G20 report blasts police for violations of civil rights
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 12 Next
bootlegga @ Wed May 16, 2012 12:45 pm
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
bootlegga bootlegga:
I care - and while protesters can be, and in some cases are, jackasses, that does NOT give police the right to do some of the things McNeilly noted in his reports.
I expect people to act like human beings.
Human's have a breaking point, we all do. We're asking police to do things and carry on in a way that's not natural.
You take a few bottles at your head...OK....we'll let that go, but the next asshole that throws anything is gonna get it.
I agree everyone has a breaking point - but the law is the law. I may get pissed off at the first nine people who cut me off on my commute, but that does NOT give me the right to use violence to deal with the tenth person to cut me off.
Honestly I don't have a problem with a cop using his baton on some Black Bloc idiot who threw a bottle at him, but I do have a problem with many of the items O'Neilly noted - like mass arrests outside a downtown hotel, pre-dawn raids at a university and the most significantly, the kettling of hundreds of innocents. Those sound like police state tactics and have no place in a democracy like Canada.
Cops, because of their position of authority can and should be held to a higher standard. If they break the very rules they are enforcing, I see no problem with charging them with offences too.
Tricks @ Wed May 16, 2012 1:42 pm
andyt andyt:
I think he did. so I withdraw the comment. Instead to say that "just contained" doesn't seem to quite cover it, and that Tricks is arguing that the cops can ride roughshod over people's civil rights, since that's what the report said they did.
Actually, if you could read, you'd see I didn't comment on the artile at all. I pointed out that comparing our cops to the likes of Syria, Iran, or China is stupid and wrong. People would have died in those countries. I am NOT saying that because people didn't die, our cops should be applauded. Don't try to twist my words.$1:
"Some police officers ignored basic rights citizens have under the Charter and overstepped their authority when they stopped and searched people arbitrarily and without legal justification,"
If that happened, it's wrong. If it happened within the zone that the police had set up for the g20 and where they had checkpoints and had posted notice saying that they are subject to search in that area, for security reasons, I'm not sure what the ruling is on that. But I doubt the latter happened.$1:
"Numerous police officers used excessive force when arresting individuals and seemed to send a message that violence would be met with violence," the report states.
"The reaction created a cycle of escalating responses from both sides."
The report takes aim at police tactics at the provincial legislature, which had been set up in advance as a protest zone. It says the force used for crowd control and in making arrests was "in some cases excessive."
"The reaction created a cycle of escalating responses from both sides."
The report takes aim at police tactics at the provincial legislature, which had been set up in advance as a protest zone. It says the force used for crowd control and in making arrests was "in some cases excessive."
Examples?
$1:
$1:
It also concludes mass arrests outside a downtown hotel were "unlawful," and a dawn raid and arrest of people at a university residence was done without the required warrants.
The office, under director Gerry McNeilly, slams police for "kettling" scores of people — many passersby — at a downtown intersection for several hours in a severe thunderstorm, calling it "unreasonable, unnecessary and unlawful."
Even officers in place thought the situation untenable, with one describing the incident commander as "maniacal," the report says.
"Where are they going to give them a chance to disperse?" one officer asked.
"They aren't, that's the problem," another replied.
"Well, that's stupid."
The office, under director Gerry McNeilly, slams police for "kettling" scores of people — many passersby — at a downtown intersection for several hours in a severe thunderstorm, calling it "unreasonable, unnecessary and unlawful."
Even officers in place thought the situation untenable, with one describing the incident commander as "maniacal," the report says.
"Where are they going to give them a chance to disperse?" one officer asked.
"They aren't, that's the problem," another replied.
"Well, that's stupid."
So no, we don't shoot into the crowd. But we use excessive force, ignore basic rights, and make unlawful arrests and detention.
The detention was not unlawful, as in Canada, if I recall correctly, anyone can be detained for up to 24 hours without a reason. I want examples of excessive force. The human rights I agree, they should not have been subject to random searches, unless made clear by posting that in the interest of security of the g20 people in a certain area would be subject to random searches. I don't know anything about the raid on the university, if that's all it was without reason, then that's wrong too.
Tricks @ Wed May 16, 2012 1:45 pm
bootlegga bootlegga:
Tricks Tricks:
bootlegga bootlegga:
We don't accept when Syria or Iran or China (or other humans rights violators) does that kind of stuff - why should we accept it here in Canada?
The difference is in Syria, Iran, or China would have fired shots into the crowd, not kept them contained.
Sorry, but tactics like this went out with union-busting decades ago. If we want to claim the moral high ground on human rights, we actually need to stand there, not just pretend we do.
Because containing a crowd for a few hours is the moral equivalent of shooting into a crowd of people right?
Tricks @ Wed May 16, 2012 1:46 pm
Gunnair Gunnair:
Did you just get Toewsed?
I don't know what that means
Gunnair @ Wed May 16, 2012 1:55 pm
Tricks Tricks:
Gunnair Gunnair:
Did you just get Toewsed?
I don't know what that means
Andy cleverly came up with it to describe the logical calisthenics employed in an argument.
I.e. If you don't support the givernment's desire to monitor your every movement on the Internet, you support pedophiles.
Gunnair @ Wed May 16, 2012 1:56 pm
Tricks Tricks:
bootlegga bootlegga:
Tricks Tricks:
The difference is in Syria, Iran, or China would have fired shots into the crowd, not kept them contained.
Sorry, but tactics like this went out with union-busting decades ago. If we want to claim the moral high ground on human rights, we actually need to stand there, not just pretend we do.
Because containing a crowd for a few hours is the moral equivalent of shooting into a crowd of people right?
That would be Toewsing!
Tricks @ Wed May 16, 2012 2:02 pm
Gunnair Gunnair:
Tricks Tricks:
Gunnair Gunnair:
Did you just get Toewsed?
I don't know what that means
Andy cleverly came up with it to describe the logical calisthenics employed in an argument.
I.e. If you don't support the givernment's desire to monitor your every movement on the Internet, you support pedophiles.
Ah I see.
Tricks @ Wed May 16, 2012 2:04 pm
Gunnair Gunnair:
That would be Toewsing!
Wait for me or that statement would be? Cause that was sarcasm.
Damn you kids and your new lingo! Get off my lawn!
Gunnair @ Wed May 16, 2012 2:18 pm
Tricks Tricks:
Gunnair Gunnair:
That would be Toewsing!
Wait for me or that statement would be? Cause that was sarcasm.
Damn you kids and your new lingo! Get off my lawn!
Pop over to the wrongful execution thread if you want to see a thread being Toewsed!
OnTheIce @ Wed May 16, 2012 2:22 pm
bootlegga bootlegga:
I agree everyone has a breaking point - but the law is the law. I may get pissed off at the first nine people who cut me off on my commute, but that does NOT give me the right to use violence to deal with the tenth person to cut me off.
Honestly I don't have a problem with a cop using his baton on some Black Bloc idiot who threw a bottle at him, but I do have a problem with many of the items O'Neilly noted - like mass arrests outside a downtown hotel, pre-dawn raids at a university and the most significantly, the kettling of hundreds of innocents. Those sound like police state tactics and have no place in a democracy like Canada.
Cops, because of their position of authority can and should be held to a higher standard. If they break the very rules they are enforcing, I see no problem with charging them with offences too.
If the law is the law, everyone who tossed anything at the police, or did anything remotely illegal should have been tossed to the ground and arrested. Many of these people were given a pass.
We have to move past this notion that "protesting" means you can do whatever-the-fuck you want in the name of a "peaceful protest".
The problem, as I see it, is that people who came to legitimately protest supported and often cheered on those who didn't have the same intentions; combine that with a lack of respect, verbal and physical abuse, I completely understand and support the police and their actions.
It's always easy to sit back and judge what happened when you don't know exactly what happened that day. Hindsight is always 20/20 and during the heat of the moment, people make mistakes. Police are no different.
CDN_PATRIOT @ Wed May 16, 2012 2:54 pm
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
I don't give a rats ass of some cop gave a guy a couple extra whacks after he threw a bottle at his face.
I'd love to see these losers (protesters) take endless amounts of verbal and physical abuse and react with a smile and be courteous.
I'd love to see these losers (protesters) take endless amounts of verbal and physical abuse and react with a smile and be courteous.
If anything, the police didn't do enough to deal with the rioters/protesters/black bloc/hippies/etc. More heads should have been cracked as far as I am concerned.
If Bill Blair wasn't such a wuss, there wouldn't have been any issues around the G20. I miss the days when Fantino ran the Toronto Police. Some called him a ruler with an iron fist, but I always liked his style.
-J.
bootlegga @ Wed May 16, 2012 3:02 pm
Tricks Tricks:
bootlegga bootlegga:
Tricks Tricks:
The difference is in Syria, Iran, or China would have fired shots into the crowd, not kept them contained.
Sorry, but tactics like this went out with union-busting decades ago. If we want to claim the moral high ground on human rights, we actually need to stand there, not just pretend we do.
Because containing a crowd for a few hours is the moral equivalent of shooting into a crowd of people right?
I never said it was - but nice try...
Lemmy @ Wed May 16, 2012 3:03 pm
It was the citizens of Toronto that dropped the ball way moreso than the cops. Why the hell didn't the people observing the riot step up and stop these Black Bloc idiots? I wish I'd been there. I'd have grabbed a few of those masked punks and kicked the living shit out of them myself. They'd have been wishing for some police brutality because the brutality they'd have gotten from me would have been 100 times worse. The shame is on the citizens who stood by and watched or hid in their homes.
bootlegga @ Wed May 16, 2012 3:13 pm
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
bootlegga bootlegga:
I agree everyone has a breaking point - but the law is the law. I may get pissed off at the first nine people who cut me off on my commute, but that does NOT give me the right to use violence to deal with the tenth person to cut me off.
Honestly I don't have a problem with a cop using his baton on some Black Bloc idiot who threw a bottle at him, but I do have a problem with many of the items O'Neilly noted - like mass arrests outside a downtown hotel, pre-dawn raids at a university and the most significantly, the kettling of hundreds of innocents. Those sound like police state tactics and have no place in a democracy like Canada.
Cops, because of their position of authority can and should be held to a higher standard. If they break the very rules they are enforcing, I see no problem with charging them with offences too.
If the law is the law, everyone who tossed anything at the police, or did anything remotely illegal should have been tossed to the ground and arrested. Many of these people were given a pass.
We have to move past this notion that "protesting" means you can do whatever-the-fuck you want in the name of a "peaceful protest".
The problem, as I see it, is that people who came to legitimately protest supported and often cheered on those who didn't have the same intentions; combine that with a lack of respect, verbal and physical abuse, I completely understand and support the police and their actions.
It's always easy to sit back and judge what happened when you don't know exactly what happened that day. Hindsight is always 20/20 and during the heat of the moment, people make mistakes. Police are no different.
You're right - I have no idea why the police didn't arrest AND charge the Black Bloc bums. Anyone assaulting an officer with his/her feet/hands/a bottle/whatever should have faced the full consequences of their actions - up to and including jail and/or fines, no two ways about it.
However, that does NOT give police a blank check to do anything they want simply because somebody pissed them off last night/this morning/whenever.
Saying people make mistakes is a cop-out. If I did some of the things the cops did to innocent people at the G-20, I'd get a criminal record, be out thousands in legal fees and probably spend some time behind bars. But I doubt any of the cops singled out in this report will face even an unpaid leave of absence from work, nevermind jail time or criminal charges.
I respect cops for doing a tough job, but that does NOT give police officers carte blanche to do whatever they feel like, whenever they feel like.
Even the guardians of society should have rules to follow - which should be enforced when they are broken.
BartSimpson @ Wed May 16, 2012 3:15 pm
Tricks Tricks:
Because containing a crowd for a few hours is the moral equivalent of shooting into a crowd of people right?
On a tangent of sorts here, shooting into a crowd of people is pretty effective at dispersing them so I'm not sure how that would work as an equivalent for containing them.
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 12 Next