Police state part 2

[Scotty]

Let them raise.

So let me ask you this. As a guy who clearly believes in the right of self defense, does a citizen have the right to kick the living crap out of a cop who is assaulting them for no reason?

Like, for example, that guy who was walking along when a cop hit him from behind, breaking his arm and dislocating his shoulder. If he'd turned around and kicked the cop in the face - presuming the cop wasn't cowering behind his riot shield - that would have been entirely legal, right?

[cybercoma]

I wonder how many of the remaining 10% of arrests actually ended with convictions. Just to give a clearer indication of legitimate arrests.

[g_bambino]

It does when there were no special poweres permitted to the police. And many were arrested under those powers.

They were?

"The Ontario government did not pass a secret law that gave police additional power to arrest people during the G20 Summit in Toronto," said Laura Blondeau, a spokeswoman for Community Safety Minister Rick Bartolucci.

"What the Ontario government did do, in the same way we process all regulations, is to create a regulation to ensure all areas within the security perimeter, were equally considered public lands under the Public Works Protection Act."

She said police made no arrests under the Act.

"They have authority for that under the Criminal Code. Anything that was employed this weekend outside the perimeter was under existing powers. There was not one arrest using the Public Works Protection Act. There were no sweeping powers."

Police given no special powers during G20: province

I only know of one guy who was arrested supposedly because he was in contravention of that Order-in-Council. But, in that case, the arresting cops didn't seem to know what they were talking about.

[g_bambino]

the cops grabbed anyone and everyone they could with no thought going into whether or not the arrests were valid.

At some points, yes, that did seem to be the case. At other times, it wasn't.

[+]

Edited March 15, 2011 by g_bambino

[GostHacked]

They were?

I only know of one guy who was arrested supposedly because he was in contravention of that Order-in-Council. But, in that case, the arresting cops didn't seem to know what they were talking about.

We only found out that the powers were never granted to the police AFTER THE SUMMIT WAS DONE. The powers were talked about and said to have been granted to the police before the summit ..... I've said that and linked that before. And you KEEP missing that.

Head in sand.

Edited March 15, 2011 by GostHacked

[g_bambino]

We only found out that the powers were never granted to the police AFTER THE SUMMIT WAS DONE.

Yes, I'm aware of when the truth was revealed. Where, though, is the evidence that any arrests, besides the one example I could find, were made under the pretense of said special powers? The rumoured additional authority was only relevant to a 5m wide zone around the secure area fence:

The province's attempt to clarify the change to the little-known Public Works Protection Act comes five days after Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair said there was a five-metre zone around the security barrier where police could ask people to produce identification, explain why they were there, and allow officers to search their bags.

Police given no special powers during G20: Province

Did hundreds of people get that close?

[+]

Edited March 15, 2011 by g_bambino

[GostHacked]

Yes, I'm aware of when the truth was revealed. Where, though, is the evidence that any arrests, besides the one example I could find, were made under the pretense of said special powers? The rumoured additional authority was only relevant to a 5m wide zone around the secure area fence:

Did hundreds of people get that close?

[+]

Obviously you don't have a problem with it, while many of us here that can think a little, do have a problem with it.

[Saipan]

So let me ask you this. As a guy who clearly believes in the right of self defense, does a citizen have the right to kick the living crap out of a cop who is assaulting them for no reason?

Like, for example, that guy who was walking along when a cop hit him from behind, breaking his arm and dislocating his shoulder. If he'd turned around and kicked the cop in the face - presuming the cop wasn't cowering behind his riot shield - that would have been entirely legal, right?

That's right. He would have no choice but to kick, since as you said, his arm was broken.

Personally I wouldn't. It's better (and safer) to sue for couple of million$. But that's me.

[William Ashley]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2011/03/15/police-protest-brutality.html

Money doesn't solve the past, it may only soften the future.

I dread to wonder if the riot act was read before police started arrests and crowd control methods.

If yes, I'm suprised people risked life in prison. If no, I'm suprised police didn't read it before using riot control methods on a crowd.

Edited March 16, 2011 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

Obviously you don't have a problem with it.

Problem with what, exactly? You don't seem able to show me exactly what I'm supposed to have a problem with.

[cybercoma]

Problem with what, exactly? You don't seem able to show me exactly what I'm supposed to have a problem with.

You're just being dense. Even the Toronto Chief of Police had a problem with what he saw on the videos he was shown on The Fifth Estate. Moreover, the investigations that have been launched into what has happened show that the government has a problem with how things were handled as well. There isn't a single person anywhere, even those involved that don't have a problem with what has happened.

[g_bambino]

You're just being dense.

Actually, you're being evasive. If there's no proof that hundreds were arrested under the pretense of the "special powers", then say so, instead of cowering behind personal attacks.

[GostHacked]

You're just being dense. Even the Toronto Chief of Police had a problem with what he saw on the videos he was shown on The Fifth Estate. Moreover, the investigations that have been launched into what has happened show that the government has a problem with how things were handled as well. There isn't a single person anywhere, even those involved that don't have a problem with what has happened.

Quite right. g_bambino is simply late to this party. We've been through this a few times already.

[g_bambino]

We've been through this a few times already.

Indeed. And it's giving me a pretty clear picture of just how faux most of your outrage is. Apparently, you and your dogmatic ilk are required to organise your perceptions around your emotions, shifting the rational parameters of acceptable and unacceptable and even inventing offences to be offended by; the examples of actual unlawful and/or obnoxious behaviour by protesters are played down, actual sorry acts by the police and government just aren't enough.

You seemingly can't find one shred of evidence to support the claim that "many were arrested under those [special] powers"; yet, you believe it anyway and can only mock those who politely ask to see what you've seen to make you so sure of yourself. This aligns perfectly with your earlier adamant but unfounded stance on the actions of the QPP at Montebello. Talking about this with you is like debating the existence of Jesus with a Christian.

[-]

Edited March 16, 2011 by g_bambino

[guyser]

You seemingly can't find one shred of evidence to support the claim that "many were arrested under those [special] powers"; yet, you believe it anyway and can only mock those who politely ask to see what you've seen to make you so sure of yourself.

You are likely correctt hat evidence of use of those special powers is not to be found.

Im betting the reason is the cops , once they have the person transported for custody file the charge under something else, considering they knew they never had the power to arrest under that special provision.

But out in the field , they can (and did) say they had the power .

People can and are arrested under charge X only to find out that the crown has amended it to charge Y .

From the totality of evidence, including 900 of 1000 charges thrown out,the admission of Chief Blair, it is obvious police acted under seemingly untouchable powers.

Dont dismiss the fact that approx 80 cops removed their names and badges when they were ordered not too. That sort of crap is and should not be acceptable and had Blair fired them all then the PR would be much better.

[g_bambino]

You are likely correctt hat evidence of use of those special powers is not to be found.

But out in the field, they can (and did) say they had the power.

It's hard to know for certain if any cop more than 5m from the security fence cited the Public Works Protection Act as a reason to search and/or arrest someone. I read a claim made by a civilian that an officer at Queen's Park said he had powers under that act to perform a random search. It's possible the story was true; could be an isolated incident or not. But, it's still all just hearsay.

The charges made seem to have been disturbing the peace, unlawful assembly, mischief, obstructing police, and the like.

Dont dismiss the fact that approx 80 cops removed their names and badges when they were ordered not too. That sort of crap is and should not be acceptable and had Blair fired them all then the PR would be much better.

Oh, I don't dismiss it at all. It's a separate matter, though.

[punct]

Edited March 16, 2011 by g_bambino

[Saipan]

Even the Toronto Chief of Police had a problem with what he saw

He has 'specially problem with Liberal waste on registration.