News   Jul 19, 2024
 327     0 
News   Jul 19, 2024
 1.5K     4 
News   Jul 19, 2024
 607     1 

North York Centre Van Attack

We could certainly make our sidewalk furniture and fittings more impact resistant, with unobtrusive but credible vehicular barriers to someone intentionally driving down the otherwise bowling alley-like sidewalk.

When I watch the video of the takedown I am surprised by the lack of situational awareness of the public. Here's a police car with its sirens going, a police officer with his gun point and shouting commands, a smashed up van on the sidewalk and a guy pretending to draw, and you're just wandering past, looking around like a sheeple? In my job in international biz I've learned to always be aware of my surroundings, which has saved me from pick pocketing gypsies in the Croatia to scammers in Shenzhen. Of course you can't expect to be prepared for a speeding van coming at you, but if you walk out of your office building and there's a cop about to open fire, maybe step back?

I thought the same thing. Siren blaring, cop/suspect squaring off, weapons leveled (not just drawn - leveled), and at most, casual glances. Maybe they had confidence that the police won't fire it their direction, but what about the bad guy. Maybe these days it's not reality unless it's on a screen. Are people that inured to what's going on around them?

I doubt the emergency response at Yonge/Sheppard versus King/Bay would be any different. You can't scenario every individual location. We're talking about different nodes in an urban area with the same density of emergency responders, not the difference between Yonge/Shppard versus downtown Bobcageon.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure this really means much a propos his defence, but he was represented by duty counsel at his bail court appearance today. This isn't to say that he won't have his own legal counsel in future, but wouldn't that already be the case now if it were a possibility for him?
Duty counsel aren't likely to attempt a mental health fitness defence, I reckon.

It means nothing. Duty counsel is simply a defence bar rotation in the court room to speak on behalf of the accused, and only for the purpose of the particular hearing. Counsel might not even have spoken to him before hand and quite probably would know nothing that would even be considered privileged (although it would be protected). The accused will have the opportunity retain obtain counsel. Whether he qualifies for Legal Aid, who knows.
 
“Nor should men (or admittedly a very few women) who patronize the trade be automatically seen as sub-human, criminal or immoral, merely because many of us would not make the same choice.”

I am not suggesting that we view such people as “sub-human.” No one is a throwaway. I believe that love is a supreme ethic. I am curious by your invocation of morality, however. On what grounds do you make moral judgements (are you a theist, a naturalist, agnostic, etc.)?

Am I to assume you got that 'invoked' morality from the statement w/the bold quoted above?

If so, I would not describe that as an invocation. I used it as to suggest that all people render 'moral' judgements in one sense or another, and that to judge someone as 'immoral' is to say 'they do not meet my standard of ethics'.

More particularly it is used as a pejorative, calling someone immoral is a way of debasing or lowering them beneath the speaker; or conversely raising oneself up at another's expense.

There are always such judgements made by us all, but I would not pass such judgement of those who seek happiness, in whatever form, if there is no concrete evidence of their particular action causing harm to another.

Beyond that, I think we should reserve broader discussions of morality to another thread, as I think we're wandering well off-topic here.
 
Big difference between you and what I've understood to be incels - you were hurt, twice, and decided to shut off (that is until you meet the right person, whenever that is, if ever - I can appreciate the sentiment). Incels seem to demand a relationship and blame society for their lack of one. For you, this seems like an introspective position you've taken and that gets my respect.

Speaking from experience, after my one long term relationship (~5 years) ended spectacularly, it took me a few years of voluntary celibacy to get my compass back in order and try again. I used that time for personal growth - which Lord knows I needed at that point in time. Chin up.

Yeah, I meant that I used to feel like how some of them feel (without the attendant misogyny, hate, and violent thoughts) and can understand their emotional distress.

I'm quite the opposite now as that last relationship caused me to become a better, stronger person by kicking me in the soul. My subsequent non-involvement was to, at first, get over it but became a sort of personal test. I just haven't met anyone who has interested me enough and, in my experience, casual sex is almost always bunk whereas more meaningful sex in the context of a serious relationship is amazing. So I don't bother. It's not a big deal. I can live without sex.....tea, on the other hand, I think I'd lose my mind.
It has helped my level of self-worth reach maximum levels too, so it's been quite the helpful exercise. Though, as my friends like to point out, I may be taking it too far...though, they're all jealous of my ability for restraint. That's another thing....I have many very good friends so I'm not an isolated and lonely bastard like some of these incel characters seem to be.


What I hope comes out of this is a more serious approach to mental health. Right now, OHIP will cover a visit to a psychiatrist whose first instinct will always be to prescribe you pills (bless them, they always ask if you want to take pills or not) instead of teaching you how to deal with your problems and how to reason your way out of unhelpful thinking. I can tell you right now that if I was ever desperate and foolish enough to take up that offer when I went to see a psychiatrist, I'd probably be dead now....or at least no better off than I was before.

These people are trapped in a circle of self-loathing and irrational thought and are a danger to themselves and others. It can't just be laughed off as being pathetic or harmless basement-dwelling rubbish. Their support groups only perpetuate the misanthropy and self-loathing and act as encouragement for violent behaviour. I've seen how they push away anyone who tries to help them....it's sad. At the end of the day though, you have to be able and willing to help yourself.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, it is Toronto, not Shenzhen - and NYCC isn't where you'd think insanity of this sort will happen.

AoD

This is true, yet all my street smarts were learnt here, where I grew up, and have served me well all over (from Detroit to Frankfurt to Havana) so I'm not sure a lack of situational awareness can be excused that lightly.
 
Sexual restraint in this day and age is a very noble and difficult thing to adhere to in the ‘anything goes/indulge every carnal impulse’ culture that we currently live in. Good on you. I don’t know if you are religious, but that reminds of the early Christians who were known for their sexual restraint.

I'm not religious at all....spiritual, very much so, but the made-up religion I follow (it's custom, for me!) doesn't lend itself very well to religiosity. I actually admire people who show restraint of all sorts. This might seem incongruent, but I'm a bit of a hedonist....or was in my 20s, I'm getting too old. There's a sublime beauty in restraint. It shows a level of emotional and psychological control that is admirable. I've always pushed myself to do things that are hard for me.

I wish you well.
Cheers, I'm quite well. :)


This won’t be a popular sentiment here, but therein lies a major problem with our culture today: the expectancy that one ought to get laid regularly, otherwise there is something strange about you. ... Getting laid isn’t an antidote to anyone’s problems. The pleasure derived from it is transient and it doesn’t address the root of why so many chase after it with such frequency. We like to think that sex with no commitments is liberating. It isn’t. One isn’t free when they sleep with whomever they want, whenever they can. They just become enslaved to their passions.

I don't understand casual sex either. In my experience, casual sex is almost always unfulfilling and just.....terrible. This is another reason why I haven't bothered....it's a waste of my time.
I've counselled many of my friends on this and some of them have tried to take my advice and have been very grateful for having received it. Endless Tinder dates ending in bad sex with creepy people made them change their minds.
Some of them have even told me that they feel better about themselves now that they're not running around trying to get laid all the time. Yeah, you don't say. ;)

The problem with the incel folks is that they think they are owed sex, which is a lot worse than thinking it's a casual encounter with no potential consequence.
 
Toronto's bus shelter don't give much resistance to any collision or incident. They tend to come apart, and don't stop any vehicle that hits them. Seen photos of collisions where even a compact car goes through them. Couldn't they, at the very least, make the bus shelter corner pillars more like bollards to actually help to stop the vehicle?
This is a very good point. The answer as to a stronger shelter is 'no'....but that's because the answer is cheap and very easy to do: You erect crash posts at the roadside corners of the shelters, either concrete in pipe sunk into the ground, or rebared concrete in 20" (or similar) sonotube, like they use for light bases in parking lots. *Any* wayward vehicle will still make a mess, and probably shatter the glass, but won't get any further than that post.

As to why it's not already used is a good question, people getting hurt standing in bus shelters is not uncommon.

I hesitated from posting in this string, have erased a few posts I had ready, I was livid with Rosie DiManno's hysterical "no one wants to call it 'terrorism' " article the day after.
Toronto van tragedy bonds city in blood. But no one will say the word ‘terrorism’
But it's not a time to call others out, it's a time to look for solutions to something that can't be stopped: Crazy people doing crazy things. What can be done is to mitigate the damage when they lose it. And this is one instance.

And it's more than just crazy people, it's bus shelters at dangerous corners where traffic accidents often send vehicles careening into them.
 
This is a very good point. The answer as to a stronger shelter is 'no'....but that's because the answer is cheap and very easy to do: You erect crash posts at the roadside corners of the shelters, either concrete in pipe sunk into the ground, or rebared concrete in 20" (or similar) sonotube, like they use for light bases in parking lots. *Any* wayward vehicle will still make a mess, and probably shatter the glass, but won't get any further than that post.

As to why it's not already used is a good question, people getting hurt standing in bus shelters is not uncommon.

I hesitated from posting in this string, have erased a few posts I had ready, I was livid with Rosie DiManno's hysterical "no one wants to call it 'terrorism' " article the day after.
Toronto van tragedy bonds city in blood. But no one will say the word ‘terrorism’
But it's not a time to call others out, it's a time to look for solutions to something that can't be stopped: Crazy people doing crazy things. What can be done is to mitigate the damage when they lose it. And this is one instance.

And it's more than just crazy people, it's bus shelters at dangerous corners where traffic accidents often send vehicles careening into them.
Most roadside environments, even those in cities and with sidewalk, do not have pedestrians when a vehicle goes off the road. i.e. not all sidewalks are busy, and many vehicles leave the roadway at night.
Thus, roadside design uses "frangible bases" for roadside features - essentially, they break away. The deliberate attempt is for the roadside environment to not cause fatality to an errant motorist. If we assume that all motorists that leave the roadway are terrorists, than we must accept that those that inadvertently leave the roadway (mistake, medical issue, part of roadway collision), and who could be completely innocent, will more likely be killed.

https://encrypted.google.com/search....17.1432...0j0i22i30k1j33i160k1.0.YB-Y7_tnopc
 
If we assume that all motorists that leave the roadway are terrorists, than we must accept that those that inadvertently leave the roadway (mistake, medical issue, part of roadway collision), and who could be completely innocent, will more likely be killed.
Terrorists? Where did you get that? Quite the contrary, I stated "crazy" but even if it's an accident, what you're stating is that pedestrians or waiting passengers are more dispensable than motorists.

As a cyclist and distance walker, I take strong issue with that.

What next? Protected bike lanes could hurt errant motorists? How about the barriers on the King Street Pilot being made of sponge foam? We're talking Yonge Street, wide sidewalks, and middle of the day.

http://vtc.rutgers.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Pedestrian-Safety-at-Bus-Stops_FINAL09192012.pdf
 
People have to remember that 'terrorism' has a specific legal definition that primarily creates certain offences and powers. There have been any number of multiple shootings in the public venue in Toronto and elsewhere - many involving gangs - that were indeed terrorizing, but I don't think anyone would invoke the moniker.

It may well be a moot point at the end of the day. The charges are homicide and attempted murder, regardless of the motivation. It complicates a prosecution for very little gain. If you can successfully prosecute multiple homicides and argue for consecutive sentencing (which should be fairly do-able), the end result is the same.
 
I too am celibate, albeit voluntarily.

I have both male and female friends, all of whom I have purely platonic relationships with.

I have never been interested with sleeping with anyone in my entire life.

Incels (based on the commonly used Reddit definition) are very much misogynists by another name.
 
It's past time to return to safe bus shelters, and stop careening vehicles from travelling further, no matter who or what is behind the wheel:
CTV Montreal
Published Friday, February 17, 2017 2:37PM EST
Last Updated Monday, February 20, 2017 1:47PM EST
The mayor of Montreal East is launching a personal campaign against the STM to make bus shelters safer.

Mayor Robert Coutu said the all-glass structures are not strong enough to protect anyone inside if they are hit by a vehicle.

The campaign comes after his daughter was hit by a car Tuesday while waiting beside a shelterat the corner of Notre-Dame St. E near Hinton Ave.

RELATED STORIES
The shelter was destroyed and Stephanie Coutu, 20, was severely injured. She remains in hospital with a broken leg and other injuries.

Mayor Coutu said these glass shelters don’t provide adequate protection, and he is lobbying for a return to the old shelters with concrete bases, which he said provide a better shield.

Coutu said he has spoken to many residents who are concerned about the speed of cars and collisions on Notre-Dame St. E

“I have so far many, many people telling me that they don’t feel safe,” he said. “The bus shelters are good, they are nice, but they are not as protected as before. We’re going to think about something smart and secure to make them feel safe.”
https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/montreal-east-mayor-calls-for-safer-bus-shelters-1.3290447?autoPlay=true

In the event, many cities, due to recent dangers, are erecting concrete barriers to prevent vehicles from travelling on sidewalks.
WATCH: What have other cities done when a vehicle was used as a lethal weapon?
Toronto has joined a list of major cities that are grappling with pedestrian safety after a van plowed into a crowd of people along a busy sidewalk, killing 10 people and injuring 14 others.

Authorities in Toronto identified Alek Minassian as the man suspected of using a Ryder rental van to run down several pedestrians.


READ MORE:
‘Vehicular attacks’ a trend, Canadian intelligence report says

Hours after the attack, the city set up concrete barriers around Toronto’s Union Station — a high traffic area in the city — in order to beef up security.

Vehicle rampages have claimed hundreds of lives in recent years, particularly in Europe. In September, a man stabbed a police officer and ran over four pedestrians in a U-haul cube van in Edmonton.

The vehicle attacks in Toronto and Edmonton have raised questions about preventative measures, specifically, if barriers should go up in heavy pedestrian areas.

WATCH: Graphic re-creation shows how van attack unfolded down Toronto’s Yonge Street

What have other major cities done?
The use of pedestrian safety measures, like concrete barriers, is growing in cities around Europe and the United States as vehicle attacks become more prominent.

Governments around the world have been forced to work out how to protect citizens while keeping public areas aesthetically pleasing.

READ MORE: Vehicle ramming attacks, a timeline of incidents from 2006 to now

“In the aftermath of attacks … obtrusive security features – notably temporary concrete or steel blocks – are commonly ‘thrown’ around key sites to stop vehicle attacks. They are not necessarily aesthetically pleasing,” Jon Coaffee, a professor of Urban Geography at the University of Warwick wrote in The Conversation.

“There is a predominant view among security experts that security features, where possible, should be as unobtrusive as possible. This had led to them being increasingly camouflaged and subtly embedded within the cityscape,” he wrote.

Examples of these camouflaged barriers include public artwork, flower pots, decorative walls or steal benches that are heavily anchored to the ground.

Nice, France

During Bastille Day celebrations in Nice in 2016, a man drove a cargo truck into crowds, killing 86 people. Since the attack, the city has spent nearly $50 million on protecting potential target areas in the city from possible vehicle attacks.

Berlin, Germany

Twelve people were killed in December 2016, after a man rammed into a crowd of people at a Christmas market in central Berlin.


READ MORE:
Security heightened as Germany opens Christmas markets one year after fatal Berlin truck attack

WATCH: Toronto Christmas market increases security after Berlin attack

New York City, U.S.

In October 2017, a man drove a rented pickup truck down a busy Manhattan bike path, killing eight people and injuring 11 others.

Since the attack, the city has spent nearly $65 million on protective measures, including the installation of 1,500 metal barriers in key locations around New York City.

WATCH: New York City dealing with its first terror attack since 9/11

Las Vegas, U.S.

After the fatal shooting in Las Vegas in October 2017, the city installed hundreds of bollards along the Las Vegas Strip in what officials called a “matter of life and death” to protect people from those who could use vehicles as weapons.

London, U.K.

On June 3, 2017, three attackers struck pedestrians on the London Bridge before exiting the vehicle and stabbing people in an attack claimed by ISIS. Days later, a man drove a van into a group of worshippers leaving London’s Finsbury Park mosque, injuring 10 and killing one.


READ MORE:
Dramatic video shows moment police shoot dead 3 London attackers

In the wake of the attacks, the British government issued a 175-page document called Crowded Places Guidance, which highlighted how public seating and solid planters could prevent a threat like this from happening again.

The city of London also installed concrete blocks and large barriers along main bridges, such as Westminister and London Bridge in order to dissuade any future attacks.
[...article continues at length with more examples and videos...]
https://fm96.com/news/4166803/toronto-van-attack-security-pedestrian-barrier/
 
Terrorists? Where did you get that? Quite the contrary, I stated "crazy" but even if it's an accident, what you're stating is that pedestrians or waiting passengers are more dispensable than motorists.

As a cyclist and distance walker, I take strong issue with that.

What next? Protected bike lanes could hurt errant motorists? How about the barriers on the King Street Pilot being made of sponge foam? We're talking Yonge Street, wide sidewalks, and middle of the day.

http://vtc.rutgers.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Pedestrian-Safety-at-Bus-Stops_FINAL09192012.pdf

From link.
ST_20170812_RVBOLLARD12_3343669.jpg


Not just bus (and streetcar) stops, but entrances to subway (and underground LRT) stations (might as well include GO station pedestrian entrances) as well.
 
Last edited:
I too am celibate, albeit voluntarily.

I have both male and female friends, all of whom I have purely platonic relationships with.

I have never been interested with sleeping with anyone in my entire life.

Incels (based on the commonly used Reddit definition) are very much misogynists by another name.

Sounds like you might be asexual then. I know a few people like that.
 

Back
Top