- Reaction score
- 4,154
- Points
- 1,260
Here you go:Container said:
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90p55_e.htm
Welcome to Army.ca - looking forward to more voices from LE sharing what they can of the REST of the story.
G8/G20 June 2010 Protest Watch
- Thread starter The Bread Guy
- Start date
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90p55_e.htm
Welcome to Army.ca - looking forward to more voices from LE sharing what they can of the REST of the story.
- Reaction score
- 1,481
- Points
- 1,260
More G20 related fall-out:
"Demonstrators storm police pride event: Queer community protesters accuse police of homophobia: About 100 people protesting alleged homophobia, sexism and abuse by police during the G20 summit weekend loudly disrupted a Pride Week event hosted by Toronto Police chief Bill Blair Tuesday evening. They stormed the 519 Church Street Community Centre after trying to block Blair’s entry into the building.":
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontog20summit/article/830211--demonstrators-storm-police-pride-event
( Incidentally, I still remember that same place when it was The 48th Highlanders legion hall. )
"Demonstrators storm police pride event: Queer community protesters accuse police of homophobia: About 100 people protesting alleged homophobia, sexism and abuse by police during the G20 summit weekend loudly disrupted a Pride Week event hosted by Toronto Police chief Bill Blair Tuesday evening. They stormed the 519 Church Street Community Centre after trying to block Blair’s entry into the building.":
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontog20summit/article/830211--demonstrators-storm-police-pride-event
( Incidentally, I still remember that same place when it was The 48th Highlanders legion hall. )
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Container said:
With Blair stating that the law didn't exist then I will assume it doesn't exist in the context that they used it, which brings up my question below.
I wonder how far down the chain of command they were aware of this? I assume the front-line officers were not aware of this interpretation. Being a Police Officer and using everything legally in your power to uphold the law, how would you react if you found out after the fact the tactics you used were not actually legal? I'm asking because I think I would feel betrayed in the same situation. Also, if I was instructed about additional short-term powers, utilized those powers, and then found it is was not a factual interpretation of the law, I would have less trust in my CoC as well. What about increased liability on the front-line officer? Is that possible?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
I too, wonder how much the front-line toronto police were told about this law. What if all the observed searching/identification techniques was done using traditional police powers only? Has anyone made a complaint yet that they were searched by officers citing this specific law?
The law wasn't an issue to me, as I had no power to enforce provincial/municipal acts and was never officially told about it. I only found out about it from the news.
The law wasn't an issue to me, as I had no power to enforce provincial/municipal acts and was never officially told about it. I only found out about it from the news.
- Reaction score
- 1,406
- Points
- 1,040
OK, EVERYBODY STOP!
So the police searched some people, and they arrested others. Big frigging deal. Do we need to be reminded that thugs were roaming the streets, setting cars on fire and smashing windows? Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.
ENOUGH!
So the police searched some people, and they arrested others. Big frigging deal. Do we need to be reminded that thugs were roaming the streets, setting cars on fire and smashing windows? Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.
ENOUGH!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
" A guard or peace officer,
(a) may require any person entering or attempting to enter any public work or any approach thereto to furnish his or her name and address, to identify himself or herself and to state the purpose for which he or she desires to enter the public work, in writing or otherwise"
I finished perusing the act from which "the rule" came. While it is true that there is no "5 meter" rule. The act outlines that demands can be made of anyone entering or attempting to enter a public work as well as an "approach thereto". Armed with this ambiguity I imagine someone higher up the food chain determined that for the purposes of enforcing this section they would consider "5 meters" to be the general rule of thumb when measuring out the fences approach. The onus would be on the police officer to prove that the reason for being inside the zone was to enter the public work- and in that instance they could make the demand.
2010newbie-
At the peril of making excuses for what appears to be at best crappy public relations- many times laws are passed and its up to the police to determine the "best practices" around how to enforce them. The laws are eventually brought before court and the police practices are put on "trial". The courts tell the police to go pound sand if they are doing something inappropriate or affirm that its reasonable.
This is especially true when it comes to municipal bylaws which can be just absolutely poor when it comes to the instructions for enforcement.
So when Blair played John Wayne about keeping bad guys out he wasn't quoting an imaginary law but a real one with how he felt he would enforce it. This was rooted in a real law and enforced through a series of direction from the brass.
However, it may have been prudent to correct the rumours when they started flying about. However it may have been a) impractical with other worries demanding attention b) seen as a beneficial media rumour for the time being c) not worth correcting as the results are essentially the same. The authority would still exist.
You can be most certainly positive that the front line officers would not have known the wording of the new additions to the legislation and would have been acting off instructions for how the law was to be enforced.
As for how I would feel- having reviewed the law in this case I wouldnt have been that concerned. I would have felt it was foolish to design an arbitrary to distance to enforce the "approach" to the public work AND not addressing the misinformation in the media but, and without being flippant, I disagree everyday with the way management does certain things.
I think the big step now would be to go back and look at how Blair, and others, delivered the information. Did they foster the misunderstanding (and lets be honest- thats lying) or did it evolve on its own.
I would not expect it to increase the liability of the front line guys. The court would look at the totality of circumstances- cops deployed along the fence doing shifts. Informed by management of changes in law and how to enforce it, no reasonable chance to explore the validity of the statements AND its not outside of the realm of the possible- the officers would be acting in good faith. That doesnt mean that the force wouldnt liable but individual officers would more than likely be protected.
I want to stress that this is all speculation on my part. Using hindsight to look for why it may have happened- I wasn't there and I was under the impression that the 5m was law as well. Im merely stating a possibility- its just an educated guess based off my experience.
(a) may require any person entering or attempting to enter any public work or any approach thereto to furnish his or her name and address, to identify himself or herself and to state the purpose for which he or she desires to enter the public work, in writing or otherwise"
I finished perusing the act from which "the rule" came. While it is true that there is no "5 meter" rule. The act outlines that demands can be made of anyone entering or attempting to enter a public work as well as an "approach thereto". Armed with this ambiguity I imagine someone higher up the food chain determined that for the purposes of enforcing this section they would consider "5 meters" to be the general rule of thumb when measuring out the fences approach. The onus would be on the police officer to prove that the reason for being inside the zone was to enter the public work- and in that instance they could make the demand.
2010newbie-
At the peril of making excuses for what appears to be at best crappy public relations- many times laws are passed and its up to the police to determine the "best practices" around how to enforce them. The laws are eventually brought before court and the police practices are put on "trial". The courts tell the police to go pound sand if they are doing something inappropriate or affirm that its reasonable.
This is especially true when it comes to municipal bylaws which can be just absolutely poor when it comes to the instructions for enforcement.
So when Blair played John Wayne about keeping bad guys out he wasn't quoting an imaginary law but a real one with how he felt he would enforce it. This was rooted in a real law and enforced through a series of direction from the brass.
However, it may have been prudent to correct the rumours when they started flying about. However it may have been a) impractical with other worries demanding attention b) seen as a beneficial media rumour for the time being c) not worth correcting as the results are essentially the same. The authority would still exist.
You can be most certainly positive that the front line officers would not have known the wording of the new additions to the legislation and would have been acting off instructions for how the law was to be enforced.
As for how I would feel- having reviewed the law in this case I wouldnt have been that concerned. I would have felt it was foolish to design an arbitrary to distance to enforce the "approach" to the public work AND not addressing the misinformation in the media but, and without being flippant, I disagree everyday with the way management does certain things.
I think the big step now would be to go back and look at how Blair, and others, delivered the information. Did they foster the misunderstanding (and lets be honest- thats lying) or did it evolve on its own.
I would not expect it to increase the liability of the front line guys. The court would look at the totality of circumstances- cops deployed along the fence doing shifts. Informed by management of changes in law and how to enforce it, no reasonable chance to explore the validity of the statements AND its not outside of the realm of the possible- the officers would be acting in good faith. That doesnt mean that the force wouldnt liable but individual officers would more than likely be protected.
I want to stress that this is all speculation on my part. Using hindsight to look for why it may have happened- I wasn't there and I was under the impression that the 5m was law as well. Im merely stating a possibility- its just an educated guess based off my experience.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Thanks, I appreciate the opinion. To clarify, I have no issue with the actions of the front-line officers; regardless of this 5-metre interpretation issue. As Container addressed in his post, I was wondering about officer perception and liability regarding this interpretation coming out after the fact.
.....but I agree ;D
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 97
- Points
- 560
This seems very clear, logical and responsible, when we discuss locations, lodging and security:
mariomike said:
Retired AF Guy
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 909
- Points
- 1,160
Wonderbread said:
Every been pulled over by the cops doing a checkstop? Very similar, but nobody gets hot under the collar about checkstops. And while we're talking about oppressive laws, remember that earlier this year politicians in Ottawa were looking at a law (instigated by MADD) that would allow the police to pull over anyone without do cause, anytime they wanted. Now thats scary.
- Reaction score
- 1,481
- Points
- 1,260
George Wallace said:
It was to some, but not to all:
CTV Tom Clark interview: 10 June 2010
"Former RCMP inspector says money could have been saved if the G20 summit meeting was held at the CNE ground in Toronto.":
“What was recommended, is that they host the G20 summit at the CNE in Toronto"
"But decisions were made in Ottawa at the political level, and they chose to have it in downtown Toronto so the security considerations skyrocketed."
"I think what happens is that you get a lot of what I call armchair experts in Ottawa who are making decisions that maybe aren't the best ones." :
http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/g20-summit/#clip312059
National Post: May 25, 2010:
"One has to wonder what message Toronto is trying to convey — or, rather, what message Ottawa is trying to convey, since the city of Toronto urged Ottawa to hold the summit at the CNE grounds, where it could easily be ringed off without entirely disrupting normal life. But no. For some bizarre reason, the Conservatives insist on holding it in the centre of the city, perhaps to impress all the other political heavyweights with Ottawa’s ability to bring the country’s biggest city to a screeching halt on a summer weekend."
Toronto Sun: 6 June 2010:
"For G20, Ex marks the spot: Granatstein
Wreaking havoc on downtown by using the Metro Convention Centre a blunder by organizers"
National Post:
"Councillor Adam Vaughan (Trinity-Spadina) warns that given the crowds, too much planning is being done from Ottawa with scant involvement from local stakeholders who know the neighbourhood.
"I've seen one transportation plan that involves walking people from Union Station, down Bay Street, along Lake Shore Boulevard and up Rees Street to the SkyDome," Mr. Vaughan said. "And this was suggested by the folks up in Ottawa as being the easiest way to handle a crowd of 50,000 people. We had to explain to them that they would have to build a sidewalk on those streets, that there actually isn't a sidewalk on Lake Shore Boulevard." "
Youtube: Setting police cars on fire:
http://backofthebook.ca/2010/06/28/the-g20-were-the-burning-police-cars-bait-cars/3413/
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Retired AF Guy said:
Hey Guy- unless something has changed (and I totally missed something)
The police can already pull any vehicle on the road over. There are a variety of provincial authorities under most motor vehicle acts (whatever variation of name they use). I can check to ensure that anyone operating a motor vehicle has appropriate licensing and insurance etc.
The law being pushed by MADD was the right to demand a breath sample by way of approved screening device at the road side on any person operating a motor vehicle. Right now I need reasonable suspicion that the driver has alcohol in their blood stream. (which is already a low threshold- and I would suggest is sufficient) The new law would allow me to check whenever the mood struck.
Im not sure where the debate is at but I wouldnt bother regular people with such an authority. MADD is pretty "directionless" as to how to make good suggestions. Unfortnately they hold alot of lobbying juice.
We ain't unreasonable. Just because I can do something to someone doesnt mean I would. There are you guys and then there are the "other guys". Who complain they are targetted because they have 5 and 6 impaired driving convictions. :2c:
As an aside- I polled the guys around the office as to what this whole "5m" scandal means and no one is sure what to make of it. It should be interesting to see how it goes.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Container said:
I've been posting on this forum since 2002. That's eight years of posting history you can go through and judge for yourself whether I'm a reasonable guy, or just some punk with an anti-authority agenda. Besides that, all I can do is tell it like I saw it.
I think it's quite possible that the police were operating under the laws regarding "consent search." While technically, these kinds of searches may have been consensual, the fact that very few understood the expanded police powers made it too risky to do anything else.
The net result was the exploitation of legal loopholes in order to conduct arbitrary searches contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That, in my mind, is just plain wrong.
Technoviking said:
I'm not going to pretend that I didn't see what I saw, and that it doesn't conflict with what I hold dear as a Canadian.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
One cannot just forgo their senses and start beating people because it is stressful, or conduct unlawful searches because of the nature of the event.
It doesn't help that Blair chose to simply omit that the 5m rule didn't actually exist, but then he goes on to display some of the confiscated items:
http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/g20/2010/06/30/14570126.html
And this:
We're just fueling the fires of the thugs who go out and riot.
I side with the police on 80-90% of their decisions over the weekend. The remaining events, however, are questionable. Including the questionable incident of the deaf man being arrested:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/g8-g20/toronto/deaf-man-arrested-in-g20-protest-gets-bail/article1619559/
I won't side with the police 100% however, as we are all human and all capable of mistakes, especially in such stressful situations. I merely believe that if anything did go wrong, then it should be fessed up to and people should take responsibility.
It doesn't help that Blair chose to simply omit that the 5m rule didn't actually exist, but then he goes on to display some of the confiscated items:
http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/g20/2010/06/30/14570126.html
And this:
We're just fueling the fires of the thugs who go out and riot.
I side with the police on 80-90% of their decisions over the weekend. The remaining events, however, are questionable. Including the questionable incident of the deaf man being arrested:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/g8-g20/toronto/deaf-man-arrested-in-g20-protest-gets-bail/article1619559/
I won't side with the police 100% however, as we are all human and all capable of mistakes, especially in such stressful situations. I merely believe that if anything did go wrong, then it should be fessed up to and people should take responsibility.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Wonderbread-
What is the legal loophole you are refering to?
That being said I will concede that being asked for "consent" when you dont feel like you have a choice isnt really giving consent. And the court agrees with that. So without knowing what instructions the people searched were given or the grounds for the search I cant speculate any farther. I m not accusing you of being anti authoritarian or a shyte-disturber Im sorry if I suggested that somehow.
The photo op with all the seized items is embarrassing to be honest. But its just a collection of items seized over the weekend. There are very real hatchets, clubs, and sledgehammers in those photos as well. Yes there are some fruit cake items that should have been ignored.
I think the people who SHARE responsibility with Blair to clarify are the media that ran with the inflammatory Orwelian police powers expanded headlines. They did little to no fact checking and poured gas on the fire. This is exactly the opposite of responsible journalism. And Blair used their laziness (in my opinion). Now they have taken up the cause of chasing Blair (and right now Im not sure if its justified or not- it may be) because they looked bad. They are also really upset that no one died.
All things considered ( compared to some other summits) it was relatively uneventful.
hold_fast-
That deaf man is charged with assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest. If he was deaf and arrested for only resisting I could see an argument that he could not understand. But assaulting a PO requires extra special resisting. There is more to this story and the police arent allowed to say their side because its before the courts.
As for the photo-op- I might have excluded the foam bats :
Im in a very real position of just being the police cheerleader so I'll just try and back out slowly- but I'd ask you guys to keep an open mind about the sources of these allegations. If one was to believe the media blitz right now the police this weekend rolled around sexually assaulting people and going out of their way to hurt people. I've yet to meet a police officer who tells female prisoners that when they get to jail they will be raped.
I have heard, and made the mistake once in a while of saying an off handed remark, but I have never heard people told the things that are being alleged right now. It is not impossible- no. But I would suggest alot of it is unlikely. Ive worked in the most remote police detachments in Canada (and bigger ones) where the chance to get away with abusing your authority is highest and I have never heard or seen the things alleged.
But as a cop im biased im sure. In the end Ive only had positive experiences with police!
What is the legal loophole you are refering to?
That being said I will concede that being asked for "consent" when you dont feel like you have a choice isnt really giving consent. And the court agrees with that. So without knowing what instructions the people searched were given or the grounds for the search I cant speculate any farther. I m not accusing you of being anti authoritarian or a shyte-disturber Im sorry if I suggested that somehow.
The photo op with all the seized items is embarrassing to be honest. But its just a collection of items seized over the weekend. There are very real hatchets, clubs, and sledgehammers in those photos as well. Yes there are some fruit cake items that should have been ignored.
I think the people who SHARE responsibility with Blair to clarify are the media that ran with the inflammatory Orwelian police powers expanded headlines. They did little to no fact checking and poured gas on the fire. This is exactly the opposite of responsible journalism. And Blair used their laziness (in my opinion). Now they have taken up the cause of chasing Blair (and right now Im not sure if its justified or not- it may be) because they looked bad. They are also really upset that no one died.
All things considered ( compared to some other summits) it was relatively uneventful.
hold_fast-
That deaf man is charged with assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest. If he was deaf and arrested for only resisting I could see an argument that he could not understand. But assaulting a PO requires extra special resisting. There is more to this story and the police arent allowed to say their side because its before the courts.
As for the photo-op- I might have excluded the foam bats :
Im in a very real position of just being the police cheerleader so I'll just try and back out slowly- but I'd ask you guys to keep an open mind about the sources of these allegations. If one was to believe the media blitz right now the police this weekend rolled around sexually assaulting people and going out of their way to hurt people. I've yet to meet a police officer who tells female prisoners that when they get to jail they will be raped.
I have heard, and made the mistake once in a while of saying an off handed remark, but I have never heard people told the things that are being alleged right now. It is not impossible- no. But I would suggest alot of it is unlikely. Ive worked in the most remote police detachments in Canada (and bigger ones) where the chance to get away with abusing your authority is highest and I have never heard or seen the things alleged.
But as a cop im biased im sure. In the end Ive only had positive experiences with police!
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
The Black Bloc has crossed the line on this one:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/Somnia/article1625239/
Black Bloc interrupted soldier’s cortège: Blair
Christie Blatchford
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published on Wednesday, Jun. 30, 2010 10:32PM EDT
The final chapter of the repatriation for Sergeant Jimmy MacNeil last Friday had to be cut short outside the coroner’s office in Toronto when Black Bloc anarchists tried to break through police lines to attack.
The revelation came during an hour-long interview Wednesday with Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair, during which he also confessed he is worried about how the events of last weekend may have affected the “public trust” the force must have with its citizens.
At the time the cortège carrying Sgt. MacNeil’s body was arriving at the coroner’s office on Grosvenor Street, just two short blocks north of College Street, a group of about 30 demonstrators dressed in black moved out of a crowd of 2,000 who had massed in front of police headquarters on College.
“The Black Bloc was here and they charged up the thing [laneway], as a matter of fact the repatriation was kind of interrupted,” Chief Blair said.
“My public order guys ran through the lines that we had to close off the alley that they were trying to get up [to Grosvenor] with.”
The coroner’s office is the last stop on a soldier’s return home, and Chief Blair always tries to attend the solemn ceremony. His usual practice is to accompany the fallen soldier’s ‘escort officer’ and offer condolences and thanks to the families.
Instead, he said, he had to tell Sgt. MacNeil’s escort, “Sorry, it’s over, get out of here because it’s too dangerous.”
(More on link)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/Somnia/article1625239/
Black Bloc interrupted soldier’s cortège: Blair
Christie Blatchford
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published on Wednesday, Jun. 30, 2010 10:32PM EDT
The final chapter of the repatriation for Sergeant Jimmy MacNeil last Friday had to be cut short outside the coroner’s office in Toronto when Black Bloc anarchists tried to break through police lines to attack.
The revelation came during an hour-long interview Wednesday with Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair, during which he also confessed he is worried about how the events of last weekend may have affected the “public trust” the force must have with its citizens.
At the time the cortège carrying Sgt. MacNeil’s body was arriving at the coroner’s office on Grosvenor Street, just two short blocks north of College Street, a group of about 30 demonstrators dressed in black moved out of a crowd of 2,000 who had massed in front of police headquarters on College.
“The Black Bloc was here and they charged up the thing [laneway], as a matter of fact the repatriation was kind of interrupted,” Chief Blair said.
“My public order guys ran through the lines that we had to close off the alley that they were trying to get up [to Grosvenor] with.”
The coroner’s office is the last stop on a soldier’s return home, and Chief Blair always tries to attend the solemn ceremony. His usual practice is to accompany the fallen soldier’s ‘escort officer’ and offer condolences and thanks to the families.
Instead, he said, he had to tell Sgt. MacNeil’s escort, “Sorry, it’s over, get out of here because it’s too dangerous.”
(More on link)
- Reaction score
- 1,481
- Points
- 1,260
Very disappointing. I feel bad for the family.
That's T-EMS Chief Farr ( gold lanyard ) at 0:25:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-t7E2R-8pI
More:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FvEvHBXXUc&feature=related
Chief Farr, Mike O'Halloran ( Commander ) and the T-EMS Honour Guard at 0:05 ( They came all the way down from 4330 Dufferin St. during a protest / riot in ( ceremonial ) dress uniform, with four flags, just to pay their respects ) :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V27_kcxutUw&feature=related
That big Paramedic shaking hands with Police Chief Blair at 0:14 is Rahul Singh:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/04/30/toronto-paramedic-makes-times-list-of-most-influential-people/
Something interesting. There is a firehouse just up the alley on Grosvenor.
It's the first repatriation that I did not see a single fire truck / firefighter in attendance at the Coroner's Office. They specifically bring crews in from other halls, in case the regular crew at Grosvenor has to go out on a call.
Idiot(s) on a military cenotaph, University Ave.:
There is an uncensored video on Facebook of that guy climbing up on top of that military statue and performing indecent acts too perverted to post here.
That's T-EMS Chief Farr ( gold lanyard ) at 0:25:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-t7E2R-8pI
More:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FvEvHBXXUc&feature=related
Chief Farr, Mike O'Halloran ( Commander ) and the T-EMS Honour Guard at 0:05 ( They came all the way down from 4330 Dufferin St. during a protest / riot in ( ceremonial ) dress uniform, with four flags, just to pay their respects ) :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V27_kcxutUw&feature=related
That big Paramedic shaking hands with Police Chief Blair at 0:14 is Rahul Singh:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/04/30/toronto-paramedic-makes-times-list-of-most-influential-people/
Something interesting. There is a firehouse just up the alley on Grosvenor.
It's the first repatriation that I did not see a single fire truck / firefighter in attendance at the Coroner's Office. They specifically bring crews in from other halls, in case the regular crew at Grosvenor has to go out on a call.
Idiot(s) on a military cenotaph, University Ave.:
There is an uncensored video on Facebook of that guy climbing up on top of that military statue and performing indecent acts too perverted to post here.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Container said:
Maybe "loophole" wasn't the right word, but you got the jist of my argument. With all the allegations of arbitrary arrests the day before and with the confusion over what the police were legally allowed to do, there was very little choice for people but to give consent.
Believe me when I say that it pains me to bring this stuff to light. My best friend is with Peel Regional and his brother is with Metro TO. I understand that both cops and soldiers are enforcers of government policy; the former at home, the latter abroad. I'm sympathetic to organizations made up of volunteers who willingly put themselves in "no-win" situations, or situations where one bad apple will be perceived to have spoiled the whole bunch.
But if the kind of conduct I saw on Sunday were happening in the army, I'd be the first to say that there needs to be a full investigation. Just because a guy is in uniform doesn't mean he can't get carried away in his duties. We've all seen it in the CF, both at the organizational and at the individual level. The police aren't infallible either, and people need to be held accountable.
EDIT to add:
Container, thanks for posting and helping to show that the majority of Canadian cops are reasonable dudes who just want to do the right thing. Outside of this specific event, my experience with the police has been overwhelmingly positive and your posts here have reinforced that.
Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Hey isn't that guy on the memorial the same guy who was in the photos being arrested for burning one of the cars... I think so. Either way well done for the police who worked that summit [mountie]
I hope they didn't dare damage anything on that memorial.
I hope they didn't dare damage anything on that memorial.
Similar threads
