Violent occupy protester 'it' assaults police officer!

g_bambino · April 2, 2012

case in point: G20 mass arrests with no charges laid

That doesn't mean the arrests were false. A charge isn't necessary to justify an arrest. Read the Criminal Code.

stopstaaron · April 2, 2012

That doesn't mean the arrests were false. A charge isn't necessary to justify an arrest. Read the Criminal Code.

They were arrested because of an obscure world war 2 law quietly passed by the liberals and not relayed to the public

g_bambino · April 2, 2012

Well, during the G20 the police arrived and arrested hundreds of people that didn't break any laws.

Actually, in some cases, a law doesn't necessarily have to be broken before an arrest can be made; the police are allowed to make an arrest to prevent a crime, if they suspect one is likely to occur if they don't intervene. They can make arrests to prevent a riot, for instance. Again, read the Criminal Code.

g_bambino · April 2, 2012

They were arrested because of an obscure world war 2 law quietly passed by the liberals and not relayed to the public

One person was arrested under the Public Works Protection Act. Albeit wrongly.

(How did the Liberals pass a law, and, more to the point, how did they pass a law from World War II?)

[ed.: +]

Edited April 2, 2012 by g_bambino

Signals.Cpl · April 2, 2012

There are videos on youtube of people dressed up as black bloc being let past the police line by other police

the fact is police in this country have been caught impersonating members of the black bloc on a number of occasions.. they have a hand in starting these riots

Also most of the detained people were innocent, having broke no law other than a secret law that the liberals did not mention ..if anyone went near the fence they were arrested, I can't believe you are this fricking ignorant about this and you're from Toronto

There is something seriously wrong with the premise of your argument. The Liberal government told them this is the law, enforce it. Police officers doing their job enforce the LAW.

No see police go in, and infiltrate this groups as a means of finding the leaders and arresting the perpetrators before they can do something. Just because I think the police were doing a job and were justified in their actions does not make me ignorant. I just wish that the government had given them more leeway in preventing and failing that stoping the animals from running free. I think it comes down to the fact that it was the governments fault that they decided to have this event in a major city and tie the hands of the police. There were pictures of the police "abusing" protestors and video too, funny thing though it starts after the initial spark thus it leaves out the most important part the why. I can go to an officer, punch him in the face, and have a friend of mine video tape the response at which point I will go to the media and complain about police brutality there was justified force in an effort to accomplish their job yet due to the propaganda I present it comes out that the police are at fault.

I personaly don't believe that the TPS should have been put in that position, the G20 should have been in a much more remote location where the Military and Police could secure it without having many issues with this lowlife pisses of garbage but the government did not do that and therefore the TPS was put in the unenviable position that they were in. Huff and puff all you want but if you or someone close to you had been injured or killed because of a protestor, you would be singing a whole new tune about how the police did not do their job.

bleeding heart · April 2, 2012

Great point! I know I'm happy to know our police are better than the "police" in Iran, Syria, and China. I'm glad our police use rubber bullets and bean-bag rounds, instead of real ammunition against protesters. I'm glad our police use teargas and flashbangs instead of grenades and tanks. I'm glad our police only detain innocent people for a couple days, rather than indefinitely. I'm glad we live in an exemplary nation that differs in degree, rather than kind.

In a similar vein, I've never murdered anybody. Therefore, I'm an excellent human being...exemplary, in fact; and I suppose I've earned a tremendous amount of respect (delivered in righteously angry defensiveness, I guess to protect my honour) from the "crack them hippies' heads!" mouthbreathers.

Edited April 2, 2012 by bleeding heart

cybercoma · April 2, 2012

And if they had arrested hundreds more, maybe there wouldn't have been a problem. You are saying the the police were oppressive to those animals, yet you don't condemn those animals for what they did. I believe that there was some irregularities with the arrests, but in the majority of them I personally believe they were justified in detaining them. For example going to the G20 with a gas mask on you probably would not make you a peaceful protestor, honestly how many of the protestors in the G20 had their rights taken away? By this I mean the legitimate protestors who followed the rules set out before the summit and protested peacefully.

Maybe the police should arrest you, just so there won't be any problems. You've already shown on this forum that you are violent and threatening towards others. Perhaps it would be reasonable for the cops to lock you up.

Of course, that's just using your reasoning, which puts you at serious risk for being arrested. On the other hand, I support your right to voice your myopic and authoritarian vision of law and order because it's important to have an open political dialogue. However, the police are never justified rounding up protestors at random because the state doesn't like their message. If you would support those actions against these protestors, then you don't deserve the freedom to protest things yourself, such as prtoesting the message of occupy.

cybercoma · April 2, 2012

Actually, in some cases, a law doesn't necessarily have to be broken before an arrest can be made; the police are allowed to make an arrest to prevent a crime, if they suspect one is likely to occur if they don't intervene. They can make arrests to prevent a riot, for instance. Again, read the Criminal Code.

Their arrests have to be reasonable enough to justify the suppression of a democratic protest. The majority of the arrests made at G20 were against peaceful protesters that the cops kettled and arrested indiscriminately. The violence and property damage had occurred unhindered the day before, cops just watching on.

It's not far-fetched to believe the conspiracy theory that the police used agents provocateurs to encourage rioting and looting that day, although no one bit, and to gain public favour for what they were going to do the following day. They would have been completely justified restraining and arresting the people burning cop cars and smashing windows, but that didn't happen. The problem is all the innocent protesters that were rounded up en masse, arrested, and detained without food, water, or a restroom. The problem is shoving to the ground a man with prosthetic legs, hitting him with batons, pulling his legs off, and not returning them to him. And it was not just protesters that were arrested. The biggest issue is that people live down there and many of the residents that were going to and from work or the grocery store or wherever got caught up in the arrests. Were they to be prisoners in their home on those days?

So, you're right, police can arrest whomever they want, but their reasons need to be justifiable. Especially if they're going to just arrest large groups of people randomly because it's a serious infringement on people's rights to do so. Their reasons for arresting them need to outweigh that. In this case, it's nearly impossible to show that they were justified when they made the arrests; yet, they would have been completely justified the day before when there actually was property damage and violence. While it may not have been the legal definition of "false" arrest, they certainly were unethical arrests and they likely infringed on people's rights.

Signals.Cpl · April 2, 2012

Maybe the police should arrest you, just so there won't be any problems. You've already shown on this forum that you are violent and threatening towards others. Perhaps it would be reasonable for the cops to lock you up.

Of course, that's just using your reasoning, which puts you at serious risk for being arrested. On the other hand, I support your right to voice your myopic and authoritarian vision of law and order because it's important to have an open political dialogue. However, the police are never justified rounding up protestors at random because the state doesn't like their message. If you would support those actions against these protestors, then you don't deserve the freedom to protest things yourself, such as prtoesting the message of occupy.

Please don't argue with me if you cannot be bothered to read AND understand my comments. I never said that they should grab protesters at random, I said they should detain people who they deem to be a reasonable chance of committing a crime. I support the protestors, when they are following the rules and do so in a peaceful manner...but then again why am I arguing with you? It seems to me that you are a spoiled little brat who has probably never held a job in his life. I don't agree with violence in protest, not in Canada anyway.In many countries where the right to protest is taken away violence might be the only way, but in Canada where the rules have been set forth there is no excuse whatsoever for violence. Ultimately this pieces of garbage were detrimental to the entire protest, because while the legitimate protesters did as they were supposed to and protested, the animal were out in force destroying and diverting attention and removing legitimacy from the ACTUAL protestor.

I believe in the rule of law, to me its a simple concept. There are rules and everyone has to follow them, If people do not follow them or it is blatantly obvious that they intent to break them then they should be arrested/detained and/or their efforts should be thwarted.This falls in the same category with those pieces of garbage from Vancouver that rioted after the game last year.

Its time to stop pandering to these idiots and start cracking down. Every G20 summit the legitimate protesters are virtually ignored because all of the attention is focused on the animals looting and damaging the property of hard working people, I find it hard to believe that there is mass police brutality every time there is a G20 summit, mainly because they are sometimes in different continents and the only common factor is the protestors themselves. Argue all you want, but the majority of the people that took damage to their property were not the big business they had issues with but were small private stores and businesses.

GostHacked · April 2, 2012

protesting is getting a permit and going to queens park or something. not blocking streets and trespassing and assault officers.

I need a permit to exercise my right of free speech? That does not sound free to me.

Edited April 2, 2012 by GostHacked

GostHacked · April 2, 2012

That's how I feel about the protesters too.

Do we need to go through the G20 again to show how the cops allowed the cars to burn one day and then arrest a bunch of protesters the next day who had nothing to do with the previous days incident?

Do we need to go through the Montebello Quebec incident where people protesting the SPP found agent provocateurs among the protesters? The Montebello police and Quebec provincial police both had to admit to the fact when the video surfaced?

We've been down this road before in a couple threads.

Montebello, Quebec.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVg16EUTDhc

Creating the problem to provide the solution.

Good documentary on the G20.

Any questions?

Signals.Cpl · April 2, 2012

Do we need to go through the G20 again to show how the cops allowed the cars to burn one day and then arrest a bunch of protesters the next day who had nothing to do with the previous days incident?

Do we need to go through the Montebello Quebec incident where people protesting the SPP found agent provocateurs among the protesters? The Montebello police and Quebec provincial police both had to admit to the fact when the video surfaced?

We've been down this road before in a couple threads.

Montebello, Quebec.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVg16EUTDhc

Creating the problem to provide the solution.

Good documentary on the G20.

Any questions?

Lets go back to all of those events and then some, and please tell me what is the common denominator in all of them? Same group of "demonstrators" same tactics and same accusations even though they are happening in different countries and continents. I am inclined to believe that the dozens of different police departments are not to blame but the people that are common in all those events are to blame.

Thats not to say police are innocent 100% but the fact is, these"protestors" have learned that you can do pretty much anything you want when in a large group and get away with it, and if you were arrested cry police brutality and you get off.

Signals.Cpl · April 2, 2012

I need a permit to exercise my right of free speech? That does not sound free to me.

It has to be free for everyone, just because you want to protest does not give you the right to disrupt hundreds or thousands of people lives because you want the right to protest. Asking for a permit, means that the police are there in order to ensure security, traffic is stopped in order to prevent accidents.

Do you agree with the Tamils in 2009 when the closed off the Gardiner in the process of their protest? They disrupted one of the busiest east-west arteries of the city to protest, completely without care weather they were disrupting people's daily lives. I personally do not believe that the rights of the few should outweigh the rights of the many. You want to protest go right ahead get a permit and protest, but don't disrupt MY life and the lives of everyone else in the area because you want more exposure. As I have said, there is a right way to protest and a wrong way to protest, and most often the wrong way to protest diminishes the issues that the proper protestors are bringing forth.

jacee · April 2, 2012

Well 'Cpl', it's clear to me that you don't know enough about the facts and events of the G20 to even express an opinion. Ask a Toronto cop how the how they feel about taking orders from the RCMP/CSIS 'security committee'. :lol:

Some bully cops use the slightest protest/resistance to perform a 'high risk takedown' that involves smashing the person's head on the pavement as hard as possible and kicking/punching them into submission - ie, until they are no longer able to move.

That's obviously what happened to the Occupy protester.

And some bully cops get busted, demoted, transferred and rejected by their peers.

There is no need to defend bully cops. There is good reason, instead, to identify them and press appropriate charges against them, which the courts are increasingly willing to hear and to censure police accordingly.

The right to protest is the critical element that protects our democracy. Protesters are not criminals, and police are not the defenders of government; We pay their salaries. THEY WORK FOR US!

And when we find it necessary to protest, their job is to protect our right to protest, NOT to shut protests down.

Edited April 2, 2012 by jacee

GostHacked · April 2, 2012

It has to be free for everyone, just because you want to protest does not give you the right to disrupt hundreds or thousands of people lives because you want the right to protest. Asking for a permit, means that the police are there in order to ensure security, traffic is stopped in order to prevent accidents.

The fact that I need a permit to express my right to free speech and my right to protest tells me a very different story than what you are trying to pull over my eyes here.

Do you agree with the Tamils in 2009 when the closed off the Gardiner in the process of their protest?

Sure why not. The reason you protest .. over there .. is so that people ... over here... can't see it. So they don't think anything is worth protesting. When you get in their face, people start to take notice. Otherwise they carry on in their little unreality bubble that they live in.

They disrupted one of the busiest east-west arteries of the city to protest, completely without care weather they were disrupting people's daily lives. I personally do not believe that the rights of the few should outweigh the rights of the many. You want to protest go right ahead get a permit and protest, but don't disrupt MY life and the lives of everyone else in the area because you want more exposure. As I have said, there is a right way to protest and a wrong way to protest, and most often the wrong way to protest diminishes the issues that the proper protestors are bringing forth.

Stuff it, we have asshats that riot after their hockey team is eliminated, but don't take to the streets when they know the goverment is screwing them every which way possible. A real disconnect here it seems.

Protesting for real concenrs must be upheld and protected. If you are not willing to stand up for your own rights and freedoms, then you don't deserve them in the first place.

Signals.Cpl · April 2, 2012

Well 'Cpl', it's clear to me that you don't know enough about the facts and events of the G20 to even express an opinion. Ask a Toronto cop how the how they feel about taking orders from the RCMP/CSIS 'security committee'.

Some bully cops use the slightest protest/resistance to perform a 'high risk takedown' that involves smashing the person's head on the pavement as hard as possible and kicking/punching them into submission - ie, until they are no longer able to move.

That's obviously what happened to the Occupy protester.

And some bully cops get busted, demoted, transferred and rejected by their peers.

There is no need to defend bully cops. There is good reason, instead, to identify them and press appropriate charges against them, which the courts are increasingly willing to hear and to censure police accordingly.

The right to protest is the critical element that protects our democracy. Protesters are not criminals, and police are not the defenders of government; We pay their salaries. THEY WORK FOR US!

And when we find it necessary to protest, their job is to protect our right to protest, NOT to shut protests down.

Am I to assume that you have evidence from MULTIPLE sources that would support your argument? I never said that all police officers were good, but the vast majority were.

There is no point to argue here, all this rhetoric about Toronto Police proves to me that you are as well as a number of other members on this bored spoiled entitled people. End of the day is, Canadians have it pretty well compared to the rest of the world and many people try to find oppression anywhere weather it exists or not, more often then not, the oppression the find is just make believe. Its funny that in my years that I have had to deal with police I have never had a problem with any of them. The Toronto Police Service is an experienced and fair organization that protects the people of Toronto,but ultimately many people tend to abuse police through any means available until they require police assistance.

What gives me satisfaction is the ignorant police bashing going on in many places would have happened one way or another. If the TPS had not taken the measures that they did take, then we could have had deaths and even more destruction at which point you people would have been accusing the police of not doing their jobs. I think the TPS was given a lose lose mission and they did the best they could with the limited resources that were available.

Also saying that its obvious that what happened to the "protestors" seems arrogant of you as I expect you were not present and neither was I, but I would believe the police officer over the so called protestor.

Signals.Cpl · April 2, 2012

The fact that I need a permit to express my right to free speech and my right to protest tells me a very different story than what you are trying to pull over my eyes here.

Sure why not. The reason you protest .. over there .. is so that people ... over here... can't see it. So they don't think anything is worth protesting. When you get in their face, people start to take notice. Otherwise they carry on in their little unreality bubble that they live in.

Stuff it, we have asshats that riot after their hockey team is eliminated, but don't take to the streets when they know the goverment is screwing them every which way possible. A real disconnect here it seems.

Protesting for real concenrs must be upheld and protected. If you are not willing to stand up for your own rights and freedoms, then you don't deserve them in the first place.

Please oh please explain what exactly am I trying to pull over your eyes?

Human being have evolved over millennia to become capable of surviving in a civilized environment, when you belong to a civilized society you as a necessity would forfeit a number of the natural rights you would enjoy in say the jungle. I don't know how far your enthusiasm would extend if someone's protest were to infringe on your rights or your daily life. It is easy to say that getting a simple permit takes away or tramples your rights, but now imagine if everyone decided to protest for their pet project without a permit, and we had every street corner with a different group of protestors, would that be a good idea? You have the right to protest, getting a simple permit means that you respect my time and duties as well as the time and responsibilities of the other 5 million people in Toronto weather they agree with you or not.

Think about this, would you be fine with it if I had a pet project and I gather a few hundred people and protest everyday for 6 months on strategic routes so as to shut down a particular area of town, an area that you frequent or live in or work in. So if for 6 months, you spend 5X as much time traveling as you would regularly travel, If I am shutting down routes to hospitals or disrupting businesses who depend on deliveries thus costing them money, or shutting down transportation to any number of schools in the area, would you find this as a legitimate protest? Or would it be considered holding an entire neighbourhood/town/city hostage for the sake of a few hundred protesters. During the G20, the protesters had the right to march, they were given a route, and they followed it, the problem came from the others who went there specifically to cause problems.

Look from both sides, it is easy to say that someone is taking your rights, but if it were affecting you negatively you might sing a different tune.

jacee · April 2, 2012

Protests do not require permits.

Freedom of assembly is a Constitutional right, and can't be denied by refusing a 'permit'.

And it is still very clear to me that you don't comprehend issues of civil rights well enough to comment.

Edit to add ...

I've been trying to report the topic title for objectionable content, but the report function seems disabled.

THE RIGHT ONE should do the right thing and revise it: Human beings are not referred to as "it", and doing so reveals ugly prejudices that don't belong on a reputable discussion board like mapleleafweb.

Edited April 2, 2012 by jacee

Signals.Cpl · April 2, 2012

Protests do not require permits.

Freedom of assembly is a Constitutional right, and can't be denied by refusing a 'permit'.

And it is still very clear to me that you don't comprehend issues of civil rights well enough to comment.

Ok, I will call you on your arrogance, Explain them, please explain the civil rights issues to me.

Signals.Cpl · April 2, 2012

Protests do not require permits.

Protests that move from point A to point B do require a permit.

g_bambino · April 2, 2012

The majority of the arrests made at G20 were against peaceful protesters that the cops kettled and arrested indiscriminately.

I don't know on what evidence you're basing that conclusion. The kettling tactic was used at one intersection at one time only.

From what I witnessed first-hand and on YouTube and from other media, at the intersection of crowds and police were often provocateurs deliberately trying to engage the police, taunting and agitating. I was on the Saturday amongst crowds wherein tensions were palpable; the possibility of violence breaking out very real. At one point, at University and College, it did, right in front of me. Police seemed less lenient the next day.

There were also cases of people refusing to move out of streets when (rightly) told to do so by the police. And I can even understand the kettling, though it maybe went on too long (which may or may not have had to do with the forces' inexperience with the technique).

Only the push through Queen's Park was incomprehensible to me. I can't imagine what it was thought would be achieved.

The violence and property damage had occurred unhindered the day before, cops just watching on.

The police weren't always where the violence happened. Where they were present, their intervention, by that point, may well have just proved more incendiary (mind the pun) as well as forced them to break their line.

g_bambino · April 2, 2012

The fact that I need a permit to express my right to free speech and my right to protest tells me a very different story than what you are trying to pull over my eyes here.

You missed his point entirely.

jacee · April 2, 2012

Protests that move from point A to point B do require a permit.

No they don't.

Some groups do get a permit as a matter of courtesy.

However, freedom of assembly is a constitutional guarantee and cannot be denied due to a lack of a 'permit'.

What you fail to comprehend is that a healthy democracy REQUIRES that citizens be able to protest freely without being silenced by police/the state.

Infiltration, provocation and brutality by police/the state against protest is a sign of a sick democracy.

And that's where we are today in Canada.

If we don't protect the right to protest, we lose it and lose democracy to corruption and rule-by-force.

If you believe that as long as citizens all obey the rules everything's fine, you are extremely naive about the corrupting force of power: Police and the state will continue to chip away at our freedoms until we have none left, and we live under tyranny.

Do you really think that police and the state will continue to defend democracy and the interests of citizens without protest (freedom of assembly and of speech)? Dream on! They'll be filling their pockets with our money and wielding brutal power over us so fast your naively dutiful head will spin.

Signals.Cpl · April 2, 2012

No they don't.

Some groups do get a permit as a matter of courtesy.

However, freedom of assembly is a constitutional guarantee and cannot be denied due to a lack of a 'permit'.

What you fail to comprehend is that a healthy democracy REQUIRES that citizens be able to protest freely without being silenced by police/the state.

Infiltration, provocation and brutality by police/the state against protest is a sign of a sick democracy.

And that's where we are today in Canada.

If we don't protect the right to protest, we lose it and lose democracy to corruption and rule-by-force.

If you believe that as long as citizens all obey the rules everything's fine, you are extremely naive about the corrupting force of power: Police and the state will continue to chip away at our freedoms until we have none left, and we live under tyranny.

Do you really think that police and the state will continue to defend democracy and the interests of citizens without protest (freedom of assembly and of speech)? Dream on! They'll be filling their pockets with our money and wielding brutal power over us so fast your naively dutiful head will spin.

Freedom of assembly AKA Freedom of PEACEFUL Assembly.

So you support the looting and destruction that happened during the G20 as necessary and healthy? Those dumb poor bastards that protested peacefully, maybe they should have joined in on the mayhem grab a molotov cocktail and a C7 and made their Freedom of Assembly really interesting.

g_bambino · April 2, 2012

However, freedom of assembly is a constitutional guarantee and cannot be denied due to a lack of a 'permit'.

Freedom of assembly is limited by the Criminal Code. The courts have upheld this limit for decades and been able to do so since there's a clause in the constitution of which it seems you're not aware: Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society [emphasis mine]." Allowing mobs to take over whatever space they want and impose their preferred rules to the disruption and detriment of the other members of society has not been (because it cannot be) justified in a free and democratic society.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited April 2, 2012 by g_bambino