Does this look like Canada to you?

[Scotty]

The more of this stuff I'm seeing, from Toronto, from Ottawa, from BC, and Alberta, about police misbehavior, about police attacking and assaulting perfectly innocent people with impunity, the more I feel we really need to reign in police. And I'm coming tot his conclusion from a perspective which has always been "Support your local police". I find the incompetence, dishonesty and violence of poorly trained, highly paid police to be grossly out of kilter with what we, as a society, expect. Too many police officers seem to have become thugs in uniform, blithely lying on reports, making up information, or using violence on the slightest pretext, then hiding behind the 'blue wall'. And I think the rot starts at the top. We need to go through the senior ranks of some of these police forces: RCMP, Toronto, Ottawa, with a chain saw, and then impose draconian new punishments for police officers who abuse their office. As an example, from the videos I've seen and stories I've heard hundred of police involved in the fiasco of the G20 ought to be fired, and many prosecuted for assault. Certainly that includes Toronto's police chief, and every senior police officer involved in the incompetent clusterfuck that was the G20.

Toronto Star

[CPCFTW]

I find the incompetence, dishonesty and violence of poorly trained, highly paid police to be grossly out of kilter with what we, as a society, expect.

These are the hallmarks of public service unions. The cops feel entitled to beat down civilians just like the postal workers feel entitled to extort Canadian taxpayers. I'm not as annoyed with paying above market value for police though... they carry guns not mailbags. It can be argued that the negative externalities of an underpaid police force far outweigh the savings. I can't really think of many negative externalities of underpaid paperboys.

Edited June 25, 2011 by CPCFTW

[Molly]

Giuliano Zaccardelli ..... took my breath away.

(Now, he works for Interpol, if I'm not mistaken.)

Edited June 25, 2011 by Molly

[Michael Hardner]

We also have a strange relationship with our ... uh ... rulers ? I wonder if it's related to our deference to the Monarchy. You can see it in the way we avoid prosecuting higher-ups (Black, Drabinsky, Alan Eagleson) versus the Americans. Note that all of those men went to justice in the US.

Certainly McGuinty acted like a king, passing secret edicts against free speech when power was ostensibly threatened.

But, no, it shouldn't stand. I want to know more, though. What made some cops think that they could act out in the way they did ? Were they told they'd have immunity ? Did some of them just lapse ?

[Scotty]

We also have a strange relationship with our ... uh ... rulers ? I wonder if it's related to our deference to the Monarchy. You can see it in the way we avoid prosecuting higher-ups (Black, Drabinsky, Alan Eagleson) versus the Americans. Note that all of those men went to justice in the US.

Certainly McGuinty acted like a king, passing secret edicts against free speech when power was ostensibly threatened.

But, no, it shouldn't stand. I want to know more, though. What made some cops think that they could act out in the way they did ? Were they told they'd have immunity ? Did some of them just lapse ?

I think they knew very well they were breaking the law. Witness how many of them removed any identifying name tags prior to the start of the day. Witness that in several cases where investigations tried to find out who arrested people it turned out the arrest sheets weren't signed, or that there were illegible scrawls instead of signatures. In the case above, he was interviewed by two police officer who refused to give him their names, and now, according to police, they don't actually know who those men were, even though they're on camera. REcall the Robert Dziekanski case. All four mounties, before they even knew there would be any kind of big issue, lied about the arrest, falsifying their reports. As if that were the routine thing to do for them. Then they perjured themselves on the stand. In the G20 investigations, we've seen numerous cases no police officer could remember who that guy was who was standing with them for hours at a time. "Huh? Gee? Was there a cop there who beat a guy? I didn't see nothing. I have no idea. No clue. Sorry."

[g_bambino]

We also have a strange relationship with our ... uh ... rulers ? I wonder if it's related to our deference to the Monarchy. You can see it in the way we avoid prosecuting higher-ups (Black, Drabinsky, Alan Eagleson) versus the Americans. Note that all of those men went to justice in the US.

Certainly McGuinty acted like a king, passing secret edicts against free speech when power was ostensibly threatened.

Can you be more specific about these "secret edicts against free speech"? I'd like to read these never before seen diktats from the Ontario Executive Council. After all, it's irrational to complain that "our rulers" are never prosecuted for crimes for which there's no proof. Conrad Black was a "higher up" who was prosecuted because there was evidence of his crime.

[William Ashley]

It doesn't gain me favour but cops are generally two faced.

Cops generally have no issue with abusing people or doing "not nice" things. Many are absolute jerks and power freaks.

They tend to act very nice with the general public. However they are in the business of ruining peoples lives.

Some cops are good cops, don't get me wrong; however, there are definately many bad cops and the more bad cops the more peer presure. That is why some forces have completely seperate investigative persons. The whole blue wall thing. You mess with a cop then you get messed with. They are what people can do without there being anyone to stop them.

Now cops do get in trouble from time to time, but they tend to get away with a lot of abuses. The corrections system and courts are the same way and they work together.

The protections arn't there, but it is another story when there are "masses" and "people that are "important" or their children. It adds a different dynamic. That is why mass protests can be far more effective than some lone individual protesting something and getting thrown out of the building or arrested.

It is strength in numbers. Police are a bit like knights of old. - It took public communes to defend against knights.

Now generally cops can be very useful to the average person, but if you are pegged or an enemy (even if legal) cops give people a hard time and can be prone to harassment. In part this is why court cases sometimes get thrown out - because cops do things based on beleif not on knowledge.

That is if it could be a problem then we deal with it - not "if it is a problem we deal with it".

It is somewhat understandable but definately not acceptable. Policing is a paramilitary effort to dominate the public it is more or less "crowd control" a drawn out riot.

Thing is though people who take part in riots are breaking the law - unfortunately there is a line between protest and riot -- and unfortunately deceptive tactics can be used to turn a peaceful protest into a riot by agent antagonists (even from a corrupt government) to shut down a peaceful protest or to lump a peaceful protest in with one that is not, a means of human sheilds.

Most of these things could be prevented before hand by proper planning. Planning is still lacking a little so as to prevent abuse -- planning unfortunately includes abuse.

This stuff is not unexpected if you ever have seen the "bad side" of a cop - they don't plant flowers for a living - they kill and capture people for a living - and they arn't always right.

[cybercoma]

While I agree with your premise, I don't necessarily think that police are highly paid at all. In most cases I think they start at roughly $40,000/year. For the work they do, I would hardly call this a high wage. Nonetheless, I agree about the sense of impunity and general thuggish behaviour that appears to be going on lately.

[Topaz]

While I agree with your premise, I don't necessarily think that police are highly paid at all. In most cases I think they start at roughly $40,000/year. For the work they do, I would hardly call this a high wage. Nonetheless, I agree about the sense of impunity and general thuggish behaviour that appears to be going on lately.

Check this out OPP highest paid. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/992584--mcguinty-defends-8-5-pay-hike-for-opp

[Topaz]

I did find their pay scale here.... http://www.opp.ca/ecms/index.php?id=98

[Keepitsimple]

As with almost everything, there are three sides to every story. Lets not forget that many of these police "transgressions" can be traced to extenuating and contributing circumstances. The Black Bloc at the G20, the hooliganism in Vancouver, the case of Robert Djicanskky, Caledonia. Society is getting more and more "expressive" and lord knows, the media is always looking for a story. There is no doubt that the Police have a continuous job to do in upgrading the way they respond to threats and in some cases, there is the presence of over-agression, poor training, or simply dealing with situations that the police are ill-equipped for. It's a tough job and police are only human. Everyone should stop and think how much self-control is required when people are spitting at you, swearing at you, taunting you, and creating havoc and destruction. What a crappy job at the best of times. Reading the Toronto Star, it would appear that nobody likes a cop until you need one. Is it really any wonder they stick together?

Edited June 25, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[cybercoma]

So they start at $45,000 in the OPP, but have a contract that goes up from there. I still don't think even $60,000-70,000 is a lot for the situations police are expected to put themselves in. They're good wages, but highly paid, correct me if I'm reading too far into it, seems to imply that they're unjustly overpaid.

edited to add: I don't want to sidetrack the valid point about the optics of excessive force used by police recently, so I'm not going to continue to discuss wages in this thread.

Edited June 25, 2011 by cybercoma

[August1991]

From link above:

In his court filing, Salvati claims he and his friends encountered several police officers on the evening of June 23 and were intrigued by the robust security in downtown Toronto, stopping several times to chat and even take pictures with officers.

At the end of the night, while trying to hail a cab, Salvati said he encountered two female RCMP officers and tried to engage them in conversation, too. He said the officers ignored him, prompting Salvati to say they should be more polite because taxpayers are paying for their overtime.

He then saluted the officers and said, “Well, good luck with Saturday.”

The filing states Salvati hailed a cab to go to a friend’s house. At a red light, two police officers approached the taxi and pulled him out.

Now, that's his version of events. As KISS notes, there are at least three sides to every story. The police have enough to worry about between hockey hooligans G20 heathen hordes. When going through airport control, everyone now knows not to make jokes.

----

My problem is the cost of all this. I fear that Salvati may win his nonsense suit and Canadian taxpayers will once again be on the hook for a sizeable payout. In the US, they have civil litigation. In Canada, we have suits against the government. At least in the US, the litigation may result in safer practices. In Canada, successful suits change nothing - it's "free money".

[dre]

These are the hallmarks of public service unions. The cops feel entitled to beat down civilians just like the postal workers feel entitled to extort Canadian taxpayers. I'm not as annoyed with paying above market value for police though... they carry guns not mailbags. It can be argued that the negative externalities of an underpaid police force far outweigh the savings. I can't really think of many negative externalities of underpaid paperboys.

[Michael Hardner]

Can you be more specific about these "secret edicts against free speech"? I'd like to read these never before seen diktats from the Ontario Executive Council.

I'm talking about the law that they supposedly passed outlawing protests near public works, which turned out to be not to have been as described.

After all, it's irrational to complain that "our rulers" are never prosecuted for crimes for which there's no proof. Conrad Black was a "higher up" who was prosecuted because there was evidence of his crime.

As I said, these people were prosecuted, but in the US.

[g_bambino]

I'm talking about the law that they supposedly passed outlawing protests near public works, which turned out to be not to have been as described.

I'll assume you're talking about the Public Works Protection Act. It was not passed by "they" (by which I assume you mean the Cabinet); the Cabinet cannot pass laws. It was passed by the legislature in 1939 and last amended in 1990. It permits those guarding public works to:

a) [...]require any person entering or attempting to enter any public work or any approach thereto to furnish his or her name and address, to identify himself or herself and to state the purpose for which he or she desires to enter the public work, in writing or otherwise;

[...]search, without warrant, any person entering or attempting to enter a public work or a vehicle in the charge or under the control of any such person or which has recently been or is suspected of having been in the charge or under the control of any such person or in which any such person is a passenger; and

c) [...]may refuse permission to any person to enter a public work and use such force as is necessary to prevent any such person from so entering.

[and]

...arrest, without warrant, any person who neglects or refuses to comply with a request or direction of a guard or peace officer, or who is found upon or attempting to enter a public work without lawful authority.

Public Works Protection Act

It does not state where one may or may not protest.

An Order-in-Council made the fence around the secure area and the area within five metres of the inside of the fence a public work. There is nothing illegal about doing so.

As I said, these people were prosecuted, but in the US.

Yes. And there was evidence on which their prosecutions were based.

[e/cons off]

Edited June 25, 2011 by g_bambino

[Michael Hardner]

An Order-in-Council made the fence around the secure area and the area within five metres of the inside of the fence a public work. There is nothing illegal about doing so.

Ok, you must know of the incident I'm speaking about, since you know these details. I don't think I imagined it.

[eCitizen]

The Toronto Police Association has vigorously opposed psychological testing for police recruits. Not a good sign, IMHO.

[Scotty]

While I agree with your premise, I don't necessarily think that police are highly paid at all. In most cases I think they start at roughly $40,000/year. For the work they do, I would hardly call this a high wage. Nonetheless, I agree about the sense of impunity and general thuggish behaviour that appears to be going on lately.

The salary for a 1st class police constable in Toronto was just raised to $91,000. And virtually all police get scads of overtime. Prior to the raise, 1300 police officers in Toronto made more than $100,000 last year.

Police require 12-24 weeks of training in Canada.

Hairdressers require 45 weeks in community college.

[Scotty]

It's a tough job and police are only human. Everyone should stop and think how much self-control is required when people are spitting at you, swearing at you, taunting you, and creating havoc and destruction.

That would be tough, except of late, I see little evidence of this 'self-control'. What I see is if you backtalk a cop you're going to wind up getting a beating, then taken down to a cell for strip searching.

[Scotty]

My problem is the cost of all this. I fear that Salvati may win his nonsense suit and Canadian taxpayers will once again be on the hook for a sizeable payout.

Nonsense suit? Apparently, based on zero evidence, August, you've already decided that there's no substance to his complaints.

This sort of attitude helps explain why the police in Quebec are so out of control, and do whatever the hell they want.

I wonder if you'd be so casual if you were jerked out of a car, arrested, stripped and paraded around naked in front of all and sundry, female or male, then thrown into a cell naked. All to be released after a dozen hours with no charge.

[g_bambino]

Ok, you must know of the incident I'm speaking about, since you know these details. I don't think I imagined it.

I've no idea of what you spoke about: a secret law passed in illegal fashion and which denies people free speech and outlaws protests near public works. As far as I know, you did indeed imagine it. You want to prosecute McGuinty (and the rest of the Cabinet? The Lieutenant Governor? The Queen?) for something that never happened.

[CPCFTW]

Police require 12-24 weeks of training in Canada.

Hairdressers require 45 weeks in community college.

I suggest you find a dictionary and look up the term "require".

[Evening Star]

August and KIS, regardless of this one case, there is plenty of video evidence of police beating or shooting totally peaceful protesters or even bystanders. It is completely indefensible. What is the defence for the sheer number of arrests? For the treatment of people with medical conditions?

The Black Bloc was the provocation?? No one has estimated their number to be anything close to significant. Besides, when there actually was vandalism, the police were thoroughly ineffective at doing anything about it.

Edited June 25, 2011 by Evening Star

[ToadBrother]

August and KIS, regardless of this one case, there is plenty of video evidence of police beating or shooting totally peaceful protesters or even bystanders. It is completely indefensible. What is the defence for the sheer number of arrests? For the treatment of people with medical conditions?

The Black Bloc was the provocation?? No one has estimated their number to be anything close to significant. Besides, when there actually was vandalism, the police were thoroughly ineffective at doing anything about it.

I'm all for coming down on the cops. There's clear evidence of abuses, not to mention the fact that a good many officers have perjured themselves. I have no idea why half the force isn't sitting behind bars for uttering false statements.

Aside from all of that, I do wonder what protesters hope to accomplish with any of this. The politicians, by and large, are so insulated from the madness on the streets, and in general, seem to suffer little enough electorally, that other than mayhem (peaceful or otherwise), I'm not exactly seeing a lot accomplished.

When I compare the activities of these particular rabbles and with, say, activists who sought for bans on land mines or curbs on international whaling and all those other successful or at least semi-successful campaigns, the difference I see is smart people who are dedicated, even obstinate, but never braying at the camera or jumping up and down. It strikes me, as much as anything, that they work their way into the halls of power, either through lobbying or through swinging public opinion their way, or in some cases even getting a politician or two in the cause itself.

Yes, I know, Gandhi and Martin Luther King lead vast peaceful protests, but if you compare them to the kind of nonsense we see at these various G8 or G20 conferences, I don't see a lot in common. Beyond that, to some extent, in both cases, the underlying social foment was already happening. King didn't invent civil rights, what he did was to galvanize it, to give it a center, and what's more, had no truck with more violent types. The same with Gandhi. Indians were already tired of the British and seeking to rule their own destinies, but he provided a philosophy and a moral center.

Even the "good" protesters at these meetings are nothing more than fixated blowhards, incapable or unwilling to see beyond their tunnel vision approach to problems. They really do seem to believe yelling in the public commons somehow will sway people.