G20 police aggression

[GostHacked]

Maybe. But it was also their job to protect the secure area where the summit was taking place, which they did perfectly.

Now you see where their loyalties lie. You the average person are scum, the elites must be protected at any cost.

[g_bambino]

Now you see where their loyalties lie. You the average person are scum, the elites must be protected at any cost.

I never said any such thing, as I'm sure anyone can see.

[GostHacked]

I never said any such thing, as I'm sure anyone can see.

No, true, you have not said much of anything. Let's wait and see, and now that a judge has ruled that the cops were the agressors, you still want to sit on that fence?

Sounds like you are more on the cops side, than for protecting the rights of Canadian citizens. These foreign elite have more rights in your country than you do, and that should not be so.

[Argus]

Maybe. But it was also their job to protect the secure area where the summit was taking place, which they did perfectly.

Uhm, not really. The fence did most of that, and the RCMP inside did the rest. I'm not aware of any major efforts at breaching, climbing or storming the fence. The great mass of police were outside with demonstrators and tasked to maintain order. They failed in that task. They were also, of course, required to enforce the law, while abiding by the police act and the constitution. They did a shoddy job at the first, and completely abandoned the second and third. Just to start, those police who have been found to have removed their identification badges should have been fired.

I would hope, now that the police have demonstrated their dishonesty, that all the riot gear has painted on numbers in large yellow paint so that the next time they are taped committing illegal acts they can't all just shrug, give a confused look and say "I didn't see nothing!"

[g_bambino]

I'm not aware of any major efforts at breaching, climbing or storming the fence.

Because nobody got close enough to it, obviously.

With much of downtown Toronto around the Metro Toronto Convention Centre fenced off so world leaders can conduct their G20 business, protesters were trying to storm the fence.

G20 protest turns violent

But frustrated by an impenetrable line of security forces surrounding the downtown site where Prime Minister Stephen Harper was hosting the G20 summit, activists turned on the city.

Police let them get as far as Queen St. W. and then brought them to a halt.

Anarchists leave trail of destruction

The great mass of police were outside with demonstrators and tasked to maintain order. They failed in that task.

Sometimes, in some places. I was personally present to see some of them making their best efforts to establish order, though.

They were also, of course, required to enforce the law, while abiding by the police act and the constitution. They did a shoddy job at the first, and completely abandoned the second and third.

Some. Not all.

[sp]

Edited August 28, 2011 by g_bambino

[CitizenX]

The actions of the government and the police during the G20 Summit demonstrate the need for answers, accountability, and action. An independent inquiry into the actions of the police during the G20 is required.

Immediately following last year’s summit, 73 per cent of Torontonians said police were justified in their response to demonstrations. One year later, that figure has dropped to only 41 per cent — a dramatic, 32-point percentage drop......Thank you YouTube the great social justice tool.

[cybercoma]

I would hope, now that the police have demonstrated their dishonesty, that all the riot gear has painted on numbers in large yellow paint so that the next time they are taped committing illegal acts they can't all just shrug, give a confused look and say "I didn't see nothing!"

We've disagreed on many things over the years; however, I do commend you for not being ideologically biased when you take a stance on issues. You, unlike many other posters, come to a conclusion on each individual issue, rather than just spouting ideologically charged rhetoric, most of the time. Kudos.

[bloodyminded]

We've disagreed on many things over the years; however, I do commend you for not being ideologically biased when you take a stance on issues. You, unlike many other posters, come to a conclusion on each individual issue, rather than just spouting ideologically charged rhetoric, most of the time. Kudos.

Yes, you can count on Argus to be Argus, and who would want it any other way? We disagree a lot, but he's principled.

Incidentally, I find the notion of "balance" here--"sure, some police broke the law, and so did some protesters"--to be quite telling, and a bit disturbing. That's not "balance," because the two situations are not equal. The police abusing their power and breaking the law is worse.

Edited August 28, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Argus]

Because nobody got close enough to it, obviously.

Okay, look, if you go on google and check out REAL riots, where people where REALLY rioting, you'll see them trying to break through police lines. You'll see them trying to tear down fences. You'll see them throwing things at the cops and over the fences, etc. etc. Nothing like that happened in Toronto. The organized groups of nitwits marched around chanting and then went home. They obeyed the rules and abided by the agreemnts with police. End of story.

One group of at most 200 useless morons got together and commited some vandalism for an hour or two, which included burning a couple of cop cars the incompetents from the Toronto police left in their path. That was pretty much the sum total of "rioting" which took place at the G20. And it wasn't even directed at TRYING to get near the fence!

Sometimes, in some places. I was personally present to see some of them making their best efforts to establish order, though.

To establish order against people who were doing what exactly? Peeing on the bushes? I'm unaware of any disorder other than that caused BY the police attacking people aside from that one group of morons cited above. If you ARE aware of some other disorder I'd like to hear it.

Some. Not all.

[sp]

The Toronto police who organized this were incompetent screwups, and in any other city the chief would have been forced to resign by now. The individual cops were clueless and poorly trained, didn't seem to know what they were doing or why they were doing it, and moved around in big bunches on orders from the incompents above them. A number of individual cops used excessive violence as can be seen in numerous video tapes, and many, many more watched and did nothing, or watched and then lied about it later when asked by a variety of inquiries. A hundred or so cops were disciplined by the TPS for removing their identitifcation badges prior to the start of this operation. Those are the ones who the TPS could actually prove did it. Clearly many more did it. While it would be unfair to say every single officer did a poor job it's clear that the training and discipline of the cops as a whole was sorely lacking, and that their first level supervisors were asshats who either didn't know anything about legality or didn't care, for they did little to reign in their troops.

Because let me tell you something about organizational structure in military and semi-military units. There is ALWAYS a supervisory officer there. In every batch of cops there will be corporals or sergeants. Someone is IN CHARGE of that unit. It's their job to keep everyone in line. As for example, if you see one of your guys step forward and slam his shield into the side of the head of a guy taking a picture in the other direction, for no legal reason whatever, you're supposed to make clear note of that in your report so that particular officer can be disciplined later. That didn't happen. As far as I can see from what I've read to date the supervisory officers didn't do their jobs. That means stripes ought to be pulled, but I haven't heard even a suggestion of that. Maybe because the ass hats who were supposed to be watching them didn't do their job either, as evidenced by the numerous people arrested without the slightest evidence of wrongdoing. I mean, seriously, just who was the brain dead idiot with the braid on his cap who decided to block in hundreds of people and hold them there in the rain for hours at a time because, apparently, someone suspected there might be a few of those (gasp) black block types among them. And who was his counterpart who decided to have the cops clear out all the people in the "free speech" area the cops themselves had established, with about 20 seconds warning before attacking? Why are these people still employed as police officers when they clearly have so little regard for what is and is not legal?

[Argus]

We've disagreed on many things over the years; however, I do commend you for not being ideologically biased when you take a stance on issues. You, unlike many other posters, come to a conclusion on each individual issue, rather than just spouting ideologically charged rhetoric, most of the time. Kudos.

I don't consider "support your local police" to be an ideological issue so much as a reflexive reaction in people who've grown up watching all those heroic cops on television. And given the number of public, that is, video taped, outrages commited by police at all levels over the past few years I find it inexplicable how many people still will automatically support police despite evidence of wrongdoing.

It is entirely coincidental, or perhaps our national motto really is reflected in the feelings of Canadians. But "Peace, order and good government" are more than just words to me. Does that make them an ideology? Dunno.

I am a particular fan of maintaining order, and in that manner I normally am a big supporter of police - when they act correctly, professionally, and in the interests of justice and order. But that means I hold police to a higher standard with regard to breaking the law. That is particularly true with the use of force. They are the only people in this country we grant the right to assault, restrain, and kill. But for obvious reasons we want those actions to be done under rigidly outlined conditions by those acting professionally. I find it disturbing how readily some police employed violence when it was unnecessary, employed it against people who had broken no laws. I find it disturbing that their supervisors looked on and did nothing, that their colleagues looked on and did nothing. I also find it disturbing how readily police arrested people for no reason whatsoever. These guys are supposed to have at least some familiarity with the law and constitution. They have to know you can't arrest someone without having a charge at hand. They did so anyway, probably in some measure because they figured slapping everyone in cages would make their jobs easier while the G20 was on. But that's not a good enough bloody reason! I think the police, at all levels, those who commited assaults, those who arrested people knowing they had broken no laws, their supervisors and colleagues who looked on, then lied about it later, and the higher ups who 'organized' this mess, if I can term it to be organized, betrayed their badges and the trust society had in them when giving them the right to exercise those unique powers the police have. In my opinion hundreds of those cops ought to have been fired or demoted and massive retraining given to the rest.

[g_bambino]

To establish order against people who were doing what exactly? Peeing on the bushes?

Filling a public intersection with traffic still in it, ripping down street signs, smashing the windows of the two cars and a van (white, as I recall, with the driver and a passenger inside) that became stuck in the intersection as the crowd flowed in. A line of police moved across the top of University Avenue to keep that mob - which literally filled the intersection by that point - from moving south on that road; the line then slowly started moving north, pushing the crowd - without violence, as much as I could see, and I was right at the police line, face to face with a horse at one point - at the same time off west on College, towards Queen's Park, and, I assume, because I couldn't see the other side of the intersection, east down College at the other side. In other words, dispersing the throng.

Do you really care that I saw that, though? You seem to already be pretty set in your conclusions about everybody and everything that took place, and what I witnessed - police doing their jobs, successfully clearing a crowd out of a street and keeping it from moving down towards all the hospitals along University - doesn't fit with what you say.

[c/e]

Edited August 29, 2011 by g_bambino

[Argus]

Filling a public intersection with traffic still in it, ripping down street signs, smashing the windows of the two cars and a van (white, as I recall, with the driver and a passenger inside) that became stuck in the intersection as the crowd flowed in. A line of police moved across the top of University Avenue to keep that mob - which literally filled the intersection by that point - from moving south on that road and then slowly started moving north, pushing the crowd - without violence, as much as I could see, and I was right at the police line, face to face with a horse at one point - at the same time off west on College, towards Queen's Park,

I'm not aware of any mobs attacking private vehicles with people in them. And if they were doing that why would the police not use violence? I'm not against police violence, you know. I think a mob attacking private vehicles and smashing windows OUGHT to be beaten by police. Go for it, boys!

From the sounds, that would be the 'black block' since I haven't seen any reports of violence commited by any other group. That being the case, why weren't they confronted and arrested? If things happened as you suggest then I suppose this would be the opening phase of police incompetence, that is, the early going where they did little or nothing to control vandals. The second phase came hours later when, embarrassed at their colosul screwup earlier, they went overboard and attacked everyone in sight.

Do you really care that I saw that, though? You say you're a supporter of police, yet quite evidently have determined for yourself that all cops at the G20 were skull-cracking pigs.

[c/e]

Never said any such things. Never even hinted at it. I said there were many cops who used excessive force and many others who stood by, watched, and then lied about it. There were also a lot of cops who arrested people illegally, as under the law a police officer does not have the legal right to detain people unless he has evidence they commited a crime. The rest of the cops were just under trained, under disciplined, and poorly led.

I'm as contemptuous of the cops for NOT going in and busting heads on the black block as I am for their zealous bullying efforts against law abiding citizens later, you know.

[g_bambino]

I'm not aware of any mobs attacking private vehicles with people in them. And if they were doing that why would the police not use violence?

Because it would've taken the situation from a vandalising mob moving along a public road to a total clusterfuck wherein a lot of people got seriously hurt.

There were officers who made decisions on their own and should be facing the trials they are, and probably others who should be in the same position. There were moments where the witnessed actions of many police made it impossible to comprehend what their commander's (commanders'?) thinking must have been. But there were other moments where one could either clearly or possibly see a rationale - even if flawed, or risky - behind the orders that must've been given. All told, the police did their job and they didn't; good decisions and bad decisions were made by command; some officers used the circumstances to become thugs themselves and many did not. And, though it's no excuse for any wrongdoing, it might be confirmation of at least slightly more "gooddoing" to consider that the end result turned out better that it did for the same event in other cities, where people died and a lot more damage was done.

[c/e]

Edited August 29, 2011 by g_bambino

[CitizenX]

WHO GAVE THE G20 COMMANDER HIS COMMANDS?

It wasn't just a few bad apples, it was an illegal game plan. Demand a public inquiry.

Edited August 29, 2011 by CitizenX

[jacee]

More justice following the injustices of the G20:

/g20-officer-who-told-protester-this-aint-canada-right-now-committed-battery-ontarios-top-court

The officers, the court found, were not simply controlling access to an area as might happen at an airport or courthouse where they have specific authority to screen everyone. Instead they were targeting some people and forcing them to submit to a search without any authority to do so.

The intention motivating the police conduct was therefore to stop everyone who appeared to be exercising their freedom of expression, and to impose an onerous condition upon them, the court ruled.

The officers remarks further undermine the reasonableness of their conduct, and aggravate the harm to Mr. Figueirass liberty.

Police, the court concluded, violated Figueirass constitutional right to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and liberty.

It ordered police to pay him $10,000 in legal costs.

Edited March 31, 2015 by jacee

[Argus]

More justice following the injustices of the G20:

/g20-officer-who-told-protester-this-aint-canada-right-now-committed-battery-ontarios-top-court

The officers, the court found, were not simply controlling access to an area as might happen at an airport or courthouse where they have specific authority to screen everyone. Instead they were targeting some people and forcing them to submit to a search without any authority to do so.

The intention motivating the police conduct was therefore to stop everyone who appeared to be exercising their freedom of expression, and to impose an onerous condition upon them, the court ruled.

The officers remarks further undermine the reasonableness of their conduct, and aggravate the harm to Mr. Figueirass liberty.

Police, the court concluded, violated Figueirass constitutional right to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and liberty.

It ordered police to pay him $10,000 in legal costs.

I would have liked to see a much heftier judgement, even if Figueirass wasn't seeking anything.

No cop gets the right to say there are no civil liberties because someone burned a few cars, and if he thinks otherwise he has no business being a cop, much less supervising them.

[jacee]

I would have liked to see a much heftier judgement, even if Figueirass wasn't seeking anything.

No cop gets the right to say there are no civil liberties because someone burned a few cars, and if he thinks otherwise he has no business being a cop, much less supervising them.

I think he did the right thing, giving no one a chance to say he was just after money.

.

[Argus]

I think he did the right thing, giving no one a chance to say he was just after money.

.

The problem is the police will not pay attention to anything but a monetary club to the head. A million dollar award might get some changes made.

[jacee]

The problem is the police will not pay attention to anything but a monetary club to the head. A million dollar award might get some changes made.

... But it would be our money. :/

.

[Argus]

... But it would be our money. :/

.

I'm aware of that, but taking it from the police - which will likely not be refunded by the city -- is all that's going to teach them manners. For that matter, it's all that's going to teach the government agencies which pay them any lessons.

Personally, I'd like to see police contracts amended, though, so that any awards for brutality are deducted from what is available to pay their inflated salaries. If they all have to take a pay cut because some moron kicked some guy in the face while he was kneeling and surrendering, well then maybe they'd kind of pressure each other to stop acting like thugs.

[jacee]

I'm aware of that, but taking it from the police - which will likely not be refunded by the city -- is all that's going to teach them manners. For that matter, it's all that's going to teach the government agencies which pay them any lessons.

Personally, I'd like to see police contracts amended, though, so that any awards for brutality are deducted from what is available to pay their inflated salaries. If they all have to take a pay cut because some moron kicked some guy in the face while he was kneeling and surrendering, well then maybe they'd kind of pressure each other to stop acting like thugs.

It would be nice to see other cops take some responsibility for inappropriate actions of their colleagues.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the $25m $45m lawsuits.

.

Edited April 4, 2015 by jacee

[drummindiver]

I think a class action law suit against the thugs who damaged ppls' livelihoods and police cars should be launched. As with your desire, Jacee, I think the people marching alongside-you know, the colleagues of the thugs-should take some financial responsibility for their colleagues actions.

[On Guard for Thee]

I think a class action law suit against the thugs who damaged ppls' livelihoods and police cars should be launched. As with your desire, Jacee, I think the people marching alongside-you know, the colleagues of the thugs-should take some financial responsibility for their colleagues actions.

Whats your badge number

[drummindiver]

lol. Original.

You guys are awesome. One police bad=all police pay. Hundreds of citizens bad=only a handful (really, none at all...honest).

Ppl had to sit in inhumane (uh, middle of Toronto inhumane?) conditions for (ghast) hours. While, you know, it's all good that just a few cop cars burned.

[Michael Hardner]

lol. Original.

You guys are awesome. One police bad=all police pay. ... While, you know, it's all good that just a few cop cars burned.

Are you saying that police suffered from the loss of those burned cars ?