Cons spied on Canadian communities years before G20

[guyser]

Falsely arresting?

BS.

I guess you were participating in the riot if you think that way.

Or someone who doesnt have their head buried in the sand.

So many arrests, and so very very few convictions. That tells you .....false arrest. Who'd a thunk it?

[jacee]

Falsely arresting?

BS.

I guess you were participating in the riot if you think that way.

There was no riot. Black Bloc acted separately and away from the main protest. Police didn't catch them so instead they punished the peaceful protesters.

People were detained on 'breach of the peace' and then released without charges, but they had done nothing.

[g_bambino]

So many arrests, and so very very few convictions. That tells you .....false arrest. Who'd a thunk it?

That's not what defines a false arrest.

[cybercoma]

That's not what defines a false arrest.

Mass arrests with practically no convictions.

Yeah. Ok. I'm sure they were mostly legitimate.

[g_bambino]

Mass arrests with practically no convictions.

Yeah. Ok. I'm sure they were mostly legitimate.

A conviction is not the deciding factor in whether or not the preceeding arrest was false.

[olp1fan]

A conviction is not the deciding factor in whether or not the preceeding arrest was false.

give it up man, you can;t detain 1000 people for no legit reason and then let them go and then say they weren't falsely arrested

False arrest is a common law tort, where a plaintiff alleges they were held in custody without probable cause, or without an order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction

Most of the people who were detained committed no crime

[cybercoma]

A conviction is not the deciding factor in whether or not the preceeding arrest was false.

Seriously... 1000 people with very few if any convictions, more than a little bit suggests that these were sweeping arrests. That is illegal in Canada.

[olp1fan]

maybe if bambino was attacked by several police and hit with riot gear and then herded into a mini cell all for walking down the street

he would have a change of heart

[bush_cheney2004]

maybe if bambino was attacked by several police and hit with riot gear and then herded into a mini cell all for walking down the street

he would have a change of heart

I doubt that he would ever give police cause to do so.

[guyser]

I doubt that he would ever give police cause to do so.

Probably true.

But then again, the same can be said for the people who did exactly that and were arrested.

[g_bambino]

Seriously... 1000 people with very few if any convictions, more than a little bit suggests that these were sweeping arrests. That is illegal in Canada.

Once more, conviction has no bearing on the definition of false arrest. Arresting the wrong person because of mistaken identity is false arrest. Arrest without probable cause is false arrest. "Sweeping" arrests also aren't illegal.

Now, before anyone launches into a spiel about how people were arrested for doing nothing, the vast majority of arrests made during the G20 weekend were for suspected breach of the peace, which covers a pretty broad range of activities, including, but certainly not limited to, unlawful assembly and rioting. Between common law and written law (like the Criminal Code of Canada and the Ontario Police Services Act), officers have a fair amount of leeway in deciding what constitutes a probable breach of the peace and making arrests (though of limited duration) to preserve the peace. So, even though there were about a thousand arrests made, you'd be hard pressed to find an actual false one amongst them.

[ed.: corr.]

Edited November 24, 2011 by g_bambino

[cybercoma]

If they had probable cause for those 1000 people, you would think a hell of a lot more of them would have been charged or convicted.

[g_bambino]

If they had probable cause for those 1000 people, you would think a hell of a lot more of them would have been charged or convicted.

All were charged; as I said, most with breach of the peace. Forgetting about convictions (yet again), just because the charges are later dropped does not mean the preceeding arrests were false.

In fact, it would seem that by the relevant sections of the Criminal Code (S.31 and 32, for instance), officers can arrest individuals for breaching the peace or to prevent them from doing so. No mention of a need to lay charges. S.503 Allows officers to detain a person for up to 24 hours and if "the peace officer or officer in charge is satisfied that the person should be released from custody, whether unconditionally under subsection (4) or otherwise conditionally or unconditionally, and so releases him."

[ed.: +]

Edited November 24, 2011 by g_bambino

[olp1fan]

All were charged; as I said, most with breach of the peace. Forgetting about convictions (yet again), just because the charges are later dropped does not mean the preceeding arrests were false.

actually they weren't charged, they were detained and then released

[guyser]

Once more, conviction has no bearing on the definition of false arrest. Arresting the wrong person because of mistaken identity is false arrest. Arrest without probable cause is false arrest. "Sweeping" arrests also aren't illegal.

Now, before anyone launches into a spiel about how people were arrested for doing nothing, the vast majority of arrests made during the G20 weekend were for suspected breach of the peace, which covers a pretty broad range of activities, including, but certainly not limited to, unlawful assembly and rioting. Between common law and written law (like the Criminal Code of Canada and the Ontario Police Services Act), officers have a fair amount of leeway in deciding what constitutes a probable breach of the peace and making arrests (though of limited duration) to preserve the peace. So, even though there were about a thousand arrests made, you'd be hard pressed to find an actual false one amongst them.

[ed.: corr.]

bambino, normally spot on but in this case , I believe you to be way off the mark.

1) People were arrested for doing nothing.

2) Violations of rights, illegal searches, illegal demands for ID all occured.

3)Vast m,ajority of people were NOT charged, but released that day or days later.

All told on the summation of what we know, arrests for failing to identify, or being stopped and refusing to be searched and arrested for that , on the whole of the evidence one should easily come up with the false arrest verdict.

Arresting someone without probable cause is enough to say false arrests occurred

[cybercoma]

What Raine Maeda's biggeset fan said is right.

news story here

How is it at all acceptable for the cops to arrest over 1100 people and not press charges? The cops aren't allowed to just randomly detain people because they feel like it.

[g_bambino]

actually they weren't charged, they were detained and then released

I added this to my previous post, but I'll repeat it again here:

It would seem that by the relevant sections of the Criminal Code (S.31 and 32, for instance), officers can arrest individuals for breaching the peace or to prevent them from doing so. No mention of a need to lay charges. S.503 Allows officers to detain a person for up to 24 hours and if "the peace officer or officer in charge is satisfied that the person should be released from custody, whether unconditionally under subsection (4) or otherwise conditionally or unconditionally, and so releases him."

[cybercoma]

Protesting is not breaching the peace. Even if it were, Charter Rights supersede the criminal code in this case because it is not reasonable in a free and just society to round up a bunch of people and arrest them, simply because they are protesting.

[g_bambino]

Protesting is not breaching the peace. Even if it were, Charter Rights supersede the criminal code...

Some protesting is a breach of the peace. The Charter doesn't allow anyone to do anything anywhere.

There is no absolute freedom of assembly in Canada. First, the Charter itself limits it by guaranteeing only "peaceful" assembly. That's why the government can restrict certain kinds of assembly that it considers not peaceful. Such restrictions do not infringe on the Charter freedom of assembly unless the courts disagree with the government’s interpretation of what's "peaceful."

Second, the Charter freedom of peaceful assembly is guaranteed only "to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" (s. 1 of the Charter). It means legislative acts or judge-made common law in Canada can limit even peaceful assembly, but they must have very good reasons. Legislative acts include federal and provincial laws and regulations as well as municipal by-laws.

The law of street protest in Canada

[olp1fan]

im sure the people who were trying to get home but got detained were breaching the peace too

[cybercoma]

The vast majority of people that were arrested were nothing less than peaceful by any stretch of the imagination. If they were causing problems, they should have been charged. They weren't. More to the point, it is highly unethical to call political dissent a breach of peace, even for those who were vocally protesting. Is it not the least bit concerning to you that the police just rounded up innocent people at random? Does it not concern you that the police violently opposed political dissent? All of this implies that we are only a democracy for 12 hours every 4 years (or so).

(By the bye, I like the fact that you cut out the parts where I practically quote directly from that section of the charter, so you could post that section of the charter)

Edited November 25, 2011 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

In short, I didn't say "anyone [can] do anything anywhere."

[g_bambino]

I didn't say "anyone [can] do anything anywhere."

Well, your statement about protests not being a breach of the peace was pretty wide-sweeping, without caveat, as though anyone can protest anywhere, at any time and it won't be considered a breach of the peace ultimately because the Charter trumps the Criminal Code and it allows us all the right to assembly. But the Charter itself places limitations on mass protest (on all rights within it, actually), which you neglected to mention: it must be peaceful and conducted in such a way as to allow for the continued existence of a "free and democratic society." The sections of the Criminal Code that deal with breach of the peace and unlawful assembly, plus the common law that empowers police to maintain the peace, have been found to be in accordance with the constitution.

If they were causing problems, they should have been charged.

Arrest for breach of the peace doesn't require a charge to be laid.

More to the point, it is highly unethical to call political dissent a breach of peace...

You may have an argument there, but we're talking about the law, not subjective things like ethics.

[ed.: +]

Edited November 25, 2011 by g_bambino

[cybercoma]

Well, your statement about protests not being a breach of the peace was pretty wide-sweeping, without caveat, as though anyone can protest anywhere, at any time and it won't be considered a breach of the peace ultimately because the Charter trumps the Criminal Code and it allows us all the right to assembly. But the Charter itself places limitations on mass protest (on all rights within it, actually), which you neglected to mention: it must be peaceful and conducted in such a way as to allow for the continued existence of a "free and democratic society." The sections of the Criminal Code that deal with breach of the peace and unlawful assembly, plus the common law that empowers police to maintain the peace, have been found to be in accordance with the constitution.

First of all, we're talking about the G20 protests specifically and the fact that the cops didn't arrest anybody the day that people actually were breaching the peace by smashing windows and setting cop cars on fire. Instead, the next day they kettled innocent protesters and made mass arrests of people that were not even remotely threatening. And secondly, I did mention the Charter when I specifically said that mass arrests like these were not "reasonable in a free and just society". I used the wording from the Charter itself for a reason.

Arrest for breach of the peace doesn't require a charge to be laid.

There has to be a breach of peace in the first place or it's a false arrest. Saying that any and all protests are a breach of peace effectively eliminates a person's Charter prtoection. Breach of peace arrests can only be made in cases where it is a "reasonable limit" placed on the persons' freedoms in a "free and just society". Calling it breach of peace when people are doing nothing more than carrying signs, shouting slogans, and condemning the government is not reasonable in a free and just society. Many people were not even doing this. They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. That wrong place happened to be their own neighbourhoods where they worked and lived. There is absolutely no reasonable explanation for the cops arresting 1105 people and laying few if any charges.

You may have an argument there, but we're talking about the law, not subjective things like ethics.

[ed.: +]

We are talking about the law. The law needs to be interpreted within an ethical framework that reflects the values of our society. This is why the Charter uses vagueries like "reasonable limits." What's reasonable? What isn't? You obviously think randomly kettling protesters and arresting them is reasonable. What does a "free and just society" mean? I happen to think that using breach of peace to arrest protesters that are on public property and specifically not being violent or breaking any laws--we're not talking the people that torched cop cars and smashed business--does not in any way whatsoever exemplify a free and just society. In fact, it does just the opposite. I don't believe it's at all reasonable to apply the breach of peace label to political dissent, which is exactly what the police had done and what you are trying to justify. Since I have to spell out the caveats, this doesn't mean that cops can't arrest protesters ever. It means that cops should never be arresting protesters that are not breaking laws, while breach of peace ought never to be applied to the protesting itself.

[WWWTT]

All were charged; as I said, most with breach of the peace. Forgetting about convictions (yet again), just because the charges are later dropped does not mean the preceeding arrests were false.

Actually it was the government that had caused the initiall breach of peace by disturbing local citizens and business with their G20 summit!

WWWTT