G-20 Summit in Toronto

[Peepers]

That's what I would like to know. At my work we're suppose to wear ID tags but no one including security, really follows this rule. Certainly not all the time. Could be the same for the cops.

No its not the same with the cops. As explained in the below Toronto Star article it is MANDATORY for uniformed officers to wear their name badges even when they are in riot gear.

The Police are currently investigating those offficers who took off their name badges.

According to a police spokesperson:

"“It’s a professional standards issue and/or potentially an issue of misconduct. It’s rightly being looked at by (the) Professional Standards (unit),”

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/834461

 

[nfitz]

The media was not showing THIS video of police fleeing from the vandals a month ago ...

Perhaps not that video ... but they were reporting it happening live. Not sure what the big deal is. We all know that they were given an order to stay clear. The question isn't whether or not it happened, but why did it happen. Were they only concerned about protecting their perimeter, and not the city?

But hey ... your the undercover cop here, trying to distract us from the truth. You tell us!

 

[nfitz]

I actually went downtown but kept a considerable distance (several blocks) and watched for any signs of trouble so that I could get the hell out of there fast. I was aware however of the risks involved.

As did I ... with a 2-year old one day. But I knew where I was, where the action was, and would have quickly departed if it was anywhere near me.

As for the protestors complaining about harsh treatment? Once again, allegations. And it's a detainment centre. Not a hotel room. It's not suppose to be comfortable or pleasant. Someone I know works with cops and they commented that the detainment centre and people being processed was nothing out of the ordinary. Unless you'v never been arrested and then your world comes crumbling down apparently.

There does seem to be a consistent series of comments that some of the police officers were making sexist comments to some of the prisoners.

And there are well documented reports by respected members of the media of police unnecessarily hitting those that were in custody.

For the most part, the police did indeed seem to show a lot of restraint. But there seem to be certain individual officers who did things they shouldn't have.

And then there is the volume of people arrested. We arrested twice the number of people in 2 days, than during the entire October crisis in 1970 when the country was under martial law? And police abuse of power in October 1970 was such that it triggered almost 15 years of investigations, hearings, and changes to the policing system.

Surely, there are some significant parallels to what happened here.

 

[Peepers]

Perhaps not that video ... but they were reporting it happening live. Not sure what the big deal is. We all know that they were given an order to stay clear. The question isn't whether or not it happened, but why did it happen. Were they only concerned about protecting their perimeter, and not the city?

But hey ... your the undercover cop here, trying to distract us from the truth. You tell us!

The "big deal" is this. The day after the riots Bill Blair categorically stated that no order had been given to stand-down. These videos prove him a liar. You claim that "we all know that they were given an order to stay clear". If this statement was true - that everyone in the city is aware of this "fact" why hasn't there been widespread outrage over the Police abandoning the safety and security of the city? There has been very little coverage of this aspect of the G20 save for an early article by Toronto Sun's Joe Warmington who confirmed from his inside sources that such an order had been given. The big questions are who gave the order and why? I cannot think of any reasonable explanation for why the heavily armed Police who numbered in the 1000's "had" to retreat and turn the city over to a relatively small group of vandals that numbered in the 100's. The person who gave the order - that put the lives and property of so many at risk - should be behind bars .

 

[nfitz]

The "big deal" is this. The day after the riots Bill Blair categorically stated that no order had been given to stand-down. These videos prove him a liar.

So; he was proven a liar several times that week. The content of the video is old news; heck, the videos were uploaded to YouTube almost 4 weeks ago ... I'm not sure why you are making such a big deal about this.

You claim that "we all know that they were given an order to stay clear". If this statement was true - that everyone in the city is aware of this "fact" why hasn't there been widespread outrage over the Police abandoning the safety and security of the city?

There has been wide-spread outrage. There has been questions in the media, and by our politicians. And I've heard a lot of comments from people I know, who don't normally even think about municipal politics.

Perhaps if you weren't so obsessed with your bizarre conspiracy theories, you'd have been focussing more on the real issues here.

The big questions are who gave the order and why? I cannot think of any reasonable explanation of why the heavily armed Police who numbered in the 1000's "had" to retreat and turn the city over to a relatively small group of vandals that numbered in the 100's.

The most plausible explanation has long been out there; that the federal forces running the show, were more concerned that this was a ploy to move their forces away from the security zone, than they were about protecting the stores. Remember, their prime job was to protect the G20 delegates ... not stores on Queen Street.

There are serious questions here.

 

[poppajojo]

dp

 

[poppajojo]

You said it was against the law, and was caught out making a dishonest or ignorant claim, and yet you brush it off and keep on pushing ahead. Now you say it's mandatory issued by the civilian board. Based on your track record, I don't believe you. Prove it is mandatory within the Toronto Police rules.

You and Riverdale Rink Rat use the dictionary, it is against the law and a statute. I was being more specific as to how it was a law and statute. You're incredibly ignorant for pushing things you don't even understand. Use google and check for yourself, read a little perhaps?

 

[poppajojo]

Actually I undertand what Fresh Start is trying to say.

It was well know in advance that the summit would attract trouble and that people were being cautioned on being downtown unless they were part of the protest and even then, it was a given that something was probably going to happen considering the history of these summits. So I and all my friends knew that it was probably better to stay away.

I actually went downtown but kept a considerable distance (several blocks) and watched for any signs of trouble so that I could get the hell out of there fast. I was aware however of the risks involved.

As for the protestors complaining about harsh treatment? Once again, allegations. And it's a detainment centre. Not a hotel room. It's not suppose to be comfortable or pleasant. Someone I know works with cops and they commented that the detainment centre and people being processed was nothing out of the ordinary. Unless you'v never been arrested and then your world comes crumbling down apparently.

Too many of those arrested and detained went down there thinking they were either untouchable or completely naive about the seriousness of the situation and there was a great deal of antagonizing towards the cops.

Right, you completely changed what he said. I think the main problem is all the peaceful people being arrested, which you don't seem to mention. Many people shouldn't have been arrested in the first place. There are allegations of harsh treatment beyond what is allowed. You can change untouchable and naive with not expecting police brutality, if you're going to be so biased. Very one sided summary.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

You and Riverdale Rink Rat use the dictionary, it is against the law and a statute. I was being more specific as to how it was a law and statute. You're incredibly ignorant for pushing things you don't even understand. Use google and check for yourself, read a little perhaps?

Listen, dude, I actually posted something that supported your argument that it was against the rules of the Police Services Board. But that's different than being "against the law". Quote the law, cite the number. Don't ask me to do your Googling for you. Until you come up with something better than ad hominem attacks, feel free to zip it.

Again, I feel that this will be considered a minor issue. The police will argue that they had more than enough reason to believe that they would be targeted individually by a mob if they wore their name badges in this situation, and I'll bet the larger G20 security apparatus will support that view. So it's a blind alley for the people trying to whip up something to charge the police with at this point.

The other major line of attack the protestors are starting to tout has major 'blowback' potential for feminists. If the ongoing fight to have the police take a more enlightened approach with female victims gets tainted by a bunch of protestors who were screaming invective at the cops and had the cops call them names back, they could really damage the drive to get the police to be more sensitive.

 

[poppajojo]

Listen, dude, I actually posted something that supported your argument that it was against the rules of the Police Services Board. But that's different than being "against the law". Quote the law, cite the number. Don't ask me to do your Googling for you. Until you come up with something better than ad hominem attacks, feel free to zip it.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/834461

“It raises the prospect that rogue police officers who decided to protect themselves individually and prefer not to be identified knew that they were breaking the law — and that’s a problem,” she said.

Let me break it down for you since you're not willing to do any fact checking. The Toronto Police is overseen by respective civilian law enforcement agencies. Any Toronto Police misconduct is investigated by these civilian law enforcement agencies and they have the decision-making ability to lay charges if they find reason to do so. Their activity is mainly independent from the government. Therefore if the police break the law they answer to these civilian agencies which also decide and enforce Toronto Police rules and procedures. Not wearing the name-tag or badge can be chargeable under these civilian law enforcement agencies and when they are it means they are potentially breaking the law. Because these rules are chargeable under the jurisdiction of these civilian law enforcement agencies, they are therefore law. There are many types of law, many interpretations of law, and this is definitely one of them.

Or go to to www.dictionary.com and type law, while you're at it check the definition of ad-hominem too. I'd appreciate an apology.

Again, I feel that this will be considered a minor issue. The police will argue that they had more than enough reason to believe that they would be targeted individually by a mob if they wore their name badges in this situation, and I'll bet the larger G20 security apparatus will support that view. So it's a blind alley for the people trying to whip up something to charge the police with at this point.

The other major line of attack the protestors are starting to tout has major 'blowback' potential for feminists. If the ongoing fight to have the police take a more enlightened approach with female victims gets tainted by a bunch of protestors who were screaming invective at the cops and had the cops call them names back, they could really damage the drive to get the police to be more sensitive.

The police deal with murderers, maniacs, dangerous gangs and still have to wear their name tags. You think it's justified that they don't have to wear their name tags before mainly peaceful protesters, lol.

The other major line of attack the protestors are starting to tout has major 'blowback' potential for feminists. If the ongoing fight to have the police take a more enlightened approach with female victims gets tainted by a bunch of protestors who were screaming invective at the cops and had the cops call them names back, they could really damage the drive to get the police to be more sensitive.

Right because you know so well that any of their allegations have no basis in reality. Your statement doesn't even make sense, it's just hating.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

"There are many types of law, many interpretations of law, and this is definitely one of them."

So... the police answer to a civilian agency. That agency has made a rule. That agency can also lay charges against police officers, presumably because there are times that the government believes that the police themselves, even the SIU, would not lay charges and the civilian oversight should be able to do so. That does not make the not wearing of name tags 'against the law', even if the Civil Liberties types think so. It makes it against the rules of the Board, which is what I quoted in the first place. If the Board finds against these officers, what will happen? The same if you broke a rule at work -- suspension, maybe, docking pay -- but you won't be charged, or have a record, or go to prison. And neither will they.

You make a good point about when wearing a name tag is or is not appropriate, with reference to other bad asses. I would maintain that a mob scene will give the police cover as 'exceptional circumstances.'

And, lastly, if you can't see how the flailing around of the civil liberties types, attaching themselves to a multi-year confrontation between the police and their critics, isn't detrimental for that effort, then you're short sighted. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, unless it was an actual sexual assault/rape, as opposed to name calling and withholding of feminine napkins. Which is what is charged.

 

[poppajojo]

"There are many types of law, many interpretations of law, and this is definitely one of them."

So... the police answer to a civilian agency. That agency has made a rule. That agency can also lay charges against police officers, presumably because there are times that the government believes that the police themselves, even the SIU, would not lay charges and the civilian oversight should be able to do so. That does not make the not wearing of name tags 'against the law', even if the Civil Liberties types think so. It makes it against the rules of the Board, which is what I quoted in the first place. If the Board finds against these officers, what will happen? The same if you broke a rule at work -- suspension, maybe, docking pay -- but you won't be charged, or have a record, or go to prison. And neither will they.

The SIU is a civilian agency. And you're wrong... first of all you're confusing criminal law with law. If these situations are bad enough, they will warrant a conviction in court. If the misconduct warrants criminal law and it involves the non-wearing of a name tag, then any punishment laid will be in relation with the non-wearing of the name-tag. Also if semantics is at play, than your narrow definition of law is also wrong. Even if it's not involved in a court of law any punishment laid out will involve law.

You make a good point about when wearing a name tag is or is not appropriate, with reference to other bad asses. I would maintain that a mob scene will give the police cover as 'exceptional circumstances.'

Lol mob scene? Fairly tame mob scene. More police than non-police and they will single one out?

And, lastly, if you can't see how the flailing around of the civil liberties types, attaching themselves to a multi-year confrontation between the police and their critics, isn't detrimental for that effort, then you're short sighted. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, unless it was an actual sexual assault/rape, as opposed to name calling and withholding of feminine napkins. Which is what is charged.

You're "name calling" or whatever can involve sexual assault.

 

[Dan416]

I honestly can't believe this is still being debated. It's quite funny really. I had almost forgotten the G20 was here until I keep seeing this thread poke its head. If there ever was a lame conspiracy theory, this is definitely one of them. At least 9/11 ones are a little more entertaining. Or the faked moon landings. This one is just a mess.

 

[nfitz]

I honestly can't believe this is still being debated. It's quite funny really. I had almost forgotten the G20 was here until I keep seeing this thread poke its head. If there ever was a lame conspiracy theory, this is definitely one of them. At least 9/11 ones are a little more entertaining. Or the faked moon landings. This one is just a mess.

I don't see much discussion of conspiracy theories in the last few days. Most of it has been about the the arrests, the enquries, and the mistakes that were made.

Even in 9/11, there were government mistakes that were made ... doesn't mean there was a conspiracy ...

 

[tkip]

Right, you completely changed what he said. I think the main problem is all the peaceful people being arrested, which you don't seem to mention. Many people shouldn't have been arrested in the first place. There are allegations of harsh treatment beyond what is allowed. You can change untouchable and naive with not expecting police brutality, if you're going to be so biased. Very one sided summary.

I knew in advance what the summit was about and that the police might have to use tactics to maintain control.

And that means a measure of force that might be used. It never struck me that if I chose to casually stroll through a demonstration zone that the police wouldn't have focused on my presence as well or that I wouldn't have been caught up as they tried to control crowds or maintain control.

People just don't like the fact that force was used, period. That's the real issue here. At my work, if someone refuses to cooperate with security, eventually they come in as a group and if still you won't cooperate, then force might be used to impose the rules. I've seen it happen. And surprisingly, many of these people when this happens or as they're escorted off the premises, scream about their rights being violated. Go figure.

Allegations don't equal the truth and I've seen many people antagonize security and police officers and when they finally react, play the victem card.