Confidence in toronto police crashes in wake of G20

[fuji]

I can't believe for one second that 'peaceful protesters' were beaten for no reason.

If they were peaceful, then they would mind the barricades and not even clash with police.

Perhaps you should view some of the videos showing peaceful protesters being beaten for no reason. Certainly the SIU concluded that people were beaten up for no lawful reason, and that's why they have now laid charges against the two officers who could be identified from the video and photographic evidence. You do know that there were MANY more reports of that--but the other reports aren't backed up by the same level of identifying video evidence, and the other police who were present have not stepped up to out the bad apples.

Note the claim here is NOT that the majority of police beat people up. I think the great majority of police likely exercised restraint and behaved responsibly. However out of all those thousands of officers who were on duty some individual officers appear to have viewed the situation as a license to beat the shit out of anyone they wanted to. The problem here is that the other officers present allowed that to happen, and did not subsequently assist in the prosecution of those few who went out of control.

Aside from the beatings there is the matter of the mass arrests. It appears that the overwhelming majority of the 1100 people arrested were peaceful protesters who were doing nothing other than exercising their right to protest peacefully. Only a couple of dozen of them ever ended up convicted of anything, and even if you add back those in who avoided conviction by opting for diversion or community service (i.e., they did something wrong, but avoided conviction) it's less than 10% of the people who were arrested who appear to have done ANYTHING wrong.

Maybe YOU don't care about your charter rights, or about the rule of law, but the police thumping down a fundamental right like that for no good reason is highly disturbing to those of us who do want to live freely in a democratic country. Certainly in a place like China or Syria I would not expect to get away with peaceful protesting--but this is Canada!

 

[5hummer]

I can't believe for one second that 'peaceful protesters' were beaten for no reason.
If they were peaceful, then they would mind the barricades and not even clash with police.

Let's not forget, there were non-protestors, minding their own business, (e.g. walking to work) and being jumped and thrown into jail.

 

[Damondean]

Anyone that still thinks the police are there to serve and protect them have their heads in the sand. They are all bully's hiding behind the blue wall of silence. Oops, sorry make that a "blue wall of silence that just got a 12% raise from Toronto". How about this poor bugger who was arrested, beaten and stripped and left naked for days in a cell BEFORE the G20 even started: http://www.thestar.com/news/toronto...trip-search-of-sean-salvati-prior-to-g20?bn=1

"To serve and protect" my ass. Blair needs to resign and take it on the chin like a man.

Wish I had his pension! I would quit too. )

 

[GPIDEAL]

So the evidence is 2 officers caught on video only.

10% represented the bad apples that ruined the whole lot - maybe they had no choice but to do a mass arrest to contain the illegal acts by those 10% within the group?

If they were outside the restricted areas, why would the police care if they were peacefully protesting?

Perhaps you should view some of the videos showing peaceful protesters being beaten for no reason. Certainly the SIU concluded that people were beaten up for no lawful reason, and that's why they have now laid charges against the two officers who could be identified from the video and photographic evidence. You do know that there were MANY more reports of that--but the other reports aren't backed up by the same level of identifying video evidence, and the other police who were present have not stepped up to out the bad apples.

Note the claim here is NOT that the majority of police beat people up. I think the great majority of police likely exercised restraint and behaved responsibly. However out of all those thousands of officers who were on duty some individual officers appear to have viewed the situation as a license to beat the shit out of anyone they wanted to. The problem here is that the other officers present allowed that to happen, and did not subsequently assist in the prosecution of those few who went out of control.

Aside from the beatings there is the matter of the mass arrests. It appears that the overwhelming majority of the 1100 people arrested were peaceful protesters who were doing nothing other than exercising their right to protest peacefully. Only a couple of dozen of them ever ended up convicted of anything, and even if you add back those in who avoided conviction by opting for diversion or community service (i.e., they did something wrong, but avoided conviction) it's less than 10% of the people who were arrested who appear to have done ANYTHING wrong.

Maybe YOU don't care about your charter rights, or about the rule of law, but the police thumping down a fundamental right like that for no good reason is highly disturbing to those of us who do want to live freely in a democratic country. Certainly in a place like China or Syria I would not expect to get away with peaceful protesting--but this is Canada!

 

[GPIDEAL]

Why did that booking Sargeant say that Yau 'was in the wrong place at the wrong time'?

Was he unknowingly in the restricted area?

As for those 1100 individuals, how many had 'peacefully protested' within the restricted buffer zone?

Why would the police go beyond the G20's security area to arrest individuals peacefully protesting outside of it?

Did those 10% taint the whole crowd with their illegal acts such that the police didn't know who was coming or going until determined later?

Really...

Remember the TTC fare collector walking to work near the G20 that was arrested

Also, one key fact that no one has mentioned is the fact that of the 1,100 individuals that were arrested, it was only something like 20 (or even less) that actually had their charges sustained and proceeded to court. Virtually all those arrested were released without charges... now why do you suppose that happened? Could it be because there was no way in hell that a court would uphold the charges.

What kind of police force would exist if 99% of all those they arrested were released without charges, and what does it say about the force itself - perhaps that it got power-hungry?

 

[GPIDEAL]

Let's not forget, there were non-protestors, minding their own business, (e.g. walking to work) and being jumped and thrown into jail.

Did they go beyond the restricted buffer zone? I was told to avoid the DT core and that there was a security zone. I recall watching on the news that people went down there regardless of the security zone boundaries. If that's the case, they shouldn't be down there. The police were protecting world leaders from any kind of threat, including possible terrorist attacks. I wouldn't have gone down there to tempt fate or for kicks.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Maybe YOU don't care about your charter rights, or about the rule of law, but the police thumping down a fundamental right like that for no good reason is highly disturbing to those of us who do want to live freely in a democratic country. Certainly in a place like China or Syria I would not expect to get away with peaceful protesting--but this is Canada!

Me asking questions and not just taking your word for granted doesn't make me undemocratic. The Charter doesn't give us absolute rights to protest.

So answer this question. If the 'peaceful protesters' have penetrated an established security zone or restricted area, aren't they infringing on the rule of law? I also ask again, considering the restricted security zone imposed by the police to protect the G20 Leaders, why would they go beyond that zone to make mass arrests or beat up innocents?

 

[guelph]

Did they go beyond the restricted buffer zone? I was told to avoid the DT core and that there was a security zone. I recall watching on the news that people went down there regardless of the security zone boundaries. If that's the case, they shouldn't be down there. The police were protecting world leaders from any kind of threat, including possible terrorist attacks. I wouldn't have gone down there to tempt fate or for kicks.

People outside the security buffer were arrested and then police gave untrue statements about weapons to justify this.

 

[The Fruity Hare]

Me asking questions and not just taking your word for granted doesn't make me undemocratic. The Charter doesn't give us absolute rights to protest.

So answer this question. If the 'peaceful protesters' have penetrated an established security zone or restricted area, aren't they infringing on the rule of law? I also ask again, considering the restricted security zone imposed by the police to protect the G20 Leaders, why would they go beyond that zone to make mass arrests or beat up innocents?

GP.

You are generally level headed when it comes to discussing issues, so I can see you just don't appear to have read all the information out there regarding these confrontations initiated by the police. It almost seems like you are just being stubborn and trolling, but I'm sure you aren't.

The protesters were given a designated area in which to peacefully and democratically protest. This was at Queen's Park. The police rushed the protesters, beating a number of them. It was not anywhere the security perimeter downtown. This was an area offered by the province to the protesters and it was on Sunday, not the same day that the black block rioted downtown. There were other claims of police abuse, however not all of them were backed up with video evidence. It is probably difficult to film while you are running from riot police intent on bashing you with their batons. The TTC guy was just going to work, unaware of the situation at Queen's Park. I actually had to respond to an emergency a few hours later and exited the Queen's Park subway station oblivious of all the commotion earlier. if I had exited the station at the earlier time, I might have been in that situation, for no justified reason:

A TTC fare collector spent a “terrifying” 36 hours in custody after being arrested in uniform on his way to work during Saturday’s G20 summit protests.

Benjamin Elroy Yau, 37, said he was walking along College St. to the Queen’s Park subway station before his 6 p.m. shift when two police officers “tackled” him to the ground and yelled at him to stop resisting arrest.

“I told them I wasn’t resisting arrest, that I was on my way to work. I was in full uniform with TTC shirt, pants, full ID, my employee card, everything,” Yau said on Wednesday. “They said, ‘Really? Well, you’re a prisoner today.’ ”



In new information released this week, it shows there was no coordination during the mass kettling incident, and when they wanted to release the crowd, they realized they had gone too far.

 

[GPIDEAL]

People outside the security buffer were arrested and then police gave untrue statements about weapons to justify this.

Really? Still a few bad apples made trouble outside the buffer zone it seems.

 

[GPIDEAL]

GP.

You are generally level headed when it comes to discussing issues, so I can see you just don't appear to have read all the information out there regarding these confrontations initiated by the police. It almost seems like you are just being stubborn and trolling, but I'm sure you aren't.

The protesters were given a designated area in which to peacefully and democratically protest. This was at Queen's Park. The police rushed the protesters, beating a number of them. It was not anywhere the security perimeter downtown. This was an area offered by the province to the protesters and it was on Sunday, not the same day that the black block rioted downtown. There were other claims of police abuse, however not all of them were backed up with video evidence. It is probably difficult to film while you are running from riot police intent on bashing you with their batons. The TTC guy was just going to work, unaware of the situation at Queen's Park. I actually had to respond to an emergency a few hours later and exited the Queen's Park subway station oblivious of all the commotion earlier. if I had exited the station at the earlier time, I might have been in that situation, for no justified reason:

A TTC fare collector spent a “terrifying” 36 hours in custody after being arrested in uniform on his way to work during Saturday’s G20 summit protests.

Benjamin Elroy Yau, 37, said he was walking along College St. to the Queen’s Park subway station before his 6 p.m. shift when two police officers “tackled” him to the ground and yelled at him to stop resisting arrest.

“I told them I wasn’t resisting arrest, that I was on my way to work. I was in full uniform with TTC shirt, pants, full ID, my employee card, everything,” Yau said on Wednesday. “They said, ‘Really? Well, you’re a prisoner today.’ ”



In new information released this week, it shows there was no coordination during the mass kettling incident, and when they wanted to release the crowd, they realized they had gone too far.

Thank you for your patience and understanding. I didn't know about the Queen's Park protest zone.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Your arguments are completely irrelevant in a "Free and Just Society". What I'm saying probably goes above your head, but if you think about it, it is entirely true.

Moreover, the TTC collector was on COLLEGE STREET, very far from a restricted area. Besides, what they yelled at him, the fact that he was held for 36 hours are also fundamental tenets of our justice system that were violated.

The Sergeant's comments are actually quite "chilling". The police, according to the law and their training, are supposed to be accurate, careful and diligent in their duties. When someone says "wrong place, wrong time" it basically abdicates themselves of all responsibility, and that is NOT how police are supposed to operate in our society - ever.

Further, let's assume that all 1,100 were in some sort of restricted zone - then there would actually be a charge that would have stuck - trespass or something else. The fact that 99% were released without charges speaks for itself. This is probably beyond your comprehension too - the police, in carrying out their duties with diligence, respect, responsibly and accuracy should NEVER be in a position to release 99% of everyone they arrest without charges. Probably 2% to 10% is considered tolerable.

Let's assume that you visit MP's, and you are caught walking by an MP, and the police arrest you for being a "found-in". You then say that you were never in the place, you were just walking by. You'd be pissed because the police arrested you without doing their homework, or because they did not observe you correctly. They would release you without charges because they know they either made a mistake, or know that how they arrested you would not hold-up in court. As you can see, it is not in society's best interests to EVER have a high proportion of arrests that do not end-up going to court.

Now, if those 1,100 were charged, and if they were all arraigned in front of a judge, and if most of them had those charges stick, then I would say that the police had served justice, as the police would have been stopping criminals with valid charges, as proven in a court of law. Again, though, I think this is a concept out of your grasp.

I was asking questions, not making arguments. What does a vague term like 'Free & Just Society' have anything to do with that?

Okay, thank you for the answers & information, but is it possible that they detained 1,100 people because it was the only way to catch those 10% actually causing trouble outside the zone? Not that a shotgun approach is proper in making arrests, but a few bad apples can make a whole lot seem bad.

 

[GPIDEAL]

This is somewhat true, people should have avoided the area to avoid trouble. However, what happened at Spadina and Queen is absolutely unacceptable. It is a shopping district that was lawfully OPEN and is a major intersection in that area of the city. There are condos, apartments and houses within a stone's throw of that area. Someone could have been out walking a dog, or grabbing food when they got kettled like that. Do the residents of that area deserve what happened to them? It was disgusting.

Seems though that there were a few bad apples causing shit outside the restricted area and the police over-reacted?

 

[GPIDEAL]

This is the point though, police are not supposed to OVER-REACT. They are not supposed to do MASS ARRESTS and are supposed to use good, common sense.

I employ the vague term "Free and Just Society" because if we lived in a police state, or a society that did not place the values of freedom or the right to move about unencumbered, then I would say the police have done a great job.

Okay. Point well taken. Thank you.

 

[CapitalGuy]

What are you questioning here? That the support of the public is crucial to policing? That Toronto police have had a hard time getting witnesses to come forward in several key cases?

What rock are you living under?

So I take it you are unable to provide any references to back up your opinion, and prefer to deflect and insult.

 

[Malibook]

The problem with the cops is that they under-reacted.
They should have crushed the Black Block assholes and then the other misfits wouldn't have been so emboldened to cause shit too.
And then the cops wouldn't have been criticized for doing nothing and they wouldn't have had a need to foolishly try to save face by take out their stupidity on the innocent peaceful protesters.
The cops had the chance to set the precedent of zero tolerance by destroying the BB and any other assholes but they failed miserably.
Whoever gave the order to stand down and not engage the BB should be fired.

 

[fuji]

If the 'peaceful protesters' have penetrated an established security zone or restricted area, aren't they infringing on the rule of law?

Sure, if they penetrated an established security zone. But they didn't. No-one penetrated the restricted area. None of the beatings or mass arrests took place there. The beatings and mass arrests mostly took place at designated protest areas and along police approved protest routes, or outside of the restricted zones at places like Queens Park and at Spadina & Queen where the "kettling" occurred (which was not in the zone). The restricted zone was the area south of Wellington Street, with protests directed to come no further south than Queen (other foot traffic allowed from Queen to Wellington).

I also ask again, considering the restricted security zone imposed by the police to protect the G20 Leaders, why would they go beyond that zone to make mass arrests or beat up innocents?

Good question. Ask the police! Almost all the arrests were well outside the security zone.

 

[fuji]

So the evidence is 2 officers caught on video only.

Only two where the officers faces are clearly visible, so that they can be identified and charged. There were MANY other reports of police beatings. Given that a few of them are substantiated by video evidence I have no problem whatsoever believing that more stuff happened off camera.

10% represented the bad apples that ruined the whole lot - maybe they had no choice but to do a mass arrest to contain the illegal acts by those 10% within the group?

That would be an illegal violation of the charter rights of Canadians, if it's true.

If they were outside the restricted areas, why would the police care if they were peacefully protesting?

That is exactly what we want to know. That is why so many people are calling for a public inquiry. That is what we want to find out.

 

[fuji]

So I take it you are unable to provide any references to back up your opinion, and prefer to deflect and insult.

You're a troll asking for the brutally obvious to be provided in references. Sure, I will go find policing manuals that assert the police need the support and trust of the public, and if I go find examples of people not co-operating with the police, but only if you agree to admit you are an idiot and a troll when I do so. Or you could just accept the brutally obvious. Your choice. Let me know which you prefer.

 

[blackrock13]

I really wish the lawyers on this BB would explain 'Breach of Peace', which is what most of the 1000+ were detained under and why no charges were laid, so that members get some idea why/how the people were detained legally and no great liberty was infringed upon.