Violent occupy protester 'it' assaults police officer!

GostHacked · April 2, 2012

You missed his point entirely.

He has no valid point to begin with. When you need a permit to protest, you are no longer living in the free society you thought you lived in.

Take a look at the Into the Fire documentary I posted. If you can actually spend a couple hours to educate yourself on what happened.

Signals.Cpl · April 2, 2012

He has no valid point to begin with. When you need a permit to protest, you are no longer living in the free society you thought you lived in.

Take a look at the Into the Fire documentary I posted. If you can actually spend a couple hours to educate yourself on what happened.

What is a free society in your mind if I may ask?

GostHacked · April 2, 2012

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.

Not one poster on this board supported the looting that went on. It's counter productive, and gives the cops a reason to crack down on them, anyone with a couple brain cells to rub together can see that. However we have seen where cops will try to incite violence so their buddies in the riot gear can begin to crack heads.

In the case of Montebello Quebec, it was ADMITTED by both the Montebello Police and the Quebec Provincial Police, that the men outed by the protesters were actually cops trying to incite violence. You can bet that the provocateurs that were at the G20 were cops as well.

g_bambino · April 2, 2012

He has no valid point to begin with. When you need a permit to protest, you are no longer living in the free society you thought you lived in.

No civilized society grants 100% freedom to its members. If it did, there would soon be no civilized society to speak of.

DogOnPorch · April 2, 2012

No civilized society grants 100% freedom to its members. If it did, there would soon be no civilized society to speak of.

Although it would be interesting to watch those wishing anarchy try to convince the Hell's Angels and MS-13 (etc) to go along with the whole smash capitalism thing.

:lol:

Edited April 2, 2012 by DogOnPorch

g_bambino · April 2, 2012

Although it would be interesting to watch those wishing anarchy try to convince the Hell's Angels and MS-13 (etc) to go along with the whole smash capatilism thing.

There might actually be a kumbaya thing between them all, bonded in smashing things together. 'Till they ran out of other people's stuff and people to smash and started smashing each other...

DogOnPorch · April 2, 2012

There might actually be a kumbaya thing between them all, bonded in smashing things together. 'Till they ran out of other people's stuff and people to smash and started smashing each other...

As long as MDA and Meth sales were up...why not, eh? Capitalism rears its ugly head...lol.

bleeding heart · April 2, 2012

Ultimately this pieces of garbage [ie violent people, those destroying property, ets] 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.

Yes, and no one disagrees with this point. The peaceful protesters feel much the same way.

Too bad they're the ones who were punished by the police, while not doing anything wrong.

So, to recap: you, me, everyone here, and the protesters themselves agree that the violent folks tried to ruin it for everybody, and should be held to account for their actions.

Where we depart is that you don't think authorities--the people with power--should be held to account for their actions.

I believe in the rule of law, to me its a simple concept. There are rules and everyone has to follow them,

Including the authorities.

Especially the authorities.

Edited April 2, 2012 by bleeding heart

jacee · April 2, 2012

Not one poster on this board supported the looting that went on. It's counter productive, and gives the cops a reason to crack down on them, anyone with a couple brain cells to rub together can see that. However we have seen where cops will try to incite violence so their buddies in the riot gear can begin to crack heads.

In the case of Montebello Quebec, it was ADMITTED by both the Montebello Police and the Quebec Provincial Police, that the men outed by the protesters were actually cops trying to incite violence. You can bet that the provocateurs that were at the G20 were cops as well.

Agreed GostHacked.

This is the era we're in now - where police try to shut down PEACEFUL assembly by inciting violence so they can redefine it as 'unlawful assembly'.

Their job is to protect the constitutional right of citizens to PEACEFUL protest: Instead, police are now in the business of criminalizing PEACEFUL protest.

@CPL:

The G20 cops failed to stop the BlacBloc tactics on Saturday.

Humiliated, the G20 cops took their anger out on PEACEFUL protesters on Sunday, detaining, arresting and incarcerating hundreds of them with no 'reasonable and probable grounds'. The class action and other lawsuits by victims are in process, and will result in substantial (monetary) damages.

Since we taxpayers will be on the hook to pay those damages to victims of police malfeasance, we have to let police and public officials know clearly, through PEACEFUL protest and other appropriate channels, that we won't tolerate such behaviour. It is our responsibility to do so.

You need to familiarize yourself with the facts if your opinions are to have any merit.

g_bambino · April 2, 2012

[T]he G20 cops took their anger out on PEACEFUL protesters on Sunday, detaining, arresting and incarcerating hundreds of them with no 'reasonable and probable grounds'.

And yet, not one arrest has been determined to be wrongful by any court. Do you have any explanation for that?

GostHacked · April 2, 2012

What is a free society in your mind if I may ask?

My right to say things, and your right to be offended by them.

GostHacked · April 2, 2012

And yet, not one arrest has been determined to be wrongful by any court. Do you have any explanation for that?

Many were not even formally charged with anything, and yet detained (once again by supposed special powers that we know did not exist)... you lost on those other threads relating to the G20, surprised you are even attempting at being the apologist for the actions of the police and our government that allowed this to happen.

The actions of the police the day AFTER the cars were burned, while the cops were told to back off, ohhh.. and the news network camera crews set up in the same location just as it was happening.... photo op.

g_bambino · April 2, 2012

Many were not even formally charged with anything, and yet detained (once again by supposed special powers that we know did not exist)

All were charged with something at the time of arrest. The charges can be dropped; within 24 hours, I believe. They don't need to be maintained or a conviction decided by a court for the arrest to be legitimate. Only one arrest was made according to an erroneous interpretation of the Order-in-Council applying the Public Works Protection Act to the secure area.

[ed.: +]

Edited April 2, 2012 by g_bambino

Shady · April 3, 2012

I dunno. Its not too late to have usefull life.

Damn I know. I just go to work everyday, be productive, pay taxes, etc. If only my life could be as useful as these occupy protester types. :rolleyes:

Signals.Cpl · April 3, 2012

My right to say things, and your right to be offended by them.

Why would I be offended by your lack of intelligence? You cannot state in clear and concise terms what your definition of a free society is. Simply you like to have your freedoms, yet you cannot justify them.

To me there are two things, free society which we do NOT live in and free CIVILIZED society in which we DO live in. In the first one if I am stronger then someone I can take their possessions, or if I felt like killing someone or raping someone because I am stronger, it is my right because I am free do do that. While in the second one, I have certain restrictions, and I have given some of my natural "rights" to be part of the society, for example I cannot come to your house, and take your things and kill or rape your wife/daughter with impunity, there are the restrictions and there are the mechanism in place to prevent or punish perpetrators of the crimes. I live in a civilized free society. I don't know about you, since you seem incapable of defining your idea of free society. Which brings me to question weather you even know what a free society is, or do you assume it means you do whatever you want, whenever you want and if someone stops you, then they must be stomping on the rights you cannot define.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

Signals.Cpl · April 3, 2012

Not one poster on this board supported the looting that went on. It's counter productive, and gives the cops a reason to crack down on them, anyone with a couple brain cells to rub together can see that. However we have seen where cops will try to incite violence so their buddies in the riot gear can begin to crack heads.

In the case of Montebello Quebec, it was ADMITTED by both the Montebello Police and the Quebec Provincial Police, that the men outed by the protesters were actually cops trying to incite violence. You can bet that the provocateurs that were at the G20 were cops as well.

So you will use the case of officers in Montreal as the proof that they did the same in Toronto? I am not arguing that 100% of police officers are good, I know they have their bad apples in uniform but by and large the TPS consists of people who try to do their best to serve and protect.

jacee · April 3, 2012

And yet, not one arrest has been determined to be wrongful by any court. Do you have any explanation for that?

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.

Edited April 3, 2012 by jacee

Signals.Cpl · April 3, 2012

Yes, and no one disagrees with this point. The peaceful protesters feel much the same way.

Too bad they're the ones who were punished by the police, while not doing anything wrong.

So, to recap: you, me, everyone here, and the protesters themselves agree that the violent folks tried to ruin it for everybody, and should be held to account for their actions.

Where we depart is that you don't think authorities--the people with power--should be held to account for their actions.

Including the authorities.

Especially the authorities.

Trust me, I think that people on both sides should be held accountable for their actions. I believe that any armed segment of the government needs to be held accountable to a higher civilian leadership, not to tell them how to do their jobs but to make sure that they do their jobs without abuse. I honestly believe that the Canadian Forces, RCMP, CSIS, provincial and municipal police forces should be held responsible for their actions. Now where there abuses by the police during the G20? Sure, there were some, but shifting the blame and going to the automatic reply of "Blame the Police" infuriates me as it seems that many people treat violent hooligans as the victims whenever anything pops up about protesters and police. I think to avoid anything like the G20 in the future, there needs to be a more clear definition of undesirable intolerable behaviour, and clear and immediate punishments. The idea would be give the media attention to the rightful protesters and avoid making it a circus.

Do you want a protest where you can be heard rather then a protest where people see you as a hooligan? The protest organizers should and the protesters should self police to lessen the requirement for police intervention. Have a predesigned route that gives the protesters the most exposure to the media, let them have all the interviews and whatnot that they can handle and any other area outside of the protest zone is a no go for any gathering larger than 10 people. This way you have the protesters that get the exposure, the police do not get involved unless they are requested by the protesters themselves and if anyone tries to commit violence is dealt with in a swift and safe manner.

GostHacked · April 3, 2012

So you will use the case of officers in Montreal as the proof that they did the same in Toronto? I am not arguing that 100% of police officers are good, I know they have their bad apples in uniform but by and large the TPS consists of people who try to do their best to serve and protect.

Montebello is but one case where the agent provocateurs end up being cops. It's a more common tactic than you think.

Signals.Cpl · April 3, 2012

Montebello is but one case where the agent provocateurs end up being cops. It's a more common tactic than you think.

And the poor innocent protestors had no choice but to act on this? It does make sense to a degree, push for some violence, whoever seems too eager you simply remove them and let the other protestors do their thing. The reality is if I go to a protest, and someone suggests break the window or throw a rock, if I do the thing (s)he suggests, I am guilty. It comes down to one of those things my mother used to tell me when I was younger, "If someone told you to jump off of a bridge would you jump?" seems like an appropriate comparison. If a suggestion is made, and someone acts on it, either they are exceptionally stupid, or they had the intention to cause problems in the first place.

It all circles back to this if I told you to kill someone and you did it, then you did that on your own free will. Every child has at one point or another had someone suggest a stupid course of action, and most have taken said course of action at least once. The kid that suggested it is not at fault, the person who committed to the action is. Although this tactic may be distasteful, I don't see how the police forced anyone to do anything just through the power of suggestion.

jacee · April 3, 2012

And the poor innocent protestors had no choice but to act on this? It does make sense to a degree, push for some violence, whoever seems too eager you simply remove them and let the other protestors do their thing. The reality is if I go to a protest, and someone suggests break the window or throw a rock, if I do the thing (s)he suggests, I am guilty. It comes down to one of those things my mother used to tell me when I was younger, "If someone told you to jump off of a bridge would you jump?" seems like an appropriate comparison. If a suggestion is made, and someone acts on it, either they are exceptionally stupid, or they had the intention to cause problems in the first place.

It all circles back to this if I told you to kill someone and you did it, then you did that on your own free will. Every child has at one point or another had someone suggest a stupid course of action, and most have taken said course of action at least once. The kid that suggested it is not at fault, the person who committed to the action is. Although this tactic may be distasteful, I don't see how the police forced anyone to do anything just through the power of suggestion.

Nobody else threw rocks.

They just outed the cop provocateur.

Once again ... you might want to read up on the facts before you jump to conclusions.

But to get back to the thread topic ... It appears that Toronto police don't always call the SIU when they should ...

http://m.torontosun.com/2012/04/02/siu-learns-of-occupy-injuries-through-the-media

Why don’t Toronto Police seem to notify the Special Investigation’s Unit when people in their custody are taken to hospital? It seems clear in the Police Act they are supposed to.

...

Monday, the SIU announced it will probe the arrest of Occupy Toronto demonstrator Angela Turvey, following the transgender women’s arrest Friday and injuries sustained during that incident. But the unit made special note to mention that it was not called in to do conduct this investigation by Toronto Police but was responding to media reports of the incident outside of Osgoode Hall where four people were arrested and two taken to hospital.“After making some inquiries, we invoked our mandate and launched an investigation,” explained the SIU’s Monica Hudon. This is not the first time this has happened.

Edited April 3, 2012 by jacee

dre · April 3, 2012

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.

History will judge these events. I believe that the internationalisation/globalisation of power and the gradual distinction of the nation state is one of the biggest political issues of our time. I think civil unrest is a forgone conclusion at this point and quite possibly a lot worse.

If a person really believes that internationalisation (League of nations, UN, NATO, WTO, G7, G8, G20, G24, G36, G80 etc etc etc) is effectively robbing them of their liberty, then clearly setting a couple of cars on fire or breaking some windows isnt outside the boundaries of what one would expect. As I said I firmly believe this will in fact ESCALATE, and it already has in some places. And police crackdowns are the boiler-plate response... but it doesnt always work.

So you support the looting and destruction that happened during the G20 as necessary and healthy?

I dont want to take a position on this specific issue because I am still trying to figure my position out. But absolutely... the use of violence in the pursuit of political liberty is necessary and healthy sometimes.

bleeding heart · April 3, 2012

And the poor innocent protestors had no choice but to act on this? It does make sense to a degree, push for some violence, whoever seems too eager you simply remove them and let the other protestors do their thing.

The police inciting violence makes sense?

It's illegal.

Also, disgusting.

Also, only ever committed by authoritarian, shivering little moral weaklings.

Edited April 3, 2012 by bleeding heart

Signals.Cpl · April 3, 2012

Nobody else threw rocks.

They just outed the cop provocateur.

Once again ... you might want to read up on the facts before you jump to conclusions.

But to get back to the thread topic ... It appears that Toronto police don't always call the SIU when they should ...

http://m.torontosun.com/2012/04/02/siu-learns-of-occupy-injuries-through-the-media

Why don’t Toronto Police seem to notify the Special Investigation’s Unit when people in their custody are taken to hospital? It seems clear in the Police Act they are supposed to.

...

Monday, the SIU announced it will probe the arrest of Occupy Toronto demonstrator Angela Turvey, following the transgender women’s arrest Friday and injuries sustained during that incident. But the unit made special note to mention that it was not called in to do conduct this investigation by Toronto Police but was responding to media reports of the incident outside of Osgoode Hall where four people were arrested and two taken to hospital.“After making some inquiries, we invoked our mandate and launched an investigation,” explained the SIU’s Monica Hudon. This is not the first time this has happened.

And to answer the second part, yes SIU should be called only during the following circumstances:

"The SIU is a civilian law enforcement agency, independent of the police, that conducts criminal investigations into circumstances involving police and civilians that have resulted in serious injury, death or allegations of sexual assault." source:http://www.siu.on.ca/en/what_we_do.php

Definition of Serious Injury:

"Serious injuries" shall include those that are likely to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim and are more than merely transient or trifling in nature and will include serious injury resulting from sexual assault. "Serious Injury "shall initially be presumed when the victim is admitted to hospital, suffers a fracture to a limb, rib or vertebrae or to the skull, suffers burns to a major portion of the body or loses any portion of the body or suffers loss of vision or hearing, or alleges sexual assault. Where a prolonged delay is likely before the seriousness of the injury can be assessed, the Unit should be notified so that it can monitor the situation and decide on the extent of its involvement.” source:http://www.siu.on.ca/en/investigate_what.php

Unless I misread the article she was taken down, has black eye, and needed 7 stitches. That does not meet the conditions that the SIU themselves set forth. And for the second "incident" what the hell is two "old clothes" officers? So the burden of proof is on the police in every single case? This guy does nothing wrong and the police were at the wrong house, and severely beat him up in front of witnesses? One question, why didn't we see pictures of the injuries the police officers sustained? If they are consistent with the version of events that they presented then this might once again be a way to attempt to get out of resisting arrest. I don't see how they can say well he was injured when arrested by police, so it was police brutality, oh by the way 2 officers were also injured and needed medical attention but we will ignore that fact and just concentrate on the injured guy and his fictitious story all the while ignoring the other half of the story that maybe just maybe can disprove his version of events.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

Signals.Cpl · April 3, 2012

History will judge these events. I believe that the internationalisation/globalisation of power and the gradual distinction of the nation state is one of the biggest political issues of our time. I think civil unrest is a forgone conclusion at this point and quite possibly a lot worse.

If a person really believes that internationalisation (League of nations, UN, NATO, WTO, G7, G8, G20, G24, G36, G80 etc etc etc) is effectively robbing them of their liberty, then clearly setting a couple of cars on fire or breaking some windows isnt outside the boundaries of what one would expect. As I said I firmly believe this will in fact ESCALATE, and it already has in some places. And police crackdowns are the boiler-plate response... but it doesnt always work.

I dont want to take a position on this specific issue because I am still trying to figure my position out. But absolutely... the use of violence in the pursuit of political liberty is necessary and healthy sometimes.

Unfortunately for your argument, in Canada, we have this little thing called an election, if you don't like the current government, run for office or find someone you like. Justifying violence does nothing in the long run, as this violence was not directed at the people who "caused" the problem but at everyday people who have small businesses which now may have taken substantial losses because some animal decided they wanted to break things. “Lawlessness is lawlessness. Anarchy is anarchy is anarchy. Neither race nor color nor frustration is an excuse for either lawlessness or anarchy.” Justifying the looting that went on is a slippery slope, why does the rest of society move on along peacefully and does not use violence to solve their problem while a select few seem to think that they are exempt from any source of punishment because they have a twisted form of justification.