Violent occupy protester 'it' assaults police officer!

[eyeball]

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?

No, but I was drinking a state approved drug at the time.

[jacee]

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.

Yes it was quite apparent during the Occupy protest that Toronto police. Had learned some lessons about policing peaceful protests. The huge public outcry from the G20 and the ongoing court cases are having an effect.

The humiliated and disgraced Toronto Police Services is trying to regain public confidence.

[Signals.Cpl]

Yes it was quite apparent during the Occupy protest that Toronto police. Had learned some lessons about policing peaceful protests. The huge public outcry from the G20 and the ongoing court cases are having an effect.

The humiliated and disgraced Toronto Police Services is trying to regain public confidence.

I love your explanation except:

-2009 Tamil protests which were peaceful for the most part and no violent police crackdown

-First Nations protest during the G20 where again you guessed it no violence

-February 2002 mass protest no violence

-November 2002 Anti-war protests in toronto and yet again no police violence

Its funny how there are a number of protests for a verity of causes, and no major issues yet at the point where the G20 protestors come the police just goes nuts and authoritarian on them.

I believe that Toronto Police showed restraint in dealing with protestors and since there is no rock solid evidence that there were police officers involved in instigating what happened, then the rioters are the only one to be blamed and thus assume responsibility. Also I love the argument that the Police presence was overkill as there was and still is ample evidence when you have animals amongst the protestors there is never enough police officers.

when you defend the rioters and accuse police of being violent you ignore the groups of "protestors" who went there for the sole reason of causing damage, when police arrest a group of "protestors" with weapons they tend to become cautious and make attempts to make the protests safe by removing those who would do violence.

By Tuesday, the police were under fire by civil-rights activists who considered their actions heavy-handed. But the police effort was a success on other counts. “If you go through the timeline of 1999 to today, this is one of the more minor [summits] in terms of the total volume of violence and number of injuries,” says Michael Kempa, a University of Ottawa criminology professor. “You shouldn’t underestimate the degree to which [the police] have refined the science of crowd control.” In 1999, for instance, about 50,000 anti-globalization protesters descended on Seattle. There, the chaos included rubber bullets, tear gas and pepper spray, as well as US$3 million in property damage. As recently as last April, a British man died on his way home from work after being confronted by riot police during protests at the G20 summit in London.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/07/08/showdown-in-the-streets/

And more:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/the-politics-of-policing-reform-post-g20/article2255102/

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Calls+action+some+protest+websites/3183669/story.html

[g_bambino]

I love your explanation except:

-2009 Tamil protests which were peaceful for the most part and no violent police crackdown

-First Nations protest during the G20 where again you guessed it no violence

-February 2002 mass protest no violence

-November 2002 Anti-war protests in toronto and yet again no police violence

Its funny how there are a number of protests for a verity of causes, and no major issues yet at the point where the G20 protestors come the police just goes nuts and authoritarian on them.

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

[jacee]

I love your explanation except:

-2009 Tamil protests which were peaceful for the most part and no violent police crackdown

-First Nations protest during the G20 where again you guessed it no violence

-February 2002 mass protest no violence

-November 2002 Anti-war protests in toronto and yet again no police violence

Its funny how there are a number of protests for a verity of causes, and no major issues yet at the point where the G20 protestors come the police just goes nuts and authoritarian on them.

I believe that Toronto Police showed restraint in dealing with protestors and since there is no rock solid evidence that there were police officers involved in instigating what happened, then the rioters are the only one to be blamed and thus assume responsibility. Also I love the argument that the Police presence was overkill as there was and still is ample evidence when you have animals amongst the protestors there is never enough police officers.

when you defend the rioters and accuse police of being violent you ignore the groups of "protestors" who went there for the sole reason of causing damage, when police arrest a group of "protestors" with weapons they tend to become cautious and make attempts to make the protests safe by removing those who would do violence.

Let's get some things straight:

I don't defend "rioters".

I don't defend cops who do their job badly.

I do defend peaceful protesters treated badly by cops.

I do defend cops doing their jobs properly, and those given bad (ie, illegal) orders by senior officers.

With that established:

At the G20, there was a group of about 200 "rioters" that broke away from the main protest and committed acts of property vandalism. There were some others who got drawn in and also committed acts of property vandalism.

I don't defend any of these.

There were over 10,000 peaceful protesters at the G20.

Police - I believe on BAD ORDERS from senior officers, influenced by CSIS/RCMP leadership - rounded up over 1000 protesters in the largest violation of civil rights in Canadian history.

I defend the right of people to protest peacefully without having their civil rights violated.

I do not defend police actions in arresting innocent people.

I don't defend the bad boy bully cops who committed physical and sexual assaults on some protesters.

However, I believe that many officers were only following orders - BAD ORDERS - in rounding up protesters indiscriminantly.

That's why a full public inquiry is absolutely necessary, to determine the source and accountability for the civil rights violations.

CPL, you are naive to try to defend ALL police actions.

Many of those actions are indefensible under Canadian law.

The FIRST and most critical responsibility of the police is to uphold the constitutional rights of citizens. The courts uphold this.

They failed miserably, and an inquiry is needed to determine ON WHOSE ORDERS this occurred.

Of course, given the RCMP/CSIS oversight 'committee', and the fact that both of these agencies operate on political orders 'from the top'

, it's obvious to anyone who thinks independently (and I realize that may not include you, CPL) that the gross violations of the civil rights of Canadian citizens occurred on orders from the Prime Minister himself.

No doubt a public inquiry won't happen while he's still in office, but it will happen and it will be an important learning experience for the police forces involved, who clearly need to be reminded that their responsibility is to protect the rights of citizens, including protesters.

I'm not saying the Toronto police are blameless: Every officer has a responsibility NOT to obey illegal orders, and they failed.

And the innocent people, some of them just residents going about their business, not even protesters, 'kettled' and forced to sit in the street in the cold rain for hours and pee in their pants ... these and other injustices must be accounted for and those responsible FOR THOSE BAD ORDERS must be punished appropriately.

[Signals.Cpl]

Let's get some things straight:

I don't defend "rioters".

I don't defend cops who do their job badly.

I do defend peaceful protesters treated badly by cops.

I do defend cops doing their jobs properly, and those given bad (ie, illegal) orders by senior officers.

With that established:

At the G20, there was a group of about 200 "rioters" that broke away from the main protest and committed acts of property vandalism. There were some others who got drawn in and also committed acts of property vandalism.

I don't defend any of these.

There were over 10,000 peaceful protesters at the G20.

Police - I believe on BAD ORDERS from senior officers, influenced by CSIS/RCMP leadership - rounded up over 1000 protesters in the largest violation of civil rights in Canadian history.

I defend the right of people to protest peacefully without having their civil rights violated.

I do not defend police actions in arresting innocent people.

I don't defend the bad boy bully cops who committed physical and sexual assaults on some protesters.

However, I believe that many officers were only following orders - BAD ORDERS - in rounding up protesters indiscriminantly.

That's why a full public inquiry is absolutely necessary, to determine the source and accountability for the civil rights violations.

CPL, you are naive to try to defend ALL police actions.

Many of those actions are indefensible under Canadian law.

The FIRST and most critical responsibility of the police is to uphold the constitutional rights of citizens. The courts uphold this.

They failed miserably, and an inquiry is needed to determine ON WHOSE ORDERS this occurred.

Of course, given the RCMP/CSIS oversight 'committee', and the fact that both of these agencies operate on political orders 'from the top'

, it's obvious to anyone who thinks independently (and I realize that may not include you, CPL) that the gross violations of the civil rights of Canadian citizens occurred on orders from the Prime Minister himself.

No doubt a public inquiry won't happen while he's still in office, but it will happen and it will be an important learning experience for the police forces involved, who clearly need to be reminded that their responsibility is to protect the rights of citizens, including protesters.

I'm not saying the Toronto police are blameless: Every officer has a responsibility NOT to obey illegal orders, and they failed.

And the innocent people, some of them just residents going about their business, not even protesters, 'kettled' and forced to sit in the street in the cold rain for hours and pee in their pants ... these and other injustices must be accounted for and those responsible FOR THOSE BAD ORDERS must be punished appropriately.

So who do you think thinks for me? I don't approve of police officers who go over the top, but the issue was that there was a justification. Just because they were not charged/convicted of the crimes does not mean they had innocent intentions. The police were not going after the legitimate protestors, it was an attempt to crackdown on the violence of the day before. I dot believe that the police municipal, provincial and federal should have civilian oversight but I don't agree with the go to reply of police brutality whiteout proof. The fact neither side is innocent but my personal belief is that the police were justified in the majority of their actions. No one knows for sure what the intention of the protestors was, they might have been preparing to start up the violence or they might have been peaceful and excuse me for not believing them when they say they were just the most innocent and non-threatening at all. The reality is if you go to a jail the majority of convicted criminals are "innocent". Few people will admit their intentions, the reality is during other G7,G8 or G20 protests people have died and police in Canada prevented deaths and the widespread injuries associated with other protests. And please give some reliable evidence of the sexual assaults that you claim were committed by officers(preferably third party).The violence the police officers committed should be punished but the fact that there was no widespread violence therefore the police must have done something to prevent it.

[GostHacked]

So who do you think thinks for me? I don't approve of police officers who go over the top, but the issue was that there was a justification. Just because they were not charged/convicted of the crimes does not mean they had innocent intentions. The police were not going after the legitimate protestors, it was an attempt to crackdown on the violence of the day before.

Why did the cops not crack down on the rioting that was happening right in front of them? They had the perfect chance to apprehend those who were trashing the cars and shops right in front of them?

I dot believe that the police municipal, provincial and federal should have civilian oversight but I don't agree with the go to reply of police brutality whiteout proof.

For some no matter the amount of evidence/proof, some still will be apologetic for the police actions.

The fact neither side is innocent but my personal belief is that the police were justified in the majority of their actions. No one knows for sure what the intention of the protestors was, they might have been preparing to start up the violence or they might have been peaceful and excuse me for not believing them when they say they were just the most innocent and non-threatening at all.

The ones who trashed the cars and shops were not apprehended.

The ones who were corralled and apprehended and detained at Spedina Avenue where not violent.

Like I said, your argument failed a few pages back. And now we are starting to see cracks in your posts.

The reality is if you go to a jail the majority of convicted criminals are "innocent". Few people will admit their intentions, the reality is during other G7,G8 or G20 protests people have died and police in Canada prevented deaths and the widespread injuries associated with other protests. And please give some reliable evidence of the sexual assaults that you claim were committed by officers(preferably third party)

What kind of democracy do we live in where people are detained and held without charges then eventually released? Sure they can detain people for a set amount of time before needing to actually charge them, which is pretty dangerous to liberty and freedom on the whole. If no charges were drawn up for those people, why were they detained? Just in case? Do you understand what that really means?

The violence the police officers committed should be punished but the fact that there was no widespread violence therefore the police must have done something to prevent it.

Or no one took their obvious bait tactic. But nice to see you at least partially admitting the cops where in the wrong.

[Signals.Cpl]

Why did the cops not crack down on the rioting that was happening right in front of them? They had the perfect chance to apprehend those who were trashing the cars and shops right in front of them?

For some no matter the amount of evidence/proof, some still will be apologetic for the police actions.

The ones who trashed the cars and shops were not apprehended.

The ones who were corralled and apprehended and detained at Spedina Avenue where not violent.

Like I said, your argument failed a few pages back. And now we are starting to see cracks in your posts.

What kind of democracy do we live in where people are detained and held without charges then eventually released? Sure they can detain people for a set amount of time before needing to actually charge them, which is pretty dangerous to liberty and freedom on the whole. If no charges were drawn up for those people, why were they detained? Just in case? Do you understand what that really means?

Or no one took their obvious bait tactic. But nice to see you at least partially admitting the cops where in the wrong.

We live in the same kind of democracy where a police officer is allowed to detain you if he believes that you are about to commit a crime, and hold you until he or she is satisfied that the danger of you committing a crime has passed. If you read the evidence you would see that they were well within their rights to detain people that they had a reasonable belief were going to commit a crime. I feel that someone should have to answer why the police did not stop the protestors in the first place but when they did not act during the first day they acted the second and PREVENTED the violence.

Please show me WHERE my argument failed? It seems to me that Ive posted ample evidence to back up my argument but you seem to be arguing with little more the accusations. It seems that you informed me my argument failed, when I asked where the first time you mentioned it, you dodged the question and say it again. I really love your style, you can't win an argument so you repeat some BS line until people get tired of you and leave. If you can't win with facts you seem to annoy people until they give up.

[g_bambino]

The ones who were corralled and apprehended and detained at Spedina Avenue where not violent.

I'm not sure how many times it needs to be said: Violence does not need to have occurred for police to be justified in detaining people. They can, by law, detain people to prevent violence.

-----------------

Sorry, I didn't notice this had already been said:

We live in the same kind of democracy where a police officer is allowed to detain you if he believes that you are about to commit a crime, and hold you until he or she is satisfied that the danger of you committing a crime has passed.

[+]

Edited April 5, 2012 by g_bambino

[GostHacked]

I'm not sure how many times it needs to be said: Violence does not need to have occurred for police to be justified in detaining people. They can, by law, detain people to prevent violence.

So why did they not PREVENT the violence the day before?

[g_bambino]

So why did they not PREVENT the violence the day before?

Because they're not perfect is my first guess. Circumstances were also a likely factor.

[GostHacked]

We live in the same kind of democracy where a police officer is allowed to detain you if he believes that you are about to commit a crime, and hold you until he or she is satisfied that the danger of you committing a crime has passed. If you read the evidence you would see that they were well within their rights to detain people that they had a reasonable belief were going to commit a crime. I feel that someone should have to answer why the police did not stop the protestors in the first place but when they did not act during the first day they acted the second and PREVENTED the violence.

I've seen enough footage of the Spedina avenue corralling by the police, and none of the protesters where violent, or even showing signs of intent to commit violence. Some of the people there were not even part of the protesters. As another poster here indicated that some people got swept up simply because they were in the area doing other things.

You have cops on all four sides pushing you into the intersection all while telling these protesters to leave the area without actually giving them a way out. And when they tried to leave, they were met with more cops coming from a different direction.

They were completely surrounded on all sides. One by one the people there were picked off one by one by the police. Making them stand out in the rain for hours while the cops worked on them one by one. That is disgusting and inhumane.

Then we have the other incident at Queens Park, which actually was a designated protest zone, and what the cops did to those there was over the top and very heavy handed. Even to the point of pulling a disabled man out of his wheelchair and dragging him across the pavement. Another protester had his cane and artificial leg taken from him and the cops told him to get up and move.

Please show me WHERE my argument failed? It seems to me that Ive posted ample evidence to back up my argument but you seem to be arguing with little more the accusations. It seems that you informed me my argument failed, when I asked where the first time you mentioned it, you dodged the question and say it again. I really love your style, you can't win an argument so you repeat some BS line until people get tired of you and leave. If you can't win with facts you seem to annoy people until they give up.

I am all for busting a protester if they are violent. But no one at Spedina were showing signs of intent to start violence. And your argument fails because you support the end justifying the means. But there was no justification of the means. The Montebello police tried to get protesters to commit violence, they failed. Good on the protesters who called them out. So that is where your particular argument failed.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2007/08/23/police-montebello.html

Quebec provincial police admitted Thursday that three of their officers disguised themselves as demonstrators during the protest at the North American leaders summit in Montebello, Que.

However, the police force denied allegations its undercover officers were there on Monday to provoke the crowd and instigate violence.

"At no time did the police of the Sûreté du Québec act as instigators or commit criminal acts," the police force said in French in a news release. "It is not in the police force's policies, nor in its strategies, to act in that manner.

At first the police denied any involvement. Then when the evidence came out, the police had to admit that they were involved. These guys were undercover and there to incite violence. That is criminal, and they should be charged.

It's like you and me standing in front of one another and I take you down because I think you MIGHT want to do me harm. I don't have to have any proof, and then I will detain you for an indefinite amount of time and without charge. And let's say you have no intent to do me harm in the first place. All I need to do is say that you might, then I can take you down and lock you up.

Can you say the ends justify the means in that scenario?

Not all protesters are there to commit violence. But when they do, get them right there and then. Don't be a puss about it and bust other innocents the next day in another area claiming 'the ends justify the means'.

[jacee]

So who do you think thinks for me?

Apparently the police, since you blindly support their actions even when they violate the law and their own oath.

I don't approve of police officers who go over the top, but the issue was that there was a justification. Just because they were not charged/convicted of the crimes does not mean they had innocent intentions. The police were not going after the legitimate protestors, it was an attempt to crackdown on the violence of the day before.

In the vast majority of cases, there was no justification, reasonable or otherwise. The police did go after the legitimate protesters. In fact, they also went after residents who were not even protesters.

You have your facts wrong again, because you choose not to research the facts and instead just blindly support all police actions, legal and illegal.

Perhaps instead you should pay close attention to the court proceedings related to the G20 because ultimately it is the courts, not the police, who determine what is and is not illegal.

The police did not have reasonable justification for arresting over 1,100 people.

Every single one of those incarcerated without good reason can sue the police for damages, and they are.

Every successful lawsuit will cost us taxpayers. This is a relatively new situation as the Supreme Court only recently determined that people can sue for damages for violations of civil rights.

It's going to be very expensive for us taxpayers.

If the police are going to cost us money because of such gross violations of civil rights, the law, and their own oath, then certainly civilian oversight of the police is absolutely necessary.

As an example ... there was recently a 'bully gang' of cops in one of our cities who were taking the law into their own hands and beating up people without justification, killing at least two. Ordinary 'oversight' processes resulted in the gang being broken up and cops transferred to other municipalities ... possibly to your town, Cpl. How do you feel about that?

That's what happens without civilian oversight ... the bad apples get transferred to your town.

-edited to add-

This quote from one of your previous links makes an important point about oversight of police re the G20:

In Canada, we have the beginning of such effective governance structures that are empowered to ask and answer precisely these forms of questions at the municipal level of policing: police services boards.

The difficulty we face – which the G20 underlines – is that many of the other security players that come into our lives are not controlled and held to the public interest by effective governance bodies.

The RCMP, which conducted the G20 sting operations, is inadequately governed from its federal perch. This can be easily remedied through the establishment of a board of governors (essentially, a federal police services board) made up of members of government and citizens with a knowledge of organizational management and government processes.

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/the-politics-of-policing-reform-post-g20/article2255102/?service=mobile

This says nothing about the leadership by CSIS, which, along with the Prime Minister, I believe to have been the source of the illegal orders.

Edited April 5, 2012 by jacee

[Signals.Cpl]

I've seen enough footage of the Spedina avenue corralling by the police, and none of the protesters where violent, or even showing signs of intent to commit violence. Some of the people there were not even part of the protesters. As another poster here indicated that some people got swept up simply because they were in the area doing other things.

You have cops on all four sides pushing you into the intersection all while telling these protesters to leave the area without actually giving them a way out. And when they tried to leave, they were met with more cops coming from a different direction.

They were completely surrounded on all sides. One by one the people there were picked off one by one by the police. Making them stand out in the rain for hours while the cops worked on them one by one. That is disgusting and inhumane.

Then we have the other incident at Queens Park, which actually was a designated protest zone, and what the cops did to those there was over the top and very heavy handed. Even to the point of pulling a disabled man out of his wheelchair and dragging him across the pavement. Another protester had his cane and artificial leg taken from him and the cops told him to get up and move.

I am all for busting a protester if they are violent. But no one at Spedina were showing signs of intent to start violence. And your argument fails because you support the end justifying the means. But there was no justification of the means. The Montebello police tried to get protesters to commit violence, they failed. Good on the protesters who called them out. So that is where your particular argument failed.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2007/08/23/police-montebello.html

At first the police denied any involvement. Then when the evidence came out, the police had to admit that they were involved. These guys were undercover and there to incite violence. That is criminal, and they should be charged.

It's like you and me standing in front of one another and I take you down because I think you MIGHT want to do me harm. I don't have to have any proof, and then I will detain you for an indefinite amount of time and without charge. And let's say you have no intent to do me harm in the first place. All I need to do is say that you might, then I can take you down and lock you up.

Can you say the ends justify the means in that scenario?

Not all protesters are there to commit violence. But when they do, get them right there and then. Don't be a puss about it and bust other innocents the next day in another area claiming 'the ends justify the means'.

First of all, they cannot detain you for an indefinite amount of time, at some point they will have to charge you or let you, the only time they had the power to hold you for an extended period of time is under the War Measures Act where police were given powers to detain a suspect without a warrant or a charge.

Maybe the protestors did not want to commit violence, after all the rioters are thugs therefore when they see superior police presence they lose the will to fight as most rioters prefer fighting when there is little opposition and when confronted by overwhelming numbers they might just be pacified. I am sorry for the people who happened to be there and where in no way involved with the protests, but there is a reason they were searching them one by one as they wanted to make sure and get all the dangerous people out and they had to search everyone.

Well, ok so we are talking about Toronto, and you keep bringing the one incident where police admitted to something. If that is the ONLY piece of evidence you have and I assume it is as you keep bringing it back I'm sorry but one incident in Quebec does not make every police officer and police department guilty of the crime, Should we judge Quebecers as criminals and murderers because the FLQ was from Quebec?

[Signals.Cpl]

I've seen enough footage of the Spedina avenue corralling by the police, and none of the protesters where violent, or even showing signs of intent to commit violence. Some of the people there were not even part of the protesters. As another poster here indicated that some people got swept up simply because they were in the area doing other things.

You have cops on all four sides pushing you into the intersection all while telling these protesters to leave the area without actually giving them a way out. And when they tried to leave, they were met with more cops coming from a different direction.

They were completely surrounded on all sides. One by one the people there were picked off one by one by the police. Making them stand out in the rain for hours while the cops worked on them one by one. That is disgusting and inhumane.

Then we have the other incident at Queens Park, which actually was a designated protest zone, and what the cops did to those there was over the top and very heavy handed. Even to the point of pulling a disabled man out of his wheelchair and dragging him across the pavement. Another protester had his cane and artificial leg taken from him and the cops told him to get up and move.

I am all for busting a protester if they are violent. But no one at Spedina were showing signs of intent to start violence. And your argument fails because you support the end justifying the means. But there was no justification of the means. The Montebello police tried to get protesters to commit violence, they failed. Good on the protesters who called them out. So that is where your particular argument failed.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2007/08/23/police-montebello.html

At first the police denied any involvement. Then when the evidence came out, the police had to admit that they were involved. These guys were undercover and there to incite violence. That is criminal, and they should be charged.

It's like you and me standing in front of one another and I take you down because I think you MIGHT want to do me harm. I don't have to have any proof, and then I will detain you for an indefinite amount of time and without charge. And let's say you have no intent to do me harm in the first place. All I need to do is say that you might, then I can take you down and lock you up.

Can you say the ends justify the means in that scenario?

Not all protesters are there to commit violence. But when they do, get them right there and then. Don't be a puss about it and bust other innocents the next day in another area claiming 'the ends justify the means'.

If I am following your logic and I fear I am stretching that term in this case, every Muslim is a terrorist because of a small minority, Every Catholic priest is a pedophile again because of a small minority, or maybe Every German is a mass murder because of what the NAZI's did, I can go on and on and on, this is not logic, you believe what you want but the admission of one person or group of people in one province of the country does not necessarily mean that everyone else holding the same. you have one piece of evidence that is not relevant to this case due to the aforementioned reasons. Once again as you seem to lack the understanding, The actions of Quebec police officers has no bearing on the actions of Toronto police officers unless you can prove a direct link and/or provide evidence that Toronto Police Service used the same tactic, then your argument is a joke.

[Signals.Cpl]

Apparently the police, since you blindly support their actions even when they violate the law and their own oath.

In the vast majority of cases, there was no justification, reasonable or otherwise. The police did go after the legitimate protesters. In fact, they also went after residents who were not even protesters.

You have your facts wrong again, because you choose not to research the facts and instead just blindly support all police actions, legal and illegal.

Perhaps instead you should pay close attention to the court proceedings related to the G20 because ultimately it is the courts, not the police, who determine what is and is not illegal.

The police did not have reasonable justification for arresting over 1,100 people.

Every single one of those incarcerated without good reason can sue the police for damages, and they are.

Every successful lawsuit will cost us taxpayers. This is a relatively new situation as the Supreme Court only recently determined that people can sue for damages for violations of civil rights.

It's going to be very expensive for us taxpayers.

If the police are going to cost us money because of such gross violations of civil rights, the law, and their own oath, then certainly civilian oversight of the police is absolutely necessary.

As an example ... there was recently a 'bully gang' of cops in one of our cities who were taking the law into their own hands and beating up people without justification, killing at least two. Ordinary 'oversight' processes resulted in the gang being broken up and cops transferred to other municipalities ... possibly to your town, Cpl. How do you feel about that?

That's what happens without civilian oversight ... the bad apples get transferred to your town.

-edited to add-

This quote from one of your previous links makes an important point about oversight of police re the G20:

In Canada, we have the beginning of such effective governance structures that are empowered to ask and answer precisely these forms of questions at the municipal level of policing: police services boards.

The difficulty we face – which the G20 underlines – is that many of the other security players that come into our lives are not controlled and held to the public interest by effective governance bodies.

The RCMP, which conducted the G20 sting operations, is inadequately governed from its federal perch. This can be easily remedied through the establishment of a board of governors (essentially, a federal police services board) made up of members of government and citizens with a knowledge of organizational management and government processes.

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/the-politics-of-policing-reform-post-g20/article2255102/?service=mobile

This says nothing about the leadership by CSIS, which, along with the Prime Minister, I believe to have been the source of the illegal orders.

If you have evidence of the ruling of the courts, and I mean the protestors winning in court please provide it. If you don't have evidence or it has not happened yet I wonder how you know which way the courts would rule.

I dont understand weather you are blind, stupid or just read my posts selectively because I have mentioned my support for the police, but I have also mentioned that I do not blindly support them, I am for actions by the courts for police officers who have committed a crime. I am for civilian oversight on all armed government Departments wether they are municipal, provincial or federal police, or the Canadian Forces. If it is shown that the police officers that committed the crimes, were ordered to do so, I support bringing them to justice and cleaning the chain of command starting from the lowest person involved all the way to the Chief of Police BUT I believe that the police were justified in their attempts to prevent another riot. The reality is no system is perfect, and the police actions during the G20 would have been seen as excessive one way or another because a showdown with the protestors was almost guaranteed.

[jacee]

If you have evidence of the ruling of the courts, and I mean the protestors winning in court please provide it. If you don't have evidence or it has not happened yet I wonder how you know which way the courts would rule.

I dont understand weather you are blind, stupid or just read my posts selectively because I have mentioned my support for the police, but I have also mentioned that I do not blindly support them, I am for actions by the courts for police officers who have committed a crime. I am for civilian oversight on all armed government Departments wether they are municipal, provincial or federal police, or the Canadian Forces. If it is shown that the police officers that committed the crimes, were ordered to do so, I support bringing them to justice and cleaning the chain of command starting from the lowest person involved all the way to the Chief of Police BUT I believe that the police were justified in their attempts to prevent another riot. The reality is no system is perfect, and the police actions during the G20 would have been seen as excessive one way or another because a showdown with the protestors was almost guaranteed.

I provided links about court outcomes the first time you asked. I guess you didn't want that information clouding your misperceptions.

Police CANNOT search everyone. They have to have reasonable grounds that a judge will uphold.

You're making up the law to fit the 'story' you tell yourself: 'Police good, protester bad.'

Police actions were excessive.

I don't think anyone (but you) disputes that. Grandmothers forced to sit in the street and pee (etc) in their pants for hours ... afraid to even speak (eg, Officer, I have to poo!) because everyone who spoke got roughed up and hauled off to jail.

That picture kinda stuck with most Canadians.

We taxpayers paid $89m for the police to make asses of themselves, and we'll pay millions more in damages for their excessive 'response'.

And eventually, heads will roll, hopefully way high up the chain of command ... CSIS/RCMP and PMO.

Now do some reading and actually learn about what you talk about at such length as if you already know the facts.

Signal this, Cpl:

"I'm not repeating this message AGAIN!!"

[Signals.Cpl]

Really?

Three quarters of the people arrested and held in detention overnight were never charged.

Two thirds of the charges laid by police were withdrawn, stayed or dismissed by the courts.

At least one lawsuit for illegal arrest has been won, and many more individual and class action lawsuits are in process.

At least five officers face disciplinary hearings and possible criminal charges for police brutality.

Police brass are under investigation for issuing illegal orders.

And when all of this winds down ... the demands for a full public inquiry will heat up.

http://www.thestar.com/iphone/news/article/1093920--man-settles-g20-lawsuit-claims-police-brass-ordered-false-arrests

Wall has settled a $25,000 lawsuit against Toronto police on undisclosed terms, ...

A report from the Office of the Independent Police Review Director(OPIRD) concluded that he was arrested llegally on a charge of wearing a disguise with intent.

...

Officers detaining Wall on June 27, 2010 told OPIRD investigators they were nstructed to arrest people wearing bandanas, masks or gas masks concealing their identity. One officer said he was told to search anyone with a backpack, and if that person refused, he or she could be arrested for obstructing police. that person refused, he or she could be arrested for obstructing police.

Davin Charney, Wall’s lawyer, said the report shows the many unlawful arrests of that weekend were not just the result of a few bad apples or overreaction from front-line officers. “The orders must have come from the top.”

http://www.thestar.com/iphone/news/torontog20summit/article/1105031--number-of-g20-charges-dropped-rises

A year and a half after the G20 summit, the number of cases dropped is ncreasing and a fraction of those facing charges are still waiting to go to court, according to the latest update from Ontario’s attorney general. Of 292 cases that have been resolved, 201 were stayed by the Crown, withdrawn or dismissed, according to the update released Tuesday.

...

During the G20 weekend in June 2010 more than 1,100 people were arrested — the largest mass arrest in Canadian history.

...

330: Number of people charged related to the G20

201: Charges dismissed or withdrawn since the G20

39: Number of people whose cases were resolved through diversion programs

34: Number of defendants awaiting resolutions to their charges

32: Number of people who have pleaded guilty

11: Number of people subject to peace bonds

9: Number of people who were listed in error (typically duplication)

And of course this ...

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/krystalline-kraus/2012/01/activist-communiqu%C3%A9-arresting-issues-g20-summit-protests-re

A 174-page report by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) released on Friday recommended that five Toronto police officers should face criminal charges for using unnecessary force against activist Adam Nobody The recommendations from OIPRD were based on interviews with a dozen police witnesses, the five officers involved, five civilian witnesses and Adam Nobody himself. The five Toronto police officers involved in the allegations of police brutality that are "substantiated and is of a serious nature" include Consts. Michae Adams, Babak Andalib-Goortani, Geoffrey Fardell David Donaldson and Oliver Simpson.

Love your evidence:

Wall has settled a $25,000 lawsuit against Toronto police on undisclosed terms, and will hold a news conference Tuesday.

http://www.thestar.com/iphone/news/torontog20summit/article/1105031--number-of-g20-charges-dropped-rises

A few words make all the difference.

Wall sued police for $25,000. He settled the case recently but the amount cannot be revealed under the terms of the settlement.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/11/28/toronto-g20-settlement-jason-wall_n_1117651.html

If you are going to provide evidence, try to be more accurate.

One settlement for anywhere from 1 dollar to 25,000 dollars is not proof that all arrests were illegal. There is a reason that most arguments require multiple sources as this might or might not be different that is why there is a need for multiple sources. One case cannot be the basis of the whole argument that every arrest was unlawful and thus all would succeed in court.

From what I saw on the rabble site, I think if I used fox news as a source it would be more legitimate, which is pretty sad.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[Signals.Cpl]

I provided links about court outcomes the first time you asked. I guess you didn't want that information clouding your misperceptions.

Police CANNOT search everyone. They have to have reasonable grounds that a judge will uphold.

You're making up the law to fit the 'story' you tell yourself: 'Police good, protester bad.'

Police actions were excessive.

I don't think anyone (but you) disputes that. Grandmothers forced to sit in the street and pee (etc) in their pants for hours ... afraid to even speak (eg, Officer, I have to poo!) because everyone who spoke got roughed up and hauled off to jail.

That picture kinda stuck with most Canadians.

We taxpayers paid $89m for the police to make asses of themselves, and we'll pay millions more in damages for their excessive 'response'.

And eventually, heads will roll, hopefully way high up the chain of command ... CSIS/RCMP and PMO.

Now do some reading and actually learn about what you talk about at such length as if you already know the facts.

Signal this, Cpl:

"I'm not repeating this message AGAIN!!"

Where did you pull 89 million from? And what was it for? And where is your evidence that police abused detainees?

[GostHacked]

If I am following your logic and I fear I am stretching that term in this case, every Muslim is a terrorist because of a small minority, Every Catholic priest is a pedophile again because of a small minority, or maybe Every German is a mass murder because of what the NAZI's did, I can go on and on and on, this is not logic,.......

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.

you believe what you want but the admission of one person or group of people in one province of the country does not necessarily mean that everyone else holding the same. you have one piece of evidence that is not relevant to this case due to the aforementioned reasons.

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.

Once again as you seem to lack the understanding, The actions of Quebec police officers has no bearing on the actions of Toronto police officers unless you can prove a direct link and/or provide evidence that Toronto Police Service used the same tactic, then your argument is a joke.

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.

[DogOnPorch]

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.

Since this is common and plentiful, could you post an example?

[GostHacked]

Since this is common and plentiful, could you post an example?

There are a few in the documentary INTO THE FIRE posted a few pages back.

I can't recall the time frame in the flick, but a scene on the street where protesters were walking and there was a line of bike cops in front of them a way off. Then all of a sudden, the undercover cops pulled out their batons, started whacking people, picking a couple off and then running them behind the bike cop line. Some of those running behind the cop line were wearing the typical hoodie, backback and essentially 'black bloc' types. Since the bike cops did not do anything to him, it's a good assumption that he was a cop... actually more like agent provocateur.

It's worth a watch.

[DogOnPorch]

There are a few in the documentary INTO THE FIRE posted a few pages back.

I can't recall the time frame in the flick, but a scene on the street where protesters were walking and there was a line of bike cops in front of them a way off. Then all of a sudden, the undercover cops pulled out their batons, started whacking people, picking a couple off and then running them behind the bike cop line. Some of those running behind the cop line were wearing the typical hoodie, backback and essentially 'black bloc' types. Since the bike cops did not do anything to him, it's a good assumption that he was a cop... actually more like agent provocateur.

It's worth a watch.

Perhaps you could show us, though.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=g20+toronto+police+brutality&oq=G20+&aq=1&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_nf=1&gs_l=youtube-psuggest-reduced.1.1.0l4.633368.634822.0.636990.4.4.0.0.0.0.173.530.0j4.4.0.

[GostHacked]

Perhaps you could show us, though.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=g20+toronto+police+brutality&oq=G20+&aq=1&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_nf=1&gs_l=youtube-psuggest-reduced.1.1.0l4.633368.634822.0.636990.4.4.0.0.0.0.173.530.0j4.4.0.

You'd be better off watching the whole thing, so you have some context to try and argue later.

[DogOnPorch]

You'd be better off watching the whole thing, so you have some context to try and argue later.

Then it can't be all that common.