G20 Toronto 'BLUE BLOC' RIOTS

[jacee]

Illegal arrest, search and seizure and detention of all people wearing bandanas, on orders from the top.

Lawyer claims top cops directed unlawful G20 arrests

A report on one G20arrest and the subsequent successful lawsuit doesn’t convict Toronto Police of any wrongdoing, says spokesperson Mark Pugash ... at a press conference held outside police headquarters Tuesday by 25-year-old Jason Wall, who was arrested during last year’s summit while walking up Yonge St. wearing a bandana and was charged with wearing a disguise with intent.

...

Wall later launched a lawsuit against police and filed a complaint with the Office of the Independent Police Review Director — a civilian agency accountable to Ontario’s Attorney General.

The subsequent report contains “ shocking revelations" of unlawful police action during the G20, Wall’s lawyer, Davin Charney, told the news conference.

...

Charney claims the senior police officers gave unlawful orders during the G20 to target and arrest anyone wearing bandanas, goggles or gasmasks, and to search backpacks.

“I would suggest that this report should lead us to believe . . . that it is not the actions of one or two rogue officers or the actions of officers that were on the street that caused the Blue Bloc riot and the unlawful activities of the police during the G20,” Charney said. “But instead it’s the actions and orders that were given from senior police officers within the Toronto Police Service and perhaps other police forces.”

On the morning of Wall's arrest, a "Sargeant Gibb" gave the arrest orders passed down from “the Chief of Police” to a group of about 100 officers, according to comments from constables Blair Begbie and Vincent Wong collected in the OIPRD report.

I believe the officers.

And over 100 police officers DO NOT 'SPONTANEOUSLY' REMVOVE THEIR BADGE ID.

This is the first report of illegal orders from the top of TPS, Chief Bill Blair.

I guess Blair, the RCMP, CSIS

the PMO ...

Harper doesn't like bandanas.

Gee ... I guess they'll be seeing a lot of them now.

OCCUPY BANDANA !!

Edited December 7, 2011 by jacee

[cybercoma]

Secret Anti-Bandana Laws!

[Tilter]

Secret Anti-Bandana Laws!

Especially if they are being used to cover the face--- It's called wearing a disguise to avoid id in commission of a crime.

[cybercoma]

That law has always been on the books. Except, you have to actually be committing a crime for the bandana part to be criminal. Otherwise, it's really going to suck to be walking down the street in Canada with a scarf in the winter.

Edited December 7, 2011 by cybercoma

[WWWTT]

Especially if they are being used to cover the face--- It's called wearing a disguise to avoid id in commission of a crime.

Essentially the police did the same thing by removing name tags and covering their face with helmet and face shield

WWWTT

[William Ashley]

Those things prevent the effectiveness of chemical weapons and can cause "accidents" eg. with tear gas or pepper spray. It would require a further escalation of force beyond long range chemical agents. Note though that tear gas is not the only air dispersed agent BUT individuals have the right to defend against assualt or to use defensive agents for their protection where there is fear of danger to their life or another, and may take any reasonable means to uphold that right.

The old urine or vinegar thing http://freedommanual.blogspot.com/2009/12/tear-gas.html

*bear in mind once the riot act is read you have only two real options - 1. leave 2. win - it is not a game it is up to life in prison. If you are surrounded or boxed in, only 1 option remains.

Self defence is a legal defence justification.

Take for instance:

http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/selfdefense/CSD-JCJ-JFP-8-3-99.pdf

It is no longer a protest once the riot act is read. If police are acting in such a way to believe it was read it would be reasonable to believe it has been, since not hearing it be read is not a defence to defend again the offences within the riot act or their penalties, or the use of lethal force entrapped there in to be assumed. This as the riot act being enacted entails that lethal force may be used, thus the person object of the act may take any reasonable means to protect their life or life of another, including removal of the threat through proactive self defence .

Apprehension of serious mischief

(4) Every one who, in good faith and on reasonable grounds, believes that serious mischief will result from a riot before it is possible to secure the attendance of a peace officer is justified in using as much force as he believes in good faith and on reasonable grounds,

(a) is necessary to suppress the riot; and

( is not excessive, having regard to the danger to be apprehended from the continuance of the riot.

However it must be realized that peace officers themselves are under scruitiny of the act and if they are instigating what would constitute a riot they too would be subject to the response therein.

Simply put police instigating a riot whether by agent provocatuers or duty officers would make themselves subject to supression

often times removing the cops will prevent the riot, because they create opposition and cause escalation and aggravation leading to more mischeif.

So it seems reasonable a d justifiable to eliminate them from being actors in the event of a riot. Since one ought only need to kill individuals in actual commision actus reus of an offence to supress, the mischeif.

so killing the people causing damage and insuring he absence of police to escalate the event seems reasonable.

nothing like the odd dead person to act as a deterent for others from breaking windows, just not worth it,

so instead of employing riot police why not deploy snipers,

then you wonder why people are being killed in the middle east.

there is no need to criminalize law abiding citizens,

Its turned to a sport. doi g thi gs likenhaving the odd island for meeti gs or remote locations withutnaccess road =s is a way more oroactive approach to conferences.

they are endangeringpeoples lives.

Edited December 7, 2011 by William Ashley