Violent occupy protester 'it' assaults police officer!

[cybercoma]

The definition of wrong can differ from person to person.

Most people know that using weapons to assault peaceful unarmed people is wrong.

....well, unless the criminal has a badge. Then all common sense goes out the window and people bend over backwards to defend criminality.

Edited April 4, 2012 by cybercoma

[g_bambino]

Most people know that using weapons [against] peaceful unarmed people is wrong.

How about when it's "peaceful, unarmed people" who refuse to obey the law?

[ed.: c/e]

Edited April 4, 2012 by g_bambino

[cybercoma]

How about when it's "peaceful, unarmed people" who refuse to obey the law?

[ed.: c/e]

Perhaps you're asking the wrong question if "peaceful, unarmed people" are breaking the law.

[g_bambino]

Perhaps you're asking the wrong question if "peaceful, unarmed people" are breaking the law.

No, I'm not.

[GostHacked]

Sure, I'll watch it. Doesn't mean I'll take it as The Truth.

You don't have to take it as truth, but it will show you glaring contradictions made by those who are in power.

When did they make any such admission?

Well at first you did not even believe that the Montebello Agent Provocateurs were cops. But after they were found out that they were in fact cops you and Singals kept up the apologetics towards the actions of the police.

Then we have the G20 where the cops could have busted the people right there and then when they burned the cop cars. But instead in a totally different area with a totally different group, the heavy hand came down. If the cops wanted to stop the riots, they should have stopped the riots when they started. The cops where RIGHT THERE. So you got to ask yourself, why did they not start busting heads right there and then?

[Signals.Cpl]

Is that so? Do you use your crystal ball to figure these things out?

You're referring to Bill Blair in the wake of the protests responding to the video evidence of police abuse, right?

You make a great argument. Except, your argument tells me that it's completely unnecessary for the police to bait people.

Any case involving mobs anyway. The important point is that inciting a riot can turn an otherwise peaceful protest violent. Why shouldn't the police be subject to the same laws about inciting riots as everyone else? Do you believe that the police are outside the law?

Lets break this down, if it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck then chances are it is a duck. If a "protestor" and I use that work lightly, looking at previous events of the same caliber (G7,G8,G20) and the outcomes, and considering the same criminal elements go from protest to protest causing the same kind of problems in other locations then it is logical to assume they would do so in Toronto.

No I was not referring to a single event or video, I was referring to the people who expect society in general to take care of them, people who do not believe that their actions should carry consequences, people who decide they will act on a whim and when something goes wrong they always find every one else at fault but themselves and then there is always a group of well-meaning but naive individuals who tend to back them up.

The police bait them in order to have the events in a controlled environment, in essence prevent the crime or damage before hand rather then punish later on.

So that excuses war crimes then? The SS was under the influence of a mob mentality? The Hutu Extremists in Rwanda were under the influence of mod mentality when they murdered 800,000 people in cold blood. You are saying that innocent and peaceful protestors can be turned within minutes in to a riot? If there is no fuel source present a spark most likely will not light a fire.

Its time to have people take responsibility for their actions and realize that there are consequences.

[Jack Weber]

Try a realistic one perhaps.

Like infiltrating the police AND the circles their political masters work in??

Seriously,were you high when you typed that or did you create this "manifesto" at your latest NORML meeting?

Edited April 4, 2012 by Jack Weber

[g_bambino]

[Y]ou... kept up the apologetics towards the actions of the police.

Explaining that you are wrong does not necessarily equate with apologising for anyone.

Regardless, I ask again: when did the police admit having undercover cops amongst anarchist protesters at Montebello was wrong?

[ed.: c/e, sp]

Edited April 4, 2012 by g_bambino

[Signals.Cpl]

Great argument. If someone puts a bullet in your head, I'll be sure to commend them for stopping any future crime you might have possibly done.

I guess you don't have the intellectual capacity to understand the argument. Now how about you go and play with your dolls and let the adults have a discussion.

[Signals.Cpl]

Most people know that using weapons to assault peaceful unarmed people is wrong.

....well, unless the criminal has a badge. Then all common sense goes out the window and people bend over backwards to defend criminality.

I am not defending criminals or their behaviour you are. The vast majority of police are good people with some bad apples in the bunch, you and a number of other people on this boards speak about rights, yet when it comes to the rights of the police you deny them even the most basic. When someone is arrested, and claims police brutality, the police are judged without any balanced argument. A protestor is arrested and injured in the process along with 2 police officers, yet the police officers get 1 line in the article about being injured and the rest of the article is about judging how violent and brutal they, and when it is proven that they are innocent, the arrested individual was guilty and resisted arrest not one of the critics apologizes. I don't support police unconditionally, but I support them when they are right, the police department is not perfect just like any other organization there are deficiencies but most of them do their best to make sure the rest of us are safe and our rights are safeguarded. Reality is law and your cherished rights are attached. If you have a lawless society you definitely have your right limited or removed all together.

[g_bambino]

A protestor is arrested and injured in the process along with 2 police officers, yet the police officers get 1 line in the article about being injured and the rest of the article is about judging how violent and brutal they, and when it is proven that they are innocent, the arrested individual was guilty and resisted arrest not one of the critics apologizes.... Reality is law and your cherished rights are attached. If you have a lawless society you definitely have your right limited or removed all together.

I think we might find that at the root of the one sided attacks on the police lies a misunderstanding of rights and freedoms. Both cybercoma and GostHacked have, both here and on other occasions, revealed between their lines that they perceive of rights as being far more broad than what they actually are, especially those of assembly. Thus, it seems to me, when they see police push protesters out of a street, they see police brutality, not the fact that protesters are breaking the law by sitting down in the middle of a street and refusing to budge when told to move. The more they agree with the protesters' message, the more justified they think the protesters are in occupying whatever space they please, and the more evil the cops for pushing them out with force. When police are disguised amongst a group of anarchists renowned for vandalism and violence, it's the cops that are the cause of the vandalism and violence as part of a plot to silence the anarchists' message.

There's a distinct lack of balance in such a viewpoint and thus also in expectations built upon it.

[ed.: +, sp]

Edited April 5, 2012 by g_bambino

[Rick]

Lets break this down, if it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck then chances are it is a duck. If there is no fuel source present a spark most likely will not light a fire.

If the arsonists---provocateur cops you keep defending would stop igniting the fuel...there would be no fire

Its time to have people take responsibility for their actions and realize that there are consequences.

Agreed. So when will Blair and his thugs be held accountable for their actions...

Can we count on the SIU???

Not bloody likely as those boot lickers have clearly shown, when it comes to their own, they think cops are above the law.

Internal documents of the Sûreté du Québec (SQ) obtained under the Access to Information lift the veil on the extent of the surveillance operation demonstrators at Montebello Summit in 2007: 26 officers civilians were on hand day and night, as part of this operation, called "Caught in the Act."

Edited April 4, 2012 by Rick

[Signals.Cpl]

If the arsonists---provocateur cops you keep defending would stop igniting the fuel...there would be no fire

Agreed. So when will Blair and his thugs be held accountable for their actions...

Can we count on the SIU???

Not bloody likely as those boot lickers have clearly shown, when it comes to their own, they think cops are above the law.

Internal documents of the Sûreté du Québec (SQ) obtained under the Access to Information lift the veil on the extent of the surveillance operation demonstrators at Montebello Summit in 2007: 26 officers civilians were on hand day and night, as part of this operation, called "Caught in the Act."

Ok, I will take the bait, what irrefutable evidence do you have that there were police officers in the crowd in TORONTO? How can you prove that the intent of those people who were arrested was peaceful? The fact is, certain events transpired on the first day, and the police acted as best they could to prevent a repetition, its easy to be an armchair general, smug and arrogant but the reality is people are responsible for their actions, if police officers were using excessive force, sure pursue legal action but how do you explain the history of this protestors? Everywhere they go there is violence unless police really crackdown, and obviously that can't happen in Canada, as people like you are crying that they arrested a bunch of criminals about to commit a crime as was their right as police officers.

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.

Finally, subsection 495(1)(a) authorizes a police officer to arrest without warrant a person who, on reasonable grounds, he or she believes is about to commit an indictable offence. In this case, the police officer may arrest the person even if no attempt has been made to commit an indictable offence. "The difficulty with an arrest under this section is that, although it authorizes a peace officer to carry out an arrest, the officer cannot hold the accused because he has not committed any offence. What he should do is detain the person until he is satisfied that the probability of his committing the indictable offence no longer exists."

This is why all those "innocent" people were detained, and not arrested. They were detained thus preventing them from committing a crime and the police released them when they were satisfied that they will not have the opportunity to go through with the crime.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/371/ille/library/powers-e.htm#B.%20Arbitrary%20Detention

All those jokers should thank the Police Officers who worked hard to keep their records clean even though for most of them it woudlent have mattered as welfare probably does not exclude criminals.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[Signals.Cpl]

Looks to me like none of them were prepared for a riot those damn cops, starting a riot full of this peaceful well meaning innocent "protestors". We should give them a medal for all the damage they did to the property of hardworking individuals, unlike themselves most people build and improve rather then destroy. But do go on blaming police for the riots, looks like the rioters didn't come prepared for anything

http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20100626/416_CP24_blackbloc_100626.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_vMQfeVSYbqk/TCgjEC7AZOI/AAAAAAAABJw/0IBjbPoFlWk/s1600/g20burrows5.bmp

http://www.moonbattery.com/toronto-G20-riot.jpg

http://shot7.com/wp-content/gallery/g20toronto1/g20friblackbloc.jpg

Edited April 5, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[GostHacked]

There is also another documentary out there about the Oakland Occupy protests and the brutal crackdowns there as well. Some of the video is quite shocking.

[Signals.Cpl]

There is also another documentary out there about the Oakland Occupy protests and the brutal crackdowns there as well. Some of the video is quite shocking.

You avoid uncomfortable questions like a pro.

[GostHacked]

You avoid uncomfortable questions like a pro.

I don't avoid them. Simply because your arguments were destroyed a couple pages back.

[Shady]

There is also another documentary out there about the Oakland Occupy protests and the brutal crackdowns there as well. Some of the video is quite shocking.

Was that before or after they broke into City Hall and completely trashed the place?

[Signals.Cpl]

I don't avoid them. Simply because your arguments were destroyed a couple pages back.

Just because you say it was destroyed does not make it so, but then again for you maybe the normal seeing as it seems to work for the criminals you support.

[Shady]

Oakland assesses City Hall damage after Occupy break-in

Oakland officials on Sunday were inspecting damage inside City Hall that was caused by about 50 Occupy protesters who broke in and smashed glass display cases, spray-painted graffiti, and burned the U.S. and California flags

MSNBC

Occupy Oakland Protesters Charged With Hate Crime, Robbery

And now, as three occupy protesters face charges for robbery and a hate crime stemming from an incident at last week's Occupy Oakland protest, that relationship is nearly boiling.

At Friday's protest, three Occupy Oaklanders -- Michael Davis, 32, Nneka Crawford, 23, and Randolph Wilkins, 24 -- were arrested when a woman not associated with the protest alleged that they attacked her, stole her wallet and made hateful comments about her sexuality.

HP

GostHacked, you'd best stick with the G20 example. Because Occupy Oakland literally is a group of thugs and criminals. Stick to the G20 protesters.

[Signals.Cpl]

GostHacked, you'd best stick with the G20 example. Because Occupy Oakland literally is a group of thugs and criminals. Stick to the G20 protesters.

We can always move on to occupy Toronto, I'm wondering though, where was the violent rights violating police that we hear so much about?

[cybercoma]

Sure why not? While we're at it, let's move on to the police in Egypt and Libya.

[Signals.Cpl]

Sure why not? While we're at it, let's move on to the police in Egypt and Libya.

I love how your argument falls apart. I guess the brutes you described do not exist as during the whole protest there were very few arrests and injuries. But sure lets talk about Egypt and Libya, I don't see how we can compare them to Toronto police, but hey whatever makes you happy, at this point this is becoming a very entertaining place seeing as you are trying to prove that Toronto Police a violent by providing proof from a different country. Ill take your argument seeing as I hold your opinion at a very low value so I will accept proof that I would otherwise not accept from a 5 year old let alone from a "adult".

[cybercoma]

I don't see how we can compare them to Toronto police

You're very astute.

[Signals.Cpl]

You're very astute.

I am still wondering why you are avoiding the issue, G20 and occupy Toronto are 2 events that are less then one and a half years apart, yet they ultimately have different outcomes.