[Newsbot]

Title: What police state? It is all a matter of perspective
Category: Law & Order
Posted By: EyeBrock
Date: 2010-07-07 08:55:56
Canadian

[EyeBrock]

I know I and some others have beaten the G20 thing to death but I really enjoyed this article. And its from a CBC reporter! WOW!

It's just such an unbiased and pragmatic view of it all. I didn't think journo's could actually relate to things like us plebs have to.

[mentalfloss]

Yea, the term 'police state' as it is historically depicted would be a lot worse than what was happening in T.O. during the G20. Despite the fact that that term is being thrown around by extremists, still does not excuse these objectively unwarranted arrests.

For all intents and purposes, when more than half of arrests are unwarranted - statistically speaking of course - that would indeed qualify the territory as a police state as the burden on citizens by police action would outweigh the benefits that were provided to ensure their safety.

But to go one step further, the true blame for these actions may be beyond the scope of the police themselves as they were just following orders.

[EyeBrock]

Ok, which arrests?

The ones on Queen where people were told three times at 5 minute intervals to disperse or be arrested for a breach of the peace?

All lawful stuff from the cops and you obviously didn't get anything from the article.

Another white middle-class radical rallies to the cause from their basement?

[mentalfloss]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Ok, which arrests?

The ones on Queen where people were told three times at 5 minute intervals to disperse or be arrested for a breach of the peace?

All lawful stuff from the cops and you obviously didn't get anything from the article.

Another white middle-class radical rallies to the cause from their basement?

Wow, so much vitriol and assumption going on here. I'm just going by the numbers of validated arrests - I'm sure you'll find the article out there showing you that over 60% of those arrested were let go and did not commit any crime. I understand if they had to sweep a perimiter, but that is a pretty careless amount of innocent citizens being arrested.

And there have already been accounts of the treatment of innocent civilians and even some embarrassing accounts of how they were arrested.

Is your only answer to my post to label me as part of some idealistic group? Is the only respectful answer for you, that I put on a uniform and show you how to do your job? Because I never said you were part of the problem, so why take such offence?

[Mustang1]

It's always relative in these issues (and we do NOT have a police state in Canada), but what i gather, the police largely acted correctly and let me tell you, legitimate protesters should be raising actual hell over these professional, unemployed, dipwads that don masks to antagonize police, wreck havoc, vandalize and act like complete idiots. Whatever cause you're advocating gets lost when some idiot who took a first sociology class from a nothing school decides to torch a police car.

[EyeBrock]

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Ok, which arrests?

The ones on Queen where people were told three times at 5 minute intervals to disperse or be arrested for a breach of the peace?

All lawful stuff from the cops and you obviously didn't get anything from the article.

Another white middle-class radical rallies to the cause from their basement?

Wow, so much vitriol and assumption going on here. I'm just going by the numbers of validated arrests - I'm sure you'll find the article out there showing you that over 60% of those arrested were let go and did not commit any crime. I understand if they had to sweep a perimiter, but that is a pretty careless amount of innocent citizens being arrested.

And there have already been accounts of the treatment of innocent civilians and even some embarrassing accounts of how they were arrested.

Is your only answer to my post to label me as part of some idealistic group? Is the only respectful answer for you, that I put on a uniform and show you how to do your job? Because I never said you were part of the problem, so why take such offence?

And you assume much without any obvious knowledge.

There can still be grounds for an arrest without having to charge people.

Breach of the Peace is a common-law offence with a power of arrest. It isn't a criminal code offence.

These people gave the police reasonable grounds to believe a breach of the peace was about to happen. They were warned 3 times over a 15 minute period to leave, and given given an opportunity to do so yet refused. They got arrested.

How is this unwarranted? It's not vitriol its challenging yet another uninformed view.

[mentalfloss]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Ok, which arrests?

The ones on Queen where people were told three times at 5 minute intervals to disperse or be arrested for a breach of the peace?

All lawful stuff from the cops and you obviously didn't get anything from the article.

Another white middle-class radical rallies to the cause from their basement?

Wow, so much vitriol and assumption going on here. I'm just going by the numbers of validated arrests - I'm sure you'll find the article out there showing you that over 60% of those arrested were let go and did not commit any crime. I understand if they had to sweep a perimiter, but that is a pretty careless amount of innocent citizens being arrested.

And there have already been accounts of the treatment of innocent civilians and even some embarrassing accounts of how they were arrested.

Is your only answer to my post to label me as part of some idealistic group? Is the only respectful answer for you, that I put on a uniform and show you how to do your job? Because I never said you were part of the problem, so why take such offence?

And you assume much without any obvious knowledge.

There can still be grounds for an arrest without having to charge people.

Breach of the Peace is a common-law offence with a power of arrest. It isn't a criminal code offence.

These people gave the police reasonable grounds to believe a breach of the peace was about to happen. They were warned 3 times over a 15 minute period to leave, and given given an opportunity to do so yet refused. They got arrested.

How is this unwarranted? It's not vitriol its challenging yet another uninformed view.

I never said that they had to breach the criminal code in order to be arrested. I'm well aware of the difference between common-law offences and criminal code offences.

Even if they were let off after being arrested, it would have been well documented that their arrests were valid under the 'Breach of Peace' protocol you've mentioned. There was no mention of this Breach of Peace and so their arrests were again, not validated.

If you want to pin this on faulty journalism, that's fine. I'm just going by what scant information we've been given.

[EyeBrock]

I'm just going on what I saw while I was there. You should try questioning the media before you call these arrests 'unwarranted', which they were not.

Grounds existed for a BOP arrest and that's what happened. Don't blame me if you post on a thread that you have little knowledge of and I counter it.

[mentalfloss]

Actually, I owe you an apology and found this:
--
"In total, police arrested more than 1,000 people over the course of the G20 summit. But of those, only 263 were charged with anything more serious than breach of peace – 714 people faced that minor charge, and were released unconditionally."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat ... le1623566/

The article I originally read made no mention that the majority of arrests were made based on Breach of Peace. So, yes, under that very thin line - most were arrested 'validly' under Breach of Peace.

Now, if you want to debate whether Breach of Peace is a load of bull, I could take you up on that offer, but I'm going to go have a smoke instead.

[EyeBrock]

No probs. No offence taken and I'm glad you got some pucker-gen info.

Enjoy your smoke!

[andyt]

Sure, we can always compare ourselves to some nutbar country and say things are good here. The point is to prevent us becoming a nutbar country we need to be vigilant with the police. Certainly enough reports coming out of TO that there were police over reactions. And of course the police close ranks and never seem to be willing to admit any fault. I mean the list of (far more serious than G20) police misbehavior is endless, and always it's deny deny.

Policing is a tough job, and we should support the good ones - ie most of them, But, IMO, they stop being good when they close ranks with a somebody who fucked up. And if you can't stand the extra scrutiny that comes with being a cop, you should get out of the kitchen.

What I don't understand is where the police were when the black bloc was going ape, yet the next day they were a bit too pro active. I'm sure many of he arrests they made were legit, but many also sound spurious. Maybe all those cultural sensitivity courses they take means they've lost the ability to discriminate. It can be a good thing.

Anybody that calls Canada a police state is hyperventilating and needs to breathe into a paper bag. But to set that up as the straw man, say everything is OK here because look at how bad it can get in freakin Saudi Arabia, also needs to get a grip. That's like saying there's no problem with violence against women in Canada, because look at how much better it is here than in SA. That's a nice attitude for sheep to have.