Violent occupy protester 'it' assaults police officer!

[GostHacked]

Then it can't be all that common.

Well, take a couple hours out of your day to watch this one if you want. I highly doubt you will. It's a little over 2hrs long, so people with ADHD might want to avoid the documentary.

[DogOnPorch]

Well, take a couple hours out of your day to watch this one if you want. I highly doubt you will. It's a little over 2hrs long, so people with ADHD might want to avoid the documentary.

On a holiday? Fat chance. That's why there's short clips from the action. But since they don't exist in all those examples I gave you, I'm forced to conclude that the video isn't common.

so people with ADHD might want to avoid the documentary.

Well, you watched it so you would know, Thanks for the heads up to all the others with ADHD out there.

[GostHacked]

On a holiday? Fat chance. That's why there's short clips from the action.

Right, short clips for the ADHD crowd. As I said, this one is two hours long. If I can sit through it, so can you. Simply because you and I both know you are better than me.

But it's a holiday, so spend the next few hours surfing the net on this fine holiday.

Edited April 6, 2012 by GostHacked

[Signals.Cpl]

No, you might be following your own flawed logic here. That;s never been my logic. But since you are new here, I'll set you straight this one time and let you continue whatever it is you are doing.

Not all cops are bad, but we've always seen it where a few ruin it for the rest. BUT in the case of Montebello and the G20 and many other protests, there are undercover cops among the protesters trying to either goad them into rioting or it could be more of a psychological thing of .. omg the cops are everywhere.

First off whats wrong with the psychological aspect? If the protestors know the cops are everywhere great protests as much as you want and no one should bother you, the people who have problems with this concept are usually the once who are doing something wrong.

Second you have no proof that what the Montebello cops did was done in Toronto during the G20, and the fact is I don't see a problem even if it was used in Toronto, but you have not proven that it was and your only "evidence" for everything G20 is that well Montebello did this.

Third, it seems to be your logic, as every time you try to prove Toronto did something wrong it must be because they are police and police officers in Quebec did something wrong. Its the exact same thing I posted.

It shows precedent where this is a common tactic among many police forces in protest situations. So Montebello has relevance to the G20 and to other protests.

It might be precedent for Montebello cops, but it is not for Toronto cops, its YOUR assumption. When a police department does something it does not mean that every police department would do that exact thing. What the Montebello Police Department does has no bearing on what the TPS does nor does it have any bearing on what the Ottawa Police Service does and it does not have a bearing on the actions of the RCMP or the OPP.

Since both departments are using the same kinds of tactics (maybe slightly different in execution) then there is relevance. There is a lot of footage of the G20 in Toronto that shows those kinds of tactics. You'll need to look a bit closer at those incidents.

You seem to be back tracking some. At first you said the ends justify the means (no matter Montebello or the G20) and now you claim that the tactics were not the same by either police force, while stating that the tactics are a common police practice.

Let me drive another truck through your argument.

Let me quite my self page 6, 03 April 2012 - 07:11 AM

Sometimes the end justifies the means.

Definition of sometimes:

some·times/ˈsəmˌtīmz/

Adverb:

Occasionally, rather than all of the time: "sometimes I want to cry".

Synonyms:

occasionally - at times - once in a while - now and then

Edited April 6, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[GostHacked]

London England.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_zozlNfGl4

[GostHacked]

Oakland California

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7ZcXT97oLM

Compilation set to hip music so you trendies can think they are cool too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqdCDhMfCt4

[GostHacked]

More of the G20 in Toronto.

Just because Cartman is cooler than Gaga.

[Signals.Cpl]

More of the G20 in Toronto.

Just because Cartman is cooler than Gaga.

The first one showed nothing, but someone's commentary of what "happened". Even if the police parked the cars on purpose which I am not saying they did, but IF they did how does that justify torching them?

Second one, a couple of young security guards backing away from what I saw as a large crowd, I don't know about you, but my life and I assume they were thinking about it the same as me, is worth more then a broken window. You see what you want to see, the reality is the guy with the black hair got ahead of himself, started chasing the animal away and then realized that it was a really bad idea. And you can say there was confusion on his face, I say there was fear on his face mainly because any sane person would be terrified at that point being outnumbered so badly.

[Signals.Cpl]

London England.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_zozlNfGl4

The first clip shows nothing but 3 guys getting in to a scuffle and then being broken up. Reality is, this proves nothing, mainly because if someone with a different agenda had gotten a hold of this video he can prove anything he wants.

I believe I have made my stance clear enough about these so called agent provocateurs, if they throw bait to see who is violent and has violent intentions all the power to them, the second they start participating in the riot it kind of makes it a crime and thus should be punished.

The second one, if you actually pay attention, they pointed to one guy, and a few seconds later they pointed to another guy crossing police lines while fiddling with his camera.

This reminds me of a funny clip:

[Signals.Cpl]

Oakland California

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7ZcXT97oLM

Compilation set to hip music so you trendies can think they are cool too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqdCDhMfCt4

So your evidence is that some crazy guy with mood swings was arrested peacefully? The other day I saw a homeless guy at McDonald's at Victoria Park and Finch being overly aggressive to the staff and customers of the restaurant, yet when police came he was so calm nice non confrontational...OH MY GOD HE WAS PROVOKING MCDONALD'S STAFF IN TO A VIOLENT CONFRONTATION EVERYBODY CALL THE NEWS!!!

Seriously? We went through this, propaganda BS has got to stop. Either do it competently or don't do it at all. Montebello police, They admitted to being provocateurs, tape from the G20 showed absolutely nothing to suggest they were provoking anything. The officers were identified through their jackets, kinda defeats the purpose don't you think? Pittsburg well the police read the Riot Act, did they expect a written version? They were told to disperse, warned if they did not disperse they would be arrested or other police actions would follow, they did not disperse police used other means at their disposal sounds like they were warned and when the police followed through with it, everyone cried about it. I didn't see anything about provocateurs there, I think whoever made that video should lay off the pipe.

[Mr.Canada]

The problem isn't protesting. Protesting is an important part of any democracy. It's important because the people in charge should always be questioned about their use of power and indeed at times abuse of same. Police, government, what have you.

We simply cannot paint all protesters with the same brush much like we cannot simply say that all police or government people are bad because they hold a position of power over our lives to some degree.

Destroying property and fist fighting with the police are the problem. They aren't one and the same but two entirely different things. It's important to separate the two and not to lump them together.

[bleeding heart]

Why must you try and ruin a good, fired-up hatred with reason?

Why must you try to undermine your own arguments by assiduously defending the arguments of a poster who explicitly condones police lawbreaking (according to the entrapment piece you cited)?

After all, you're deriding other posters here for what you assess as defending lawbreakers....why not the authoritarian who defends lawbreaking by the authorities?

(Not really a fair question, since lawbreaking by the authorities is actually worse than "protesters sitting down when ordered to move"; at least by sober and rational standards.

[Signals.Cpl]

Why must you try to undermine your own arguments by assiduously defending the arguments of a poster who explicitly condones police lawbreaking (according to the entrapment piece you cited)?

After all, you're deriding other posters here for what you assess as defending lawbreakers....why not the authoritarian who defends lawbreaking by the authorities?

(Not really a fair question, since lawbreaking by the authorities is actually worse than "protesters sitting down when ordered to move"; at least by sober and rational standards.

If you are referring to me, please provide the times where I support police breaking the law? I posted my view and presented evidence, I never claimed I support police who participate in the violence, or set up random people for crimes. I support them throwing bait, so that they can catch the perpetrators. If you are going to twist my words and try to smear my view, please use some facts to back your argument up. Its your opinion against my evidence.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[GostHacked]

If you are referring to me, please provide the times where I support police breaking the law? I posted my view and presented evidence, I never claimed I support police who participate in the violence, or set up random people for crimes.

Good.

I support them throwing bait, so that they can catch the perpetrators. If you are going to twist my words and try to smear my view, please use some facts to back your argument up. Its your opinion against my evidence.

Wait but you said ... in the first half.. but .... who you trying to fool?

Again, I might point out about your argument is still bleeding all over the place a few pages back.

[Signals.Cpl]

Good.

Wait but you said ... in the first half.. but .... who you trying to fool?

Again, I might point out about your argument is still bleeding all over the place a few pages back.

You keep "pointing" yet you can't produce evidence. That my friend is called BS. You cannot prove that what I am stating is against the law law unless you try really hard to twist my words, or outright lie.

[bleeding heart]

If you are referring to me, please provide the times where I support police breaking the law? I posted my view and presented evidence, I never claimed I support police who participate in the violence, or set up random people for crimes. I support them throwing bait, so that they can catch the perpetrators. If you are going to twist my words and try to smear my view, please use some facts to back your argument up. Its your opinion against my evidence.

You said (twice, to my knowledge) that you support the police "bending the rules"--this is a direct euphemism for breaking the law. (If it isn't, then what constitutes "bending the rules" that isn't breaking the law?)

[Signals.Cpl]

You said (twice, to my knowledge) that you support the police "bending the rules"--this is a direct euphemism for breaking the law. (If it isn't, then what constitutes "bending the rules" that isn't breaking the law?)

You mean bending the rules like this?

Both a justice and an arresting officer must assess the reasonableness of the information available to them before acting. It does not follow, however, that information which would not meet the reasonableness standard on an application for a search warrant will also fail to meet that standard in the context of an arrest. In determining whether the reasonableness standard is met, the nature of the power exercised and the context within which it is exercised must be considered. The dynamics at play in an arrest situation are very different than those which operate on an application for a search warrant. Often, the officer’s decision to arrest must be made quickly in volatile and rapidly changing situations. Judicial reflection is not a luxury the officer can afford. The officer must make his or her decision based on available information which is often less than exact or complete. The law does not expect the same kind of inquiry of a police officer deciding whether to make an arrest that it demands of a justice faced with an application for a search warrant.

The government allows police a certain level of bending the rules due to the nature of their job. Making all of this accusations and judgements well after the fact and with all information on hand is very different then making decision with limited information and the dangerous of not acting weighing on you. Bending rigid rules under certain circumstances is allowed by the government as long as they can justify their actions using the evidence they had on hand. When looking at the G-20, we can safely assume that the arguments brought forth in an attempt to slander the police and prove how "wrong" they were all have one thing in common, much more facts on hand then what the police had at the time.

When a police officer goes to work, they cannot be wondering how someone will view their actions the next day,week or year. At any given time their actions or inactions can cause people harm, and the only thing we can ask of police officers is to be within the confines of the law and can support their decision using the evidence they possessed at the time, not evidence acquired after the event.

[GostHacked]

You keep "pointing" yet you can't produce evidence. That my friend is called BS. You cannot prove that what I am stating is against the law law unless you try really hard to twist my words, or outright lie.

I don't have to twist them at all to show your flawed logic. You have done that all on your own.

[Signals.Cpl]

I don't have to twist them at all to show your flawed logic. You have done that all on your own.

When you have no way to prove your point it becomes flawed logic?

[GostHacked]

When you have no way to prove your point it becomes flawed logic?

Proving my part is a little more difficult, I agree. However, your logic was flawed right from the start. You advocate breaking the law because of the fact you support the notion of 'the ends justify the means' even if that, in your view, means breaking the law to catch people breaking the law.

And you say my logic is flawed?

[jacee]

The government allows police a certain level of bending the rules due to the nature of their job.

The law/the courts determine the limits of police discretion, not the government.

Police discretion is within the law, and they wouldn't appreciate you referring to it as "bending the rules".

Just to remind you, I and others here are not anti-police in general: Quite the opposite: I support the vast majority of police WHO DO THEIR JOBS WELL. It's the ILLEGAL ACTIONS OF POLICE that we must constantly guard against, including EXCESSIVE USE OF FORCE, BAD ORDERS FROM SENIOR OFFICERS, COVER UPS, AND POLITICAL INTERFERENCE FROM GOVERNMENTS.

When a police officer goes to work, they cannot be wondering how someone will view their actions the next day,week or year.

They'd better be!

At any given time their actions or inactions can cause people harm, and the only thing we can ask of police officers is to be within the confines of the law and can support their decision using the evidence they possessed at the time, not evidence acquired after the event.

Precisely. And that's how they are judged by the courts.

"Within the law" is what we expect.

Unfortunately for this discussion, your knowledge of the law is very poor, and thus your arguments support actions of the police that clearly are not within the law.

For example, you defended the police corraling innocent protesters for hours because 'It would take the police some time TO SEARCH THEM ALL.

Police cannot search innocent people! They have to have reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing THAT WILL STAND UP IN COURT.

That is one of our most basic legal rights ... the right to go about our legal activities, including exercising our freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, without harassment, intimidation and unlawful search, seizure or detention by police.

So ... if you want to defend the police, I suggest you first educate yourself about the laws they are required to work within.

Otherwise, you are not defending good cops, but excusing the bad ones, and that's not helpful to the vast majority of them who do their job well.

And btw ... the corralling of protesters will be the subject of a large class action lawsuit against police, and part of a public inquiry where the focus will be on WHO GAVE THE ILLEGAL ORDERS. The senior officer(s) will be held accountable. So will any officers who illegally searched or assaulted people, or threatened to.

Are these the cops you defend ... the ones who acted illegally?

Another point you need to be aware of: EVERY police officer, including senior officers, has the responsibility to refuse an illegal order.

The government 'cannot direct the actions of police'.

Otherwise, government politicians could simply order police to arrest (or shoot)

anyone who opposes them. (EG, Like Syria, Libya, etc.)

For a Canadian example, see Ipperwash Inquiry.

Do you understand now why we have constitutional rights against 'illegal search, seisure and detention'?

Do you understand now that when we protest illegal actions of police/government we are defending our democracy and our freedoms?

Do you understand that is is the responsibility of EVERY Canadian to do so?

And do you understand that much of what you defend and excuse will be found to be illegal by the courts, and we taxpayers will be on the hook for million$ to pay damages for the illegal orders and actions of police?

And do you understand that if any illegal orders came from the Prime Minister, he'll be sweating on the Inquiry stand just like Mike Harris did. One might wonder, and I'll certainly be paying close attention to this, whether the principal witnesses who can testify to the PM's actions, will mysteriously start dying before they can testify, as three people did before the Ipperwash Inquiry.

And finally, do you understand that when good citizens hide in their houses in fear of police if they protest illegal actions and state control ... then we are already living under tyranny.

Edited April 9, 2012 by jacee

[bleeding heart]

The government allows police a certain level of bending the rules due to the nature of their job.

Not according to what you supplied as evidence:

Judicial reflection is not a luxury the officer can afford. The officer must make his or her decision based on available information which is often less than exact or complete. The law does not expect the same kind of inquiry of a police officer deciding whether to make an arrest that it demands of a justice faced with an application for a search warrant.

Of coruse that's the case--has always been the case--and I fully understand, accept, and agree with it.

There is no "bending of the rules" in what you have posited here. When an officer acts in the way described, he or she is following the law...and following the rules.

We're talking about "bending the rules"...which means "breaking the law."

That's far more controversial, as it should be. What you've posted about an officer's quick personal judgement is not controversial at all. It's fine.

and the only thing we can ask of police officers is to be within the confines of the law and can support their decision using the evidence they possessed at the time

That's exactly and only what I would ever ask of the police.

Anyway, Signals, maybe I misread your point, so no sense in us going round and round on the same quibble. Peace.

Edited April 9, 2012 by bleeding heart

[g_bambino]

The law/the courts determine the limits of police discretion, not the government.

Actually, it's neither the courts nor the government: it's the law, created by parliament and interpreted by the courts.

Police cannot search innocent people!

They can search people who've been detained.

And btw ... the corralling of protesters will be the subject of a large class action lawsuit against police...

So?

[g_bambino]

You mean bending the rules like this?

I don't know that that's really "bending the rules"; it seems to be the rule: the law grants officers some discretion in certain situations.

[jacee]

Actually, it's neither the courts nor the government: it's the law, created by parliament and interpreted by the courts.

They can search people who've been detained.

So?

Yes, the law/courts.

They can't detain without reason.

And they can't, as Signals.Cpl suggested, detain and search several hundred people because they think there 'might' be a 'rioter' among them.

So ... Just letting our naive and ill informed friend Signals.Cpl know that illegal actions of police/government need not be defended or excused.

Since I was responding to Cpl's posts, you missed some of the context.

Edited April 10, 2012 by jacee