A looter's insincere apology.
BartSimpson @ Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:08 am
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
I'm a big believer in Peel.
And you're a good man.
For others who are not familiar with what you're talking about:
$1:
1.The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2.The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.
3.Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4.The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5.Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6.Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.
7.Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8.Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9.The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
2.The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.
3.Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4.The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5.Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6.Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.
7.Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8.Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9.The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
Anymore the general gist of this is void. Police all too often no longer see themselves as public servants but more as public regulators and they also frequently view themselves as above the laws they assert upon others.
Can't tell you how many times I see police cars excessively speeding on freeways and surface streets absent being Code 2 (lights on) or Code 3 (lights and siren on). What makes them so special? Nothing.
It also comes up in the matter of gun control. Cops frequently don't trust the people they serve so they don't want them to be armed.
And the recent spate of people being beaten up by cops for recording video of police malfeasance also speaks to some serious problems with the police anymore. Not only do some of them think they have a right to misbeahve, they think they have a right to cover it up, too.
Damn near makes some police jurisidictions into veritable banana republics.
EyeBrock @ Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:40 am
Yep, I'm all for reminding people that the police are the public and the public are the police. Must be a Limey thing! It was engrained into us over there. Doesn't stop the public from getting locked up when they do bad things though!
Cheers Bart!
EyeBrock @ Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:52 am
This is getting interesting.
"Vancouver police chief questions integrity of riot critic in e-mail."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat ... le2069417/
andyt @ Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:59 am
Yep, the pressure's on Chu. Good chance he'll be made the scapegoat for this. Well scapegoat isn't the right term, since he's the one in charge. But I bet there were budget pressures on him (he's denied it) to keep the number of cops down. Christie "Canuck" Clarke didn't want to pony up for policing costs and Mayor Robertson sounds like he was also lulled to sleep, not expecting a riot. I wish Chu would just step up, admit he made a mistake, that he'll know better next time and we can move on.
canuckns @ Tue Jun 21, 2011 2:28 pm
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
Really, do we as a society have to wait for the police and the courts to tell us what is right or wrong? Citizens in a civilised society should be able to suss out that rioting, looting, arson, damaging others property etc is wrong.
Using social media to pillory these wankers who think accountability is an emoticon is no different than Mr Angry writing a letter to the Times on football hooligans.
It's not being a posse, nobody is getting strung up on a tree. What is happening though is that people are being held accountable for their actions against the society they live in.
It's good to see people rising up and expressing disgust at the indefensible actions of these tossers on the rampage. Leaving it all up to police and the courts is just a lazy-arse way of facing up to your civic responsibilities.
In 1829 Sir Robert Peel said;
"...The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."
I think he said it rather well.
Using social media to pillory these wankers who think accountability is an emoticon is no different than Mr Angry writing a letter to the Times on football hooligans.
It's not being a posse, nobody is getting strung up on a tree. What is happening though is that people are being held accountable for their actions against the society they live in.
It's good to see people rising up and expressing disgust at the indefensible actions of these tossers on the rampage. Leaving it all up to police and the courts is just a lazy-arse way of facing up to your civic responsibilities.
In 1829 Sir Robert Peel said;
"...The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."
I think he said it rather well.
Well said. I agree completely. +1
![[B-o]](./images/smilies/drinkup.gif "Drink up")
Gunnair @ Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:09 pm
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
he wouldn't even have to be in uniform. If you knew he was in the military and had proof he was engaged in 'questionable' behaviour, that would be enough to lead to trouble. The military has the QR&Os on top of other rules and regulations that govern civil society. I believe it was Sec. 119(?), against the predjudice and good order of military discipline, that was the biggest catch all. In the military, and police, your time is still your employers' time.
129 - the catch all.
Freakinoldguy @ Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:05 pm
Gunnair Gunnair:
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
he wouldn't even have to be in uniform. If you knew he was in the military and had proof he was engaged in 'questionable' behaviour, that would be enough to lead to trouble. The military has the QR&Os on top of other rules and regulations that govern civil society. I believe it was Sec. 119(?), against the predjudice and good order of military discipline, that was the biggest catch all. In the military, and police, your time is still your employers' time.
129 - the catch all.
If I remember correctly 129 used to be 119 years ago, like in the stoneage man
and the reason I know this is?????????????????????? 
PublicAnimalNo9 @ Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:08 pm
Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
Gunnair Gunnair:
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
he wouldn't even have to be in uniform. If you knew he was in the military and had proof he was engaged in 'questionable' behaviour, that would be enough to lead to trouble. The military has the QR&Os on top of other rules and regulations that govern civil society. I believe it was Sec. 119(?), against the predjudice and good order of military discipline, that was the biggest catch all. In the military, and police, your time is still your employers' time.
129 - the catch all.
If I remember correctly 129 used to be 119 years ago, like in the stoneage man
and the reason I know this is?????????????????????? You still have the spear you killed your first Wooly Mammoth with?
ShepherdsDog @ Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:15 pm
Kronk like mastadon... do Cornwallis in '84 when it still 119.
Benn @ Wed Jun 22, 2011 7:30 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
The more I think about it the more I note that Nathan Kotylak's sentence will be quite unique in modern criminology history.
Perhaps I can forgive him--in time. But on the internet he will always be the guy that torched the cop car. Nothing he ever does in the rest of his life will change that fact as far as the Google search engine is concerned. He will defined by that one decision; he will be trapped forever in this moment in time:
A very public sentence for a very public crime.
Perhaps I can forgive him--in time. But on the internet he will always be the guy that torched the cop car. Nothing he ever does in the rest of his life will change that fact as far as the Google search engine is concerned. He will defined by that one decision; he will be trapped forever in this moment in time:
A very public sentence for a very public crime.
Here is his apology, he's sorry for having to apologize and for the fact when his name is Googled the results no longer show how good a water polo player he is. He elected to give his name out despite the fact the YOA would protect him after he was outed all over the net, (cue drying) he is upset he was made to look like a bad guy, he really isn't, many people try to torch a cop car on a spur of the moment whim.
Freakinoldguy @ Wed Jun 22, 2011 7:32 pm
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
Kronk like mastadon... do Cornwallis in '84 when it still 119.
6948 Ottawa Gatineau block.