Scotty Posted March 14, 2011 Report Posted March 14, 2011 There should be 5 to 10 years for all who engaged in the mayhem of burning cars and breaking stores. Get real. You don't put people in prison for 5 years for breaking a freaking window. AS to the cars, there were probably one or two people who actually set them alite, and I wouldn't say no to a year in jail for them. But the vast bulk of the protesters didn't do anything wrong. What was the "demonstration" for anyway?? Why would that matter? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Saipan Posted March 14, 2011 Report Posted March 14, 2011 (edited) Get real. You don't put people in prison for 5 years for breaking a freaking window. Why punish people who did absolutely nothing, literary nothing. Except ignoring bureucratic idea of registration. Why not those who are real criminals? AS to the cars, there were probably one or two people who actually set them alite Well one or two should get 10 years AND PAY for it. But the vast bulk of the protesters didn't do anything wrong. That's why they were released. One can be legally held for a time after which must be released or charged. Why would that matter? Was it demonstration or just vandalism by those who have nothing better to do???? Edited March 14, 2011 by Saipan Quote
Scotty Posted March 14, 2011 Report Posted March 14, 2011 Well one or two should get 10 years AND PAY for it. I would think it entirely appropriate those individuals should pay for the cost of the vandalism they did. but we put murderers in jail for ten years. We don't put vandals in jail except in exceptional circumstances. I think all those caught should have to pay back the cost of the damage and then do quite a bit of community service. That's why they were released. One can be legally held for a time after which must be released or charged. The police had no right to hold them in the first place. The police assaulted people for no reason. IMHO those cops should be charged with assault and forcible confinement. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
cybercoma Posted March 14, 2011 Report Posted March 14, 2011 And the RCMP were inside the fence. What happened outside the fence was not really the concern of the federal government. The RCMP has jurisdiction everywhere in Canada. If they are witnessing crimes occurring they have a responsibility to "serve and protect". They did neither. Quote
Scotty Posted March 14, 2011 Report Posted March 14, 2011 The RCMP has jurisdiction everywhere in Canada. If they are witnessing crimes occurring they have a responsibility to "serve and protect". They did neither. I didn't see any mounties in any of those videos. However, we saw a lot of Toronto police acting up, and the Toronto government has not seen fit to do anything about that. Further, the Ontario government, which oversees municipal police, has also not seen fit to do anything about it. Those are where you should direct your anger, not at Harper. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
cybercoma Posted March 14, 2011 Report Posted March 14, 2011 I didn't see any mounties in any of those videos. However, we saw a lot of Toronto police acting up, and the Toronto government has not seen fit to do anything about that. Further, the Ontario government, which oversees municipal police, has also not seen fit to do anything about it. Those are where you should direct your anger, not at Harper. Maybe so, but I was replying to your point that the RCMP was behind the gates, so anything that happens outside the gates is none of their concern. Quote
DrGreenthumb Posted March 15, 2011 Report Posted March 15, 2011 Why punish people who did absolutely nothing, literary nothing. Except ignoring bureucratic idea of registration. Why not those who are real criminals? Well one or two should get 10 years AND PAY for it. That's why they were released. One can be legally held for a time after which must be released or charged. Was it demonstration or just vandalism by those who have nothing better to do???? I don't actually need to ask you if you are foolish enough to believe the government version of events. I know you are. Windows broken and a cop car burnt to make fools like you believe that the 930 million for security was reasonable. Don't ask yourself why a cop car was abandoned with the doors open for "protestors" to burn while hundreds of cops stood by and did nothing, that would take critical thought which you are obviously incapable of. I actually hope the cops DO come and confiscate all your firearms, it would be a public service. An IQ test should be mandatory before you can own a gun. Anyone who can justify the civil rights abuses at the G20, because THEIR party did it doesn't deserve to have any civil rights themselves. People like you make me want to barf. Quote
g_bambino Posted March 15, 2011 Report Posted March 15, 2011 Don't ask yourself why a cop car was abandoned with the doors open for "protestors" to burn while hundreds of cops stood by and did nothing... I'm sure you'll note from the photographic evidence that the car doors weren't initially open and the windows were eventually broken. Also, it's not unreasonable to consider that had police moved in on those vandalising the cars, a huge riot would've ensued. Let the idiots focus and wear themselves out on a couple of cars; better their loss and images of them burning than people seriously maimed and/or killed in utter chaos and pictures of that going around the world. Quote
Shakeyhands Posted March 15, 2011 Report Posted March 15, 2011 I'm sure you'll note from the photographic evidence that the car doors weren't initially open and the windows were eventually broken. Also, it's not unreasonable to consider that had police moved in on those vandalising the cars, a huge riot would've ensued. Let the idiots focus and wear themselves out on a couple of cars; better their loss and images of them burning than people seriously maimed and/or killed in utter chaos and pictures of that going around the world. Exactly, and then move in the next day and just arrest thousands of people arbitrarily.... oh wait. Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Saipan Posted March 15, 2011 Report Posted March 15, 2011 (edited) I don't actually need to ask you if you are foolish enough to believe the government version of events. I know you are. You don't need to. I worked hard enough to get rid of dictatorial Liberal government. Windows broken and a cop car burnt to make fools like you believe that the 930 million for security was reasonable. Speaking of fools. Why do you think we need to spend anything when locking up the well known shit diturbers would do? Heavy fines and compensation for all damage should be mandatory. I actually hope the cops DO come and confiscate all your firearms, it would be a public service. All Communists and NAZIS and many Liberals do. And we have EVIDENCE. An IQ test should be mandatory before you can own a gun. Glad we agree on something. National Firearms Association strongly recommended just that. For all civilians, police, guards and military. I say it should be extended to driver's licences as cars are statistically FAR more dangerous than firearms. Edited March 15, 2011 by Saipan Quote
g_bambino Posted March 15, 2011 Report Posted March 15, 2011 Exactly, and then move in the next day and just arrest thousands of people arbitrarily.... oh wait. Not everyone was arrested arbitrarily and not all on the same day. Quote
Shakeyhands Posted March 15, 2011 Report Posted March 15, 2011 Not everyone was arrested arbitrarily and not all on the same day. Even one arrested arbitrarily was too many, and a flagrant abuse of their charter rights. Glad we finally agree. Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
guyser Posted March 15, 2011 Report Posted March 15, 2011 Not everyone was arrested arbitrarily and not all on the same day. over 900 hundred out of a little more than a thousand charges were dropped by the crown. Says it all right there. Quote
g_bambino Posted March 15, 2011 Report Posted March 15, 2011 over 900 hundred out of a little more than a thousand charges were dropped by the crown.Says it all right there. Yes, it says over 900 hundred out of a little more than a thousand charges were dropped by the crown. Doesn't mean all or even most of the arrests were arbitrary or were made in one day. Quote
g_bambino Posted March 15, 2011 Report Posted March 15, 2011 Even one arrested arbitrarily was too many, and a flagrant abuse of their charter rights. Perhaps. But, as I said elsewhere, the courts will deal with that, as they usually do. Quote
guyser Posted March 15, 2011 Report Posted March 15, 2011 Yes, it says over 900 hundred out of a little more than a thousand charges were dropped by the crown. Doesn't mean all or even most of the arrests were arbitrary or were made in one day. True I suppose. The cops made 100 half decent arrests. Bambino, it means the cops grabbed anyone and everyone they could with no thought going into whether or not the arrests were valid. -subject to individual will or judgment without restriction -capricious; unreasonable; unsupported ....seems like abritrary is an apt description. Quote
g_bambino Posted March 15, 2011 Report Posted March 15, 2011 The cops made 100 half decent arrests. Not necessarily. Because a charge is later thrown out doesn't mean absolutely that the arrest was illegitimate. Quote
bloodyminded Posted March 15, 2011 Report Posted March 15, 2011 (edited) Not necessarily. Because a charge is later thrown out doesn't mean absolutely that the arrest was illegitimate. No, it doesn't. Probably some of them were legitimate. But a 90% rate incontestably raises some serious questions. Edited March 15, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
guyser Posted March 15, 2011 Report Posted March 15, 2011 Not necessarily. Because a charge is later thrown out doesn't mean absolutely that the arrest was illegitimate. In general terms that is exactly what it means. Quote
Saipan Posted March 15, 2011 Report Posted March 15, 2011 But a 90% rate incontestably raises some serious questions. Let them raise. Quote
bloodyminded Posted March 15, 2011 Report Posted March 15, 2011 Let them raise. ...the fuck are you talking about? Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Scotty Posted March 15, 2011 Report Posted March 15, 2011 Not everyone was arrested arbitrarily and not all on the same day. Do you regard that as a defense? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted March 15, 2011 Report Posted March 15, 2011 Not necessarily. Because a charge is later thrown out doesn't mean absolutely that the arrest was illegitimate. The vast bulk of them were never even charged with anything. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
GostHacked Posted March 15, 2011 Report Posted March 15, 2011 Not necessarily. Because a charge is later thrown out doesn't mean absolutely that the arrest was illegitimate. It does when there were no special poweres permitted to the police. And many were arrested under those powers. You still got your head in the sand. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.