Big Guy Posted November 21, 2014 Report Posted November 21, 2014 A new wrinkle on the Nuremburg defence. During the post war trials in Nuremburg, most of the defendants pleaded that they were "just following orders" - an excuse that did not sway the jurists. In this Supt. David (Mark) Fenton trial, Peter Brauti, Fenton's lawyer, said his client "had grounds to order the mass arrests and wasn't responsible how officers carried out his orders". Wow! What an interesting precedent. It would be like our PM telling our military to win that war - but would not be responsible for how the military carried out his orders. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
On Guard for Thee Posted November 21, 2014 Report Posted November 21, 2014 I think that people shouldn't be accosted by police if they aren't breaking the law. If they are then that is wrong. We do not live in a police state and citizens should be able to assume a measured amount of security in the fact that they will not be detained or otherwise harassed by people in uniform. IF they are going about their lives peacefully and within the bounds of our societal norm. Protesting is part of our societal norm. In one breath you say people should get beat up for it and the next that it's OK. Contradicting yourself does not a lot of credibility make. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted November 21, 2014 Report Posted November 21, 2014 The police reacted more violently at G20 than they did during the ACTUAL RIOT in Vancouver. It's abundantly clear who they serve and protect. Well yeah, but we got lot's of really nice gazebos around my old hometown. Quote
jacee Posted November 22, 2014 Report Posted November 22, 2014 Peacefully assembly is ok. By peaceful I mean quietly protesting without yelling or screaming or disrupting meetings at city hall. Using Black Bloc tactics is not. That is my meaning.If you read the articles posted and understand the specific situations relative to the current discussion - the disciplinary hearing for Sgt Fenton currently in progress - it wouldn't take 2 pages to correct your false assumptions and imaginings. . Quote
GostHacked Posted November 22, 2014 Report Posted November 22, 2014 People should not be assaulting police officers and expecting to get away with it. What if the officer assaults someone who is innocent? Quote
GostHacked Posted November 22, 2014 Report Posted November 22, 2014 (edited) If they were down there protesting the G20 they aren't innocent. people were told to stay home and they didn't listen. Then they cry about it after doing what they were told not to. Absurd. If they had obeyed the instructions they wouldn't have gotten hit or hurt or what have you. It's crazy that the protesters can act anyway they wish but the police cannot do anything about it. For once they do they are bad...crazy. Funny how leaders from other countries get more rights and freedom of movement within my country than I do. I mean, that is what the police are there for. They are the ones that are being protected and served. Not Canadians. Sure go after the black bloc protestors, no one is really going to be in a huff over that. But if you get in my way of my right to protest, you might not hold the same values of freedom and democracy as I do. Edited November 22, 2014 by GostHacked Quote
GostHacked Posted November 22, 2014 Report Posted November 22, 2014 People in the city dont protest peacefully. They curse, yell and throw things at police officers as well as hit them with large poles then are surprised when they get treated roughly. I mean come on. This isn't lawful protesting GH. I know you don't condone violence like that. I'm all for freedom. What I am not for is being a radical. Then go after the radicals, the particle I posted was regarding the ketteling of protesters the next day in a different area who were not connected with the window breaking and car burning the day before. It involved the ketteling of people who were not even protesting, but those going about their lives because they live in the area. Is that fair? The police did nothing to stop the looters that day. Not one damn thing. They allowed it to happen. Why? Quote
Michael Hardner Posted November 22, 2014 Report Posted November 22, 2014 I'm all for freedom. I would disagree. You have stated here that you're in favour of banning peaceful protest based on the fact that violence sometimes happens. That's what China does. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted November 22, 2014 Report Posted November 22, 2014 No, no. I am totally in favour of peaceful protests "If they were down there protesting the G20 they aren't innocent. people were told to stay home and they didn't listen." People were *told* to stay home means that (to you) they weren't allowed to protest/shouldn't have been allowed to, even peacefully. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted November 22, 2014 Report Posted November 22, 2014 it means clear the streets. Stay off them completely. As GH pointed out, it means you don't have the right to protest. So your words indicate that you don't believe that they had the right to protest peacefully, or apparently go outdoors. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
cybercoma Posted November 22, 2014 Report Posted November 22, 2014 MH, do you actually think you're having an honest discussion here? Quote
Big Guy Posted November 22, 2014 Report Posted November 22, 2014 (edited) I have no difficulty with the right to protest and the right of the police to try to maintain public order. The vast majority of protestors were attempting to lawfully display their views and the vast majority of police were attempting to protect the public and maintain peace. My problem is with those few protestors who covered their faces and those few helmet wearing police who removed their name tags. The decisions by those members of both groups to maintain anonymity indicated that they were not prepared to be accountable for their actions. Anonymity tends to encourage the provocateur and free up the over reactor - not unlike on these opinion boards. Edited November 22, 2014 by Big Guy Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
On Guard for Thee Posted November 23, 2014 Report Posted November 23, 2014 If they were down there protesting the G20 they aren't innocent. people were told to stay home and they didn't listen. Then they cry about it after doing what they were told not to. Absurd. If they had obeyed the instructions they wouldn't have gotten hit or hurt or what have you. It's crazy that the protesters can act anyway they wish but the police cannot do anything about it. For once they do they are bad...crazy. You continuously contradict yourself. Maybe go study our constitution and charter and if after that you still cry over the fact we have the right to protest, then, I don't know, maybe Canada isn't your best choice of places to live. Quote
jacee Posted November 23, 2014 Report Posted November 23, 2014 (edited) dp Edited November 23, 2014 by jacee Quote
jacee Posted November 23, 2014 Report Posted November 23, 2014 (edited) /misconduct-hearing-begins-for-toronto-cop-over-g20-kettling-in-2010 Just a reminder of the specific case under discussion at this time. Edited November 23, 2014 by jacee Quote
Michael Hardner Posted November 23, 2014 Report Posted November 23, 2014 Honestly the people who "protest" are just professional protesters. So ... then it's ok to completely ban peaceful protests ? You're dodging my point. I don't want to move past it until you've addressed it. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Argus Posted November 23, 2014 Report Posted November 23, 2014 They would have end up arresting their own fellow police officers. Ahh, conspiracy time again... Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted November 23, 2014 Report Posted November 23, 2014 Bottom line is that the "protesters" were told to stay home by the police. T Cite please. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Michael Hardner Posted November 23, 2014 Report Posted November 23, 2014 Cite please. Of course that never happened, but regardless, Cpt. A thinks that an action like that by the police would be fine. It's the same line that the Chinese government uses to disallow protest - it's "unsafe". Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Argus Posted November 23, 2014 Report Posted November 23, 2014 (edited) I'm surprised so many here have such a terrible memory. I distinctly remember the police on TV telling everyone to stay away from the downtown core during the g20. Anyways here is a journalist talking about it...Still shaking my head as I cannot believe no one remembers it. meh, maybe you guys don't watch TV that much, it's cool. The police issued no such statement. Nor have they the legal right to do so. What they said was that with all the road closures and crowds it would be traffic chaos, and that if people didn't have a reason to come downtown they ought to stay away. But many of those arrested or 'kettled' actually lived downtown and were on their way home from work or going shopping or whatnot. And even if they were just watching the fun there is absolutely nothing illegal about that. I said at the time and maintain now that every senior cop involved in that fiasco should have been fired, along with every cop who removed his name tag and every local supervisor who let them get out of hand. Their behaviour was completely disgraceful in every single aspect of what they did from start to finish. Total incompetence married with a gleeful lack of concern with constitutional rights, and a seeming enthusiasm for deliberately breaking the law as long as they were masked and anonymous, and then lying through their teeth about it afterward. If they had been forced to wear body cams, as are being introduced now in Calgary, a big chunk of the police on duty during the G20 would be working as mall cops and janitors today. Edited November 23, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted November 23, 2014 Report Posted November 23, 2014 They sure did Argus. It was all over the TV at that time. I guess you don't remember. It's fine. The journalists are making reference to it unfortunately I don't have access to the TV news archives or I would post it for you to see. The protesters shouldn't have been there and none of this need to happen. The protesters need to listen to the police orders and they won't be hurt. No one is above the law. The police were trying to control an out of control mob. Things happen. As Argus has already pointed out, the police have no legal right to tell people to stay home, and also that many who got caught in this whole mess were in fact going home. Do you not understand that if they did try that then they are trying to be above the law? Quote
GostHacked Posted November 23, 2014 Report Posted November 23, 2014 Ahh, conspiracy time again... Montebello Quebec. Quote
jacee Posted November 24, 2014 Report Posted November 24, 2014 They sure did Argus. It was all over the TV at that time. I guess you don't remember. It's fine. The journalists are making reference to it unfortunately I don't have access to the TV news archives or I would post it for you to see. The protesters shouldn't have been there and none of this need to happen. The protesters need to listen to the police orders and they won't be hurt. No one is above the law. The police were trying to control an out of control mob. Things happen. There were requests. There were no orders, nor could there be. People have a right to protest. Police work for US! We pay their salaries to protect our constitutional rights to freedom of expression and association. We pay the police to protect us from THEM - the G20 corporocrats. . Quote
Argus Posted November 24, 2014 Report Posted November 24, 2014 No one is above the law. The police were trying to control an out of control mob. Things happen. No, the police made no effort to control the only violent mob that happened during the G20. There were a couple of hundred of them, and they were allowed to smash windows and burn some police cars without any interference from the police, and then walk away. All the violence thereafter consisted of the police assaulting, attacking, arresting and confining peaceful citizens for no legal reason whatsoever. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Big Guy Posted November 24, 2014 Report Posted November 24, 2014 But it looks like Peter Brauti, lawyer for Supt. David (Mark) Fenton has clearly stated that Fenton "had grounds to order the mass arrests and wasn't responsible how officers carried out his orders" So that lets him off the hook. The officers charged claim that they were only following orders so that lets them off the hook. So the only guys left to blame are the protestors who apparently beat themselves up. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.