support in the commission of the violent act and then stop it. By this I mean if police suggest "lets burn the car" and then proposes how to do it, after which providing the fuel and matches, I believe it is too much.

Unfortunately for your argument, in Canada, we have this little thing called an election, if you don't like the current government, run for office or find someone you like. Justifying violence does nothing in the long run, as this violence was not directed at the people who "caused" the problem but at everyday people who have small businesses which now may have taken substantial losses because some animal decided they wanted to break things. “Lawlessness is lawlessness. Anarchy is anarchy is anarchy. Neither race nor color nor frustration is an excuse for either lawlessness or anarchy.” Justifying the looting that went on is a slippery slope, why does the rest of society move on along peacefully and does not use violence to solve their problem while a select few seem to think that they are exempt from any source of punishment because they have a twisted form of justification.

And to answer the second part, yes SIU should be called only during the following circumstances: "The SIU is a civilian law enforcement agency, independent of the police, that conducts criminal investigations into circumstances involving police and civilians that have resulted in serious injury, death or allegations of sexual assault." source:http://www.siu.on.ca/en/what_we_do.php Definition of Serious Injury: "Serious injuries" shall include those that are likely to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim and are more than merely transient or trifling in nature and will include serious injury resulting from sexual assault. "Serious Injury "shall initially be presumed when the victim is admitted to hospital, suffers a fracture to a limb, rib or vertebrae or to the skull, suffers burns to a major portion of the body or loses any portion of the body or suffers loss of vision or hearing, or alleges sexual assault. Where a prolonged delay is likely before the seriousness of the injury can be assessed, the Unit should be notified so that it can monitor the situation and decide on the extent of its involvement.” source:http://www.siu.on.ca/en/investigate_what.php Unless I misread the article she was taken down, has black eye, and needed 7 stitches. That does not meet the conditions that the SIU themselves set forth. And for the second "incident" what the hell is two "old clothes" officers? So the burden of proof is on the police in every single case? This guy does nothing wrong and the police were at the wrong house, and severely beat him up in front of witnesses? One question, why didn't we see pictures of the injuries the police officers sustained? If they are consistent with the version of events that they presented then this might once again be a way to attempt to get out of resisting arrest. I don't see how they can say well he was injured when arrested by police, so it was police brutality, oh by the way 2 officers were also injured and needed medical attention but we will ignore that fact and just concentrate on the injured guy and his fictitious story all the while ignoring the other half of the story that maybe just maybe can disprove his version of events.

And the poor innocent protestors had no choice but to act on this? It does make sense to a degree, push for some violence, whoever seems too eager you simply remove them and let the other protestors do their thing. The reality is if I go to a protest, and someone suggests break the window or throw a rock, if I do the thing (s)he suggests, I am guilty. It comes down to one of those things my mother used to tell me when I was younger, "If someone told you to jump off of a bridge would you jump?" seems like an appropriate comparison. If a suggestion is made, and someone acts on it, either they are exceptionally stupid, or they had the intention to cause problems in the first place. It all circles back to this if I told you to kill someone and you did it, then you did that on your own free will. Every child has at one point or another had someone suggest a stupid course of action, and most have taken said course of action at least once. The kid that suggested it is not at fault, the person who committed to the action is. Although this tactic may be distasteful, I don't see how the police forced anyone to do anything just through the power of suggestion.

Trust me, I think that people on both sides should be held accountable for their actions. I believe that any armed segment of the government needs to be held accountable to a higher civilian leadership, not to tell them how to do their jobs but to make sure that they do their jobs without abuse. I honestly believe that the Canadian Forces, RCMP, CSIS, provincial and municipal police forces should be held responsible for their actions. Now where there abuses by the police during the G20? Sure, there were some, but shifting the blame and going to the automatic reply of "Blame the Police" infuriates me as it seems that many people treat violent hooligans as the victims whenever anything pops up about protesters and police. I think to avoid anything like the G20 in the future, there needs to be a more clear definition of undesirable intolerable behaviour, and clear and immediate punishments. The idea would be give the media attention to the rightful protesters and avoid making it a circus. Do you want a protest where you can be heard rather then a protest where people see you as a hooligan? The protest organizers should and the protesters should self police to lessen the requirement for police intervention. Have a predesigned route that gives the protesters the most exposure to the media, let them have all the interviews and whatnot that they can handle and any other area outside of the protest zone is a no go for any gathering larger than 10 people. This way you have the protesters that get the exposure, the police do not get involved unless they are requested by the protesters themselves and if anyone tries to commit violence is dealt with in a swift and safe manner.

So you will use the case of officers in Montreal as the proof that they did the same in Toronto? I am not arguing that 100% of police officers are good, I know they have their bad apples in uniform but by and large the TPS consists of people who try to do their best to serve and protect.

Why would I be offended by your lack of intelligence? You cannot state in clear and concise terms what your definition of a free society is. Simply you like to have your freedoms, yet you cannot justify them. To me there are two things, free society which we do NOT live in and free CIVILIZED society in which we DO live in. In the first one if I am stronger then someone I can take their possessions, or if I felt like killing someone or raping someone because I am stronger, it is my right because I am free do do that. While in the second one, I have certain restrictions, and I have given some of my natural "rights" to be part of the society, for example I cannot come to your house, and take your things and kill or rape your wife/daughter with impunity, there are the restrictions and there are the mechanism in place to prevent or punish perpetrators of the crimes. I live in a civilized free society. I don't know about you, since you seem incapable of defining your idea of free society. Which brings me to question weather you even know what a free society is, or do you assume it means you do whatever you want, whenever you want and if someone stops you, then they must be stomping on the rights you cannot define.

What is a free society in your mind if I may ask?

Freedom of assembly AKA Freedom of PEACEFUL Assembly. So you support the looting and destruction that happened during the G20 as necessary and healthy? Those dumb poor bastards that protested peacefully, maybe they should have joined in on the mayhem grab a molotov cocktail and a C7 and made their Freedom of Assembly really interesting.

Protests that move from point A to point B do require a permit.

Ok, I will call you on your arrogance, Explain them, please explain the civil rights issues to me.

Please oh please explain what exactly am I trying to pull over your eyes? Human being have evolved over millennia to become capable of surviving in a civilized environment, when you belong to a civilized society you as a necessity would forfeit a number of the natural rights you would enjoy in say the jungle. I don't know how far your enthusiasm would extend if someone's protest were to infringe on your rights or your daily life. It is easy to say that getting a simple permit takes away or tramples your rights, but now imagine if everyone decided to protest for their pet project without a permit, and we had every street corner with a different group of protestors, would that be a good idea? You have the right to protest, getting a simple permit means that you respect my time and duties as well as the time and responsibilities of the other 5 million people in Toronto weather they agree with you or not. Think about this, would you be fine with it if I had a pet project and I gather a few hundred people and protest everyday for 6 months on strategic routes so as to shut down a particular area of town, an area that you frequent or live in or work in. So if for 6 months, you spend 5X as much time traveling as you would regularly travel, If I am shutting down routes to hospitals or disrupting businesses who depend on deliveries thus costing them money, or shutting down transportation to any number of schools in the area, would you find this as a legitimate protest? Or would it be considered holding an entire neighbourhood/town/city hostage for the sake of a few hundred protesters. During the G20, the protesters had the right to march, they were given a route, and they followed it, the problem came from the others who went there specifically to cause problems. Look from both sides, it is easy to say that someone is taking your rights, but if it were affecting you negatively you might sing a different tune.